HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 10 FEBRUARY 1980
ISSUE II
Remimeo
Saint Hills	
Only
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE
LEVEL B CHECKSHEET
HUBBARD COMMUNICATION AUDITING SPECIALIST

(Cancels:
BPL 18 Mar 75R II, 	LEVEL FIVE CHECKSHEET
Rev. 25.3.77 	SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE
BPL 25 Mar 77 	SENIOR SAINT HILL SPECIAL
	BRIEFING COURSE)

NAME:	ORG:	

DATE STARTED:	 DATE COMPLETED:	

This checksheet contains the chronological development of Dianetic and Scientology Technology from 1955 to 1961. It also covers all data needed to audit a Dn Clear, run Objectives, Havingness, Problems, ARC S/W, Grade 0 and Grade 1. It contains full data on the subject of communication.

PREREQUISITES: (1) Student Hat or PRD (2) New Era Dianetics Course (3) New Era Dianetics Interneship (4) Class IV (5) SHSBC Level A course.

PURPOSE: To provide the student with a background of the chronological development of tech from 1955 to 1961 and to teach him the auditing skills of auditing Objectives, Havingness, Problems, ARC S/W, Grade 0 and Grade 1.

LENGTH: 	Full time (9:00 am - 10:30 pm) - 41/2 weeks 
	Part time (9:00 am - 6:00 pm) - 61/2 weeks 
	Foundation hours = 101/2  weeks.

STUDY TECH: This course is studied per HCO PL 25 Sep 79, Issue I - IMPORTANT, SUCCESSFUL TRAINING LINEUP, with full use of study tech.
 
R-FACTOR: The Theory and Practical Sections of this course are done concurrently. The student audits daily either during his practical time or outside of course hours while continuing through the theory section of the checksheet. 

E/P: Certainty that you can audit Objectives,  ARC S/W, Grade 0 and Grade 1 with full knowledge of Havingness and Communication.

PRODUCT: An auditor who can audit Objectives,  ARC S/W, all the processes of Grade 0 and Grade 1 and who has a background of the chronological development of tech from 1955 to 1961.

CERTIFICATE: SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LEVEL A - HUBBARD COMMUNICATION AUDITING SPECIALIST.

SHSBC LEVEL B

THEORY SECTION

INTRODUCTION:

1.	HCO PL 	7 Feb 65	KSW Series 1, KEEPING	
	Reiss. 	21.8.80	SCIENTOLOGY WORKING	________
2.	HCO PL 	17 Jun 70R	KSW Series 5	
	Reiss. 	30.8.80	TECHNICAL DEGRADES	________
3.	HCO PL 	14 Feb 65	KSW Series 4, SAFE
	Reiss. 	30.8.80	GUARDING TECHNOLOGY	________
4.				________
5.				________
6.				________

CHRONOLOGICAL THEORY

1.	PAB 43	7 Jan 55	PLOTTING THE PRECLEAR
			ON THE TONE SCALE	________
2.	LRH Note	“The focal point pt....”	________
3.	PAB 44	21 Jan 55	TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION
			IN ACTION 	________
4.	DEMO:  The Communication Formula.	________
5.	PAB 45	4 Feb 55	MIMICRY 	________
6.	LRH Note		“Old Cuffs” 	________
7.	PAB 46 	18 Feb 55	STRAIGHT WIRE 	________
8.	LRH Note		“Old Cuffs” 	________
9.	PAB 47	4 Mar 55	OPENING PROCEDUE 8-C	________
10.	PAB 48	18 Mar 55	OPENING PROCEDURE BY
			DUPLICATION 	________
11.	CLAY DEMO:   How Opening Procedure by Duplication relates to 
	the Know to Mystery Scale.		________
12.	LRH Note		“Old Cuffs” 	________
13.	PAB 49	1 Apr 55	THE REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS	________
14.	DEMO:  How the awareness of awareness unit cuts down knowing-
	ness and why.		________
15.	LRH Note		“Old Cuffs” 	________
16.	PAB 50	15 Apr 55	REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS -
			THE PROCESS  	________
17.	BOOK:  THE CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY  (Apr 55)	________
	(a)  DEMO:  The Axioms of Scientology 	________
	(b)  CLAY DEMO:  How observation relates to certainty on a 
	      gradient scale.		________
18.	PAB 51 	29 Apr 55	SPOTTING SPOTS  	________
19.	ABILITY 	Minor 4	THE SCALE OF AWARENESS
		May 55		________
20.	CLAY DEMO:  The scale of awareness.	________
21.	PAB 52	13 May 55	AUDITING THE “WHOLE TRACK”	________
22.	PAB 53	27 May 55	OWNERSHIP  	________
23.	TAPE:  	5506C03	HISTORY OF RESEARCH AND
		ASMC-3	INVESTIGATION  	________
24.	TAPE: 	5506C06	WHAT SCIENTOLOGY IS DOING
		ASMC-15		________
25.	PAB 54	10 Jun 55	REALITY LEVEL OF PRECLEAR	________
26.	DEMO:  Why it is important to find the level of the preclear.	________
27.	ABILITY 	Major 4	STRAIGHT WIRE A MANUAL
		Jul 55	OF OPERATION  	________
28.	PAB 56	8 Jul 55	AXIOM 51 AND COMMUNICAT-
			ION PROCESSING  	________
29.	CLAY DEMO:  Axiom 51.		________
30.	LRH Note		“Text” 	________
31.	LRH Note		“The secret...” 	________
32.	PAB 60	2 Sep 55	“ANYTHING-EVERYTHING-
			NOTHING”  	________
33.	ABILITY 	Issue 14	START THAT PRACTICE!
		Sep 55		________
34.	PAB 61	16 Sep 55	SELLING  	________
35.	PAB 62	30 Sep 55	PSYCHIATRISTS  	________
36.	TAPE:	5510C03	FUNDAMENTAL OF SCIENT-
		4LACC-1	OLOGY AND RUDIMENTS OF
			AUDITING  	________
37.	TAPE:	5510C03	FUNDAMENTAL OF SCIENT-
		4LACC-2	OLOGY AND RUDIMENTS OF
			AUDITING 	________
38.	DEMO:  How a pc gets stress and strain in auditing, and how to handle.	________
39.	DEMO:  The route from native state to fourth postulate.	________
40.	DEMO:  Why we find native state in every dramatisation.	________
41.	TAPE:  	5510C06	GOALS OF DIANETICS AND
		LPLS-1	SCIENTOLOGY  	________
42.	PAB 63	14 Oct 55	PLAYING THE GAME	________
43.	PAB 64	28 Oct 55	FIRST POSTULATE	________
44.	PAB 65	11 Nov 55	FROM A LECTURE BY L. RON
			HUBBARD ON MEST PROCESS-
			ING, JULY 7 1951  	________
45.	Oper. Bull. No 4	SIX LEVELS OF PROCESSING -
		11 Nov 55	ISSUE 5  	________
46.	PAB 66 	25 Nov 55	FIRST, SECOND, THIRD AND 
			FOURTH POSTULATES 	________
47.	DEMO:  The evolution of thinkingness.	________
48.	Oper. Bull. No. 8 	HANDLING PRESS 	________
49.	Oper. Bull. No. 9	THE TURN OF THE TIDE	
		15 Dec 55		________
50.	PAB 68	23 Dec 55	FIRST AND SECOND POSTULATE	________
51.	PAB 69	6 Jan 56	SIX LEVELS OF PROCESSING -
			ISSUE 7  	________
52.	DEMO:  What happens when a pc goes anaten and how to handle.	________
53.	Oper. Bull. No. 13	OPERATIONAL BULLETINS 
		17 Jan 56	GROWING UP  	________
54.	Oper. Bull. No. 14	AFTER THE FLOOD  
		24 Jan 56		________
55.	PAB 72	21 Feb 56	THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING-
			NESS  	________
56.	DEMO:  The difference between repair and remedy of havingness.	________
57.	PAB 74 	6 Mar 56	OFFICE IN IRELAND	________
58.	PAB 78	3 Apr 56	ADMINISTRATION	________
59.	PAB 79	10 Apr 56	THE OPEN CHANNEL	________
60.	PAB 80	17 Apr 56	SCIENTOLOGY’S MOST
			WORKABLE PROCESS	________
61.	PAB 81	24 Apr 56	PURPOSE	________
62.	PAB 82	1 May 56	SCIENTOLOGY TRANSLATORS
			EDITION	________
63.	PAB 83	8 May 56	THE CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE	________
64.	CLAY DEMO:  The ARC Triangle.	________
65.		8 May 56	TEST RESULTS	________
66.	PAB 84	15 May 56	THE REASON WHY	________
67.	DEMO:  What life is and its parts and how they work.	________
68.	PAB 85	22 May 56	THE PARTS OF MAN	________
69.	CLAY DEMO:  The 3 parts of man and their functions.	________
70.	PAB 86	29 May 56	CAUSATION AND KNOWLEDGE	________
71.	DEMO:  Cause and effect.		________
72.	PAB 87	5 Jun 56	SCIENTOLOGY PROCESSING	________
73.	PAB 88	12 Jun 56	THE CONDITIONS OF AUDITING	________
74.	PAB 89	19 Jun 56	SCIENTOLOGY REVISION OF
			TRANSLATORS EDITION	________
75.		26 Jun 56	CURRENT PROCESSES	________
76.	PAB 90	26 Jun 56	THE ORGANISATION’S OF
			DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY	________
77.	PAB 91	3 Jul 56	THE ANATOMY OF FAILURE	________
78.	DEMO:  The mechanics of win-lose.	________
79.	PAB 92	10 Jul 56	A CRITIQUE OF PSYCHO-
			ANALYSIS	________
80.		14 Jul 56	FIVE TYPES OF VALENCES	________
81.	DEMO:  The five types of valences.	________
82.		20 Jul 56	HOW TO REALLY SPLIT A 
			VALENCE	________
83.	Tech Bull. 22 Jul 56	“I feel the urge...”	________
84.	PAB 93	24 Jul 56	A CRITIQUE OF PSYCHO-
			ANALYSIS CONTINUED	________
85.		13 Aug 56	SCIENTOLOGY PROCESS CHART	________
86.	PAB 94	15 Aug 56	THE ANATOMY OF TRAPS	________
87.	DEMO:  The anatomy of a trap.	________
88.			The Goal of Auditors	________
89.	HCOB	20 Aug 56	HGC PROCEDURE OF AUG 20	________
90.	ABILITY  Issue 34	HAVINGNESS
		Aug 56		________
91.	DEMO:  What havingness is.		________
* 92.	Brief. Bull.	Aug/Sep 56	GAMES CONGRESS
			SHOREHAM HOTEL	________
93.	PAB 95	1 Sep 56	VALENCES	________
94.	DEMO:  The synthetic valence and how to handle.	________
95.	PAB 96	15 Sep 56	JUSTICE	________
* 96.	HCOB	20 Sep 56	HCO PROCESSING SHEET
			OF 20 SEPTEMBER 1956	________
97.	BOOK:  THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THOUGHT  (Sep 56)	________
1.	Chapter One.		________
2.	Chapter Two.		________
3.	DEMO:  The actual and apparent cycles of action.	________
4.	Chapter Three.		________
5.	DEMO:  The 3 conditions of existence.	________
6.	DEMO:  The effect of a valence on identity.	________
7.	Chapter Four.		________
8.	Chapter Five.		________
9.	Chapter Six.		________
10.	DEMO:  A game.		________
11.	Chapter Seven.		________
12.	DEMO:  The 3 minds.		________
13.	Chapter Eight.		________
14.	DEMO:  The difference between univers and valence.	________
15.	Chapter Nine.		________
16.	Chapter Ten.		________
17.	Chapter Eleven.		________
18.	Chapter Twelve.		________
19.	Aims of Scientology.		________
20.	L. Ron Hubbard.		________
98.	PAB 97	Oct 56	START - CHANGE - STOP	________
99.	DEMO:  The cycle of control and SCS.	________
100.	HCOB	4 Oct 56	HIGH SCHOOL INDOCTRINATION	________
101.	DEMO:  The final goal to be achieved by the student doing High 
	School Indoctrination.		________
102.	PAB 98	15 Oct 56	CREATIVE PROCESSES, MOTIONS,
			STOPS AND PERCEPTIONS	________
103.	ABILITY	Issue 36	RANDOMITY AND AUTOMATICITY	________
104.	DEMO:  Plus and Minus randomity and how to handle.	________
105.	HCOB	26 Oct 56	HPA-HCA TRAINING PROCESSES	________
106.	PAB 99	1 Nov 56	FACSIMILIES AND SOLIDS	________
107.	HCOB 	15 Nov 56	HGC PRECLEAR COMPLAINTS	________
108.	PAB 100	15 Nov 56	THE AUDITING OF SOLIDS	________
109.	HCO Trn Bul	30 Nov 56	SLP - 8	________
110.	PAB 101	1 Dec 56	GAMES CONDITION THEORY	________
111.	DEMO:  The scale a thetan descends from native state to reactive bank.	________
112.	HCOB	3 Dec 56	B. SCN - HAA TECHNIQUES	________
113.	DEMO:  The havingness scale.	________
114.	PAB 102	15 Dec 56	A CASE REPORT	________
115.	BOOK:  THE PROBLEMS OF WORK  (Jan 57)	________
1.	Chapter One.		________
2.	Chapter Two.		________
3. 	DEMO:  The stable datum and the confusion.	________
4.	Chapter Three.		________
5.	DEMO:  The stable datum of work.	________
6.	Chapter Four.		________
7.	DEMO:  The secret of efficiency.	________
8.	Chapter Five.		________
9.	DEMO:  The factors of a game.	________
10.	Chapter Six.		________
11.	DEMO:  How the tone scale applies to A, R and C.	________
12.	Chapter Seven.		________
13.	DRILL:  Handle a person who is exhausted.	________
14.	Chapter Eight.		________
15.	DEMO:  The ingredients of success.	________
116.	PAB 103	1 Jan 57	THE CODE OF A SCIENTOLOGIST	________
117.	PAB 105	1 Feb 57	THE STORY OF A STATIC	________
* 118.	HCO Trn Bul	6 Feb 57	PROCEDURE CCH	________
119.	PAB 106	15 Feb 57	GOOD PROCESS	________
120.	TAPE:	5702C28	THE PARTS OF MAN	
		17ACC-4		________
121.	DEMO:  The two reasons that an incident is held in place.	________
122.	PAB 107	1 Mar 57	SPECIFIC FOR TERROR STOMACH	________
123.	HCOB 	8 Mar 57	GOAL OF INDOCTRINATION 
			COURSE	________
124.	PAB 108	15 Mar 57	LEARNING RATE - PART  I	________
125.	PAB 109	1 Apr 57	LEARNING RATE - PART  II	________
* 126.	HCOB	8 Apr 57	GROUP AUDITING	________
127.	DEMO:  Order of factors of control available to the auditor.	________
128.	HCOB	9 Apr 57	LIST OF “PURPOSES”	________
129.	PAB 110	15 Apr 57	EDUCATION	________
130.	PAB 111	1 May 57	EYESIGHT AND GLASSES	________
131.	PAB 112	15 May 57	“THE RIGHTS OF THE FIELD 
			AUDITOR”	________
132.	DEMO:  The rights of the field auditor.	________
133.	HCOB	17 May 57	DEFINITIONS	________
134.	HCOB	20 May 57	INTERIM PROCESS	________
135.	ABILITY	Issue 47	THE RADIATION PICTURE AND
			SCIENTOLOGY	________
136.	HCOB	24 May 57	STABLE DATA FOR INSTRUCTORS	________
137.	HCOB	3 Jun 57	EXPLANATION OF ABERATIVE 
			CHARACTER OF RADIATION	________
138.	HCOB 	3 Jun 57	AUDITING A 10 YEAR OLD CHILD	________
139.	HCOB	11 Jun 57	TRAINING AND CCH PROCESSES	________
140.	DEMO:  CCH’s 1 - 4.		________
141.	HCOB	18 Jun 57	PEOPLE’S QUESTIONS	________
142.	PAB 115	1 Jul 57	THE REHABILITATION OF
			ABILITIES	________
143.	HCOB	1 Jul 57	ADDITION TO THE AUDITORS CODE	________
144.	TAPE:	5707C15	WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY	
		18ACC-1		________
145.	PAB 116	15 Jul 57	SOLIDS AND CHRONIC SOMATICS	________
146.	TAPE:	5707C17	THEORY AND DEFINITION OF 
		18ACC-3	AUDITING	________
147.	DEMO:  The definition of Dianetic auditing.	________
148.	DEMO:  The definition of Scientology auditing.	________
149.	DEMO:  Where the person’s pictures are.	________
150.	HCOB	17 Jul 57	CHANGES IN TRAINING DRILLS	________
151.	ABILITY	Issue 51	THE ADVENTURE OF 
		Jul 57	COMMUNICATION	________
152.	DEMO:  Demo how be, do and have relate to communication.	________
153.	HCOB	29 Jul 57	WITHHOLDS AND 
			COMMUNICATION	________
154.	PAB 117	1 Aug 57	CONFRONTING PRESENT TIME	________
155.	ACC Bul.	10 Aug 57	CCH 18	________
156.	ABILITY	Issue 52	CONFRONTING
		Aug 57		________
157.	PAB 118	15 Aug 57	VALIDATION COMMITTEE	________
158.	PAB 119	1 Sep 57	THE BIG AUDITING PROBLEM	________
159.	DEMO:  One of the great truths of Scientology.	________
160.	ABILITY	Issue 54	MORE CONFRONTING	
		Sep 57		________
161.	HCOB	9 Sep 57	PROCESSES TO BE RUN ON 
			PRECLEARS FROM THIS DATE	________
162.	PAB 120	15 Sep 57	CONTROL TRIO	________
163.	HCOB	24 Sep 57	CURRICULUM OF CCH	________
164.	PAB 121	1 Oct 57	RUDIMENTS AND GOALS	________
165.	PAB 122	15 Oct 57	THE FIVE LEVELS OF 
			INDOCTRINATION	________
166.	DEMO:  A target of CCH.		________
167.		29 Oct 57	A BASIC CHART OF PROCESS 
			TYPES	________
168.	DEMO:  The 6 process types.	________
169.	ABILITY 	Issue 57	ESCAPE
		Oct 57		________
170.	PAB 123	1 Nov 57	THE REALITY SCALE	________
171.	DEMO:  The reality scale.		________
* 172.	HCOB	13 Nov 57	PROJECT CLEAR CHECK SHEET	________
173.	ABILITY	Issue 58	WE ARE THE FREE PEOPLE
		Nov 57		________
174.	PAB 124	15 Nov 57	COMMUNICATION AND IS-NESS	________
175.	DEMO:  The cause of aberration.	________
176.	PAB 125	1 Dec 57	THE PARTS OF MAN	________
177.	DEMO:  The phenomenon of exteriorisation.	________
178.	ABILITY	Issue 60	SCIENTOLOGY:  THE PHILOSOPHY
		Dec 57	OF A NEW AGE	________
* 179.	HCOB	3 Dec 57	CLEAR PROCEDURE
			DEFINITIONS, GOALS	________
180.	HCOB	4 Dec 57	CLEAR PROCEDURE CONTINUED
			STEP ONE: PARTICIPATION IN
			SESSION BY THE PC	________
181.	HCOB	7 Dec 57	HGC PROCEDURE	________
182.	PAB 126	15 Dec 57	PROBLEMS: HANDLING AND 
			RUNNING	________
183.	HCOB	16 Dec 57	PRESENT TIME PROBLEM	________
184.	HCOB	18 Dec 57	PSYCHOSIS, NEUROSIS AND
			PSYCHIATRISTS	________
185.		Dec 57	SCIENTOLOGY CLEAR 
			PROCEDURE:  ISSUE ONE	________
186.	BOOK:  CONTROL AND THE MECHANICS OF S.C.S  (Dec 57)	________
187.	DEMO:  How ARC relates to Control, Communication and Havingness.	________
188.	PAB 127	1 Jan 58	THE THREAT TO HAVINGNESS	________
189.	HCOB	11 Jan 58	HGC PROCEDURE	________
190.	HCOB	13 Jan 58	HGC RUNNING OF PCs	________
191.	PAB 128	15 Jan 58	THE FACTORS BEHIND THE 
			HANDLING OF IQ	________
192.	HCOB	18 Jan 58	CONTROL	________
193.	HCOB	21 Jan 58	MEST CLEAR PROCEDURE	________
194.	HCOB	25 Jan 58	REVIEWING WEEK’S PROFILES	________
195.	HCOB	26 Jan 58	FUTURE PLANS	________
* 196.	HCOB	1 Feb 58	CLEARING OF FIELDS	________
197.	DEMO:  The rules of fields.		________
198.	PAB 129	1 Feb 58	CONFRONTING	________
199.	HCOB	6 Feb 58	HGC CLEAR PROCEDURE OUT-
			LINE - CCH 0b - HELP IN FULL 
			STARTING SESSION	________
200.	HCOB	13 Feb 58	RULES OF GOVERNING THE
	(Corr.)		RUNNING OF CCH 0b “HELP”	________
201.	PAB 130	15 Feb 58	DEATH	________
202.	HCOB 	1 Mar 58	PROCESSES	________
203.	PAB 131	1 Mar 58	THE SCALE OF WITHHOLD	________
204.	DEMO:  The scale of withhold.	________
205.	PAB 132	15 Mar 58	REPORT ON TWO CASES THAT
			HAVE RECEIVED PSYCHIATRIC
			AND EURO-RUSSIAN THERAPY
			FROM THE GOVERNMENT	________
206.	HCOB	22 Mar 58	CLEARING REALITY	________
207.	CLAY DEMO:  The rule regarding absence or unreality of a terminal.	________
208.	ABILITY	Issue 70	DOES CLEARING CANCEL THE
		Mar 58	NEED FOR TRAINING	________
209.	DEMO:  Why clearing does not cancel the need for training.	________
210.	PAB 133	1 Apr 58	PROCEDURE CCH	________
211.	HCOB	2 Apr 58	ARC IN COMM COURSE	________
212.	CLAY DEMO:  The two types of auditing.	________
213.	HCOB	8 Apr 58	AUDITING THE CLEAR ON 
			CLEAR PROCEDURE	________
214.	HCOB	8 Apr 58 II	A PAIR OF PROCESSES
215.	HCOB	11 Apr 58	CCH 88 - ENFORCED 
			NOTHINGNESS	________
216.	PAB 134	15 Apr 58	PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED	________
217.	ABILITY	Issue 72	HOW WE WORK ON THE THIRD 
		Apr 58	DYNAMIC	________
218.	HCOB	1 May 58	SIGNS OF SUCCESS	________
219.	PAB 135	1 May 58 	PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED	________
220.	HCOB	2 May 58	BEINGNESS AGAIN	________
221.	DEMO:  What happens when a thetan gets invalidated.	________
222.	ABILITY	Issue 73	ASSISTS IN SCIENTOLOGY
		May 58		________
223.	DEMO:  What is an assist.		________
224.	PAB 136	15 May 58	PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED	________
225.	HCOB	22 May 58	ENEMIES OF THE PC	________
* 226.	HCOB 	24 May 58	A COMMENT ON BEINGNESS 
			PROCESSING	________
* 227.	HCOB	29 May 58	STANDARD CLEAR PROCEDURE
			AND AN EXPERIMENTAL ROAD:
			CLEARING BY VALENCES	________
228.	DEMO:  What is a valence and why a thetan seeks new ones.	________
229.	HCOB	29 May	AN EXAMPLE OF CLEARING
			BY VALENCES	________
230.	PAB 137	1 Jun 58	SOME MORE CCH PROCESSES	________
231.			“A Scientologist is...”	________
232.	ABILITY	Issue 76	“OFFBEAT” PROCESSING
		Jun 58		________
233.	HCOB	4 Jun 58	RUNNING VALENCES	________
234.	HCOB 	14 Jun 58	STANDARDISATION OF CLEAR
			PROCEDURE	________
235.	HCOB	7 Jul 58	CONTENTS AND COVERAGE OF 
			HCA/HPA COURSE	________
236.	HCOB 	12 Jul 58	STANDARDISATION OF CLEAR
			PROCESSES	________
237.	HCOB	14 Jul 58	20TH ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE	________
238.	HCOB	28 Jul 58	CLEAR PROCEDURE	________
239.	HCOB	29 Jul 58	THE ROCK	________
240.	HCOB	3 Aug 58 II	“The basic locating question...”	________
241.	HCOB	10 Aug 58	ACC AUXILIARY PROCEDURE	________
242.	HCOB 	20 Aug 58	PRESENT TIME PROBLEM - 
			RUNNING OF	________
243.	DEMO:  The basic problem and why misdefinition of a problem is the 
	biggest holdup in session.		________
244.	DEMO:  Why the pc protests about ARC Breaks and PTPs.	________
245.	HCOB	20 Aug 58	OUT OF SESSIONNESS	________
246.	BOOK:  AXIOMS AND LOGICS	________
247.	CLAY DEMO:  The Logics.		________
248.	HCOB 	28 Aug 58	CHANGE AUDITORS CODE	________
249.	CLAY DEMO:  Auditors Code 6, 16, 17, 18.	________
250.	HCOB 	12 Sep 58	POST CASE ANALYSIS
			ROUTINE	________
251.	HCOB	12 Sep 58 II	HAVINGNESS - NEW COMMANDS	________
252.	HCOB	15 Sep 58	MORE ON TRAINING DRILL TWO	________
253.	DEMO:  How you can always spot a bad auditor and how to handle.	________
254.	HCOB	15 Oct 58	ACC CLEAR PROCEDURE	________
255.	DEMO:  The goal of the auditor and how it is attained.	________
256.	DEMO:  Why must the case of the pc be correctly estimated.	________
257.	PAB 146	15 Oct 58	PROCEDURE CCH	________
258.	TAPE:	5810C18	THE STORY OF DIANETICS AND
		LCC-1	SCIENTOLOGY	
* 259.	HCOB	27 Oct 58	HOW TO READ PROFILES ON 
			OCA: COMPARING CURRENT 
			WEEK PROFILE WITH BEFORE	________
260.	CLAY DEMO:  The different points of how to read a profile.	________
261.	PAB 147	1 Nov 58	COMMUNICATION COURSE	________
262.	HCOB	13 Nov 58	TR 9	________
263.	HCOB	25 Nov 58	STEP 6	________
264.	HCO Tech PL 25 Nov 58	TECHNIQUES TO BE USED ON 
			HCG PRECLEARS	________
265.	PAB 149	1 Dec 58	DUMMY AUDITING	________
266.	HCOB 	6 Dec 58	HOW TO RUN AN ENGRAM	________
267.	HCOB	7 Dec 58	TRAINING DRILL CHANGE	________
268.	PAB 150	15 Dec 58	DUMMY AUDITING	________
* 269.	HCOB 	17 Dec 58	BASIC POSTULATE OF OVERT 
			ACT - MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE	________
270.	DEMO:  The basic postulate of the overt act motivator sequence 
	and the make break point of reactivity.	________
271.	HCOB	17 Dec 58 II	AUDITING ARC BREAKS ON 
			REGISTRAR AND ASSISTANT
			REGISTRAR	________
272.	HCOB	20 Dec 58	PROCESSING A NEW MOTHER	________
273.	HCOB 	22 Dec 58	NEW HGC PROCESS	________
274.	HCOB	27 Dec 58	THE FIRST DYNAMIC PROCESS	________
275.	HCOB 	28 Dec 58	SHORT SESSIONING	________
276.	DEMO:  Short sessioning.		________
277.	HCOB	31 Dec 58	ACC CLEAR PROCEDURE CHANGE	________
278.	PAB 151	1 Jan 59	DUMMY AUDITING	________
279.	ABILITY	Issue 87	WHAT ARE CLEARS?
280.	HCOB	10 Jan 59	FIELD ACTIVITIES	________
281.	HCOB	10 Jan 59	HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES
282.	HCOB	11 Jan 59	“An amusingly effective process...”	________
283.	HCOB	12 Jan 59	TONE OF VOICE - 
			ACKNOWLEDGEMENT	________
284.	DEMO:  How mood can be used in acknowledgement.	________
285.	PAB 152	15 Jan 59	THE FIVE LEVELS OF 
			INDOCTRINATION	________
286.	HCOB	20 Jan 59	ACC PREPARATORY PROCESS
			SCHEDULE FOR RUNNING
			ENGRAMS	________
287.	HCOB	22 Jan 59	NOT-IS STRAIGHTWIRE	________
288.	TAPE:  	5901C26	HOW A PROCESS WORKS
		21ACC-S1		________
289.	DEMO:  How a process works.	________
290.	DEMO:  What you must find out after giving the pc a command.	________
291.	ABILITY	Issue 88	A CAMPAIGN FOR ETHICAL 
			AUDITING	________
292.	PAB 153	1 Feb 59	C.C.H	________
293.	HCOB 	3 Feb 59	HGC CURRENT PROCEDURE	________
294.	DEMO:  The two biggest single auditor crimes.	________
* 295.	HCOB	3 Feb 59	FLATTENING A PROCESS	________
296.	DEMO:  When a process is flat.	________
297.	HCOB 	4 Feb 59	OP PRO BY DUP	________
298.	PAB 154	15 Feb 59	C.C.H CONCLUDED	________
299.	HCOB 	16 Feb 59	HGC PROCESSES FOR THOSE
			TRAINED IN ENGRAM RUNN-
			ING OR TRAINED IN THESE 
			PROCESSES	________
300.			STAFF AUDITORS CONFERENCE
			OF 16 FEBRUARY 1959	________
301.	DEMO:  The scale of confront.	________
302.	HCOB	19 Feb 59	AUDITOR’S CODE #19	________
303.	DEMO:  Auditor’s Code #19.	________
304.	HCOB	24 Feb 59	SELECTED PERSONS OVERT
			WITHHOLD STRAIGHTWIRE	________
305.	HCOB	26 Feb 59	ENGRAM RUNNING ON OLD
			DIANETIC CASES OR RE-
			STARTED CASES	________
306.	ABILITY	Issue 90 M	HOW TO STUDY SCIENTOLOGY
		Feb 59		________
307.	HCOB	27 Feb 59	HOW TO SELECT SELECTED 
			PERSONS	________
* 308.	HCOB	28 Feb 59	ANALYSIS OF CASES	________
309.	DEMO:  Results, Better, Ability Gain, Intelligence Gain, Familiarity.	________
310.	HCOB	28 Feb 59	ARC BREAKS WITH AUDITORS	________
* 311.	HCOB 	28 Feb 59	CLEARING COMMANDS	________
312.	DEMO:  How to clear a command.	________
* 313.	HCOB	1 Mar 59 II	TWO RULES FOR HAPPY LIVING	________
314.	DEMO:  Two rules for happy living.	________
315.	PAB 155	1 Mar 59	PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC	________
316.	HCOB	4 Mar 59	HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES	________
317.	HCOB 	6 Mar 59	TRAINING DRILLS	________
318.	HCOB	6 Mar 59	HOW TO DO A DIAGNOSIS ON
			DYNAMIC STRAIGHTWIRE	________
319.	HCOB	10 Mar 59	SUPPLEMENTAL DATA SHEET
			TO HCOB OF FEB 16, 1959 AND
			STAFF AUDITORS CONFERENCE
			OF FEB 16 1959	________
320.	HCOB	13 Mar 59	MUZZLED AUDITING	________
321.	PAB 156	15 Mar 59	PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC	________
322.	HCOB	17 Mar 59	AN INSANITY QUESTIONAIRE	________
323.	HCOB	17 Mar 59 II	DO IT YOURSELF THERAPY	________
324.	DEMO:  A release.		________
325.	HCOB 	24 Mar 59	HAS CO-AUDIT	________
326.	PAB 157	1 Apr 59	PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC
			CONCLUDED	________
327.	HCOB	15 Apr 59	EMOTIONAL TONE SCALE 
			EXPANDED	________
328.	HCOB	22 Apr 59	OLD AND NEW REALITY SCALE	________
329.	DEMO:  Old and new reality scale and how each point relates to the 
	other.			________
330.	HCOB	3 May 59	SOLUTION TO SOLUTIONS	________
331.	HCOB	4 May 59	AN AFFINITY PROCESS	________
* 332.	HCOB	5 May 59	NEW PROCESS	________
333.	DEMO:  The picture of aberration, how it comes about and how to 
	handle it.			________
334.	HCOB	8 May 59	AN UN-DOABLE COMMAND	________
335.	HCOB	17 Apr 59	KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE	________
336.	DEMO:  Know to mystery scale.	________
337.	HCOB 	21 May 59	HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES
			AND ACC PROCESSES AS OF
			MAY 21, 1959	________
338.	HCOB	26 May 59	“The following article appeared...”	________
339.	HCOB 	5 Jun 59	FORMULA 10	________
340.	HCOB	10 Jun 59	CO-AUDIT FORMULA	________
341.	HCOB	22 Jun 59	HOW TO “SELL SCIENTOLOGY”	________
342.	HCOB	22 Jun 59	WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY	________
343.	DEMO:  What Scientology is.	________
344.	HCO PL	2 Jul 59 IV	ADD FORMULA 10	________
345.	HCOB	3 Jul 59	GENERAL INFORMATION	________
346.	HCOB	9 July 59	DEFINITION OF SCIENTOLOGY—
			WRITTEN BY LRH FOR LEGAL 
			WHEN SETTING UP HASI LTD.	________
347.	HCOB	18 July 59	TECHNICALLY SPEAKING	________
348.	DEMO:  New definition of Scientologist.	________
349.	HCOB	21 July 59 	HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES	________
350.	HCOB	22 Jul 59	ACTUAL WORKING DEFINITION
			OF PSYCHOLOGY	________
351.	HCOB	5 Aug 59	HGC PROCESSES	________
* 352.	HCOB	7 Aug 59	THE HANDLING OF COMMUNICA-
			TION PROCESSES SOME RAPID
			DATA	________
353.	HCOB	7 Aug 59	HAS CO-AUDIT - FINDING
			TERMINALS	________
354.	HCOB	19 Aug 59	TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC	________
355.	HCOB	27 Aug 59	GROWTH WITH COMPETENCE	________
* 356.	HCOB	3 Sep 59	WHY “VICTIM” WORKS AS A 
			PROCESS	________
357.	DEMO:  How “victim” relates to the overt motivator sequence and 
	why you would not run it on a “no overts” case.	________
358.	HCOB	25 Sep 59	HAS CO-AUDIT	________
359.	HCOB	26 Sep 59	DATA ON CLEARING A STAFF 
			MEMBER AFTER SPECIFIC 
			TERMINALS ARE FLAT WITH 
			OVERT-WITHHOLD STRAIGHT-
			WIRE	________
360.	HCOB	28 Sep 59	TECHNICAL NOTES ON CHILD 
			PROCESSING	________
361.	HCOB	29 Sep 59	UNIVERSE PROCESSES	________
362.	HCOB	5 Oct 59	UNIVERSE PROCESSES	________
363.	HCOB	13 Oct 59	A USEFUL PROCESS	________
364.	HCOB	13 Oct 59	D.E.I EXPANDED SCALE	________
365.	DEMO:  D.E.I Expanded Scale.	________
366.	DEMO:  How these levels invert and why.	________
367.	HCOB	20 Oct 59	AN EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS	________
368.	DEMO:  Why the Know to Mystery Recall process would handle bad 
	off cases.			________
* 369.	HCOB	31 Oct 59	CREATE PROCESSES - 
			DANGERS & ADVANTAGES	________
* 370.	HCOB	12 Nov 59	ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IN
			AUDITING	________
371.	DEMO:  Demonstrate acknowledgement and how to.	________
372.	HCOB	18 Oct 59	1ST MELBOURNE ACC MATERIAL	________
373.	HCOB	18 Nov 59	HAS CO-AUDIT	________
374.	HCOB	15 Dec 59	URGENT CHANGE IN ALL CO-
			AUDIT COURSES	________
375.	HCOB	16 Dec 59	RESPONSIBILITY FOR O/Ws 	________
376.	ABILITY	Issue 110	TECHNIQUES OF CHILD
		Dec 59	PROCESSING	________
* 377.	HCOB	23 Dec 59	RESPONSIBILITY	________
378.	DEMO:  The cause of irresponsibility and how this is handled.	________
* 379.	HCOB	31 Dec 59	BLOW OFFS	________
380.	DEMO:  Why a person blows.	________
381.	HCOB 	3 Jan 60	A THIRD DYNAMIC FOR 
			SCIENTOLOGY	________
382.	HCOB	7 Jan 60	THE UNMOVING CASE	________
383.	HCOB	8 Jan 60	OT PROCEDURES FOR HCS/
			BScs COURSES	________
384.	HCOB	14 Jan 60	THE BLACK CASE	________
385.	HCOB	19 Jan 60	CASUALTIES	________
* 386.	HCOB	21 Jan 60	JUSTIFICATION	________
387.	DEMO:  The mechanism of justification.	________
388.	HCOB	21 Jan 60 	RESPONSIBILITY	________
389.	DEMO:  Definition of responsibility for auditing.	________
390.	HCOB	24 Jan 60	OT PROCEDURE	________
391.	HCOB	25 Jan 60	OT-3 PROCEDURE HGC
			ALLOWED PROCESSES	________
* 392.	HCOB	28 Jan 60	THE KEY TO ALL CASES
			RESPONSIBILITY	________
393.	DEMO:  The anatomy of responsibility.	________
394.	HCOB	2 Feb 60	THE CO-AUDIT TEAM	________
395.	DEMO:  How to do a Dynamic Assessment.	________
396.	HCOB	3 Feb 60	SECURITY CHECK	________
* 397.	HCOB	4 Feb 60	THEORY OF RESPONSIBILITY 
			PROCESSING	________
398.	DEMO:  What all types of responsibility processes have as their goal.	________
399.	HCOB	4 Feb 60	OVERT MANIFESTATIONS ON A
			LOW TONED CASE	________
400.	HCOB	8 Feb 60	HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, 
			TOO	________
401.	HCOB	10 Feb 60	BRITISH E-METER OPERATION	________
402.	HCOB	11 Feb 60	CREATE AND CONFRONT	________
* 403.	HCOB	18 Feb 60	HOW TO RUN O/W AND 
			RESPONSIBILITY	________
404.	HCOB	25 Feb 60	OT-3 PROCEDURE HGC 
			ALLOWED PROCESSES	________
405.	HCOB	25 Feb 60	SCIENTOLOGY CAN HAVE A 
			GROUP WIN	________
406.	BOOK:  HAVE YOU LIVED BEFORE THIS LIFE?  (Mar 60)	________
407.	HCOB	3 Mar 60	OT-3A PROCEDURE HGC 
			ALLOWED PROCESSES	________
408.	HCOB 	9 Mar 60	EXPANSION OF OT-3A 
			PROCEDURE, STEP TWO 
			HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES	________
* 409.	HCOB 	17 Mar 60	STANDARDIZED SESSIONS	________
410.	DEMO:  The purpose of standardized sessions.	________
411.	HCOB	24 Mar 60	GOALS IN THE RUDIMENTS	________
412.	HCOB	30 Mar 60	INTERROGATION	________
* 413.	HCOB	31 Mar 60	THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM	________
414.	CLAY DEMO:  A PTP.		________
415.	CLAY DEMO:  A case makes no change if a PTP is not handled.	________
416.	HCOB	7 Apr 60	A NEW SUMMARY OF AUDITING	________
417.	DEMO:  On what a good result in auditing depends.	________
418.	HCOB	21 Apr 60	PRE-SESSION PROCESSES	________
419.	HCOB	24 Apr 60	CONCERNING THE CAMPAIGN 
			FOR PRESIDENCY	________
420.	HCOB	28 Apr 60	BOOKS ARE DISSEMINATION	________
421.	HCOB	29 Apr 60	THE SCIENTIFIC TREATMENT 
			OF THE INSANE	________
422.	DEMO:  The keynote of insanity.	________
423.	HCOB	5 May 80	HELP	________
424.	HCOB 	12 May 60	OUR TECHNICAL PROGRAM	________
425.	HCOB	12 May 60	HELP PROCESSING	________
* 426.	HCOB	19 May 60	HOW HELP BECAME BETRAYAL	________
427.	CLAY DEMO:  
	(a)	Help		________
	(b)	How Help can turn into betrayal.	________
428.	HCOB	22 May 60	DE-CERTIFICATION, HOW YOU 
			SHOULD SUPPORT IT	________
429.	HCOB	26 May 60	SECURITY CHECKS	________
430.	HCOB	27 May 60 II	“Dear Scientologist....”	________
431.	HCOB	28 May 60	BY THEIR ACTIONS...	________
* 432.	HCOB	9 Jun 60	THE BASIC ASSUMPTION OF 
			SCIENTOLOGY VERSUS OVERTS	________
433.	DEMO:  The assumption point of Scientology and how it is applied in 
	auditing.			________
434.	HCOB	10 Jun 60	WHAT WE CAN EXPECT OF A
			SCIENTOLOGIST	________
436.	HCOB	10 Jun 60	HGC PRECLEAR ASSESSMENT	________
436.	HCOB	16 Jun 60	WINS ON RUNNING CASES 
			WITH HELP	________
437.	DEMO:  How people become a valence and how to handle this.	________
438.	HCOB	23 Jun 60	SPECIAL ZONE PLAN THE
			SCIENTOLOGISTS ROLE IN
			LIFE	________
439.	HCOB	30 Jun 60	CREATE AGAIN	________
440.	HCOB	6 Jul 60	MAKING CLEARS AND PICKING 
			UP HGC QUALITY	________
* 441.	HCOB	7 Jul 60	THE ASSESSMENT OF HELP	________
442.	HCOB	14 Jul 60	CURRENT RUNDOWN -
			CONCEPT HELP	________
443.	HCOB	21 Jul 60	SOME HELP TERMINALS	________
444.	HCOB	27 Jul 60	DOUBLE ACTION CYCLES	________
445.	DEMO:  The double actions of cycles.	________
446.	HCOB	4 Aug 60	REGIMEN 1	________
* 447.	HCOB	11 Aug 60	THE LAWS OF ASSESSMENT	________
448.	DEMO:  The 3 Laws of Assessment.	________
449.	HCOB	18 Aug 60	VITAL INFORMATION	________
450.	HCOB	25 Aug 60	POWERFUL PRESESSION	________
451.	HCOB	25 Aug 60 II	NEW DEFINITION OF PSYCHOSIS	________
452.	HCOB	26 Aug 60	REGIMEN TWO	________
453.	HCOB	1 Sep 60	PRESESSION TWO	________
454.	HCOB	8 Sep 60	THE PRESESSIONS OF THE 1ST
			SAINT HILL BRIEFING COURSE	________
* 455.	HCOB	15 Sep 60	THE TONE ARM	________
456.	DEMO:  The 10 TA truths.		________
457.	HCO PL	17 Sep 60	GIVING THE PC FULL HOURS	________
458.	HCOB	19 Sep 60	CAPTIVE BRAINS	________
459.	HCOB	23 Sep 60	ORDER OF TEST OF HAVINGNESS
			AND CONFRONT COMMANDS	________
460.	HCOB	28 Sep 60	TIPS ON HOW TO CRACK AN
			HGC CASE	________
* 461.	HCOB	29 Sep 60	HAVINGNESS AND DUPLICATION	________
462.	DEMO:  How havingness is related to duplication.	________
463.	HCOB	6 Oct 60R	THIRTY SIX NEW PRESESSIONS	________
464.	HCOB	13 Oct 60	SCRIPT OF A MODEL SESSION	________
465.	HCOB	18 Oct 60	TERMINAL STABLE DATA	________
466.	HCOB	20 Oct 60	THEORY 67	________
467.	DEMO:  The 67 Theory and how it works in practice.	________
468.	HCOB	27 Oct 60	REVISED CASE ENTRANCE	________
469.	HCOB	3 Nov 60	FAILED HELP	________
470.	HCOB	10 Nov 60	FORMULA 13	________
471.	HCOB	11 Nov 60	CHANGE ON MODEL SESSION	________
472.	HCOB	12 Nov 60	CLEARING ROUTINE	________
473.	HCOB	17 Nov 60	STARTING CASES	________
474.	CLAY DEMO:  “In session”.		________
475.	HCOB	20 Nov 60	HAS CO-AUDIT ENDED	________
476.	HCOB	24 Nov 60	THE UNMOVING CASE	________
477.	HCOB	1 Dec 60	NEW FORMULAS	________
478.	HCOB	15 Dec 60	PRESESSION 37	________
479.	HCOB	22 Dec 60	HAS CO-AUDIT RESUMED	________
480.	HCOB	22 Dec 60	O-W A LIMITED THEORY	________
481.	DEMO:  The cycle that comes about after help has failed and how 
	it relates to O/Ws.		________
482.	HCOB	29 Dec 60	THE NEW PE AND THE NEW
			HAS CO-AUDIT	________
483.	TAPE:  	6012C31	THE GENUS OF DIANETICS
		AHMC-1	AND SCIENTOLOGY	________
484.	HCOB	12 Jan 61	NEW HELP DATA	________
485.	HCOB	19 Jan 61	ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES	________
486.	HCOB	25 Jan 61	HANDLING OF RUDIMENTS	________
487.	HCOB	26 Jan 61	THE “ULTIMATE” PROCESSES	________
488.	HCOB	28 Jan 61	NEW ASSESSMENT SCALE	________
489.	HCOB	2 Feb 61	UK CASES DIFFERENT	________
490.	ABILITY	Issue 125	PERSONAL INTEGRITY	
		Feb 61		________
491.	TAPE:  	6102C14	FUNDAMENTALS OF AUDITING	
		3SA ACC-14		________
492.	DEMO:  Why attention gets fixated.	________
493.	DEMO:  The common denominator of all very rough cases.	________
494.	HCOB	9 Feb 61	NEW PRESESSION DATA AND
			A SCRIPT CHANGE	________
495.	HCOB	16 Feb 61	FORMULA 19	________
496.	HCOB	18 Feb 61	S.O.P GOALS	________
497.	HCOB	20 Feb 61	IMPORTANT DATA ON GOALS
			S.O.P	________
498.	HCOB	23 Feb 61	PT PROBLEM AND GOALS	________
499.	DEMO:  A PTP and where it is in the physical universe.	________
500.	HCOB	2 Mar 61	NEW PRE-HAV COMMAND	________
501.	HCOB	2 Mar 61	FORMULA 20	________
502.	HCOB	21 Mar 61	SCRIPT OF A MODEL SESSION	________
503.	HCOB	31 Mar 61	S.O.P GOALS MODIFIED	________
504.	HCOB	7 Apr 61	ASSESSING FOR GOALS AND 
			TERMINALS OR ELIMINATION	________
505.	HCO PL 	7 Apr 61RA	JOHANNESBURG CONFESSIONAL
			LIST	________
506.	HCOB	12 Apr 61	TRAINING DRILLS	________
507.	HCOB	17 Apr 61	TRAINING DRILLS MODERNIZED	________
508.	HCOB	27 Apr 61	CHANGE PROCESSES	________
509.	HCOB	30 Apr 61	CHANGE BRACKETS AND 
			COMMANDS	________
510.	BOOK:  E-METER ESSENTIALS  (May 61)	________
511.	HCOB	4 May 61	PROCESS LEVELS NECESSITY
			FOR TRAINING	________
512.	TAPE:  	6105C07	E-METER TALK AND DEMO	
		SHSBC-1		________
513.	HCOB	11 May 61	E-METER HORROR	________
514.	TAPE:  	6105C12	ASSESSMENT	
		SHSBC-2		________
515.	DEMO:  How a thetan gets trapped in this universe including the 
	overt motivator sequence.		________
* 516.	HCOB	19 May 61	ASSESSMENT DATA	________
517.	DEMO:  Why you ignore a rising needle.	________
518.	DEMO:  Why a case is not run on rudiments.	________
519.	TAPE:  	6105C19	E-METER	
		SHSBC-3		________
520.	DEMO:  The difference between ruds and major action per this lecture.	________
521.	HCO PL	22 May 61	THE ONLY VALID SECURITY 
			CHECK	________
522.	HCOB	23 May 61	PRE-HAVE SCALE REVISED	________
523.	HCOB	25 May 61	RELEASING AND PREPARING
			A CASE FOR S.O.P GOALS	________
524.	TAPE:  	6105C26	ON AUDITING	
		SHSBC-4		________
525.	HCOB	29 May 61	CLARIFICATION OF “CHANGE
			PROCESSING”	________
526.	TAPE:  	6106C01	FLATTENING PROCESS AND		
		SHSBC-5	E-METER	________
527.	ABILITY 	Issue 129	THE SAD TALE OF PDH	
		Jun 61		________
528.	HCOB	1 Jun 61	ASSESSING	________
529.	TAPE:  	6106C02	FLOWS, PRE-HAV SCALE		
		SHSBC-6	PRIMARY SCALE	________
530.	DEMO:  An inversion (the avalanche of resistance).	________
531.	HCOB	5 Jun 61	PROCESSES ALLOWED	________
532.	TAPE:  	6106C05	ROUTINE ONE, TWO AND THREE		
		SHSBC-7		________
533.	TAPE:  	6106C06	ROUTINE ONE, TWO AND THREE		
		SHSBC-8		________
534.	TAPE:  	6106C07	POINTS IN ASSESSMENT		
		SHSBC-9		________
535.	TAPE:  	6106C08	Q & A PERIOD AND ENDING AN		
		SHSBC-10	INTENSIVE	________
536.	TAPE:  	6106C09	READING E-METER RE-ACTIONS		
		SHSBC-11		________
537.	DEMO:  What you’re auditing if you take latent reads.	________
* 538.	HCOB	12 Jun 61	THE RISING NEEDLE: SKIP IT!	________
539.	DEMO:  What a rising needle tells the auditor.	________
540.	TAPE:  	6106C12	E-METER ACTIONS, ERRORS		
		SHSBC-12	IN AUDITING	________
541.	DEMO:  Why you only use instant reads.	________
542.	DEMO:  What a fall, long fall and BD are and what they mean.	________
543.	TAPE:  	6106C14	SEMINAR - WITHHOLDS		
		SHSBC-14		________
544.	TAPE:  	6106C15	NOT KNOW		
		SHSBC-15X		________
545.	HCOB	16 Jun 61	CCHs AND ROUTINE ONE	________
546.	TAPE:  	6106C16	CONFRONT AND HAVINGNESS		
		SHSBC-16X	- ROUTINE 1, 2 &3	________
547.	DEMO:  What’s happening with a pc who’s had no significant change 
	over a long period of auditing.	________
548.	HCOB	19 Jun 61	SEC CHECK WHOLE TRACK	________
549.	TAPE:  	6106C19	Q & A PERIOD - AUDITING		
		SHSBC-15	SLOWDOWNS	________
550.	TAPE:  	6106C20	SEC CHECK QUESTIONS		
		SHSBC-16	MUTUAL RUDIMENTS	________
551.	CLAY DEMO:  How mutual rudiments come into existence and their 
	handling.			________
552.	TAPE:  	6106C21	SEMINAR AT SAINT HILL		
		SHSBC-17	(AUDITING SPEED)	________
553.	DEMO:  Why auditing speed is important.	________
554.	TAPE:  	6106C22	RUNNING CCHs		
		SHSBC-18		________
555.	DEMO:  Individuation.		________
556.	HCOB	23 Jun 61	RUNNING CCHs 	________
557.	DEMO:  How to run the CCHs.	________
558.	TAPE:  	6106C23	Q & A PERIOD - CCHs 		
		SHSBC-19	AUDITING	________
559.	TAPE:  	6106C26	DEALING WITH ATTACKS		
		SHSBC-20	ON SCIENTOLOGY	________
560.	HCOB	27 Jun 61	ROUTINE ONE	________
561.	TAPE:  	6106C27	CCHs - CIRCUITS		
		SHSBC-21		________
562.	DEMO:  How CCHs handle circuits.	________
563.	TAPE:  	6106C28	RAW MEAT - TROUBLE		
		SHSBC-22	SHOOTING CASES	________
564.	DEMO:  What to do when an auditor says “That didn’t work”.	________
565.	TAPE:  	6106C29	WRONG TARGET - 		
		SHSBC-23	SEC CHECK	________
566.	HCO PL	29 Jun 61	STUDENT SECURITY CHECK	________
567.	TAPE:  	6106C30	TRAINING ON TRs - TALK		
		SHSBC-24	ON AUDITING	________
568.	TAPE:  	6107C03	ROUTINE ONE A - PROBLEMS		
		SHSBC-26X		________
569.	DEMO:  How everything in this universe is a cure for some 
	problem and how you can apply this.	________
570.	TAPE:  	6107C04	PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS		
		SHSBC-27X		________
571.	DEMO:  Psychosis as per this tape.	________
572.	HCOB	6 Jul 61	ROUTINE 1A	________
573.	TAPE:  	6107C06	ROUTINE 1A - PROBLEMS		
		SHSBC-26		________
574.	DEMO:  How there is only one obsessive goal and it prevents 
	confronting anything on that chain.	________
575.	HCO PL 	7 Jul 61 II	PROCESSING SECURITY CHECK	________
576.	HCOB	18 Jul 61	METERING RUDIMENTS	________
577.	DEMO:  The pattern in handling rudiments and withholds.	________
578.	TAPE:  	6107C11	ROUTINE 1A - PROBLEMS		
		SHSBC-27	AND SOLUTIONS	________
579.	DEMO:  How the mechanism of solving problems makes them persist.	________
580.	DEMO:  The 3 major barriers to auditing.	________
581.	TAPE:  	6107C14	CHECKING RUDS AND W/Hs		
		SHSBC-29		________
582.	TAPE:  	6107C18	CAN’T HAVE - CREATE - FUND-		
		SHSBC-30	AMENTALS OF ALL PROBLEMS	________
583.	DEMO:  The formation of the reactive bank.	________
584.	TAPE:  	6107C28	GAMES CONDITIONS		
		SHSBC-32		________
585.	DEMO:  The 2D aberration on this planet.	________
586.	DEMO:  A games condition. Use an example of one in life.	________
587.	TAPE:  	6108C03	CREATION AND GOALS		
		SHSBC-33		________
588.	DEMO:  The secret of early clears made by LRH.	________
589.	DEMO:  Why a thetan makes bad pictures.	________
590.	TAPE:  	6108C04	METHODOLOGY OF AUDITING		
		SHSBC-34	- NOT DOINGNESS AND 
			OCCLUSION	________
591.	DEMO:  How you acquire judgement as an auditor.	________
592.	TAPE:  	6108C08	FORGETTINGNESS		
		SHSBC-35		________
593.	DEMO:  The reactive mind, how it is created and the cure for it.	________
594.	TAPE:  	6108C11	BASICS OF AUDITING		
		SHSBC-38	MATTER OF FACTNESS	________
595.	TAPE:  	6108C17	RUDIMENTS - VALENCES		
		SHSBC-41		________
596.	DEMO:  A valence.		________
597.	DEMO:  Why “Who would have a toothache?”, “Who would 
	have trouble with cars?” etc works.	________
598.	TAPE:  	6108C18	CONTROL OF ATTENTION		
		SHSBC-42		________
599.	DEMO:  What ruds can do.		________
600.	DEMO:  
	(a)	PTP short duration.		________
	(b)	PTP long duration.		________
	(c)	ARCX.		________
	(d)	W/H as described in this lecture.	________
601.	TAPE:  	6108C22	PTPs - UNKNOWNNESSES		
		SHSBC-43		________
602.				________
603.				________
604.				________

END OF SHSBC LEVEL B THEORY SECTION 

SHSBC LEVEL B

PRACTICAL SECTION

Q AND A DATA:

1. 	HCOB 	24 May 62 	Q & A	________
2. 	HCOB 	5 Dec 73 	THE REASON FOR Q & A	________
3. 	HCOB 	20 Nov 73	REISSUE FORM 21ST ADVANCED
			CLINICAL COURSE TRAINING
			DRILLS	________
4.	DRILL:  The Anti-Q & A TR.		________
5.	HCO PL	27 May 65	PROCESSING	________
6.	DEMO:  The oldest rules we have.	________
7.	HCOB	7 May 69 IV	THE FIVE GAEs	________
8.				________
9.				________
10.				________

UPPER INDOC TRs:

1. 	HCOB	7 May 68 	UPPER INDOC TRs	________
2.	BTB	22 May 71R	TR-8 CLARIFICATION	________
3.	DRILL:  
	(a)	TR-6	________	(c)	TR-8	________
	(b)	TR-7	________	(d)	TR-9	________
4.				________
5.				________
6.				________

AUDITING THE DIANETIC CLEAR:

1. 	HCOB 	24 Sep 78 III	DIANETIC CLEAR	________
2. 	HCOB	30 Apr 79	C/S Series 106  AUDITING
			THE DIANETIC CLEAR	________
3. 	HCOB 	8 Oct 70 	C/S Series 20  PERSISTENT F/N	________
4. 	HCOB 	18 Apr 72 	C/S Series 77  “QUICKIE”
			DEFINED 	________
5. 				________
6. 				________
7. 				________

STYLES OF AUDITING:

1. 	HCOB 	6 Nov 64	STYLES OF AUDITING	________
2. 	CLAY DEMO:  Listen style auditing.	________
3. 	CLAY DEMO:  Muzzled auditing.	________
4.	HCOB	1 Oct 65RR	MUTTER TR	________
5. 	DRILL:  Mutter TR.		________
6.	CLAY DEMO:  Guiding style auditing.	________
7.	CLAY DEMO:  Abridged style auditing.	________
8.	CLAY DEMO:  Direct style auditing.	________
9. 				________
10. 				________
11. 				________
PROMPTERS:

1.	HCOB	10 Dec 64	SCIENTOLOGY 0 LISTEN
			STYLE AUDITING	________
2.	DEMO:  When the prompters are used.	________
3.	DRILL:  The use of the prompters.	________
4.				________
5.				________
6.				________

ARC STRAIGHTWIRE:

1. 	BPL	25 Jun 70RB	EXPANDED LOWER GRADES
			CHART OF ABILITIES GAINED	________
2. 	DEMO:  Ability gained for ARC S/W.	________
3.	BTB	15 Nov 76 I	0-IV EXPANDED GRADE
			PROCESSES - QUADS PART A 
			ARC STRAIGHTWIRE	________
4.	Read the source references for and drill each process for Expanded ARC S/W.  It’s not necessary to drill all the ARC S/W processes before starting your pc on ARC S/W.  But drill each process before auditing it.	________
5.				________
6.				________
7.				________

GRADE 0:

1. 	BPL	25 Jun 70RB	EXPANDED LOWER GRADES
			CHART OF ABILITIES GAINED	________
2. 	DEMO:  Ability gained for Grade 0.	________
3.	BTB	15 Nov 76 I	O-IV EXPANDED GRADE
			 PROCESSES - QUADS PART B 
			GRADE 0 PROCESSES	________
4.	Read the source references for and drill each process for Expanded Grade 0.  It’s not necessary to drill all the ARC S/W processes before starting your pc on Grade 0.  But drill each process before auditing it.	________
5.				________
6.				________
7.				________

GRADE 1:

1. 	BPL	25 Jun 70RB	EXPANDED LOWER GRADES
			CHART OF ABILITIES GAINED	________
2. 	DEMO:  Ability gained for Grade 1.	________
3.				________
4.				________
5.				________

OBJECTIVE PROCESSES:

6.	TECH DICT:  Word clear:
	(a)	Objective Processes.		________
	(b)	CCHs.		________
	(c)	Subjective Processes.		________
	(d)	Flat comm lag.		________
	(e)	Process lag.		________
9.	DEMO:  How “Process lag” applies to Objective processing.	________
10.	TECH DICT:  Word clear End Phenomena.	________
11.	HCOB	19 Mar 78	QUICKY OBJECTIVES	________
12.	BTB	15 Nov 76 III	O-IV EXPANDED GRADE
			 PROCESSES - QUADS PART C 
			GRADE 1 PROCESSES
			(OBJECTIVES SECTION)	________
13.	Read the source references for and drill each Objective Process.  It’s not necessary to drill all the Objective Processes before starting your pc on Objectives.  But drill each process before auditing it.	________
14.				________
15.				________
16.				________

TWO WAY COMM:

17.	TECH DICT:  Word clear Two Way Comm.	________
18.	BOOK:  The Phoenix Lectures Chapter 23 “Descriptive Processing”.	________
19.	DEMO:  The purpose of Two Way Comm.	________
20.	HCOB	6 Nov 64	STYLES OF AUDITING
			SECTION:  LEVEL TWO
			GUIDING STYLE AUDITING	________
21.	TECH DICT:  Word clear Guiding Style Auditing.	________
22.	DEMO: 
	(a)	Guiding style.		________
	(b)	Guiding Secondary style.		________
23.	HCOB	17 Mar 74	TWC CHECKSHEETS TWC,
			USING WRONG QUESTIONS	________
24.	DEMO:  Why a “Who”, “What” or “Which” question is not used in TWC.	________
25.	HCOB	3 Jul 70	C/S Series 14  C/SING 2 WAY COMM	________
26.	DEMO:  The rules of C/Sing 2WC.	________
27.	DRILL:
	(a)	Checking a 2WC subject for a read.	________
	(b)	Doing 2WC, keeping admin, to F/N.	________
	(c)	Handling a rud going out during 2WC.	________
28.				________
29.				________
30.				________

DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT ON HELP:

31.	HCOB	7 Jul 60	ASSESSMENT OF HELP	________
32.	BTB	30 May 60	DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT ON HELP	________
33.	DRILL:  Doing a dynamic assessment on help.	________
34.				________
35.				________
36.				________

PROBLEMS AND HELP:

37.	BTB	15 Nov 76 III	O-IV EXPANDED GRADE
			 PROCESSES - QUADS PART C 
			GRADE 1 PROCESSES
			SECTION ON PROBLEMS
			AND HELP	________
38.	Read the source references for and drill each process on Problems and Help.  It’s not necessary to drill all the processes before starting your pc on them.  But drill each process before auditing it.	________
39.				________
40.				________
41.				________

AUDITING REQUIREMENTS:

1. 	Audit ARC Straightwire to a completion.	________
2. 	Audit Grade 0 to a completion.	________
3. 	Audit Objective Processes to a completion.	________
4. 	Audit Grade 1 to a completion.	________
5.				________
6.				________
7.				________

(NOTE: The auditing and practical requirements can be started as soon as the practical section for a particular action is complete.)

(NOTE: The requirement to audit a Grade to a completion can be the auditing of Quad Grades, Expanded Grades or the completion of incomplete Grades, in accordance with the pc’s program.)

__________

STUDENT COURSE COMPLETION

A. 	STUDENT COMPLETION:

I have completed the requirements of this checksheet and I know and can apply the materials.

STUDENT ATTEST:	DATE:	

 I have trained this student to the best of my ability and he/she has completed the requirements of this checksheet and knows and can apply the cheeksheet data.

SUPERVISOR ATTEST:	DATE:	

I have worn my hat of “C/S as a Training Officer” and trained this student to the best of my ability and he/she has completed the auditing requirements of this checksheet and knows and can apply the checksheet data.

STUDENT C/S ATTEST:	DATE:	

B. 	STUDENT ATTEST AT C & A:

I attest: (a) I have enrolled properly on the course. (b) I have paid for the course, (c) I have studied and understand all the materials of this eheeksheet, (d) I have done all the drills on this cheeksheet, (e) I can produce the results requlred in the materials of the course.

STUDENT ATTEST:	DATE:	

C & A:	DATE:	

C. 	STUDENT INFORMED BY QUAL SEC OR C & A:

I hereby attest that I have informed the student that to make his provisional certificate permanent he will have to be interned within one year.

QUAL SEC OR C & A:	DATE:	

D. 	CERTS AND AWARDS:

Issue Certificate of SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LEVEL B, HUBBARD COMMUNICATION AUDITING SPECIALIST (Provisional).

C & A:	DATE:	

(Route this form to Course Admin for filing in Student’s folder.)

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

As assisted by
Melanie Seider Murray
Commodore’s Messenger 
and 
Special Compilations
Unit

for the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
of CALIFORNIA

BDCSC:LRH:SCU:MSM:kjm:bk 
Copyright © 1980, 1981 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 FEBRUARY 1965
REISSUED 15 JUNE 1970
Remimeo  	(Corrected per Flag Issue 28.1.73)
Sthil Students
Assn/Org Sec Hat
HCO Sec Hat
Case Sup Hat
Ds of P Hat
Ds of T Hat
Staff Member Hat
Franchise
(issued May 1965)

Note:     Neglect of this Pol Ltr has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all out International effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. “Quickie grades” entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore actions which neglect or violate this Policy Letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not “entirely a tech matter” as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2 year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it. 

ALL LEVELS

KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING
HCO Sec or Communicator Hat Check
on all personnel and new personnel
as taken on.

	We have some time since passed the point of achieving uniformly workable technology. 

	The only thing now is getting the technology applied. 

	If you can’t get the technology applied then you can’t deliver what’s promised. It’s as simple as that. If you can get the technology applied, you can deliver what’s promised. 

	The only thing you can be upbraided for by students or pcs is “no results”. Trouble spots occur only where there are “no results”. Attacks from governments or monopolies occur only where there are “no results” or “bad results”. 

	Therefore the road before Scientology is clear and its ultimate success is assured if the technology is applied. 

	So it is the task of the Assn or Org Sec, the HCO Sec, the Case Supervisor, the D of P, the D of T and all staff members to get the correct technology applied. 

Getting the correct technology applied consists of: 

One: Having the correct technology. 

Two: Knowing the technology. 

Three: Knowing it is correct. 
Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology. 

Five: Applying the technology. 

Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied. 

Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology. 

Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.

Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology. 

Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application. 

One above has been done. 

Two has been achieved by many. 

Three is achieved by the individual applying the correct technology in a proper manner and observing that it works that way. 

Four is being done daily successfully in most parts of the world. 

Five is consistently accomplished daily. 

Six is achieved by instructors and supervisors consistently. 

Seven is done by a few but is a weak point. 

Eight is not worked on hard enough. 

Nine is impeded by the “reasonable” attitude of the not quite bright. 

Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity. 

Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are the only places Scientology can bog down in any area. 

	The reasons for this are not hard to find. (a) A weak certainty that it works in Three above can lead to weakness in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. (b) Further, the not-too-bright have a bad point on the button Self-Importance. (c) The lower the IQ, the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation. (d) The service facs of people make them defend themselves against anything they confront good or bad and seek to make it wrong. (e) The bank seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate the bad. 

	Thus, we as Scientologists and as an organization must be very alert to Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten.
 
	In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of Century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to “eat crow”. 

	On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable “technology”. By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology. As we could have gotten along without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continue to do so now that we have made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as “unpopular” “egotistical” and “undemocratic”. It very well may be. But it is also a survival point And I don’t see that popular measures, self- abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorse degraded novels, self- abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax. 

	Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had no supported me in many ways I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that  in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or co-ordination of what has been done, which will be valuable-only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications. 

	The contributions that were worth while in this period of forming the technology were help in the form of friendship, of defence, of organization, of dissemination, of application, of advices on results and of finance. These were great contributions and were, and are, appreciated. Many thousands contributed in this way and made us what we are. Discovery contribution was not however part of the broad picture. 

	We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank. We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact-the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatization of the bank called “new ideas” would have wiped it out. Supporting this is the fact that Man has never before evolved workable mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve-psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment, etc, ad infinitum. 

	So realize that we have climbed out of the mud by whatever good luck and good sense, and refuse to sink back into it again. See that Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten above are ruthlessly followed and we will never be stopped. Relax them, get reasonable about it and we will perish. 

	So far, while keeping myself in complete communication with all suggestions, I have not failed on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten in areas I could supervise closely. But it’s not good enough for just myself and a few others to work at this. 

	Whenever this control as per Seven, Eight. Nine and Ten has been relaxed the whole organizational area has failed. Witness Elizabeth, N.Y., Wichita, the early organizations and groups. They crashed only because I no longer did Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. Then, when they were all messed up you saw the obvious “reasons” for failure. But ahead of that they ceased to deliver and that involved them in other reasons. 

	The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans without banks have different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to person the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are individual and seldom get broad agreement in a human group. An individual must rise above an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group to get anything decent done. The bank-agreement has been what has made Earth a Hell-and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it would certainly serve. War, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of Man. Right now the great governments of Earth have developed the means of frying every Man, Woman and Child on the planet. That is Bank. That is the result of Collective Thought Agreement. The decent, pleasant things on this planet come from individual actions and ideas that have somehow gotten by the Group Idea. For that matter, look how we ourselves are attacked by “public opinion” media. Yet there is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves. 

	Thus each one of us can rise above the domination of the bank and then, as a group of freed beings, achieve freedom and reason. It is only the aberrated group, the mob, that is destructive. 

	When you don’t do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten actively, you are working for the Bank dominated mob. For it will surely, surely (a) introduce incorrect technology and swear by it, (b) apply technology as incorrectly as possible, (c) open the door to any destructive idea, and (d) encourage incorrect application. 

	It’s the Bank that says the group is all and the individual nothing. It’s the Bank that says we must fail. 

	So just don’t play that tune. Do Seven. Eight, Nine and Ten and you will knock out of your road all the future thorns. 

	Here’s an actual example in which a senior executive had to interfere because of a pc spin:   A Case Supervisor told Instructor A to have Auditor B run Process X on Preclear C. Auditor B afterwards told Instructor A that “It didn’t work.” Instructor A was weak on Three above and didn’t really believe in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. So Instructor A told the Case Supervisor “Process X didn’t work on Preclear C.” Now this strikes directly at each of One to Six above in Preclear C, Auditor B, Instructor A and the Case Supervisor. It opens the door to the introduction of “new technology” and to failure. 

	What happened here? Instructor A didn’t jump down Auditor B’s throat, that’s all that happened. This is what he should have done: Grabbed the Auditor’s report and looked it over, When a higher executive on this case did so she found what the Case Supervisor and the rest missed: that. Process X increased Preclear C’s TA to 25 TA divisions for the session but that near session end Auditor B Qed and Aed with a cognition and abandoned Process X while it still gave high TA and went off running one of Auditor B’s own manufacture, which nearly spun Preclear C. Auditor B’s IQ on examination turned out to be about 75. Instructor A was found to have huge ideas of how you must never invalidate anyone, even a lunatic. The Case Supervisor was found to be “too busy with admin to have any time for actual cases”. 

	All right, there’s an all too typical example. The Instructor should have done Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. This would have begun this way. Auditor B: “That process X didn’t work.” Instructor A: “What exactly did you do wrong?” Instant attack. “Where’s your auditor’s report for the session? Good. Look here, you were getting a lot of TA when you stopped Process X. What did you do?” Then the Pc wouldn’t have come close to a spin and all four of these would have retained certainty. 

	In a year, I had four instances in one small group where the correct process recommended was reported not to have worked. But on review found that each one had (a) increased the TA, (b) had been abandoned, and (c) had been falsely reported as unworkable. Also, despite this abuse, in each of these four cases the recommended, correct process cracked the case. Yet they were reported as not having worked! 

	Similar examples exist in instruction and these are all the more deadly as every time instruction in correct technology is flubbed, then the resulting error, uncorrected in the auditor, is perpetuated on every pc that auditor audits thereafter. So Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are even more important in a course than in supervision of cases. 

	Here’s an example: A rave recommendation is given a graduating student “because he gets more TA on pcs than any other student on the course!” Figures of 435 TA divisions a session are reported. “Of course his model session is poor but it’s just knack he has” is also included in the recommendation. A careful review is undertake because nobody at levels O to IV is going to get that much TA on pcs. It is found that this student was never taught to read an E-Meter dial! And no instructor observed his handling of a meter and it was not discovered that he “overcompensated” nervously swinging the TA 2 or 3 divisions beyond where it needed to go to place the needle at “set”. So everyone was about to throw away standard processes and model session because this one student “got such remarkable TA”. They only read the reports and listened to the brags and never looked at this student. The pcs in actual fact were making slightly less than average gain, impeded by a rough model session and misworded processes. Thus, what was making the pcs win (actual Scientology) was hidden under a lot of departures and errors. 

	I recall one student who was squirreling on an Academy course and running a lot of off-beat whole track on other students after course hours. The academy students were in a state of electrification on all these new experiences and weren’t quickly brought under control and the student himself never was given the works on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten so they stuck. Subsequently, this student prevented another squirrel from being straightened out and his wife died of cancer resulting from physical abuse. A hard, tough instructor at that moment could have salvaged two squirrels and saved the life of a girl. But no, students had a right to do whatever they pleased. 

	Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only comes about from non-comprehension. Usually the non-comprehension is not of Scientology but some earlier contact with an off-beat humanoid practice which in its turn was not understood. 

	When people can’t get results from what they think is standard practice, they can be counted upon to squirrel to some degree. The most trouble in the past two years came from orgs where an executive in each could not assimilate straight Scientology under instruction in Scientology they were unable to define terms or demonstrate examples of principles. And the orgs where they were got into plenty of trouble. And worse, it could not be straightened out easily because neither one of these people could or would duplicate instructions. hence, a debacle resulted in two places, directly traced to failures of instruction earlier. So proper instruction is vital. The D of T and his Instructors and all Scientology Instructors must be merciless in getting Four, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten into effective action. That one student, dumb and impossible though he may seem and of no use to anyone, may yet some day be the cause of untold upset because nobody was interested enough to make sure Scientology got home to him. 

	With what we know now, there is no student we enrol who cannot be properly trained. As an instructor, one should be very alert to slow progress and should turn the sluggards inside out personally. No system will do it, only you or me with our sleeve rolled up can crack the back of bad studenting and we can only do it on an individual student, never on a whole class only. He’s slow = something is awful wrong. Take fast action to correct it. Don’t wait until next week. By then he’s got other messes stuck to him. If you can’t graduate them with their good sense appealed to and wisdom shining graduate them in such a state of shock they’ll have nightmares if they contemplate squirreling. Then experience will gradually bring about Three in them and they’ll know better than to chase butterflies when they should be auditing. 

	When somebody enrols, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe- never permit an “open-minded” approach. If they’re going to quit let then quit fast. If they enroled, they’re aboard, and if they’re aboard, they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us- win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. The finest organizations in history have been tough dedicated organizations. Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. It’s a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem mild. But only the tigers survive-and even they have a hard time. We’ll survive because we are tough and are dedicated. When we do instruct somebody properly he becomes more and more tiger. When we instruct half-mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to enforce, we don’t make students into good Scientologists and that let’s everybody down. When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in he eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she’ll win and we’ll all win. Humour her and we all die a little. The proper instruction attitude is, “You’re here so you’re a Scientologist Now we’re going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We’d rather have you dead that incapable.” Fitting that into the economics of the situation and lack of adequate time and you see the cross we have to bear. 

	But we won’t have to bear it forever. The bigger we get the more economics and time we will have to do our job. And the only things which can prevent us from getting that big fast are areas in from One to Ten. Keep those in mind and we’ll be able to grow. Fast. And as we grow our shackles will be less and less. Failing to keep One to  Ten, will make us grow less. 

	So the ogre which might eat us up is not the government or the High Priests. It’s our possible failure to retain and practise our technology. 

	An Instructor or Supervisor or Executive must challenge with ferocity instances of “unworkability”. They must uncover what did happen, what was run and what was done or not done.                        

	If you have One and Two, you can only acquire Three for all by making sure of all the rest. 

	We’re not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn’t cute or something to do for lack of something better. 

	The whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman and Child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depends on what you do here and now with and in Scientology. 

	This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance. 

	Remember, this is a our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the past. Don’t muff it now because it seems unpleasant or unsocial to do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. 

	Do them and we’ll win.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1965, 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 JUNE 1970

Remimeo
Applies to all
SHs and	URGENT AND
Academies	IMPORTANT
Franchises

TECHNICAL DEGRADES

(This PL and HCO PL Feb 7, 1965 must be made part of every study pack as the first items and must be listed on checksheets. )

Any checksheet in use or in stock which carries on it any degrading statement must be destroyed and issued without qualifying statements.

Example: Level 0 to IV Checksheets SH carry “A. Background Material—This section is included as an historical background, but has much interest and value to the student. Most of the processes are no longer used, having been replaced by more modern technology. The student is only required to read this material and ensure he leaves no misunderstood.” This heading covers such vital things as TRs, Op Pro by Dup! The statement is a falsehood.

These checksheets were not approved by myself, all the material of the Academy and SH courses IS in use.

Such actions as this gave us “Quickie Grades”, ARC Broke the field and downgraded the Academy and SH Courses.

A condition of TREASON or cancellation of certificates or dismissal and a full investigation of the background of any person found guilty, will be activated in the case of anyone committing the following HIGH CRIMES.

1. 	Abbreviating an official Course in Dianetics and Scientology so as to lose the full theory, processes and effectiveness of the subjects.

2. 	Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labelling any material “background” or “not used now” or “old” or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using, and applying the data in which he is being trained.

3. 	Employing after 1 Sept 1970 any checksheet for any course not authorized by myself and the SO Organizing Bureau Flag.

4. 	Failing to strike from any checksheet remaining in use meanwhile any such comments as “historical”, “background”, “not used”, “old”, etc. or VERBALLY STATING IT TO STUDENTS.

5. 	Permitting a pc to attest to more than one grade at a time on the pc’s own determinism without hint or evaluation.

6. 	Running only one process for a grade between 0 to IV.

7. 	Failing to use all processes for a level.

8. 	Boasting as to speed of delivery in a session, such as “I put in Grade zero in 3 minutes.” Etc.

9. 	Shortening time of application of auditing for financial or laborsaving considerations.

10. 	Acting in any way calculated to lose the technology of Dianetics and Scientology to use or impede its use or shorten its materials or its application.

REASON: The effort to get students through courses and get pcs processed in orgs was considered best handled by reducing materials or deleting processes from grades. The pressure exerted to speed up student completions and auditing completions was mistakenly answered by just not delivering.

The correct way to speed up a student’s progress is by using 2 way comm and applying the study materials to students.

The best way to really handle pcs is to ensure they make each level fully before going on to the next and repairing them when they do not.

The puzzle of the decline of the entire Scientology network in the late 60s is entirely answered by the actions taken to shorten time in study and in processing by deleting materials and actions.

Reinstituting full use and delivery of Dianetics and Scientology is the answer to any recovery.

The product of an org is well taught students and thoroughly audited pcs. When the product vanishes, so does the org. The orgs must survive for the sake of this planet.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 FEBRUARY 1965
(Reissued on 7 June 1967, with the word
Remimeo                              “instructor” replaced by “supervisor”.)
All Hats
BPI
SAFEGUARDING TECHNOLOGY

	For some years we have had a word “squirreling”. It means altering Scientology, off-beat practices. It is a bad thing. I have found a way to explain why. 

	Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it is the best possible system or a perfect system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system. 

	In fifty thousand years of history on this planet alone, Man never evolved a workable system. It is doubtful if, in foreseeable history, he will ever evolve another. 

	Man is caught in a huge and complex labyrinth. To get out of it requires that he follow the closely taped path of Scientology. 

	Scientology will take him out of the labyrinth. But only if he follows the exact markings in the tunnels. 

	It has taken me a third of a century in this lifetime to tape this route out. 

	It has been proven that efforts by Man to find different routes came to nothing. It is also a clear fact that the route called Scientology does lead out of the labyrinth Therefore it is a workable system, a route that can be travelled. 

	What would you think of a guide who, because his party said it was dark and the road rough and who said another tunnel looked better, abandoned the route he knew would lead out and led his party to a lost nowhere in the dark. You’d think he was a pretty wishy-washy guide. 

	What would you think of a supervisor who let a student depart from procedure the supervisor knew worked. You’d think he was a pretty wishy-washy supervisor. 

	What would happen in a labyrinth if the guide let some girl stop in a pretty canyon and left her there forever to contemplate the rocks? You’d think he was a pretty heartless guide. You’d expect him to say at least, “Miss, those rocks may be pretty, but the road out doesn’t go that way.” 

	All right, how about an auditor who abandons the procedure which will make his preclear eventually clear just because the preclear had a cognition? 

	People have following the route mixed up with “the right to have their own ideas.” Anyone is certainly entitled to have opinions and ideas and cognitions—so long as these do not bar the route out for self and others. 

	Scientology is a workable system. It white tapes the road out of the labyrinth If there were no white tapes marking the right tunnels, Man would just go on wandering around and around the way he has for eons, darting off on wrong roads, going in circles, ending up in the sticky dark, alone. 

	Scientology, exactly and correctly followed, takes the person up and out of the mess. 

	So when you see somebody having a ball getting everyone to take peyote because it restimulates prenatals, know he is pulling people off the route. Realize he is squirreling. He isn’t following the route. 

	Scientology is a new thing- it is a road out. There has not been one. Not all the salesmanship in the world can make a bad route a proper route. And an awful lot of bad routes are being sold. Their end product is further slavery, more darkness, more misery. 

	Scientology is the only workable system Man has It has already taken people toward higher I.Q., better lives and all that. No other system has. So realize that it has no competitor. 

	Scientology is a workable system. It has the route taped. The search is done. Now the route only needs to be walked. 

	So put the feet of students and preclears on that route. Don’t let them off of it no matter how fascinating the side roads seem to them. And move them on up and out. 

	Squirreling is today destructive of a workable system. 

	Don’t let your party down. By whatever means, keep them on the route. And they’ll be free. If you don’t, they won’t. 

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 

LRH:nt:rd
Copyright © 1965
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 43
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

7 January 1955

PLOTTING THE PRECLEAR ON THE TONE SCALE

The most important point in entering a case from the viewpoint of the auditor is establishing the position of the preclear on the Chart of Human Evaluation as given and fully described in the publication Science of Survival.

Today this is a relatively simple task providing the auditor knows the simple processes which are the basic processes of both Dianetics and Scientology. As given in the last PAB, these processes are: Two-Way Communication, Elementary Straightwire, Opening Procedure 8-C, Opening Procedure by Duplication, Remedying Havingness and Spotting Spots in Space.

The establishing characteristic of the preclear’s position on the tone scale is all contained under the heading of communication lag. Today we do not use E-Meters; today we do not use old-time dianometry; today we have a positive and precise method of positioning the preclear.

Communication lag is the length of time intervening between the asking of the question by the auditor and the reply to that specific question by the preclear. The question must be precise; the reply must be precisely to that question. It does not matter what intervenes in the time between the asking of the question and the receipt of the answer. Incidentally, from my experience in training in Phoenix, this is a very hard point for an auditor to grasp. Thus I am stressing it for you in these PABs. It does not matter what intervenes: the preclear may outflow, jabber, discuss, pause, hedge, disperse, dither or be silent; no matter what he does or how he does it, between the asking of the question and the giving of the answer, the time is the communication lag. The near answer, a guessing answer, an undecided answer, are alike imprecise answers and are not adequate responses to the question. On receipt of such questionable answers, the auditor must ask the question again. That he asks the question again does not reduce the communication lag; he is still operating from the moment he asked the question the first time. And if he has to ask the question twenty or thirty times more in the next hour in order to get a precise and adequate answer from the preclear, the length of time of the lag would be from the asking of the first question to the final receipt of the answer. Near answers to the question are inadequate and are, themselves, simply part of the communication lag.

Example:
Auditor: How many chairs are there in this room?
Preclear: Now, let me see. I don’t know—we’re sitting down, anyway.

This is not an answer to the question. The answer to the question is the exact number of chairs in the room.

There are, of course, certain questions which are “fade-away” questions, to which, because of the characteristics of the mind, there is no possible answer. One of these is “Give me an unknown time.” As soon as the preclear starts to answer such a question, he of course has as-ised a certain amount of unknownness and will know the time. The answer to a fade-away question is also measurable, however; it could be said arbitrarily to be answered when the preclear has as-ised enough unknownness to give a known time. There are relatively few of these questions.

The length of time necessary for an individual to ask and answer questions is actually a complete two-way communication lag, but here, in testing a lag, we are interested simply in the question the auditor asks and the length of time it takes a preclear to answer it.

Now here comes a specialized knowledge on communication lag. A preclear may have a very short lag on social questions. He may be able to answer immediately and expertly what his name is, how old he is and many other things. These questions are actually being answered by “social machinery” or habitual practice. He has actually no lag, apparently; but remember, the auditor in this case is not asking the preclear: he is asking a social response machine for the socially acceptable answer. As an example of this as mentioned in Dianetics: Evolution of a Science, I once had a preclear who would answer on any query as to health that she was fine, even though she was lying in the agony of a migraine headache. She had a machine set up to respond. One was not in communication with the preclear; and, indeed, one seldom ever was, for she was psychotic.

Thus, in establishing communication lag, it is necessary for the auditor to ask nonsocial questions. The question “What is your name?” may be replied to very readily. However, this is a social question, and thus one would have to ask the question such as “How many doors in this room?” or “How many feet do women ordinarily have?” in order to pose a question which requires intelligent differentiation on the part of the preclear. The length of time it takes for him to resolve this question as a problem and reply to it is the lag time.

This is an actual measure of the distance and the number of vias on the communication lag line of the preclear.

The phenomenon of communication lag is intensely useful; it tells you immediately how far the individual is out of present time; it tells us also the ability of the preclear to give up a problem. He may be so hungry for problems, and every question is a problem which requires an “answer,” that he simply swallows the problem and refuses to solve it by giving an answer to the question. It also tells us how protective, defensive the preclear is in regard to life and the environment.

An old-time auditor could very probably tell by his tone of voice as he spoke where he was on the emotional tone scale as given in Science of Survival. An auditor not so schooled need only glance at the person’s communication lag in order to know where he stood on the tone scale.

There is an additional phenomenon, a “brother to communication lag,” known as “process lag.” This is the length of time it requires for the preclear to obtain a result from a process. “How many chairs are there in this room?” process, and then let us ask the preclear this question “How many chairs are there in this room?” and discover how many times he has to be asked the question and has to be made to answer the question precisely in order to do so without protest and with instant response. The length of time it would take him to reduce first his lack of knowledge as to the number of chairs in the room and then his unwillingness to be asked the question many, many times over and over (which is his unwillingness to duplicate) would, on an overall count, be his process lag. The process lag is the length of time it takes to reduce all communication lag from a type of question or action in auditing; and a process lag, then, is peculiar to auditing, unless, of course, you wish to examine the whole subject of communication lags, at which moment you would discover all manner of interesting phenomena not particularly necessary to the auditor.

He would discover, for instance, that the length of time it takes for an individual to learn and adequately use arithmetic could be classed as a process lag. He could discover also that there is a communication lag going on in nearly all conversations. One asks the social question, “How are you?” and the person responds from his machinery, “Fine”; and then, as though totally disrelated, one-half-hour later suddenly says to his companion who asked the first question, “You know, I feel terrible today.” There is, for instance, the physiological communication lag. How long does it take for a man’s body to change the consideration that he is tired to the consideration that he is refreshed? How long does it take a certain drug to work? But it is not our purpose to go into the broad study of communication lags, as interesting as that field may be, for we do not need to know any more than communication lag and process lag in order to do a good job of auditing and to position the preclear accurately on the tone scale.

Actually it is the process lag which situates the preclear on the tone scale for the auditor. Let us say that a very long process lag could be classified as “unable to do until processed.” Then we would discover that Two-Way Communication as the basic process would be an inability if not done with ease by the preclear; if it is done very arduously by the preclear, it would take the preclear on the lower part of the tone scale. Similarly, if the preclear has enormous lag on Straightwire questions, it would peg him as on another, slightly higher, part of the tone scale; and so forth.

This is extremely useful information for an auditor, for it tells him that anybody below 2.0 on the tone scale is there to be audited into death. He is not there to be made to survive, and thus a case poses a considerable amount of trouble for an auditor when it is below 2.0 on the tone scale. When, in other words, it does not discover in Two-Way Communication and in Elementary Straightwire easy processing.

Just to make sure that no preclear fools an auditor with social responses and just to make sure that every preclear gets well, we process today in this fashion. First we discover and execute Two-Way Communication with the preclear, even though we have to do it in the field of mimicry. Then, when Two-Way Communication is very adequately established between the auditor and the preclear, we continue with Elementary Straightwire, the commands of which are “Something you wouldn’t mind remembering,” “Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting.” Only then would we go into Opening Procedure of 8-C. It would seem very hard to believe to some people, unless they have considerable experience in auditing, that many people find in Opening Procedure of 8-C a process so arduous that they become sick, fall on the floor and do all manner of weird convulsions. Yet it is true that an individual who has not already been put upscale to Two-Way Communication and Elementary Straightwire will discover considerable difficulty in Opening Procedure of 8-C.

When one has done Two-Way Communication and Elementary Straightwire on a preclear and has recovered the preclear’s ability to get well, he can see for the purposes of auditing that the individual has come to a level above 2.0 on the tone scale and he then is ready to embark on Opening Procedure of 8-C, remembering at all times that he must still be able to maintain his two-way communication—that is, not one-way communication, but two-way communication with the preclear, whatever process he does on the preclear, whenever he does it, no matter what actual condition the preclear is in. Many an auditor fails simply because he fails to listen to the preclear when the preclear has something to say and thus the preclear goes into apathy, for he was about to discover to the auditor that the auditor’s process had done something fantastically interesting to him, and being unable to communicate this to the auditor, the preclear goes into apathy.

CHART OF PROCESSES

WHERE THEY ARE ON THE ARC TONE SCALE

Exteriorized

                                     					4.0
               		Spotting Spots in Space
								3.6

								3.5
               		Remedy of Havingness
								3.1

								3.0
               		Op. Pro. by Duplication
								2.6

								2.5
               		Opening Procedure 8-C
								1.8

								1.8
               		Elementary Straightwire
								1.1
								
								1.0			
               		Two-Way Communication
								-8.0

P.A.B. No. 44
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

21 January 1955

TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION IN ACTION

The first thing one should know about communication is its formula. The formula of one-way communication is Cause, Distance, Effect, with Intention and Attention, where that which occurs at Effect Duplicates what emanated from Cause. The elements of communication, then, are Intention, Attention, Cause, Effect, Distance and Duplication. Meaning, Significance, are secondary phenomena.

Communication is part of the triangle of Affinity, Reality and Communication. Reality is composed of the degree of duplication possible, and this is also describable under the heading of Agreement. Reality is a quality which depends upon duplication, and in the action of duplication expertly or poorly done we find agreement and disagreement. The basic definition of Affinity is “co-existence” and as we drift away from actual co-existence, we drift into the ARC triangle and the communication formula. Co-existence is superior to the ARC triangle and the mechanics of living. Here we would find two things occupying the same space. This would be at the top of the scale. Two things with no space, no mass, and no energy. At the bottom of the scale we would find two things compulsively or obsessively almost occupying the same space. As Affinity enters into the state of not-quite co-existence, we get the manifestations of particles and significances, symbols, and, of course, much more intimately, Affinity embraces the distance part of the communication formula. It begins with the no distance of co-existence and then, as Affinity drops, the distance factor is more and more important (regardless of whether the distance is far or close) until we have at last a complete and positive objection to proximity, or a complete and positive objection to any distance, and in this “state of mind” we find material objects or the particles which compose them. Under Affinity, of course, we have the emotional scale: Effort, as found in Science of Survival, and the Know down to Mystery Scale as discussed in the Advanced Clinical Course Tapes.

The entirety of ARC is the subject of understanding. Knowingness is highest on the scale, and this exceeds ARC and is in the realm of considerations and ideas. The moment we enter into understanding we get into the communication formula and the ARC triangle. Understanding is a highly superior commodity, but still lower than knowing. Understanding itself produces a column of the Chart of Human Evaluation which could be added to it. At the top we would have a complete understanding of all things, and it would be complete knowingness, but this would require no communication to effect. From this knowingness we would drop downscale into understanding, and then into varying but dwindling degrees of understanding until we arrived at 2.0 on the scale, where we would find that understanding had become commixed with incomprehensibilities to such a degree that the entire vectors of life are reversed and become the vectors of physical objects. From 2.0 down we specialize in greater and greater degrees of incomprehensibility.

The subject of incomprehensibility is difficult to comprehend. If we examine the communication formula we discover that a duplication at effect must take place if a communication is to be received from the cause point of the line. Similarly, the cause point of the line has to take into account the fact that effect must be able to duplicate. Thus, the cause point of the line, if it wishes to communicate, must communicate in a fashion or in a guise which can be duplicated at the effect point of the line. This is not a question of being so stupid or incomprehensible as to cause an effect on any incomprehensibility, but it is a willingness to self-determinedly emanate in such a manner as to allow a duplication to take place at effect.

The basic stuff of the physical universe, to a thetan, is an incomprehensibility, but he is entirely devoted to trying to understand it. A thetan himself, the awareness of awareness unit, is understanding. Thus, we have this unit attempting to understand the incomprehensible. A thetan can, with perfect ease, understand incomprehensibility, but sometimes until it is called to his attention, he is continually on the track of trying to find some comprehensibility in the incomprehensible. The very fact that a thing is in a mass form is a puzzle to a thetan, since he, himself, has no mass, no wave length, and no actual position in space other than his own declaration of it. He can easily understand a form, since he is generally “experienced” in forms, but he can’t understand the stuff of which the form is made because that stuff is incomprehensibility. Thus we find the thetan very easily “as-ising” forms and altering them, and we find him considering that he is incapable of altering in its actual substance, creating or destroying the stuff of which the physical universe is made.

A thetan looking at the incomprehensibility of the physical universe is, of course, doing a no-duplicate. He is mocking himself up in the role of having to understand the incomprehensible. Thus we get him fixated on the idea of the physical sciences and eventually degenerating down to a point where he behaves like MEST, and here we have the luckless nuclear physicist who can cause MEST to vanish only by blowing it up, physically—a game which will never win. Here we find science in general, and here we find scientists, and their utter incapability of understanding any slightest particle of human behavior or conduct, and without any beliefs to speak of in humanity, and with a perfect and gruesome willingness to destroy it. These, as awareness of awareness units, have agreed so thoroughly with the physical universe that they have no agreement with actual understanding. They write their books with many communication lags, hemming and hawing, and without any decisions, and thoroughly object to anybody’s writing as though he knows what he is doing. The one thing that the scientist knows is that nobody knows, and this does not happen to be true. Thus, his science is based on a false datum. He originates a theory that man rises from mud because he, himself, is so close to it. When he does go into the field of the human spirit, the spirit itself, and indeed his own beingness, is an other-determinism to him. He sees no virtue in human fellowship or decency and advises in his books the necessity to turn to higher force. Once a scientist has broken through, in a revulsion against himself, his feelings of non-understandingness about people, it is generally on the downward side and it is in the realm where he must obsessively turn to God.

I give you this as an idea of what happens to preclears as they go down the tone scale. When they get close to the bottom they become scientific and pretend they know nothing and fight anything else which might know. When they get a little further down they become more violently neurotic and a little more south they become psychotic and forget even their science. And this is of considerable interest to the auditor, for the auditor is interested in human reactions and actions, and all he has to do is understand that he is looking at an incomprehensibility when he looks at anyone who is that neurotic or psychotic. There is no other causation in psychotic behavior than that everything is incomprehensible. There is no private, secret button which can be hit in a case, magically turning the individual into sanity, unless, of course, we utilize successfully “Be three feet back of your head” with some basic preparatory work. But this, of course, returns the person upscale toward understanding since it takes him from such close proximity to mass.

The auditor, then, who is looking at a psychotic, is trying to understand an incomprehensible, and if we were to cease using the word “psychotic” and began to use the word “incomprehensetic,” we would have a word which would serve us extremely well.

Thus, an auditor processes the psychotic with considerable difficulty in the absence of this understanding of incomprehensibility. For the auditor, to get any communication across, has to mock himself up, at least to some degree, as psychotic before he can communicate. The auditor’s fight to keep from being psychotic, or even seeming psychotic, is such that this conflict within himself (not because of any emanation from the psychotic, since these people do not emanate) restimulates him. The best way to handle a psychotic is with physical form, making the psychotic mimic the physical form by mimicking, with the physical form, the psychotic. Thus we have our basic level of mimicry, and thus we have the entering wedge of communication.

One-way communication is a first-dynamic operation. Two-way communication is a third-dynamic operation. An auditor who is playing “the only one” does not engage in third-dynamic activities, much less communication, and so he withdraws into one-way communication, and thus never lets the preclear emanate any communications, and will not listen to anything the preclear has to say. To this one fact alone we attribute the breakdown and lack of forward progress of many cases. The auditor did not pay any attention when the preclear had some vital information he desired to impart.

The process involved with running a two-way communication is best entered in the field of mimicry, and the best two-way process is then, of course, mimicry. Such a process will be given in the next PAB.

On the subject of communication itself, the auditor must realize that two-way communication is part and parcel of every process known in Dianetics and Scientology, and if it is not established, and if it is not continued, and if no attention is paid to two-way communication, only a small amount of benefit will occur. If two-way communication is understood as a process, many cases which previously seemed utterly unsolvable can be resolved with considerable ease.

CHART OF PROCESSES

WHERE THEY ARE ON THE ARC TONE SCALE

Exteriorized

                                     					4.0
               		Spotting Spots in Space
								3.6
								3.5
               		Remedy of Havingness
								3.1
								3.0
               		Op. Pro. by Duplication
								2.6
								2.5
               		Opening Procedure 8-C
								1.8
								1.8
               		Elementary Straightwire
								1.1
								1.0			
               		Two-Way Communication
								-8.0

P.A.B. No. 45
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

4 February 1955

MIMICRY

The following process was developed by DScn Jan Halpern. Throughout the process the auditor doesn’t say a word. He doesn’t answer possible questions, he doesn’t explain in words what he wants. Under all circumstances he makes like the Tar Baby and “don’t say nothin’.” He uses any gestures necessary.

Step I-a:     The auditor stands in front of the preclear, holding out a small object to him, until the preclear takes it from his hand. As soon as the preclear takes the object, the auditor holds out his hand, palm up, until the preclear places the object in his palm. The auditor immediately then offers it to the preclear again. This is continued until without comm lag. The object should be offered to the preclear from a variety of positions once he has gotten the idea: from down near the floor, far off to either side, over the preclear’s head. Likewise, the palm should be held in a variety of positions for the return of the object. Both hands may be used. Get the preclear doing it really fast.

Step I-b:    When Step I-a is going swiftly and easily, the auditor introduces a switch. After the preclear has just accepted the article, the auditor, instead of extending his palm for its return, places his hands behind his back briefly, then conveys by gestures that the preclear is to offer the object to him. When the preclear does so, the auditor takes the object from his hand, but does not return it until the preclear holds out his own hand, palm up, to receive it. This exchange is continued until the preclear is offering and accepting the object from as wide a variety of positions as the auditor used, and all other comm lags are flat.

Step II:     The auditor, just having accepted the object, makes a gesture that this part is over, then deliberately puts the object down where the preclear can see it, stands back and indicates that the preclear is to pick it up. When the preclear picks it up, the auditor gestures that he is to put it down again anywhere he likes in the room. The instant the preclear does so, the auditor snatches it up and puts it someplace else. You keep this up, till auditor and preclear are racing around the room, seizing the object as soon as the other’s fingers have let go of it. The object isn’t necessarily placed in a different spot each time. It may be picked up and put down again in the same place, but it must be handled each time. All sorts of tacit rules and understandings will probably develop while this is being run.

This process rehabilitates the sense of play; validates non-verbal ARC; short-circuits verbal circuitry; lets the preclear position matter and energy in space and time; gets the preclear up to speed; murders “there must be a reason” for doingness; processes the auditor and the preclear equally and besides, it’s fun.

Copyright (©) 1955 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

P.A.B. No. 46
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

18 February 1955

STRAIGHT WIRE

The oldest form of psychotherapy involved the questioning of the patient about his dreams. This is currently dramatized by psychology. A more modern type of psychotherapy consists of asking a preclear about his past.

Both of these, and many other activities in Dianetics and Scientology could be included under the heading of Straight Wire.

Effective particularly from 1.1 on the tone scale to 1.8, the processes embraced under the heading “Straight Wire” have all one purpose in common: this is the purpose of making the preclear stretch a “straight wire” between Cause and Effect across the intervening distance, whether this “distance” could be a distance in terms of location or a distance in terms of time.

Any process in Dianetics or Scientology is a Third Dynamic process. Thus, any process in Dianetics or Scientology requires communication. In Straight Wire and any other process, this fact must be observed by the auditor: that a two-way communication must be maintained. Thus, when administering any process which could be called “Straight Wire,” the auditor should be careful at the same time to maintain two-way communication. When he originally started the session the auditor captured some ground. He established two-way communication, whether by mimicry, conversation, or discussion. He must never lose this captured ground. Thus, when running Straight Wire, when running Opening Procedure of 8-C, Opening Procedure by Duplication, Remedy of Havingness, Spotting Spots in Space or any other process, it is necessary that this gained ground be maintained.

The term “straight wire” itself is meant to describe the imaginary straight line between Cause and Effect. The trouble with a preclear is that he is doing too many things VIA. He is doing anything and everything in life VIA. He is obtaining via food. He is looking via glasses. He is feeling and expressing emotion via glands. He is utilizing or experiencing effort via muscles. He is thinking via (he thinks) a brain. He is obtaining sensation, sustenance, and even revenge, via food. He is experiencing sensation and making the future via his genitals, and he is even trying to experience the origin of life, in most cases, via a church.

His dependency upon objects and services is such that his own creativeness becomes suppressed, submerged, for this working law is always present: that upon which one becomes dependent becomes, at length, one’s enslaver. When anyone sets up anything automatically, that thing becomes his randomity at some future date. We can observe this in many ways, but the entire summation of this can be grouped under the heading “VIA.”

Should the auditor bring the preclear to a point where a certain cause and a certain effect can be joined together without the intervention of a VIA, then the auditor has materially gained. Such a process is the Opening Procedure of 8-C, for here the preclear is being asked to connect, at least as a body, directly with a wall. As he reaches out to touch a spot on that wall, he is, in effect, stringing a straight line. It is notable that the Opening Procedure of 8-C was first designed for use upon an exteriorized person, and when one has a preclear exteriorized, running through the steps of the Opening Procedure of 8-C and the remainder of 8-C as given in Issue 24-G of the Journal of Scientology produces very marked effects.

If your preclear cannot have an effect he certainly cannot change. If he cannot cause an effect to occur, he certainly cannot change himself. All time is change—change is time. While, basically, time is simply a consideration, the considerations of time itself are mechanically tracked by the alteration of the position of the particles in space. Your preclear is stuck wherever there was no motion of particles, whether the moment is a pleasure moment, a triumph, a failure, or even death. In the absence of particle motion, as far as he is concerned, if he has lost his power to change his considerations, no time has existed. Thus, those things which you find in the engram bank which are most readily available to the preclear are things which contain no change in them, or things which have a change immediately before them and after them, but have no change between. In the absence of this change, we get a condition of timelessness in an engram or facsimile which permits that incident to “float” on the track and thus rise up to present time.

As the preclear becomes more and more embedded in motionless incidents he becomes harder and harder to change himself. Or, as he dramatizes to a marked degree his own bank, in the most ordinary living, then, he dramatizes the changeless moments, and he, himself, does not change.

The basic confusion of a preclear lies in the fact that an awareness of awareness unit basically has no mass, meaning or mobility. It has qualities and potentials, but it does not have position in space, nor, in its highest form, any movement in space. It can be at will in various positions in space, but it is not, itself, in space. As this is the case you can see that a preclear is dramatizing the truth when he is holding himself and motionless incidents motionless. In other words, if change to him is totally a particle shift in space, then he is apt to consider himself moving as the particles move. If he is moving he is actually to some degree disobeying the most basic quality of theta. Motion, then, to him, becomes antipathetic. On the lowest toned catatonic one finds this dramatization in full progress. A motionless person is then dramatizing the truth. But in all aberration we discover that it is the ingredient of truth which maintains the aberration in force. He is dramatizing motionlessness, and is motionless, but the truth of the matter is that, as a thetan, he should be able to make things move at will and appear in various positions in space. Thus, in clinging to the truth he loses his ability to move particles, and thus loses his ability to have time. This is best manifested as his communication, but as his communication drops, so drop his reality and his affinity. In other words, although he clings to the motionlessness of being a thetan, he loses the basic qualities of being a thetan, which are those of Knowingness and Understanding.

The basic confusion of any preclear, then, is to move or not to move. Shakespeare has said “to be or not to be” is the question. When it comes to getting a preclear upscale, the question is “to move or not to move.”

The basics of Straight Wire are designed to bring the preclear into the realization that he, himself, can be at either the cause or effect point of a communication line, and that he, himself, does not have to be the particle moving on that line. Being the particle and insisting upon the truth that he isn’t moving simply stops his communication entirely. Particles move on the straight line between Cause and Effect. Cause and Effect themselves are not in motion. The task is to get the individual to assume the responsibility of moving particles. With this comes the realization on his part that he, himself, does not have to move in order to move particles, and thus he will come upscale. Getting him to move his body around the room is an excellent method of accomplishing this, but to many preclears the movement of a body is a near-impossibility. And these can contemplate only the moving of a memory or an idea. Thus, from 1.1 to 1.8 on the tone scale we find the best therapy to be that which directs itself toward the thinkingness below effort—the moving of ideas.

There is no particular reason to concentrate solely upon a preclear’s past. Actually, a preclear is not the product of the past, he is the product of himself. All the past can do for him is to accumulate and hold for him the information that it is bad for him to move, or act, or do. So, let us take a preclear whom we have gotten into communication and work with his more elementary ideas and thus get him to string straight lines between Cause and Effect.

Elementary Straight Wire has two commands. The auditor takes the first of these and uses it as long as is necessary to entirely flatten the preclear’s hesitancy as represented by his communication lag. His communication lag is merely the expression of VIAs on the line, which amounts to the preclear’s unwillingness to string a straight line. The questions are: “Give me something you wouldn’t mind remembering,” “Give me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting.”

A more elementary form of this would be: “Remember something,” “Forget something,” but this is far too direct for our preclear. If you will notice, a very direct and forthright person, if surrounded by people who are more covert, gets a very bad going-over for it. Thus it is in processing when you try to string a very straight line with a preclear he will sometimes resist.

Slightly less elementary than Elementary Straight Wire as above is the next-to-the-last list in Self Analysis: “Can you recall something that is really real to you,” “Can you recall a time when you were in good communication with someone,” “Can you recall a time when someone was in good communication with you,” “Can you recall a time when you felt some affinity for someone,” “Can you recall a time when someone felt some affinity for you.”

The entire text of Self Analysis, in its original edition now available from the Foundation in Phoenix, is devoted to rehashing the preclear’s past to show him that it is not quite as dangerous as it is made out to be, and that it won’t bite him if he remembers some things about it.

From this form of Straight Wire we go into a more complicated form as given in Self Analysis in Scientology, a converted edition of the original Self Analysis. The edition is converted, by the way, simply by substituting everywhere in its text for the word “recall” the word “mock up.” Simply by substituting “mock up” in the directions at the beginning of each list, one has a modern Self Analysis.

Now it is very remarkable that the less specific and sequitur the auditor’s questions are, the better the results with the preclear.

Another form of Straight Wire is quite superior to those above, but is a very vicious and violent process. It is contained in The Creation of Human Ability, which is the printed edition, much expanded, of the earlier Auditor’s Handbook. The basic command of this process is: “Start Lying,” “Keep on Lying.” This can be particularized with: “Tell me some lies about your past,” “Tell me some lies about me present,” “Tell me some lies about the future,” the auditor each time making sure that the preclear is using non-actual places and times.

Remember that while running Straight Wire one must maintain a two-way communication. Many a case has been lost simply because the preclear wanted to say something and the auditor was so intent upon the process that he paid no attention whatsoever to the preclear’s urge to communicate. Remember that one-way communication is a First Dynamic operation; that two-way communication is necessary for a Third Dynamic operation; that under one-way communication a preclear will not get well; that under two-way communication a preclear will get well. Thus, in running Straight Wire do not begrudge the preclear a few moments’ discussion of the incident he has just recalled, or discussion of phenomena he has suddenly noticed. Do not crush him simply because he wishes to express himself.

This is essentially a subjective process, and the auditor should make sure that the preclear speaks aloud the things he is remembering. The preclear’s nod or “yes” to signify that he has recalled something or has invented something is insufficient, and should always be suspect, for preclears who are very bad off pervert or invert every communication line they use and so they will not be doing the process if given any slightest opportunity.

Elementary Straight Wire and other forms of Straight Wire are intensely beneficial from 1.1 to 1.8 on the Tone Scale, but after you have your preclear up to 1.8 or above, remember that there are better processes. 

P.A.B. No. 47
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

4 March 1955

OPENING PROCEDURE 8-C

Report after report from various auditors comes to me stating that they now realize why their auditing of many of their preclears failed. And they uniformly declare that the reason for former failure on preclears was not the case level of the preclear, nor yet the complicated state of processes, but ( I ) failure on the part of the auditor to get the preclear into two-way communication before proceeding with other processes, and a continuing failure to keep two-way communication established, and (2) not doing enough Opening Procedure of 8-C on the preclear.

An evaluation of a technique does not depend upon the intricacy or brilliance of its theory, but upon its ease of communication to auditors during training, and the ease of their application of it upon preclears. In 8-C we have a process which answers these various conditions. It is very easy to train an auditor to do 8-C. It is very easy for a preclear to do Opening Procedure of 8-C in one form or another.

The entirety of a technique known as Standard Operating Procedure 8-C was intended for exteriorized preclears. Its opening procedure was originally designed to be done by an exteriorized preclear, but it was found to be far less workable for the exteriorized preclear than when done (so far as the opening part of the procedure was concerned) with the preclear moving his body around and making it touch spots.

There are three parts to Opening Procedure of 8-C, and it is necessary for the comm lag as dramatized physically by the preclear to be completely flattened by the auditor on each part before the next is undertaken. Eventually these parts are the gradient scale of decision. In the first part we have the auditor picking out the spots, telling the preclear to walk over to them, telling the preclear to touch them. In the next step, part (b) of Opening Procedure of 8-C, we have the preclear picking out the spots on the auditor’s order, and then, on the auditor’s order, walking over to them and touching them. And in the third part, part (c), we have the preclear picking out the spots on the auditor’s order, walking over to them, and deciding on his own decision, but under the auditor’s command, when to touch and let go.

This is not one of those processes one gets “novel” about as an auditor. The process has been found to be workable exactly as it is put forth. Variation, or the introduction of extraneous material beyond that necessary to continue a two-way communication with the preclear is found to be destructive of the process. This process is as workable as it is simple. It is also as workable as the auditor is able to do a process as given.

The first thing that Opening Procedure of 8-C does is to get the preclear used to the idea of following somebody else’s directions, and leading him to discover that by following somebody else’s directions he does not collapse or become ill or die. In other words, the preclear discovers that he can follow orders without becoming entirely ruined. This is an interesting discovery, since the physical universe is continually ordering him around, and if he is resisting orders he is resisting the physical universe. Resistance is the one step necessary to entrapment.

There is another point in the Opening Procedure of 8-C which cannot be too thoroughly stressed. Nearly every failure in the past where the preclear has been audited and audited, and audited, the auditor was unaware of the fact that the preclear was not following the directions given him. A survey was taken of preclears who had had a great deal of trouble in being processed in Scientology, and each one of them, either by means of a meter or by their own statement, was discovered to have uniformly avoided running any of the auditing commands given them, even though they were giving the auditor every assurance and appearance of running the auditing commands. Now it could only be possible for a preclear to avoid auditing commands if the auditor was unable to observe directly the workings going on in the preclear. In the Opening Procedure of 8-C it is impossible for the preclear to avoid the auditing command. The auditor can stand or sit and watch the preclear go through the exact orders and observe directly whether or not the preclear is doing what he is told to do. This is a major benefit.

The basic theory of Opening Procedure of 8-C is to make and break communication with the physical universe. Once an individual discovers that he can make and break communication with walls and objects, it will be discovered that he can let go of various pieces of his engram bank. Actually, all the time he is doing 8-C he is letting go of enormous quantities of useless material with which he has cluttered his thinking and life. It is a very direct process and gets the preclear to stretch a very straight line between Cause and Effect.

An auditor while running this should occasionally ask the preclear, “Who is doing this?” Preclears who are psychotic will tell the auditor that their finger is doing it, or that the wall is doing it, and then advance on up to where the hand is doing it, the arm is doing it, and finally that the body is doing it, and at last that the preclear himself is doing it. This is the acceptance of responsibility for an action.

A very good description of the Opening Procedure of 8-C exists in the printed edition or the mimeo edition of Intensive Procedure as R2—16, which is the proper technical number of this process. A thorough description of the process is given in PAB No.34 at the beginning of this series. The process is being repeated here in order to give it proper stress. It has, and do not doubt it for a moment, tremendous value.

I have yet to see a preclear who is having physical difficulty of a major sort or mental difficulty, fail to improve under a long and careful and meticulous administration of the Opening Procedure of 8-C.

There are two errors which can be made in the running of the Opening Procedure of 8-C. The first is not to know and do the process, and the second is not to run it long enough. How long is long enough? In many cases, twenty-five hours is not long enough.

In the Opening Procedure of 8-C (R2—16) the auditor has a very powerful tool and is invited to use it thoroughly. 

P.A.B. No. 48
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

18 March 1955

OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION

Numbered R2—17 in The Creation of Human Ability and the mimeo edition of this, The Auditor’s Handbook, available from the HASI in Phoenix, Opening Procedure by Duplication has been doing things to cases hitherto untouched by extensive and intricate auditing.

Because this process is very arduous to run on people below boredom on the tone scale, and because it has very often been used on people on whom it should not be used, it was early called “Dirty 30.” Actually, “Dirty 30” is Procedure 30, which encompassed what is now R2—17 and two other steps.

Ranting and raving has gone on in various locales because of Opening Procedure by Duplication. It has been branded as a hypnotic technique. The fact of the matter is, it runs out hypnosis and in the process of running it the restimulation of hypnotism is sufficiently marked to make an auditor and a preclear believe that hypnotism is taking place. However, Opening Procedure by Duplication continued on past this point runs on out the hypnotism.

Before one does Opening Procedure by Duplication one should have done the earlier steps of the six processes, which are: Two-Way Communication, Elementary Straight Wire, and Opening Procedure of 8-C. Only when these are thoroughly accomplished should one attempt Opening Procedure by Duplication. Furthermore, it is a very good thing for an auditor to have had Opening Procedure by Duplication run on him before he tries to run it on preclears, for the technique is very difficult upon an auditor who, himself, cannot duplicate.

Inability to duplicate is also inability to be cause, and inability to be effect. The reason one has an engram bank is because “it mustn’t happen again,” or “it must happen again.” In order to make sure that something does not happen again, one has a picture of it which he considers necessary to prevent him from duplicating the action. The existence of a picture, of course, will eventually make him follow the action and follow the dictates of the picture. Thus we get the action of an engram and restimulation.

The minimum time to run Opening Procedure by Duplication (R2—17) would be two-and-a-half hours. There is no sense in running the process twenty minutes, for it may well happen that the preclear can bear up for a little while, only to bog thoroughly on the process.

Run on people who are below boredom on the tone scale, the auditor may experience the preclear’s bolting from the session.

When Opening Procedure by Duplication is being run, it is common for the preclear, by comments and reactions, to dramatize the Know to Mystery Scale. The Know to Mystery Scale, of course, is a very long, tall scale, but any section of this scale has in it the various levels of Know to Mystery. Thus, one can see a preclear going up from Mystery through Sex, through Eating, through Effort, through Emotion, through Looking, to Knowing, then going through a different, higher harmonic of Mystery, then Sex, then Eating, and so forth. The auditor may not see him go through all of the grades on the Know to Mystery Scale in order, but will see him spotting one after another of the levels of this scale. The preclear will make such comments as “Looks good enough to eat,” “There’s a lot of work connected with this,” “It’s a mystery to me.” Going up the Mystery to Know Scale, one of course crosses the Emotional Scale, which was described and witnessed in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, but this Emotional Scale is, of course, a part of the Know to Mystery Scale.

In Great Britain, where auditors have used for the two objects required a book and a bottle, the process is called “Book and Bottle.” These two objects are a very good choice for working the process. A book, for instance, is placed in one part of a room, and a bottle is placed in another part of a room, far enough apart so that a preclear will have to walk between them. The auditor then sends him back and forth from one to the other, using for each item a stereotyped series of questions, which actually, themselves, never vary. Because these questions never vary, the auditor is apt to forget that he must maintain a two-way communication with the preclear. The auditor is not doing Opening Procedure by Duplication, the preclear is doing Opening Procedure by Duplication. When the preclear talks and asks questions and when he volunteers information, the auditor, of course, must answer him. There must be a discussion of some sort from time to time, and the auditor who is not content with the fact that the preclear has actually looked at it should, of course, insist that the preclear look at the object, or that he weigh it more carefully. However, one can err very easily in the direction of varying the process. Remember that no matter how much talking goes on, the basic process is the same. And the order of the commands, and the commands themselves, are all exactly the same.

To quote R2—17 from The Creation of Human Ability, which is the printed edition of The Auditor’s Handbook:

R2—17: Opening Procedure by Duplication is begun only after the preclear has some reality on his environment. Until the preclear’s reality on his environment is good, Opening Procedure by Duplication should not be done, for the preclear only turns on an unreality circuit and goes through it mechanically. The first part of Opening Procedure by Duplication is to get the preclear to examine, communicate with and own (somewhat on the order of Opening Procedure of 8-C) two dissimilar objects. These objects are then placed several feet apart and at a level so that the preclear can pick them up without bending over, but so that he has to walk between them. Once the auditor is entirely satisfied that the preclear has reality on these objects and can own them he then begins Opening Procedure by Duplication with the following commands, supposing that one of the objects was a book and the other was an ash tray, “Go over to the book.” “Look at it.” “Pick it up.” “What is its color?” At this point the preclear must give an answer. “What is its temperature?” Here the preclear must answer again. “What is its weight?” Here again the preclear must answer. “Put it down in exactly the same place.” When the preclear has executed, “Go over to the ash tray.” “Look at it.” “Pick it up.” “What is its color?” The preclear says an answer. “What is its temperature?” The preclear says his answer. “What is its weight?” The preclear says his answer. “Put it down exactly in the same place.” When the preclear has executed, “Go over to the book,” and the same words and the same formula are used over and over again until the preclear has had a sufficient number of hours of Opening Procedure by Duplication to enable him to do it without communication lag, without protest, without apathy, but only cheerfulness, each time seeing the items newly. This is a process which is done by the hour. The process is better when done consecutively for so many hours rather than done an hour apiece each day for several days. This procedure is the first step of Procedure 30. 

P.A.B. No. 49
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

1 April 1955

THE REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS

There is a great deal of upper-echelon theory connected with the Remedy of Havingness as a process, for here we are dealing with energy and the reasons and operations of a thetan in regard to it.

Just why a thetan should get himself so completely snarled up in energy might be an entire mystery to anyone who did not realize that a thetan has to cut down his knowingness and his total presence in order to have a game. The awareness of awareness unit builds space to cut down knowingness. Space makes it necessary, then, to look at something in order to know about it. The next thing a thetan does to cut down his knowingness is to create energy and to pass it to other thetans and to bring in the energy of other thetans so as to get a duration and a time span. If the thetan is successful and obtains a game in this wise, he continues on with this modus operandi of having a game, and when he does not have a game he simply cuts his knowingness down once more. Of course, he reaches a point eventually where he does not get a game simply by cutting down his knowingness, and eventually assumes a fairly fixed, stupid, aspect. He is below the level of having games, but because he has cut down his knowingness he does not know, now, that he is below the level of having games and thinks that all that is necessary to get another game is to further cut down his knowingness. He is by this time obsessively dramatizing the lowering of knowingness.

When one speaks of knowingness, one should realize that one is speaking of an embracive thing. Everything on the Know to Mystery Scale is simply a greater condensation or reduction of knowingness. At first one simply knows. Then he makes some space and some energy, and so now he has knowingness in terms of looking. By changing the position of the particles of energy thus created, and by exchanging particles with others, extant or self-created, the thetan cuts down his knowingness further, and gets time, and so gets emotion and sensation. When these become solid, he has effort particles and masses. Now, he could cut down his knowingness further by refusing to use emotion and effort, but by thinking about them thus introducing new VIAs into his line of knowingness. And, when he no longer knows entirely by thinking, he ceases to create knowingness and begins to eat, and from eating he drops into the ready-made sensation of sex instead of knowing what happens in the future. And from here he drops down into postulated mystery as something one cannot possibly know about. In other words, one gets a continued reduction of knowingness in order to have games. The greatest chess player in the world has no game, since he can predict that he will win and predict everything that opponents will do, so he will simply demonstrate how to play chess. Sooner or later, he will announce that he is “burned out” or has lost his knack for playing chess, and will go off into some other field where he can have a game. The field he will choose will be a less wisdom-demanding field than playing chess. A boxer, such as some of the very great ones of the past, will reduce his timing, which is to say his knowingness of arrival, to a point where he can at least put on a good exhibition, and from this they will further reduce their knowingness, and then not noticing how far they have gone, get themselves thoroughly and consistently beaten. There will be a period, however, when they are fairly evenly matched against their opponents.
To understand this with any thoroughness, one would have to recognize the intention back of all communication. Creation, Survival, and Destruction is knowingness. When somebody talks to you his intention is to continue in a parity where he can have an interchange of communication, which is to say a game. He takes knowingness from you, and gives knowingness to you, with one form of communication or another. Two soldiers fighting and shooting at each other are using a bullet to make the other man know. What is there to know in this situation? That one is dead, of course, and for the victor, that one has won.

It is dangerous, alike, to a thetan, to have too many wins or too many losses. Give him too many wins, and he will correct in the direction of reducing his knowingness as represented by his dexterity, his prediction, his activity. Give him too many losses and he will seek another game, even to the point where he will die and pick up another body. Because the decision is on the basis of knowingness, the decision is always downward. One does not decide upward toward greater knowingness, actually, unless one has the full and complete intention of winning in a new game. If one discovers that there are no wins or losses either to be found in this new game, one will reduce one’s own knowingness, even to the point of forgetting all of his knowledge concerning it, in order to ensure a game.

As there is not an infinity of games in progress, one is apt, as he comes down seventy-four trillion years of track, to play out the available games and to put them in the category of “it must not happen again.” One then becomes bored. One is only bored when there is no game possible, from his viewpoint. Actually, all he has to do is become enthusiastic about the game on his own consideration and he will begin to know more about it again.

A thetan considers that some form or mass is necessary in order to have a game. He gets into the belief that he cannot create new masses, and so he begins to hold on to old masses, and here, whether he is exteriorized or in a body, we find him holding on hard to old facsimiles, old significances, old decisions, rather than taking on new decisions.

The Remedy of Havingness directly addresses the problems of giving the thetan something “to play with.” When he discovers that he can have new masses, he will begin to let go of old masses. It is an easily observed phenomenon while having a preclear Remedy Havingness, that old engrams go into restimulation, go into restimulation and run out, that they show up in front of his face and suddenly explode or disappear. The Remedy of Havingness actively does run out engrams.

This process is used from boredom up to conservatism for its best results.

This process is done by asking the preclear to mock up something and pull it in, or mock up something and throw it away. When a thetan is exteriorized, if you want to see him get very unhappy, make him change space until he begins to lose all the energy he is holding on to, and then fail to remedy his havingness. The thetan will become convinced that he is only a thought, and is therefore, by his standards, unable to have a game. Tell him to mock up eight anchor points in the form of the corners of a cube around him and pull them in upon himself. Ask him to do it several more times, and he immediately brightens up and becomes very happy. Why is this? You have reassured him that he can have a game.

The cutting down of knowingness and the Remedy of Havingness have opposite vectors. The Remedy of Havingness will knock out old energy masses the thetan is holding on to, or that the body is holding on to, which tell the thetan he is stupid. The supplanting of these by new energy masses which do not have the postulate of cutdown knowingness in them of course makes the thetan brighter.

When you find a theory detached from a process and not demonstrating itself in a process, there must be something wrong with the theory. Similarly, if what I say here about condensed knowingness being all other things, and the cut-down of knowingness, were not demonstrated in the process of Remedy of Havingness, then we would have to get ourselves a new theory. However, this is demonstrated very definitely. Those people who cannot remedy havingness, wherever they are on the tone scale, can be brought to a point where they will remedy havingness simply by asking them what they wouldn’t mind knowing. The consideration of what they are willing to know then begins to rise.

If you only could see a Black Five operate you would see that his barriers are all erected toward knowing something. Of course he is very afraid of being told something bad, and so doesn’t want to be told anything at all, and when the auditor gives him a command he never receives the command as given, but does something else. He has a block up against knowingness to such a degree that he will eventually permit himself to be pressed into complete inactive stupidity. What are those black screens for? Basically to keep him from knowing. Knowing what? Then one will have to look closely at the definition of a datum. A datum is an invention which has become agreed upon and so solidified. In other words, a datum is to some degree a solidity, even if it is merely a symbol. To get into this state it has to be agreed upon. When it is thoroughly agreed upon it becomes, then, a truth. It is not at all a truth. It is an invention. What made it sure or what made it real was the fact that it was agreed upon. This opens the doors further to other processes.

In order to get the preclear in good condition we would have to put him into some kind of a condition so that he could create. The first thing he is liable to be able to create in auditing is a lie. The word “lie” is simply “invention with a bad connotation.” Society gives invention that connotation because of its anxiety to have a game and to agree, and so be able to communicate with one another.

Thus society frowns upon the invention of facts, yet the preclear’s sanity and continued happiness absolutely depend upon his ability to create new facts. The technique which remedies this is included in “The Creation of Sanity,” number R2-29: “Start Lying.” One can vary this auditing command with “Tell me some lies about your past,” and then keep the preclear at it long enough so that the preclear is able to come out of the complete blur which will follow on the heels of his taking over the function of and running of his memory machines. The invention of data is a step immediately toward the remedy of havingness. Simply asking the preclear what he wouldn’t mind knowing, what he wouldn’t mind having other people knowing about him will bring him into a condition where he can mock up and remedy havingness.

The Remedy of Havingness is the companion process to Spotting Spots, which will be taken up in the next PAB. The Remedy of Havingness, simply as a process by itself, if worked up to by getting the preclear willing to know things, and willing for other people to know things, and run thoroughly so that whole avalanches of masses can pour into him or pour out of him, will actually run out an entire engram bank, and thus is an extremely valuable process.

It has been reported by several auditors that exteriorization was accomplished on preclears by making them remedy havingness and do nothing else for eight or ten hours.

The auditing commands for the Remedy of Havingness are: “Mock up something,” “Pull it in,” until the preclear is doing this easily. Then, “Mock up something,” “Throw it away,” until the preclear can do this easily. The significance of the object may be added by the auditor with “Pull in an ideal body,” or some such thing, but the actual fact is that the actual significance does nothing for the preclear. It is the mass which counts. The auditor can have the preclear pull things in two at a time, six at a time. He can have the preclear mock up something, copy it a dozen times, one time after another, then pull in the whole mass, but the real reason he is doing this with the preclear should never drop from sight. The auditor is remedying havingness in order to give the preclear enough mass to permit him to discard old masses which he is holding on to and doesn’t know anything about. 

P.A.B. No. 50
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

15 April 1955

REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS—THE PROCESS

“When in doubt, remedy havingness.”

This is a motto which can well be followed by an auditor doing any process on any preclear.

But, if there is a process which one should do with any other process, then that process should be understood thoroughly, for if done incorrectly it would be likely to produce confusion into all the other processes of Dianetics and Scientology.

Therefore, in the first place, let us examine with rigor the name of this process. It is REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS. By “remedy” one means the correction of any aberrated condition. By “havingness” one means mass or objects. The process could also be called “Remedy of Un-Havingness.” It could also be called “Remedy of Acceptingness.” It could also be called “Remedy of Rejectingness.”

To those people who are deficient in havingness, the process is liable to mean that the auditor should increase the havingness of the preclear. Such an auditor with this misunderstanding would have the preclear put up large masses and push them into his body or himself. The auditor would neglect having the preclear throw away objects and masses.

If the auditor misunderstood the process and simply assumed that it had something to do with havingness, and if his own havingness were too great, he would be likely to specialize on all preclears by having the preclear throw things away.

Actually, the auditor should have the preclear push things into himself and his body and throw things away from himself and his body until the preclear can do both with equal ease. When this has been accomplished the preclear’s havingness has been “remedied.”

What, then, does a Remedy of Havingness mean? It means the remedy of a preclear’s native ability to acquire things at will and reject them at will. Amongst the havingnesses which would require remedy would be an obsessive inflow of money, sexual objects, troubles, somatics, and difficulties in general. Whenever one of these appeared in the preclear’s environment it would have a tendency to inflow on the preclear. The reverse difficulty would be an obsessive outflow, whereby the preclear threw away or wasted anything which he had, such as money, clothes, cars, or living quarters. When the process “Remedy of Havingness” has been done thoroughly and completely, the preclear should be able to reject or accept, at his own discretion, anything in his environment as well as anything in his engram bank.

The earliest use of this process is to be found in GITA, which is to say “Give and Take Processing,” one of the early SOPs which became an SOP-8 “Expanded GITA.” In Issue 16-G of the Journal of Scientology we have a long list of key items. The preclear was asked to waste, accept, and desire these items at will. This was the Desire-Enforcement-Inhibit Scale, or the DEI Scale. This process is the immediate ancestor of the Remedy of Havingness. Indeed, one could do far worse than to take the DEI Expanded GITA list as given in Issue 16-G, and in the form of mock-ups use it as such upon the preclear, or more modernly employ it directly on the Remedy of Havingness on these objects.

If one were to employ such a list in the Remedy of Havingness, one would, of course, have to employ gradient scales. The use of the gradient scale has never been discarded, and the concept and principle of doing things by gradient scales is inherent in auditing itself, for one starts with a process which the preclear can do, and gives him some wins, and on a gradual scale gives him larger and larger wins until he is cleared. Similarly, in remedying havingness, the preclear must be started at the lowest end of the scale and advanced on up to the higher end of the scale. Quantity is one of the methods of doing this. At first one can ask a preclear to mock up one of an item and shove it into his body or throw it away, and then go, finally, when he is doing that well, to two items, three, four, five, and six, all the same, but a greater quantity of the item. An even lower gradient on this scale would be to simply get the idea that something was there, and to progress on forward with the idea into the actual mass. An expert auditor working with this from the idea on through to the object would discover that he had no preclears who could not mock up.

He would have the preclear get the idea out in front of him of a ball, and get the idea of the ball being thrown away; get the idea of a ball up in front of him and get the idea of a ball coming in; he would then, when the preclear could do this excellently well, move forward into the actual mock-up of a ball. The mock-up would get better and better as the process progressed, until at last the preclear could mock up and throw away or push into his body at will, a ball. He could see this ball, he could even feel it, and its weight.

Now you may get the idea occasionally that these PABs are mostly, at least in this series, handling old material. This is not the case. Every time one of these PABs is written I put into it everything that is known up to the date that it is written, and this PAB is no exception. And, let me tell you, this is a very lucky PAB for you because Remedy of Havingness, by a slight change I made some weeks ago, has become a key exteriorization process. So, we have Remedy of Havingness for Exteriorization as a newer process than the old Remedy of Havingness.

Exteriorization Remedy of Havingness, or Exteriorization by Remedy of Havingness, is accomplished by having the preclear SHOVE or PUSH things into his body. One no longer has the preclear PULL things into his body. Simply by having the preclear mock up things and shove them into his body, mock up things and throw them away, mock up things and shove them into his body, mock up things and throw them away, a preclear who has already been run on the earlier steps of the six basic processes will, at this stage, exteriorize quite neatly after as little as fifteen or twenty minutes of the process. If he does not, then the earlier processes have been skimped and the preclear was really not ready for a full, forthright remedy of havingness.

Even when doing Route I, the preclear is told to push things into himself. This will rather take his flitter away for a moment, for he is there being one viewpoint, and in order to push something into himself he has to be a second viewpoint. In view of the fact that a thetan gets in trouble by being only one viewpoint, this remedies the viewpoint scarcity of the thetan, and he pushes himself up into two viewpoints with great rapidity. Thus we are doing duplication of the thetan at the same time that we are remedying havingness, so one even has the thetan shove things into himself, rather than pull things into himself.

In short, one never has anyone pull things into his body any more. One has a person push things into his body. One has him, for instance, mock up a planet, and push it into the body; mock up a planet and throw it away; mock up a planet and push it into his body; mock up a planet and throw it away; mock up a planet and push it into his body, and then one says, “Where are you pushing it in from?” The preclear says, “Out here in front of the body.” The auditor simply goes on doing the process and very shortly the preclear will, if the earlier steps have been done well, which is to say the Six Basic Processes below Remedy of Havingness, the preclear will be neatly exteriorized and will be ready for Route 1.

One would omit, in such an instance, running Spotting Spots as such, for Change of Space Processing and Communication Processing have a great deal to do with spotting spots already.

If you were to do Remedy of Havingness forthrightly and all-out, and you were to accept this as the only process we had, we would work with its cousin process, R2—63 as given in The Creation of Human Ability, “Accept-Reject.” One would ask the preclear for things he could accept, one after the other, until the communication lag was flat, and then would ask the preclear for things he could reject, one after the other, until the communication lag was flat on that. One would then move into the Expanded GITA list and would have the preclear mock up and shove into his body (if interiorized) or into himself (if exteriorized) the various items on the Expanded GITA list as given in Issue 16-G of the Journal of Scientology. This would be a long process, and not entirely successful on all counts, but would nevertheless be a very effective and efficient process from the standpoint of gains. One would certainly get the preclear over a very large number of aberrations and would do a great deal for him. However, this is not the advised way of handling this process, for the process itself is not an end-all. Aberrations can be handled much more easily by communication processing as will be given in a later PAB.

The exact use and commands of Remedy of Havingness in ordinary and routine auditing are simple and effective. One has been asking a preclear a great many questions which “as-ised” large masses of energy. One, in handling Change of Space or interiorization and exteriorization into objects while the preclear is exteriorized, has been “burning up” a great deal of energy. Any time the preclear begins to feel dopey or “boil off” he has either run too long on a flow in one direction, in which case reverse the flow, or he has simply reduced his havingness down to a point where he feels tired or sleepy. Without waiting for this manifestation to occur the good auditor simply in the course of Straight Wire or Description Processing, or many other processes, such as those contained in Route 1, remedies havingness. Having achieved something like a momentarily flat comm lag on a process, the auditor says to the preclear, “Mock up a mass out in front of you.” When the preclear has done this, the auditor says, “Shove it into your body.” When the preclear has done so, the auditor says, “Mock up another mass out in front of you.” And when the preclear has done so, the auditor says, “Throw it away.” That, as given, is for preclears who are interiorized. It is simply repeated over and over. The mass is not specified. It can be almost anything, and in fact it does not much matter what type of significance the mass has. Any mass is better than no mass, according to the thetan.

If the preclear is exteriorized, the auditor already starts him on the Remedy of Havingness in the Route I step where the preclear is asked to copy what he is looking at (R1—5). When one is doing R1—5, one must be very careful to obey the gradient scale principle behind Remedy of Havingness. He would not make the preclear make twenty copies and then push them all into himself or the body. He would make the preclear make two or three copies and push them in one at a time until the preclear could remedy his havingness with ease. The auditor would then have the preclear “Mock up a mass and shove it into yourself,” and then “Mock up a mass and throw it away,” and do this back and forth until the preclear could do this easily and well, at which time the auditor would tell the preclear, “Mock up two masses and shove them into yourself,” and then “Mock up two masses and throw them away,” until finally the auditor has the preclear mock up eight masses as though they were the corners of a cube around the preclear and “Shove them into yourself,” and then “Mock up eight masses and throw them away.”

One must remember that in spite of the fact that he cannot duplicate mass actually as himself, having no space or mass, natively, the motto of the thetan is “anything is better than nothing.” When you tear up a lot of facsimiles for a thetan and throw them away, he becomes very unhappy unless you have him reconstruct those facsimiles or remedy the mass he has lost accordingly. When you are having a thetan go into and out of MEST universe masses, a certain amount of energy is burned up, and after the thetan has been run for a short time on this step (R1—9 in The Creation of Human Ability), you must be particularly careful to remedy his havingness with eight masses shoved into himself and eight masses thrown away several times. A thetan who has been run a great deal without Remedy of Havingness comes to what is to him a horrible thought: “I am just a concept,” and will sag in tone. He does not come to this state as long as havingness is consistently remedied.

It may be, as you look at Scientology, that you’ve come to the opinion, watching Remedy of Havingness work, that all there is to anything is the Remedy of Havingness, that it is all based on the Remedy of Havingness. If you have a preclear shove enough havingness into his body he will exteriorize in most cases. If you remedy enough havingness while he is chasing around the universe, as in the Grand Tour, he will discover and as-is a great many communication lines which otherwise might be very detrimental. However, it is not true that havingness is the entire key to the human mind. Havingness is the “gimmick” or “weenie” for which the game is played, and having something is very like winning. However, above havingness there is doingness, and above doingness there is beingness, and above beingness there is communicatingness, and above communicatingness there is knowingness, and above knowingness there is postulatingness, and so we see we have a long way to go above havingness in order to get to the top activity of a thetan, which is making postulates, or unmaking them. You could, of course, rationalize each and every action of the thetan with regard to havingness. You could even extend havingness to space, although it normally refers to objects. You could do all manner of interesting things with havingness. You could get as specific and as significant as you like, or as un-significant as you like, and still find Remedy of Havingness working, but we do not have here in Remedy of Havingness the total clue, the total key. But we do have a process and an item which must not be overlooked in auditing.

In the Six Basic Processes the Remedy of Havingness comes after the Opening Procedure by Duplication as a process, itself, but remember that Remedy of Havingness is done and can be done at any time during any of the processes as long as the preclear is even vaguely in communication with the auditor. It does not matter how vague the mass is that the preclear is using to remedy his havingness. Here is a place where certainty is not necessary. An unreal, vague, or flimsy mass, if this is all the preclear can get, will still remedy his havingness. A case comes to mind out of the Advanced Clinical Course where a student was unwilling, after his second day, to continue his studies. He did not believe that he could stand the “hammer and pound,” as he put it, of the terrifically intense schedule. I took him into my office, asked him what he was doing in life, and he replied to me that he was a machinist. Also, it seemed to turn out that he had had something to do with a ship which had sunk under him, although his recollection of this was very unclear. I asked him what kind of a machine he had customarily run, and he told me. Then I had him mock up this machine, and remedy his havingness with it. Then I had him mock up the ship and remedy his havingness with that, just as given above. I did this for about fifteen minutes, and enough change occurred in his case to entirely return his confidence in his ability to stand up to the course and to audit. Yet the mock-ups he was getting were so thin that he could barely vaguely discern them at all.

Mock-ups get unreal because the thetan is not-ising existence. He is trying to destroy masses by saying that they do not exist, that they are not real. He is so bent upon this system of destruction that he is making everything unreal or black. One of the cures for this is End of Cycle Processing run in the following fashion: One has the preclear mock himself up dead (no matter how unreal this mock-up is), then have the mock-up waste away to bone, and have the bones waste away to dust, and then have the preclear shove the dust into himself or, alternately, throw it away. One once more has the preclear mock himself up dead, have the mock-up waste away to bone, have the bones waste away to dust, and then have the preclear remedy his havingness with the dust. One continues this for two or three hours with the preclear if one really wishes the case to make a change.

Where a preclear is getting no reality on mock-ups or blackness, he is most commonly stuck in that Para-Scientological thing, that thing horribly abhorred by psychologists who have become Dianeticists, or by people who are just plain scared: a past death. If you wanted to convince somebody that past deaths exist, you would run End of Cycle Processing on them. This is a cousin process to the Remedy of Havingness. One could go a very long distance with this process and have the preclear mock up his mother dead, have her waste away to bones, and remedy havingness with the dust, or do this with the dust, or do this with the father or brothers, or grandparents, with a considerable change in the case.

This End of Cycle Processing, by the way, is a very fine process. It has been with us about a year and it has been successful whenever used. It has a tendency to fall into disuse because it has not until now had an exact place on the Six Basic Processes. But End of Cycle is actually an additional process to the Remedy of Havingness and is an effective way of remedying havingness. Do you remember in the old days the Dianetics “corpse case” who would lie upon the couch with his arms crossed neatly, all ready for a lily, and would always audit in this fashion? The solution to this corpse case is End of Cycle Processing, as given here. The preclear is so fixed in a death that he is trying to make everything unreal, and the only real thing, to him, would be the unreality of death.

In these PABs I have been trying to give you the basic auditing as it is done today in Hubbard Professional College in Phoenix, and in London. It is intensely effective auditing. A recent survey of the staff-audited preclears over a period of two months demonstrated by the most arduous and recognized testing that we had been jumping the IQ of preclears an average of ten points apiece for every twenty-five hours of auditing. Many of them went much higher than this. I, myself, in five hours of auditing, was getting this same result which was being obtained by a staff twenty-five hour intensive. But all that I was using, actually, were the Six Basic Processes. All that staff auditors were using were the Six Basic Processes. Of course, our having the know-how of using Remedy of Havingness and Communication Processing in the midst of these Six Basic Processes, these gains were not necessarily the gains being obtained across the broad field of Scientology. There is actually no substitute for good, thorough, professional training. A professionally trained auditor shows up like a lamp in a lighthouse on a dark night, if only by reason of inspecting his results.

You will find the background of this material contained in Dianetics, 1955! and in the recent hardcover edition of Intensive Procedure which, including now 75 separate processes, is called The Creation of Human Ability. This book is obtained from London directly, or from the HASI in Phoenix. Only the British edition is ready, but we have plenty of these, and if you ordered the book from Phoenix it was filed with a London edition. If you want to write for a London edition you will find that the cost is $5.90, and it will be airmailed to you.

We are discovering that it takes about eight weeks of very intensive training in order to indoctrinate an auditor into an adequate use of these Six Basic Processes. This is done in the HCA, or in London HPA, Course. The course has the additional bonus of getting these processes run on the auditor until he is in pretty good condition, if not cleared. In the upper echelon Phoenix course, which is to say the Graduate Course, all of the various “angles” and alternate uses are taken up. If you are using Scientology or modem Dianetics without professional training you would do very well to have somebody study these processes with you, as given in these recent PABs, and run them on you, just as given, in order for some subjective information concerning them.

Now, another footnote in this PAB. Some last-minute news on these Six Basic Processes is a change from the material given in the PAB on Elementary Straight Wire, and the PAB just before that on Two-Way Communication. In the next PABs [Numbers 57, 58 and 59 written by Jack Parkhouse] we will take up these highly advanced alterations, for the mission of these PABs is to keep you up to date as far as possible.

By the way, I heard from an old HDA recently, via a member of the staff to whom he wrote, and this old HDA complained, “Hubbard does not put out anywhere near enough material to keep us up to date.” A search through the PAB files disclosed that this HDA was not on the PAB mailing list. If an individual is not on the PAB mailing list it is certain he will be convinced that Hubbard isn’t putting out any material. The data which you should have in your kit to know Scientology and auditing and be up to date as of now are: The Creation of Human Ability from London, Dianetics, 1955! from Phoenix, and at least the last ten PABs. With the material which is immediately forthcoming you will be up to date, indeed, if not well into the future, as far as the rest of the human race is concerned.

And by the way, I wish you would write and tell me how you are getting along with these PABs, and how you are getting along with the auditing in general. It just might be that I’d like to know.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

THE CREATION 

OF 

HUMAN ABILITY
 
A Handbook for Scientologists 

BY
L. RON HUBBARD 

Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.
And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say,
Peace be to this house.
And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.
And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give:
for the laborer is worthy of his hire.
Go not from house to house.
And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you,
eat such things as are set before you:
And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them
The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see:
For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see,
and have not seen them;
and to hear those things which ye hear,
and have not heard them.
ST LUKE 10: 3-9, 23-24

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE	1
THE AUDITOR’S CODE	4
THE CODE OF HONOR	6
THE CODE OF A SCIENTOLOGIST	7
A SUMMARY OF SCIENTOLOGY	8
INTENSIVE PROCEDURE OUTLINE	13
ROUTE 1	14
ROUTE 2	15
CHART OF PROCESSES	18
AUDITING COMMANDS FOR INTENSIVE PROCEDURE	19
ROUTE 1	20
R1-4	20
R1-5	20
R1-6	20
R1-7	20
R1-8	20
R1-9	21
R1-10	22
R1-11	22
R1-12	22
R1-13	22
R1-14	23
R1-15	23
ROUTE 2	24
R2-16	24
R2-17	25
R2-18	25
R2-19	25
R2-20	26
R2-21	27
R2-22	28
R2-23	28
R2-24	29
R2-25	30
R2-26	30
R2-27	31
R2-28	32
R2-29	32
R2-30	32
R2-31	33
R2-32	34
R2-33	35
R2-34	36
R2-35	38
R2-36	38
R2-37	39
R2-38	39
R2-39	40
R2-40	43
R2-41	44
R2-42	45
R2-43	46
R2-44	48
R2-45	48
R2-46	48
R2-47	49
R2-48	49
R2-49	50
R2-50	51
R2-51	51
R2-52	52
R2-53	52
R2-54	53
R2-55	53
R2-56	55
R2-57	56
R2-58	56
R2-59	57
R2-60	59
R2-61	60
R2-62	61
R2-63	61
R2-64	62
R2-65	62
R2-66	63
R2-67	63
R2-68	63
R2-69	63
R2-70	64
R2-71	64
R2-72	64
R2-73	65
R2-74	65
R2-75	65
L’ENVOI	66
CHANGE OF SPACE PROCESSING	68
SOP 8-D	69
OUTLINE OF LECTURES 1-3 OF PROFESSIONAL COURSE	70
THIS IS SCIENTOLOGY - THE SCIENCE OF CERTAINTY	72
FOREWORD	72
THE FACTORS	73
THIS IS SCIENTOLOGY	75
THE TRIANGLE OF CERTAINTY OF AWARENESS	77
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES	88
APPENDIX TO SOP 8 NO. 1	91
APPENDIX NO. 2 SOP 8	92
CERTAINTY PROCESSING	92
SHORT 8	95
SOP 8-C THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT	96
THE USE OF SOP 8-C	99
SOP 8-C FORMULAS AND STEPS OPENING PROCEDURE	100
GLOSSARY	103
GROUP PROCESSING	105
GLOSSARY ADAPTED AND EXPANDED BY W.B.B. JR.	107

PREFACE TO ALL HASI SCHOOLS AND BRITISH ASSOCIATES
SUBJECT: TRAINING

The training program of the HASI was stabilized during the seven Clinical Course units. This has been developed into the HASI training schedule, and it is expected that this schedule will be fitted into the training programs under use with no further modification than is absolutely necessary to fit the peculiar needs of the school.

This training course embraces the grade of Hubbard Certified Auditor, Hubbard Professional Auditor, Bachelor of Scientology and Doctor of Scientology. There is no difference amongst these degrees as to the procedures employed or methods of instruction. The difference of course level amongst these ratings consists of the amount of theory and expansion given to the subject of Intensive Procedure. In all cases, for all courses, we wish at the end of a course to have an auditor in good personal condition who understands thoroughly that the processes enumerated in Intensive Procedure are workable and that they will resolve the problems he faces in preclears and groups and the conviction on the auditor’s part that at least some of these processes can be used expertly by himself. The auditor’s examination for certification in any grade is based upon the definitions and theories underlying those processes contained in The Creation of Human Ability -- A Handbook for Scientologists. The examination should include history, general theory, and conversance with the various publications of Scientology as well as Dianetics. The primary goal of an HCA or HPA school is outlined in the first sentence above. When this has been accomplished, that level of school can consider that it has accomplished its mission.

The primary text of any school of any level is now The Creation of Human Ability -- A Handbook for Scientologists. A secondary text, but almost equal in importance is Scientology: Group Auditor’s Handbook.  Concentration on these two publications should be extreme. Only those tapes which will actually supplement these manuals should be employed.  Particularly in the HCA -- HPA course, the instructor should be severely reluctant to impart any further data of any kind than that contained in these manuals and the tapes supporting them. A forthcoming popular text book on Scientology is designed to embrace little more in theory and practice than that found crowded into the two handbooks; thus when a person who has read the popular text turns to a school or auditor for training he will discover himself studying in a far more intense form that material on which he has already agreed.

The basic theory in which the student is to be instructed is as follows: Considerations take rank over the mechanics of space, energy, and time and that these mechanics are the product of agreed-upon considerations which life mutually holds. That the mechanics have taken such precedent in man that they have become more important than the considerations and overpower his ability to act freely in the framework of mechanics, which is to say that the picture man presents is an inverted one. That the goal of processing is to bring an individual into such thorough communication with the physical universe that he can regain the power and ability of his own postulates. That Scientology is the science of knowing how to know answers and that a Scientologist is expected to be able to resolve problems in a great many specialized fields of which auditing is the first field he addresses so as to be conversant with and capable in the phenomena of life. That in a world every day more violently impressed with mechanics, chaos may be expected to ensue on a national and community level by many reasons which incidentally include atomic fission. That the role of a Scientologist is to impede this disintegration if possible, but if it occurs to be ready to pick up the pieces. That the Scientologist has no specialized political or religious convictions beyond those dictated by wisdom and his own early training. That the total empire to which a Scientologist aspires is the empire of wisdom.        

That an auditor is expected to follow the Auditor’s Code 1954 and the Code of Scientologists, and that he is expected to know these Codes by heart. That the only scarcity of preclears which will occur is through his own indigence, and his procurement of preclears or groups does not depend upon the industry of other auditors but of himself. That L. Ron Hubbard is a human being. The student should be instructed as well in the Organization and functions of the HASI in various certifications and their meaning and in his legal status.

His instruction should begin with the lecture on Scientology and what it is and with an immediate assignment to auditing. This assignment should consist of the most elementary possible technique in order to accustom the auditor into achieving a two-way communication with the preclear.  He should be maintained on such an assignment until such time as the instructor is satisfied that he can deliver the auditing commands and maintain his two-way communication with the preclear without falling into any deeper significances and until he has a complete and positive understanding of a communication lag and how to flatten one out. The auditing commands to be used in this first step are, ‘Something you wouldn’t mind remembering’, ‘Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting’. It is completely vital that the student understand the mechanism of communication lag and its definition that it is the length of time between the moment the auditor poses the question and the moment when that exact question posed is answered positively by the preclear no matter whether silence or talk or incorrect answers occurred in the interim.
 
Only when the student has become at ease with the above and perfectly comprehensent is he permitted to go further in his training. The next step consists of Opening Procedure of 8-C. The three parts of this are given him one at a time to audit on his fellow students until he has become expert and assured in performing each part. At this same time he must become assured as well of the workability of this process and that it is the only process he must ever employ on psychotics and neurotics. The student must also be made to understand physical communication lag as just another kind of communication lag. And he must become convinced that he must flatten physical communication lags by continuing to use the command which produced them. He must develop precision in his rendition and all sloppiness or carelessness in the running of this process must be ironed out by the instructor. The lecture material at this time should strenuously and repetitively take up the Auditor’s Code with examples until the student understands it thoroughly.

The next process in which the student is to be indoctrinated is Opening Procedure by Duplication.  He is expected to do this for many hours. He is expected to have this run on him for many hours.  After this the Auditor’s Code is taken up again. And only at this point should general theory or other data subjects be undertaken by the instructor, either in his own lectures or by tapes.

Once the student is entirely comfortable and familiar and precise with Opening Procedure by Duplication he is instructed in Remedying Havingness and Spotting Spots in Space.  Remedying Havingness is emphasized and is senior to Spotting Spots in Space and is taken up in lecture in its various forms before the auditor is permitted to run Spotting Spots in Space. When the auditor has mastered Acceptance Level, Rejection Level and ‘Things that you wouldn’t mind occupying your space’ he is then turned loose to audit Spotting Spots in Space and the Remedy of Havingness using this to clean up various areas or old auditing in his preclears.  He is to run this process until he is convinced of its workability and his ability to use it and until he can honestly classify it as his chief emergency assist tool.

Now that the student can remedy havingness on preclears, he is permitted to run Consideration in the form of Significances, having preclears put significances into things. Only when the student has learned to audit significances and has had all the processes he is being taught as above run upon him is it particularly safe to engage upon much theory or upon more complex processes, for the student turned loose to consider at will may otherwise begin to make nothing out of preclears and mountainous somethings out of processes.

At this point, Granting of Beingness in the form given in the Appendix of Issue One of the Handbook for Scientologists should be run thoroughly by the student and on the student and he should hear the LRH lecture on that subject from the Seventh Clinical Course. For until this is remedied, our student will have difficulty, most likely, with his fellow students by being himself ‘the only one’ who can grant life. He will also, to some slight degree perhaps, be at war with the subject and his instructors until this is remedied.

Only when all of the above has been accomplished, and with certainty, should the student be embarked upon the use of Intensive Procedure as given, be initiated into the mysteries of exteriorization and the general data of earlier Scientology. We must be very definite at this point that it would be far, far better to turn out a student who had learned the steps prior to studying the Handbook itself, as given above, and graduate with those steps firmly in his grasp than to cover a multitude of subjects and processes in Scientology on which he had a poor reality by the end of the course.

Our course goal is to push the student of the HCA-HPA level as far forward as possible in his period of training into the Handbook for Scientologists and the Group Auditor’s Handbook, but to progress him in such a way as to teach him nothing further than he has been taught until we are sure that he has excellent data workability and use reality on what he has been taught at that point. This we learned in the Advanced Clinical Courses was an absolute necessity in order to turn out auditors. It is better for us to have auditors able to use well Opening Procedure of 8-C than auditors who can use every technique we have poorly and ineffectually.

The training materials for the HCA-HPA course should include the ‘Professional Course Lectures’ by LRH made in July 1954.

The student should clearly understand that training which has been done is not necessarily the retraining which is being and will be done. He should understand that the exigencies of Scientology were such as to turn out as good auditors as we could with what we had to hand and that we are just now stabilized in training and that we expect far more from him than we have ever expected from any auditor in the past.

Sincerely,

L. RON HUBBARD
15 July 1954

THE AUDITOR’S CODE
1954

An auditor must observe the Auditor’s Code if he intends to produce beneficial results in a preclear. The auditor’s attention is very strongly called to Sections 1 and 13. Section 13 contains the difference between a bad auditor and a good auditor. 

Whereas the whole Code is important, Section 13 is vitally important, so much so that an auditor, not understanding it, will not produce good results in a preclear. Section 13 means that an auditor must not change the process just because the preclear’s perception or communication is changing. A bad auditor will change the process every time the preclear starts to change.

This is the auditor obsessively duplicating the preclear. A good auditor will run a process until it no longer produces change in the preclear, and only then will go to a new process. A bad auditor can always be estimated by the number of processes he uses on a preclear, for any process in modern procedures, consistently used, will produce considerable change. 

When the auditor changes a process just because the preclear starts to change, we call this ‘Auditor Q-and-A-ing’. It is a very bad manifestation.

1	Do not evaluate for the preclear

2	Do not invalidate or correct the preclear’s data

3	Use the processes which improve the preclear’s case

4	Keep all appointments once made

5	Do not process a preclear after 10:00 p.m.

6	Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed

7	Do not permit a frequent change of auditors

8	Do not sympathize with the preclear

9	Never permit the preclear to end the session on his own independent decision 

10	Never walk off from a preclear during a session

11	Never get angry with a preclear

12	Always reduce every communication lag encountered by continued use of the same question or process

13	Always continue a process as long as it produces change, and no longer

14	Be willing to grant beingness to the preclear

15	Never mix the processes of Scientology with those of various other practices

16	Maintain two-way communication with the preclear

17	Never use Scientology to obtain personal and unusual favors or unusual compliance from the preclear for the auditor’s own personal profit
18	Estimate the current case of your preclear with reality and do not process another imagined case

19	Do not explain, justify or make excuses for any auditor mistakes whether real or imagined

The Auditor’s Code was evolved from years of observing processing. It is the technical code of Scientology. It contains the important errors which harm cases. It could be called the moral code of Scientology.

THE CODE OF HONOR

No one expects the Code of Honor to be closely and tightly followed.

An ethical code cannot be enforced. Any effort to enforce the Code Of Honor would bring it into the level of a moral code. It cannot be enforced simply because it is a way of life which can exist as a way of life only as long as it is not enforced. Any other use but self-determined use of the Code of Honor would, as any Scientologist could quickly see, produce a considerable deterioration in a person.  Therefore its use is a luxury use, and which is done solely on self-determined action, providing one sees eye to eye with the Code of Honor.

1	Never desert a comrade in need, in danger or in trouble
2	Never withdraw allegiance once granted
3	Never desert a group to which you owe your support
4	Never disparage yourself or minimize your strength or power
5	Never need praise, approval or sympathy
6	Never compromise with your own reality
7	Never permit your affinity to be alloyed
8	Do not give or receive communication unless you yourself desire it 

9	Your self-determinism and your honor are more important than your immediate life
10	Your integrity to yourself is more important than your body
11	Never regret yesterday. Life is in you today, and you make your tomorrow 
12	Never fear to hurt another in a just cause
13	Don’t desire to be liked or admired
14	Be your own adviser, keep your own counsel and select your own decisions 
15	Be true to your own goals

THE CODE OF A SCIENTOLOGIST

The Code of a Scientologist was evolved to safeguard Scientologists in general, and is subscribed to by leading Scientologists. The Committee of Examination and Services of the HASI has accepted it as an enforceable code.

As a Scientologist, I pledge myself to the Code of Scientology for the good of all.

1	To hear or speak no word of disparagement to the press, public or preclears concerning any of my fellow Scientologists, our professional organization or those whose names are closely connected to this science

2	To use the best I know of Scientology to the best of my ability to better my preclears, groups and the world

3	To refuse to accept for processing and to refuse to accept money from any preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly help

4	To deter to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends

5	To prevent the use of Scientology in advertisements of other products

6	To discourage the abuse of Scientology in the press

7	To employ Scientology to the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics

8	To render good processing, sound training and good discipline to those students or peoples entrusted to my care

9	To refuse to impart the personal secrets of my preclears

10	To engage in no unseemly disputes with the uninformed on the subject of my profession

11	To completely refrain from discussing the case of another auditor’s preclear with that preclear, or within his hearing

A SUMMARY OF SCIENTOLOGY

Scientology is the science of knowing how to know answers. It is a wisdom in the tradition of ten thousand years of search in Asia and Western Civilization.  It is the Science of Human Affairs which treats the livingness and beingness of Man, and demonstrates to him a pathway to greater freedom.

Subjects which were consulted in the organization and development of Scientology include the Veda; the Tao, by Lao Tzu; the Dharma and the Discourses of Gautama Buddha; the general knowingness about life extant in the lamasaries of the Western Hills of China; the technologies and beliefs of various barbaric cultures, the various materials of Christianity, including St Luke; the mathematical and technical methodologies of the early Greeks, Romans, and Arabians; the physical sciences, including what is now known as nuclear physics, including the various speculations of Western Philosophers such as Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Herbert Spencer, and Dewey, and the various technologies extant in the civilization of both the Orient and Occident in the first half of the twentieth century. Scientology is an organization of the pertinancies which are mutually held true by all men in all times, and the development of technologies which demonstrate the existence of new phenomena not hitherto known, which are useful in creating states of beingness considered more desirable by man.

There are two distinct divisions in Scientology.  The first is philosophic, the second is technical.  Under the philosophic heading one discovers the ways and means of forming new ways of life and of evaluating or creating standards of livingness and beingness. By this knowingness alone, and without processing, it should be understood clearly that a new way of life could be created, or an old way of life could be understood and better endured or altered.  Under the technical division we have a long series of developed processes which, applied immediately and directly to life or an organism thereof, produce changes at the will of the practitioner.

Scientology concludes and demonstrates certain truths. These truths might be considered to be the highest common denominators of existence itself.

The following summary of these truths has the aspect of precision observations rather than philosophic hazardings. When treated as precision observations, many results occur. When regarded as philosophic opinions, only more philosophy results.  Considerations take rank over the mechanics of space, energy, and time. By this it is meant that an idea or opinion is, fundamentally, superior to space, energy, and time, or organizations of form, since it is conceived that space, energy, and time are themselves broadly agreed-upon considerations. That so many minds agree brings about Reality in the form of space, energy, and time. These mechanics, then, of space, energy, and time are the product of agreed-upon considerations mutually held by life.

The aspects of existence when viewed from the level of Man, however, is a reverse of the greater truth above for Man works on the secondary opinion that mechanics are real, and that his own personal considerations are less important than space, energy, and time. This is an inversion. These mechanics of space, energy, and time, the forms, objects and combinations thereof, have taken such precedent in Man that they have become more important than considerations as such, and so his ability is overpowered and he is unable to act freely in the framework of mechanics. Man, therefore, has an inverted view, whereas, considerations such as those he daily makes are the actual source of space, energy, time and forms, Man is operating so as not to alter his basic considerations, he therefore invalidates himself by supposing another determinism of space, energy, time, and form. Although he is part of that which created these, he gives them such strength and validity that his own considerations thereafter must fall subordinate to space, energy, time, and form, and so he cannot alter the Universe in which he dwells.

The freedom of an individual depends upon that individual’s freedom to alter his considerations of spacer energy, time, and forms of life and his roles in it. If he cannot change his mind about these, he is then fixed and enslaved amidst barriers such as those of the physical universe, and barriers of his own creation. Man thus is seen to be enslaved by barriers of his own creation. He creates these barriers himself, or by agreeing with things which hold these barriers to be actual.

There is a basic series of assumptions in processing, which assumptions do not alter the philosophy of Scientology. The first of these assumptions is that Man can have a greater freedom. The second is that so long as he remains relatively sane, he desires a greater freedom. And the third assumption is that the auditor desires to deliver a greater freedom to that person with whom he is working. If these assumptions are not agreed upon and are not used, then auditing degenerates into ‘the observation of effect’, which is, of course, a goal-less, soulless pursuit, and is, indeed, a pursuit which has degraded what is called modern science.

The goal of processing is to bring an individual into such thorough communication with the physical universe that he can regain the power and ability of his own considerations (postulates).

A Scientologist is one who understands life. His technical skill is devoted to the resolution of the problems of life.

The technical information of the Scientologist includes the following, which are a list of usable or self-evident truths as revised from the earlier Logics and Axioms.

1. 	LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

	Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

2. 	THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS.

3. 	SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM, AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.

4. 	SPACE IS A VIEWPOINT OF DIMENSION.

5. 	ENERGY CONSISTS OF POSTULATED PARTICLES IN SPACE.

6. 	OBJECTS CONSIST OF GROUPED PARTICLES.

7. 	TIME IS BASICALLY A POSTULATE THAT SPACE AND PARTICLES WILL PERSIST.

8. 	THE APPARENCY OF TIME IS THE CHANGE OR POSITION OF PARTICLES IN SPACE.

9. 	CHANGE IS THE PRIMARY MANIFESTATION OF TIME.

10. 	THE HIGHEST PURPOSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS THE CREATION OF AN EFFECT.

11. 	THE CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING IN CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE ARE FOUR-FOLD: 

	(a) As-is-ness IS THE CONDITION OF IMMEDIATE CREATION WITHOUT PERSISTENCE, AND IS THE CONDITION OF EXISTENCE WHICH EXISTS AT THE MOMENT OF CREATION AND THE MOMENT OF DESTRUCTION, AND IS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN THAT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN SURVIVAL.

	(b) Alter-is-ness IS THE CONSIDERATION WHICH INTRODUCES CHANGE, AND THEREFORE TIME AND PERSISTENCE INTO AN As-is-ness TO OBTAIN PERSISTENCY.

	(c) Is-ness IS AN APPARENCY OF EXISTENCE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE CONTINUOUS ALTERATION OF AN As-is-ness. THIS IS CALLED, WHEN AGREED UPON, REALITY.

	(d) Not-is-ness IS THE EFFORT TO HANDLE Is-ness BY REDUCING ITS CONDITION THROUGH THE USE OF FORCE. IT IS AN APPARENCY AND CANNOT ENTIRELY VANQUISH AN Is-ness.

12. 	THE PRIMARY CONDITION OF ANY UNIVERSE IS THAT TWO SPACES, ENERGIES, OR OBJECTS MUST NOT OCCUPY THE SAME SPACE. WHEN THIS CONDITION IS VIOLATED (PERFECT DUPLICATE) THE APPARENCY OF ANY UNIVERSE OR ANY PART THEREOF IS NULLED.

13. 	THE CYCLE OF ACTION OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS: CREATE, SURVIVE (PERSIST), DESTROY.

14. 	SURVIVAL IS ACCOMPLISHED BY ALTER-IS-NESS AND NOT-IS-NESS, BY WHICH IS GAINED THE PERSISTENCY KNOWN AS TIME.

15. 	CREATION IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE POSTULATION OF AN AS-IS-NESS.

16. 	COMPLETE DESTRUCTION IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE POSTULATION OF THE AS-IS-NESS OF ANY EXISTENCE AND THE PARTS THEREOF.

17. 	THE STATIC, HAVING POSTULATED AS-IS-NESS, THEN PRACTICES ALTER-IS-NESS, AND SO ACHIEVES THE APPARENCY OF IS-NESS AND SO OBTAINS REALITY.

18. 	THE STATIC, IN PRACTISING NOT-IS-NESS, BRINGS ABOUT THE PERSISTENCE OF UNWANTED EXISTENCES, AND SO BRINGS ABOUT UNREALITY, WHICH INCLUDES FORGETFULNESS, UNCONSCIOUSNESS, AND OTHER UNDESIRABLE STATES.

19. 	BRINGING THE STATIC TO VIEW AS-IS ANY CONDITION DEVALUATES THAT CONDITION.

20. 	BRINGING THE STATIC TO CREATE A PERFECT DUPLICATE CAUSES THE VANISHMENT OF ANY EXISTENCE OR PART THEREOF.

	A perfect duplicate is an additional creation of the object, its energy, and space, in its own space, in its own time using its own energy. This violates the condition that two objects must not occupy the same space, and causes vanishment of the object.

21. 	UNDERSTANDING IS COMPOSED OF AFFINITY, REALITY, AND COMMUNICATION.

22. 	THE PRACTICE OF NOT-IS-NESS REDUCES UNDERSTANDING.

23. 	THE STATIC HAS THE CAPABILITY OF TOTAL KNOWINGNESS. TOTAL KNOWINGNESS WOULD CONSIST OF TOTAL ARC.

24. 	TOTAL ARC WOULD BRING ABOUT THE VANISHMENT OF ALL MECHANICAL CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE.

25. 	AFFINITY IS A SCALE OF ATTITUDE WHICH FALLS AWAY FROM THE CO-EXISTENCE OF STATIC, THROUGH THE INTERPOSITIONS OF DISTANCE AND ENERGY, TO CREATE IDENTITY, DOWN TO CLOSE PROXIMITY BUT MYSTERY.

	By the practice of Is-ness (Beingness) and Not-is-ness (refusal to Be) individuation progresses from the Knowingness of complete identification down through the introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication, through Lookingness, Emotingness, Effortingness, Thinkingness, Symbolizingness, Eatingness, Sexingness, and so through to not-knowingness (Mystery). Until the point of mystery is reached) some communication is possible, but even at mystery an attempt to communicate continues. Here we have, in the case of an individual, a gradual falling-away from the belief that one can assume a complete Affinity down to the conviction that all is a complete Mystery. Any individual is somewhere on this Know-to-Mystery scale. The original Chart of Human Evaluation was the Emotion section of this scale.

26. 	REALITY IS THE AGREED-UPON APPARENCY OF EXISTENCE.

27. 	AN ACTUALITY CAN EXIST FOR ONE INDIVIDUALLY, BUT WHEN IT IS AGREED WITH BY OTHERS IT CAN THEN BE SAID TO BE A REALITY.

	The anatomy of Reality is contained in Is-ness, which is composed of As-is-ness and Alter-is-ness.  Is-ness is an apparency, it is not an Actuality. The Actuality is As-is-ness altered so as to obtain a persistency. Unreality is the consequence and apparency of the practice of Not-is-ness.

28. 	COMMUNICATION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF IMPELLING AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM SOURCE-POINT ACROSS A DISTANCE TO RECEIPT-POINT, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO BEING AT THE RECEIPT-POINT A DUPLICATION OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE SOURCE-POINT.

	The formula of Communication is: Cause, Distance, Effect, with Attention and Duplication.

	The component parts of Communication are Consideration, Intention, Attention, Cause, Source-point, Distance, Effect, Receipt-point, Duplication, the Velocity of the impulse or particle, Nothingness or Somethingness. A non-Communication consists of Barriers. Barriers consist of Space, Interpositions (such as walls and screens of fast-moving particles), and Time. A communication, by definition does not need to be two-way. When a communication is returned, the formula is repeated, with the receipt-point now becoming a source-point and the former source-point now becoming a receipt-point.

29. 	IN ORDER TO CAUSE AN AS-IS-NESS TO PERSIST, ONE MUST ASSIGN OTHER AUTHORSHIP TO THE CREATION THAN HIS OWN. OTHERWISE, HIS VIEW OF IT WOULD CAUSE ITS VANISHMENT.

	Any space, energy, form, object, individual, or physical universe condition can exist only when an alteration has occurred of the original As-is-ness so as to prevent a casual view from vanishing it. In other words, anything which is persisting must contain a ‘lie’ so that the original consideration is not completely duplicated.
30. 	THE GENERAL RULE OF AUDITING IS THAT ANYTHING WHICH IS UNWANTED AND YET PERSISTS MUST BE THOROUGHLY VIEWED, AT WHICH TIME IT WILL VANISH.

	If only partially viewed, its intensity, at least, will decrease.

31. 	GOODNESS AND BADNESS, BEAUTIFULNESS AND UGLINESS, ARE ALIKE CONSIDERATIONS AND HAVE NO OTHER BASIS THAN OPINION.

32. 	ANYTHING WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY OBSERVED TENDS TO PERSIST.

33. 	ANY AS-IS-NESS WHICH IS ALTERED BY NOT-IS-NESS (BY FORCE) TENDS TO PERSIST. 

34. 	ANY IS-NESS, WHEN ALTERED BY FORCE, TENDS TO PERSIST.

35. 	THE ULTIMATE TRUTH IS A STATIC.

	A Static has no mass, meaning, mobility, no wavelength, no time, no location in space, no space. This has the technical name of ‘Basic Truth’.

36. 	A LIE IS A SECOND POSTULATE, STATEMENT OR CONDITION DESIGNED TO MASK A PRIMARY POSTULATE WHICH IS PERMITTED TO REMAIN.

	Examples:
	Neither truth nor a lie is a motion or alteration of a particle from one position to another. A lie is a statement that a particle having moved did not move, or a statement that a particle, not having moved, did move. The basic lie is that a consideration which was made was not made or that it was different.

37. 	WHEN A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION IS ALTERED BUT STILL EXISTS, PERSISTENCE IS ACHIEVED FOR THE ALTERING CONSIDERATION.

	All persistence depends on the Basic Truth, but the persistence is of the altering consideration, for the Basic Truth has neither persistence nor impersistence.

38. 	1: STUPIDITY IS THE UNKNOWNESS OF CONSIDERATION.

	2: MECHANICAL DEFINITION: STUPIDITY IS THE UNKNOWNESS OF TIME, PLACE, FORM, AND EVENT.

	1: TRUTH IS THE EXACT CONSIDERATION.

	2: TRUTH IS THE EXACT TIME, PLACE, FORM, AND EVENT.

Thus we see that failure to discover Truth brings about stupidity.

Thus we see that the discovery of Truth would bring about an As-is-ness by actual experiment.

Thus we see that an ultimate truth would have no time, place, form or event.

Thus, then, we perceive that we can achieve a persistence only when we mask a truth.

Lying is an alteration of Time, Place, Event, or Form.

Lying becomes Alter-is-ness, becomes Stupidity.

(The blackness of cases is an accumulation of the case’s own or another’s lies.)

Anything which persists must avoid As-is-ness.  Thus, anything, to persist, must contain a lie.

39. 	LIFE POSES PROBLEMS FOR ITS OWN SOLUTION.

40. 	ANY PROBLEM, TO BE A PROBLEM, MUST CONTAIN A LIE. IF IT WERE TRUTH, IT WOULD UNMOCK.

	An unsolvable problem, would have the greatest persistence. It would also contain the greatest number of altered facts. To make a problem, one must introduce Alter-is-ness.

41. 	THAT INTO WHICH ALTER-IS-NESS IS INTRODUCED BECOMES A PROBLEM.

42. 	MEST (MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, TIME) PERSISTS BECAUSE IT IS A PROBLEM.

	It is a problem because it contains Alter-is-ness.

43. 	TIME IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF UNTRUTH.

	Time states the untruth of consecutive considerations.

44. 	THETA (THE STATIC) HAS NO LOCATION IN MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, OR TIME. IT IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATION.

45. 	THETA CAN CONSIDER ITSELF TO BE PLACED, AT WHICH MOMENT IT BECOMES PLACED, AND TO THAT DEGREE A PROBLEM.

46. 	THETA CAN BECOME A PROBLEM BY ITS CONSIDERATIONS, BUT THEN BECOMES MEST. A problem is to some degree MEST, MEST IS a problem.

47. 	THETA CAN RESOLVE PROBLEMS.

48. 	LIFE IS A GAME WHEREIN THETA AS THE STATIC SOLVES THE PROBLEMS OF THETA AS MEST.

49. 	TO SOLVE ANY PROBLEM IT IS ONLY NECESSARY TO BECOME THETA, THE SOLVER, RATHER THAN THETA, THE PROBLEM.

50. 	THETA AS MEST MUST CONTAIN CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE LIES.

	The above is a summary of states of being which can be used to create, cause to persist, or destroy.

HAVING AGREED TO THE MECHANICS AND RETAINING THE AGREEMENTS, THE THETAN CAN YET MAKE INNUMERABLE POSTULATES WHICH BY THEIR CONTRADICTION AND COMPLEXITY, CREATE, CAUSE TO PERSIST, AND DESTROY HUMAN BEHAVIOR.

INTENSIVE PROCEDURE: OUTLINE

FOR ALL CASES WHO HAVE ANY PSYCHO-SOMATIC ILLS, OR WHO ARE NEUROTIC OR PSYCHOTIC USE ONLY R2-16 ANYWHERE FROM TEN TO A HUNDRED HOURS, OR UNTIL THE PERSON IS NO LONGER ILL, NEUROTIC, OR PSYCHOTIC.

In the use of this procedure, only two types of case are considered, and the procedure is adapted to these two types. The sole criteria of the case is whether or not it can be exteriorized. This is promptly established by the use of ARC Straight-wire. When there is no noticeable communication lag, then Route 1 is employed in this procedure. When there is any noticeable communication lag, Route 2 is employed.

All sessions begin with the first three identical steps. Then, if he has established that there is no noticeable communication lag with ARC Straightwire (the third step), the auditor proceeds on Route 1. However, if a noticeable communication lag exists when using ARC Straightwire, the auditor -- having flattened this lag for the moment -- proceeds on Route 2.  The amount of occlusion on the case is not the test.

1. 	Get into two-way communication with the preclear.
2. 	Discuss the present time problem, if any.
3. 	Get the preclear into session with ARC Straightwire.

ROUTE 1

R1-4:	BE THREE FEET BACK OF YOUR HEAD

R1-5:	WHATEVER THE PRECLEAR HAPPENS TO BE LOOKING AT (DO NOT DIRECT HIS ATTENTION TO ANYTHING) HAVE HIM COPY IT ONE AT A TIME, MANY, MANY TIMES. THEN HAVE, HIM LOCATE A NOTHINGNESS AND COPY IT MANY, MANY TIMES

R1-6:	HAVE PRECLEAR HOLD THE TWO UPPER BACK ANCHOR POINTS OF THE ROOM FOR AT LEAST TWO MINUTES BY THE CLOCK

R1-7:	HAVE PRECLEAR LET GO AND FIND MANY PLACES WHERE HE IS NOT. (REPEAT THE COPYING:	BACK ANCHOR POINTS AND WHERE HE IS NOT, ONE AFTER THE OTHER, MANY TIMES)

R1-8:	HAVE PRECLEAR DISCOVER MANY THINGS, ONE AFTER ANOTHER, WHICH HE CONSIDERS SAFE TO LOOK AT

R1-9:	GRAND TOUR

R1-10:	HAVE PRECLEAR DISCOVER THINGS HE WOULDN’T MIND OCCUPYING THE SAME SPACE WITH HIM

R1-11:	HAVE PRECLEAR BE PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS IN HAVINGNESS

R1-12:	HAVE PRECLEAR MOCK UP GENERATORS, POWER PLANTS AND SUNS TO GIVE HIM ENERGY, ON THAT GRADIENT SCALE, UNTIL HE IS TOTALLY CONVINCED THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE TO RECEIVE ENERGY FROM AN OUTSIDE SOURCE. (A COMPLETE REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS)

R1-13:	HAVE PRECLEAR ADJUST GENETIC ENTITY ANCHOR POINTS

R1-14:	HAVE PRECLEAR CREATE AND DESTROY VARIOUS KINDS OF THETAN MACHINES

R1-15:	REPAIR PRECLEAR’S ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE BY HAVING HIM COPY MANY SCENES IN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE

NOW HAVE PRECLEAR RUN EACH AND EVERY ROUTE 2 STEP UNTIL THE AUDITOR IS CONVINCED THAT HE CAN DO THESE EASILY AND ABLY.

ROUTE 2

If the preclear had any appreciable communication lag as established in the third step above, all ROUTE 1 steps are omitted, and the case is entered into ROUTE 2, the first step of which is ROUTE 2-16.

R2-16:	RUN PRECLEAR THROUGH OPENING PROCEDURE OF 8-C PARTS (A), (B), (C), EACH ONE UNTIL THE PHYSICAL COMMUNICATION LAG STABILIZES. THE AUDITOR SHOULD MAKE SURE AT FIRST WHILE RUNNING STEP (A) THAT THE SPOTS HE DESIGNATES ARE HIGHLY GENERALIZED AND ARE NOT SMALL AREAS UNTIL, THE PRECLEAR CAN BE DIRECTED TO SMALL AND PRECISE SPOTS

R2-17:	OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION UNTIL PRECLEAR FEELS GOOD ABOUT IT

R2-18:	HAVE PRECLEAR SPOT SPOTS IN SPACE UNTIL HE CAN DO IT EASILY, MEANWHILE REMEDYING HIS HAVINGNESS

R2-19:	HAVE PRECLEAR SPOT SPOTS IN ROOM AND MOVE BODY INTO THEM AND MOVE BODY OUT INTO NEW SPOTS

R2-20:	USE OF PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

R2-21:	GRANTING OF BEINGNESS

R2-22:	SPANNING ATTENTION

R2-23:	ATTENTION BY DUPLICATION

R2-24:	EXTERIORIZATION BY DISTANCE, EXTROVERTED AND INTROVERTED ALTERNATELY 

R2-25:	VIEWPOINT AND VIEWPOINT ARC STRAIGHTWIRE

R2-26:	REMEDY OF LAUGHTER

R2-27:	RESOLVE DANGEROUSNESS OF ENVIRONMENT

R2-28:	NOTHING-SOMETHING

R2-29:	TIME TOLERANCE

R2-30:	POSITION BY SECURITY (SOP 8-D)

R2-31:	BEINGNESS PROCESSING

R2-32:	ASSIGNMENT OF ATTRIBUTES

R2-33:	PERFECT DUPLICATION

R2-34:	DESCRIPTION PROCESSING

R2-35:	LOCATION PROCESSES

R2-36:	SELF DETERMINISM

R2-37:	YELLING

R2-38:	HOLDING ANCHOR POINTS

R2-39:	CONCEIVING SOMETHING INTERESTING 

R2-40:	CONCEIVING A STATIC

R2-41:	VIA

R2-42:	PAN-DETERMINISM

R2-43:	FIGHTING

R2-44:	MUST AND MUST NOT HAPPEN

R2-45:	

R2-46:	OTHER PEOPLE

R2-47:	BODY DIFFERENTIATION

R2-48:	SEPARATENESS

R2-49:	DEI SCALE

R2-50:	CHANGING MINDS

R2-51:	RISING SCALE PROCESSING

R2-52:	UNKNOWNS

R2-53:	REPAIR

R2-54:	FLOWS

R2-55:	IMPORTANCE

R2-56:	GAMES PROCESSING

R2-57:	PROCESSES

R2-58:	LOSS

R2-59:	SURVIVAL

R2-60:	THE HIDDEN COMMUNICATION

R2-61:	GOOD AND EVIL

R2-62:	OVERT ACTS AND MOTIVATORS 

R2-63:	ACCEPT - REJECT

R2-64:	TOUCHING

R2-65:	ALTERATION

R2-66:	ELECTING CAUSE

R2-67:	OBJECTS

R2-68:	INCOMPREHENSIBILITY

R2-69:	PLEASE PASS THE OBJECT

R2-70:	EXPECTANCE LEVEL

R2-71:	ANSWERS

R2-72:	SECURITY PROCESSING

R2-73:	MAKING SOMETHING FOR THE FUTURE 

R2-74:	PROCESSING

R2-75:	KNOWINGNESS

NOW TAKE A ROUTE 2 PRECLEAR THROUGH ROUTE 1 

Follow the Auditor’s Code.

‘The procedure which turns on a condition will turn it off.’ Run a procedure as long as it produces communication changes (perception, changes in altering communication lag).

There has been found by long practice that the only things which spin a preclear are: (1) too many auditors; (2) not enough food, and (3) processing between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.

When in doubt, remedy havingness.

When choosing between two procedures, use the simpler one.

CHART OF PROCESSES
WHERE THEY ARE ON THE ARC TONE SCALE 

Exteriorized
Spotting Spots in Space	4.0
		3.6
Remedy of Havingness	3.5
		3.1
O.P. by Duplication		3.0
		2.6
Opening Procedure 8-C	1.8
		2.5
Elementary Straightwire	1.8
		1.1
Two-way Communication	1.0
		-8.0

AUDITING COMMANDS FOR INTENSIVE PROCEDURE

I. GET INTO TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRECLEAR

Communication is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source point across a distance to receipt point with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt point a duplication of that which emanated from the source point. The formula of communication is CAUSE DISTANCE - EFFECT with attention and duplication. The component parts of communication are consideration, intention, attention, cause, source point, distance, effect, receipt point, duplication, the velocity of the impulse or particle, nothingness or somethingness.  A non-communication consists of barriers. Barriers consist of space, interpositions (such as walls and screens of fast moving particles) and time. A communication, by definition, does not need to be two-way.  When a communication is returned, the formula is repeated with the receipt point now becoming a source point and the former source point now becoming a receipt point. One can be comfortable in communicating only when one is willing to be cause and is willing to be an effect. As the distance factor in communication lessens, or as mass increases in the particle, one views the condensing manifestation of the Know to Sex Scale and a deterioration of the reality factor of the ARC triangle. To improve communication one must lessen mass, increase velocity, and increase the distance factor, improve the quality of duplication, remedy attention, and bring about a willingness on the part of cause to be an effect and on the part of effect to be cause. To reach toward a theoretical perfection in communication, one should be willing to tolerate in any form any of the component parts of communication itself with the understanding that these include affinity and reality. Any sensory perceptic can be utilized in communication in establishing two-way communication.

Communication lag is the interval of time intervening between a posed question and the actual and precise answer to that question. Communication lag is a manifestation of two-way communication.  Whether the interval is filled with speech or silence, the definition of communication lag still holds true. An auditor must go by the rule that all questions posed must receive answers, and therefore must be careful that he poses questions which can be answered by a person in the condition of the preclear.

This is the most important step of any auditing session, and its achievement by any perception with affinity and reality is a specific goal of the auditor. If a preclear for any reason drags under processing it is because the auditor was not sure that the preclear was in communication with anything and was not in Communication, actually, with the things to which the auditor directed his attention.

II. DISCUSS THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM, IF ANY

Discussion of the present time problem is necessary each session so as to discover whether or not the preclear has had a disturbance between sessions which has so fixed his attention that he is unable to give his complete presence to auditing.

III. GET THE PRECLEAR INTO SESSION WITH ARC STRAIGHTWIRE

ARC Straightwire is used to determine the communication lag of the preclear. The steps of ARC Straightwire are ‘Can you remember a time which seems real to you?’ ‘Can you remember a time when you were in communication with someone?’ ‘Can you remember a time when someone was in communication with you?’ ‘Can you remember a time when someone agreed with you?’ ‘Can you remember a time when you agreed with someone?’ ‘Can you remember a time when someone liked you?’ ‘Can you remember a time when you liked someone?’

In actual practice, to establish the communication lag it is only necessary to use the first question: ‘Can you remember a time which seems real to you?’ to establish the lag, and then use this question enough more times to bring the communication lag to a constancy before proceeding on with further steps.

ROUTE 1

R1-4: BE THREE FEET BACK OF YOUR HEAD

The command ‘Be three feet back of your head’ should be given casually, and if immediately obeyed the auditor with no further discussion should then go on to R1-5. If there is any argument after this command is given, or if the preclear cannot quite understand what is occurring and does not do so, then it is indicated that the auditor switch routes and without further argument on the subject of exteriorization continue the session with R2-16.

NOTE: A thetan located in a space is less than theta itself, but a thetan located is greater than homo sapiens.

R1-5: WHATEVER THE PRECLEAR HAPPENS TO BE LOOKING AT (DO NOT DIRECT HIS ATTENTION TO ANYTHING) HAVE HIM COPY IT ONE AT A TIME, MANY MANY TIMES. THEN HAVE HIM LOCATE A NOTHINGNESS AND COPY IT MANY MANY TIMES

Without directing the preclear’s attention to anything, ask him what he is looking at and then have him mock up a copy of whatever he sees, whether it is the room) a picture, or blackness. Have him then make another copy of what he saw) and another one, and another one, and another one, and another one. These copies are all the same as the original sight which he perceived when asked what he was looking at. Acquaint the preclear with the word ‘copy’ by first asking him to ‘make another one just like it’ and then for this phrase substitute the word ‘copy’.  When the preclear has made some two dozen copies, have him do something, anything, with these copies so as to dispose of them. They can be used to supplement havingness, in which case he would be asked to push them all together and pull them in upon himself.  In any event, do not leave him with these copies.  When the copies are disposed of, have the preclear locate a nothingness by saying, ‘Can you find a nothingness somewhere around you?’ And then have him copy it by saying, ‘Now make another one just like it.’ ‘Make another one just like it.’ ‘Now copy that first nothingness again’, and so forth until he has copied this a couple of dozen times. Then have him dispose of these nothingnesses.

R1-6: HAVE PRECLEAR HOLD THE TWO UPPER BACK ANCHOR POINTS OF THE ROOM FOR AT LEAST TWO MINUTES BY THE CLOCK

‘Locate the two upper back corners of the room (those behind the preclear’s body) hold on to them and don’t think.’ Do this for at least two minutes. The preclear could be alternately asked to find two nothingnesses and hold on to them for two minutes without thinking. The length of time is not mentioned to the preclear. When this has been done, do not neglect to tell the preclear to let go. Do not run the next step with him still holding on to the two back corners of the room.

R1-7: HAVE PRECLEAR LET GO AND FIND MANY PLACES WHERE HE IS NOT. (REPEAT THE COPYING:  BACK ANCHOR POINTS AND WHERE HE IS NOT, ONE AFTER THE OTHER MANY TIMES.)

‘Now find a place where you are not.’ Repeat this command many times until any communication lag developed by the question has been rendered constant.

R1-8: HAVE PRECLEAR DISCOVER MANY THINGS ONE AFTER ANOTHER, WHICH HE CONSIDERS SAFE TO LOOK AT.

This step is the basic theory behind Viewpoint Straightwire. Its intention is to render the preclear comfortable while looking at anything. The keynote here is to use the goal of Viewpoint Straightwire directly. One is interested in having him look at actual things in the MEST universe from Look down to Sex on the Know to Sex Scale. One should include, in particular, turbulent masses and mysteries. The most important part of this process, and the one which should be stressed while others are neglected, is to get the preclear to actually look at actual things, then to have him look at actual emotions, and finally to make very certain that he can be very comfortable in looking at all manner of efforts. To do this one sends the preclear as a thetan out into the world and has him actually find things which it is comfortable for him to look at in the bands of plain lookingness, then emotion, then effort. One starts with the command, ‘What would it be all right for you to look at here in this room?’ This is done with the body’s eyes closed. The preclear is made to give as many things in the room which it would be all right for him to look at as is necessary to bring to constant any communication lag involved. Run the command, ‘Now find something it is safe to look at outside this room.’ When it is ascertained that, in this exercise of discovering things which are all right for him to look at, the preclear is wandering rather far afield with some confidence the auditor should tell him, ‘Now go and find some emotional states which it would be all right for you to look at.’ The preclear actually goes around to various parts of the world and sees people and animals in various states of emotion until he discovers he can be completely comfortable in viewing all the emotions on the tone scale in action -- apathy, grief, fear, resentment, anger, antagonism, boredom, enthusiasm, and serenity. When this has been accomplished, have the preclear find some efforts being engaged in by something, anywhere, which it would be comfortable for the preclear to view. It may take some little time to discover something in the line of effort which he can really comfortably perceive.  He finds various efforts which he can view and the process should be continued until he can look very comfortably upon wild and turbulent motion. The keynote of this process is to get the preclear completely certain that he can view anything in the universe with aplomb, particularly emotion and effort.            

The process can be continued, if with less benefit, with the remainder of the Know to Sex Scale plus Mystery -- Know, Look, Emote, Effort, Think, Symbols, Eat, Sex, Mystery. If in doubt, the auditor should run the entire band from Know to Sex including Mystery. It should be clearly understood hy the auditor that the preclear does not simply think about these things or mock them up and view them.  The auditor wants the preclear, exteriorized, to go around various places in the actual physical universe and look at things and so build his tolerance on the physical universe. It is important that it may be necessary to remedy the preclear’s havingness at intervals while this step is in progress.

R1-9: GRAND TOUR

The commands of the Grand Tour are as follows: ‘Be near Earth’, ‘Be near the Moon’, ‘Be near the Sun’, ‘Be near the Earth’, ‘Be near the Moon’, ‘Be near the Sun’, ‘Earth’, ‘Moon’, ‘Sun’, giving the last three commands many times. Each time the auditor must wait until the preclear signifies that he has completed the command. The preclear is supposed to move near these bodies or simply be near them, it does not matter which. The Grand Tour continues with ‘Now find a rock’, ‘Be inside of it’, ‘Be outside of it’, ‘Inside’, ‘Outside’, ‘Inside’, ‘Outside’, ‘Be in the center of the Earth’, ‘Be outside of Earth’, ‘Inside’, ‘Outside’, and back and forth until the preclear is able to do this very rapidly. Then the Grand Tour continues, ‘Be near Mars’, ‘Be at the center of Mars’, ‘Outside of Mars’, ‘Center’, ‘Outside’, ‘Now more down slowly toward the surface’. The preclear will probably question this, for he has run into a force screen, or thinks he has. ‘All right then, be on the surface of Mars’, ‘Be above Mars’, ‘Be on the surface’, ‘Be above Mars’, ‘Move down to the surface of Mars’. He is shifted into various positions in the vicinity of Mars until he is entirely used to that planet. When the preclear is entirely comfortable in the solar system by reason of running the Grand Tour, do Change of Space with him, first on all the locations where he has received auditing, therapy or treatment of any kind here on Earth. Next do all the key locations mentioned in ‘What to Audit’ (History of Man) such as the entrance point of the MEST universe, the place where he made his first facsimile, etc. This is run in this fashion: ‘Be at the place where you entered the MEST universe’, ‘Be at the center of this room’, ‘Center of this room’, ‘Entrance point’, ‘Room’ and so forth until the entrance point is in present time. The preclear should be made to run change of space on any area until that area is in present time. Originally it could be conceived that only the place where the preclear is is in present time, that all other places are in past time to the degree that they are far from the preclear. The object is to get all areas into present time. Caution: Change of Space is never run with the command, ‘Be here’, ‘Be there’. For when the preclear is ‘there’ it has become ‘here’ to him. Thus the actual designation in brief should be given each time.

IMPORTANT: WHILE RUNNING CHANGE OF SPACE OR ANY PART OF THE GRAND TOUR IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO REMEDY THE HAVINGNESS OF THE PRECLEAR. THIS IS DONE WITH THE COMMAND:

‘Put up eight anchor points as though they were the corners of a cube around you’, ‘Now pull them in on you.’ ‘Put up eight more.’ ‘Pull them in on you.’ Any dopiness or increasing sadness on the part of the preclear or a feeling of degradation comes about from lack of havingness. In the Grand Tour it is more important for the preclear to locate and occupy exact locations in space and in objects than it is for him to examine the surrounding area.

R1-10: HAVE PRECLEAR DISCOVER THINGS HE WOULDN’T MIND OCCUPYING THE SAME SPACE WITH HIM

Agreement with the physical universe brings about the consideration on the part of the preclear that two things cannot occupy the same space. It is this basic rule which keeps the physical universe ‘stretched’. It is not, however, true that two things cannot occupy the same space, and it is particularly untrue when the two things are an object and a thetan, since a thetan can occupy the space any object is occupying. The process is run with the question. ‘Now tell me something you wouldn’t mind having occupy the same space you are in’ or ‘Give me something you wouldn’t mind having occupy your space’. The auditor must ascertain in any answer the preclear gives whether or not the preclear is absolutely certain he wouldn’t object to this mutual occupation of the same space. The preclear is made to get item after item until he recognizes a high reality on it and then is made to occupy the same space as many things (this is comparable to the STEP 1 processes of earlier SOP’s where the preclear was made to be in many things). When it has been clearly established that the preclear, with absolute certainty, is perfectly able to tolerate anything occupying his same space, the auditor goes on to the next step.

R1-11: HAVE PRECLEAR BE PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS IN HAVINGNESS

Ask the preclear. ‘What kind of a problem can you be in havingness?’ ‘What kind of a problem can you be in not havingness?’ many times until he has isolated many problems for many people. ‘What kind of a problem can others be to you in havingness?’ ‘What kind of a problem can others be to you in not havingness?’ After this has been well worked over, advance into solutions with: ‘What kind of a solution can you be to havingness?’ ‘What kind of a solution can you be to not havingness?’ and so forth. It may be necessary to explain what is meant by havingness, but it has been my experience this has not been so.

R1-12: HAVE PRECLEAR MOCK-UP GENERATORS, POWER PLANTS AND SUNS TO GIVE HIM ENERGY, ON THAT GRADIENT SCALE, UNTIL HE IS TOTALLY CONVINCED THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE TO RECEIVE ENERGY FROM AN OUTSIDE SOURCE. (A COMPLETE REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS)

Having run R1-10 and R1-11, the preclear should be able to get good mock-ups. The main object of this step, however it is done, is to get the preclear to recognize that he himself creates the energy which he uses. One of the methods of doing this is having him mock-up generators of various sizes on a gradient scale, then larger generators, then power plants, lightning bolts, and finally suns to give him energy. At this step a complete remedy of havingness should be accomplished.  If it is not adequately accomplished with this step, the auditor should return to R1-10, do that and R1-11, and then repeat R1-12.

R1-13: HAVE PRECLEAR ADJUST GENETIC ENTITY ANCHOR POINTS

Early in processing never direct the preclear’s attention to his body. If he happens to be looking at his body, this is all right. But do not tell him to look at his body. To begin R1-13, have preclear duplicate his body many, many times and push the mock-up into it. Have him pretend that, by mock-ups, he is exteriorizing from various other kinds of bodies.  Have him interiorize and exteriorize many times from his present body. Then have him mock-up the electronic structure of his body until he can see it easily. Now ask him ‘Do you see any gold balls in your head?’ If he does not, have him mock-up gold balls until his head’s golden balls appear. Now have him move any golden balls he finds which are out of position in his head until they are in the proper position. When an anchor point (golden ball) will not move back into position, have the preclear mock-up many anchor points in that area -- which is to say, remedy the body’s havingness in that area. Then, and only then, will it be found that the anchor point of the body itself will go back into that position. Caution: Never let the preclear mock-up an anchor point of his own and put it into position in the body the GE can tolerate only its own anchor points. Ask the preclear, ‘Can you find any more of these golden balls which are out of position?’ and have him move them back into position or assemble them or remedy them until all the anchor points of the body are in excellent condition and in the proper position.

R1-14: HAVE PRECLEAR CREATE AND DESTROY VARIOUS KINDS OF THETAN MACHINES

A thetan is always equipped with various kinds of machinery. Remedying of havingness should make it very easy for him to dispense with or create new machinery. He has machines which send him places, machines which hide things, and machines which ‘zap’ him. There are two types of machines those that mock things up, and those which unmock things. But there can be a great variety of considerations in this machinery. Machines are actually machines. He makes them up of tubes and other electronic equipment. Sometimes they look like huge teletypewriters. Simply duplicating a machine many times will at last reduce it to nothingness. A thetan whose havingness has been remedied has relatively little difficulty with machinery as he is not keeping it around to supply him with energy. He has set up machinery which will ‘zap’ him when he gets into certain positions. This, in life as a homo sapien, is manifested by fear of self-invalidation. It comes from the machine since invalidation, on the upper echelon, is by force.  Have him make machinery which actually works. Make the machinery work, and destroy the machinery, until he is totally confident of his ability to make and destroy any and all types of machines. It is important that the machinery he mocks up actually works. The process of making a machine is to make a postulate, fit it into a machine, hide the machine, and forget it. The machine is keyed against something the thetan may think. When the thetan thinks something, the machine goes into action. Be very wary of destroying all of a thetan’s machinery. Be also very wary of leaving a thetan with no mass as he feels very unhappy about being only a thought.

R1-15: REPAIR PRECLEAR’S ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE BY HAVING HIM COPY MANY SCENES IN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE

This step is actually the same step as R1-5, but it is run on a wider basis. The thetan is sent around to various parts of the world and the universe and asked to copy things. He copies each one many times until he is satisfied that his copy is exact in all respects with the original in the physical universe. When the thetan has accomplished this he will be able to make things with adequate density and mass.

NOW HAVE PRECLEAR RUN EACH AND EVERY ROUTE 2 STEP UNTIL THE AUDITOR IS CONVINCED THAT HE CAN DO THESE EASILY AND ABLY

ROUTE 2

If the preclear had any appreciable communication lag as established in the III step (ARC Straightwire) above, all Rl steps are omitted, and the case is entered into ROUTE 2, the first step of which is R2-16.

R2-16: RUN PRECLEAR THROUGH OPENING PROCEDURE OF 8-C PARTS (A), (B), (C), EACH ONE UNTIL THE PHYSICAL COMMUNICATION LAG STABILIZES. THE AUDITOR SHOULD MAKE SURE AT FIRST WHILE RUNNING STEP (A) THAT THE SPOTS HE DESIGNATES ARE HIGHLY GENERALIZED AND ARE NOT SMALL AREAS UNTIL THE PRECLEAR CAN BE DIRECTED TO SMALL AND PRECISE SPOTS

The entire modus operandi of Opening Procedure of 8-C consists in having the preclear move his body around the room under the auditor’s direction until (A) he finds he is in actual communication with many spots on the surface of things in the room, (B) until he can select spots in the room and know that he is selecting them and can communicate with them, and (C) select spots and move to them, decide when to touch them and when to let go. Each one of these steps is done until the auditor is well assured that the preclear has no communication lag.

The auditing commands are as follows: ‘Do you see that chair?’ ‘Go over to it and put your hand on it’, ‘Now look at that lamp’, ‘Now walk over to it an put your hand on it. This is done with various objects without specifically designating spots of a more precise nature than an object until the preclear is very certain that he is in good communication with these objects and the walls and other parts of the room. The auditor can say anything he pleases, or seemingly introduce any significance he wishes to so long as he hews very closely to the actual thing in this method which makes it work -- which is to say, perceiving the physical universe and making contact with it. Part (A) has been enlarged by the auditor’s selecting exact spots. ‘Do you see that black mark on the left arm of that chair?’ ‘All right, go over to it and put your finger on it’, ‘Now take your finger off it’, ‘Do you see the lower bolt on that light switch?’ ‘All right, go over to it and put your finger on it’, ‘Take your finger off it’. And so forth until the preclear has a UNIFORM PERCEPTION of any and all objects in the room including the walls, the floor and the ceiling. This step can be kept up for a long time. It has an infinity of variations. But it is not the variations which work, it is the making and breaking of communication with the actual designated spots.

IF AT ANY TIME THERE IS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE PRECLEAR’S CASE DO THIS STEP, PART (A), UNTIL SATISFIED THAT COMMUNICATION IS GOOD. A CASE WHICH WILL NOT OBEY OPENING PROCEDURE 8-C (A) ORDERS WILL ALWAYS PERVERT OR ALTER COMMANDS TO BE PERFORMED WITH LESS SUPERVISION THAN PERCEPTION OF HIS BODY.

Part (B) has these auditing commands, ‘Find a spot in this room’. No further designation is necessary for this spot. Spotting procedure gives the preclear determinism of selection. When the preclear has done so the auditor says, ‘Go over to it and put your finger on it’. When the preclear has done this the auditor says, ‘Now let go of it’. It must be emphasized that the preclear is not to act upon a command until the command is given and must not let go until told to let go. The preclear is permitted to select spots until such time as all communication lag is flat and until he is freely selecting spots on the walls, objects, chairs, etc. with no specialization whatsoever -which means that his perception of the room has become uniform. Many things turn up in running this procedure such as the fact that the preclear cannot look at walls, etc.

Part (C) of this procedure is run with these auditing commands, ‘Find a spot in the room’, ‘Make up your mind when you are going to touch it and then touch it’, ‘Make up your mind when you are going to let go of it, and let go’. A variation of this process is to have the preclear make up his mind about a spot and then have him change his mind and select another spot.

The trouble with most cases, and the trouble with any case which is hung up and is not progressing, is that an insufficient quantity of Opening Procedure 8-C has been used by the auditor. This has been found to be an invariable rule. Preclears will pretend to run commands of a subjective nature but not run them at all. In other words, the auditor is saying do one thing and the preclear is doing quite another.  Thus the process is not actually being used on the preclear. The difficulty in this case is a specific difficulty in communication where the preclear cannot duplicate. But more important than that, any preclear whose case is hanging up is out of touch with reality and the environment to such an extent that he has begun to do processes on mock-ups rather than on the actual physical universe. It will be discovered that doing processes on mock-ups such as finding spots in them, finding distances to them, and so forth is productive of no gain, and even negative gain. Only processes which directly address the physical universe are found to raise the tone of the preclear. He has to come up to full tolerance of it before he can get out of it. Thus any case bogging down somewhere in more intricate procedures can be relieved and brought into present time by 8-C.  The only caution on the part of the auditor is that he must be very precise about giving his orders and must insist on the preclear being very certain that he is actually seeing spots and touching them and inhibiting the preclear from executing the commands before they are given.

R2-17: OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION UNTIL PRECLEAR FEELS GOOD ABOUT IT

Opening Procedure by Duplication is begun only after the preclear has some reality on his environment. Until the preclear’s reality on his environment is good, Opening Procedure by Duplication should not be done, for the preclear only turns on an unreality circuit and goes through it mechanically.  The first part of Opening Procedure by Duplication is to get the preclear to examine, communicate with and own (somewhat on the order of Opening Procedure of 8-C) two dissimilar objects.  These objects are then placed several feet apart and at a level so that the preclear can pick them up without bending over, but so that he has to walk between them. Once the auditor is entirely satisfied that the preclear has reality on these objects and can own them he then begins Opening Procedure by Duplication with the following commands, supposing that one of the objects was a book and the other was an ash tray, ‘Go over to the book’, ‘Look at it’, ‘Pick it up’, ‘What is its color?’ At this point the preclear must give an answer. ‘What is its temperature?’, here the preclear must answer again. ‘Put it down in exactly the same place.’ When the preclear has executed, ‘Go over to the ash tray’, ‘Look at it’, ‘Pick it up’, ‘What is its color?’ the preclear says his answer. ‘What is its temperature?’, the preclear says his answer. ‘Put it down exactly in the same place.’ When the preclear has executed, ‘Go over to the book’ and the same words and the same formula are used over and over again until the preclear has had a sufficient number of hours of Opening Procedure by Duplication to enable him to do it without communication lag, without protest, without apathy, but only cheerfulness, each time seeing the items newly. This is a process which is done by the hour. The process is better when done consecutively for so many hours rather than done an hour apiece each day for several days. This procedure is the first step of Procedure 30.

R2-18: HAVE PRECLEAR SPOT SPOTS IN SPACE UNTIL HE CAN DO IT EASILY, MEANWHILE REMEDYING HIS HAVINGNESS

As briefly as spotting spots in space and remedying havingness can be stated, this is one of the key processes of Scientology and has an infinity of variations.  It is actually two processes stemming from one.  While the preclear is still interiorized, spotting spots and remedying havingness is done by the preclear remaining where he is and simply indicating by pointing where the spot is which he is designating.  When it is done with the preclear exteriorized, it becomes Change of Space. This process has an infinity of uses and is one of the best processes in rendering an assist. Here in Intensive Procedure we use it in its simplest form. The auditor says, ‘Spot a spot in the space of this room’. The preclear does so. The auditor ascertains whether or not the spot has color, mass, or if it is simply a location in space. A spot should be simply a location in space, it should not have color or mass. The preclear is asked to located several such spots in the room. It is important that he walk over to them and that he put his finger on them. After he has done this for a very short time it will be discovered that his havingness has decrease markedly. The auditor has him mock up something which is acceptable to him and has him pull it in on his body until any queasiness or physical upset is remedied. As soon as this is accomplished, the auditor has him spot more spots in the space of the room.

R2-19: HAVE PRECLEAR SPOT SPOTS IN ROOM AND MOVE BODY INTO THEM AND MOVE BODY OUT INTO NEW SPOTS

Only when the preclear can do R2-18 comfortably and actually locate locations independent of the objects in the room itself does the auditor go on to the next phase of this process which is, ‘Locate a spot in the room which you can then move into your body’. When the preclear has done so the auditor says, ‘Move your body over the spot’. When the preclear has done this, ‘Move your body off that spot’. It will he discovered that the preclear may find that the spot moves along with his body. One simply wants the location in space, and this, of course, does not move. Only the body moves. This is done many times until the preclear is adept at moving his body over these spots and moving his body off of them.  It is understood, of course, that the location simply moves on into the body as the body is moved over it and that the location moves out of the body as the body is moved away from it. In other words, the location is stable, the body is moving. This is done until the preclear is absolutely sure that it is he who is moving his body over such spots. It may be necessary to remedy havingness while this step is being done. The third part of this step is done as follows, ‘Spot a spot in the space of this room’, ‘Now move your body around it’, ‘Fix your body in that position’, ‘Now change your mind about staying there’. (And without the preclear moving off the spot, ‘Pick out a new spot’, ‘Now move your body around the new spot’. This process has many variations. One can have a preclear move a chronic somatic around such spots, fix it there and unfix it. One can have a preclear find a spot and then appear there and then disappear there, find a new spot and appear there and disappear there. The main thing is to have the preclear spot spots and move his body around them and then move his body off the spot.

R2-20: USE OF PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

The use of Problems and Solutions is the second step for Procedure 30 and includes the steps already given in R1-11. [These steps come after the steps as given below.] The auditor asks the preclear, ‘What kind of a problem could you be to your mother?’ And when the preclear has found one, ‘All right, can you be that problem?’ And when the preclear has become it, ‘Can you see your mother figuring about it?’ And whether the preclear can or not, ‘Give me another problem you could be to your mother’, ‘Can you be that problem?’ etc., until the communication lag is flattened. Then one asks the same question about father and about other people in the preclear’s life, asking the preclear each time for the problem then asking him to be the problem and then asking if it makes other people worry and think about it.  Finally one asks, ‘Now what kind of a problem can you be to ... (preclear’s name)?’ And when this has finally been flattened to a communication lag constant, one can assume that he has more or less handled this situation for the moment and he uses exactly the same process on solutions. The same wording as above is used with the exception that ‘solution’ is substituted for ‘problem’. When the preclear cannot be a problem, the auditor should find some things that the preclear can be with great certainty, have the preclear be those things, then have the preclear be a problem. When processing an auditor, have him be an auditor and a preclear alternately, physically assuming the proper position for each until all auditing has been run out and the preclear is no longer waiting to find out what is going to happen. The auditor should keep in mind the fact that a preclear can be a ‘no-solution’ also that the preclear can be a ‘no-problem’ also that the preclear can be a solution that needs problems. Many various and strange manifestations take place, but this process very severely uses only the above commands.  The process can be continued, and should be, into the commands of R1-11 which take up problems in havingness.

It may occur if the preclear is a mystic or is interested in the occult, that he offers a peculiar problem in problems. Such a preclear may be looking for the solution to all problems, assuming that only one solution is possible for all problems. If he were to discover this solution, he would, of course, find himself completely out of problems. Thus his havingness in terms of problems would be so enormously reduced that he would discover himself without any interest of any kind. But even if the preclear is not in this category, the process which is given in this paragraph is definitely indicated in the field of problems. Actually it is a combination of running significances and handling problems, and it is useful for any state of case except, of course, those upon whom only Opening Procedure of 8-C may be run. The complete remedy of problems, of course, takes place when the preclear is convinced that he can create problems at will. Until he is so convinced, he is going to hold on to old problems. The way to Convince him that he can create problems is to have him pick out, or pick up, an object. Have him examine this object until he is sure it is real. Then ask him the question: ‘What problems could this object be to you?’ Have him begin to name off various problems. It will be discovered at first, as always in the handling of significances, that he begins to drain the object itself of the problems which are inherent in the object, and then will eventually begin to invent problems. The problem should be run until the preclear is convinced that he can create problems at will. Many objects can be used rather than just one if it is discovered that the preclear’s attention is fixing too strongly upon the object.

R2-21: GRANTING OF BEINGNESS

Granting of Beingness (life) to something. The preclear is as well as he can grant life to things, an action which involves the creation of energy. The basic granting of beingness is the thetan duplicating himself as another thinking being. In the mechanics of the granting of beingness we have ‘orientation point’ and the ‘symbol’. An orientation point is that point in relation to which others have location. It is also that point from which the space containing the locations is being created. In the orientation point we have our basic definition of space: ‘Space is a viewpoint of dimension’. Dependent upon the orientation for its location and to some degree for its life is the ‘symbol’. A symbol is an object which has mass, meaning and mobility. A symbol locates itself, if it does so at all, by the orientation point. It regards the orientation point as a continual source point and itself as a continual effect point of that source point. So long as one can create life, he more or less considers himself an orientation point.  And as soons he is convinced he cannot create life in any degree, he becomes to that degree a symbol. The granting of beingness is a complexity of the communication formula in that we have broadly added space rather than linear distance and have introduced the idea of a continuing orientation point and a continuing symbol. The velocity of the communication formula is expanded to continuing velocities. And we have entered directly from the communication formula into our first understanding of Time and therefore Survival. Its the symbol which is surviving in minute gradients of time and the orientation point which is timeless but which determines the time frame of that space. As a practical example, most preclears consider the childhood home an orientation point and themselves a symbol of that orientation point. Where a preclear has lost too many orientation points successively he begins to consider himself a symbol of a symbol.  The concept in some religions of God being everywhere and every place at the same time is a direct and overt effort to loose the worshipper by taking from him a finite position for his orientation point.  The processing of the granting of beingness is more complex and therefore less effective than using the communication formula in its simpler form. It is well within the attention of an auditor, and the problems involving it should, to some degree, be resolved with the preclear. The preclear has many times sought to give life to something such as a dying ally or pet or enterprise and has failed to bring it to life. Resultingly he has become convinced that he cannot grant life. But senior to this granting of life is the mechanical matter of orientation point and symbol. A multitude of processes can be applied with profit to this subject. One of the simplest would be to demand of the preclear, ‘Where are you from?’ and then continue to repeat this question on and on and on, no matter what answer the preclear gave, until the preclear replies that he is from right where he is. At which time the auditor changes the question to ‘Where is that?’ And to any answer the preclear gives, again asks ‘Where is that?’ until the preclear ceases to locate himself by his environment and then ceases to locate himself by his body and by himself and comes to the realization that he is exactly where he says he is and no other place. The other-determinism to self-determinism course is marked by the fact that he is first nowhere, then where old orientation points and present locations tell him where he is, and then where his body tells him where he is, and then where he seems to be because he can see certain things, to the final realization that he is where he is by postulate and by that alone. This will exteriorize a preclear if continued long enough. All other processes are only a covert level of this process.  He can be made to spot spots which he has considered orientation points, such as the childhood home, and then remedy havingness. He can be asked why the environment is there, and for every answer simply ask again why what he is looking at is there. Or this can be run as the third step of Procedure 30, which is what it is. As the third step of Procedure 30, Granting of Beingness is run in this fashion, ‘Who would grant beingness to ...?’ And in the blank may be placed psychosomatics, letters, cats, dogs, kings and coal heavers or anything the auditor might think of, each time until the preclear replies without communication lag. The key question would be, ‘Who would it be all right to have grant some beingness?’ The person the preclear will name will be the person the preclear has most recently depended upon thoroughly as a symbol in lieu of an orientation point. This is continued with ‘What else would it be all right for ... (the person he has named) to grant beingness to?’ With this last question we are resolving the ‘only one’ complex.    The preclear has gotten into a state, ordinarily, where he is the only one who can grant beingness, but he has so long restrained other people from granting life to things that he himself will no longer grant any life to things. The preclear is engaged in some kind of a giddy contest whereby nobody else can grant beingness to things, but he can grant beingness to them. The resolution of this will mean a considerable increase in case. There is an additional question, ‘Who are you eating for?’ and ‘Who are you doing other things for?’ item by item, which processed continuously will eventually bring the preclear into certain changes of consideration. This last technique is a part of one called ‘Swizzle-Stick’. An additional process is to simply have the preclear say to himself, ‘I am here’. And each time establish for himself the fact that he is. This is done over and over without further variation. A part of the granting of beingness is having symbols ‘out there moving around for you’.  An individual who cannot be an orientation point and who cannot, therefore, grant beingness does not have symbols. Thus he cannot predict objects even in the immediate environment. A variation is to have him look at various objects and the walls of the room and predict that they will be there in ten seconds, then, to have him count off the ten seconds and find out whether or not they are there.

R2-22: SPANNING ATTENTION

Scarcity of attention is manifested on a gradient scale from the top to the bottom on the Chart of Human Evaluation.  An individual has so many times excused his failure to direct attention when it was required by saying that he had not enough attention that eventually things which sought to seize his attention ‘distract him’. This brings on a certain franticness. Scarcity of attention is the reason why a preclear cannot look at past engrams and present time at the same time and, be in present time. His attention gets caught or trapped in the past. The scarcity of attention can be directly remedied by having the preclear put his attention on one object until it is thoroughly real to him, then on another object until it is thoroughly real to him, and then put his attention on both objects until they are thoroughly real to him, then his attention on a third object until it is thoroughly real to him, and then his attention on all three objects until they are completely real to him. The caution which must be taken is that one does not fixate his attention on the objects but keeps him answering questions concerning the objects. In all attention processes, an hypnotic condition takes place only when the preclear is unable to comment or respond while his attention is closely fixed upon one object. The body gives the thetan scarcity of attention and therefore a sort of hypnotic trance by having only one direction of attention, i.e., through the eyes. A thetan seeing on a 360 degree periphery, when interiorizing into the head, finds himself looking in only one direction. This is sufficient to fixate him.  Exteriorization by Attention is possible simply by directing the preclear’s attention to wider and wider spheres. The technique Spanning of Attention is done with the following commands. The auditor put a match down in front of the preclear, ‘Now look at that match’, ‘Is it real to you?’ The auditor puts down another match close to the first match, ‘Now look at the second match’, ‘Is it real to you?’ and then works with such question until both the first and second match are real. The auditor then has him put his attention on both matches at once to establish whether or not they are both real at once. Then he has him look at the first match, the second match, and then both matches in that order until the preclear can see both matches as entirely real. A third match is now put down, the auditor saying, ‘Now put your attention on this third match’. ‘Is it real to you?’ When reality on the third match is established, the auditor has the preclear see the first two matches at once, then the second and third matches at once until these two groups, as groups, are real and then has the preclear look at all three matches until they are real. WITH THIS PROCESS THE PRECLEAR’S ATTENTION IS NOT PERMITTED TO LINGER ON ANY ONE OBJECT FOR MORE THAN A FEW SECONDS. CONTINUOUS STARING AT THE OBJECT WILL NOT PRODUCE ANY FURTHER RESULT THAN BOIL OFF. THIS PROCESS IS CONTINUED UNTIL THE PRECLEAR CAN DO THIS -- SEE WITH ENTIRE REALITY TEN MATCHES SIMULTANEOUSLY LAID OUT IN FRONT OF HIM. Now the auditor begins by taking an object in the room, such as a chair, has the preclear examine that until it is entirely real, then takes another chair in the room and establishes its reality with the preclear. Then he works on the first and second chairs and on both until the preclear can see both chairs with complete reality. Then a third chair is picked out and reality is established on the first and second chair, and the second and third chair, and then on all three chairs. This is done until all the objects in the room are included in the reality of the preclear, at which time he will very probably be exteriorized.

R2-23: ATTENTION BY DUPLICATION

Two similar objects, preferably black and not shiny, are placed before the preclear in such a way that they are more or less even with his level gaze and making with each other and the preclear’s space a 90 degree angle so that the preclear has to turn at least 45 degrees out of his normal line of sight in order to put his attention on either one of them. The preclear’s attention is directed to object one on the right and then is asked to put his attention on object two on the left. ‘Put your attention on the right hand object’, ‘Put your attention on the left hand object’.  These two commands are then given consecutively many, many times, each time the auditor waiting for the preclear’s execution of the command before giving the next command. The process can be done with only these two commands, for the preclear is not asked to fix his attention on either object, he is only asked to look at these two objects. If there is any question about the preclear’s general reality, this should be remedied by Opening Procedure of 8-C. Further, the preclear, prior to the process, no matter what his reality may be, should be put into communication with the two objects. This process is often found to be more workable by having the preclear describe the objects he is looking at each time he looks at them. This keeps the preclear outflowing. And where the preclear begins to demonstrate hypnotic manifestations, the step of making him describe each object should be used. The commands would be ‘Now put your attention on object one’. The preclear executes. ‘Tell me about it.’ The preclear does so. ‘Now put your attention on object two.’ The preclear does so.  ‘Tell me about it’, ‘Put your attention on object one’, and so forth, over and over. This process should be run as long as it produces perception changes in the preclear. Attention by Duplication can be applied to any sense perception. Here we have the example of it applied to sight. This step should also apply to Attention by Duplication by hearing. If there is a noise in the room, preferably a monotonous one such as a motor or fan or even a record of a monotonous voice but not the radio, the auditor commands the preclear, ‘Listen to that ...’ naming the source of sound. And when the preclear has done so for a moment, ‘Now put your attention on the silence present in the room’, ‘Now on the ...’ again naming the source of sound.     ‘Now on the silence’, back and forth for a considerable length of time. A second step, both in Attention by Duplication for sight and Attention by Duplication for hearing, is accomplished by adding in the commands, ‘Now take your attention off ...’ before the next command to put his attention on something is given. In this wise the commands would be for attention by sight, ‘Put your attention on object one’ and when the preclear has complied, ‘Now take your attention off of object one’ and the preclear has complied, ‘Now put your attention on object two’ and when the preclear has complied, ‘Now take your attention off of object two’ and so on back and forth between the two objects.  An additional step can be run having the preclear decide when to take his attention off the objects. This is similar to the pattern of Opening Procedure of 8-C with the addition that it is run by monotonous duplication of the process and the objects.

R2-24: EXTERIORIZATION BY DISTANCE, EXTROVERTED AND INTROVERTED ALTERNATELY

The simplest form of Exteriorization by Distance is accomplished simply by having the preclear sit still and spot various objects in the room without calling his attention to any distance involved. This would be done with this one command and with no further qualification as to what the preclear puts his attention on, ‘Find another spot in this room’. This can be run for hours with benefit. All other Exteriorization by Distance processes are simply complications of this basic process. The next most used Exteriorization by Distance process uses three spots in the room on these commands, ‘Find three spots in your body’ and when the preclear signifies that he has, ‘Now find three spots in the room’. And when the preclear signifies that he has, ‘Find three spots in your body’.  And when the preclear signifies that he has, ‘Now find three spots in the room’. This is done over and over without any change of command. This process is commonly run on groups. Spotting one spot at a time, not designating whether it is in space or on objects, may also be run on groups as above. When a preclear’s reality on Exteriorization’ by Distance is very poor the simpler forms of this process as above should be used. The commands of Exteriorization by Distance are as follows, ‘What distance could you tolerate to your right foot?’ ‘What distance could you tolerate to your left foot?’ ‘What distance could you tolerate to your genitals?’ ‘What distance could you tolerate to your stomach?’ ‘What distance could you tolerate to your rectum?’ ‘What distance could you tolerate to your back?’ ‘What distance could you tolerate to your right hand?’ ‘What distance could you tolerate to your left hand?’ ‘What distance could you tolerate to your right eye?’ ‘What distance could you tolerate to your left eye?’ ‘What distance could you tolerate to your mouth?’ and then consecutively ‘What distance could your right foot tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could your left foot tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could your stomach tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could your genitals tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could your rectum tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could your right hand tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could your left hand tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could your right eye tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could your left eye tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could your mouth tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could your back tolerate to a thetan?’  

This complete series on the body is called the introverted part of the process and is immediately followed by these commands: ‘What distance could you tolerate to the front wall?’ ‘What distance could you tolerate to the right wall?, ‘What distance could you tolerate to the left wall?’ ‘What distance could you tolerate to the back wall?’ ‘What distance could you tolerate to the floor?’ ‘What distance could you tolerate to the ceiling?’ ‘What distance could you tolerate to your chair?’ and this is followed by: ‘What distance could the front wall tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could the right wall tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could the left wall tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could the back wall tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could the floor tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could the ceiling tolerate to a thetan?’ ‘What distance could your chair tolerate to a thetan?’ And this is followed by the first of the series on the body, ‘What distance could you tolerate to your right foot?’ and so forth, around and around on these commands.

IMPORTANT: THE PRECLEAR MUST NOT BE PERMITTED TO USE MOCK-UPS IN THE MATTER OF WHAT DISTANCE THE PARTS OF THE BODY OR THE ROOM COULD TOLERATE TO A THETAN.  THE AUDITOR WANTS THE ACTUAL PARTS OF THE BODY RIGHT WHERE THEY ARE AND THEIR TOLERANCE TO THE THETAN IN EACH CASE. AND HE WANTS THE PARTS OF THE ROOM RIGHT WHERE THEY ARE AND THEIR DISTANCE TO THE THETAN. THIS PROCESS IS NOT TO BE DONE BY MOCK-UPS. BUT IF MOCK-UPS APPEAR IN THE MATTER OF WHAT DISTANCE THE THETAN CAN TOLERATE TO THE PARTS OF THE BODY OR ROOM THEY ARE ALLOWABLE BUT ARE NOT ENCOURAGED. IF MOCK-UPS ARE USED IN THE MATTER OF DISTANCE OF THE OBJECTS TO THE THETAN, THE REALITY OF THE PRECLEAR WILL DECREASE MARKEDLY. THE PRECLEAR IS NOT BEING EXTERIORIZED FROM MOCK-UPS, HE IS BEING EXTERIORIZED FROM ACTUAL PHYSICAL UNIVERSE OBJECTS.

R2-25: VIEWPOINT AND VIEWPOINT ARC STRAIGHTWIRE

Viewpoint and Viewpoint ARC Straightwire in a brief form has the following commands, ‘Give me some things which it would be comfortable for you to look at’. And when the communication lag on this is flattened, ‘Give me some emotions it would be all right for you to look at’, ‘Give me some efforts it would be all right for you to look at’. These are the chief concerns of the auditor in this process: The auditor must make sure that the preclear is absolutely certain he is comfortable in viewing such objects. The process fails when the auditor is incapable of pressing the preclear until this certainty is attained.              

Viewpoint ARC Straightwire then follows, ‘Who would it be all right for you to like?’ And, as in any of these questions, when the communication lag has been fattened by repeated use of the first question, ‘Who would it be all right for you to agree with?’ ‘Who would it be all right for you to communicate with?’ ‘Who would it be all right to have like, you?’ ‘Who would it be all right to have agree with you?’ ‘Who would it be all right to have communicate with you?’ The basic formula and goal of this process is to increase the preclear’s ability to tolerate views. The auditor is trying to do two things. He is trying to improve the tolerance and comfort of the preclear in viewing and experiencing knowingness, lookingness, emotingness, effortingness, thinkingness, symbolizingness, eatingness, sexingness, and mystery.

R2-26: REMEDY OF LAUGHTER

The earliest known psychotherapy consisted of getting a patient to laugh. Laughter is rejection. A preclear being continually inflowed upon by the physical universe at length may find it difficult to reject anything. Getting him to reject something could be made an auditing goal. The best manifestation of this is laughter. Laughter includes both surprise and rejection. The individual is surprised into rejecting. In order to laugh, he must have laid aside some of his ability to predict. An individual who is serious has laid aside so much of his ability to predict that he now cannot be surprised into rejection. The anatomy of mystery consists of, in this order, unpredictability, confusion, and chaos covered up because it cannot be tolerated.  Therefore, this is also the anatomy of problems. Problems always begin with an unpredictability, deteriorate into a confusion, and then if still unsolved become a mystery which is massed confusion. It will be observed that as a person falls further and further away from the ability to laugh he becomes more and more confused until at last he sees no points in any jokes, he sees only embarrassment when confronted by laughter, and the whole action of laughter itself escapes him. The ability to laugh is rehabilitated in general by Scientology as it advances the ability of the preclear to know -- which is to say, predict. The Remedy of Laughter could be entered simply by having the individual predict that a wall would be there in ten seconds, count off ten seconds on his watch, and then ascertain with thoroughness that the wall is still there, to establish if the wall is there, then to predict that it will be there in ten seconds, then to count off ten seconds on his watch and ascertain if the wall is still there. By thus bringing solid objects into the realm of prediction, an individual at length comes to a point where he can predict very slowly moving objects. A cheap train and track could be set up for this purpose and the preclear could be led to predict with accuracy the position of engines on the small circular track.  However, the preclear can be made to watch automobiles on the street -- a process which serves just as well with no such equipment. The preclear would then be led to predict the positions of his own body, first by predicting that it was going to be in a certain spot, then moving it there and seeing whether or not it had arrived at that spot. He would then be brought to swing his arm in a circle, predict that it would swing faster, and swing it faster. And thus being led to predict the motion of his body with these simplicities, he could be exercised in making his body go tense and go limp by his command until he was thoroughly certain that he could both predict the tension or relaxation by doing it.  Then he could be led to predict the positions of people walking on the street until he felt some security in predicting without exercising physical control. By thus remedying his ability to predict, one brings the preclear up into a tolerance of motion. He is then led to put his attention on one moving object, then on two moving objects at once, and so forth using the processes of spanning attention on moving objects. A direct mock-up process can be applied to the Remedy of Laughter by having the preclear mock up alternately himself and others laughing or by having him mock up an acceptable level of amusement and remedy his havingness with it until he can have people laughing very broadly in his mock-ups.            

The preclear can also be made simply to stand up and start laughing. He at first will demand to have something to laugh at, but at length will be able to laugh without reason. The goal of the process is contained in the last line -- to regain the ability to laugh without reason. In this Intensive Procedure only two steps are employed to remedy laughter.  The first consists of these commands, ‘Be completely certain that the wall is there’. And when the preclear has become with considerable conversation completely certain that the wall is there, touching it, pushing against it, and so forth, the auditor then says, ‘Sit down, take this (your) watch’, ‘Now predict that the wall will be there ten seconds from now’, ‘Have you done so?’ ‘All right wait ten seconds by your watch’. And when this is done, ‘Is the wall still there?’ And when the preclear has answered, ‘Now make absolutely certain the wall is there’ and the preclear does so by touching it, pushing at it, kicking it. ‘Now make very sure that the wall is there.’ And when the preclear very vigorously has done so, ‘Now predict that it will be there in ten seconds’. And when the preclear has done so, the remainder of the commands are given and this is repeated over and over. Then the second part of Intensive Procedures process of laughter, but only after the preclear has experienced considerable relief and is absolutely sure that he can predict that all parts of the room will be there, not only in ten seconds, but in an hour -- although no such timing is used, and only ten seconds of time is employed -- ‘Start laughing’. And no matter what the preclear says thereafter, or what arguments he advances, or how many things he asks about, or how many reasons he wants or gives, the auditor merely says (adding words that urge the preclear), ‘Start laughing’. And when the preclear at length does so, no matter how half heartedly, ‘keep on laughing’. The two commands which are used in addition to Words necessary to urge the preclear without giving the preclear any reason whatsoever are, ‘Start laughing’ and ‘keep on laughing’. This process is then done until the preclear can actually enjoy a laugh without any reason whatsoever, without believing that laughing without reason is insane, without feeling self-conscious about laughing, and without needing any boost from the auditor. The auditor in this second part need take no pains to agree with the preclear by laughing. He need not chuckle or smile nor need he even particularly act seriously, his laughter is not needed or used in the process. An auditor can be as serious as he pleases, and indeed, if he wishes to do so, can be even more serious than is usual when running this second step of R2-26. In earlier Scientology it was learned that serious preclears would often recover considerable ground simply when they were made to do things without any reason whatsoever. This achievement is much greater when they are made to laugh without any reason.

R2-27: RESOLVE DANGEROUSNESS OF ENVIRONMENT

Resolving the Dangerousness of the Environment could be done in many ways, but by experience it should not be done by deleting various things which could be dangerous by the use of mock-ups.  If there is any trouble with the preclear it is that the environment is insufficiently dangerous and so does not produce sufficient amusement.  The physical body was built in the time when escapes from death by wild animals, by falling, were routine. It was built in an operating climate of great hazard over a period of many millions of years. It requires about three escapes from sudden death daily to stay in present time. Many of the preclears being audited in Scientology are being audited simply to experience a new adventure. However, it can be said with some truth, and was said in ‘Excalibur’ in 1938, that a man is as sane as he is dangerous to the environment. What occurs is that the environment becomes dangerous to the man and the man cannot be dangerous to the environment. And his answer to this is immobility and general deterioration. The basic remedy of this condition consists of getting a living thing -- a pet, a child, a sick person -- to reach out towards one’s hand. At that moment, without moving so suddenly that the living being will be startled, the person doing the process would withdraw his hand. The auditor would then advance, again to be driven away, over and over. And it would be observed that the living being would strike out with more and more enthusiasm and would recover considerable sanity. This, of course, is done on a gradient scale. While an auditor should know and use this basic process in assists or when processing animals, very small children or people who are extremely ill, the remedy which is used in Intensive Procedure is Cause and Effect. Parts of the body can be used in this process, the whole body, or the thetan. But the auditor must be specific about what he is addressing. The basic commands are, ‘What are you willing to cause?’ And when the preclear has answered this and the communication lag on the question has been fattened, ‘What are you willing to be the effect of.’ And when the communication lag has been flattened by the repeated use of this question, ‘What are you willing to cause?’ and so forth, using just these commands. One can additionally apply this, particularly when the preclear has a psychosomatic illness, to a limb or organ of the body as an assist. But in Intensive Procedure, the most permissive of these questions, as given, is used.

R2-28: NOTHING - SOMETHING

Nothing - Something is run by asking, ‘What distance wouldn’t you mind making nothing of? and when there is no communication lag on this, ‘What distance wouldn’t you mind making something of (making longer)?’ The process is completed by making certain the preclear can tolerate many nothingnesses and many somethingnesses with complete comfort. If the preclear found R2-24 unreal or did it peculiarly, use R2-28 immediately, then R1-10, then R2-24. The goal of this process is the toleration of nothingnesses and somethingnesses by the thetan.

R2-29: TIME TOLERANCE

This uses the velocity factor of the communication formula. (A) Ask the preclear ‘Now much time can you tolerate between yourself and (the door) (the window) (etc.)?’ Then make him ‘walk it out’ in the interval of time he named. Have him do this until, without coaching, he can tolerate a very very slow velocity or a very fast one. (B) Then use this command, ‘Start lying about your past’ and when he finally does, ‘Keep on lying about your past’ until he can lie with complete comfort about all phases of his past. (C) Then use this, ‘What is the significance of your past?’ and keep on asking the question, no matter what the preclear says, until his past is not important. Then ‘What is the significance of your future?’ (or goals, if that communicates better, ‘What are your goals in your future?’) and keep on asking it until the preclear feels free to live an unplanned life.  NOTE: The present time problem is best resolved by remedying the havingness of the preclear on the subject or people involved in the problem. Have him mock these up in acceptable form and accept many. Then, in rejectable form, and reject many until his ‘acceptance level’ and ‘rejection level’ are the same.

R2-30: POSITION BY SECURITY (SOP 8-D)

This is used in Intensive Procedure for only two purposes, to resolve a present time association with a person (Present Time Problem) or to resolve ‘Body Recruitment’ of the Thetan by some part of the body such as teeth, eyes, stomach, etc. In the matter of a present time problem, using the person involved With the preclear’s name, ‘Where would ...  be safe?’ and ‘Where would ... find you safe?’ as the sole commands, actually having the preclear spot the locations in the MEST universe. In the matter of fixation on teeth, etc., ‘Where would ... be safe?’ ‘Where would ... find you safe?’ Body Recruitment is suspected whenever a preclear cannot exteriorize after a few hours of processing. The part of the body he is most anxious about is then run as responsible for dragging ‘in’ the thetan.

Another method of running this problem is a variation of Description Processing. The commands are ‘Now close does your ... seem to you now?’ This is the only command employed. Body parts such as head, genitals, teeth, or the body itself are used in the place of the blank.

R2-31: BEINGNESS PROCESSING

The cardinal rule where mental or physical compulsions are concerned follows: WHATEVER THE THETAN IS DOING OBSESSIVELY OR COMPULSIVELY, HAVE HIM DO IT ON A SELF-DETERMINED BASIS.

This applies to machines, habits, twitches, etc.

There is a gradient scale of exteriorization which could be described as follows: first, the thetan without contact With a universe then a thetan in full contact with a universe then a thetan in contact with part of a universe, who considers the remainder of the universe barred to him then a thetan in a universe without any contact with any part of the universe then a thetan unknowingly in contact with a large part of a universe. The first condition would be a true Static, the last condition is called colloquially in Scientology, ‘buttered all over the universe. As it is with a universe such as the physical universe, so it is with physical bodies. The thetan who has already gone through the cycle on the universe itself may be in contact with a physical body in the same order. At first he would be without association with a physical body then with occasional contact with bodies then with a fixed contact on one body, but exteriorized then interiorized into a body, but easy to exteriorize then in contact with and interiorized into a body, but withdrawn from the various parts of the body and then obsessively ‘buttered all through the body’ then obsessively and unknowingly drawn down to some small portion of the body, and so forth. This is the gradient scale which includes inversion and then inversion of the inversion. The auditor will discover preclears are very variable in the matter of exteriorization. Some preclears, even when they have a dark field, exteriorize rather easily. Others, after a great deal of work, are still found to be difficult to exteriorize. The matter of exteriorization is the matter of which level of inversion the preclear is in. One of the more difficult levels to work is so inverted that he thinks that a thetan is running him. In other words, here is a thetan functioning in a body and actually running it through various covert communication lines, who yet believes he is a body to such an extent that he considers himself, or any life around him to be some other being. When discussing the matter of a thetan, this preclear is likely to tell the auditor, ‘I’m over there’. This is about the only signal the auditor gets from such a case which tells him that the preclear is being a body, and considers that he is being run by another thetan. Very often an auditor will ‘exteriorize’ such a person, he thinks, only to have the preclear say, ‘I’m over there’. A thetan who knows he is a thetan is always ‘here’ and never ‘there’.

The diagnostic manifestation, however, which the auditor first encounters in any case where he is having difficulty with exteriorization is contained in Beingness. Those on lower levels of inversion are having a great deal of difficulty being anything. Such people are below the level of being a body, therefore it would be far up-scale for this person to be able to be a body with certainty. A person who cannot exteriorize easily must be brought up to the level where he can be a body before he can then be exteriorized from the body. In other words, an auditor exteriorizing anyone has to follow such a scale as Beingness Processing.   

Oddly enough, Beingness Processing is an excellent exteriorization tool, and I say ‘Oddly enough’ because, in one sense, Beingness Processing is an Alter-is-ness process. When a case is extremely inverted it is necessary to get the case up to a level where it can identify itself with something. Beingness is essentially an identification of self with an object.

The commands used in Beingness Processing should begin with the environment and the vicinity of the preclear. One has the preclear look around the auditing room and select an object, let us say a chair.  The auditor does this by saying ‘Look around the room and discover some object which you don’t mind being present’. Remember always, that when an auditor asks a question, that question has to be answered by the preclear. It is the auditor’s bad luck if he asks a question which introduces an enormously long communication lag in the preclear.  The preclear must still answer the question. At this question, then, ‘Discover something you don’t mind being present’, it is necessary that the preclear actually locate something, even if a dust mote. The auditor then asks the preclear to ‘Locate something else you don’t mind being present’. And when all communication lag is gone from this level of process, the auditor then picks out an object which the preclear was comfortable about and says: ‘Now see this (chair) here’, ‘All right, what else wouldn’t you mind this (chair) being?’ And then, as the preclear answers this, and using this same object, the auditor continues to ask the same question until all communication lag is gone from the question: ‘What else wouldn’t you mind this (chair) being?’

The auditor then selects other objects in the area and uses the same question on them: ‘What wouldn’t you mind this (couch) being?’, ‘What else wouldn’t you mind this (couch) being?’ When the preclear is perfectly willing to have anything in the room be a large number of things, including the walls, the ceiling, and the floor the auditor asks: ‘Now what wouldn’t you mind your body being?’ And whatever the preclear answers, ‘And now what else wouldn’t you mind your body being?’ Finally, when the preclear is able to do all the foregoing in Beingness Processing, the auditor commands him:  ‘Now let’s find something you wouldn’t mind being’, and, as this is the question for which the auditor has been working, he uses this question for a very long period of time, asking over and over, ‘What else wouldn’t you mind being?’

It will be discovered in working Beingness Processing that the entire mechanism of winning Valences occurs. Here, for instance, is a thetan who is caught in a theta trap. After a while he will consider that the trap itself is surviving, which is to say that the motions of the trap have themselves set the thetan into motion so that he now thinks of himself totally as a trap. (This is how anybody gets to be anything -- by getting set into motion by the vibrations in his vicinity.)
At first the thetan is willing to be the trap, but after a while, if asked to be the trap and then asked to be the thetan (and this is not a process), the most terrible apathy will be found to intervene between the two steps. The thetan, while fairly comfortable being the trap, on beginning to recover some of his own identity, will be found to be at a point on the tone scale so low as to contain an unbearable and agonizing apathy.

Beingness Processing recovers the various valences which the thetan is trying to avoid. As a practical example in life, we find a housewife who is incapable of keeping house. Although intelligent and able in most things, we find she cannot sweep, make beds, or even shop for the house. We discover that her mother was an excellent housekeeper, an excellent cook, and could shop very well. If this is the case, then we would also discover that the one person in this world our preclear does not want to be is her mother. In other words, by being unable to be her mother, she is also unable to be all those things which her mother could do or be. In other words, the matter of valences is also a matter of packages of abilities, and where an individual is unable to be something which has certain definite abilities, he also cannot achieve those abilities, and this, in itself, is the heart of disability.

In running Beingness Processing it will be discovered that the imagination of the preclear revives to a marked extent. This is a process which requires a skilled auditor, a patient auditor, and one who is willing to level every communication lag he encounters by repeating the same question over and over, each time waiting to receive a definite answer.  It is not a process which one starts and leaves uncompleted.

R2-32: ASSIGNMENT OF ATTRIBUTES
The forerunner of this process was Significance Processing.  Significance Processing was done as follows: one had the preclear take some picture or object and assign innumerable significances to it.

This is an excellent process, even now, for those who are always looking for deeper significances in everything. It will be discovered that the preclear with whom one is having difficulty cannot duplicate.  He cannot duplicate because he has to make everything more complicated. Everything which is given to him has to be given a deeper significance.            However, Significance Processing is quite limited in its effects upon the preclear, and it is not to be compared with SOP 8-C Opening Procedure. Where one has a case who is introducing deep significances into everything, who is pondering and philosophizing during processing, one will discover that Significance Processing is far too heavy for the case.

Opening Procedure of 8-C is all that is indicated for this case for many hours, and this should be followed by Opening Procedure by Duplication for many more hours.

The Assignment of Attributes is a process which uses the principle: WHATEVER THE THETAN IS DOING OBSESSIVELY OR COMPULSIVELY, HAVE HIM DO IT ON A SELF-DETERMINED BASIS.           

Here we have the entire environment assigning meanings and attributes to the preclear. It seldom occurs to the preclear to assign attributes to himself. Throughout life he has been insulted, made nothing of, or complimented, and he has begun to depend upon other-determined assignment of attributes.

The commands of this process are as follows:  ‘Assign some attributes to other people’. Now, if at this stage the preclear wants to know what an attribute is, the auditor can tell him ‘a quality, characteristic, or ability, factual, insulting, or flattering’. The auditor continues with this command for some time and then as: ‘Now have some people assign some attributes to you’, and, ‘Have them assign you some more attributes’, then ‘some more’, and ‘Have them assign you some more attributes’. One then returns to the first command: ‘Assign some people some attributes’) and so forth. Finally, when the preclear is able to do this easily, the auditor goes to this step of the process: ‘Now assign your body some attributes’, and continues to have the preclear assign to his body attributes. Preclears have exteriorized on this process.

The preclear uses insults, compliments, abilities, skills and various states of beingness, and will be found to be coming up the tone scale with the attributes he is assigning on each stage of this process.

The auditor should not overlook the fact that this process can be very widely used with the same type of command on any of the Dynamics or on the Know-to-Mystery scale, such as, ‘Assign some attributes to Mystery’, ‘Assign some attributes to sex’, ‘Assign some attributes to women’, ‘Assign some attributes to spirits’, using each question repetitively until such time as all communication lag is gone in the preclear on this process.

R2-33: PERFECT DUPLICATION

Had this process existed in 1950, there would have been no difficulty in Dianetics, for in the perfect duplicate we find how to vanquish an engram. All one needs to do is to make a perfect duplicate of the engram, and then make a perfect duplicate of having perfectly duplicated the engram, in present time, and the engram is gone. This would also apply to ridges or any other energy manifestation.

It is not the purpose of the Scientologist today to process engrams, or to use this particular process, and it is only called to his attention that by making a perfect duplicate of an engram, the engram disappears entirely, except for the action of making the perfect duplicate in present time, but when this is perfectly duplicated, then the engram really is gone. Engrams, or whole chains of engrams, can be vanquished in a few seconds by perfect duplication.

Thus it may be seen that the theory of a perfect duplicate is a very valuable one.

There are two kinds of duplicates.The word ‘duplicate’ is used, rather sloppily, to indicate a copy. However, a copy is not a complete duplicate:  a copy is a facsimile, and will remain in suspension as such. A perfect duplicate is one which is made in the same time, in the same place, with the same energies as the original. Now, if you have not had this explained thoroughly in class, you may discover it eluding you slightly, so let us take a good solid look at this, for it means exactly what it says: a perfect duplicate is one which exists in the same instant of time, in the same place, and has the same mass (or particles) as original. A thetan placing a perfect duplicate does not do it along side of the original, nor does he put another image inside the original, nor does he mock up more particles. He makes a perfect duplicate by simply duplicating the original with itself, with its own time, mass (particles), space and motion.

There is something else he can do with an original object. He can simply look at one and claim that it is his duplicate.

The perfect duplicate violates the law of universes which keeps space stretched and causes things to come into existence in the first place, and this law of universes is that two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

We then discover that a universe will vanish, or any part of that universe will vanish, the moment this law is violated. A perfect duplicate restores the As-is-ness of an object. A perfect duplicate may also have to contain in it the persistence of the object. It is simply made by postulate, and because the body itself is making imperfect duplicates continually, which is to say is copying and making facsimiles continually, it may be that the thetan has fallen into this, and the making of perfect duplicates is a necessary part of his ability. The auditor should then take an object right in the room with the preclear, and have the preclear make a perfect duplicate of the object, then consider it is there again, then make another perfect duplicate of it, then consider it is there again, then make another perfect duplicate of it, then consider it is there again. With some preclears who are having a difficult time, it will be found that the object will become more pronounced and more real for a short time, and only then will begin to vanish. With thetans who are in fairly good condition, the object dims. With the thetan in excellent condition, the object vanishes.

The commands are as follows: ‘Do you see this ash tray?’ ‘Now make a perfect duplicate of it: a duplicate in the same time, in the same place, with the same energy as the ash tray’.

The preclear may have some difficulty getting this. The auditor should be very watchful, and should coax the preclear, using any language necessary to bring about the preclear’s making a perfect duplicate. However, the auditor should not tell the preclear that the object will vanish, or that it will seem to vanish for the preclear. The auditor should simply insist that the preclear make a perfect duplicate of the object, in its same time, and same space, with its same mass or energy. When the preclear finally has this, the auditor then says:  ‘Now consider that it is there again’. When the preclear has done so, the auditor says: ‘Now make a perfect duplicate of it’, and when the preclear has done so, ‘Now consider that it is there again’, ‘Make a perfect duplicate of it’. The preclear should be drilled in this until the object appears to vanish very thoroughly for him. If the preclear is actually in very good condition, the object simply will vanish.

This skill and understanding should be thoroughly mastered by the preclear before he is taken on through to Description Processing, R2-34.

Making perfect duplicates of the whole track, which is to say returning to incidents and making duplicates of them at that moment, or sending a remote viewpoint ‘down the track’ and having it make a perfect duplicate of incidents, and then making a perfect duplicate of having done so in present time to vanish the present time picture, is the process of vanquishing engrams. However, if the process is done to wipe out engrams, remember to remedy the preclears’ havingness as in the last sentences of R2-18.

This practice of As-is-ness, by the way, is the reason why people do not consider it polite for other people to stare. People have a hangover in that they know, instinctively, that if they are completely looked at they would disappear.

Having had the preclear learn how to make perfect duplicates, now ask him this question. ‘Give me some things which are not making perfect duplicates of you’. Many times. ‘Give me some people who are not making perfect duplicates of you’, ‘Give me some things of which you are not making perfect duplicates’, ‘Give me some people of whom you are not making perfect duplicates’.

Healing at a glance is done by a thetan, not interiorized, making perfect duplicates of the illness of a body without perfectly duplicating the body itself. It is not done with energy.

R2-34: DESCRIPTION PROCESSING

Before engaging in Description Processing it will be necessary for the auditor to perform, with the preclear, R2-33. It is not that the preclear is going to make perfect duplicates with this Description Processing, but that the preclear has some understanding of what he is confronting.  Description Processing is the single most Powerful Process in Scientology. It uses As-is-ness in present time to remedy the restimulations beheld by the thetan. The total command content of Description Processing is the phrase: ‘How does ... seem to you now?’ This is used over, and over, and over by the auditor. In the blank he puts any difficulty the preclear is having.

For an old-time auditor, for instance, who has become rather laggardly about auditing, the single question ‘How does auditing seem to you now?’ asked over and over for about three hours would most probably bring about a complete rehabilitation of the auditor as such.

Here all we are asking the preclear to do is to view the situation. We do not care whether he makes a perfect duplicate of it or not. We merely want him to observe the situation. His observance of the situation determines its As-is-ness, and his health depends upon his ability to accept things as they are. As we run this process we will find that a considerable amount of change takes place in a case. Energy masses move, alter, shift, and the environment takes on different aspects. This is not particularly a good manifestation, it is the manifestation of time, or persistence. We are running an As-is-ness of Alter-is-ness.  Thus, the occasional interjection of ‘Does it seem to be persisting?’ on the part of the auditor, calls the attention of the preclear to the persistence of the manifestations and clears up hang-ups. Now, here in this process, we view the entire philosophy of life. We see quite adequately here that an individual still retains anything which he has never accepted As-is. In other words, if a man has fought evil for years, he has never viewed evil As-is. Thus evil will remain with him. If he has fought ugliness for years, ugliness will remain with him. Terribly enough, because he has accepted As-is the goodness of life, and the beauty of life, these things are continually being un-mocked. We eat good food -- we leave bad food alone. When something smells bad we turn our face away from it. Here we have the entire anatomy of the dwindling spiral. We see that individuals continually take the upper cream off life and leave the skimmed milk, and then take skimmed milk and leave the drowned flies, until they are trying to go all the way to the bottom to close with the basic As-is-ness of existence, and this basic As-is-ness is mystery and stupidity.

This works in other ways. An individual walking through life and seeing, for instance, beautiful people, comes at length into a condition where he does not believe beautiful people exist, for he has taken their As-is-ness so long that the only thing which can make any effect upon him are less beautiful people. These he has not un-mocked. Thus we get the entire engram bank backing up those things which were never observed directly. One can understand, then, that ten thousand years ago in the civilizations of earth there might have been incredible beauty, and one can easily see that these would have no background in the bank of the preclear.  However, the ugly spots of ten thousand years ago would still be there, and so would bring up the humdrum routine present time existing without valor, gallantry, or beauty.

This is the anatomy of what Krishna might have meant when he inferred that the bad must be taken with the good. Here we see, then, the explanation of why some men can tolerate only disease and dirt, why some can tolerate only poverty, and we behold, in short, the entire mechanism behind Acceptance Level. Acceptance Level Processing, as contained in the PAB’s was one method of reaching a betterment of conditions. Description Processing is a far better method of reaching that condition.

Now let us take, more or less in their order of importance, the various things with which we fill in ‘How does... seem to you now?’ The auditor be cautioned that he must never start in on one of these subjects without flattening the communication lag resulting. Any one of these items which is mentioned here might very well take ten hours of questioning before it could be run entirely flat, for these are very powerful items. An auditor might as well poison his preclear as to run this list one item after another without a repetition of the question.  The keynote of this entire process is that the auditor asks this question ‘How does ... seem to you now.?’ over, and over, and over, and over, interjecting only ‘Does it seem to be persisting?’ The auditor can add dunnage (irrelevant remarks aimed solely to stay in communication with the preclear) only so long as he does not distract the preclear from this process.

The items used follow:  TIME, CHANGE, MOTIONLESSNESS, CREATION, SURVIVAL, PERSISTENCE, DESTRUCTION, DISTANCE, AGREEMENT, DISAGREEMENT, STUPIDITY, COPYING, BEAUTY, UGLINESS, PEOPLE, YOU, SERIOUSNESS, RESISTANCE, RESTRAINT, OBJECTION, NOTHINGNESS, any one of the DYNAMICS, and any part of the FUNDAMENTALS OF SCIENTOLOGY. In the matter of time, the preclear must necessarily have been run at least on SOP 8-C Opening Procedure and Opening Procedure by Duplication before the process is attempted.  Additionally, he must have been run on Perfect Duplicates so as to gain some stability for him in present time on the subject of looking at things. The question once posed is used over, and over, and over again.  Remember that the process, which is to say the phrase, which turns on a somatic, if repeated many times, will turn it off.

Now we have special cases of preclears who seem to be having peculiar difficulties. The first of these is the preclear with the black field. To such a preclear, before anything else except R2-16 and R2-17 are run, blackness should be run: ‘How does blackness seem to you now?’ Obviously a thetan has always looked toward the light, the brightness, the form, the object, and has ever neglected the dark areas. This can be run objectively by having the preclear sit in a dark room and simply have him look at the darkness, which is the poorer of the methods, by test, or the auditor can have the preclear close his eyes and run the process.  If an auditor must address a psychosomatic illness, it is only necessary for him to ask: ‘How do your (legs, hands, eyes) seem to you now?’ using one of them at a time. The lame can walk simply if asked: ‘How do your legs seem to you now?’ enough times.

Another version of this was developed by the staff, by combining R2-20, Problems and Solutions, with Description Processing, with these commands: ‘Can you recall a problem which concerned you.?’ When the preclear does, ‘How did it seem to you then?’ When he describes this, ‘How does it seem to you now?’ He is then asked for another problem, using the same commands.

DO NOT FORGET TO REMEDY HAVINGNESS ON A PRECLEAR WHEN YOU RUN ANY AS-IN-NESS PROCESS SUCH AS R2-34.

R2-35: LOCATION PROCESSES
This is an entire class of processes which depends upon the utterance of one challenging question as to location, and repeats that question over and over many times. The simplest phrasing of this is: ‘Where are you now?’ The auditor, no matter how maddening it may seem to the preclear, simply continues to ask this question. This question, asked for an hour, produces singular results in a preclear. But a word of warning: this question should not be asked of some preclear who is still struggling on SOP 8-C Opening Procedure, or who is definitely out of contact with present time, for the process is butchery.  A very effective use of this process is contained in the phrase, ‘Where is your face?’ This applies very specifically to people who are exteriorized. It does not occur to them sometimes for an hour of ‘Where is your face?’ that they themselves have no face, and that they are still locating the body’s face. They have to understand this on their own.

R2-36: SELF-DETERMINISM

As an up-to-date Scientologist knows, Self-Determinism as an ideal state went out the window with Dianetics. As long as you consider yourself intimately one thing confronting another thing which is not yourself you are not balanced in your environment.  Self-Determinism is a much higher peak than that attained by Homo Sapiens previously, but, in Scientology, there is a much better concept -- that of Pan-Determinism.

There are all manner of traps and social twists to keep a person located and identified with one object. The society insists that one have a label. It should be called to the attention of anyone interested in auditing that a symbol has ‘three M’s’, Mass, Meaning, and Mobility. As soon as one accepts entirely meaning, such as a name, and accepts intimately mass, and is made to be mobile, one is then dependent to some degree upon some orientation point in order to have space. One is inhibited in constructing space. Therefore the goal of processing in Scientology is not Self-Determinism. The goal of processing is Pan-Determinism.  Spanning of Attention and other processes go in this direction.

The practicality of Pan-Determinism is immediately seen in an elementary,

if uncommon, situation where one is being robbed. If one continues to be solely one’s self, the determinism of the robber is left entirely free. The way to combat a robber is, while one is being robbed, be the robber, and go away.

Here, immediately, we cross the bridge into a complete First Dynamic. A complete First Dynamic is a Pan-Determined Dynamic. All earlier processes of Dianetics and Scientology audit mainly the Third Dynamic. The subject of Pan-Determinism is a very touchy subject on a social line, for it becomes apparent immediately that bravery in the face of odds, while dramatic, is less than optimum. One should simply be the target and the odds at the same time. Here we have the whole question of randomity.  Randomity comes about when one selects out and gives determinism to another entity or object. This tells you immediately that the problem of healing at a distance could be looked upon with some favor, and this would be true if the concept of Nirvana were true, where all life comes about as a fragmentation of Life. But this is no essay or determination of whether it is bad or good to heal at a distance, or to do healing of the kind which Christ did. The only thing I would care to say on the subject at this time is that if one does healing of this character simply that he should do it well and thoroughly. Such healing does not happen to make Self-Determined individuals out of those so healed, but this again is a matter of ethic and not a matter of practicality. An auditor, by applying processing skills, is actually making somebody well but he is also bringing that person up to the line toward a higher goal of Self-Determinism, and if he wishes, up to a higher goal of Pan-Determinism There could be billions of Pan-Determining individuals, since a universe is composed of time-continua of particles in common. As long as one does not cross particles into other time-continua and so get two time-continua, one would not get a mergence of universes.

While there are many processes yet to be delineated on the subject of Self-Determinism and Pan-Determinism, one can expect people to confuse the condition of ‘buttered all over the universe’, ‘clairvoyance’, ‘telepathy’, and other half-felt, half-experienced things to be taken up in lieu of clear-sighted, knowing, Pan-Determinism. The first goal of the auditor is to get somebody up into the Self-Determined category, and then to remember afterwards that a person can be in a Pan-Determining category. All a thetan has to do to be Pan-Determining is simply move in back of somebody else’s head. It is as simple as this. A thetan should also be able to make perfect duplicates of himself.

The recovery of Pan-Determinism is necessary to get somebody out of the rut of obsessive Self-Determinism.  Beingness Processing (R2-31) directly processes obsessive Self-Determinism.  Under the heading of Self-Determinism and Pan-Determinism we have, also, the subject of Control. The necessity to predict with actual force or energy the future course of an object is a refusal to have something As-is. Thus, with Control we get persistence, and that individual whose case will not change is in such a level of persistence and obsessive Self-Determinism that he must control everything.

The easiest process with which to approach this problem is contained in the command phrase:  ‘Indicate something which is not making space for you’, and when the preclear has, ‘Indicate something else which is not making space for you’, and so forth until we have recovered certainty and clarity on the viewpoint of dimension. It will be discovered very rapidly that there are many people making space for the preclear, and that he is to some degree contained in the universe of each one of these people and has many particles in common with them.

R2-37: YELLING

In that man has, for a long time, used words to make space, and as any barbaric people uses noise to make itself big, it will be found that an inhibition of making noise is a major difficulty on the case of any preclear. When this process is done, the auditor should be very careful that the preclear will not be suppressed by his environment. It is more than the auditor’s simply being careful of the neighbors. It is the auditor being careful of the preclear, for the preclear will be careful of the neighbors. The auditor should take the preclear to some place where the preclear would be free to yell. The auditing command is: ‘Start yelling’, and ‘keep yelling’. The preclear can be sent off by himself to yell. If a group is being processed where its noise will not disturb others, a back and forth interchange between the auditor and the group will be found beneficial. This process is very limited and has a tendency simply to make people cheerful, but occasionally some cases are so inhibited on the making of noise that they are having difficulty with their vocal cords or with their mouths. Tooth trouble can be traced to the inhibition of making noise. Distaste for singing is equally traced to the making of noise.

This process can also be done by Creative Processing (the making of mock-ups). This is, at first glance, a body process, but it will be discovered in processing a thetan who is exteriorized that he is very afraid to make noise In such a case the auditor should exteriorize him into some place far from the auditor and far from the body, and the auditor should use Description Processing for a while on the thetan: ‘How does making noise seem to you now?’ and then ‘Start yelling keep on yelling’. This is an exteriorized process.

R2-38: HOLDING ANCHOR POINTS

There are innumerable drills concerning space. In that a thetan, to have vision, must be able to tolerate or make space, and in that three-dimensional space requires four points, one sees that a thetan must be able to view three separate anchor points at once to have the illusion of space.

The hypnotic effect of the body on a thetan is created by narrowing the thetan’s view to two eyes, one point. The optical trick of seeing depth with two eyes is not seeing three points at once.
The remedy of the ‘hypnotic trance’ of the thetan which makes him believe he is a body, is the remedy of his looking through eyes at one point. The simplest and most workable remedy, which results in exteriorization most often, if then after some time, is ‘holding corners’. The preclear is seated in a chair -- preclears are audited while seated or standing or walking these days, never lying down -- and is asked to close his eyes.

The commands then are: ‘Close your eyes’, ‘Locate an upper corner of the room behind you’. When he has done so, ‘Now locate the other upper corner behind you” ‘All right, hold on to these two corners, and don’t think’.  The preclear is quietly enjoined, from time to time, to continue his attention on the corners and not to think. At the end of 15 minutes the auditor says, ‘Now find the third corner behind you’, (meaning a lower corner). When the auditor is assured the preclear has done this, he says, ‘Now hold on to the same two you had before and the new one’. When the preclear has all three corners at once, the auditor says, ‘Now hold on to those three corners and don’t think’. The auditor has the preclear continue to do this for at least fifteen minutes. Then, ‘Now find the fourth back corner’, ‘Now hold all four corners, sit back and don’t think’. This is done for at least fifteen minutes. The auditor then has the preclear locate all eight corners of the room, and says, ‘Now hold on to all eight corners of the room, sit back and don’t think’. Occasionally and quietly checking to see that the preclear is following the command, the auditor has the preclear do this for at least fifteen minutes.

If this process is to be done longer than this total time of one hour, as indicated in the above commands, go through the above sequence of commands again as a process for another hour, do not simply have the preclear hold eight corners for another hour.  Put him through two corners, three, four and eight again as given. In other words, use this sequence every time you use the process.

If I were processing a difficult preclear I would do Opening Procedure 8-C, R2-16, for at least fifteen hours, then Opening Procedure by Duplication, R2-17, for five hours, then Description Processing, R2-34, for five hours, and finally this holding corners for five hours. And if he stumbled or deteriorated on the way, I would go to R2-16 again and return to where he had stumbled and finish that off.

R2-39: CONCEIVING SOMETHING INTERESTING

Interest is the keynote of interiorization. A preclear who is difficult to exteriorize has become so deeply interested in his body that he has become involved with it.

Experimental proof of this exists. When the preclear who won’t exteriorize becomes so ill that he cannot envision any future for his body, he will exteriorize. Indeed, this is the mechanism at death.  The body will not be useful, has reached past interest to finality and so the thetan exteriorizes. It is remarkable with what ease. In testing I have purposely brought experimental preclears -- who were as resistive to exteriorization as any to be found -- to a point where they believed it was ‘all up’ with the body. They left the body then.

Interest is the consideration above the mechanical action of control. Controlling is Starting, Changing, Stopping. Deepening of interest is manifested by a passage from watching to participating. As the thetan watches several particles or bodies in motion he may become prejudiced in favor of one. He sinks from Pan-Determinism to ‘Self-Determinism’ where ‘Self’ is the one in which he became interested to the exclusion of others or counter to these others. Now, having become the object, his interest is its interest.  It against its environment is a problem the thetan involves himself in solving. He may do this with something he creates or something he finds already created. His interest led him to seek to predict its actions in favor of its survival. When he fails to predict, he may enter a confusion of motion for he ‘does not know’ the next movement of the object.  Confusion then leads to mystery. Thus the anatomy of mystery begins with interest, leads to ‘Self-Determinism’, leads to Prediction of starting, changing, and stopping (Control), leads to a shortening of communication lines, may become at length confusion, and end with mystery.
Interest is not bad simply because it leads to interiorization, for interiorization ceases, by test, when the thetan can no longer feel there is anything more in which to be interested. A thetan is indestructible.

There are several stages of interest. The qualities of these are represented by the Know-Sex-Mystery scale. Most notable are those used in the Chart of Human Evaluation.  Interest is at first without particles, then as ‘Self-Determinism’ (effort to determine the future of a ‘self’) enters, postulates dedicated to control are used. As mis-prediction occurs, particles are employed to guide and these are of many qualities and solidities such as enthusiasm or anger, play or work. (See scales.) Inversions take place at those points where the thetan uses the ‘self’ to acquire, notably, eating and sex.

When the thetan becomes doubtful of the continued ‘interest quality’ of the self either for other selves or himself, there ensues an undecided period where he is ‘not interested’. This is most marked on a social level. But it also occurs on a ‘self’ level. In such a condition he has not actually despaired of future interest and has not abandoned the ‘self’ but he declares, often to continue to be interesting, that he has given up. He only gives up when he abandons the group as a body or when he abandons the body as a thetan.

The auditor is attempting to exteriorize the preclear so that the preclear can assume a higher Pan-Determinism on the Dynamics and, usually, so that the preclear can again ‘run a body’ from outside.  Where the auditor so fails, the preclear is under the impression that the auditor is trying to get him to abandon the body, thus a sort of grief ensues. (See R2-40.)

When interest becomes fixed we have attention.  When attention becomes fixed we have an unawareness of other things than the object of fixation, and a decrease of Pan-Determinism down to ‘Self-Determinism’. When this fixity of attention goes to an extreme we have a lessening of Self-Determinism to a point of Other-Determinism. As Self-Determinism lessens, we find an hypnotic state of ‘total’ other determinism which becomes then Self-Determinism (dramatization).  We discover in this last all the mechanisms of the engram and, as well, the mechanism of shifting valences. For the preclear assumes the valence of greatest determinism (winning valence) as being the valence of greatest interest.

The process used to remedy a fixation of interest to the exclusion of self consists of broadening interest.  By the broadening of, interest we do not achieve a liability which will again collapse, but a greater freedom. Broaden, do not contract, a preclear’s width of interest.

The spheres of interest are the eight Dynamics. A series of concentric spheres each one larger than the last with the First Dynamic at center and the Eighth Dynamic at the extreme of any universe gives a spatial picture of interest. When a retreat or inversion occurs, the Eighth, the extreme outside sphere becomes the inverted First Dynamic, the Seventh becomes the inverted Second, the Sixth the inverted Third, the Fifth the inverted Fourth, the Fourth the inverted Fifth, the Third the inverted Sixth, the Second the inverted Seventh, the First the inverted Eighth. Then they progress, in interest, and Alter-is-ness, outward again.  The inverted Eighth becomes the reinverted First, the inverted Seventh becomes the reinverted Second and so forth. Each inversion is occasioned by a falling back of interest while yet retaining contact with the area from which one fell back. Hence we get such manifestations as ‘buttered all over the universe’, and ‘my thetan is over there’ and such ridiculous manifestations.

The processes of spanning attention, etc., resolve this sort of thing.

Here is the process specifically aimed at interest, for a homo sapiens badly interiorized. ‘Mock up (get an imaginary picture on the most interesting body form other people would conceive.’ The preclear may not be able to get visible (to him) mock-ups, but he will mock up something, black or invisible, and this will be the most interesting body form he can conceive.  He is so fixed on it he cannot do otherwise than mock it up.

Then have him mock up another by saying: ‘Do it again’, and another, and another. Have him pull these, visible or not, in upon him to remedy havingness by saying, ‘All right, now pull those in upon you’.

Then, ‘Mock up the most interesting body form you can conceive’, ‘And now another’, ‘And another’, ‘And another’, ‘Now pull those in upon you’. Now repeat the first command (other people), have him remedy havingness with what he got. Then the second phrase (his most interesting body) back and forth time after time. He will learn exactly what he conceives to be interesting and what he believes others would find interesting.

Do this for at least half an hour. Four hours would be better. His ability to mock up, his acceptance levels, will change.

The second part of the process consists of a more objective (and better) process. As the preclear is a Man we can suppose that he is interested in his species, but we may have learned in part one of this process that he is more interested in other forms than Man. The auditor assumes that a thetan interiorized into a man would be interested in men or, with an earlier clue, substitutes another form.

The auditing command is, ‘What other person could you be interested in?’ ‘And now another one’, ‘And another one’, until a broad array of people are disclosed. Getting the preclear to pretend he is various objects with various viewpoints also resolves this.

A fundamental way of looking at interest is to qualify its two major divisions as INTERESTED and INTERESTING.

A thetan in good condition is interested. When he has become a ‘self’ he feels he must have energy from exterior sources and so he becomes interesting. Interested could be said to be an outflow. Interesting could be said to be an inflow. Being interested yet leaves one considerable 
freedom. Being interesting pulls in particles upon one and so restricts him. An interested thetan is the solver of problems. An interesting self is a problem.

More broadly, a thetan is interested in problems.  MEST is a problem. The passage from interested to interesting has many phases. When one is not longer interested, but is only interesting, he has lost his principle quality as a thetan -- freedom, and the ability to change at will.

Having the preclear mock up interesting bodies, forms, machines, and universes discharges much of his interiorized condition and fixation. Then having him look at actual people and objects and ‘get the idea’ of how it would be to be them and move them about brings him again towards Pan-Determinism.

NEXT TO THE OPENING PROCEDURES THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PROCESS IN INTENSIVE PROCEDURE.

‘Let’s find something in which you could be interested.’ And when the preclear does, ‘Find some more things in which you could be interested’. And when he has, ‘Some more things’, and so on, with these commands for at least an hour.

Do not use ‘interesting’, use only ‘interested’ -- in other words, process the preclear towards theta (interested), not towards MEST (interesting).

You can see that the preclear is ‘As-ising’ situations, that he is also broadening attention and unfixing from the body. The only thing you can do wrong with this process is not to run it long enough.

The process works subjectively but it is well, if the preclear reaches an impasse, to have him find things in the present time environment in which he can be interested.

Without directing the preclear’s attention to specific things, just by running the commands, ‘some things in which you could be interested’, exteriorization takes place.

The factors which make interest a very important process is the fact that interest is the entrance point to havingness. Heretofore we have used attention, but have used it very sparingly in processing.  The reason for this is that attention is into the field of mechanics. It has, however, become evident that interest is more consideration than attention, and is therefore attention with intention. Interest, therefore, could be defined as this -attention with an intention to give or attract attention. If you will have the preclear look around his environment and point out things which have the intention to alter things, and other things which have the attention to keep them from altering things, we will discover that we are running time. The intention to alter and the intention to keep things from altering are together the two factors of change. Interest added to this gives us the determinism of attention. The auditing commands for this would be: ‘Look around the environment and find some things which have the intention of altering things’, ‘Now look at them again and get interested in them’ and so forth. ‘took around the environment now and find some things which have the intention to keep things from altering. Now get interested in these items one after another’, thus directing the preclear’s attention and inviting him to mock up interest. It will be readily discovered that he will shift on the time track, and that he will consider himself detached from time.

The keynote of a preclear who is having a difficult time is that he has no interest in outside things. One who is having a less difficult time would be interested only in things in his immediate vicinity. A preclear who is fairly well off has an interest in altering things, or in keeping them from altering. But unless interest can be given on a postulated basis it is obsessive. The only reason a preclear keeps a psychosomatic illness around is that a great deal of residual interest has accumulated in that.

A preclear will have discovered roles up and down the time track which interested people, and he will be trying to occupy these roles in order to increase his own havingness. If you were to ask a preclear ‘What were your parents interested in?’ he would eventually recover from the very things he is suffering from.  Quite normally the whole career of a child is established by the things in which his mother is interested, and the child will try to be those things in which his mother was interested if his mother’s attention and interest in him has been slight. Here is the complete backbone of orientation points and symbols. If the orientation point is interested, the symbols are interesting. When one can no longer be an orientation point, he of course becomes a symbol and tries to get interest from the orientation point. The basic orientation points in a family are the parents or grandparents and the symbol is the child.

Usually the preclear has come to the auditor because he feels that the auditor will at least be interested in him. And when the auditor’s interest in the preclear is not demonstrated in such ways as not keeping appointments or in failing to let the preclear communicate, the preclear will worsen in the process.  However, such an omission can be remedied, although it shouldn’t have happened in the first place, by running interest processing. A much later process, OTHER PEOPLE, can be run by picking out in the preclear some obvious difficulty, such as a bad eye or a bad leg and have him get interested in the bad eyes and bad legs which he postulates at people in his vicinity. This puts the preclear into the role of an orientation point and takes him out of the role of a symbol by making him the one who is interested and makes other people in his vicinity the ones who are interesting.

A great many significances can of course be entered into this process. One can have the preclear be interested in things under attack, interested in things not under attack, Picking them out one after another in the environment. The auditor can have the preclear be interested in the weakness of MEST, the forgetfulness of MEST, the non-determinism of MEST, and other factors.

The Mystery to Know scale with the addition of Inhibited, Enforced, and Desired, can be run adding the factor of interest with the following commands:  ‘Pick out some things which are inhibiting mystery’, ‘Now one after the other, get interested in them’, ‘Now pick out some things which are enforcing mystery’, ‘Now get interested in them one after the other’, ‘Now pick out some things which desire mystery’, ‘Now get interested in them’. This can be run straight on through the Mystery to Know Scale which is: Mystery, Sex, Eatingness, Symbols, Thinkingness, Effort, Emotion, Lookingness, and Knowingness, to give it in its most complete form.

R2-40: CONCEIVING A STATIC THIS IS A HEAVY PROCESS. IT IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CASES HAVING ANY REAL DIFFICULTY.

Here we use the discovery and principle of Ultimate Truth (see Summary of Scientology).

If one has no prior postulate and makes a postulate, then that postulate cannot be a lie. If one then makes a denying postulate second to this primary postulate, he then has accomplished a lie.

A prime postulate on any subject cannot be a lie. A second postulate can be a lie. In such a case, the second postulate permits the prime postulate to exist. But in such a case it is the second postulate, the lie, which persists. All second postulates depend on prime postulates for their force.

1. All evil depends upon a prime postulate of goodness if the evil is to persist.
2. The Satanists claim that Satan is God after He made the universe.
3. A hatred of a person depends for its only strength upon a love for that person prior to the hatred. The hatred persists but only has strength from the love.
4. A man considers himself to be worthless. This state of mind, persisting, denotes that he must have had a considerable opinion of himself before he felt worthless.
But beware of thinking that ‘all is good’ or ‘all is evil’. The force comes from prime postulate, the state persisting from the second postulate.

EXAMPLE:
1. A doctor considers himself a good, charitable man, a wholly unselfish healer. On examination we see the second postulate persists, so his goodness must be the second postulate. It must have force from a prime postulate it denies and so we find this doctor entered medicine because it had more chance of easy sex. Then he denied this to himself and argued he did it from humanity. His pious mien ceases to persist and he is freed from this pose by straight-wiring the prime postulate.

RULE:
Always straight-wire out a condition contradicting the condition which exists.

EXAMPLE:
1. We have a preclear with bad legs. We see that bad legs are persisting. Thus we know that the forceful postulate is prior and opposite so we straight-wire out good legs.
2. A man is sick because of a jilt in love. We straight-wire out not the jilt, but the times he loved the girl.
3. Our interiorized preclear is stuck, won’t exteriorize. We straight-wire the time he was free and so discharge the stuck (the second) postulate, and thus exteriorize him.

RULE:
That which is closer to an ultimate truth (the Static) gives power to that which contradicts it.
The process, and a vicious one it is, contains only the command, repeated over and over, ‘Conceive a thetan’. 
Caution: this is a long process. The auditor may have to remedy the havingness of the preclear. (Do not forget SOP 8-C Opening Procedure if the preclear bogs.)

The ‘top buttons’ of the Chart of Attitudes (see Scientology 8-8008) are the main qualities of a Static.  A Static has no quantity: it does have quality and consideration.

R2-41: VIA VIA

VIA VIA is the curse word for existence. VIA means a relay point in a communication line. To talk via a body, to get energy via eating alike are communication by-routes.

We are trying to string, in a preclear, a straight line from Cause to Effect. The reasons we cannot are all via’s or complete stops. Enough vias make a stop.  A stop is made out of vias.
There is no real reason one should go into the past to straighten the present. There is no time but postulated time. Thus it is all present. Why not, then, postulate the desired condition in the present?

It is painful to do so, for the moment one does he tends to slip from the ideal to the first lie. One slips because the first lie was TIME. Time persists because it is a lie deriving its force from the absence of time in the static. Then forthright postulation of the static at first restimulates time. When the time postulate restimulates the literal blackness of lies, somatics, etc. come into view. All one has to do is endure these and repostulate the static. The reason earlier efforts along this line failed lay in their restimulating the second postulate each time, the lie, and then, not repostulating the static, mooning over the lie or the sign.

Recent efforts, such as Coue-ism, did not postulate the static, but validated time. (‘Every day in every way I am getting better and better.’) Don’t postulate to become beautiful, postulate current beauty. (‘I am beautiful.’) Thus postulating the static at first swings one into Time and the second postulate, then finally the static itself occurs.

Remember: a static has no mass, wave-length, energy, location, or time. But it can consider, and it has qualities. Those qualities are its basic definition plus the top buttons of the Chart of Attitudes, plus beauty.

A solution would be something which solves the problem. Thus the As-is-ness is the problem is the solution for it would vanish the problem. Thus, in Scientology we have attained an ultimate solution -- the static, and an ultimate truth -- the static. To work this clearly, the auditor commands: ‘Get the idea of having infinite leisure’. When the preclear does, ‘Now get it again’, ‘Get it again and better’, ‘Again’ and so forth, regardless of what somatics or locks appear. He does this for at least fifteen minutes. Then, ‘Now get the idea of complete freedom’.  ‘Again.’ ‘Again’, for at least fifteen minutes. Then, ‘Get the idea of having total ability’, for at least half an hour.

Now use this command but include in it the Chart of Attitudes and beauty: ‘Assume complete ...’ ‘Again’, ‘Assume complete ... again’, ‘Again’.

The Chart of Attitude buttons are: SURVIVAL, RIGHTNESS, RESPONSIBILITY, OWNERSHIP, MANKIND, DURATION, MOTION (as source), TRUTH, FAITH, KNOWINGNESS, CAUSE, BEINGNESS, and BEAUTY. Do not do these briefly.

LET THE PRECLEAR EXPLAIN HOW THESE SEEM TO HIM BUT DON’T MIX THIS WITH DESCRIPTION PROCESSING.

R2-42, R2-43 AND R2-44 ARE A PROCESSING GROUP

R2-42: PAN-DETERMINISM

Pan-Determinism is a new idea in Scientology. Its Validity is demonstrated by the fact that it is a ‘five-star’ process. Pan-Determinism is the ability to regulate the considerations of two or more identities, whether or not opposed. Previously our goal was the relatively limited goal of Self-Determinism. It was for some time realized that this did not embrace the total concept since Self-Determinism expresses in the main the First Dynamic. But the moment one begins to consider the fact that the thetan is controlling the body, one sees that he is not dealing with a person or identity with the First Dynamic but is dealing with the Third Dynamic. Thus we have Self-Determinism as a misnomer. We see that survival is as successful as determinism is stretched across the environment. In other words, up the Dynamics. Certainly where man is concerned it is never a problem, then, of Self-Determinism, it is a problem of Pan-Determinism, for here we have in one individual several items, each distinct, under control. When a thetan came into full control of himself and his activities we would have, and only then have, Self-Determinism. But a thetan, in his playing of the game, is attempting Pan-Determinism, and is assuming Self-Determinism. His first goal might be said to be Pan-Determinism. Under Pan-Determinism we have of course the problem of control. The component parts of control are start, change and stop. Thus a person controlling something is trying to start, change and stop that thing.  Where he loses his ability to start and stop it he only retains his ability to change it, and thus we have a low-level case trying desperately to change, being unable to change, and very certainly being unable completely to start and stop. His last effort is to change.

Any time you are addressing a preclear you are addressing something which is attempting Pan-Determinism.Here is a thetan trying to control a body, an engram bank, and the various symbiotes of the body, such as its possessions, vehicles, and servicing items.

In Pan-Determinism we are not concerned with either bad or good. We are only concerned with the fact that a thetan is trying to control many identities, some of them opposed to others, and that his inabilities in the past to control certain beingnesses have brought him to a level of belief where he does not feel that he can control anything, and as a result we discover him unable to because, thus unable to find himself or be at the source-end of a communication line. Pan-Determinism is the direct reason why one becomes ‘buttered all over the universe’.

This effort toward Pan-Determinism is the monitoring point in all processing. The discovery of Pan-Determinism was the difference between success and failure in many cases.

Under the heading of Pan-Determinism we discover such things as owning, protecting, and hiding bodies. One declares the ownership of something so that he will be given the right to control it. One protects something because he considers that something else is trying to control it. One hides something because he is afraid something else may appear to control it.

An enormous variety of processes stem from Pan-Determinism.  Here any and all of the training of an auditor can exert itself. This is the common denominator and the one fast line through to the upper ranges of the tone scale. There is a second line: that which is described in R2-43, FIGHTING. Pan-Determinism is what one is fighting for. It is the ‘reason why’ behind existence.

The auditing commands for the running of Pan-Determinism are as follows: ‘What do you feel you could control’, and ‘some more things’, and ‘some more things’.

One runs this so as to improve the considerations of the preclear. He can fully expect the preclear to drop into very deep apathy on occasion, but the process carried forward determinedly by the auditor and not ‘patty-caked’ or left off simply because the preclear is having difficulty, will produce, all by itself, a considerable resurgence of case. R2-43 takes care of most of the factors which are encountered as the reason why one does not feel one can determine the course of something.

R2-43: FIGHTING

Basically this Universe is a game. The MEST universe pretends to be a universe of peace. In order to become a universe of peace it is necessary to stop everything from fighting. In order to have a game it is necessary to have opponents. If one has opponents there must be fighting. This universe is organized to immobilize a thetan.

So eager is a thetan to have a game that he will adopt to himself all manner of liabilities in order to have a parity with his opponents. One cannot have a game with people who are too inferior in strength or cleverness. Thus one reduces his own strength and cleverness in order to have a game.

As given in R2-42, PAN-DETERMINISM, one uses as his reason why he is fighting the necessity of controlling something else. The effort to control is the ‘reason why’ for fighting. Fighting itself is the game.

R2-42 and R2-43 are very close together in workability and between them worked one against the other, back and forth, will lift the preclear up through the barriers of force. It could be said that a preclear stops fighting when he considers that other forces or ideas or emotions are too much for him. As given in the Philadelphia lecture series, one has to go up through force before one can cease to use force. If one does not rise superior to force, then one is the subject and slave of force.

Peace is only to be found at the high levels of the tone scale. Any effort to have peace after one has become the victim of force and is afraid of force simply involves further struggle. There is no peace below the level where one cannot fight. We are not here concerned with moral values, we are only concerned with the workability of processes, and whereas it might be said of Scientology that it is attempting to sell fighting and war, this would only be said by those who were themselves badly defeated and afraid of force.

Here we have as well, automaticity and randomity.  In order to have more attention to control other things, one sets up the things he is already controlling as automatic. Having done so he has given to them a determinism of their own, and having so given them their own determinism they can, if he ceases thus to control them, attack him. Thus we have the machines of a thetan. These machines work only so long as they are in control of the individual, and then begin to work against the individual. Thus it is with the remainder of the universe. One only fights those things which he has selected out as not under his control. Any thing which is not under an individual’s control but which has taken the individual’s attention is likely to be an identity used to fight.

The motto of this universe is ‘We must have a game’. Games consist of opponents, and reasons to have a game, and things to have a game about. Reasons to have a game are summed up under Pan-Determinism.  Things to have a game about are summed up under Havingness.
The game is the thing. The wins and losses are not the thing. One loses every time one wins, for he then has no game. Any cessation will bring about a change in the status of an individual for he will then impose upon himself other penalties and liabilities and impose reasons why upon others so as to create a new game.

Although it is antipathetic to most preclears, as you will discover by processing them, a game is no more and no less than fighting an opposition.

One falls out of having a game when one begins to believe that the forces being used against him, or the ideas being used against him, or the emotions being used against him, are too great to oppose.  Once he has this idea he can then be subjected to other forces.

As all forces, emotions, and efforts in general can be categorized under Considerations to have a consideration about a force has greater actuality than having the force itself. Changing one’s mind about force is senior to changing force.
It must be realized that an individual who has drawn away from force has also drawn away from the material of which his engram bank is made.  People on whom engrams collapse are people who have become afraid of force. This is best approached, not by using work or other factors, but by directly approaching the problem of games and running fighting only.

It will be discovered that most individuals are involved with fighting themselves. After all, an individual is a Third, not a First Dynamic. The body, the engram bank, the thetan, his machines form four items which can be at war, one with another, and when an individual has an insufficiency of fighting out in his environment he will begin to fight with himself. The condition of most preclears who come to an auditor is this. One of the ways to handle this is with the auditing command: ‘Point out some things in the environment which are fighting themselves’. This run for an hour or two out where the preclear can actually see things and point them out will key out most of the engram bank with which he is in conflict. He will recognize fully and clearly very shortly after he has started on this process that he is fighting himself.

In view of the fact that there is a scarcity of fighting imposed by police, mores, and the motto Peace!  Peace!  Peace! of this universe, you will discover that you have to start, and run for a very long time, the factor of wasting. Thus, the first entrance to this problem could be wasting fighting.  One would do this in brackets with the following auditing commands: ‘Waste some fighting’, and when the comm-lag is flat on this, ‘Have somebody else waste fighting’, ‘Waste some fighting’, ‘Have somebody else waste fighting’. It will be discovered that the preclear will do this for many hours of processing, all with a betterment of his case, before he actually gets up to the point where he can touch the next level of this process, which is accepting fighting.  However, one does not at this stage run accepting fighting. The next part of this process is done with the following auditing commands:  ‘Waste some opponents’, ‘Have somebody else waste some opponents’.              

After the preclear can handle this without any appreciable comm-lag, one then goes to the next part of this process: ‘Waste some liabilities’, ‘Have somebody else waste some liabilities’, ‘Waste some liabilities’, ‘Have somebody else waste some liabilities’. And this, too, will have to be run for a long time until the individual has flattened his communication lag.

Having handled the subject of fighting directly, opponents and liabilities, one can then go on to accepting, but one does this only when the communication lag on wasting of fighting, opponents, and liabilities has been done. One uses accepting in this case by remedying Havingness. ‘Mock up something you could fight’, ‘Pull it into you’, ‘Mock up something else you could fight’, ‘Pull it into you’. Even though the mock-up is invisible or black it is still done. If you are having the individual point out things he could fight in the environment itself, do not be surprised at this stage if he simply pulls out of his body as a thetan and occupies the area of that which he thinks he could fight. One follows this with:  ‘Mock up an opponent’, ‘Pull it into you’, ‘Mock up another opponent’, ‘Pull it into you’. One follows this with: ‘Mock up a liability’, ‘Pull it into you’, ‘Mock up another liability’, ‘Pull it into you’.

You should run fighting in conjunction with Pan-Determinism and the process ‘Must and Must Not Happen’. In other words do not run R2-43 without also running interspersed with it R2-42 and R2-44. These three processes work together.  Any time a communication lag is fairly flat on any one of these, you should shift to either of the other two.  Remember, R2-42, R2-43, and R2-44 work together interspersed, and make, themselves, a process. If you have a preclear out in the open you can have him point out things in the environment that he could fight. Just as, if you have him out in the open you can have him point out things he wouldn’t mind controlling, and in the case of R2-44, things that he wouldn’t mind having happen, or not happen, again.

‘What would it be safe to fight’, until the comm-lag is flat. ‘What would others find it safe to fight’, ‘What would it be safe to fight’, ‘What would others find it safe to fight’, in a continuation of Fighting as a process. ‘What thoughts would it be safe for you to fight’, ‘What thoughts would it be safe for others to fight’, run back and forth many times until the comm-lag is flat. ‘What emotions would it be safe for you to fight’, ‘What emotions would it be safe for others to fight’, run back and forth until the comm-lag is flat. ‘What efforts would it be safe to fight’, ‘What efforts would others consider it safe to fight’, run back and forth until the comm-lag is flat. ‘What imaginings would it be safe to fight’, ‘What imaginings would others consider it safe to fight. ‘Indicate some things which are fighting.’ ‘Spot all the spots where you had to stop fighting them.’ ‘Spot all the spots where you won’, is excellent since either a win or a lose is a ‘stop fighting’ and therefore a loss of opponents. You will find many preclears hung up in past moments of victory. This is only because they lost their opponents at that moment, and the loss stuck them on the track by bringing about motionlessness. ‘What would you need to fight things’, ‘What would others need to fight things’.

If you have the preclear out in the open where there are lots of people, a very good method of processing, have him place into these people unknown to them the preclear’s own attitudes about fighting. Take one attitude and have him place it in several people, another of the preclear’s attitudes about fighting and have him place it in many more people, and you will discover considerable changes take place in the preclear.

‘What mechanisms could you use to continue fighting’, is another fine process. ‘What changes could you make and still fight’, is yet another interesting process. ‘Describe some fighting that would interest you’, is another facet of this process. The key process to alter behavior is, ‘Invent some things you could fight’, ‘Invent some things that could fight you’.

R2-44: MUST AND MUST NOT HAPPEN

A preclear is stuck on the track where motionlessness occurs. One of the reasons he has used to fight was to make something happen or to keep something from happening. Thus it is of interest in the case to undo these stuck points in the preclear. There are many ways these could be undone, but there is apparently only one way that is actually effective.  This is done with the following commands. ‘Tell me some things you wouldn’t want to have happen again’, ‘Tell me some things you would like to have happen again’. The preclear will get, in accordance with these commands, various recalls, incidents, facsimiles, or environmental situations, or future fears or hopes, and may be steered more directly into these. I first discovered this process by running concepts, but in the running of concepts it has a very limited workability. By pointing out live or imaginary situations great workability is achieved.  The auditor must be very careful to do this process long enough so as not to leave the preclear hung up in an incident.

This is the basic key of time.  

R2-45: AN ENORMOUSLY EFFECTIVE PROCESS FOR EXTERIORIZATION BUT ITS USE IS FROWNED UPON BY THIS SOCIETY AT THIS TIME

R2-46, R2-47 AND R2-48 ARE A PROCESSING GROUP

R2-46: OTHER PEOPLE 

Here is one of the more curious and one of the more swiftly workable processes. An auditor may find himself reluctant to use this process, but experiment has demonstrated that it did not bring harm to other people. This is one of the fastest ways of getting rid of a psychosomatic known in Scientology.  It is practically the only method known to get rid of the Unknowns in the bank. It is a direct environmental process utilizing actual, visible, other people.  To run this process one must be in a heavily populated area where people are on the street, walking about, sitting down or otherwise directly visible to the preclear. The process is not run in mock-ups.  This process has been known to get rid of heavy chronic somatics in a few minutes.
The auditor takes the preclear into a railroad station or a park, or has him sit in a car on a heavily used street and says to him ‘What do you think is wrong with you?’ He has the preclear name some specific thing, and having named it, the auditor then says ‘All right, pick out one of these people, and have that thing wrong with that person’, and when the preclear has done so, ‘Now pick out another person and have this same thing wrong with that person’. The auditor continues to have the preclear place into these people this thing which is wrong With the preclear only so long as the item is wrong with the preclear, for this is a very rapid process and a very rapid change takes place.

Any concept or idea of any kind can be utilized in this process. The auditor can pick out obvious things the preclear has, and have the preclear find these things wrong with other people around.

This also works if the auditor has the preclear find each person, one after the other which he actually sees during the process, perfect. In other words, the auditor can say, ‘Postulate perfection into that person’, ‘Now postulate perfection into that one’.  This is mixing OTHER PEOPLE with CONCEIVING A STATIC, but for that matter almost any process in Scientology can be employed in this fashion.

One of the very effective ways of using this process, OTHER PEOPLE, is to have the preclear place into them ‘lostness’, or stupidity, inability to locate themselves, and, in short, all the factors making up Unknown as covered in R2-52.

Blackness, inability to get mock-ups, and other Scientological liabilities can also be placed into people in this fashion.

It is interesting to note that the preclear, being incapable along the lines of energy and postulates only very rarely gets through to anybody with this postulation, for the preclear is too ‘weak’ to cause such effects. However, he should do this with great sincerity and with full belief that he is doing it.  After a preclear has exteriorized, it is interesting to note that he still does not have this same effect upon these people.  But postulating such items actually does bring about the condition.

R2-47: BODY DIFFERENTIATION

‘This process is done in the same manner as R2-46 R2-46, R2-47, and R2-48 being a group of processes.

One has the preclear note the differences between himself and the bodies of the people he can see in his immediate environment. This process is done in a park or a railroad station or on the street, seated in a car. The auditing command is: ‘Point out a difference between that person’s body and yours’. This command is used over and over.

R2-48: SEPARATENESS

This is a key process attacking individuation. In his effort to control, a thetan spreads himself further and further from the universe, and in his failures to control, withdraws from things he has attempted to control but leaves himself connected with them in terms of ‘dead energy’. Thus we get the manifestation ‘buttered all over the universe’.

This was the process which told me that we are not natively sprung from one ‘common body of theta’. If you run Separateness, accentuating the difference in unity of a thetan from other thetans and things and spaces, he continues to gain in tone.  If you run this process in reverse, how he is the same as, or is connected to various items, he continues to dwindle in tone. By handling this latter process one can press a thetan down into the rock-bottom state of aberration. We have long known that differentiation was the keynote of sanity, and that identification was the basis of aberration. This fact is utilized in processing by running separateness.

It can be concluded that the thetan is an individual separate from every other thetan and that he has never been part of any other thetan. There are many ‘phony’ incidents implanted on the track whereby an individual is made to feel that he is a result of explosion having occurred to a larger body. He is also made to feel that he was at one time ‘whole’ and is now only a splinter of himself. This is only an effort to reduce him. He has always been himself, he will always be himself, down to a time when he is entirely identified with this universe, at which time he would no longer be himself simply because he would no longer be conscious.

It seems that the only aberration can occur by enforcing Basic Truth. Here we discover that the individual, being separate, is then forced to be separate, and so develops a complex of ‘the only one’ and tries to fend off the rest of the universe from himself and finally merges with it with his impossibility of fending it off. All you have to do is accentuate truth and force it home as another determinism in order to create an aberration. There is some basic truth, then, in whatever is wrong with a thetan, and of course the basic wrongness is that he is not a static.

Separateness is best run by having the preclear out in an open place inhabited by a great many people, as in R2-46 and R2-47.

The auditing command is: ‘Point out some things from which you are separate’, ‘Point out some more things from which you are separate’, ‘Point out some more things, from which you are separate’.

You might believe that there might be some value in having him point out some things from which he is not separate in order to ‘As-is’ his connections to things. However, if you started this process on having him find things from which he is not separate, you will very quickly discover that your preclear is deteriorating in tone and that he does not resurge.  This is a one-direction process, having him point out things from which he is separate.

It should occur to you that, as we learn in R2-43, a thetan desires lots of opponents. Of course the more separateness that he discovers the more opponents he can have, and the more fighting he can see before him. This makes him happy. By conceiving himself identified with an enormous number of things, he is, of course, rendered very scarce in opponents, and this makes him unhappy, and makes him choose out only things which he could then fight without being challenged, such as his engram bank or his body or his own machinery.

The basic reason a thetan conceives a great many remote viewpoints is to have a separateness from himself. A thetan can actually be separate from himself as a remote viewpoint and choose out himself, a thetan, as his opponent. Many a person who is thoroughly interiorized is being the body so he can fight himself, a thetan. This is also inverted.  When I was making some of these basic discoveries I was puzzled to encounter the fact that in many preclears, the preclear was entirely sold on the fact that he was attacking a demon which was attacking his body. He would analytically conceive himself to be a thetan, but actually was being the body, and as the body and a remote viewpoint in it, was attacking a theta body which actually contained himself a thetan. This complexity came about when he was not even permitted to fight the body.

As the totality of mis-emotion and weakness is exhibited solely when a thetan lacks opponents and feels he cannot have a fight, you will discover, in running separateness, that many mis-emotions, weaknesses, and so forth rise to the surface.

This is a relatively long process by itself, but it should be done in conjunction with R2-46 and R2-47. Remember that the preclear should be absolutely certain that he is separate from the item. Do not take any maybes.

R2-49: DEI SCALE

The scale of Desire-Enforce-Inhibit is repeated over and over in that order as we go down the tone scale, and is therefore repeated in reverse order as we find a preclear rising. In running almost any process it will be discovered that what the preclear is currently desiring will shortly be inhibited by the preclear, and what is being inhibited will shortly be enforced by the preclear, and what is being enforced by the preclear will shortly be desired by the preclear, and this in turn will again be inhibited by the preclear, and so forth.

Step IV of SOP 8 of Expanded GITA gives a great many items which are useful in raising tone.  The number of items which produce the greatest effect when used as prescribed in Step IV of SOP 8, given in this book, follow: FIGHTING, SELF-DETERMINISM, ENGRAMS, HEALTH, SANITY, PEACE, EVIL, PRESENT TIME, IMAGINATION, and CONTROL.

Using any one of the above fitted into the place of the blank in those auditing commands, one runs the DEI Scale in this fashion: ‘Waste some fighting’, ‘Have somebody else waste some fighting’.  This is done until the communication lag is flat. Then: ‘Mock up and pull in some fighting’. ‘Waste some ...’, ‘Have somebody else waste some ...’, and so forth until the communication lag has been levelled. ‘Mock up and pull in some ...’, ‘Mock up and pull in some ...’, ‘Mock up and pull in some ...’, again until the preclear has no communication lag.

‘Desire some ...’, ‘Have somebody else desire some ...’. The DEI Scale, then, is approximated in processing by Waste, for Inhibit Accept, for Enforce and simply the idea for Desire.

There are many other factors which could be utilized in this process, and which have been utilized in this process, such as problems, healthy bodies, and so forth, but these are not as effective as the above-given list, which is the choice list of all the other factors which could be utilized.

Another list can be used with considerable effectiveness, and this is the Know to Mystery scale. One would then have the preclear waste, accept, and desire, in that order, the following items in this order: MYSTERIES, PROBLEMS, SEX, EATING, SYMBOLS, EFFORT, EMOTION, VISION, HEARING, and THOUGHT.

It is interesting to note that a person who has sonic shut-off is hanging on to silence. One can have him waste, accept, and desire sonic and vision, pain and unconsciousness.

By running pain with the DEI scale one will discover that the thetan actually desires pain: any sensation is better than no sensation.

R2-50: CHANGING MINDS

The basic process of a thetan is simply getting him to change his mind. Most thetans fall below the level of mechanics. They have to be brought up to a point where they are not being handled by mechanics before they can simply change their considerations. If changing minds worked on any thetan it would then be the only process in Scientology, but it does not work on thetans who are interiorized since they are being other things than themselves, and when they start to change their minds they are simply changing something else.

When you have a thetan exteriorized, all you have to do is ask him to change his mind, and, unless he is still very badly burdened by mechanical considerations with which he has so thoroughly agreed that he cannot immediately change his mind, he will do so.

This process can be used on a non-exteriorized thetan, however, and on those who are uneasily exteriorized, by having them stand in one place with an idea that they have to appear there, and then change their minds, and disappear there.  Or simply have them stand in one place until they change their mind, and then go to another place and change their mind, and go to another place and change their mind. This is done, actually, by moving the body around, as most auditing these days is done.

The auditing commands for this would be ‘Walk over to this spot’ (indicating a spot to the preclear), ‘Now decide you have to appear there’, ‘Now change your mind and decide you have to disappear there’, ‘Now change your mind and decide you have to appear there’, and so on.

This can also be worked into opening procedures by having a preclear select a spot, then change his mind about the spot, select another spot, change his mind about that spot and select another spot, until he knows that he, himself, is changing his mind.

When exteriorized, the thetan can change his mind very easily on any subject simply when told to do so.  Very often he does not realize that he can change the factors of his life around simply by changing his mind, and so has to be asked to do so by the auditor.

A note of warning: this does not work on interiorized preclears with any great value.

R2-51: RISING SCALE PROCESSING

This is one of the older processes of Scientology. It consists of the individual being asked to get whatever idea he can about the buttons of the chart of attitudes and then change his ideas upwards. Using this process, the entire endocrine system of the preclear has been altered for the better.

The auditing commands would be dependent upon the chart of attitudes. The buttons of the chart of attitudes are: DEAD - SURVIVE, NOBODY - EVERYONE, DISTRUST - FAITH, LOSE - WIN, RIGHT - WRONG, NEVER - ALWAYS, I KNOW NOT - I KNOW, STOP - START, NO RESPONSIBILITY - FULLY RESPONSIBLE, STOPPED - MOTION SOURCE, FULL EFFECT - CAUSE, IDENTIFICATION - DIFFERENCE, OWNS NOTHING - OWNS ALL, HALLUCINATION - TRUTH, I AM NOT - I AM, HAD - BEING.

The auditing commands involved in this process follow: ‘How close can you come to trusting everybody?  Now do you have that idea?’ and when the preclear has: ‘All right, shift that idea as high as you can toward trust’. Do this many times with the preclear on one item of the list before going on to the next.

R2-52: UNKNOWNS

One of the liabilities of Dianetics was that it took all the data off the bank and left on the bank effort and unknown substances. Efforts and unknowns were not as-ised.

One of the basic auditing commands of this is:  ‘Give me some unknown incidents’. The preclear, as he tries to do so, will immediately find known incidents turning up rapidly. He is As-ising unknownness. One of the best ways of using unknownness is with a group of separatenesses where the preclear is outside looking at other people. Have him get how much is unknown to each one of these people with the following auditing command: ‘Now find a person and put some unknowingness into him’, ‘Now find another person and put some unknowingness into him’.

A variation of this is: ‘Put unknownness of location into a person’, ‘Now another person’, and so on. The reason why location is used is because it is part of the, definition of stupidity. One can also use time, with the following command: ‘Put some unknown times into that person’, ‘Now put some unknown times into that person’, and so on.

Remember to always run the same auditing command over, and over, and over, until a change has ceased to occur in the preclear.

R2-53: REPAIR. A FOUR-STAR PROCESS

It seems rather obvious that we should handle ‘repair’ as a process since that is what we have been doing in Dianetics and Scientology. If a preclear can’t himself repair he gets some help, a doctor, a minister. If the auditor can’t repair, he won’t run processes to make the preclear well. Granting of beingness has ‘repair’ as a major part of its sphere.

The cycle of action of the MEST universe for this process could be: CREATE - REPAIR (CHANGE) - DETERIORATE (CHANGE) - DESTROY.

The auditing commands for this process are: ‘What wouldn’t you mind repairing?’ ‘What wouldn’t you mind letting others repair?’ ‘What would you mind repairing?’ ‘What would you mind others repairing?’ ‘What don’t you know how to repair?’ ‘What don’t others know how to repair?’ 

The above is the main process and should be heavily stressed. The comm-lags are very long and the process must not be briefly run. Finish one command, reducing all lag by many times using it, get the question answered every time. Use for hours.

Other indicated questions are run by substituting the following for ‘repair’ in the above question form:  CREATE, (REPAIR) CHANGE, DETERIORATE, DESTROY, or START, (CHANGE) and STOP, the factors of control.

A specific group of processes which have been discovered to do a great deal for preclears consist of R2-53 REPAIR, followed by R2-44 MUST AND MUST NOT HAPPEN, followed by R2-43 FIGHTING, followed by R2-42 PAN-DETERMINISM. This series, run with the auditing commands as given is enormously effective. A complete audit of a preclear in very bad condition could follow this plan: R2-16 OPENING PROCEDURE OF 8-C for several hours R2-17 OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION for several hours R2-20 USE OF PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS, using the commands given in the last paragraph of that section then, R2-53 REPAIR R2-44 MUST AND MUST NOT HAPPEN R2-43 FIGHTING R2-42 PAN-DETERMINISM R2-39 INTEREST, as given in its last paragraphs R2-54 FLOWS R2-55 IMPORTANCE. Used in this exact order, continuous and very wonderful changes can be made to occur in a preclear even though he began the process as entirely psychotic. Many such routes could be designed, but this particular one happens to have been tested in this order on preclears, and found workable.

R2-54: FLOWS

The processing of flows has several times been tested in Scientology, and each time it has been discovered that there were many preclears who could not handle them with the processes which have already been advanced. The static and the object were, therefore, concentrated upon and flows were avoided. However, R2-54 overcomes this past difficulty. This is a very splendid way to make a preclear change his considerations, but it should be run long enough to take away the somatics which it turns on, for the somatics which R2-54 turns on can be severe.

The process is extremely simple to run, but must, like all other processes here, be run exactly as given to produce the desired result. It consists of having the preclear point out things which inhibit, enforce, and desire flows.

The auditing commands would be as follows:    ‘Look around you and point out some things, one after the other, which inhibit flows’, ‘Now point out some more’, ‘Now point out some more’, then ‘Look around you and point out some things which enforce flows’, ‘Now point out some more’, ‘Now point out some more’, ‘Now look around you and indicate some things which desire flows’, ‘Now point out some more’, ‘Now point out some more’, ‘Now look around you and point out some things which inhibit flows’, ‘Now point out some more’, ‘Now point out some more’, and so on.

If the preclear is indicating people, he will discover with some rapidity that people are enforcing and inhibiting flows. He will discover also that speech is a flow. He will discover also that the universe is built of these flows. The preclear should be permitted to discover these things for himself. He will find, for instance, that blackness forces a flow.

If a preclear wishes to know what a flow is, point out to him that a light bulb is flowing light waves out into the room, and that an object is reflecting them.

This process is, of course, worked best as part of the group where the preclear is taken outside and made to point out people and actually belongs with that group. This is definitely a four-star process.

R2-55: IMPORTANCE. A FIVE-STAR PROCESS

It might be a very bad thing to run this process immediately and at once upon a preclear, and an auditor should never begin with such a process on a case. Auditors, today, begin only with Opening procedure of 8-C and follow that with Opening Procedure by Duplication, and ordinarily follow that with Problems and Solutions, and only then go off into processes as difficult as this process.

Although this is a difficult process it is not difficult to do. It is difficult because it produces such rapid change upon the preclear that he is liable to be left in some state where he considers all things unimportant and is made by the process to be out of balance with the universe, and his life, and his environment, and if it were run on a preclear who was having a difficult time without first running Opening Procedure of 8-C and Opening Procedure by Duplication, he would of course have a tendency to stop being audited for he would be plunged into the unimportance of everything including auditing.

The keynote of importance is simply this:  anything which is important is solid or big, and the more important a person believes himself to be the bigger he is liable to get, or the more important a person believes something to be, the more solid he is liable to make it. Anybody who believes that minds are important is liable to make them solid, hence we immediately get the type of bank which some people have, with their solid facsimiles, and in consequence masses and ridges.

We began to hit this a number of years ago when we discovered that whatever we validated became more prominent. I did not at that time know why this was, and have now discovered that it is because things, which are considered important, become more solid.

This could also be called games processing, for we are handling here the most important part of importance: the fact that in order to have a game there must be something important, to defend, to have, to attack. There is no game unless one has some item which is important, for it would not be visible to anyone but himself if it were not solid. Important and solid can be considered to be for our purposes synonyms.

The auditing commands which run this are very simple and are pursued for some time without change of command. First: ‘Tell me some things which are important’, ‘Tell me some more things which are important’, ‘Tell me some things which are important to other people’, ‘Tell me some more things which are important to other people’, back and forth on this. Then: ‘Point out some things which are important’, ‘Point out some more things which are important’, ‘Point out some things which other people consider important’, ‘Point out some more things which other people consider important’.

Then: ‘Tell me some things which are unimportant’, ‘Tell me some more things which are unimportant’, ‘Tell me some things which are unimportant to other people’, ‘Tell me some more things which are unimportant to other people’, back and forth on this.

Then: ‘Point out some things which are unimportant’, ‘Point out some more things which are unimportant’, ‘Point out some things which other people consider unimportant’, ‘Point out some more things which other people consider unimportant’.

In view of the fact that each consideration that something is important tends to add mass, and each consideration that something is unimportant tends to detract mass, and in view of the fact that the consideration that something is important is the second postulate to the truth that it was unimportant, we discover the mechanism which causes minds to form large masses such as facsimiles and engrams. At first one considered his mind unimportant, then he considered it important, and then again unimportant, and then again important, and this cyclic activity brings into existence the mind as mass, which is to say creates the reactive mind. We occasionally discover people who are having considerable difficulty, and the wide-open case, and the occluded case, with considerable energy mass which they are calling their mind. They do their thinking by facsimiles, they do their behaving at the orders of the facsimile. This can be traced immediately to the consideration that the mind is important, unimportant, important, unimportant, important, unimportant in a repeating cycle.

An indicated process to remedy this condition would be: ‘Spot some spots’, ‘Spot some more’, et cetera. And ‘Spot some spots where others thought the mind was unimportant’, ‘Spot some more such spots’, and so forth. ‘Spot some spots where you thought the mind was important’, ‘Spot some more such spots’, and so forth. ‘Spot some spots where others thought the mind was important’, et cetera. This sequence of commands should be run, each one, until the communication lag is flat and then, as in all such sequences in this book, should be gone through again several times.

A vital, if somewhat murderous process, very important to be run on Scientologists is ‘Spot some spots where you thought thought was unimportant’, ‘Some more’, etc. ‘Spot some spots where others thought thought was unimportant’, etc. ‘Spot some spots where you thought thought was important’, etc. ‘Spot some spots where others thought thought was important’, etc.  This crosses importance with conceiving a static.

Another indicated question is ‘What important things could you be?’, ‘Give me some more important things you can be’. And then: ‘Give me some more important things you could do, as a thetan’, ‘Give me some more important things you could do as a thetan’.

A general formula on importance would be to spot spots where the preclear considered everything on the Mystery to Know scale important, emphasizing words, sounds, sights, blackness and energy. By running this process you can expect a considerable regain of education on the part of the preclear. Almost all education has been hammered into the preclear as a terribly important activity. Actually it will be as much use to him as it is considered casually.  This accounts, in some measure for the tremendous difference in the attitude toward education of one trained by casual and interested tutors and one trained between the millstones of the public school system, with all the horrors of the examination for passing, and accounts for the complete failure on the part of universities to educate into existence a leadership class. The secret lies entirely in the fact that education is as effective as it is pleasant, unhurried, casual, and is as ineffective as it is stressed to be important.  For example, giving arithmetic the category of something terribly important is to bring the student at length into possession of a solid lump of energy which, utterly useless to him, will lie there as ‘arithmetic’. This also accounts for the failure of the child genius.  Generally his parents consider his career so important that eventually his piano playing or painting will be an energy mass. He will be as good as, and as effective as he can change his considerations, and one does not easily change his considerations in the face of such energy masses. Auditors have often wondered at the resistance of the preclear toward turning on sonic and visio and at the persistence of blackness.  Here again we have a problem of importance. The deafer a person becomes, or the leas sonic a person has, the more he tends to believe it is important for him to have this attribute, and of course, the less he has it, for the more solid it gets. Solidity could be said to be stupidity. Here, also we have the tremendous stress, as given in BOOK ONE, on words. The more important instructions are, the more important words are. The more important speech becomes, as in General Semantics, the more buried, and therefore the more effective, words become in the reactive bank. If you were to choose a single process out of importance, the one which would probably pay off best would be one which wasted words, accepted them, and desired them in brackets, and then which caused the preclear to spot all the spots where words were considered unimportant, and words were considered important for himself and for others.

We are looking at the Master Trick. A person is as well-off as he is free, and lacking in uncontrolled energy deposits. But these gather to the degree that certain facets of existence are stressed as important.

R2-56: GAMES PROCESSING

Games Processing 1954 is quite different than its predecessors but the fundamentals are the same in Scientology as they have been always. The highest activity, action, or ambition is ‘to have a game’. A game requires that one create or have an opponent.  The whole series centering around fighting is actually the lower range of Games Processing, which accounts for its tremendous effectiveness.

Processing games directly, the first indicated process would be one taken from Description Processing which would as-is certain undesirable characteristics.  This would be done with the command, ‘Give me some games which are no fun’, ‘Give me some more games which are no fun’, ‘Give me some more games which are no fun’, until the apathy and antagonism toward games in general has been to a marked degree ‘as-ised’.

As an opponent is an essential part of games, the processing of opponents, in general, produces interesting results in a case. We could simply improve the considerations of the preclear with regard to opponents by asking him ‘What sort of opponents could you have’, and carrying this forward until all communication lag is gone. Or, one could have the preclear waste, accept and desire opponents, where the accepting is done by having him mock up an opponent and remedying his havingness for it.

Another interesting process which produces excellent results is ‘Name some unromantic roles’, ‘Name some more unromantic roles’, and so forth. ‘Name some romantic roles’, ‘Name some more romantic roles’, and so forth. ‘Name some unromantic roles’. ‘Name some more unromantic roles’, and so on back and forth until the preclear has regained the ability to imagine some roles. Actually he has been given roles by the motion pictures and television, and his propaganda textbooks, until he will only accept a role which is generally approved by this society as represented in fiction. This could be said to be an intentionally fictionalized society. Marriages quite often go to pieces simply because Jim Jones and Mary Smith did not get married. Jim Jones, posing as Alan Ladd, marries Mary Smith posing as Lana Turner, and a fictional Alan Ladd married to a fictional Lana Turner is going to be disappointed.  Whereas, there is no reason under the sun why Jim Jones shouldn’t be a good and interesting guy doing an interesting role, and why Mary Smith should not be doing a role herself, as herself, for people are interesting to the degree that they can postulate and act into existence the roles required of them in life.  The Bard of Stratford-on-Avon said that ‘All the world’s a stage’, but didn’t give us the process by which we could be players. Your preclear has been audience, and this process boots him out of being audience into being a player, which is more or less what the auditor is trying to do with a preclear.  He can’t have any games where everybody is being an audience and nobody is playing. The scarcity of roles which a person can actually occupy in this society is such that we commonly discover a preclear continuing to act out any role which he has been given in some school play which he found romantic. I know several preclears whose total difficulty is that they have never ceased to be the gangster they did so well in the High School production of ‘Officer 666’, or the prostitute they did so excellently in the College Drama Club production of ‘Rain’.

A not recommended and rather dead-end process would be involved in asking the preclear for things worth fighting for, in that he can only postulate things worth fighting for, and that he is so far down the scale on this, the process is a difficult one but can be used.

A preclear quite commonly has play and work nicely and neatly separated. The difference between play and work is that play is no fun and work is no fun in the common parlance, until today we have only work. In view of the fact that effort is stupidity unless understood, working at trying to play is the general difficulty with people. Quite often a medical doctor will advise somebody to stop working so hard and start playing. The actual fact of it is, an executive quite commonly has his work as his only play, and so the medical doctor has consigned him to some hard work by telling him he has to play. Thus we have an inversion. ‘What kind of a game could you have’, ‘Give me some more games you could have’, is a useful process.

‘What would you have to be to have a game?’, ‘Some more things you would have to be to have a game’, carried forward, interspersed with an actual description from the preclear of each game he lists is very effective.

The following process ranks very high in effectiveness in all these procedures: ‘ What kind of a game could you have involving ...?’ In asking this question the auditor points out some object in the immediate environment and the preclear is made to describe what kind of a game he could have with that object. The auditor then points out another object in the environment and asks ‘What kind of a game could you have involving ...?’ It will soon be borne home to the preclear that he has been trying to play games with the absence of opponents, that he has hung on to most of the disasters that have happened to him in his life because they meant the loss of opponents.  Here we find the child who has been raised alone dreaming up illusory opponents, and later on we discover him mocking up demons. Any time you walk into an insane asylum and discover somebody involved with a battle with demons, or who has a demon, or who has a guardian angel, or who has any one of these mythical assistants or opponents, we are looking at somebody who found opponents so scarce that he had to mock them up, and having mocked them up was unable to unmock them, for no new opponent came along. The reason war mobilizes everyone into action and speeds up production in a country is because a tangible opponent has been introduced, and people will accept tangible opponents above illusory opponents. Man’s activity in fighting himself, thetan’s activities in fighting themselves, all stem from this effort to play games in the absence of opponents. ‘What kind of a game could you have involving ...?’ should be run until the preclear is cognizant of everything he is doing with regard to opponents, without ever mentioning opponents to him.

R2-57: PROCESSES

The processing of Processes actually belongs to VIA.  It is an intensely important thing to do. Cells, trees, the whole of life is engaged in working processes.  Normally they work them unconsciously. One of the methods of straightening out this fixation on processes is to have the preclear plan to do something very simple such as move an ash tray. Have him plan it out in its entirety and then have him execute it exactly as he planned it. One does this many times with many objects.

Another way of working this process is ‘Discover things in the environment which are using processes’, and ‘Discover things in the environment for which you could invent processes’.

R2-58: LOSS

The subject of loss is an entire study in itself. It is the subject of havingness as well.

Loss results in Degradation, Memory Failure, Blackness and what we used to call ‘stuck on the track’. So it is an important subject.

Loss itself can occur only when the consideration that one wants, needs, has to have, has occurred first.  When one loses something ‘important’ one supplants it by dragging in energy deposits, facsimiles, on himself.

Here is the scale of substitutes acquired by reason of loss: 

CUMULATIVE SPIRAL OF STOPPED TIME
OBJECT Loss of this
Substitute: OBJECT, owned 
Loss of this Substitute: OBJECT, others 
Loss of this
Substitute: MOCK-UP
Loss of this Substitute: MOCK-UP, owned 
Loss of this
Substitute: MOCK-UP, others Loss of this
Substitute: PROBLEM
Loss of this 
(a) Lost by solution (b) Lost by occlusion
Substitute: PROBLEM, owned Loss of this
Substitute: PROBLEMS, others Loss of this
Substitute: BLACKNESS. (‘Something in it?’) Loss of this
Substitute: BLACKNESS, owned Loss of this
Substitute: BLACKNESS, others Loss of this
Substitute: UNCONSCIOUSNESS Loss of this
Substitute: UNCONSCIOUSNESS, others Loss of this
Substitute: UNCONSCIOUSNESS, own Loss of this
Substitute: UNCONSCIOUSNESS
Loss of this Substitute: BLACKNESS, others
Loss of this Substitute:  BLACKNESS, own 
Loss of this
Substitute: BLACKNESS
Loss of this Substitute: PROBLEMS, others 
Loss of this
Substitute: PROBLEM, owned Loss of this
Substitute: PROBLEM
Loss of this Substitute: MOCK-UP, others 
Loss of this
Substitute: MOCK-UP, owned Loss of this
Substitute: MOCK-UP
Loss of this Substitute: OBJECT, others 
Loss of this
HALLUCINATION 

The Remedy of Havingness is a good process to overcome loss. However, loss is a consideration.

The following processes remedy considerations involving havingness: ‘What assistance do you need to survive?’, ‘What assistance do others need to survive?’

The most effective straight were on this is: ‘Name some important possessions’, ‘Some more important possessions’, and so forth. ‘Name some things it is important not to have.’ As we have havingness going down to ownership, then to protection, then to hiding, we have: ‘Name some things it is important to protect’, ‘Name some things it is important to hide’, ‘Name some things it is important to display (exhibit)’. These are lower level manifestations. ‘Important possessions’ will exteriorize.

R2-59: SURVIVAL

Whenever I have found a process unworkable in the past sixteen years, I have found that the unworkable process avoided the dynamic principle of existence: SURVIVE. In other words, it did not greatly matter how this principle was embroidered, if it was included in the process or rationale, some workability resulted.

The dynamic principle of existence, Survive, and its application as the dynamics, is easily the greatest discovery in Dianetics. Even when we add to it the remainder of the curve of the cycle of action of the MEST universe, Create - Survive - Destroy, we find SURVIVE is the potent truth in it.

So, Scientology or Dianetics processes, if we neglect SURVIVAL in our rationale, become unworkable.

Survive has as its dichotomy, Succumb. When one is below 2.0 on the Tone Scale, all survival looks evil to him. LIVE = EVIL in the succumbing case. To punish is to declare a thing evil. To be evil is to refuse survival.

The dynamics are a breakdown of the dynamic Survival into eight parts. Each dynamic in turn breaks down into many parts. Thus we have life. And these interplays of Survival are life.

If your preclear is not clear, he is avoiding survival on one or many dynamics. His considerations about Survival are his personality.

I tell you this lest we forget. Dianetics is a precision science. It stems from this study and codification of Survival. Survival is the reason why.

Opening Procedure of 8-C (R2-16) works because the preclear, in spotting MEST, is recognizing ‘Look!  After all I’ve been through, I’ve survived’. Having a preclear spot, in a crowd, people’s survival potential is great processing.

The auditing command ‘Point out some things in your surroundings which aren’t surviving’, will spring grief or apathy.  ‘Point out some things which are surviving’, is quite potent. ‘Point out some unknown methods of surviving’, is one of those ‘fader’ questions -- he can almost answer it for hours.

As a thetan is immortal, he cannot do other than survive. When he realizes this his game may become ‘How can I succumb?’.

Survival has pay. That pay is the sensation of pleasure. This is acquired by Interest. One tries to survive by being interesting. He demands of life that he be interested.

Thus, with the preclear in a crowd: ‘What could that person (auditor indicating one), (have, do, be) that would be uninteresting?’ ‘What could that person (have, do, be) that would be uninteresting to your (ally)?’. The preclear has as-ised all the interest from life and has left intact uninteresting thing. When he tries to get interested anew, uninteresting ridges soak up his interest. ‘What dreams, (goals) would you find uninteresting?’ is interest plus future = survival.

A murderous auditing command while the preclear is outside looking at people and the world is: ‘What dream could that person have that would not interest you?’, ‘That would not interest your Mother (and other allies)?’. Interest of allies makes survival possible. Anything which succeeds in interesting allies (orientation points and symbols) then may be a successful mock-up for the preclear all his life. Syphilis, fatness, stupidity, may be ‘interesting’ enough to allies to leave the preclear with them all his life. For an interested ally means future, and that is Survival.

Get a list of all people he has known since birth, ask him for each one many times, ‘What would be interesting to (ally)?’ and you will find his service facsimile and the source of his aberrations and psychosomatics. ‘What dynamic could you abandon?’ could be used on a Scientologist.

The most basic question about bodies, being cellular organisms, is ‘What wouldn’t a cell survive?’ ‘What else wouldn’t a cell survive?’ and so on. This is a very old but very potent Dianetic process for the repair of bodies. Organs, body parts, and types of bodies can be substituted for cells in the above question.

Remember, your goal is to improve the preclear’s Survival. If he thinks Survival is evil, if to succumb is the only way he can get interest, your road will be eased by remembering and processing the dynamic principle of existence -- Survive on all or any dynamic by any type of process. And this is the rationale of Dianetics, which may be freely used by a Scientologist.

R2-60: THE HIDDEN COMMUNICATION

‘Spot some hidden knowingness’, is an auditing command which, pursued properly, opens the gates to freedom.

In ‘Scientology 8-80’ and ‘Scientology 8-8008’ you will find a scale which begins at its lowest rung with ‘hidden’. Above that is ‘protection’. Above that is ‘ownership’.  I have recently discovered that the DEI cycle and the above low scale join to make the scale read:

CURIOSITY
DESIRE
ENFORCEMENT
INHIBITION
OWNERSHIP
PROTECTION
HIDDEN
and I have discovered that the road upward through this scale is communication.

Knowingness condenses. Trying to know becomes the first level of communication. This ‘looking to know’ condenses into ‘emoting to know’, which condenses into ‘effort to know’, which in turn becomes ‘thinking to know’, which then condenses into ‘symbols to know’ which, and this is the astonishing thing, becomes ‘eating to know’, which becomes ‘sexual activity to know’, which then turns into oblivion of knowing or ‘mystery’.

An energy particle is a condensed knowingness.  Trying to discover or move one is an action with the goal of knowingness.

Gravity, grim thought, becomes in the mind, and is, the effort to know, to pull in knowingness. Other-determinism is only other knowingness.

The aspects of know are the common denominators of any scale in Scientology. When knowingness is done by communication, we get emotion and effort particles changing position.

This struggle to know is not just me and thee working on Scientology and gone mad in the process, it is life and all its manifestations including space, energy, matter and time. Each is only a barrier to knowingness. A barrier is a barrier only in that it impedes knowingness.  Barriers do not exist for complete knowingness.

And what is there to know? Only that knowingness can vary. One has to invent things to know for there is only knowingness, and knowingness has no data since a datum is an invented, not a true, knowingness.  The motto of any particle below knowingness is ‘Only energy can tell you’.

We handle R2-60 HIDDEN KNOWINGNESS in this wise: ‘Spot some hidden communications’, ‘And now spot some more hidden communications’, and so forth. We may have to direct the preclear closely with, ‘Point to the spot’, ‘How far away does it seem?’, ‘Are you spotting a hidden communication there?’ and such questions, meanwhile keeping good ARC. He could be asked to spot specific kinds of hidden communications as with this command:  ‘Spot some hidden disease communications’, ‘Some hidden poisonous communications’, or ‘Spot some hidden, but uninteresting communications’. But use the question to flatten all communication lags before you change it.

If he goes into the past, let him. He’ll come back to the present. He’ll find his chronic somatic and do many interesting things, including, perhaps, the data in the text of R2-60 here.

It is curious that the above ‘Spot some hidden communications’ does not seem to require a remedy of havingness. But it will turn on many heavy ridges and somatics. Having thoroughly worked ‘hidden communications’ you can now use this command: ‘Spot some protected communications’, and when that is null, ‘Spot some owned communications’, and after that has no communication lag, ‘Spot some inhibited (stopped) communications’. Then: ‘Spot some enforced communications’, and then, ‘Spot some desired communications’.

Now when all that is done, proceed as follows:  ‘Spot some hidden knowingness’, ‘Are you spotting it in the physical universe? If so all right, point to it’, ‘How far away does it seem?’, ‘Spot some more hidden knowingness’, and so on until after an hour or two (or six) this command is comm-lag-flat.

Now start upscale as follows, making the preclear point and give the distance to the spot (even when trillions of miles away): ‘Spot some protected knowingness’. And after many times of that, then: ‘Spot some protected knowingness’, many times. Then: ‘Spot some owned knowingness’, many times.  Then:  ‘Spot some inhibited knowingness’. Then: ‘Spot some enforced knowingness’. Then: ‘Spot some desired knowingness’. Then: ‘Spot some knowingness that people could be curious about’.

In R2-60 HIDDEN KNOWINGNESS, we can use the Know - Mystery scale:

‘Spot some mysteries’
‘Spot some hidden sex’
‘Spot some hidden eating’ ‘Spot some hidden symbols’
‘Spot some hidden thinking’ ‘Spot some hidden efforts’ 
‘Spot some hidden emotions’
‘Spot some hidden looking’ ‘Spot some hidden knowing’
Then: ‘Spot some protected mysteries’, ‘Spot some protected sex’, and so on.

You can, using the principles of hidden knowing and communication, combine any other part of Scientology with them, and discover an excellent process. However, the first commands given in R2-60 are the easiest to communicate and to use.

R2-61: GOOD AND EVIL 

The factors of good and evil are the factors of accepting other determinism (good) and accepting or giving blows (evil). That which co-operates is ‘good’. That which is punished is ‘evil’. This is the totality of consideration involved.

‘Good’ and ‘evil’ are third dynamic phenomena.  But unlike most words one might process, these have definite emotional connotations which, to the preclear, speak louder than the words. These apply from Mystery up to Know.

Just as ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are the primary fixation of philosophy, so are they a primary fixation in a preclear. So confused are they, in philosophy or in preclears, that an enormous complexity results. Their resolution would resolve either philosophy or preclears.

The basic auditing commands to handle this extremely important process are: ‘Spot a place where you decided to be good’, ‘Now spot a spot in this room’, ‘Spot the place again’, ‘Spot a spot in this room’, ‘Spot the spot again where you decided to be good’, ‘Spot a spot in this room’, etc., until all comm-lag is gone for one distant spot where the decision was made to be good. Then: ‘Now find another spot where you decided to be good’, ‘Spot a spot in this room’, etc., and so on until many spots are ‘cleared’. Actually, the auditor wants the distant spot to come into present time before he leaves it, but at least reduce comm-lag for each spot.

Now do exactly the same procedure using the following auditing command: ‘Spot a place where another person decided to be good’, ‘Now spot a spot in this room’, alternating back and forth until comm-lag is reduced.

The same is now done for ‘evil’ with this slight variation: ‘Spot a spot where you decided you were evil’, ‘Spot a spot in this room’, ‘Spot a spot again where you decided you were evil’, ‘Spot a spot in this room’, etc., as for ‘good’, picking out new single spots and clearing each one as far as possible.

Then follow the same procedure with the command: ‘Spot a place where another person decided he was evil’, ‘Spot a spot in this room’, etc., reducing comm-lag for each spot. Then: ‘Point out some unknown evils’, and ‘Point out what other people would find an unknown evil’.

You may have to remedy havingness for the preclear for this is very destructive of havingness. The preclear will come up with many considerations and changing ideas. Let him voice them, but continue with the process. Don’t let your preclear leave the session with a ‘good’ or ‘evil’ spot uncleared or in restimulation.

He will become neither saint nor devil from running this he will become more capable of good action.

R2-62: OVERT ACTS AND MOTIVATORS

One of the primary discoveries in Dianetics was the Overt Act - Motivator phenomenon. An OVERT ACT is a harmful act performed against another. A MOTIVATOR is an overt act performed against oneself by another.

If one receives a motivator, he then may consider himself licensed to perform an overt act against the person who harmed him. When one commits an overt act without having received a motivator, he attempts then to ‘mock-up’ or acquire a proper motivator or ‘justify’ his own harmful action.

An overt act delivered in the absence of a motivator we call an unmotivated act. A justifier is the technical term we apply to the ‘mock-up’ or overt act demanded by a person guilty of an unmotivated act.

In that a thetan cannot possibly, actually, be harmed, having no mass, wave-length, or actual location, any harmful act he performs is an unmotivated act. Thus, a thetan basically cannot have a motivator - overt act sequence and always has an unmotivated act justifier sequence.

The ‘catch’ in this is the idea of ‘harmful’ (good and evil). An act must be considered harmful or evil to be an overt act. To need a justifier a person must have believed his act to have been harmful.

As the thetan cannot experience a motivator - overt act sequence, we have then the dwindling spiral. He is always justifier hungry. Thus he punishes and restimulates himself. Thus he is always complaining about what others do to him. Thus he is a problem to himself.

Only permit a thetan to get the idea that it is possible to harm others and you have, then, the dwindling spiral.

Use of these data in auditing is simple and intensely profitable. For example, we have a preclear who continually complains about his father, how mean his father was to him. This means precisely that the actual facts of the past include many unmotivated acts against father by the preclear, even though the preclear seems to recall no such acts by himself and many overt acts against himself from father.

This is an excellent process to get a sudden result on a preclear. Ask him, straight wire, for things he has done to his mother, father, any and all allies. Don’t let him run things they have done to him.

‘Can you recall doing something to your (father, or other ally, or  person)?’ is the only auditing question.

Having him remedy his havingness with motivators is also a fair process.

R2-63: ACCEPT - REJECT

From acceptance we get a ten-star process. Whatever else you may do with a Preclear, he must be brought to accept the physical universe and his own and other bodies, all in every kind of condition. The way out is the way through. In Eastern practices, the goal was abandonment, desertion.  Scientology’s main difference from Eastern practices is this: it accepts to free. And it frees. That which one cannot accept chains one. For instance, revulsion to sex inclines at last to slavery to sex. A ruler’s motto could be ‘make them resist’, and his people would become enslaved.          

In 1870 we find capitalists resisting Marx. In 1933 we find Marx the basic text of U.S. government. Resistance and restraint are the barbed-wire of this concentration camp. Accept the barbed-wire and there is no camp.

On test this process exteriorizes the worst case if run long enough.

This process is important because it is one of the few (like R2-16) which does not have alter-isness as its operative factor. This is not, then, an altering practice, confirming somatics and aberrations, it is a freeing process.

That which one cannot accept he cannot as-is.

The commands of this process are as follows: ‘Find something about yourself which you can accept’, ‘Something else’, ‘Find something else you can accept’, etc., etc., until there is no comm-lag. Then: ‘Find something about yourself you can reject’, ‘Find something else about yourself you can reject’, etc., etc., until there is no comm-lag. Then: ‘Find something in this room you can accept’, ‘Something else’, ‘Find something else in this room you can accept’, etc., etc., ‘Find something in this room you can reject’, ‘Find something else in this room you can reject’, etc., etc. Then: ‘Find something about this universe you can accept’, until the comm-lag is flat. Then: ‘Find something in this universe you can reject’.

Remember, this is not an altering process. It is a high value escape process. If your preclear keeps putting conditions of change into everything before he can accept it, you must persuade him to find things he can accept without changing them.

R2-64: TOUCHING

Most thetans are inside because they are afraid to touch the outaide. A baby is slapped out of touching things by mamma and the MEST Universe. Some thetans are afraid that if they touch MEST they’ll stick to it and so remain ‘safely’ inside.

There are two possible ways to run this. One is simply, ‘What are you willing to touch?’, the other is, ‘As a thetan, what are you willing to touch?’ If the preclear ‘no savvy’ being a thetan, use the simpler form.

The command is, ‘As a thetan, what are you willing to touch?’, ‘What else are you willing to touch?’, ‘What else are you willing to touch?’ etc., etc. Then: ‘What are you willing to have touch you?’, ‘What else are you willing to have touch you?’

The mind can change without bringing alter-isness into play. Changing the mind is the only possible way to improve without liability. This process alters only the mind. This is a very valuable process. Eight stars.

R2-65: ALTERATION

As any energy or space condition survives only because it has been and is being altered, the primary unmotivated act would be changing the condition of energy, space, and objects. The mind can change without liability. When a mind changes energy or space we get a persistence of that energy or space. As persistence or survival is good and bad only to those who desire to succumb, we do not see in alteration of energy or space, any crime. But when we alter only ‘bad’ conditions of space and energy we make the ‘bad conditions’ persist. Hence it would be of value to a case to at least straight wire out some of the times when he attempted to alter energy, spaces, or bodies of people.  (To an auditor who works to exteriorize a preclear and change his mind, there is small liability and great personal advance. To an auditor who works only to change the body, the ridges, the somatics, there is failure, fixation of condition in the preclear, and restimulation occurs.  Successful auditing of the thetan actually improves the auditor.) Failure is the biggest lock on alter-isness of course.

The preclear who is obsessively trying to change himself by self-auditing or whatever means, has failed many times to effect a change in the condition of this universe or in the bodies of others, or has the space and energy of this universe as a stable constant.

The commands are: ‘Can you recall a time when you failed to change some energy in this universe?’ etc., etc. And when this is flat, ‘Can you recall a time when you failed to change some space?’ Then: ‘Can you recall a time when you failed to change a body?’ This last question is the one you stress. He may get nothing on the space question at all but such incidents are in his recall or space would not exist at all for him.

Also, ‘Can you recall a time when you failed to change a memory?’ etc., etc. Wherever or however the preclear is stuck in tone or condition, there he has failed to change something or somebody.

This can also be run on the ‘theta aide of the ledger’ ‘Can you recall a time when you successfully changed something?’ until the lag is flat. Even more simply:  ‘Can you recall a time of change?’

R2-66: ELECTING CAUSE

Worry and anxiety have their root in the changing election of cause. People who elect cause other than self are often shifting responsibility and refusing to fix actual cause. The ‘black five’ is a no-responsibility case.

This process is a brutal one, but it is a five-star process. It often sets off a worry machine and runs it out.

The auditing command is: ‘Point out some things which are causing things’, ‘Point out some more things which are causing things’ etc., etc., until the lag is flat.

R2-67: OBJECTS

To a person who cannot hold the two back corners of the room, the simple location of objects is valuable.  When a person is self-auditing, this is a very valuable solo process.

The command is: ‘Locate some objects’, etc. The person looks at them or puts his attention on them and notes what they are. This is all there is to the process.  For variation, one locates some more objects. By object is meant physical universe, present time, visible objects.

R2-68: INCOMPREHENSIBILITY

A thetan is understanding. A space or mass is no understanding. A Thetan is no mass. An object is mass. Duplication is thus difficult.

A thetan must be able to be a mass or a space and to experience at will incomprehensibility in order to see spaces and masses. It is a new understanding to understand that something can be incomprehensible.

The tone scale is a study of varying degrees of ARC. Affinity, Reality and Communication comprise understanding. With knowingness at the top of the scale, we come down in ‘understanding’ -- (Third Dynamic knowingness), then down through relative understandings and increasing incomprehensibility until at bottom scale (MEST) we have total incomprehensibility and total non-comprehension.

A ‘difficult’ case is simply an incomprehensible case. The processing on this is done by the command:  ‘Spot something incomprehensible’, repeated many, many times. This ‘ups’ I.Q. and raises perception. This is a good process.

R2-69: PLEASE PASS THE OBJECT

This process was developed by long-time auditor and D.SCN., Jan Halpern. It is a very fine process and is recommended anywhere on the scale.

Throughout the process, the auditor doesn’t say a word. He doesn’t answer possible questions, he doesn’t explain in words what he wants. Under all circumstances he makes like the Tar Baby and ‘don’t say nothin’’. He uses any gestures necessary.

STEP 1-A: Auditor stands in front of preclear, holding out a small object to him, until the preclear takes it from his hand. As soon as the preclear takes the object, the auditor holds out his hand, palm up, until the preclear places the object in his palm. The auditor immediately offers it to the preclear again.  This is continued until without comm-lag. The object should be offered to the preclear from a variety of positions, once he has gotten the idea: from down near the floor, or off to either side, over the preclear’s head. The palm should be held in a variety of positions for the return of the object. Both hands may be used. Get the preclear doing this really fast.

STEP I-B: When step 1-A is going swiftly and easily, the auditor introduces a switch. After the preclear has just accepted the article, the auditor, instead of extending his palm for its return, places his hands behind his back briefly, then conveys by gestures that the preclear is to offer the object to him. When the preclear does so, the auditor takes the object from his hand, but does not return it until the preclear holds out his own hand, palm up to receive it. This exchange is continued until the preclear is offering and accepting the object from as wide a variety of positions as the auditor used, and all other comm-lags are flat.

STEP II: The auditor, just having accepted the object, makes a gesture that this part is over, then deliberately puts the object down where the preclear can see it, stands back, and indicates that the preclear is to pick it up. When the preclear picks it up, the auditor gestures that he is to put it down again anywhere he likes in the room. The instant the preclear does so, the auditor snatches it up and puts it somewhere else. This is continued until the auditor and preclear are racing around the room, seizing the object as soon as the other’s fingers have let go of it.

The object isn’t necessarily placed in a different spot each time. It may be picked up and put down again in the same place, but it must be handled each time.  All sorts of tacit rules and understandings will probably develop while this is being run.

This process rehabilitates the sense of play validates non-verbal ARC short-circuits ‘verbal machinery’ lets the preclear position matter and energy in space and time gets the preclear up to speed murders ‘there must be a reason’ for doingness processes both auditor and preclear equally, and, besides, it’s fun.

R2-70: EXPECTANCE LEVEL

This is a future type ‘acceptance level’. The process was contributed to by B.SCN. Millen Belknap.

The commands are: ‘What do you expect from ...?’ The auditor fills the blank. It is a cousin of description processing. 

This process is not for low-level cases.

R2-71: ANSWERS

A relative of PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS’ is ‘Give me some answers’, as a constantly repeated question.

It is a valuable process.

R2-72: SECURITY PROCESSING

It is safe to do what your parents do -- and that is evolution. Death, failure, rejection, are safe if your parents did them. 

The auditing command is: ‘Tell me some things it is safe to be’, etc. ‘Tell me some things it is safe to do’, etc.  ‘Tell me some things it is safe to have.’

This works very well.

R2-73: MAKING SOMETHING FOR THE FUTURE

The auditing command is: ‘Point out some things which are making things for the future’.

This is a brutal process.

R2-74: PROCESSING

The auditing command is: ‘Point out some things that are processing things’. This cures obsessive self-auditing.

R2-75: KNOWINGNESS

As everything is a condensation of knowingness, the following commands explain much and do much.

‘Tell me something you wouldn’t mind knowing’, ‘Something you wouldn’t mind others knowing’, ‘Invent something to know’. A ten-star process.

L’ENVOI

As a summary comment on these processes, it cannot be indicated too strongly that a preclear who is psychotic, neurotic, or who is having any psychosomatic difficulty must be run on Opening Procedure of 8C, R2-16, for many, many, many, many hours. It will be discovered that on such preclears the use of subjective processes, which is to say those processes which intimately address the internal world of the preclear, is fruitless. The processes which produce large results and effects will not make the preclear well. As an example of this, many persons have been run by the ‘best processes’ for fifty hours or more, only to have their cases remain stagnant, and then these same persons, being run on R2-16, Opening Procedure of 8-C, have, day after day, with an hour or two of such running per day, commenced steady and stable gains, which they have retained. When in doubt, then, on any process, run R2-16 and when the case claims that nothing is happening, run R2-16 and when the case is going very jumpily forward with many losses and few gains, run R2-16 and when R2-16 has been thoroughly run, then turn to R2-17.

The reason why R2-16 is so effective is that it immediately addresses the problem of barriers. The preclear who is having difficulty will be found to be confounded by mechanics, which is to say the barriers of space, energy, and mass, and that these barriers have entered into his own universe so that he himself, in his own thinking, is encountering barriers. By making the preclear put his attention on objects, walls, floors, ceilings, the preclear will eventually come into the state where he, himself, is stopping his sight on the barrier, rather than the barrier stopping the sight of the preclear, for all perception is done by stopping the perception on what is looked at. This is only one of the reasons why Opening Procedure 8-C works. Use it.

Although the foregoing is the totality of what we are using and calling Intensive Procedure, any well trained auditor is expected to have at his command any of the processes of Scientology and to use them when the occasion arises. It will be found that the older processes are complexities of these Intensive Procedure processes, and it has been found by experience that the simpler processes produce results on even the more complicated and difficult cases. In fact, it requires the simplest possible process to acquire the greatest possible recovery on a difficult case. Subjective processes should be avoided. By subjective processes is meant consultation with the preclear’s own universe, with his mock-ups, and with his own thoughts and considerations. For it will be found that any homo sapiens is far below the point of simply changing his mind to make a new condition take place. This is the basic process of the thetan. A thetan who is in good condition need only to change his mind or change his postulates in order to alter a condition. On a case which does not exteriorize easily or which, when exteriorized, is found to be using large quantities of energy, subjective processes must be severely avoided. The formula of communication itself, as contained in Intensive Procedure and in this order, should be very closely observed. Processes which are not included in Intensive Procedure but which are very effective are End of Cycle processes. An End of Cycle process run subjectively would be ‘What are you willing to destroy?’, ‘What are you willing to have destroy you?’ As the preclear is sitting on Survive (persist) and will not change, and as this is what is wrong with the preclear, we see that he has drifted far from being able to create and being able to destroy. Thus this process will be found to achieve results.  However, it is omitted because it is too much of a temptation for an auditor to run such a process on a heavily interiorized preclear.  The preclear will recover much better by use of the formula of communication.

The keynote of Intensive Procedure is making and breaking communication.

When in doubt, all you need do is have the preclear make and break communication with objects or spaces in the physical universe and remedy any difficulty in havingness which results by having the preclear duplicate anything he can see. This would apply to an interiorized or exteriorized case. Actually, the sole use of mock-ups today is in duplication and in the Remedy of Havingness. All processes except the Remedy of Havingness itself are done with great attention to the certainty of the preclear. This is stressed. In the matter of Remedy of Havingness, it is beneficial for the preclear to remedy havingness with mock-ups which are vague and of which he is not even vaguely certain. As havingness itself does not depend upon any reality, so does the Remedy of Havingness work in the absence of reality. Only in the case of the Remedy of Havingness, however, is uncertainty or unreality on the part of the preclear tolerated. At all other times the auditor must be very certain that the preclear is sure of what he is doing.

The attitude of the auditor giving Intensive Procedure is not today expected to be a sympathetic or coddling one. Scientology processing today is done overtly, challengingly. An auditor is expected to be top scale on the Chart of Attitudes in all departments except Trust. He is expected to distrust the preclear, and even act like he distrusts the preclear. This attitude will be found to be far more acceptable to the preclear than a trustful one. While the auditor never gets angry at the preclear, never dramatizes at the preclear, and sticks to his task in auditing, he should be markedly insistent on the certainty. He should be very challenging about the fact that the preclear said it was certain. The auditor does not believe the fact that the preclear found whatever it was real. By doing this the preclear is made to postulate over and over and over that he is in communication.

Many a preclear does something, then sits back to see if anything happened. This, when a severe condition (the ‘observer’, where the preclear cannot be anything -- cannot occupy a source point or receipt point) can be remedied by having the preclear touch a part of his body or the room with his finger and then stand back to see if anything happened. His communication lags can be long on this. The commands are, ‘Touch your nose’, ‘Now let go and see if anything happens’. This must be done, to be effective, for some time. Its goal as a process is to wipe out fear of consequences.

For a preclear who has suffered much loss, the auditor can have the preclear place an object (matches, a handkerchief or anything the preclear owns) out in front of the preclear, then have the preclear let go of it, sit back and wait for it to come to him (which it won’t, of course, without volition on the part of the preclear). Then he repeats the action, waiting for the object to go away from him.  The communication lag of recognition of the process and the somatics can be severe. The waiting should be in terms of many minutes each time.

IMPORTANT: IN PROCESSING PSYCHOTICS AND NEUROTICS OF WHATEVER DEGREE, USE ONLY R2-16, OPENING PROCEDURE 8-C, EACH PART UNTIL THE PERSON IS SURE WHO IS DOING IT.  USE ONLY R2-16 UNTIL THE CASE IS FULLY SANE.  USE NO OTHER PROCESS OF ANY KIND.

The first and most basic definition of any part of communication is that communication or any part thereof is a consideration. If this were not so, communication in this universe would be impossible as a perfect communication requires an exact duplication of source point at receipt point. A duplication, to be perfect, would mean a ‘copy’ in the same time, same space, with the same mass. The law that two objects cannot occupy the same space is peculiar to the MEST Universe and is the law which keeps it space stretched. Thus a perfect duplication defies the basic law of the Universe. But as duplication is a consideration, communication is possible to the degree that the preclear can freely make considerations. Any process which improves the ability to duplicate by removing the fear of it or improving the ability of the preclear to consider freely without large reasons improves as well, duplication.

‘Things you are not duplicating’, ‘Things which are not duplicating you’ is one of a variety of processes.

The game of the preclear is to set up things which cannot be duplicated and to duplicate anything set up. He can play it as well as he can consider freely or as well as he can duplicate.

Considerations are bettered by having the preclear put considerations into any object for a long time, then having the preclear make the object have considerations about him. The commands are, ‘Put some considerations into that ...’, ‘Have the ... have some considerations about you’. All comm-lag, as in all other processes, must be reduced. Havingness may have to be remedied.

THIS IS A LIST TO BE RUN BY CHANGE OF SPACE PROCESSING

1.  	The first geographic location of the Thetan in the MEST Universe as soon as he came from the Home Universe.
2.  	The geographic location where he created his first facsimile.
3.  	Where the Thetan received his first motivator in the MEST Universe. 
4.  	Where the Thetan committed his first overt act in the MEST Universe. 
5.  	Where he started the first spiral. Also the end of the spiral. Do this with all spirals up to present time.
6.  	The geographic location where the Thetan first was in contact with a body in any way.
7.  	The jack-in-the-box.
8.  	The Obsession.
9.  	The first blanketing.
10. 	The halver.
11. 	Facsimile One.
12. 	Before Earth.
13. 	Before MEST Universe.
14. 	The joiner.
15. 	The Assumption.
16. 	His first borrowing.
17. 	His first nipping.
18. 	The Ice Cube.
19. 	The first between lives area.
20. 	The Emanator.
21. 	The first Theta Trap.
22. 	The body in pawn.
23. 	The Body Builder.
24. 	The Jiggler.
25. 	The Whirler.
26. 	The Bouncer.
27. 	The Spinner.
28. 	The Rocker.
29. 	The Boxer.
30. 	The Faller.
31. 	The Education.
32. 	The Fly Trap.
33. 	The Ded.
34. 	The Dedex.
35. 	The Mis-assist.
36. 	The first geographical location the Thetan took on Earth. 
37. 	Glare Fights.
38. 	Implant station.

SOP 8-D

This procedure is for use by a trained Scientologist.  It can be used in conjunction with ADVANCED COURSE PROCEDURE and its primary goal is the delivery of heavy cases however it can be extensively applied to all cases. It is better to run a Step 1 well on 8-C before using this process upon him.

OPENING PROCEDURE: Have PC move his body around the room locating SPOTS IN MEST SPACE.  Have him locate many such spots and designate them with his finger. Have him do this until he can do it very well and until he obeys an auditor’s directions easily.

STEP I: Ask preclear to be three feet back of his chair. This is the total step. The auditor does not press the matter further even if the PC is.

STEP II: Have preclear look at his environment and whatever he sees have him duplicate it many times. Then have him duplicate a nothingness he makes or finds, many times.

STEP III: Have preclear hold the two back corners of the room (2 minutes at least or two or more hours). Then have him locate spots in space where he is not.

STEP IV:  AN E-METER STEP. Give PC a full assessment by putting him on an E-Meter at this point and asking him to name the people with whom he has been associated since birth. The auditor writes these down and indicates by a symbol after each name whether the action of the needle is stuck, small, medium or violent. 

On a consistently stuck needle, use next to last list of Self Analysis until needle frees. Then choose that person who got the biggest reaction on the meter and using this person have preclear find spots or spaces where this person would be safe. The preclear must be certain of the fact. The auditing command is, ‘Find some places where ... would be safe’. 

One continues this until the needle shows no further reaction, on just this first person. Then one goes to OPENING PROCEDURE and starts all the way through the steps again. Now one takes the same person as the auditor first chose and runs this processing question only. ‘Spot some things which your ... does not own.’ This is the total question. (One to two hour communication lag may not be unusual.) The auditor continues to ask this question and the preclear continues to spot things which this person does not own until the needle is relatively inactive. 

Then the auditor goes to OPENING PROCEDURE above and continues through the steps. But now he takes a new assessment and proceeds exactly as before. ‘Places where ... would be safe’ is Universe Processing. ‘Things ... does not own’ is Ownership Processing. 

No variations of command of any kind whatsoever should be used by the auditor as these are not dichotomies and variations can be very hard on the preclear, even making him ill. The auditor should add ‘The spirit of Man’, ‘The spirit of Woman’, God, and the body. 

STUDY THIS PROCESS WELL BEFORE USING IT. DO NOT DEPART FROM IT OR VARY IT UNTIL PRECLEAR IS STABLY EXTERIORIZED. THE ACTUAL GOAL OF THIS PROCESS IS TO BRING THE PRECLEAR TO TOLERATE ANY VIEWPOINT.

OUTLINE OF LECTURES 1-3 OF PROFESSIONAL COURSE
JULY, 1954

SCIENTOLOGY, ITS BACKGROUND 
	or a history of Knowledge.

SCIENTOLOGY
	the Western Anglicized continuance of many earlier forms of wisdom. Scio -- study

EARLIEST VERSION -- THE VEDA
Knowingness or sacred lore
The most ancient sacred literature of the Hindus comprising over a hundred extant books. One or all four of the canonical collection of hymns, prayers and formulas which are the foundation of the Vedic religion
The Rig-Veda
Yajur-Veda
Sama-Veda
Atharva-Veda
The Cycle of Action
The meaning of Veda -- Knowingness
Mention of the Book of Job as oldest written work from India

THE TAO -- THE WAY
Realization of the mystery of mysteries -- i.e., the way to attain knowingness The Tao-Teh-King by Lao-Tzu (604-531 B)
Taught conformity with the cosmic order and simplicity in social and political organization
Entirely concentrated on the mind and its discipline
Contemporary with Confucius
The principle of wu-wei (non assertion or non-compulsion) control by permitting self-determinism

THE DHYANA -- KNOWINGNESS AND LOOKINGNESS
From mythical times. Named from the legendary Hindu Sage Dharma whose many progeny were the personifications of virtue and religious rights. We are familiar with the Dhyana in the form of Buddhism. A BOHDI is one who has attained intellectual and ethical perfection by human means, comparable to our theta-clear in Scientology.

GAUTAMA SAKYAMUNI (563-483 B)
Looked upon as founder of the Dhyana. Never claimed to be anything but a human being, did not profess to bring any revelation from a supernatural source, did not proclaim himself a savior. He professed only to teach men to liberate themselves as he had liberated himself.
From the Dharmapada, a collection of verses said to have been written by Gautama:
‘All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts.’
‘By oneself evil is done by oneself one suffers by oneself evil is left undone by oneself one is purified. Purity and impurity belong to oneself no one can purify another.’
‘You yourself must make an effort the Buddhas are only preachers. The thoughtful who enter the way are freed from the bondage of sin.’
‘He who does not rouse himself when it is time to rise, who, though young and strong, is full of sloth, whose will and thoughts are weak, that lazy and idle man will never find the way to enlightment.’
‘Strenuousness is the path of immortality, sloth the path of death. Those who are strenuous do not die those who are slothful are as if dead already.’
The religion of Buddhism, carried by its teachers, brought civilization into the existing barbarisms of India, China, Japan and the Near East -or about two thirds of Earth’s population. Here was the first broadcast wisdom which summated into high cultures.
THE HEBREWS
Their definition of MESSIAH is a ‘teacher or bringer of wisdom’. Their holy work, known to us as the ‘Old Testament’ leans heavily on the sources we have already mentioned.

JESUS OF NAZARETH
The legend of his study in India
Age of 30-33 teaching and healing
Use of parables like Gautama
Buddhist principles of brotherly love and compassion Death by Crucifixion

SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY INTO THE BARBARISM OF EUROPE 
	Religion with fur breech-clouts

CLOSE OF THE TRADE ROUTES

WESTERN SEEKERS OF WISDOM
The separation of science and search from religion -- artificial division
The Early Greeks
Lucretius
Spinoza
Nietzsche
Schopenhauer
Spencer
Freud
We think of these as beginning our intellectualism. They quickened it. The bulk of their sources was Asiatic.

DEFINITION OF RELIGION -- WEBSTER
‘(3) The profession or practice of religious beliefs religious observances collectively rites.’
‘(4) Devotion or fidelity, conscientiousness.’

RELIGION -- RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY
Scientology has accomplished the goal of religion expressed in all Man’s
written history, the freeing of the soul by wisdom.
It is a far more intellectual religion than that known to the West as late as 1950.
If we, without therapy, simply taught our truths we would bring civilization to a barbaric West.

THIS IS SCIENTOLOGY - THE SCIENCE OF CERTAINTY

FOREWORD

For nearly a quarter of a century, I have been engaged in the investigation of the fundamentals of life, the material universe and human behavior.  Such an adventure leads one down many highways, through many byroads, into many back alleys of uncertainty, through many strata of life, through many personal vicissitudes, into the teeth of vested interests, across the rim of hell and into the very arms of heaven. Many before me have made their way across these tumultuous oceans of data, where every drop of water appears to be any other drop of water and yet where one must find the drop. Almost everything I have studied and observed has been evaluated otherwise somewhere, at some time, in relation to this or that.

What equipment must one have to venture upon these wastes? Where are the rules-books, the maps, the signposts? All one perceives when he peers into the darkness of the unknown are the lonely bones of those who, reaching before, have found their hands empty and their lives destroyed. Such a thing is a lonely drama one must cheer one’s own triumphs and weep to himself his despair. The cold brutality of the scientific method fails far back, almost at the starting point. The airy spirallings and dread mysteries of India, where I drank deep, lead only into traps. The euphoria of religion, the ecstasies of worship and debauchery, become as meaningless as sand when one seeks in them the answer to the riddle of all existence. Many have roved upon this unmapped track. Some have survived to say a fraction of what they knew, some have observed one thing and said quite another, some looked knowing and said naught. One engaged upon such a quest does not even know the answer to that most important question of all: Will it be good for man to loose upon him all in a rush as an avalanche, the knowingness of eternity?

There are those who would tell you that only a fiend would set you free, and that freedom leads at best into the darkest hells, and there are those to inform you that freedom is for you and not for them, but there are also men of kind heart who know how precious is the cup and drink of wide, unbounded ways. Who is to say whether man will benefit at all from this knowledge hardly won? You are the only one who can say.

Observation, application, experience and test will tell you if the trek has been made and the answer found. For this is the science of knowing how to know. It is a science which does not include within it cold and musty data, data to be thrust down the throat without examination and acceptance. This is the track of knowing how to know. Travel it and see.

THE FACTORS

(Summation of the considerations and examinations of the human spirit and the material universe completed between A.D. 1923 and 1953)

1. 	Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.
2.   	In the beginning and forever is the decision and the decision is TO BE.
3.   	The first action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint.
4.   	The second action of beingness is to extend from the viewpoint, points to view, which are dimension points.
5.  	Thus there is space created, for the definition of space is: viewpoint of dimension. And the purpose of a dimension point is space and a point of view.
6.    	The action of a dimension point is reaching and withdrawing.
7.      	And from the viewpoint to the dimension points there are connection and interchange. Thus new dimension points are made. Thus there is communication.
8.       	And thus there is light.
9.  	And thus there is energy.
10. 	And thus there is life.
11. 	But there are other viewpoints and these viewpoints outthrust points to view. And there comes about an interchange amongst viewpoints but the interchange is never otherwise than in terms of exchanging dimension points.
12. 	The dimension point can be moved by the viewpoint, for the viewpoint, in addition to creative ability and consideration, possesses volition and potential independence of action and the viewpoint, viewing dimension points, can change in relation to its own or other dimension points or viewpoints.  Thus comes about all the fundamentals there are to motion.
13. 	The dimension points are each and every one, whether large or small, solid. And they are solid solely because the viewpoints say they are solid.
14. 	Many dimension points combine into larger gases, fluids or solids. Thus there is matter. But the most valued point is admiration, and admiration is so strong its absence alone permits persistence.
15. 	The dimension point can be different from other dimension points and thus can possess an individual quality. And many dimension points can possess a similar quality, and others can possess a similar quality unto themselves.  Thus comes about the quality of classes of matter.
16. 	The viewpoint can combine dimension points into forms and the forms can be simple or complex and can be at different distances from the viewpoints and so there can be combinations of form. And the forms are capable of motion and the viewpoints are capable of motion and so there can be motion of forms.
17. 	And the opinion of the viewpoint regulates the consideration of the forms, their stillness or their motion, and these considerations consist of assignment of beauty or ugliness to the forms and these considerations alone are art.
18. 	It is the opinions of the viewpoints that some of these forms should endure. Thus there is survival.
19. 	And the viewpoint can never perish but the form can perish.
20. 	And the many viewpoints, interacting, become dependent upon one another’s forms and do not choose to distinguish completely the ownership of dimension points and so comes about a dependency upon the dimension points and upon the other viewpoints.
21. 	From this comes a consistency of viewpoint of the interaction of dimension points and this, regulated is TIME.
22. 	And there are universes.
23. 	The universes, then, are three in number: the universe created by one viewpoint, the universe created by every other viewpoint, the universe created by the mutual action of viewpoints which is agreed to be upheld -- the physical universe.
24. 	And the viewpoints are never seen. And the viewpoints consider more and more that the dimension points are valuable. And the viewpoints try to become the anchor points and forget that they can create more points and space and forms. Thus comes about scarcity. And the dimension points can perish and so the viewpoints assume that they, too, can perish.
25. 	Thus comes about death.
26. 	The manifestations of pleasure and pain, of thought, emotion and effort, of thinking, of sensation, of affinity, reality, communication, of behavior and being are thus derived and the riddles of our universe are apparently contained and answered herein.
27. 	There is beingness, but Man believes there is only becomingness.
28. 	The resolution of any problem posed hereby is the establishment of viewpoints and dimension points, the betterment of condition and concourse amongst dimension points, and, thereby, viewpoints, and the remedy of abundance or scarcity in all things, pleasant or ugly, by the rehabilitation of the ability of the viewpoint to assume points of view and create and uncreate, neglect, start, change and stop dimension points of any kind at the determinism of the viewpoint. Certainty in all three universes must be regained, for certainty, not data, is knowledge.
29. 	In the opinion of the viewpoint, any beingness, any thing, is better than no thing, any effect is better than no effect, any universe better than no universe, any particle better than no particle, but the particle of admiration is best of all.
30. 	And above these things there might be speculation only. And below these things there is the playing of the game. But these things which are written here Man can experience and know. And some may care to teach these things and some may care to use them to assist those in distress and some may desire to employ them to make individuals and organizations more able and so give to Earth a culture of which we can be proud.

Humbly tendered as a gift to Man by L. Ron Hubbard
April 23, 1953

THIS IS SCIENTOLOGY

Scientology is the science of knowledge. It contains many parts. Its most fundamental division is Scientology itself and Para-Scientology. Under Scientology we group those things of which we can be certain and only those things of which we can be certain. Knowledge itself is certainty knowledge is not data. Knowingness itself is certainty. Sanity is certainty, providing only that that certainty does not fall beyond the conviction of another when he views it. To obtain a certainty one must be able to observe.  

But what is the level of certainty we require? And what is the level of observation we require for a certainty or a knowledge to exist? If a man can stand before a tree and by sight, touch or other perception know that he is confronting a tree and be able to perceive its form and be quite sure he is confronting a tree, we have the level of certainty we require. If the man will not look at the tree or, although it is observably a tree to others, if he discovers it to be a blade of grass or a sun, then he is below the level of certainty required and would not be able to grasp Scientology. Some other person, helpfully inclined, would have to direct his perception to the tree until the man perceived without duress that it was indeed a tree he confronted. That is the only level of certainty we require in order to qualify knowledge.  

For knowledge is observation and is given to those who would look. Things about which there is observational difficulty, such as mirror mazes, items hidden in smoke, objects guessed at in the dark, are outside the boundaries of Scientology.

In order to obtain knowledge and certainty, it is necessary to be able to observe, in fact, three universes in which there could be trees. The first of these is one’s own universe one should be able to create for his own observation in its total form for total perception, a tree. The second universe would be the material universe, which is the universe of matter, energy, space and time, which is the common meeting ground of all of us. The third universe is actually a class of universes, which could be called ‘the other fellow’s universe’, for he and all the class of ‘other fellows’ have universes of their own. A complete clarity on all three universes would be well above any goal attempted even in Scientology, and it is not necessary that one be as certain as this of three universes before one can be certain of Scientology, for certainty of Scientology requires only the same order of certainty one would have to have to know he was confronting a physical universe tree.

Para-Scientology is that large bin which includes all greater or lesser uncertainties.        

Here are the questionable things, the things of which the common normal observer cannot be sure with a little study.  

Here are theories, here are groups of data, even groups commonly accepted as ‘known’. Some of the classified bodies of data which fall in Para-Scientology are: Dianetics, incidents on the ‘whole-track’, the immortality of Man, the existence of God, engrams containing pain and unconsciousness and yet all perception, pre-natals, clears, character, and many other things which, even when closely and minutely observed, still are not certain things to those who observe them. Such things have relative truth. They have to some a high degree of reality they have to others non-existence. They require a highly specialized system in order to observe them at all. 

Working with such uncertainties one can produce broad and sweeping results: one can make the ill well again, one can right even the day which went most wrong but those things which require highly specialized communication systems remain uncertain to many. Because Dianetics is placed in this category does not mean it is disowned, it means simply that it is a specialized thing based on theory which, no matter how workable, requires specialized observation. It does not mean Dianetics will cease to work, but it means that Dianetics is not easily nor quickly forwarded into a complete certainty. 

Yet Dianetics is more of an exact science than many which have before borne that name and Dianetics is an intimate part of Scientology, for it is through its special communication processes that the data was won which has become Scientology.

Also under the heading of Para-Scientology one would place such things as past lives, mysterious influences, astrology, mysticism, religion, psychology, psychiatry, nuclear physics and any other science based on theory.

A doctor, for instance, may seem entirely certain of the cause of some disease, yet it depends upon the doctor’s certainty for the layman to accept that cause of the disease. Here we have a specialized communications system. We may have an arduously trained observer, a highly mechanistic observation resting upon a theory which is not, even at this late date, entirely accepted even in the best circles. That penicillin cures certain things is a certainty to the doctor even when penicillin suddenly and inexplicably fails to cure something.  Any inexplicable failure introduces an uncertainty, which thereafter removes the subject from the realm of an easily obtained certainty.

Hypnotism, no matter how certain the hypnotist may be that he is effective on some people, is a wild variable and, even in expert practice, is a definite uncertainty.  The use of drugs or shock produce such variable results that they class far down a gradient scale which would begin with a fair degree of certainty and which would end with almost no certainty of any kind.

We have here, then, a parallel between certainty and sanity.

The less certain the individual on any subject, the less sane he could be said to be upon that subject the less certain he is of what he views in the material universe, what he views in his own or the other fellow’s universe, the less sane he could be said to be.

The road to sanity is demonstrably the road to increasing certainty. Starting at any level, it is only necessary to obtain a fair degree of certainty on the MEST universe to improve considerably one’s beingness. Above that, one obtains some certainty of his own universe and some certainty of the other fellow’s universe.

Certainty, then, is clarity of observation. Of course above this, vitally so, is certainty in creation. Here is the artist, here is the master, here is the very great spirit.

As one advances he discovers that what he first perceived as a certainty can be considerably improved. Thus we have certainty as a gradient scale.  It is not an absolute, but it is defined as the certainty that one perceives or the certainty that one creates what one perceives or the certainty that there is perception. Sanity and perception, certainty and perception, knowledge and observation are and then all of a kind, and amongst them we have sanity.

What will Scientology do? It has already been observed by many who are not that doubtful thing, the ‘qualified observer’, that people who have travelled a road toward certainty improve in the many ways people consider it desirable to improve.

The road into uncertainty is the road toward psychosomatic illness, doubts, anxieties, fears, worries and vanishing awareness. As awareness is decreased, so does certainty decrease and the end of this road is a nothingness quite opposite from the nothingness which can create. It is a nothingness which is a total effect.

Simplicity, it would be suspected, would be the keynote of any process, any communications system, which would deliver into a person’s hands the command of his own beingness.  The simplicity consists of the observation of three universes. The first step is the observation of one’s own universe and what has taken place in that universe in the past.  The second step would be observation of the material universe and direct consultation with it to discover its forms, depth, emptinesses and solidities. The third step would be the observation of other people’s universes or their observation of the MEST universe, for there are a multitude of viewpoints of these three universes.

Where observation of one of these three is suppressed, hidden, denied, the individual is unable to mount beyond a certain point into certainty. Here we have a triangle not unlike the affinity, reality, communication triangle of Dianetics. These three universes are interactive to the degree that one raises all three by raising one, but one can raise two only so far before it is restrained by the uncertainty on the third. Thus, any point on this triangle is capable of suppressing the other two points and any point of this triangle is capable of raising the other two points.

THE TRIANGLE OF CERTAINTY OF AWARENESS

This drawing could be called the scale of awareness.  It is also the scale of action and the cycle of action.

The numbers represent entirely arbitrary levels which yet can be found to mean levels of predictable attitudes. It would be found that humanity at this time hovers in terms of awareness at the level of 2.0, slightly above or slightly below here is scarcely any awareness at all compared to the awareness which is available.  It is very puzzling to people at higher levels of awareness why people behave towards them as they do such higher level people have not realized that they are not seen, much less understood. People at low levels of awareness do not observe, but substitute for observation preconceptions, evaluation and suppositions, and even physical pain by which to attain their certainties. In the field of Zen Buddhism there is a practice of administering a sudden blow by which is obtained a feeling of certainty. Here is a relatively false certainty -- the certainty of impact, although all certainty actually is derived below the level of 10.0 from prior impact for its conviction. After a brutal accident or operation under anaesthetic, it can be observed that individuals will sometimes react with an enormous conviction which yet does not seem to be based upon any fact.  A certainty has been carried home to them in terms of a physical impact. This, then, is not a self-determined certainty and the self-determined certainty carries one into high echelons. The mistaken use of shock by the ancient Greek upon the insane, the use of whips in old Bedlam, all sought to deliver sufficient certainty to the insane to cause them to be less insane.

Certainty delivered by blow and punishment is a non-self-determined certainty. It is productive of stimulus-response behavior. At a given stimulus a dog who has been beaten, for instance, will react invariably, providing he has been sufficiently beaten, but if he has been beaten too much, the stimulus will result only in confused bewilderment. Thus certainty delivered by blows, by applied force, eventually brings about a certainty as absolute as one could desire -- total unawareness. Unconsciousness itself is a certainty which is sought by many individuals who have failed repeatedly to reach any high level of awareness certainty. These people then desire an unawareness certainty. So it seems that the thirst for certainty can lead one into oblivion if one seeks it as an effect.

An uncertainty is the product of two certainties.  One of these is a conviction, whether arrived at by observation (causative) or by a blow (effected). The other is a negative certainty. One can be sure that something is and one can be sure that something is not. He can be sure there is something, no matter what it is, present, and there that is nothing present. These two certainties commingling create a condition of uncertainty known as ‘maybe’. A ‘maybe’ continues to be held in suspense in an individual’s mind simply because he cannot decide whether it is nothing or something. He grasps and holds the certainties each time he has been given evidence or has made the decision that it is a somethingness and each time he has come to suppose that it is a nothingness.  Where these two certainties of something and nothing are concerned with and can vitally influence one’s continuance in a state of beingness or where one merely supposes they can influence such a state of beingness, a condition of anxiety arises.  Thus anxiety, indecision, uncertainty, a state of ‘maybe’, can exist only in the presence of poor observation or the inability to observe. Such a state can be remedied simply by eradicating from the past of the individual, first the conviction that the matter is important, next the conviction that it is totally unimportant, next all the times when he was certain of the somethingness and then all the times he was certain of the nothingness. One merely causes the individual to observe in terms of the three universes.

We face, then, two general types of mind. One is an analytical thing which depends for its conclusions upon perception or even creation of things to perceive and bases its judgment on observation in terms of three universes. This we call the ‘analytical mind’.  We could also call it the spirit. We could also call it the ‘awareness of awareness unit’. We could call it the conscious individual himself in the best of his beingness. We could call it the mathematical term thetan. Whatever its name we could have precisely the same thing, a viewpoint capable of creation and observation of things created which concludes and directs action in terms of the existing state of three universes, as they are observed directly.

The other type of mind resembles nothing if not an electronic brain. It receives its data in terms of conviction, delivered by force. It is directed by and reacts to hidden influences rather than observed influences and is, to a large extent, the reverse image and has reverse intentions to the analytical mind.

This we call the reactive mind. It is an actual entity and it operates in terms of experience and theory. It sets up thinking machinery around uncertainties and the course of its thinking is downward. It seeks to direct and dictate out of pain and the effort to avoid pain.

The primary difference between these two ‘minds’ is that one, the analytical mind, is without finite duration, and the other, the reactive mind, is susceptible to death.

These two minds are a certainty since they can be observed by anyone, even in himself. He knows he is aware of things around him, and he knows that he has definite desires which are perfectly reasonable and he knows, if he is a homo sapiens or animal, that internal commands and compulsions, even those which tell him to eat and tell his heart to beat, are not directly within his control.

All thinking can then be divided for our purposes into thinking based upon direct observation and conclusions from observation, and thinking which has to know before it can be or observe. Analytical thought can be called analytical thought because it directly observes and analyzes what it observes in terms of observations which are immediately present. The reactive mind concludes and acts entirely on experience and with only a fragmentary regard to things present which could be observed. The reactive mind begins and continues with uncertainties and, where the course of the analytical mind is progressively upward, the course of the reactive mind is progressively downward.

The reactive mind comes into being as a servant of the analytical mind, and is set up by the analytical mind to work upon and store data about the basic uncertainty that there might be something and there might be nothing. The reactive mind then continues in growth and from the servant, if the analytical mind does not observe it, tends to become the master.

The goals of the two minds are not separate goals. The reactive mind is a makeshift effort on the part of the viewpoint to perceive things which it believes to be unperceivable except by comparison of uncertainties. Both minds are seeking to persist and endure through time, which is to say, survive. The analytical mind can, unless it becomes too uncertain and by that uncertainty has set up too many reactive mechanisms, persist indefinitely. The reactive mind pursues the cycle of life span.

The analytical mind seeks by creation to cause an effect the reactive mind seeks by duplication, borrowing, and experience to cause an effect. Both minds, then, are seeking to cause an effect, and this is their entire motivation for action.

Each of the three universes seeks to persist indefinitely. Each is continuously caused, and each is continually receiving an effect. Each has its own adjudication of what it should receive as an effect and what it should cause.

Time itself consists of a continuous interaction of the universes. Each may have its own space each has its own particular energy.

The urge of any of these three universes towards survival is sub-divisible for each of the three universes into eight dynamics. There are, then, four groups of eight dynamics each: the eight dynamics of one’s own universe, the eight dynamics of the physical universe, the eight dynamics of the other’s universe, as well as the eight dynamics of the triangle itself.

These dynamics could be sub-divided as follows:  the first dynamic would be that one most intimate to the universe which could be said to be the dynamic urging the survival of self. The second dynamic would be that one of the persistence of admiration in many forms in one’s own and the other’s universe.  This admiration could take the form of sex, eating, or purely the sensation of creation such as sex and children. In the physical universe it would be that light emanation similar to sunlight.  The third dynamic could be said to be that dynamic embracing persistence of groups of objects or entities. The fourth dynamic would concern itself with an entire species. The fifth dynamic would concern itself with other living species and would embrace all other living species. The sixth dynamic would embrace, in terms of survival, the space, energy, matter and forms of the universe as themselves. The seventh dynamic would be the urge to survive of the spirits or spiritual aspects of each universe. The eighth dynamic would be the overall creativeness or destructiveness as a continuing impulse.

Each impulse is concerned wholly with systems of communication. Communication requires a viewpoint and a destination in its most elementary form, and as this grows more complex and as it grows more ‘important’, communication grows more rigid and fixed as to its codes and lines. The reason for communication is to effect effects and observe effects.

Each of the three universes has its own triangle of affinity, reality and communication. These three things are interdependent one upon another and one cannot exist independent of the other two. Affinity is the characteristic of the energy as to its vibration, condensation, rarefaction, and, in the physical universe, its degree of cohesion or dispersion.  Reality depends upon coincidence or non-coincidence of flow and is marked mainly by the direction of flow. It is essentially agreement. Communication is the volume of flow or lack of flow. Of these three, communication is by far the most important. Affinity and reality exist to further communication.  Under affinity we have, for instance, all the varied emotions which go from apathy at 0.1 through grief, fear, anger, antagonism, boredom, enthusiasm, exhilaration and serenity in that order. It is affinity and this rising scale of the characteristics of emotion which give us the tone-scale. The tone-scale can be a certainty to anyone who has seen other beings react emotionally, who has himself felt emotion, and who has seen the varied moods of the physical universe itself. The periodic chart of chemistry is itself a sort of tone-scale.

There is a downward spiral on the tone-scale and an upward spiral. These spirals are marked by decreasing or increasing awareness. To go up scale one must increase his power to observe with certainty to go down scale one must decrease his power to observe. There are two certainties here. One is a complete certainty of total awareness which would be at 40.0 on the tone-scale, and the other is a certainty of total unawareness which would be 0.0 on the tone-scale or nearly so. Neither end, however, is itself an absolute for the analytical mind, and the analytical mind can go below 0 of the reactive mind.  However, these two classes of certainty are very wide in their satisfaction of the qualifications of a certainty. Because the two extremes of the scale are both zeros in terms of space, it is possible to confuse one for the other and so make it appear that total awareness would be total unawareness. Experience and observation can disabuse one of this idea. The scale is not circular.

The characteristics and potentiality of the top of the scale or near the top of the scale are unbounded creation, outflow, certainty, going-awayness, explosion, holding apart, spreading apart, letting go, reaching, goals of a causative nature, widening space, freedom from time, separateness, differentiation, givingness of sensation, vapourisingness, glowingness, lightness, whiteness, desolidifyingness, total awareness, total understanding, total ARC.

The bottom of the scale and the vicinity around it includes death, inflow, certainty, coming-backness, implosion, letting-come-together, pulling together, holding together, withdrawing, effect goals (ambition to be an effect rather than a cause), contracting space, no time or infinite time in a moment, connectingness, identification, identity, receivingness of sensation, condensation, blackness, solidification, no-awareness, no understanding, no ARC.

The various characteristics or intentions are observable for any dynamic and any universe.
Between these two extremes is the mean of action where complete freedom to do any of these things of the top or bottom of the scale is exercised. Therefore, somewhere between 3.5 on the tone scale and 36.5 there is action.

The above conditions of top and bottom of the scale, of course, reach away from the extreme and towards each other.

As awareness becomes more fixed, intentions become less flexible in action. Communications systems become more rigid, more complex and less susceptible of alteration. One alters these communications systems, however, by raising or lowering certainty on the three universes.

The principal difference between the analytical mind in a state of awareness itself, and the reactive mind, is that the analytical mind, highly aware, knows that it is not the thing but is the viewpoint of things. Of this it can be very certain as it increases in awareness.

The reactive mind conceives itself to be the thing. The analytical mind is in a state of becoming without reaching the point of being. The reactive mind conceives itself to be in a state of being and so resists becoming.

Perception is accomplished by the analytical mind in a high state of awareness by its own outflow and inflow or by its receipt of inflows which it can outflow. The reactive mind perceives by inflow only, and makes complete recordings of the inflow.

The analytical mind is capable of developing its own energy. It is the energy of the analytical mind which empowers the reactive mind, but the reactive mind can be empowered as well by the energy of other minds and by the life energy contained in any living thing. Thus the reactive mind can become the servant of all things, it can believe it is anything, it can believe it is owned or has the identity of anyone, regardless of whom it was created to serve. The analytical mind serves itself in a continuing knowledge of serving itself, but it serves as well and knows it serves the other two universes.

The analytical mind extends from it points or observes points extended from it and thus conceives space. Space is only the viewpoint of dimension. The dimension depends upon those points which give it boundary. Within these dimensions called space, the analytical mind can create energy and form and thus, by change of form, beget time.

Whether created by or within any one of the three universes, flow of energy is accomplished by setting up a terminal and flowing towards it from a viewpoint a stream of energy or by setting up two terminals and causing a flow between them. Each universe could be said to be a two-terminal universe, but flows can be set up on a basis of more than two terminals. The basic unit of any universe in terms of energy is two.  This, however, does not restrict nor qualify the number of viewpoints which any universe can have.  

A physical universe, however, is observably a two-terminal universe and a two-point universe, and it is also observable that the other two universes set up almost invariably two terminals or more and utilize two viewpoints each.

Very low on the scale in terms of awareness, the analytical mind conceives itself to be the reactive mind and so does not act or perform to put out dimension points so as to get space, and does not generate for its own accountability energy. It does, however, always generate energy whether it admits it is doing so or not.

The concern of two viewpoints is attention. Each viewpoint is apt to be curious about or desire the attention of another viewpoint. The most valuable part of an attention interchange is admiration.  Admiration is a special particle.  It is a universal solvent. It is the very substance of a communication line, and it is that thing which is considered desirable in the game of the three universes. Admiration goes into the interplay of the universes in the form of made-up objects or even in the form of bodies. These made-up objects could be called ‘creative pictures’.  These, as they become more complex in form, take on the aspect of a life of their own and become animated beings.

Two viewpoints setting up terminals to be viewed by the other viewpoint demand attention one from the other and will invent all manner of ‘reasons’ to command the continuing attention of the other viewpoint. One of the primary methods of operation is to make one’s object or action of object so strange that the other viewpoint cannot look away. Another is to make the object or action of object so artistic or colorful or interesting that the other viewpoint cannot look away. Another method is the command by force for attention. Another method is to inhibit the attention so as to invite it solely to one’s objects.  

One can plot this as a cycle of demand for attention with curiosity below 40.0, desire below that, enforcement down to as low as 1.5 on the scale, and inhibition at 1.1 on down. The lowest methods of this scale are quite observable amongst men, and the primary operation, very low on the scale, is inhibition of attention elsewhere.  By cutting the communication lines of another viewpoint, an effect is created on the other viewpoint by which that viewpoint fixes with whatever emotion (since any attention is better than no attention) upon the products or objects of that one who cut the communication line.  There are many methods of cutting communication lines. A common one could be summarized as ‘It’s too horrible over that way for you to look’. Viewpoints are thus given the understanding that they are surrounded by horrible things which they have never perceived and which, indeed, have never existed but which are said to be there so that they will be forced to give attention.

Hidden influences are the commonest methods of enforcing attention. Of course, any analytical mind is itself a hidden influence since it cannot as itself be perceived. Only its energy and objects can be perceived. Thus comes about the worship of the hidden influence, the fear of the hidden influence, the neurosis about hidden influences.

The goal of seeking attention is to receive the particle admiration. One creates effects simply in order to create effects, but he is given the bonus of admiration when he creates sufficient effect or, what is most important, when he demands, commands and is able to effect admiration by duress.

It might be said that there was no eating until one was so furious about not being admired that one slew as a punishment. The tiger, walking through the woods with his beautiful stripes, it could be humorously offered, would never have eaten a thing and would not be eating today if some monkey had not chattered insults at him instead of admiring him.  The tiger compelled the admiration of the monkey by pinning him down and eating him up.  It can be observed that the eating of living flesh or live cells delivers a kind of admiration to the taste, and it can be observed that under torture, duress of all kinds, the tortured one will suddenly, if degradedly, admire his torturer.

Energy pictures which we call ‘mock-ups’ are created things which themselves contain admiration.   It could be said that these are prior to bodies. The acquisition of admiration by pain, by eating, or by devouring something that belongs to somebody else was later succeeded by a better communications system which would prevent eating on such a rigorous scale. This thing was sex, which is an interchange of condensed admiration particles which forwards new bodies into being. So far as the body of homo sapiens is concerned, its desire not to be eaten has been answered evidently by sex, and sex performs the function of continued survival of form.  Thus, so long as one has the symbol of sex to offer, one feels relatively secure and when he does not have that symbol to offer, one feels insecure.

But of this evolution of admiration and of evolution itself, we have no high degree of certainty as we first begin to observe, and it is offered here as an explanation of why it is a thing we do not particularly need and a thing of which we will or will not gain a future certainty as we go up the scale of awareness.  Many things are non-existent low on the scale.  Many things are uncertain on the scale at low levels, which become high level certainties up on the scale but this certainty only depends on the positiveness of observation or the positiveness of observation which says the thing does not exist. It is not the purpose of Scientology to present an uncertainty and then demand that it be accepted, for here is the gradient scale of a process by which one can become more certain. If there be immortality or even the lack of necessity on the part of the analytical mind to be a specific object, then one will find it out in due course as he is processed. If they do not exist, again one will find it out. This would be a matter of progressive observation. Where a thing exists in the form of an uncertainty it has a tendency to plague the reactive mind, for the reactive mind itself deals only with uncertainties and its convictions are based entirely on blows and pain.

A very basic uncertainty comes about on the subject of applause. High on the scale one performs for an effect and knows that it is an effect, whether or not there is any attention or admiration, which is to say applause. A little lower on the scale, one desires a nod or the actual substance of admiration.  If it does not come, he is not concerned. But even lower on the scale the individual actively invites and requests applause. Lower than that, he becomes angry in the absence of applause. Lower than that, he exhibits fear, grief, and apathy in the lack of applause. Apathy is the realization that there will never be any applause for any effect.

That which is not admired tends to persist, for the reactive mind does not destroy. One can become fixed upon producing a certain effect simply by insisting that it be admired. The longer it is not admired, the longer one is likely to persist in demanding that it be admired, which is to say exhibiting it, until at length it breaks down scale to a lower level and he realizes it will not be admired, at which time he becomes the effect of it. Here one has become the effect of one’s own cause. Here is the psychosomatic illness which began as a pretended infirmity in order to create an effect. Perhaps it was once applauded but not sufficiently, and after a while was not applauded at all, and one was forced to applaud it himself and believe it himself and so it came into existence and was for him a certainty. This, too, is the course of responsibility which degenerates into irresponsibility. At the top of the scale one knows that he is causing the effect.            

Lower on the scale he says he is not causing the effect (even though he is causing the effect, only he knows he causes it). Even lower on the scale he does not take the middle step he causes an effect and instantly believes that something else caused the effect rather than himself and that he is the effect of the effect.

One can see cause and effect working in terms of viewpoints. If one has not been applauded for many things, one will begin to take the position of the audience. One does the trick, creates the thing, and then goes out front, sits down over the whole theater and applauds it, for one can be a knowing viewpoint from many places. This is often the case with a writer who is seldom confronted by his readers. Indeed, most editors are so low toned that they cut off all the admiring letters of a writer and leave him to wonder. As other things influence the writer, he goes down scale to a point where he believes the things he writes are not admired, and so he has to go out and sit in the audience. This is the first step to becoming the effect of his own cause. After a while he thinks he is the audience.  When he does this, he is no longer the writer. Thus with the painter, thus with anyone.

The little child is quite bent on causing effects and getting things admired. He is continually being evaluated in terms of what is to be admired.

Evaluation is the reactive mind’s conception of viewpoint. The reactive mind does not perceive, it evaluates. To the analytical mind it may sometimes appear that the reactive mind has a viewpoint. The reactive mind does not have a viewpoint, it has an evaluation of viewpoint. Thus the viewpoint of the analytical mind is an actual point from which one perceives. Perception is done by sight, sound, smell, tactile, etc. The reactive mind’s ‘viewpoint’ is an opinion based on another opinion and upon a very small amount of observation, and that observation would be formed out of uncertainties. Thus the confusion of the word viewpoint itself. It can be a point from which one can be aware, which is its analytical definition, and it can be somebody’s ideas on a certain subject which is the reactive definition.
Because the analytical mind and reactive mind in men can become confused, one with the other, one is most prone to assume the actual perception point of that person who has most evaluated for him.  Father and mother, for instance, have evaluated about art, habits, goodness, behavior, badness, how one should dress, what manners are, to such a degree that the child has no choice, it seems to him, but to assume their ‘points to look from’, and so we will find the child observing things as his father or mother would observe them and even wearing his father’s glasses or his mother’s glasses as he grows older. He has confused evaluation with actual perception. Where he has been told that he is bad looking, ugly, ridiculous, unmannerly, crude and so forth by somebody else continually, his reactive mind (which, like a prostitute, cares nothing for its master and serves anyone) eventually causes him to lose his viewpoint of himself and he sees himself not by observation but by evaluation as something undesirable. Of course, he would rather be something than nothing. He has, indeed, a horror of being nothing.  So it is better to be something ugly about which he is guessing than to be nothing at all, and so he persists and continues as he is.  Furthermore, because he has been talked to so much about talking, about looking, about perceiving in general, he has gotten the idea that his communications system is unalterable. His whole business of living actually is a communications system with the motivation of causing effects. Thus the lower he is on the tone scale the more he persists without change except downward.

The characteristic actions of the energy produced by the analytical mind are summarized above in terms of the top and bottom of the scale. However, the most important of these seem to be reaching and withdrawing. In the MEST universe, we have start, stop, and change as the characteristics of motion. The analytical mind, however, with its dimension points, is more concerned with reaching and withdrawing. This is the way it perceives. It can control by creating or using energy such as that in the physical universe, and it uses this energy to start, stop, and change other energy. But in itself, its handling of dimension points direction consists of reaching and withdrawing. Compulsive reaching, compulsive withdrawing, bring about many odd and interesting manifestations.

The sensation of pain is actually a sensation of loss. It is a loss of beingness, loss of position and awareness. Therefore, when one loses anything, he has a tendency to perceive less, for there is less to perceive. Something has withdrawn from him without his consent. This would be the definition of loss. This brings about eventually a condition of darkness. This could also be called an ARC break.  If he has lost something, the guilty party is probably in the other two universes. It is either the physical universe or another’s universe which has caused the loss. Thus he has less communication since he is unwilling to communicate, which is to say, put out things in the direction of something which is going to take them and carry them away without his further consent. This brings about a reduction of the desire to be aware which is the reduction of affinity, reduction of agreement (reality) and the reduction of communication in general. In a moment of severe disappointment in one’s fellow man, the universe around him actually grows dark. Simply as an experiment, one can say to himself that he has the only viewpoint there is, that all other viewpoints are simply mocked up by him, he will get an almost immediate diminution of lightness around him.  This is the same mechanism as the mechanism of loss. The result of too much loss is darkness.

Another mechanism of the darkness and unawareness settling over a person is brought about by the loss of a viewpoint which has greatly evaluated for one. One has had a mother or a father who over evaluated about everything, and then this parent or guardian or ally in life, such as a teacher, died or inexplicably disappeared. One was depending for actual looking, seeing, hearing, upon the continued existence of this individual. Suddenly that individual goes and all becomes dark. After that one is not able to perceive one’s own universe, for one was most of the time actually perceiving the lost person’s universe, and now that universe is no longer there, which gives one the idea that he has no universe to perceive. This even dims his perception of the physical universe, of course, because of the interdependence of the triangle of the three universes.

When one has had an insufficient amount of admiration from sexual partners, the physical body which depends mainly upon sex for its sensation and continuance to almost as great a degree as upon eating, will actually begin to change viewpoint to the other sex. Thus we find some older men becoming as women, some older women becoming as men.  

Thus we get the failure of the androgen and estrogen balances and the resultant decay of the body. Here in the matter of sex, one finds reaching and withdrawing rising to considerable magnitude.  The reactive mind operating the body conceives itself to be withdrawing and does not know from what it is withdrawing, for it perceives itself to be under the compulsion of reaching and does not know for what it is reaching. 

In terms of processing, it is withdrawing from or reaching towards sexual partners. When it withdraws a great deal, or when it has been withdrawn from a great deal, the reactive mind conceives the body to be covered with blackness. This resolves in terms of sex and eating. It should be fully understood, however, that this is the resolution of the problem of the body and this resolution is employed only when the analytical mind cannot be brought itself into an immediate height of awareness, using SOP 8.  

When one addresses the body itself, and only the body, one addresses the subject of sex and the subject of eating in terms of reaching and withdrawing. The particular processes used on this are called matched terminalling or double terminalling. This is done in the following fashion. Even when the individual cannot create forms of his own, he can at least create two ideas in front of him. He can put a form with an idea or an idea itself facing another idea out in front of him, both of them exactly alike, ‘withdrawing from sex’, ‘reaching towards sex’. 

He will very often find other terminals he did not create suddenly appearing. When he has run withdrawing, those things he puts up will be black and the object from which it is withdrawing will be white. He should get the idea that the whitish object is reaching and the blackish object is withdrawing. 

He should then run this identical terminal as though it is being put up by somebody else not himself, again with withdrawing for blackness, reaching for greyness. And then he should run it as though somebody is putting it up for somebody else other than himself.  

These three causations of putting up this identical idea facing itself are himself, another for him, and others for others. This is called Matched Terminalling. Double Terminalling simply puts up two pairs of matched terminals. The pairs may each be of two different things but each pair contains one thing the same as the other pair in other words, husband and wife is one pair and husband and wife is the other pair. These, parallel, give one the two-terminal effect necessary for a discharge. One will find that these terminals discharge one against the other. 

However, this is a physical body technique and it is limited in use. If one becomes very ill in doing it, he should turn to what is called later on an unlimited technique or he should do the next to last list in the book Self Analysis in Scientology and do it over and over, or he should simply go straight through Short Eight.        

It has many remedies. This Matched Terminalling for oneself, others for oneself, and others for others on the subject of reaching and withdrawing on sex, can of course be considerably expanded as a technique. It can have in it compulsion to reach, compulsion to withdraw, compulsion to reach while somebody else is withdrawing compulsion not to reach, and it can be addressed in terms of all those complexes and things which Sigmund Freud observed empirically while investigating in his practice.

Sigmund Freud observed, even as you may have observed, that a person’s concern and trouble with his body commonly began at the age of puberty, and that a curve of his ups and downs did sudden changes at those points where he was defeated sexually, where his sexual impotence ceased and where it increased. Dr Freud unfortunately developed no fast or deeply workable techniques to resolve problems posed by these observations, mainly because the selection of sex as the prime motivator was not the selection of the basic mechanics of beingness.  

However, the brilliance of Freud’s theories and his extrapolations from a limited amount of data, and his courage in standing before a whole world and declaring that an unpopular subject was the root of all evil, has no parallel in history. The complexes he mentioned, each and every one, are discoverable in the mind by direct observation or electropsychometry and are resolvable in the body by the technique of ‘Matched Terminals in Brackets’ which is the proper name for the above.

Where the level of the case is Step IV or Step V or below in SOP 8, it is necessary to free the analytical mind of the grip of the body. The analytical mind cannot withdraw. The body is most swiftly reduced to compliance by running the second dynamic. This is very far from the end of all of processing, but it is the fastest method I have developed for remedying occlusion or accomplishing exteriorization in low step cases. In sex and eating, the body desires to be an effect most strongly and in these things one does find the strongest desire on the part of the body in terms of immediate accessiblity.  The analytical mind, on the other hand, can create its own sensation, but it has become dependent upon the body.  Even so, it is that part of the beingness which desires to give sensation rather than receive it. Thus, one has the conflict of desire to give sensation crossed with the desire to receive sensation on the part of the reactive mind. 

The body’s desire to receive sensation is so strong that an extremely powerful and persistent uncertainty (‘maybe’) develops, and the primary conflict of the analytical mind and the body’s reactive mind comes about. I cannot help but give forth my own admiration to a man who, working without prior art, without electropsychometry, without nuclear physics, without any broad observation of primitive tribes or ethnology in general, separated from his conclusion by every convention of his age, yet hit upon and set forth with the weight of logic alone, the center of disturbance in the human body.  

He did not live to see his theory completely validated.  He was deserted by his students, who began to write fantastic theories, completely unworkable and far from the point, which yet were better accepted.        

In discouragement, at the end of his career, he wrote a paper called Psychoanalysis, Terminable and Interminable. Freud, with no method of direct observation, spoke of pre-natals, birth trauma, and verbally, if not in writing, of past existences and of the continuing immortality of the individual.  No praise can be great enough to give such a man, and the credit I give him for my own inspiration and work is entirely without reservation or bounds. My only regret is that I do not know where he is today to show him his 1894 libido theory completely vindicated and a Freudian psychoanalysis delivered beyond his expectations in five hours of auditing.

The analytical mind can be processed directly, and it improves simply by changing its mind about things. But so long as it believes itself to be closely dependent upon the reactive mind and the body, it cannot change its opinions. These opinions, however, are not simple shifts of mind. They are changes of experience. 

The analytical mind must discover that it can perceive, that it can perceive accurately in three universes, that it does not need to be dependent upon the body and that it can handle any reactive mind. This is done by increasing its powers of perception, increasing the number of viewpoints it can assume, and increasing its ability to locate spaces, actions and objects in time and space, and by increasing its ability above that to create space, energy and objects. This is done by drills and by the procedure of the first three steps of SOP 8.

It should not for one moment be thought that one is trying to perform by the gradient scale of increasing certainties in Scientology all the tricks and exhibitions of which the ancients speak. We are not even vaguely interested in moving physical universe objects, throwing lighting about, or in creating solids which can be seen by others. We are only interested in the rehabilitation of the analytical mind to a point where it can handle any reactive mind, whatever its proximity to that reactive mind. We are not interested, in other words, in the objective reality from another viewpoint of the capabilities of the analytical mind in performing various types of tricks.  

Whether it can do these things or not do these things falls into the realm of Para-Scientology, for it is completely beyond the ability to be certain where the analytical mind is not processed well up and where the observer is very low on the tone scale. We are not trying to achieve the certainty of mysticism, necromancy, or, to be blunt, the Indian rope-trick. We are trying to make sane, well beings.

The analytical mind, when it is in close proximity to the body, is unwittingly continually restimulating a reactive mind which, some say, evolved through very difficult and savage stages. just as Freud said, the suppression in the mind is the suppression of things so bestial, so savage that the preclear undergoing professional processing is extremely shocked.  

Almost anything, and almost any impulse, including a thirst for pain and a desire to create any kind of effect, no matter how bad, will manifest itself while processing the reactive mind. Cannibalism, purely for sensation, so as to get the last remnants of admiration of the tortured and dying being, becomes a subjective certainty to the preclear who undergoes processing and has to have his reactive mind addressed before he can be himself, which is, of course, his analytical mind. The more suppression his reactive mind gets, the more it restimulates its beastliness. 

The analytical mind is basically good.  It has suffered from this proximity to the reactive mind. It is no wonder that Plato wrote as he did in an essay about the conduct and behavior of man.  It is no wonder that states are completely convinced that man is a beast and must be held in check at pistol point. The wonder is that in a civilized world, so few crimes are committed. Our desire is to reach the basic goodness of the individual and bring him into a level of activity where he does not have to do terrible and gruesome things in order to produce an effect. 

There are various levels as one goes up scale where these manifestations seem to be the all and everything of existence. One becomes completely downhearted at the thought that one goes upscale simply to get to a point where he can kill and maim and hurt with impunity. One’s feelings of honor, ethics, all his finer beingness, is revolted at the idea that this is, in actuality, life. He should say instead that this is life in a stupid conflict of uncertainties. The goal is not to get above such things and ignore them. The goal is to achieve the basic decency which is inherent in all of us.

Although I have given you here ‘Matched Terminal Brackets’ on the subject of reach and withdraw, with particular attention to sex, you must understand that this is a professional auditor’s technique. The first three steps of SOP 8. when they can be done, can be done by alert, interested people. From Step IV down, a professional auditor is not simply desirable, he is completely necessary.  

This technique which I have given you here turns on, when one runs its compulsive aspects, particularly when one must reach and can’t reach, the emotion which we see in sanatoriums which is called insanity. And although the turn-on is brief and temporary and would wear away in about three days, an inexperienced auditor could become quite frightened. Simply by carrying on with the technique or by getting back to unlimited techniques or by taking Self Analysis with its next to last list, these things could be remedied, but these techniques walk on the rim of hell where they are addressed to cases below the level of IV. 

If the test subject or the preclear cannot make space, which is to say Step III of SOP 8, let a professional auditor have him. The professional auditor, by using ‘Matched Terminal Brackets’ of reach and withdraw with attention to sex, will be able to exteriorize this analytical mind and turn on its perceptions. This is skilled work, however, and is a little too shockingly intimate to the seamier side of life for tender hands and tender minds.

Even the operation of wasting which is contained in expanded GITA is capable of turning on a vast amount of illness and somatic on the part of the preclear.  Expanded GITA is a limited technique, which is to say it can be audited perhaps only for ten minutes, and at the most for 50 or 60 hours, without finding the preclear on the down grade. One has to turn to an unlimited technique such as contained in Short Eight if the preclear becomes too ill trying to waste things.

Just because an unlimited technique is labelled unlimited is no reason why it is a faint technique.  These unlimited techniques are extremely powerful. They’re very simple, but again, when one of them becomes too strong for the preclear, it is necessary to turn on to something simpler and easier.

Simply getting the idea in two places, the idea, so to speak, facing the idea ‘There by nothing’, will turn on a sick sensation in many preclears. This fear of being nothing is very great. He will be anything rather than nothing.

A safe technique is that technique which always -- I repeat, always: deals in things of which the preclear is certain. When one deals with uncertainties, one is dealing with circuits. One can use double terminalling, which is to say, two pairs of matched terminals, of the preclear being certain of things.

One never runs things or puts the preclear up against things of which one is uncertain or of which the preclear is uncertain, if one wishes the preclear to come on up the tone scale. As an example of this, on any object, thing or idea, on any psychosomatic ill or numb portion of the body, one has only to run ‘There is something there, there is nothing there’.

Have it saying ‘There is something here, there is nothing here’. One can do a complete bracket on this, having the numb or painful or injured area saying, ‘There is something here, there is nothing here’, having it then say, ‘There is something there, there is nothing there’, having the preclear say about the area, ‘There is something there, there is nothing there’, and then the preclear about himself, ‘There is something here, there is nothing here’. This makes a complete bracket. This turns on and off interesting somatics.  

A professional auditor could get the somatic or numb area to get the feeling it is reaching while the preclear is withdrawing, the preclear reaching while it is withdrawing, and bring about a change in any somatic.

As one is dealing with communications systems, one must realize that communication depends upon certainty of despatch and receipt, and certainty of what it is that is being despatched and received. Thus one does not deal in uncertainties. There is something, there is nothing, are of course, observable certainties because one is top-scale, the other is bottom-scale. One does not say what the something is and, of course, nothingness needs no qualifications.

In the case of the person who has been and is trying to become again, one should run out by concepts the former successes, the triumphs of that person and the times when he was absolutely certain he had failed. One does this with double terminals or ‘Matched Terminal Brackets’. This is a professional technique.

It was mentioned to me by Meredith Starr, one of the great mystics from Cyprus, that Jung had once had a great experience and had sought ever since to recover it. He gave this as another man’s opinion of Jung. This gives you some clue as to what happens to someone who has a great triumph. He ever afterwards is not seeking to duplicate the triumph, he is seeking the triumph itself. This puts him back on the time-track. This is particularly applicable to old people. One hangs, then, on to certainties. The certainties are important. The uncertainties are important only in their production of psychosis.

It is possible to take a sick animal and rehabilitate his idea that he is dangerous by dodging every time he strikes out, no matter how faintly, at one. It is possible to rehabilitate an individual who is very low on the tone-scale merely by coaxing him to reach out and touch the material universe and, touching it, to be certain that it is there, and having touched it, to withdraw the touch and to be certain that he could withdraw.

Certainty is a wonderful thing. The road toward realizing what certainty is has led these investigations through many uncertainties. One had to find out what was, before one could find out what could be.     

That work is done. It is possible to take large groups and, using Short Eight, to bring them, each and every one, into higher levels of certainty. And bringing them into higher levels of certainty brings them into higher levels of communication, communication not only with their own bodies but with others and with the material universe. And as one raises that level of awareness, one raises also the ability to be, to do, to live.

Today this world suffers from an increasing incidence of neurosis brought about by a dependency upon mechanical things which do not think, which do not feel but which can give pain to those that live.  It suffers with an overdose of agreement that there is only one universe. So long as it believes that there is only one universe, that there is only one universe to study, to be studied, only one universe to agree with, it will continue to seek the lowest end of the scale, which is to say, that point where all universes become one universe. Where the triangle vanishes to a single point it vanishes completely, and where one studies but one corner of the triangle and ignores the other two corners of the triangle, and agrees only with one corner of the triangle such as the physical universe, one will tend toward that point where that corner of the triangle is coincident with the other two corners, and this is death.

The curse of this world is not actually its atom bomb, though that is bad enough. The curse of this world is the irresponsibility of those who, seeking to study but one universe, the physical universe, try to depress all beings down to the low order of mechanically motivated, undreaming, unaesthetic things.

Science as a word has been disgraced, for the word science means truth and truth means light. A continual fixation and dependence upon only one universe while ignoring the other two universes leads to darkness, to despair, to nothingness. There is nothing wrong with the physical universe one should not cease to observe the physical universe, but one certainly should not concentrate upon it so that he can agree with it and its laws only. He has laws of his own. It is better, far better, for the individual to concentrate upon his own universe than to concentrate upon the MEST universe, but this in itself is not the final answer. A balance is achieved in the three universes and certainty upon those universes.

All control is effected by introducing uncertainties and hidden influences. ‘Look how bad it is over there, so you’ll have to look back at me.’ This slavery is effected solely by getting people to fix on one thing. That one thing in this case is the physical universe.  

Science, so called, today produces machines to blow your nose, produces machines to think for you, produces every possible argument as to why you should consider your body frail and unexpendable.  Science, under the domination of capital, creates scarcity. It creates a scarcity of universes in fixing one upon one universe only. Those things which are scarce are those things which the individual has lost his faith in creating, in having. An individual who cannot create has to hold on to what he has.  

This leads him into holding on to what he has had.  Where he has had a certainty in the past that something existed, he begins to grip it closer and closer to him his space lessens, his beingness lessens, he becomes less active. The reactive mind that cannot create children, has lost its hope of creation. It then can influence the analytical mind into believing that it can no longer create. The analytical mind creating artistically in the MEST universe and not in its own universe at all, and not in other people’s universes that it can recognize, goes down scale until it meets on its own level the reactive mind. And here at this level we find the enslaver, the person who makes things scarce, the fellow who uses his ethics, so called, to enforce his crude judgments and to make things out of beings that could be men.

Here, where the reactive mind and the analytical mind have come into a parity, we have the only effect that can be produced -- the effect of pain. Where we have an active desire for pain masking in a thousand guises, where every good impulse high on the scale is turned into a mockery, here we have crime, here we have war. These things are not awareness. These things merely act on a stimulus-response mechanism. Up scale is the high, bright breadth of being, breadth of understanding, breadth of awareness. To get there all one must do is to become aware of the existence of the three universes by direct observation.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

STEP I --

Ask preclear to be three feet behind his head. If stable there, have him be in various pleasant places until any feeling of scarcity of viewpoints is resolved.  Then have him be in several undesirable places, then several pleasant places then have him be in a slightly dangerous place, then in more and more dangerous places until he can sit in the center of the Sun. Be sure to observe a gradient scale of ugliness and dangerousness of places. Do not let the preclear fail. Then do remaining steps with preclear exteriorized.

STEP II --

Have preclear mock up own body. If he does this easily and clearly, have him mock up own body until he slips out of it. When he is exteriorized and knows it thoroughly (the condition of all exteriorization) do STEP I. If his mock-up was not clear, go to STEP III immediately.

STEP III -- SPACATION

Have preclear close his eyes and find upper corners of the room. Have him sit there, not thinking refusing to think of anything, interested only in the corners until he is completely exteriorized without strain. Then do a spacation (constructing own space with eight anchor points and holding it stable without effort) and go to STEP I. If preclear was unable to locate corners of the room easily with his eyes closed, go to STEP IV.

STEP IV -- EXPANDED GITA. 

This is an extension of Give and Take processing Test preclear to see if he can get a mock-up he can see, no matter how vague. Then have him WASTE, ACCEPT UNDER DURESS, DESIRE and finally be able to take or leave alone each of the items listed below. He does this with mock-ups or ideas. He must do the sequence of waste -- etc. in the order given here for each item. He wastes it by having it at remote distances in places where it will do no good, being used or done or observed by something which cannot appreciate it. When he is able to waste it in vast quantities the auditor then has him accept it in mock-up form until he no longer is antagonistic to having to accept it even when it is unpleasant and great force is applied to make him take it. Again, with mock-ups, he must be able to bring himself to desire it even in its worst form then, by mock-ups of it in its most desirable form he must come to be able to leave it entirely alone or take it in its worst form without caring. EXPANDED GITA remedies contra-survival abundance and scarcity. It will be found that before one can accept a very scarce (to him) thing, he has to give it away. A person with a milk allergy must be able to give away, in mock-up, enormous quantities of milk, wasting it, before he can accept any himself. The items in this list are compounded of several years of isolating what factors were more important to minds than others.  The list lacks very few of the very important items, if any. Additions to or subtractions from this list should not be attempted. Viewpoint, Work and Pain should be heavily and often stressed and given priority.

Waste, Have forced Upon, Desire, Be Able to Give or Take, in that order, each of the following: (Order of items here is random.) Viewpoint, Work, Pain, Beauty, Motion, Engrams, Ugliness, Logic, Pictures, Confinement, Money, Parents, Blackness, Police, Light, Explosions, Bodies, Degradation, Male Bodies, Female Bodies, Babies, Children Male, Children Female, Strange and Peculiar Bodies, Dead Bodies, Affinity (Love), Agreement, Beautiful Bodies, People, Attention, Admiration, Force, Energy, Lightning, Unconsciousness, Problems, Antagonism, Reverence, Fear, Objects, Time, Eating Human Bodies, Sound, Grief, Beautiful Sadness, Hidden Influences, Hidden Communications, Doubts, Faces, Dimension Points, Anger, Apathy, Ideas, Enthusiasm, Disagreement, Hate, Sex, Reward, Eating Parents, Eaten by Mother, Eaten by Father, Eating Men, Eaten by Men, Eating Women, Eaten by Women, Start, Broken Communications, Written Communications, Stillness, Exhaustion, Stopping Motion Women, Changing Motion Women, Changing Motion Men, Changing Motion Babies, Changing Motion Children, Starting Motion Men, Starting Motion Women, Starting Motion Children, Starting Motion Objects, Starting Motion Self, Omens, Wickedness, Forgiveness, Play, Games, Sound, Machinery, Touch, Traffic, Stolen Goods, Stolen Pictures, Homes, Blasphemy, Caves, Medicine, Glass, Mirrors, Pride, Musical Instruments, Dirty Words, Space, Wild Animals, Pets, Birds, Air, Water, Food, Milk, Garbage, Gases, Excreta, Rooms, Beds, Punishment, Boredom, Confusion, Soldiers, Executioners, Doctors, Judges, Psychiatrists, Alcoholic Liquor, Drugs, Masturbation, Rewards, Heat, Cold, Forbidden Things, God, The Devil, Spirits, Bacteria, Glory, Dependence, Responsibility, Wrongness, Rightness, Insanity, Sanity, Faith, Christ, Death, Rank, Poverty, Maps, Irresponsibility, Greetings, Farewells, Credit, Loneliness, Jewels, Teeth, Genitalia, Complications, Help, Pretense, Truth, Lies, Assurance, Contempt, Predictability, Unpredictability, Vacuums, White Clouds, Black Clouds, Unattainables, Hidden Things, Worry, Revenge, Textbooks, Kisses, The Past, The Future, The Present, Arms, Stomachs, Bowels, Mouths, Cigarettes, Smoke, Urine, Vomit, Convulsions, Saliva, Flowers, Semen, Blackboards, Fireworks, Toys, Vehicles, Dolls, Audiences, Doors, Walls, Weapons, Blood, Ambitions, Illusions, Betrayal, Ridicule, Hope, Happiness, Mothers, Fathers, Grandparents, Suns, Planets, Moons, Sensation, Looking, Incidents, Waiting, Silence, Talking, Knowing, Not Knowing, Doubts, Fac One, Remembering, Forgetting, Auditing, Minds, Fame, Power, Accidents, Illnesses, Approval, Tiredness, Faces, Acting, Drama, Costumes, Sleep, Holding Things Apart, Holding Things Together, Destroying Things, Sending Things Away, Making Things Go Fast, Making Things Appear, Making Things Vanish, Convictions, Stability, Changing People, Silent Men, Silent Women, Silent Children, Symbols of Weakness, Symbols of Force, Disabilities, Education, Languages, Bestiality, Homosexuality, Invisible Bodies, Invisible Acts, Invisible Scenes, Accepting Things Back, Games, Rules, Players, Restimulation, Sexual Restimulation, Space Reduction, Size Reduction, Entertainment, Cheerfulness, Freedom for Others to Talk, Act, Feel Pain, Be Sad, Thetans, Personalities, Cruelty, Organizations, TRY FIRST: Healthy Bodies, Strong Bodies, Good Perception, Good Recall.

WARNING: Should your preclear become unstable or upset doing this process take him to STEP VI.  Then return to this list.

COMMENT: The mind is sufficiently complicated that it can be expected to have computations on almost all the above. Thus there is no single clearing button and search for it is at the dictate of a circuit, the mechanism of circuits being to search for something hidden. Thus, your preclear may begin to compute and philosophize and seek to find the ‘button’ that will release all this. All this releases all the buttons so tell him to relax and go on with the process every time he starts to compute.

NOTE: Running the above will bring to the surface without further attention the ‘computation on the case’ and the service facsimile. Do not audit these. Run EXPANDED GITA.

STEP V -- PRESENT TIME DIFFERENTIATION.  EXTERIORIZATION BY SCENERY.

Have preclear, with his body’s eyes, study and see the difference between similar real objects such as the two legs of a chair, the spaces between the back, two cigarettes, two trees, two girls. He must see and study the objects. It is not enough to remember the objects. The definition of a CASE V is ‘no mock-ups, only blackness’.  Have him continue this process until he is alert. Use liberally and often.

Then exteriorize by having the preclear close his eyes and move actual places on Earth under him, preferably places he has not been. Have him bring these up to him. Find two similar things in the scene and observe the difference between them.  Move him over oceans and cities until he is certain that he is exteriorized.

Then, preferably while exteriorized, have him do STEP I.

This case has to know before he can be. His viewpoint is in the past. Give him present time viewpoints until he is a STEP I by the methods given for STEP V.

(COMMENT: PRESENT TIME DIFFERENTIATION is a very good general technique and resolves chronic somatics and improves tone.)

Assume other people’s viewpoints as a drill -- not what they think about things, but as they look at things in the material universe. Attempt to be in the location of a leaf, blade of grass, car headlamp, etc., and view the universe.

STEP VI --

ARC STRAIGHT WIRE using next to last list of Self Analysis in Scientology which asks preclear to recall something really real to him, etc. Then use the list in Self Analysis. This level is the neurotic.  It is identified by the preclear having mock-ups which will not persist or which won’t go away. Use also PRESENT TIME DIFFERENTIATION. Then go to STEP IV. At any drop in tone, return case to STEP VI.

STEP VII -- PSYCHOTIC CASES (whether in or out of body).

The psychotic appears to be in such desperate straits that the auditor often errs in thinking desperate measures are necessary. Use the lightest possible methods. Give case space and freedom where possible.  Have psychotic imitate (not mock up) various things. Have him do PRESENT TIME DIFFERENTIATION. Get him to tell the difference between things by actual touch. Have him locate, differentiate and touch things that are really real to him (real objects or items). If inaccessible, mimic him with own body, whatever he does, until he comes into communication. Have him locate corners of the room and hold them without thinking. As soon as his communication is up go to STEP VI, but be very sure he changes any mock-up around until he knows it is a mock-up, that it exists, and that he himself made it. Do not run engrams. He is psychotic because viewpoints in present time are so scarce that he has gone into the past for viewpoints which at least he knew existed. By PRESENT TIME DIFFERENTIATION, by tactile on objects, restore his idea of an abundance of viewpoint in present time. If he has been given electric shock, do not process it or any other brutality. Work him for very brief periods, for his attention span is short.  Always work psychotics with another auditor or a companion present.

NOTE: All steps for all cases. If in doubt as to condition of case, test with STEP VI.

NOTE: An operating thetan must also be able to manufacture particles of admiration and force in abundance.

APPENDIX TO SOP 8 NO. 1

(Any alterations in SOP 8 will appear in appendices as they are expected to be minor and to make no radical change in the design of the steps in general.)

STEP I --

The Operating Thetan must be able to manufacture and experience to his complete satisfaction all sensations including pain in mock-up form, and all energies such as admiration and force. It will be found that some STEP I cases will not be able to manufacture admiration particles.

STEP II --

Be very careful not to make a lower step preclear, while still in a body, mock up his own body too long. Any mock-up will appear if it is simply put there often enough and long enough -- providing the preclear doesn’t spin in the process. The long term manufacture of mock-ups of one’s own body and of admiration may not produce quite the results expected -- communication lines which should remain shut may open with bad results. These lines that are shut appear like hard, black cords to the preclear.

There are two types of techniques in general, POSITIVE GAIN and NEGATIVE GAIN, as defined in the above text.  POSITIVE GAIN can be administered in unlimited amounts without harm.  NEGATIVE GAIN techniques such as the reduction of engrams and locks, double-terminalling, black and white, are often limited in the length of time they can be given. After a few hundred hours of early type auditing the case could be found to slump.  Thus we have in POSITIVE GAIN the unlimited technique which improves the analytical mind. 

In NEGATIVE GAIN we have a limited (in terms of the time it can be audited) technique. In SOP 8 the following steps and processes may be audited without limit: STEP I, STEP III, STEP V, STEP VI, STEP VII.  The following steps are limited and should not be audited many hours without changing to another type (unlimited) for a while, after which the following steps could be resumed: STEP II, STEP IV.

The following steps can be used on groups: STEP III, STEP V part I and part 2, STEP VI, STEP VII.

APPENDIX NO. 2 SOP 8
CERTAINTY PROCESSING

The anatomy of maybe consists of uncertainties and is resolved by the processing of certainties. It is not resolved by the processing of uncertainties.

An uncertainty is held in suspense solely because the preclear is holding on so hard to certainties.  The basic thing he is holding on to is ‘I have a solution’ ‘I have no solution’. One of these is positive, the other is negative. A complete positive and a complete negative are alike a certainty. The basic certainty is ‘There is something’ ‘There is nothing’.  A person can be certain there is something he can be certain there is nothing.

‘There is something’ ‘There is nothing’ resolves chronic somatics in this order. One gets the preclear to have the center of the somatic say ‘There is something here’, ‘There is nothing here’. Then he gets the center of the somatic to say ‘ There is something there’, ‘There is nothing there’. Then the auditor has the preclear say towards the somatic ‘There is something there’, ‘There is nothing there’. And then he gets the preclear to say about himself ‘ There is something here’, ‘There is nothing here’. This is a very fast resolution of chronic somatics. Quite ordinarily three or four minutes of this will resolve an acute state and fifteen or twenty minutes of it will resolve a chronic state.

This matter of certainties goes further. It has been determined by my recent investigations that the reason behind what is happening is the desire of a cause to bring about an effect. Something is better than nothing, anything is better than nothing. If you will match terminals in brackets ‘There is nothing’ you will find that a lot of your preclears become very ill. This should be turned around into ‘There is something’.

The way one does Matched Terminals is to have the preclear facing the preclear or his father facing his father. In other words, two of each of anything, one facing the other. These two things will discharge one into the other, thus running off the difficulty.  By bracket we mean, of course, running this with the preclear putting them up as himself as though they were put up by somebody else, the somebody else facing the somebody else, and the matched terminal again put up by others facing others.

The clue to all this is positive and negative in terms of certainties. The positive plus the negative in conflict make an uncertainty. A great number of combinations of things can be run. Here’s a list of the combinations:

The button behind sex is ‘I can begin life anew’, ‘I cannot begin life anew’, ‘I can make life persist’, ‘I cannot make life persist’, ‘I can stop life’, ‘I cannot stop life’, ‘I can change life’, ‘I cannot change life’, ‘I can start life’, ‘I cannot start life’.

A very effective process ‘Something wrong --’, ‘Nothing wrong --’ with ‘you, me, they, my mind, communication, various allies’.

A very basic resolution of the lack of space of an individual is to locate these people and these objects which you’ve been using as anchor points such as father, mother and so forth and putting them into matched terminal brackets with this: ‘There is father’, ‘There is no father’, ‘There is grandfather’, ‘There is no grandfather’. In the compulsive line this can be changed to ‘There must be no father’, ‘There must be a father’. One takes all the allies of an individual and runs them in this fashion.

The basic law underneath this is that a person becomes the effect of anything upon which he has had to depend. This would tell you immediately that the sixth dynamic, the MEST universe, is the largest dependency of the individual. This can be run out, but then any dynamic can be run out in this fashion. ‘There is myself’, ‘There is no self’ and so on up the dynamics. ‘(Any dynamic) is preventing me from communicating’, ‘(Any dynamic) is not preventing me from communicating’ is intensely effective.  Any such technique can be varied by applying the sub-zero scale as found in Scientology 8-8008 which is also to be found in an earlier issue of the Journal of Scientology.

One runs any certainty out because he knows that between this certainty there is an opposite negative certainty and that between these lies a maybe, and that the maybe stays in suspense in time. The basic operation of the reactive mind is to solve problems.  It is based on uncertainties about observation. Thus one runs out certainties of observation. The MEST general shotgun technique would have to do with ‘There is sex’, ‘There is no sex’, ‘There is force’, ‘There is no force’. This could be run, of course, in terms of matched terminal brackets or even as concepts, but one must not neglect to run the overt act phenomenon, which is to say getting somebody else getting the concept.

The processing out of certainties would then embrace ‘I have a solution’, ‘There is no solution’.  These two opposite ends would take care of any individual who was hung on the track with some solution, for that solution had its opposite. People who have studied medicine begin by being certain that medicine works and end by being certain that medicine doesn’t work.  They begin by studying psychology on a supposition that it is the solution, and finish up believing that it is not the solution.  This also happens to superficial students of Dianetics and Scientology, thus one should also run ‘Dianetics is a solution’, ‘Dianetics is not the solution’. This would get one off the maybe on the subject.

We are essentially processing communications systems. The entire process of auditing is concentrated upon withdrawing communications from the preclear as predicated on the basis of the body and that the preclear cannot handle communications.  Thus ‘The preclear can handle communications’, ‘The preclear cannot handle communications’ is a shotgun technique which resolves maybes about his communications.

An intensely interesting aspect of Certainty Processing is that it shows up intimately where the preclear is aberrated.           

Here is the overall basic technique. One runs ‘There is --’, ‘There is not --’ the following: Communications, Talk, Letters, Love, Agreement Sex, Pain, Work, Bodies, Minds, Curiosity, Control Enforcement, Compulsion, Inhibition, Food, Money, People, Ability, Beauty, Ugliness, Presents, and both the top and bottom of the Chart of Attitudes, positive and negative in each one.

Basic in all this is the urge of the preclear to produce an effect, so one can run ‘I can produce an effect upon mama’, ‘I cannot produce an effect upon mama’, and so forth for all allies and one will resolve the fixations of attention on the part of the preclear. Thus fixations of attention are resolved by Certainty Processing, processing out the production of effect.

One can occasionally, if he so desires, process the direct center of the maybe, which is to say doubt itself, in terms of Matched Terminals. This, however, is risky for it throws the preclear into a general state of doubt.

The key to any such processing is the recovery of viewpoints. ‘I can have grandfather’s viewpoint’, ‘I cannot have grandfather’s viewpoint’ and so on, particularly with sexual partners, will prove intensely interesting on a case. ‘There are viewpoints’, ‘There are no viewpoints’, ‘I have a viewpoint’, ‘I don’t have a viewpoint’, ‘Blank has a viewpoint’, ‘Blank has no viewpoint’ resolves problems.

One should also realize that when one is processing facsimiles, he is processing at one time energy, sensation and aesthetics. The facsimile is a picture. The preclear is being affected by pictures mainly, and so ‘There are no pictures’, ‘There are pictures’ forward the case towards handling pictures, which is to say facsimiles.

A person tends to ally himself with somebody whom he considers capable of producing greater effects than himself, so ‘I, she, he, it can create greater effects’, ‘I, she, he, it can create no effect’ should be run.

When one is processing, he is trying to withdraw communications. Reach and Withdraw are the two fundamentals in the action of theta. Must Reach and Can’t Reach, Must Withdraw and Can’t Withdraw are compulsions which when run in combination, produce the manifestation of insanity in a preclear.

‘I can Reach’, ‘I can’t Reach’, ‘I can Withdraw’, ‘I can’t Withdraw’ open up into the fact that remembering and forgetting are dependent upon the ability to reach and withdraw. You will find that a preclear will respond to ‘You must’ or ‘You can’, ‘You must not’, ‘You cannot’, ‘There is’, ‘There is not’ forgetting and remembering.

The only reason a person is hanging on to a body or facsimile is that he has lost his belief in his ability to create. The rehabilitation of this ability to create is resolved, for instance, in a person who has had an ambition to write with ‘I can write’, ‘I cannot write’ -- and so forth. The loss of this creative ability made the person hang on to what he had. The fact that a preclear has forgotten how to, or no longer can himself generate force makes him hold on to stores of force. These are very often mistaken by the auditor for facsimiles.  The preclear doesn’t care for the facsimile, he simply cares for the force contained in the facsimile because he knows he doesn’t have any force any more.

It should be kept in mind that reaching and withdrawing are intensely productive of reaction in a preclear. But that preclear who does not respond to REACHING and WITHDRAWING and certainty thereon, is hung up in a very special condition: he is trying to prevent something from happening. He also prevents auditing from happening. He has lost allies, he has had accidents, and he’s hung up at all those points on the track where he feels he should have prevented something from happening. This is resolved by running ‘I must prevent it from happening’, ‘I cannot prevent it from happening’, ‘I must regain control’, ‘I must lose all control’.

Blackness is the desire to be an effect and the inability to be cause. ‘I can create grandfather (or ally)’, ‘I cannot create grandfather (or ally)’ solves scarcity of allies. ‘I want to be aware’, ‘I want no awareness’ is a technique which is basic in attitudes. Run this as others, in Matched Terminal Brackets or in EXPANDED GITA.

Certainty there is a past, Certainty there is no past Certainty there is a future, Certainty there is no future Certainty it means something else, Certainty it does not mean anything else Certainty there is space, Certainty there is no space Certainty there is energy, Certainty there is no energy Certainty there are objects, Certainty there are no objects.

SHORT 8

This is a short form of STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE 8 of Scientology 8-8008. It can be used on any preclear without any survey of the case and will not get him into any difficulties and should resolve his various computations. This can also be used on groups. Just do the lettered steps in order.

(A) Next to last in Self Analysis Remembering Something Real etc., until auditor is certain preclear has and can do so easily. In a group ask for a show of hands the moment something real is recalled. Take those hands that went up in a couple of seconds and use them for the rest of this. Take the no-hands or slow hands as a special group under somebody else and simply drill them on this step until their speed is well up. Then put them back into the main group, or keep all in one group and so on.

(B) Examine and compare two similar MEST objects or spaces and tell the difference. Keep this up for at least 20 minutes. It can be kept up for hours with astonishing case improvement.

(C) Run WASTING HEALTHY BODIES, then ACCEPTING THEM UNDER DURESS, then WASTING THEM, then ACCEPTING THEM UNDER DURESS.  Do this for 20 minutes or an hour until preclear or group shows signs of relief or amusement.

(D) Run next to the last list of Self Analysis for five minutes.

(E) Run DUPLICATION. This process is the basis of making facsimiles. Have preclear or group look at a MEST object, then have him or them mock up a mock-up similar to it but beside it. Have the MEST object and the mock-up compared to tell the difference. Some people get none of the duplicates for quite a while but will eventually. Some start making much fancier objects of the same sort. In any result, keep this up for 20 minutes.

(F) Have preclear or group close eyes and locate the corners of the room behind them and keep interested in those corners and not thinking for several minutes.

(G) Have preclear or group move MEST scenery under them individually but at the command of the auditor. The scenery is, preferably, that not before viewed by the preclear or preclears. Don’t let them invalidate what they see. This is Exteriorization by Scenery. Keep up for 20 minutes.

(H) Do next to last list of Self Analysis 5 minutes.

(I) Examine and compare two present time objects.

(J) Have one of the members go to the window and look out of the window. Have the remainder of the group assuming his Viewpoint to see what he sees out of the window. Do this for 10 minutes.

(K) Start at beginning again and use list over and over. What they waste each time through can be changed to work and anchor points. Avoid pain with this Short 8. Run ‘healthy bodies’ for it instead.

SOP 8 is a professional auditor technique which deals with the problems of the reactive mind. SOP 8 from STEP IV down and including STEP IV is a professional auditor technique. SHORT EIGHT is done by someone who has been trained, preferably by a professional auditor. It can be done on a group no matter how large. SELF ANALYSIS IN SCIENTOLOGY is a group technique aimed at the rehabilitation of one’s own universe so as to bring it up to a level of comparability with one’s observations of the MEST universe, and can be delivered to groups of children or adults by a person trained only through the text of SELF ANALYSIS IN SCIENTOLOGY. Associates have courses in group auditing which are given free of charge and which consist of six hours of tape lectures by L. Ron Hubbard on the administration of SELF ANALYSIS IN SCIENTOLOGY and the general techniques of group auditing.

SOP 8-C: THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT

Scientology, the science of knowing how to know, has been developed for various applications in the field of human experience.

Where it is utilized by skilled persons to enhance the personal ability and knowledge of others, a recommended process is Standard Operating Procedure 8 C.

SOP 8-C was developed after almost a year of observing SOP 8 in action in other hands than mine, and after observing the frailties and talents of human auditors. SOP 8-C might be called SOP 8 modified for clinical, laboratory, and individual human applications.

The goal of the system of operation is to return to the individual his Knowledge, Skill and Knowingness, and to enhance his perception, his reaction time and serenity.

It is entirely incidental that SOP 8-C is effective on ‘psycho-somatic’ illness, on human aberration and social difficulties. It is not the intent or purpose of Scientology to repair. The science is a creative science. If the fact that human illness, disability and aberration uniformly cease to be, because of Scientology, the effect is not intended to be primary and the goal of SOP 8-C is not their remedy. Indeed if SOP 8-C is used to remedy these only, it fails as a system. SOP 8-C succeeds only when it is addressed towards higher knowingness and beingness -ironically, in using it, human ills vanish only when the Auditor concentrates on the goals of the system and neglects the obvious physical disabilities of the preclear.

In that one creates that which one concentrates upon, a treatment of illness which validates it in treatment will always tend to be unsuccessful.

SOP 8-C was the subject of the Camden Indoctrination Course B, from 16 November to 23 December, as well as the subject of the Phoenix International Congress of 28 December 1953.

Specifically, the use of these processes obtain, when correctly used, without further evaluation for, or indoctrination of the preclear, the knowledge that he is not a body, that he is a creative energy-production unit, and demonstrates to him his purposes and abilities.

This energy-space production unit we call a ‘thetan’, that being a coined word taken from a mathematical symbol, the Greek letter ‘theta’. This is the preclear. One does not send ‘one’s thetan’ anywhere. One goes as a thetan. When a preclear is detected being in one place and finding ‘his thetan’ in another (‘I’m over there’) he is not exteriorized.  To be ‘exteriorized’ the preclear must be certain that he is outside his body. An uncertain ‘exteriorization’ requires more work before it becomes an exteriorization.

SOP 8-C brings about a condition designated as ‘theta clear’. This is a relative, not an absolute term.  It means that the person, this thought unit, is clear of his body, his engrams, his facsimiles, but can handle and safely control a body.

The state of Operating Thetan is higher than Theta Clear and means that the person does not need a body to communicate or Work. It is accomplished with SOP 8-C.

The highest theory of SOP 8-C is that the being is engaged upon a game called Physical Universe.  This is a game requiring barriers, which is to say, walls, planets, time and vast distances (which last two are also barriers). In engaging upon this game he has at last become so conscious of barriers that he is limited in his actions and thoughts. He thinks, in the case of homo sapiens, that he is a body (a barrier) hemmed in by vast distances (barriers) and pinned in a time-stream (a system of moving barriers) so as to reach only the present. These combined barriers have become so formidable that they are not even well-perceived, but from being strong have become unreal to him. The matter is further complicated by ‘invisible barriers’ such as the eyes or glasses.

In actuality, the thetan is a knowingness, total in a cleared state, who yet can create space and time and objects to locate in them. He reduces his knowingness only to have action. Knowingness is reduced by assuming that one cannot know or knows wrongly.  Knowingness is reduced by assuming one must be in certain places to perceive and so know and that one cannot be in certain places.

Space is, but does not have to be, the first barrier of knowingness. With Scientology we have the first definition of space -- Space is a viewpoint of dimension.  Given a viewpoint and four, eight or more points to view, one has space. Space is a problem of observation, not of physics.
There is no question here of whether space, energy or objects are real. Things are as real as one is certain of their reality. Reality is, here on Earth, agreement as to what is. This does not prevent barriers, or time from being formidably real. It does not mean either that space, energy or time are illusions. It is as one knows it is. For one makes, by a process of continuous automatic duplication, all that one perceives. So much for theory -- in application this theory obtains results of considerable magnitude in changing beingness.

The thetan is continuously engaged upon cycles of action. The basic cycle of action is ‘Create, resist effects (survive) and Destroy’. This can be stated in various ways:  ‘Create an object, have it resist effects (survive) and then destroy it’. Or, ‘Create a situation, continue it and change it, and destroy or end it’. When a thetan leaves a cycle which is important to him unfinished, he tends to strive to finish it elsewhere or later in disrelated circumstances.

Further, he can become overly concentrated upon creating or persistence (surviving) or upon destroying and so form an unbalanced state of beingness.

Time exists in those things a thetan creates. It is a shift of particles, always making new space, always at an agreed-upon rate. A thetan does not change in time, but as he can view particles (objects, spaces, barriers) from many viewpoints, he can consider himself to be in a ‘time-stream’ which he is not. A thetan’s ideas (postulates, commands, beliefs) change particles change the thetan does not change either in space or in time.

Just as he is making an effort to do something he cannot help but do -survive -- he is also fighting against doing the only thing he does -- sit fixed in one ‘position’.

The thetan, to produce interest and action, operates as a paradox. He cannot die so he firmly insists and proves continually that he can die. He never changes location but only views new locations and constantly lives in horror of being fixed in time and space. Above that, he knows the past and the future and all of the present, and so fights to obscure the past and guess the future.

Less theoretically, the individual who is processed is at first, usually, ‘in’ the body and perceiving with the body’s eyes. When exteriorized (placed ‘three feet back of his head’), he is actually out of the body and still ‘in’ physical universe space. He can, exteriorized, move about and be in places just as though he had a body, seeing without eyes, hearing without ears, and feeling without fingers -- ordinarily better than with these ‘aids’. This is not like ‘astral walking’ which is done by the individual who ‘sends a body’ or a viewpoint to some other place and perceives with it. A thetan is as much present where he is as if he were there in body. He isn’t ‘somebody else’ than the preclear moving dimly about. He is the preclear, he is there. At first he may be uncertain as to what he is seeing. This faculty becomes better as his ability to look, hear and feel while exteriorized improves. SOP 8-C improves this perception.        Because the body only perceives what the thetan is perceiving anyway, looking, feeling, hearing of the body is also better with SOP 8-C but this is only incidental.

When a thetan believes too thoroughly he is a body, he is generally unhappy, afraid, doubts his own (and validates the body’s) existence and worries about his inabilities. When he is out of the sphere of influence of the body (a very small one) he becomes serene, confident and knowing. He can handle a body better, can act faster, can recall more and do more while exteriorized than he can while in a body.

Society, thirsting for more control of more people substitutes religion for the spirit, the body for the soul, an identity for the individual and science and data for truth. In this direction lies insanity, increasing slavery, less knowingness, greater scarcity and less society.

Scientology has opened the gates to a better World.  It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion. It is a body of knowledge which, when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual.
It could be said that Man exists in a partially hypnotized state. He believes on other-determinism in many things, to his detriment, He will be as well as he is self-determined. The processes of Scientology could be described as methods of ‘unhypnotizing’ men to their own freer choice and better life.

THE USE OF SOP 8-C

This process is designed to be administered by one person (the Auditor) to another (the preclear).

SOP 8-C is first used step by step from STEP I on until the person to whom it is addressed knows he is back of his head and no longer in the body. If the preclear is very difficult to exteriorize, the person should be referred to an Auditor trained at the HASI Clinical Center (for there are special methods of exteriorization for difficult cases which are contained in but are not at once visible in SOP 8-C).  The first three steps are exteriorization steps. They should be repeated over and over until certain exteriorization takes place.

The Auditor can go through the first steps many times one after the other with the preclear until exteriorization occurs. Doing STEPS IV to VII on a person not exteriorized should be minimized. (Earlier SOP’s used all seven steps for exteriorization, a practice not followed in SOP 8-C where only the first three steps are used.)

When the preclear has exteriorized one then begins again with STEP I and continues to STEP VII in order with the preclear exteriorized. Here in SOP 8-C, the emphasis is upon an exteriorized thetan. When the Auditor has taken the exteriorized preclear thoroughly, and correctly through STEPS I to VII at least twice, one has then what may be considered a theta clear.

To repeat, one uses SOP 8-C STEPS I to III in that order. On one of these, the first time through, the majority of people exteriorize with certainty. As soon as exteriorization takes place, the Auditor starts with STEP I again, does it thoroughly on the exteriorized preclear, then the Auditor applies STEP II thoroughly and so on until all seven are done.

The Auditor knows when the preclear exteriorizes by asking him or by the preclear volunteering the information.

CAUTION: Do not ask the preclear to look at his body.

If the preclear fails to exteriorize sometime during the first three steps, the Auditor should simply do them again. If the preclear fails the second time, the Auditor patiently goes through them a third time, and so on. If the matter then seems too difficult, contact an Auditor trained during late 1954 at London, by the HASI itself.

The least possible result in going over these first three steps many times will be a considerably bettered condition of the preclear, superior to all past results.  Only a very few preclears fail to exteriorize after STEPS I to III have been several times repeated.

CAUTION: Although this process is as foolproof as it can be made, it can be maliciously used in this wise -- by giving the preclear constant losses -by giving him no chance to win -- by bullying him -- by evaluating for him -by insisting he is ‘outside’ when he is not -- by invalidating him -- by pretending to see him or his mock-ups or saying that one does if he does.

SOP 8-C FORMULAS AND STEPS OPENING PROCEDURE

(10 minutes to two hours -- with MEST body.)
(A) Send preclear to exact places in room, one place at a time.
(B) Have preclear select places in the room and move to them one at a
time, still under auditor’s direction.
(C) Have preclear drill in physically holding on to and letting go of objects and spaces on his own decision to hold on, decision to let go.

STEP I: LOCATION
PRE-LOGIC: Theta orients objects in space and time.  
AXIOM: In life experience space becomes beingness.  
FORMULA I: Permitting the preclear to discover with certainty where people and things are not in the present, past and future recovers sufficient orientation to establish his knowledge and certainty of where he is and they are the application of this is accomplished by negative orientation of beingness, havingness and doingness on each of eight dynamics in the present, past and future.
STEP I
(A) Ask preclear to be three feet back of chair.  Ask him for things,
people, which are not giving him directions (orders). For things, persons, he is not giving orders to. For things, persons, which are not giving directions to other things. Ask preclear for goals he does not have. For goals others do not have for others. For goals another does not have for him. For goals he does not have for another. For persons he is not. For animals he is not. For places where he is not. Where bacteria is not. Where objects are not. For places where he is not thinking.
NOTE: All of the above are done in ‘brackets’ for present, past, and
future.
(B) If exteriorized. Have him drill while exteriorized into holding on to and letting go of objects on his specific decision. Ask him to be in places which are safe, dangerous, pleasant, unpleasant, beautiful, ugly.

STEP II: BODIES
AXIOM: In life experience energy becomes doingness. 
AXIOM: Compulsive position precedes compulsive thinking. 
AXIOM: That which changes the preclear in space can evaluate for him. 
FORMULA II: Permit the preclear to discover that he handles bodies and allow him to handle bodies in mock-ups and actuality and remedy his thirst for attention which he has received by contagion from bodies.
STEP II
(A) Have preclear mock up bodies and unmock them. Have him get somethingnesses and nothing nesses of bodies until he feels better about them.  Ask him to be three feet back of chair.
(B) If exteriorized. Have him complete II-A many times and then move body while he is outside.

STEP III: SPACE
PRE-LOGIC: Theta creates space and time and objects to locate in them. 
DEFINITION: Space is a viewpoint of dimension.
AXIOM: Energy derives from imposition of space between terminals and a reduction and expansion of that space.
FORMULA III: Permit the preclear to regain his ability to create space and impose it upon terminals, to remove it from between terminals and to regain his security concerning the stability of MEST space.
STEP III
(A) Have preclear hold two back corners of room and not think.
(B) If exteriorized. Have preclear complete spacation.
NOTE: If not exteriorized return to STEP I.
STEP IV: HAVINGNESS
AXIOM: In life experience matter becomes havingness. 
OBSERVATION: To a thetan, ANYTHING is better than nothing. 
OBSERVATION: Any preclear is suffering from problems of too little havingness and any reduction of his existing energy, if not replaced, will cause him to drop in tone.
FORMULA IV:
(A) The remedy of problems of havingness is accomplished by creating an abundance of all things.
(B) As the preclear has rendered automatic his desires and ability to create and destroy, and has thus placed havingness beyond his control, the Auditor should place in the control of the preclear his automaticities of havingness and unhavingness and permit him, on his own self-determinism, to balance his havingness.
(C) How to make havingness: Have preclear put out eight anchor points of size, thus creating a space. Have him pull in these eight to the center and have him retain the resulting mass. Do this using large and various objects for anchor points. Do this until he is willing to release such old energy deposits as engrams and ridges but still continue to make havingness.
STEP IV
Have preclear remedy problems of havingness by mocking up and pulling together sets of eight anchor points. Do this many times. Do not have him make anchor points explode in this fashion. Have him save masses thus created. Have preclear adjust anchor points in body.

STEP V: TERMINALS
AXIOM: Space exists by reason of anchor points.
DEFINITION: An anchor point is any particle or mass or terminal.
AXIOM: Energy is derived from mass by fixing two terminals in proximity in space.
AXIOM: Self-determinism is related to the ability to impose space between terminals.
AXIOM: Cause is a potential source of flow.
AXIOM: Effect is a potential receipt of flow.
AXIOM: Communication is the duplication of the receipt point of that which emanated at a cause point.
AXIOM: Wrongness in terms of flow is inflow.
FORMULA V: The thetan is rehabilitated as to energy and terminals by remedying his postulates about outflow and inflow and drills relating to the outflow and inflow of energy according to the above axioms.
STEP V
(A) Ask preclear for times he could do something.  Times when he couldn’t do anything. For things he can do. For things he can’t do. For things other people can, can’t do. For things other people can do for others. For things another specific person can’t do for him. For things he cannot do for another or others.
(B) Ask preclear for objects, actions, persons, ideas he is not destroying. For objects, actions, persons, ideas he is not making survive (persist). For objects, actions, persons, ideas he is not creating. Present, past, and future in brackets. (NOTE: Ideas are the most important here, in brackets.)
(C) Ask preclear for objects, persons, energies, times which are not touching him. Which he is not touching. Which are not reaching for him. For which he is not reaching. For objects, persons, times from which he is not withdrawing. Which are not withdrawing from him. In brackets.
(D) Ask preclear for sights which will not blind him. For people he will not blind if they see him. For noises which will not deafen him. For people he will not deafen. For spoken words that will not hurt him.  For spoken words which will not hurt others. In brackets.
(E) Ask preclear for ideas that will not destroy, cause to survive (persist), create, or upset others. In brackets.
(F) Ask preclear for ideas, sounds, sights that will not fix people or unfix them from specific places.
(G) Ask preclear for ideas he is not trying to fix in things. For ideas he is not trying to unfix from things.  In brackets.
(H) Have him unmock and mock up terminals and move them together and apart until he can make them generate currents.
STEP VI: SYMBOLIZATION
DEFINITION: A symbol is an idea fixed in energy and mobile in space.
FORMULA VI: The thetan who has been moved about by symbols is strengthened by mocking up and moving about and fixing in space ideas which have formerly moved him.
STEP VI
Have preclear create symbols which mean nothing.  Ask PC for ideas he is not trying to destroy. For ideas he is not trying to make survive (persist). For ideas he is not trying to create.
NOTE: The above are done in brackets. Have him mock up ideas and move them about.

STEP VII: BARRIERS
AXIOM: The MEST universe is a game consisting of barriers. 
DEFINITION: A barrier is space, energy, object, obstacles, or time. 
FORMULA VII: Problems of barriers or their lack are resolved by contacting and penetrating, creating and destroying, validating and neglecting barriers by changing them or substituting others for them, by fixing and unfixing attention upon their somethingness and nothingness.
STEP VII
(A) Have preclear reach and withdraw (physically then as himself) from
spaces, walls, objects, times.
(B) Have preclear do six ways to ‘nothing’.
(C) Have him create and destroy barriers.

STEP VIII: DUPLICATION FUNDAMENTAL: The basic action of existence is duplication. 
LOGIC: All operating principles of life may be derived from duplication. 
AXIOM: Communication is as exact as it approaches duplication.
AXIOM: Unwillingness to be cause is monitored by unwillingness to be duplicated.
AXIOM: Unwillingness to be an effect is monitored by unwillingness to duplicate.
AXIOM: An inability to remain in a geographical position brings about an unwillingness to duplicate.
AXIOM: An enforced fixation in a geographical position brings about an unwillingness to duplicate.
AXIOM: Inability to duplicate on any dynamic is the primary degeneration of the thetan.
AXIOM: Perception depends upon duplication.
AXIOM: Communication depends upon duplication.
AXIOM: In the MEST universe, the single crime is duplication.
FORMULA VIII: The primary ability and willingness of the thetan to duplicate must be rehabilitated by handling desires, enforcements and inhibitions relating to it on all dynamics.
STEP VIII
(A) Ask preclear for actions, forms and ideas which do, do not, duplicate specific other people. For actions, forms, ideas by which specific other people do, do not duplicate specific other people.  For actions, forms, ideas of others which do, do not, duplicate him.
(B) Have preclear duplicate physical objects and people and possess himself of duplicates.
(C) Have him make ‘no-duplicates’ of objects and people.
(D) Have him duplicate somethings and ‘nothings’.
GROUP C
‘Group C’ is a process used on large numbers of people. It is composed of the following steps of SOP 8-C: STEP 1-A, STEP II-A, STEP III-A, STEP V-A to H, STEP VI, STEP VII, STEP VIII.

GLOSSARY

PC: Stands for ‘preclear’, a person being processed. 

MOCK-UP: A self-created image the preclear can see. 

BRACKET: Is done as follows: for preclear, for another, others for others, others for self, another for preclear, preclear for another. See STEP IA.

SPECIAL NOTE: The first three steps of SOP 8-C could be classified as beingness steps. The remaining five steps of SOP 8-C could be classified as havingness steps. SOP, itself, in all eight steps constitutes doingness, thus approximating as described in ‘Scientology 8-8008’ the space-be, energy-do, time-have triangle.

SPECIAL NOTE: In its entirety, SOP 8-C could be considered as various exercises in FORMULA H which involves the most basic action of the thetan which is reaching and withdrawing.

SPECIAL NOTE: It will be noted that the negative orientation techniques are done in such a way as to make the preclear, without his being told to do so, create space. The auditor should pay specific attention when the preclear is discovering where things are not that the preclear be caused to note specifically each time the exact location and position where the thing does not exist. This calls the preclear’s attention to various positions which in themselves, thus located, create space. Thus, throughout SOP 8-C, the rehabilitation of space is also to be found, the definition of space being ‘space is a viewpoint of dimension’.

SPECIAL NOTE: In his auditing, if the Auditor does not get a communication change on the part of the preclear, whether better or worse, every five or ten minutes, either the Auditor is using the wrong step at the time, in which case he should progress on into the steps or the preclear, even if he says he is, is not complying with the Auditor’s orders.  The Auditor, thus, should remain in continuous communication with the preclear so far as possible and should ascertain with great care what the preclear is doing after he indicates that he has complied with the direction and to discover every five or ten minutes if there has been a change in certainties or communication. The commonest source of failure in any step in SOP 8-C is a failure on the part of the preclear to execute the orders given as it was intended to be executed, or on the part of the Auditor in failing to ascertain whether or not the preclear is executing properly or if there has been a communication change. A careful check of Auditors and preclears utilizing SOP 8-C has demonstrated in each case where its use was becoming lengthy that the Auditor was failing to ascertain from the preclear whether or not there had been communication changes, and it was also uniformly discovered that the preclear who was failing to get results while being audited with SOP 8-C was not doing the steps as directed but was either avoiding by not doing them at all although he said he was doing them or was failing to understand the direction and so was executing the step in some other way.

The first goal which an Auditor must achieve is willingness in the preclear to receive directions. The condition of the preclear is such, in nearly all cases, that he has chosen as a main point of resistance in life, direction of himself other than his own. Because the physical universe is designed to resist and overcome that which resists it, a continuous resistance to other direction than one’s own results finally in a loss of ability to greater or lesser degree to direct oneself. In that it is the ability to direct himself which the Auditor is seeking to return to the preclear, it must be demonstrated to the preclear solely by the process of good auditing that other direction is not necessarily harmful or in the worst interest of the preclear.  Thus, to some degree, he ceases to resist incoming direction, and by ceasing to resist it, no longer validates it as a barrier, and so is not concentrating attention on resisting direction but is able to use it freely in his own self-direction. The self-determinism of a preclear is proportional to the amount of self-direction he is capable of executing and deteriorates markedly when a great deal of his attention is devoted to preventing other direction.  Directing himself, the preclear becomes capable of execution preventing direction of himself (resisting the direction of others) brings about a condition where he is mainly devoted to resisting his environment. The latter results in a diminishing of space of the preclear.

The first step in the rehabilitation of the preclear in self-direction is therefore a limiting of the amount of resistance he is concentrating on ‘other direction’ and demonstrating to him that his following of the steps of SOP 8-C under the direction of an Auditor is not harmful but, on the contrary, increases his command and control of himself and brings him at last to the point where he can neglect and ignore the continuous stimulus response operation of the physical universe.

It can be seen clearly then that the Auditor who sets himself up to be resisted will fail, for the preclear is mainly concentrating upon resisting the Auditor.  This is the primary factor in all auditing.

The preclear is brought to a point of co-operation in terms of direction without the use of hypnosis or drugs and without argument or ‘convincingness’ on the part of the Auditor, by which is meant overbearing demeanor. At the same time it should be the sole intention and operation of the Auditor that his own directions be carried out explicitly by the preclear, and that these be performed with a minimum of communication break and with a maximum of affinity, communication and reality.

Using the formula that that which changes the individual’s position in space can evaluate for the individual, the Auditor in using SOP 8-C should use, at the beginning of the first session and in any session where the preclear becomes unreasonably uncooperative in following simple directions, the following procedure. The Auditor has the preclear walk to specific points in the room, touch, hold and let go of various specific objects. The Auditor should be very exact in his directions. The Auditor should do this even on an apparently co-operative case at least twenty minutes before going on to the next step in Opening Procedure.

When the preclear, drilled in this fashion, has at length realized without being told that the Auditor’s directions are quiet, reliable, exact and to be performed and not until then uses this process:

Preclear is asked to send himself to various parts of the room and do specific things. The Auditor is very specific and exact about this, in that he has the preclear decide on his own determinism and, before moving from the spot where he is standing, what part of the room he is going to send himself to. When the preclear has decided this, and only then (but not necessarily telling the Auditor), the preclear then takes himself to that part of the room. The Auditor must be very exact that the decision to go to a certain part of the room and to reach or withdraw from a certain thing is made before the preclear takes an actual action. And then the Auditor should make sure that the preclear has done exactly what he decided he would do before he moved. In such a wise, coached by the Auditor, the preclear is led to direct himself to various parts of the room until he is entirely sure that he is directing himself to certain parts of the room and that the orders are coming from nobody but himself. Of course, before each new place is chosen, the Auditor tells the preclear to choose a new place and tells him when to go there.

The third stage of this Opening Procedure is then as follows:

The Auditor has the preclear be in one spot in the room and then has the preclear decide there to go to another spot in the room. The preclear leaves. The Auditor has the preclear change his own mind, and go to yet another spot. This last is done to lessen the preclear’s fear of changing his mind, to strengthen his decision and to lessen his reaction to his own mistakes.

The last two steps of Opening Procedure are done at some length. It is profitable by the experience of many Auditors to spend as much as an hour on Opening Procedure even in a case which is not in poor condition. When Opening Procedure is omitted or is not carried on far enough, the Auditor may discover that it will take him from five to ten hours to ‘get the case working’. This time is saved by the expenditure of much less time in using Opening Procedure. Even when the preclear is complacent, even when the preclear is an obvious ‘STEP 1’, even when the preclear shows no outward sign of resistance to other direction than his own, the first communication lag lessening which the Auditor will perceive on the case will probably occur during the use of Opening Procedure. Further, the certainty of the case is heightened. Further, Opening Procedure is, for any level of case, an excellent process.

The preclear who is familiar with SOP 8 may conceive that he is doing a step which is ‘reserved for psychotics’. The preclear should be disabused of such a concept, since the step is used today on all cases.

In the case of a preclear who is very resistive, Opening Procedure can be used with considerable profit for many hours. For such activity, however, an auditing room of the usual dimensions is usually too constrictive and the drill may be carried on as well out of doors even if only on a street.

GROUP PROCESSING

For successful group processing the following are near absolutes.

1. The group auditor must be able to grant beingness to the group. Stage fright and timid commands have no place in group auditing. An auditor who is afraid of a group will ‘Q and A’ with the group (as soon as it gets an effect, he changes the process -- he changes commands when the group changes aspect).

2. Commands must be simple, clear, concise, evenly spaced, without sudden breaks of pace or jarring interjections of loudness.

3. The processes should be objective, addressing the environment not the thinkingness of the group.  Opening Procedure, adapted to a group, run long enough, would exteriorize everyone present.

4. Every command given should be run long enough to flatten every communication lag present.

5. Every process used should be run long enough consecutively to ‘flatten’ the process itself.

6. The Auditor’s Code in full should be obeyed. If these rules are vigorously followed, good results can be attained in group processing.

Here are some standard processes for groups. Each is a one hour session.

SESSION 1: ‘Spot some spots on the front wall.’ ‘Spot some more spots’, ‘Spot some more spots’, and so on for some time. Then: ‘Spot some spots on the floor’, ‘Spot some more spots on the floor’, and so on for some time.  Then: ‘Without turning around, spot some spots on the back wall’, ‘Some more spots’, and so on. Then spot spots on the front wall again, then the floor, then the back wall. If the ceiling is used in this their necks get tired very quickly.

SESSION 2:  Spot some spots in your body.’ Pause.  ‘Spot some spots in the room.’ Pause. ‘Spot some spots in your body.’ Pause. ‘Spot some spots in the room.’ Alternate these two commands for at least one hour.

SESSION 3: ‘Examine your chair.’ Pause. ‘Examine the floor.’ Pause.  ‘Examine your chair.’ Pause.  ‘Examine the floor’, and alternate these for at least one hour.

SESSION 4: ‘Where’s your face?’ Pause. ‘Where’s your face?’ Pause. ‘ Where’s your face?’ Pause, and so on for at least one hour.

SESSION 5:  ‘Start laughing.’ Pause.  ‘Keep on laughing.’ Pause. ‘Laugh.’ Pause. ‘Keep on laughing.’ just these for at least an hour.

SESSION 6: ‘Where are you?’ Pause. ‘Where are you?’ Pause. ‘Where are you?’ Pause. For at least one hour.

SESSION 7: A very arduous one. OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION. Have each person in the group hold two objects, one in each hand. Be very sure, as an auditor, not to vary your commands.  ‘Call the object in your left hand Object One. Call the object in your right hand Object Two.’ ‘Look at Object One. What is its color? Temperature? Weight?’ ‘Look at Object Two.  What is its color? Temperature?  Weight?’ ‘Look at Object One. What is its color?     Temperature? Weight?’ ‘Look at Object Two. What is its color? Temperature? Weight?’ Use these over and over for at least an hour. Never give less than an hour of OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION -- never do it for only half an hour, much less fifteen minutes. This is the first step of what Scientologists call ‘Dirty 30’.
For the convenience of the auditor, this list is given:
OBJECT ONE: Color Temperature Weight 
OBJECT TWO: Color Temperature Weight. 

SESSION 8: This is very arduous. DUPLICATION BY ATTENTION. Put up two black pieces of material somewhat above eye level, at least ninety degrees apart from the preclear. Hang them up on the walls, ahead of the group so all can see them. (One on the forward right wall, one on the forward left wall is best.) Describe them to the group as Object One and Object Two. ‘Put your attention on Object One.’ ‘Now put your attention on Object Two.’ ‘Now put your attention on Object One.’ ‘Now put your attention on Object Two.’ Do this without variation for at least an hour. On duplication processes, somebody in the audience usually claims this is ‘hypnotism’, for it runs out hypnotism. It induces no trances. People who think so simply don’t know much about hypnotism.

SESSION 9: This is in four parts. Do each part exactly fifteen minutes. It is run with the group’s eyes closed. ‘Find the two back corners of the room, hold on to them, and don’t think.’ The auditor repeats this quietly and reassuringly every few minutes until fifteen minutes is reached. Then at fifteen minutes past the hour he says, ‘Now find a third back corner of the room. Hold on to three of the back corners of the room. Sit still, and don’t think.’ He repeats: ‘Hold on to three of the back corners of the room and sit still and don’t think’. At the half hour, he says, ‘Now find all four back corners of the room, hold on, and don’t think’.  He repeats every few minutes, ‘The four back corners of the room and don’t think’. When the forty-five minutes mark of the process has been reached, the auditor says, ‘Now locate the eight corners of this room, hold on, and don’t think’, and repeats, ‘Eight corners, don’t think’, every few minutes. At the hour mark, the process could be repeated. If so, do it again exactly as above.

SESSION 10: Description Processing should not be done on the groups, some of whose members have questionable stability. Use only SESSIONS 1 to 6 on such groups. When a group has been much run, almost any form of Description Processing can be used. SESSION 10, however, consists entirely of one command which is not changed for at least half an hour. This is, ‘How close does your body seem to you now?’ Pause. ‘How close does your body seem to you now?’ Pause. ‘How close does your body seem to you now?’ and so on.

In processing groups, duplication of command is part of the process.

Keep it simple. Grant them beingness. Keep them in contact with present time and out of their facsimile bank and you’ll get group processing clears. Make it complicated, make them ‘figure’, be shy, and the group won’t come back. Never worry about boring them. The reason they’re spun in is because ‘the body and the confusion were so interesting’.

GLOSSARY ADAPTED AND EXPANDED BY W.B.B. JR.
FROM ‘The Appositions of Scientology’  BY A.H.

ABERRATION
A sub-optimum or other-determined condition or consideration which a person is unable to change at will.

ACCEPTANCE LEVEL
The acceptance level of a preclear is the condition in which a person or object must be, in order that the preclear be able to accept it freely. (See REJECTION LEVEL.)

AFFINITY
A scale of attitude which falls away from the co-existence of Static, through the interposition of distance and energy, to create identity, down to close proximity but mystery.

ALLY
A person who has aided in the survival of the preclear under engramic or highly emotional circumstances, and whom the preclear reactively regards as important to his further survival.

ANALYTICAL MIND
That part of a person’s thinking machinery and memories over which he has relatively full control.

A-R-C
Affinity, Reality, and Communication: the component parts of understanding. 

AUDITOR
A Scientologist: one whose technical skill is devoted to the resolution of the problems of life.

AUDITOR’S CODE
The technical code of Scientology: a list of ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ which experience has shown insure optimum progress in auditing a case.

AXIOMS
Webster: ‘A statement of self-evident truth ... an established principle which is universally received.’ The Axioms in Scientology, dating back to 1951, have been one of the principle bases on which progress from that date has been made.

BARRIER
A consideration or idea that limits other considerations or ideas. This, of course, includes emotional and physical universe barriers.

BOIL-OFF
A state of lessened awareness to the point of unconsciousness, caused by impaired Havingness. 

DOPE-OFF
is a state of lessened awareness, still above unconsciousness, and manifested principally by communication-lag. Dope-off is also caused by impaired Havingness.

CHARGE
Energy being held in present time in relation to an incident or chain of incidents.

CHRONIC SOMATIC
A sub-optimum physical condition or a pain which resists change and remains over a long period of time or recurs frequently.

CIRCUIT
A fixed energy pattern set up in an engram. The circuit, when restimulated, takes over from the thetan operation of the organism.

CLEAR, THETA
An individual who, as a thetan, is certain of his identity apart from that of the body, and who habitually operates the body from outside.

CODE OF HONOR
The ethical code of Scientology the code one uses, not because he has to, but because he can afford such a luxury.

COMMUNICATION
The consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source-point across a distance to receipt-point, with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt-point a duplication of that which emanated from the source-point. (See PERFECT DUPLICATE.)

COMMUNICATION, TWO-WAY
Two people alternating as cause and effect in the communication formula. Any sensory perceptic can be utilized in establishing two-way communication.  The establishment of certain two-way communication is the first step in every auditing session, and nothing else is attempted until this has been done.

COMMUNICATION LAG
The length of time between the moment the auditor poses the question and the moment when the exact question posed is answered positively by the preclear, no matter whether silence or talk or incorrect answers occur during the interim. It is also the length of time between the giving of a command and the moment when a preclear carries out the exact command correctly.

CONSIDERATION
The highest capability of life, taking rank over the mechanics of Space, Energy, and Time.

COPY
A duplicate, distinguished from a Perfect Duplicate, in that it does not necessarily occupy the same space, same time, nor use the same energies as the original.  (See PERFECT DUPLICATE.)

CREATIVE PROCESSING
A process little used now except when making copies or perfect duplicates. It consists of having the preclear make, with his own creative energies, a mock-up.  (See MOCK-UP.)

DIANETICS
The first fully validated psycho-therapy. Dianetics dealt with the problems of homo sapiens and was released to the public in 1950 after twenty years of research by its discoverer, L. Ron Hubbard.

DICHOTOMY
A pair of opposites, such as black - white, good - evil, love - hate. 

DRAMATIZATION
A carrying out by words or action of a fixed behavior pattern, which is repeated in a set manner whenever restimulated. A dramatization is based upon the content of an engram.

DUPLICATE, PERFECT
A perfect duplicate is one which is made in the same time, in the same place, and with the same energies as the original. The term ‘duplicate’ by itself is sometimes used to refer to a ‘copy’ which is a reproduction of the original, but not necessarily using the same space, time, or energies. (A perfect duplicate is not a full communication. When it is used in communication, it is the act of making something ‘communicate with itself’ and so causes its Vanishment.) (See R2-40.) Duplication, or perfect duplication is the act of making a duplicate or a perfect duplicate.

DYNAMIC
Any one of eight motivating drives along which each individual operates toward the goal of survival. These are survival through 1. Self 2. Sex and family (future generations) 3. Group (racial, geographical, national, etc.) 4. Mankind as a whole 5. Life forms6.  MEST, (the physical universe) 7. Spirits (individual thetans) 8. (Sometimes written on its side as infinity), the Supreme Being, all Theta, the Life Static itself.

ELECTROPSYCHOMETER OR E-METER
An electronic instrument for measuring the psychological and emotional state of the preclear and any changes that take place in this state.

EFFORT
Force with direction. A physical effort in the MEST universe.

EMOTION
A connector between thought and effort. It is a manifestation of beingness, and closely related to motion. One handles motion on a direct ratio with his ability to handle emotion the higher his emotion level, the more control he can exert over motion the lower his emotion level, the more he succumbs to motion.

ENERGY
Postulated particles in space.

ENGRAM
From Dianetics.  An experience containing pain, unconsciousness, and a real or fancied threat to survival. An engram is to a greater or lesser degree unavailable to the conscious awareness of the individual and its content has command value at the reactive level.

EXTERIORIZATION
The act of moving the thetan outside the body.   When this is done the person achieves a certainty of his beingness or identity completely apart from that of the body.

FACSIMILE
A recording in energy of an incident or part of an incident from the past. The facsimile contains all the perceptics of the original. It is an involuntary duplicate or copy (not a perfect duplicate).

GENETIC ENTITY
Sometimes referred to as the GE. The entity or machine set up to carry out the automatic functions of the body. This entity or machine in a lower level case may work at considerable cross-purposes with the thetan.

GRAND TOUR
A process used on an exteriorized thetan to free him from the craving for mass and to bring into present time a greater portion of the MEST universe. 

HAVINGNESS 
Mass occupying the same space as the preclear. Over his total experience the preclear has become accustomed to having or identifying himself with considerable mass, both in the form of physical universe matter and in the form of energy masses such as facsimiles. Until the thetan has rehabilitated his considerations that he can create mass at will, the loss of any mass causes discomfort and lessened awareness. When havingness is remedied by having the preclear bring in masses these symptoms disappear.

‘I’
The thetan, the center of awareness, that part of the total organism that is fundamentally cause.

INVALIDATION
A statement, action or inference that makes the preclear appear wrong. Invalidation, along with evaluation, i.e. pressing on the preclear an other-determined consideration, are the two ‘shuns’ to be most strenuously avoided by the auditor.

INVERSION
A switch to an opposite obsessive consideration such as from compulsion to inhibition. There may be many inversions on any consideration, each leading further from Self-Determinism.

KEY-IN
The incident that first brings about restimulation of an engram. For the key-in of an engram, there must be some degree of lessened awareness plus a similarity of situation to that of the engram. However, Once an engram is keyed in a similarity of situation alone is enough to restimulate it.

LIE
A second postulate, statement, or condition, designed to mask a primary postulate which is permitted to remain.

LIFE-CONTINUUM
One individual attempting to carry on the life of another deceased individual by means of generating in his own body the infirmities and mannerisms of the deceased and by patterning his life in a manner which appears to him to be a continuation of the pattern of the deceased.  This condition usually comes about when there have been real or fancied overt acts by the individual against the deceased.

LINE CHARGE
A prolonged spell of uncontrolled laughter or crying which may be continued for several hours. Once started a line charge can usually be reinforced by the occasional interjection of almost any word or phrase by the auditor. The line charge usually signals the sudden release of a large amount of charge and brings about a marked change in the case.

LOCK
An apparently minor incident which assumes an unreasonable importance due to its containing some similarity to, and restimulating, an earlier engram or engram chain. Also, an incident containing enforcement or inhibition of Affinity, Reality, or Communication.

MATTER
Grouped particles of energy located in a relatively stable relationship to one another.

MEST
The initial letters of Matter, Energy, Space, and Time the Scientological term for the physical universe.

MIND
The machines, circuits, facsimiles, memories, etc., which are used in the individual’s thinking processes.  The mind is not a part of the thetan and is not necessary for the higher-level activities of the thetan. (See THOUGHT, THINKINGNESS.)

MOCK-UP
A full-perceptic energy picture in three dimensions, created by the thetan, and having location in space and time. A mock-up is distinct from a facsimile in that it is created volitionally, does not necessarily copy any previous experience, and is under the full control of the preclear.

MOTIVATOR
An overt act by another determinism against the preclear. A person tends to keep overt acts and motivators balanced up. If he commits too many overt acts he will seek motivators and vice versa.

NECESSITY LEVEL
The degree of emergency in the present time environment. When, in a state of emergency, the survival of the organism depends on the changing of certain aberrated patterns of behavior, these patterns are sometimes temporarily cast aside, allowing the individual to act at a much higher level than his chronic one.

NOTHINGNESS
Absence of everything no time, no space, no energy, no thought, etc. A specific nothingness, such as a nothingness of chairs, is just that, absolutely no chairs. A specific nothingness is usually qualified as to time and space.

OCCLUSION
Something hidden, an occlusion of memory is something forgotten, i.e., not available to conscious recall.    An occluded case is one whose memory is usually largely occluded and whose field of awareness is black or very dark.

ORGANISM
A physical manifestation of Life a material form organized and controlled by theta.

ORIENTATION POINT
A point of reference from which the position of other objects is judged. People are often found still using orientation points from childhood which may be thousands of miles from their present time location. The goal of Scientology is that the thetan be his own principal orientation point, and that he have the ability to use or discard any other point of reference.

OVERT ACT
The administration of pain or destruction to another organism. The theory of overt acts and motivators opens a new field of understanding of human behavior. (See MOTIVATOR.)

PAN-DETERMINISM
The ability to regulate the considerations of two or more identities, whether or not they are opposed. A much broader concept than Self-Determinism, since the latter makes a randomity of anything not considered ‘self’.

PERCEPTION
Any means of communicating below the level of knowingness. There are more than fifty perceptions used by the physical body, the best-known of which are sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.

POSTULATE
A decision regarding a state of beingness. A consideration. (See CONSIDERATION.)

PRECLEAR
Technically this covers anyone who is not a clear.  However, it is principally used to describe a person undergoing processing with the techniques of Scientology.

PSYCHOTIC
A person completely out of present time and out of agreement with his environment and those around him.

RANDOMITY
The ratio of unpredicted motion to predicted motion.  Something one picks out and agrees not to predict.  At very low case levels it appears that everything is randomity, but as the case level rises it can actually reach a point where the preclear fears that he is approaching too little randomity to find life still interesting.

REACTIVE MIND
That portion of a person’s mind which is not under his volitional command or recall, and which exerts the power of command over his thinking and actions. (See CIRCUIT.)

REALITY
The agreed-upon apparency of existence.

RECALL
The re-experiencing of the perceptions of past incidents.

REJECTION LEVEL
The condition in which a person or object must be in order that the preclear be able to reject it freely.  (See ACCEPTANCE LEVEL.)

RELEASE
The state of a preclear, who, while not necessarily clear, has resolved his chronic somatic and/or his major problems. Also, the resolution of a specific problem or chronic somatic. This term is not used very frequently in Scientology.

RESPONSIBILITY
To accept responsibility for something is to accept that one operated as cause in the matter.  Responsibility refers solely to cause and not to other considerations such as goodness or badness of the thing caused. It should be clearly distinguished from such lower level considerations as blame, praise, etc., which include further evaluation.

SANITY
The degree to which an individual is able to operate with Self-Determinism, or above this, with Pan-Determinism.  An individual is as un-sane as he is motivated by other-determinism. Sanity is also measured by the degree to which the individual accepts responsibility for himself, his actions, and his environment.

SCIENTOLOGY
The Science of knowing how to know answers. It is a wisdom in the tradition of 10,000 years of search in Asia and Western Civilization. It is the Science of Human Affairs, which treats the livingness and beingness of Man and demonstrates to him a pathway to greater freedom.

SELF-DETERMINISM The ability to regulate and take responsibility for one’s own considerations. Motivation by the thetan rather than by the environment. A low-level case is determined almost entirely by its present and past environments. The goal of processing is to restore to him Self-Determinism, and above this Pan-Determinism.

SOMATIC
A pain, the physical origin of which is in the past.  The pain may have perfectly valid present time causes, such as constriction of the blood vessels, tensions in the muscles, etc. However, the original injury to the body by the environment is not in present time, but has been restimulated by something in the present environment similar to that at the time of the original injury. Somatic is also used to refer to a sub-optimum physical condition, the origin of which is in the past.

SPACE
A viewpoint of dimension.

STATIC
A Static has no mass, no motion, no wave-length, and no position in space or time, no meaning, and no mobility. While a Static may have qualities, it has no quantities.

STRAIGHT WIRE
This term refers to processes using direct memory.  Term taken by analogy from electronic communication systems.

SYMBOL Anything having Mass, Meaning, and Mobility. 

THETA
The only known Static. (See STATIC.)

THETAN 
The energy and space-production unit for the body.  A Static with the ability to consider, postulate, and have opinions, that has, through postulates and considerations, developed a differentiation from the Static, theta. The thetan is the ‘I’, the individual, that force, not a part of the physical universe, which is directing the organism.

THINKINGNESS
The potential of considering.

THOUGHT
As a colloquialism ‘thought’ is seen to embrace all of Life. In Scientology ‘thought’ refers to everything below Effort on the scale of KNOW, LOOK, EMOTE, EFFORT, THINK, SYMBOL, EAT, SEX, and MYSTERY.

TIME
The postulate that space and particles will persist. 

TIME, PRESENT
The agreed-upon consideration regarding the relationship of the particles that form the MEST universe at any given instant, for that instant.

TONE
A level of sanity based on the Tone Scale.

TONE SCALE
A Scale measuring Sanity and relating the various factors of behavior, emotion, and thought, to levels on the scale. The tone scale was first put into relatively complete form in 1951 by its discoverer, L. Ron Hubbard, in his book ‘The Science of Survival’. It was found to be more accurate in predicting the behavior of individuals than even its discoverer had supposed, and has been an invaluable tool in the hands of Scientologists.

TRUTH
Th exact consideration. (See CONSIDERATION.)

TRUTH, BASIC
The technical name for Ultimate Truth.     (See ULTIMATE TRUTH.)

TRUTH, ULTIMATE
A Static. (See STATIC.)

VALENCE
The assumption, at the reactive level, by one individual of the characteristics of another individual. An individual may have a number of valences which he puts on and off as he might hats. Often these changes are so marked that an observant person can notice him dropping one valence and putting on another. The shift from valence to valence is usually completely outside the awareness and control of the individual doing so. In other cases an individual has one valence, not his own, in which he is thoroughly stuck.

VALENCE, WINNING
The assumption by an individual in a particular situation, of the characteristics of another individual, who, in the consideration of the first, was habitually successful in similar situations. For example: if the preclear’s father was domineering toward the mother, and usually got his own way, it would be quite common to find the preclear assuming the Valence of his father in his dealings with his wife, or even with women in general.

VIEWPOINT
A point from which to view. The first consideration of a thetan in creation is the assumption of a Viewpoint from which to view that to be created.

VIEWPOINT, REMOTE
A viewpoint without the consideration by the thetan that he is located at that point. The thetan may have any number of remote viewpoints.

ADAPTED AND EXPANDED BY W.B.B. JR., FROM ‘The Appositions of Scientology’

BY A.H.

P.A.B. No. 51
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

29 April 1955

SPOTTING SPOTS

The essentials of this process are contained in R2—18 of Intensive Procedure as given in The Auditor’s Handbook or The Creation of Human Ability.

The goal of the process is to bring the preclear to a point where he can spot locations in space which do not have color, mass or shape, but which are simply locations, and spot that same location repeatedly without variation.

The auditor says, “Spot a spot in the space of this room.” The preclear does so. The auditor ascertains whether or not the spot has color, mass, or whether it is simply a location in space, which is what he wants. The spot should not have color or mass, it should have only location. The preclear is asked to locate several such spots in the room and is asked to walk over and put his finger on them. Spotting Spots markedly decreases havingness, so a Remedy of Havingness is necessary after a very few spots have been spotted in this fashion. The auditor will discover that if the preclear is asked to put his finger on the same spot and take his finger off and put it back on several times, that a preclear in bad condition will locate the spot in various places close to the original spot, but will not locate the original spot again. A preclear must be brought to a point where he will locate the original spot every time. Good two-way communication, as in all processes, is maintained while Spotting Spots is progressing.

When the preclear can adequately locate repeatedly and without upset spots of no mass or color in the room, he is then asked to locate them outside the room.

The ordinary phenomenon is that the preclear has various spots in this universe out of location.

A much more modern method of running Spotting Spots in Space is to locate a spot and say “hello” to it, and have it say “okay” back, and then have the spot say “hello” and have the preclear say “okay” back to it until the spot, itself, is in present time. The auditor can go into this even further, having the preclear sending showers of “hellos” and receiving back showers of “okays” from the spot, and having the spot sending showers of “hellos,” and having the preclear sending showers of “okays” back to the spot. This can be done with any spot, whether significant or not. It can be done to the place where an accident has just occurred. It can be done to the area where the delivery of birth was effected on the preclear’s body. It can be done to his school. It can be done variously and continually.

Grand Tour is the Route 1 or exteriorized version of Spotting Spots. The auditor asks the preclear to be in a spot of a certain description, such as his home town, asks him to be in the auditing room, asks him to be in his home town, asks him to be in the auditing room. This is the modern way of running Grand Tour. The modern way of running Grand Tour is when the preclear is asked to be in a spot immediately above his home town, to have the preclear send showers of “hellos” and receive showers of “okays” from the home town, and then when he is asked to be back at the auditing room, to send showers of “hellos” and “okays” at it. In other words, any position, or any motion, in the Grand Tour is accompanied by “hellos” and “okays” on a two-way basis. Naturally, once one has had showers of “hellos” sent to a spot and it has sent back showers of “okays” one must now have the spot send showers of “hellos” to the preclear and he must send showers of “okays” back at it. This will be found to remedy positional difficulties with the preclear as well as time difficulties.

The reason an engram comes into being and expresses itself on a preclear’s body is a lack of communication. The communication has become solid. It expresses itself as an engram, as a facsimile, as a lock, as a secondary. This expression comes about through absence of two-way communication. The moment that one runs two-way communication in upon the process, the spot has a tendency to go back to its original location. This is the phenomenon known as snapping or closing terminals.

It quite often occurs that when the preclear is asked to spot, let us say, London, he actually points in an entirely incorrect position and direction. London is sufficiently disoriented, as far as he is concerned, to cause him to lose it. He may have a picture of London sitting right in front of him, and yet he is being audited in South Africa. He will spot this picture as the location of London. London has snapped terminals upon him or he has snapped terminals upon London. In other words, there is no distance between the spot where he is and where London is. This means that the material on the subject of London is engramic. Lack of mass is one explanation of why the terminal snap occurs. Fear of and resistance to the spot is the actual reason why it closes terminals.

In doing the Grand Tour one will discover, if he sends the preclear between the Empire State Building in New York City and the Washington Monument [in Washington, D.C.], that a preclear who is having difficulty with havingness and locations will at first discover the Empire State Building to be some distance from the Washington Monument, and then will discover that the Empire State Building and the Washington Monument are almost exactly together, and then will discover that they have sprung apart. The auditing command producing this phenomenon is simply: “Be over the Empire State Building. Okay. Be over the Washington Monument. Okay. Be over the Empire State Building. Okay. Be over the Washington Monument. Okay.” In other words, the spots snap together. Actually, the spots themselves are not snapping together. What is snapping together is the facsimiles of the spots. As long as a location is expressing itself in terms of facsimile, one knows immediately two things: that the havingness of the area is low, and there is a lack of communication in existence about this spot. The preclear does not want to communicate about it. One remedies this in the crudest form by having “hellos” sent between himself and the spot. One, by adding the factor of communication to this, would have a process run with the following commands: “Be over the Washington Monument.” When the preclear is there: “Send a shower of ‘hellos’ at it.” “Have it send you a shower of ‘okays.’ “ “Have it send you a shower of ‘hellos.’ “ “Send it a shower of ‘okays.’ “ The auditor, of course, each time the preclear performs any action in any auditing of any kind, acknowledges the fact aloud with an “all right,” or a ‘‘fine,’’ or a “good,” or an “okay,” thus adding to the amount of communication on the subject. Failure of the auditor to do this has a tendency to stick the preclear in the session. 

Minor 4                                 [1955, ca. early May]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Phoenix, Arizona

The Scale of Awareness

L. Ron Hubbard

This article is a transcription of an important preliminary discussion by Ron of his investigations out of which have come very practical advances in the handling of communication and the discovery of the preclear’s level of reality in processing. The talk was given at a Staff Auditor-ACC Conference of April 4, 1955.

. . . I’ll give you a quick rundown on some data which has just materialized here-it’s an experimental scale and this experimental scale is quite interesting. It really is a Scale of Awareness. A scale of awareness would begin at the top with, of course, AWARE OF BEING AWARE. If a person were really aware of being aware it would be sufficient communication for him merely to be aware of the existing environment. If he were simply aware of the existing environment he would feel he was in communication and would feel very good—he wouldn’t have to talk about it. You get that level?
All right now, we drop down from there and it’s easier to describe from the bottom up. On the bottom is COMMUNICATION WITH SELF WITH SIGNIFICANCE. Worry. He can communicate with himself and he can worry. Now that isn’t the exact bottom of the scale, but the next lower level—and that’s UNCONSCIOUSNESS—becomes questionable as a communication level. But nevertheless, it really belongs with this scale. So we look at this and we find out that the guy could be aware of thinking a thought containing much significance, but not expressing it. Immediately below this level, as I say, is unconsciousness, which, of course, goes off the awareness scale and is the reverse of awareness.
But, as we work up from absolute unconsciousness we find UNCONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ONLY THING WHICH EACH HIGHER STEP HAS IN COMMON WITH THE LAST STEP UNTIL WE GET TO TOTAL AWARENESS OF AWARENESS. So each one of these steps is to some degree salted with unconsciousness, and up to the moment when you would get to ABSOLUTE, complete unconsciousness, every one of these steps would have some unconsciousness in it. But, absolute, complete unconsciousness happens to be an absolute. It happens to be unobtainable. Complete unconsciousness is not obtainable. Nobody has ever been or ever will be completely unconscious. And this is a fact, because processes do work out on unconsciousness, so the bottom of the scale would be absolute, complete unconsciousness, but it’s not the bottom of the scale, because that can’t exist.
So we would go up there to lesser and lesser degrees of unconsciousness and greater and greater degrees of consciousness. Now one of the best descriptions around that I have written on this unconsciousness business is Self Analysis. The first few chapters on Self Analysis is a discussion of unconsciousness. And when we consider alertness, we are considering ability. Now, we’ve been talking about this for some time. We consider alertness, then we consider ability. Awareness. If a person is aware of something he normally can control it.
All right, we look this over, and we find out that the place for a person to be on the tone scale would be at AWARENESS OF AWARENESS and we find out that he, there, would have sufficient communication just with his environment to stay cleared. Get that? He could stay cleared. But, now let’s start out from this level of complete unconsciousness—let’s go into the first point on the scale which is actually there on the scale. Some small, no matter how small, awareness that he is thinking a thought and communicating with the thought he is thinking. And that level includes the deepest anaesthetic possible, and it includes death. He always has some tiny little spark of awareness there, in spite of the ambition of the medico, the anaesthetist, etc.
He is aware that he is thinking something, no matter whether he thinks that it’s somebody else’s thinking or not. He’s just aware of some thinking.
The next broad level here is COMMUNICATION WITH SIGNIFICANCE. (Of course, in between, thinking a thought and thinking it to himself we get gradients of that, so the individual knows when he is thinking a thought, and knows when he’s not thinking a thought. Naturally that’s part of that same scale.)
The next broad level is this: COMMUNICATION WITH SIGNIFICANCE WITH SOMEBODY ELSE. You know what we mean, “with significance,” it’s got to have a reason, it’s got to have meaning, there has to be an intent. The next big broad scale that’s parked right up above this is SIMPLY COMMUNICATION, WITH INTENT TO COMMUNICATE.
The next broad level up above this simply requires THAT ONE KNOWS OF THE EXISTENCE OF COMMUNICATION.
And the next level above that is simply AWARENESS OF AN ENVIRONMENT AS SUFFICIENT COMMUNICATION.
Now, as we go down from that to the bottom we find out we are more and more fixed and less and less capable of spanning attention. So let’s look at communication between two people as a fixed double-terminal affair. The individual is less aware of his immediate environment. At Communication with Self he’s not aware of his environment out here at all. And so we get the contracting perimeter of the dynamics, which we’ve discussed before. As we go down this Awareness Scale, which is also Communication Scale, we get the individual closer and closer in until—one of the early symptoms of it—he doesn’t think anybody could possibly hear him unless he’s standing with his face right in their face. And the next spot below that is real worry. Now this individual may be across the room. It doesn’t matter. Now let’s add to this, and we get the actual name of this scale. And it is the Scale of Reality. That is the name of the scale. Now this seems strange, if it has to do with awareness and communication, that we call it the Scale of Reality, because it is the scale, a practical scale which is useful in processing.
Now, how is it useful in processing? We’re looking at a preclear that can’t find anything real very easily. We suspect he doesn’t even know he can’t find anything real. You know, it’s just the way the case behaves—it’s kind of spooky. Well, this guy, the realest thing he could do would be to think a thought and know that he thought the thought. That’s the realest thing the guy could do. Now, if you were to graduate him upscale from this, the next thing he could do that would be real to him would be to get the idea of saying something to somebody that has lots of significance to it, and having that person say something to him. Mythical personnel. And that’s their reality. With significance.
Now we go up above this, and we find out that the individual could have something real just by “hello” and “O.K.” And one of the reasons we’re using hello and O.K. is that it is an unreal communication. If a preclear can handle hello and O.K. without balking and consider it a real communication, this preclear is at that band. If he insists that that’s a bad reply—you know, he “really wouldn’t say hello” and then somebody else “wouldn’t say O.K.”—he would go at it possibly on hello’s back and forth, but he would go on it much better with significances. “WHAT COULD YOU SAY TO Pop?” “What could you say to your Mother?” And he’d give you significances. “Now, what could your Mother say to you?”
The funny thing about this is the way this scale was traced out. It’s very interesting. It was traced out by watching the separation of universes, and when these universes come apart they first come apart as a WORRY, WORRY—then, “Think a thought”—”Think a thought the other fellow would think”—”Think a thought that you would think”—”Think a thought that the other fellow would think,” and all of a sudden the individual differentiates between the kind of things the other universe thinks and the kind of things that his universe thinks. So we get this differentiation.
Our next differentiation up the line would be SOMETHING YOU COULD SAY to that other universe and something it could say to you. And significance, significance, significance, and then I discovered that we had a point in the separation of each one of these universes when hello, hello, hello, with the answer hello was REAL. Perfectly real and acceptable. The preclear was not even vaguely uncomfortable about it. And then hello and O.K.—a perfectly real communication. And then, THE FACT THAT THE PERSON EXISTED was itself communication, and then THE FACT THAT THE UNIVERSE EXISTED AND THE REST OF THE ENVIRONMENT EXISTED, too, was a sufficient cognition without any further processing.
When you start to pull universes apart on the individual, these universes have a tendency to go through that span, and the universes we don’t see are the universes which are totally introverted. An individual is actually BEING his body, you see. He is in his body. He is actually, really being his body, and then his body is being his father’s universe. We could start in by thinking that the most BASIC universe to separate would be father and mother from him, but this isn’t the case at all. It would really be the thetan. So you could separate these other universes, but don’t forget that we have an artificial enclosure of universe with the thetan in the body and here we’re immediately talking about exteriorization, aren’t we?
So you could be almost any one of these universes. You’d find you’d go up on this gradient of reality. At first you could have the preclear think a thought and think a thought and think a thought, you of course making him express a thought, you’re making him communicate with you, but he doesn’t notice that. And think another thought, think another thought. Now, what kind of a thought could this other universe think? Another thought the other universe could think, another thought. When these become at last flat and squared away you’ve got these universes well on the way towards separation and then you can go into communication and separate them. Now, this is not a hard and fast rule because I have to do considerable more experimentation on it. I’m just letting you in on a particular echelon of the spirit. This might not hold true, we might be able to separate them all, all the way up the line, by simply thought, thought, “Think a thought,” “What kind of a thought would the other person think?” “What kind of a thought would you think?”
The way I’ve been doing it with great success has been just: ask the individual what he could then SAY to his father. Now, he has just discovered he can separate out his father’s pattern of thinking from his own pattern of thinking. Now, it’s time to communicate. Now we’ve got a distance, so we get “What could you say to your father?” Well, have him say, “Okay.” “That’s fine. Now, what else could you say to your father?” etc., and then you get this very flat.
In its turn THINKING A THOUGHT itself became flat, THINKING HIS FATHER’S THOUGHTS became flat, and then we got COMMUNICATION WITH SIGNIFICANCE flat and then we got BOTH WAYS flat on that, and then we got to this point where it is ENOUGH FOR HIM TO SAY “HELLO” or have his father say hello. And he says hello and his father says hello; he says hello and his father says hello, and then you could—you don’t have to—move him out of that bracket and have him say hello and his father say O.K. And this is still real, good communication and then he becomes AWARE OF WHERE HIS FATHER IS and at that moment you run into Spotting Spots. Got this? Up to this time all spots are misplaced with connection with this person. But, right about that time the spots start to go into their proper places.
The same phenomenon occurs somewhere in that band of “Hello and O.K. with Pop” if it’s sneaked up on in this fashion as occurred in running 8-D in a limited number of cases, and all of a sudden his universe starts to un-spin and he’s aware of this and aware of that and aware of where his father has been and aware of where he has been in regard to his father, and he starts to get directionally accurate. DIRECTIONALLY AND DISTANTLY ACCURATE. And up to that time it’s just enough to be aware, as far as his father’s concerned just be AWARE OF EXISTENCE of father and NOT AWARE. That’s enough, that’s a cleared sphere. Now, do you see where we sneak up on something like this?
Well, that’s an interesting scale. It’s a scale of reality. I’ve been working for some time trying to get some way to sneak up on reality.
Now, how does this fit in with the real universe and objects? Well, there’s a little kicker in here. Along about the time of “What could you say to your father?” and “What could your father say to you?” and “What could you say to your mother?” “What could your mother say to you?”—in other words, separating part of these universes—we know that sooner or later we would take up “What could you say to a body?” “What could a body say to you?” We know we will run into that one, but that’s not so real sometimes. We’ve got to get him out of some other universes before we get him out of the body’s universe.
Right about the point where we would pass from that into communication by hello-hello, the individual on an 8-C level can spot unrealities. Isn’t that good. He can spot unreality. Your pc today, Crystal, was just about ready to take a look at the environment. But, he could spot unrealities much faster than he could spot realities. Now, you know what I mean by unreality. Supposing you ran 8-C on unrealities. It’s along about that point you could take up something like this if you wanted to. You’d run 8C— “Spot something unreal in this room,” “Spot something else unreal in this room.” Then the individual would spot a lot of things, the wall behind him might be unreal, or something like that, you see, and he’ll get out to a point where he’ll recognize that his sight line to the horizon is real, but beyond that it’s unreal, and he gets the idea of sort of living on a saucer. It’s a little saucer which goes exactly out to the horizon and no further, and everything beyond that is unreal.
Ask him to spot some unrealities in his environment until it’s real to him. It sneaks up on the preclear after a while because he finds out things are getting LESS AND LESS UNREAL. It’s as-ising unreality.
When we’re graduating a pc up the line it is very easy for the auditor to monitor the pc so that the pc can apparently run the most impossible, complex, the most advanced processes you ever heard of and just stall right there. The pc goes right on running them, “It’s all unreal and it doesn’t matter anyway,” and he just goes on through it and the auditor kind of monitors the preclear in every step and sneeze if we just keep on going. Well, there is where we sometimes come a cropper in auditing. We audit somebody in a rather advanced process and it’s unreal. Now, we’ve just had an experience of this happening. The guy apparently was just going bangity, bangity, bang, and yet it wasn’t real.
Well, it won’t do them any good unless it’s real. This is the way to sneak up, then, on a preclear and make sure it’s real all the way. 

P.A.B. No. 52
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

13 May 1955

AUDITING THE “WHOLE TRACK”

Let us move into top-echelon Scientology and utilize anything we know from Book One right on up to present time.

One is quite aware of the facsimile phenomenon, the engram phenomenon, and one can use this with Spotting Spots and Communication. (See earlier PABs.) When a preclear has an engram he is out of position with regard to the spot where the incident occurred. There is a very adequate description of this in Book One, centering around the activities and engramic content in the bank of a fish. Now, under Spotting Spots and Communication Processing we can at last handle this. And here come E-Meters back into the picture. The HASI is, at this moment, building a new and better E-Meter than has ever been built before, under the trademarked name of Physio-galvanometer, or O-Meter. It has very little in common with the old type E-Meter. Nevertheless, an old type E-Meter can be utilized.

By asking, as in Electropsychometric Auditing , one discovers the length of time back to where the preclear is stuck. It does not matter how far back he discovers the preclear to be stuck. As soon as he ascertains where the preclear is stuck on the whole track, he swings into Spotting Spots and Communication Processing with the following commands. Let us say he has discovered the preclear to be stuck on the Genetic Line as a plankton in the ocean. The auditor says, “Tell me some things you can say to a plankton.” The preclear then says something that he could say to a plankton, although there may be a great deal of comm lag connected with this. As soon as he has made this statement, the auditor says, “Now have the plankton say ‘okay.’ “ The auditor runs this on the preclear using only the plankton until the preclear has no communication lag in giving things he could say to the plankton. As soon as this occurs, the auditor then says, “Give me some things which the plankton could say to you.” The preclear then gets some statement that the plankton could say to him, and the auditor has the preclear say “okay” to that statement. This, then, is run until the communication lag is flat. The auditor can then take up the sea with “What can you say to the sea?” And when the preclear has made some statement as to what he could say to the sea, the auditor has the preclear have the sea say “okay” to the preclear. Then, when this has been run thoroughly, “What could the sea say to you?” asks the auditor. The preclear gives aloud some statement the sea could say to him, and the auditor has the preclear say “okay” to that statement. It will be discovered that the preclear has certain energy masses connected with the sea, the plankton, and that he is out of location, which is to say that these spots, these facsimiles, are not in their original position but are impinged upon the body itself, and as this process is run it will be discovered that the original location tends to assert itself and become stripped of the energy masses connected with it which keep it out of present time. The location will become clean after a while, which is to say the spots are in present time.

Now this particular process can be run on anything in any fashion, whether Book One, What to Audit [History of Man ], or Universes.

To run this process on universes it is necessary to select out what universes the preclear is interiorized into. It will be discovered immediately that he was probably interiorized into his father’s or his mother’s universe. One ascertains this by asking the preclear, “Whom do you most resemble in the family?” And after careful questioning of the preclear, establishes that the preclear is thinking the thoughts of, and having the problems of, some member of the family. Then the auditor says, “What could you say to this person?” mentioning the person. And the preclear tells the auditor something he could say to this person. The auditor now has the preclear have that person, more or less located where the person actually is, say “okay” back to the preclear. The preclear, of course, makes the person say this “okay.” When this is flat, the auditor then says, “Now what could that person say to you?” And when the preclear has told the auditor something, the auditor says, “All right, now say ‘okay’ to that person.” Working this back and forth one gets the preclear out of various universes, which is to say out of coincidence with various spots where he has interiorized into another universe.

The whole problem of interiorization is a problem of coinciding spots which do not actually coincide. According to the preclear and the body, the place where he had an automobile accident yesterday is right here with him today. It’s not down on the comer. The trick is to get that spot clean and into present time, and at its proper distance from the preclear.

Naturally, the process could be extended to exteriorizing the preclear out of this universe, and should be, but remember this is probably not feasible until a great many incidents have been run with the preclear brought into present time. Practically any and every psychosomatic illness there is is represented by and caused by a facsimile on the whole track which is in suspension, with its location out of location as far as the preclear is concerned.

So we are running engrams again. So we are using a mechanical aid in order to establish this. The reason we are doing this is because the preclear does not get out of a body which is so out of position that the preclear doesn’t really know where he is. The body has birth in restimulation, has some whole track incidents in restimulation, and the preclear, being used to taking his data from the body, does not know where he is. Getting the body into present time, more or less, will permit the preclear to exteriorize. Further, cases which have not exteriorized easily in the past, or which have not stayed exteriorized, can be made stable by the use of this communication process in conjunction with Spotting Spots.

One does not have to pay too much attention to the Remedy of Havingness while he is running this type of process. It is an oddity that two-way communication applied to a mass will as-is the mass without particularly depleting the havingness of the preclear. The reason he had the mass in the first place, evidently, was to have something to talk about. He is being permitted to talk about it, over it, and through it, and so is ending the cycle of why he would have that mass. In actual practice, very little Remedy of Havingness is necessary when running this type of Communication Processing as given in the above paragraph. However, there is a tendency on the part of most preclears to “chew around” or change the direction or position of the energy masses which they are handling, and when this is the case there is a certain loss of havingness by reason of heat and friction. Thus, a Remedy of Havingness sooner or later is actually used, even though Communication Processing itself does not materially reduce havingness.

It is very astonishing to find ourselves at this late date suddenly scooping back and encompassing a tremendous amount of data which we thought had been passed over and forgotten. It is startling to discover that everything we know about engrams, facsimiles, secondaries, the whole track, of the interiorization of the various types of traps, of adventures and misadventures of the thetan, without number, are all of use suddenly and forcefully to the auditor.

As a case history, an individual who has been run for some five hundred hours by various good auditors, and who is reputedly one of the toughest cases ever seen in Scientology, had his case broken completely a few days ago by the use of Spotting Spots and Communication in combination, as given. The individual was stuck in a certain present lifetime area. He was not so much stuck in one incident as he was stuck in all the incidents which took place between his eighteenth and twenty-second year. Everything and anything in that area was engramic and it was totally in restimulation, with all of its spots out of position and surrounding the preclear. One was then not auditing a preclear in present time at all, he was auditing a preclear in the area of the eighteenth or nineteenth year. The preclear was trapped in that area. The auditor asked the preclear for some things he could say to that area. The preclear then gave them to the auditor. Each time the auditor had the area say “okay” back. The auditor finally asked the preclear for things that area could say to him, and the preclear, each time, gave an “okay” back to that area. The area, at length, sprung out and took its proper position and came up to present time, and at this moment exteriorization was possible for this preclear.

Mass can be disintegrated, no matter what type of mass it is, by two-way communication. There are two types of mass. There is the first type which is simply mocked up mass in mocked up space. This we know by agreement to be the physical universe. There is a second type of mass, which is the space-mass experience mass, which we call a facsimile or an engram. This type of mass has been our target and goal since the earliest days of Dianetics, and two-way communication, used in the above fashion, can resolve this.

Some more data on this subject will be given in your next PAB. The announcement which this PAB contains is definitely a major point in the research and investigation in Dianetics and Scientology and pulls together many of the loose ends and details over which we have gone. I have worked very arduously to discover, first, data about the anatomy of man and his mind, second, the full details of this data, and third, methods of handling this data. At this time we have a method of handling this data which is very superior to anything we have had in the past and which can evidently work at any level. I invite you to try this on your preclears and then tell me how it works for you.

                                    				Best regards,

                                        				      Ron

P.A.B. No. 53
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

27 May 1955

OWNERSHIP

SPECIAL PAB

I wonder if you realize that research is paying off and has continued to pay off over the last hectic five years. In 1950 when organizations and the paper chains within them threatened to engulf all of my time, and when the absurdities in California where else?—of personal attack all but wrecked the continuing advance and finance of research, I pulled back sharply from organization and organizational matters, and made the decision that whatever else happened I would continue this line of investigation which I had begun in 1932 and would bring it forward to completion. It was my belief that this subject would go as far in the society as it worked, and no further. I confirmed this opinion in 1951 and 1952 when Big Business decided that the thing to do with Dianetics was to make millions of dollars with it, and that any further research in the matter was nonsense. The whole theory lying behind Dianetics and Scientology is a very easy one to comprehend, where it comes to its development, and that is, the subject will go as far in the societies of Man as it is workable, and no further, and no amount of advertising, and no amount of frilly stationery is going to push it an inch beyond its workability. Thus, I have continued research, whatever else I have done. Whoever and whatever has gone on harassing and barking, and whining and snarling on a hypercritical level in whatever part of the country, I have known and continued to act upon this formula.

At one time I envisioned huge staffs capable of correlating data and discovering many things. These staffs have never materialized. Where a “research department” has been formulated, as in the Elizabeth Foundation, it has been a joke, and has actually done more to impede the forward progress of research than otherwise. The sole purpose of organization has been to continue the finance of research and investigation into the human mind. The amount of finance demanded has not been very great. General Electric throws away more money on research in any month than has been spent on the entirety of Dianetics and Scientology, and they buy less for it. One of my friends—and I certainly do have them—commented the other day that Dianetics and Scientology, in the field of research, present the most astonishing picture that has ever appeared in the field of research. More actual biting data has been developed by myself under less money and under greater duress than in any other time or place. Maybe his statement was merely kind, but from where I sit, it certainly looks like it.

Very often a student or a preclear of the HASI wonders why he is paying what he does to be trained. Actually it costs about half the sum he pays to train or process him. The remainder is devoted to research. When a person buys a membership of whatever classification, almost all of that money goes into research or financing the dissemination of the material; although it costs quite a bit to keep the skeletal framework of an organization as big as the HASI running, it is yet capable of continuing on the funds it receives. Very few people, even students and preclears, realize this, but here is what is being done; and it’s time you took a good square look at this, when people out in the bullrushes start whining about the HASI. Every dime spent with the HASI is guaranteeing the continued freedom of Dianetics and Scientology. These subjects have been lucky enough not to get into such financial straits that they could not extricate themselves from ownership and control of persons who would have utilized them to the detriment of Man. Dianetics and Scientology have not depended upon large donations from personally interested persons. It is highly doubtful if the HASI would accept a colored donation which was meant in actuality to guide or steer the policy of “develop and disseminate.” Although various materials of Dianetics and Scientology have occasionally been tendered to official and private agencies, any effort on the part of these to monopolize or to classify under security headings this data, would not only have been resisted, it would have been defeated. Because Dianetics and Scientology and the existing organizations have been financed in this fashion, Dianetics and Scientology are free, and will not be used in the direction of some George Orwellian nightmare.

If you find something wrong with the organization of the HASI, its personnel or people, and if you criticize this weakly or strongly, remember you are criticizing your own organization. It’s not somebody else’s organization—it’s yours; and if you criticize constantly and continually about the various ills to which any human organization is subject, allowing of course that the HASI IS a human organization, you’re making it just that much tougher to get this job done. Actually, flatly, there is nothing wrong that cannot be corrected with any part of the organization of Dianetics and Scientology anywhere in the world. The HASI is far more efficient than most modern businesses, but rubbing elbows as it does with the human race day after day it is subject to breaks and omissions. The difference is that when it becomes aware of them it repairs them. If you think this level of efficiency should be raised, then why don’t you come down to Phoenix or London, or any other central office, and get to work. It’s your organization.

Or why don’t you do a better job of dissemination right where you are. The HASI today on the local scene is cutting a very deep swath into the society where it is immediately centered. Its main job, of course, is an international job and it pays most attention to this. It is actually doing a very great deal these days right here in Phoenix. It is working on very friendly terms with most of the civic organizations in town, and it is now working with the probation officers on juvenile delinquency and criminal problems.

Maybe one of the first things people should learn about Dianetics and Scientology is that there is nothing selfish in its forward thrust, and the only toes it ever steps on are the inefficient or the vicious ones. If the HASI makes an error, or some auditor makes an error, it should be put down to inefficiency, or lack of time, or too much to do, and from my experience, exempting of course those few auditors whose certificates have been yanked for very good and ample reason, the heart with which people in Scientology work is a good heart. They may make mistakes, but they don’t make them knowingly, and what is most important, they correct them when they have made them.

I hear a lot of whining and moaning here and there about how bad it is over here, but I notice it is always from people who are totally incompetent and who depend for their communication line on their imagination, and with as little recourse to fact as possible.

It is quite interesting that almost any influential person who is interested in Dianetics and Scientology sooner or later will begin to be the target of squirrel publications. These publications are uniformly run by people who will not accept processing, and none of these squirrel publications are written or published by personnel trained in Dianetics and Scientology, and most of the people back of these squirrel publications are M.D.’s or Psychologists. Now, it is a remarkable thing that influential people receiving this literature believe they are receiving material from Dianeticists or Scientologists. The moment I became aware of the fact that this was going on and that poorly informed people actually did believe that Dianeticists and Scientologists trained in the subject were the authors of this barrage of nutty literature, I began to take action on a punitive level. And I can solemnly guarantee you that in a relatively short space of time none of these squirrel publications written by unlettered and untrained goof-balls will be in existence, for it has been clearly indicated to me that they have very often impeded the organization and made the HASI struggle in order to get this job of research done. If one of these publications prevented just one desperate preclear from seeking and obtaining the help he needed from the HASI, then frankly, I can promise a short circuit. We have begun to act very punitively in this direction—as a minor endeavor, to be sure, but nevertheless as an effective one, for remember that we have never done anything that is not eventually effective. That is a very awesome record. I would also like to point out to you that each and every one of the squirrels of yesteryear have met disaster. The biggest squirrel in Great Britain, Derricke Ridgway, was recently to be found in bankruptcy court. I wonder how he got there? We wouldn’t know anything about that, of course!

Recently we tackled California where half a dozen people have been keeping several million from having any respect for or interest in Dianetics and Scientology. These people would call a vast number of potentially interested public in and then tell them things which were calculated to disgrace and discredit the subject. The auditors in California sat around supinely and thought there must be some very good reason why these people kept on doing this. Of course the amazing thing is the apathy of the auditor himself who would permit this sort of thing to go on. I know if anybody were operating in my area with a media-type of attitude toward Scientology, who sent out vast numbers of postcards to mailing lists and got all the people in so that he could make an ass out of himself about how awful Scientology really was, and how bad the organization really was, and how it was all wild and flighty anyhow, I would have had a good fight on my hands, and somebody would have lost, and I don’t think it would have been me. Personally, if I were an auditor and found my area being muddied up to that extent, I would have a definite feeling, if I permitted it to go on, that I was not doing all I could do to spread Scientology in my area. I would have taken such a screwball out of the running so fast he would have thought he had been hit by a Mack truck, and I don’t mean thought-wise. But then the difference between me and an apathetic auditor is that I fight, and I get things done.

Of course there is always liability in attacking a source of entheta. One always gets a certain amount rubbed off on himself, but I am not so scared of this stuff that I won’t contact it. Right after we found that the CADA* in California was trying to put out of the running any and all Dianetic Auditing in the entire state by having legislation passed to forbid it, and after we pulled the certificates of the ringleaders for this entheta activity, a great many things happened—very strange things.

I don’t intend to stop anybody’s communication line as long as it has a shadow of truth in it, but when a communication line is woven from totally self-interested lies, I will not only cut the line, I will make it bounce.

Now the only real trouble with Dianetic and Scientology organizations in the past is because of this matter of research. We have not been very alert to people working their ill will from whatever reasons or causes in our own ranks. We just haven’t been interested. The important thing was to get the material researched and to get people trained. When we had that job done and when it was done very, very well, the spread of Dianetics and Scientology in the society would be inevitable. We need five thousand trained auditors. That is our first step toward this dissemination, for believe me, what we are doing with cases today wasn’t done last year, and has never before been done in the history of the human race. We need a clear public presence, and so we are taking a bulldozer to the communication perverters. We are putting ourselves in solid on every front where we can be effective. It is interesting that the American Psychological Association lost, hands down, a bill which was directly aimed at the HASI in Arizona. It lost so badly that it is doubtful that it will ever recover. We are not even vaguely propitiative toward medicine or psychiatry, and we are overtly intent upon assimilating every function they are now performing. We have great belief in the value of a welltrained doctor, and the psychiatrist is certainly welcome to the psychotic. We do not believe that the organizations of these people should have any bearing or influence in the world at large, for they have used their influence in the past to impede research.

We get terribly amused when some auditor writes in and says he has managed to address the local medical association, and when we hear that somebody is now calling himself a psychologist. These short-sighted people believe that the labor union called the AMA or the APA is worth propitiating and will be there long enough to influence anything. The general attitude amongst the Powers That Be in these organizations has definitely changed toward Dianetics and Scientology. They now regard these as a very serious and deadly menace. These people are getting scared. We know this because we had a recent reaction at a very high echelon. There is no real danger in these organizations. There is more danger in our own stupidity and in an apathy which would permit our fields to be plowed by any untrained fool who wants to tell us all how bad it is over there. We’ve been told how bad it is over there for seventy-six trillion years. It’s about time somebody said how good it can be somewhere. And that’s what we are doing.

I am telling you this because I want you to know how I feel about this, and maybe knowing how I feel about it, and knowing how inevitable I feel about the success of Dianetics and Scientology in this society of Man, you will be better able to understand both what we have been doing, what we are doing, and what we are going to do in Dianetics and Scientology. 

5506C03 ASMC-3 History of Research and Investigation

One good thing about a hellfire and brimstone type of religion is that it  at least acknowledges the existence of the spirit.  The Scopes trial was a  turning point, in which the theory that man is merely a machine became  fashionable.

In past years, there was great spiritual awareness and perception Even as  recently as the sixteenth century, duelist’s used to have an embarrassing  thing happen: when they killed the opponent, he’d exteriorize and zap them and  pester them afterwards.  As mechanical knowledge increased, spiritual  awareness decreased; people thought this was progress, despite the increase in  amount of madness.  If there’s no spiritual liability to destroying other  people and their possessions, one would expect crime to become more prevalent,  and so it does.

5506C06 ASMC-15 What Scientology is Doing

We need a better social order.  When an organization says it’s above  reproach or an individual claims he’s untouchable, chaos ensues.  The control  and direction of man depends upon the good will and good state of man, not  upon iron bars, cells, shock machines.  A society is as sick as it has sick  members.  The way to make a society well, however, isn’t just to cure the sick  only.  If the members of the society were sufficiently well, they’d have no  problem pulling the fallen out of the mud.  This depends on the condition of  man, not on a few specialists.  When it becomes a specialty, man is dead,  because the best of man comes into being when he can aid his needy fellows.  When men are made to feel they have no right to assist their fellows, the  society is sick.

In creating an organization, LRH doesn’t want to merely replace one  despotic system with another one, using the existing comm lines: This is what  happens in a revolution.  No nation is ever overthrown; they are just  substituted for.  If scientology did this, they could probably create an  organization powerful enough to overrun all in its path.  But then this would  just have to be overthrown.

Scientology possesses great potential for good or evil, depending on how  it is relayed.  Poorly relayed, used just for gain, it could be very  destructive.  LRH has already had three offers by persons in places of power to hand over a great deal of information and  stop talking.

Helping the insane is usually an effort to reverse whatever  self-determinism they have left.  A person who is psychotic has at one time  decided to die; he has not subsequently decided to live.  They abandon the  body, unable to let go and unwilling to reassume responsibility.  The longer  you stop a being that wants to die from dying, the worse off he gets.  The  truly insane should not have therapy, but space, sunlight, minimal restraints,  quiet, food.  This gives the individual a chance to change his mind and decide  to live again.  Exhaustion and insanity are almost synonymous.  A person who  is sane, who wants to live, who is willing to take responsibility for doing  something about his condition, can be in much worse shape than an insane  person, but he will be auditable and will get better because he wants to  live.  Insanity is a death wish of great magnitude; sanity returns when a  person decides to live.

Psychosomatic illness is overrated, being universally present as unwanted  sensation or absence of sensation; it’s not illness.  It comes about when  someone is called upon to prove something and fails.  Some processes for  this:

1. What have you got that would prove it? (not about anything specific)  or 

1.a. What will (disability) get you into?   b. What will (disability) get you out of?    

then, when flat:

2. What can you prove with it?  [the disability].

Here we run into the computation that any sensation is better than no  sensation and that he should have something to get sympathy and avoid guilt.  But the thetan is to be able to invent a whole new category of ills before  he’ll give up one he’s got.  [Hence, “Invent something worse than  (illness).”]

Death was invented on the whole track as a substitute for insanity, which  was being so irresponsible that punishment was pointless.  You could get  anyone to change his mind about wanting to die if you could get into comm with  him.

“I want you to come into possession of all that you know, and I want you  to use that knowledge with security.  And any mission I have here on this  planet at this time will be successful at that time when what I have just said  has been accomplished.” 

P.A.B. No. 54
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

10 June 1955

REALITY LEVEL OF PRECLEAR

Find the reality of the preclear. This is the watchword of processing. Although communication, as completely outlined in Dianetics, 1955! is a universal solvent, remember that there are also two other comers to the triangle, and that one of these corners is Reality. That R corner of the triangle is very important to you as an auditor because you, having very great certainties on this and on that, are very prone to forget that your Realities are greater than those of your preclear.

The reality level of the preclear is dependent on how much he is “not-ising” his environment. If he is not-ising it, he must believe that it is dangerous, and must believe that he himself does not have the power to make anything in it disappear or vanish for himself. Therefore, his reality level is as great as he is strong, and it is as poor as he is weak. Do you know that you are processing preclears who do not believe that thought has anything to do with action? You are processing preclears who believe that thinking a thought will influence nothing. You are processing preclears who believe that thinkingness is one thing and actingness is an entirely different thing, and that no amount of thinkingness is going to influence any amount of actingness. This is apathy, indeed, and along with that goes an unreality which would appall you.

Yes, these preclears can get mock-ups. They can get concepts. They can be very obedient. They can even be run with SOP 8-C and somehow or another muddle through it, but the joker here is that the auditor is actually monitoring the body of the preclear, and of course a body can respond to orders, and will respond probably faster to the auditor’s orders than to the thetan the auditor is processing. Thus a preclear can be put through any number of contortions and convolutions in processing without getting anywhere at all. The auditor is simply doing it.

Find the reality level of your preclear. Unless you find the reality level of the preclear you are not going to reach the preclear, because the preclear is as alive as things are real.

Now, if this is so important, then let us see how far south we would have to go to reach some preclears. Mechanical two-way communication might very well be much too tough for 75% of the preclears you will process. Just ordinary conversation is actually over their heads. People that we are trying to reach do not know the auditor is acknowledging them when he says “Okay.”

Let us look at this acknowledgment of the preclear, and let us discover that the auditor, in order to acknowledge the preclear, must also make the preclear aware that he is being acknowledged. Thus, when an auditor says “Okay,” or “All right,” or “That’s fine,” the other part of the statement is to make the preclear aware that an acknowledgment has been delivered. Thus, a “Did you hear me?” is quite often beneficial. When the preclear finally admits that he did hear the “Okay,” and when the auditor makes sure that he time after time hears the “Okay,” you will notice that the communication, on the acknowledgment level, starts to work with the preclear. But it won’t work as long as the preclear is oblivious of the “Okays” the auditor is giving. Of course, you must give the preclear an “Okay” for every action or completed thought he performs. You must acknowledge what he has said or done, but you must also be very sure that he receives that acknowledgment. It is not out of order to face him squarely and hold up one finger and say, “Wait a minute, did you hear me say ‘Okay’?”

Now there are two processes which are at once the most basic of processes and which are very low on the Reality Scale as well as high on it. A person processed on these processes should not believe that the auditor believes his reality level is low. Quite the contrary. Such a process as this one happens to be very good anywhere on the tone scale. And this process is, “Think a thought,” “Receive a thought.”

You are in essence processing thinkingness. I wonder how long and how often you have processed preclears who could not clearly or differentiatively understand that they were thinking a thought? The auditing command is simply, “Think a thought.” The preclear is given this command time and time again, and he vocalizes the thought back to the auditor, and the auditor acknowledges the fact that he has received that thought, aloud. And the preclear is run until the preclear knows, absolutely, that he himself, not some machine, not some energy mass, not his toe, or his hat, is thinking the thought. The preclear will start out thinking thoughts which are actually handed to him from some mysterious source. When the communication lag on this is entirely flat, and when the preclear knows that he himself is thinking the thought, the auditor can then run the other side of the process.

“Receive a thought” is run with the following auditing command: “Tell me a thought you would be willing to receive.” This is then run until it, as a process, is entirely flat: when it is no longer producing any result or comm lag.

Part of the “Think a thought” process is to have the preclear place the thought in various locations after he has thought it. Have his shoe think a thought, have his hat think a thought, have a lamp think the thought, have a rug think the thought. This gets the preclear into the practice of placing the thought somewhere. Thus, thoughts are less likely to appear suddenly and magically out of his machinery.

Very curious phenomena result from “Think a thought” and “Receive a thought.” It will be found sometimes that it is easier for the preclear to think a thought for another universe than for himself to think a thought. Let us take for example a preclear who is entirely interiorized into the universe of his mother. It would, therefore, evidently be much easier for him to have his mother think a thought than for the preclear himself to think a thought. As a matter of fact it might be an enormous struggle, resulting in rebellion, for the preclear himself to think a thought, but it would be very easy for the preclear to have his mother think a thought. The way to go about this would be to take an E-Meter, or simply estimate, by finding out who the preclear most resembles, the probable universe into which the preclear is interiorized. Having established this (and you would only do this if the preclear were rebellious about thinking a thought himself) you would then have this likely universe think a thought, with the auditing command (having established that he is interiorized into his mother’s or his father’s universe): “Have your mother (father) think a thought.” This would then be carried out until the preclear was absolutely sure that he was making his mother or his father think a thought. This would betoken an initial division of the universe.

Slicing up universes with communication processes is a very easy thing to do. All one has to do is use the process: “What could you say to your father?” and have the preclear say it, and get an Okay from his father. And when this was flat, “What could your father say to you?”, and when the preclear has vocalized this, the auditor would say, “Now give your father an ‘Okay’ to this.” However, this workable process which splits universes (in old-time parlance “valences”) is yet much too high for a preclear who is very low on reality, and would take a very long time to do. It would be a process into which you would eventually move the preclear who had been thinking a thought for his mother, but remember that thinking a thought for his mother would be only a start into communication processing, and would be an elementary process, run until the preclear is entirely certain that he is thinking a thought that his mother would think or that he can make his mother think a thought—the latter being the most desirable condition.

You should be aware of the fact that you are processing thinkingness. You are not processing spaces, you are not processing masses at this day and state of development of Dianetics and Scientology. You are processing thinkingness. A man is as well as he thinks. The more masses and spaces, phrases and engrams you process, the less you are validating the fact that you are actually processing a thinkingness: a thinkingness that we call a thetan. To process this directly is, of course, the most indicated process there could be, and sure enough, we are producing good results with it. But the remarkable thing about the process is that it works on people who heretofore have had very, very poor reality.

Now there is a process which is a little bit lower than this “Think a thought” process, and this is the process of finding something real in the room. Recently I have had some very excellent results with “Find something in this room that is comfortably real.” This is a variation on the initial auditing command as given in the early SOPs. It is apparently better. A preclear who is not-ising everything in sight will find things real, he says, but actually he is not comfortable about it, and if you ask him to find something that is comfortably real, it may take him a long time to discover anything that he would tolerate to continue existence, and once you have begun this process of toleration you would be able to do a great deal for his case.

“Find something comfortably real” is not necessarily a low-toned process. It will work in varying degrees on anyone. It is not recommended for any particular case level. If a preclear utterly bogs on “Think a thought” (which isn’t likely), then you should have him “Find something in this room that is comfortably real to you.”

I am reminded of an auditor recently processing a very bad arthritic, who processed him as an exteriorized case for some little time without any apparent gain in the case before it occurred to this auditor that something must be wrong. Actually, a great amount of time was invested. The auditor asked Nibs, my boy who was then instructing the ACC course in the United States, and who is at this writing in England, teaching the BScn course there, what could possibly be wrong with this hung-fire preclear. Nibs looked him over and discovered that the auditor had never yet gotten the preclear into any kind of a situation which was even vaguely real to the preclear. The auditor in one chair and the preclear in the other chair was not a real situation to this preclear, and yet the auditor was running him as an exteriorized case. Of course he was exteriorized, but with such a low level of reality that very little benefit of course was resulting from the processing.

Processing is as beneficial as it is real and factual to the preclear, and if you cannot raise the preclear’s reality level by the use of Affinity and Communication, then you are letting the whole triangle hang fire. This triangle of ARC may have suddenly gotten very important on the C corner, but it is still foremost in the tool-kit of the auditor.

Now you will want to know why you should use “Think a thought” when what is obviously wrong with the preclear you have in mind is a withered leg. Let me assure you that if you process directly this withered leg, you are processing something and somebody who probably has a very low level of reality. He wouldn’t have a withered leg if he had a high level of reality. Where you have anybody who is neurologically, physically, or psychosomatically ill, unless it be from an acute infection or an accident, you have somebody who has been trying to not-is his body. When an individual is not-ising his body, making his legs wither, or his stomach get ulcers, or his head get migraine headaches, or his teeth fall out, you have somebody who is trying to not-is the environment. He is already going in the direction of succumb. The one thing that would make him very happy would be the entire disappearance of the physical universe. Well, with modern processing you can make this happen, too, and maybe this is something you should have happen for him in order to demonstrate that it could happen. Of course, if you did this you would have to go through a modern BScn course at least, for this is a very tricky procedure. In view of the fact that unreality is the action of realizing things are there and then saying they aren’t there (not-ising them; see Creation of Human Ability and the Axioms of Scientology) you are dealing with a protest against reality which results in unreality. A person will let things be as real as he is willing to let them exist. When an individual isn’t willing to let a leg or a tree, or this universe exist, then things are not real to him. One of the best ways you could get him to raise his level of reality would be to give him some reality on thinkingness. It isn’t actingness, it isn’t getting tired, it isn’t being unable to work, it isn’t the second dynamic that impedes your preclear—it is his thinkingness. All you have to do is to get him to change his mind. If you could get anyone to change his mind enough he could then command anything that was bothering him. But a preclear who is not-ising things is trying to use force and pressure of one kind or another against physical objects and spaces in order to push them out of existence. This will never win, let me assure you. Energy will never destroy energy, I don’t care how many atomic bombs the peanut whistly brigade builds, they will never destroy any space or energy with them. Your preclear who finds things unreal has stopped trying to do anything with thought and is trying to do something with force. He no longer conceives that thought can generate or handle or give existence or life to space and energy.

Now you take this to heart, and take a good, hard look at some of these preclears you have been processing on very fancy and frilly processes, and you take a think back over all of these preclears who, after you processed them, didn’t think anything had happened. When the preclear didn’t think anything had happened, nothing happened. What was in error? You were processing him above his level of reality. If you could get him to think a thought and know he thought it, and receive a thought and know he had received it, even though he put it there to receive it, which is what he does, you would then be directly addressing the very thing that is doing unreality and reality. An individual who has a compulsive outflow is simply unwilling to receive a thought. An individual who is silent simply can’t think of anything. Thus, if an individual had control of his thoughts he would have control of the universe. We can prove this now in a process.

And don’t think you are going to finish this process, either side of it, in a half-hour or forty-five minutes. Some of these glib preclears you process will “fall in” on this process and begin to comm-lag an hour or two after you start processing them on it. The main errors which have been made with this process so far have been failing to run it long enough to have the preclear really know and really understand that he, himself, has thought the thought and that he, himself, has received the thought, or is willing to receive the thought.

“Find the reality level of the preclear” is one of those bywords that you can’t use too often or look at enough. 

Major 4                                 [1955, ca. early July]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D. C.

STRAIGHT WIRE

A MANUAL OF OPERATION

L. Ron Hubbard

ARTICLE ONE

Modern Straight Wire

On the theory that someone may pick up this book and have only time to read a few lines, or have a constricted ability in amount of material assimilable, right here in a hurry I wish to give you the type of Straight Wire which is today producing phenomenal results on preclears.
THE COMMAND: Recall a moment of ______ .
NUMBER OF TIMES COMMAND USED: Until the complete flattening of the preclear’s communication lag takes place, so that he can readily and at some length and quantity give replies without any difficulty.
COMMUNICATION: Always acknowledge with an “O.K.” or an “all right” every answer which the preclear gives you. Always let the preclear originate any communication he wishes to originate, or comment on the process, and acknowledge his origin of communication or comment. In other words, do not override his effort to communicate to you as this will considerably reduce his tone rise.
DUPLICATION: Make sure that you, the auditor, duplicate the command over, and over, and over until the comm lag is flat, and do not be detoured by any rationale of your own into any other process simply because you are unwilling to continue the duplication of the command.
APPLICATION: In the blank space of the command can be placed any subject of any concern or consideration of the preclear whether theta or entheta.
EXAMPLE: The preclear is studious. The auditor then applies Straight Wire in this fashion: “Recall a moment of studiousness.” The preclear does so and says that he has or describes the time. It will be observed that the first one may take a considerable length of time and that the length of time intervening between the question and the reply will vary from here on until the communication lag is entirely flat, which means that the process may have to be continued for half an hour, an hour, or many hours. The communication lag is known to be flat when the replies are readily given without pause or hesitation and without any comment on the preclear’s part. The moment the preclear says he has recalled a time or describes the time he has recalled, which is optional, the auditor says, “O.K.” or “all right,” acknowledging the fact that he has received the preclear’s communication, at which moment the auditor then places the exact question once more. An additional symptom of a flat process is that the preclear will no longer be studious. But, as preclears do not know how studious they are, it is best to run the process until the communication lag is flat. It is not necessary for the auditor to demand NEW times every time. The preclear can recall the same time if he desires to do so.
OBSERVED PHENOMENON: The time track phenomenon will be observed while delivering this Straight Wire question. It will manifest itself in this fashion. The first answers of the preclear will probably be relatively close to present time and then will be further back into the past, at which time they will begin to progress (at some time they will begin to progress forward into the future) and will come close to present time again, when they will once more turn around and go into the past and then come into the future. In other words, the preclear will give the time A DAY OR SO AGO when he was studious, then a time A YEAR OR SO AGO when he was studious, then a time WHEN HE WAS A CHILD when he was studious, then a time WHEN HE WAS SIXTEEN when he was studious, then a time LAST YEAR when he was studious, then a time THREE DAYS AGO when he was studious, then a time TWO YEARS AGO when he was studious, then a time when he was THREE YEARS OLD and he was studious, then a time when he was EIGHT YEARS OLD and he was studious, then a time YESTERDAY when he was studious, and so forth. In other words, the preclear sweeps up and down the time track. The caution to be observed in this is, never leave the process when the preclear is recalling moments which are far into the past. Leave the process when the preclear is recalling times relatively close to present time. Otherwise you stick the preclear on the track.
GOAL OF THE PROCESS: The goal of many processes is to raise the selfdeterminism of the preclear. Memory is an automaticity which is not under the control of the preclear. By taking over the automaticities of memory and forgetting the preclear is capable of greater self-determinism. In view of the fact that all mass could be said to be memory, you will see at once that Straight Wire leads to the control of mass.
PREREQUISITES TO SESSION: Present must be an auditor, a preclear, a place to audit and time in which to audit.
WHEN THE SESSION HAS BEGUN: The session is actually in progress and the process is ready to be administered only when the preclear is aware of the fact that an auditor is present, that HE is present, that the auditing room is present and that an auditing session is in progress. TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION or asking the preclear to locate objects in the room simply by NOTICING THAT THEY ARE THERE (a lower process than Two-Way Communication) should then be engaged upon until such time as the preclear is aware of his surroundings and the condition.
ON WHAT PRECLEAR TO USE STRAIGHT WIRE: Straight Wire can be used on any preclear who is AWARE OF HIS SURROUNDINGS, THE AUDITOR, AND AUDITING SESSION AND WHO HAS REALITY UPON THE GOAL OF AUDITING. This is signalized by the preclear being in fairly good two-way communication with the auditor. Straight Wire should not be employed on preclears who are in very poor two-way communication.
SUBJECTS ON WHICH STRAIGHT WIRE CAN BE USED: Straight Wire can be employed on ANY SUBJECT OR CONDITION. It will be discovered that the straight wire processes are PROBABLY THE BEST RESOLUTION OF BLACK CASES. The resolution of a black case is indeed contained rather succinctly in the auditing command, “Recall a time when you were looking at blackness.” The entire HIDE to SERENITY scale can be employed with considerable tone change in the preclear. The key to exteriorization lies in the auditing command: “Recall a time when you were in or associated with a body.” Peculiarities, physical deformities or conditions of any kind could be used on the above straight wire basis with success.

I have given you this brief rundown on Modern Straight Wire, not because it is all there is to say on the subject, but because I wanted to give you the exact essentials present in Modern Straight Wire as rapidly and as efficiently as possible, so that they could be used without having to go through a great deal of material. However, a person, to use Straight Wire, should know a great deal about Straight Wire. While he could simply use the essentials above and could produce a considerable change in a case on any subject, an auditor who is not skilled would be held up by the duplication factor. He would have a tendency, under, of course, very good alibis of his own, to desert the command itself before the process was flat. He would have a tendency to change the command to something else. He would have a tendency to go on excursive trips into the side roads of the process, since a great many comments, considerations and phenomena will come up while Straight Wire is in progress. The self-discipline necessary to continue an auditing command over, and over, and over, and over is not a light discipline. In fact we could say that an auditor who has not himself had a great deal of duplication run would find himself very resistive to repeating this auditing command to a preclear for a long period of time. However, this does not go to say that an auditor in terrible condition himself, knowing this fact, could not then grit his teeth and pitch in and go on and continue a two-way communication with the preclear, and go on and ask this auditing question over, and over, and over, and over until the preclear’s case was solved. Not only is this possible, but it has been done very often. And, in fact, we have a great deal of respect for auditors who, although they themselves are in relatively poor condition, yet go on and produce tremendous advances in cases. We, of course, get more enthusiastic about auditors who are in good shape, producing good results, but we cannot but admire the stick-to-itivity some auditors have in carrying through processes which are above their own case level.
Now, just because we have a modern Straight Wire which is interestingly exact in its application and very predictable in its results, is no reason why we have to throw away all other processes. The Six Basic Steps, done as they are done today, are, of course, of great value and do not go into the discard simply because we have a more effective, more exact and simpler Straight Wire.
There is one particular caution which should be observed in administering Straight Wire: that A PRECLEAR WILL VERY OFTEN GIVE A NO-COMM-LAG REACTION TO A PROCESS WHICH IS ABOVE HIS LEVEL. He will not get well on the process; he will not improve on the process, but also he does not comm-lag on the process. The process is being done more or less by some circuit. It is being done without any reality and it is not involving the preclear at all. One has to go far enough south so that the preclear develops a comm lag. Now, if you were to run Straight Wire on some preclear and simply get your answers every two or three seconds and keep getting answers for a long period of time, you would discover at length that the process was not improving the preclear. The reason the process is not improving the preclear is because the process is above the preclear and the preclear has no reality upon his recalls or his answers. In such a wise it would be very wise to start in below Two-Way Communication and get the preclear to spot objects in the room. Not walk over to them, or perform an 8-C, which is above Straight Wire on the tone scale, but simply to look around and find that there is a chair in the room, that there is a table, and so on. This done for a while orients the preclear and it is discovered that he will go into two-way communication with the auditor. Two-Way Communication, then, about the preclear’s everyday life should ensue, and after this, R2-20, PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS, should be run flat on the preclear, for the preclear who is very short on problems and who is incapable of arriving at solutions is not likely to give up any case problem and is not likely to arrive at any solution. So, we understand that there are actually three points below Straight Wire. Now, a preclear who would need Problems and Solutions run on him at great length is liable, oddly enough, not to comm-lag on Straight Wire and also not to improve upon it. In this wise, the preclear’s reality on the question or the response is very low and he is simply being monitored by the auditor. The auditor is more or less running all of the preclear’s machinery, an oddity which we observe in some auditing sessions. Although the auditor is running the preclear’s machinery, neither the auditor nor the preclear is aware of it. The auditor isn’t aware of it because he would rather not be, and the preclear isn’t aware of it because he isn’t aware of very much anyhow. Just as an automobile doesn’t much care who drives it, so do some low toned preclears not care who is running the circuits.
A variation on Modern Straight Wire, a little older but still quite effective, is “Give me something you wouldn’t mind remembering,” and “Give me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting.” These two commands are run independently of each other, not alternately, and each is flattened. These are very, very effective commands. It is remarkable that “Give me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting” hits people who are dislocated so hard that a many-hour comm lag may ensue on the question. These people are afraid to forget anything. This is very, very effective auditing and is not discarded. It can be used a little lower on the scale than Modern Straight Wire, but it is slower.
An auditor should test Straight Wire very rigorously in the recommended form given above before forming any forthright opinions concerning it. He should observe that running this Straight Wire on a very low toned preclear produces no comm lag and no betterment of the preclear. This is the first thing he should learn about it. Then he should learn that run in its proper place on a preclear who is in two-way communication and is in fair condition, it produces remarkable, stable results which last for a very long time. It is not a trick process. It is a plow-horse sort of process, but once it has hauled the preclear up the scale it leaves him there. A preclear’s continued stability for a long time after an auditing session is very desirable. The trick momentary flash results sometimes do not last. An auditor should also learn that he himself is capable of repeating one command over, and over, and over, and over, without varying it, without getting so bored with it that he himself goes out of the auditing session. Remember, when the auditor leaves the auditing session (although he is still there giving auditing commands) it sometimes occurs that very little auditing gets done, since an auditing session of necessity has to have an auditor and a preclear present and auditing in progress.
It will be startling to you to know that this process is a specific process for a black case and does relieve the black case’s blackness. And, after and above the black case level this process is a specific for non-exteriorization and will produce exteriorization if “Recall a time when you were in or associated with a body” is employed over a long enough period of time.
There is a great deal more to know about Straight Wire. There are a great deal of phenomena which occur in Straight Wire and there are many other data to be studied about Straight Wire. However, if the auditor cares to study these, first let him learn thoroughly what we mean by Modern Straight Wire and that is laid out above with exactness.

ARTICLE TWO

The History of Straight Wire

The old Dianetic auditor will have no difficulty in recalling the earliest days of Straight Wire.
Once upon a time Straight Wire was one of the most intricate, tricky, intuitive processes known. There were auditors who were excellent at this, but they were alone in their skill. There were many, many auditors who never did make Straight Wire work.
Straight Wire of the old Dianetic type, expertly done, many times produced such fascinating results that auditors would then specialize in it, but, because it has often failed, their specialization would be tempered with a restless search for some other process that would do the job with greater exactness.
The genus of Straight Wire immediately followed the release of “The First Book,” Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, on May 9, 1950. I developed Straight Wire a little too late to get it into the text of that book, but taught the first ten students at 42 Aberdeen Road, Elizabeth, New Jersey, this process and actually got these students sufficiently expert in the use of Straight Wire that they could straighten out present time problems on preclears with remarkable facility.
Here is an example of the earliest form of Straight Wire: A preclear is observed to be possessed of a nervous affliction—the rapid blinking of one eye. The auditor asks him, “Who had that affliction?” and asks him this with sufficient communication and discussion so that the preclear at length actually SPOTS A TIME WHEN HE OBSERVED THIS AFFLICTION IN ANOTHER THAN HIMSELF. Now, today with our understanding of Ownership Processing, as covered in the Congress of Eastern Scientologists on June third to sixth [1955] at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., it becomes highly technical, for naturally the affliction, if it persisted, must be misowned. But, it would also be understood that the preclear himself might be the creator of the condition. If the preclear himself had created the eye twitch at some time in his past, recalling it in somebody else would simply reinforce the eye twitch; thus Straight Wire would not work. As, let us say crudely, this condition exists in about 50% of the cases on whom Straight Wire was used, we certainly would have, by the factors involving ownership, a misunderstanding of the process and a great many failures.
In view of the fact that a thing persists only if it is misowned—if a person himself has created it and says somebody else has created it or if a person is saying he created something which somebody else actually created—we get a persistence of the space or mass. If a person created the condition and then says that he himself created the condition, a vanishment of the condition will occur. If somebody else, a specific person, created the condition and the preclear says that person created the condition, then again we get a vanishment. Only when we misown or miscall the creation of a condition do we get a persistence. Thus we can see that the earliest Straight Wire depended in a great measure upon calling the correct ownership; and recalling the correct ownership by recalling observation of the condition in somebody else would be then sufficient to bring about a diminishment of the condition.
Thus, repeating, Straight Wire would not work on conditions which the person had himself created, as long as the auditing command was “Recall a time when you saw that in somebody else.” This would have to be supplemented by “Recall a time when you decided this was a good thing.” And if those two auditing commands had been used on any condition and if we had also known about comm lag and duplication of the question, then Straight Wire would have been very successful. As a matter of fact it was quite successful and quite startling but had the above limitations.
Now, the earliest type of Straight Wire was interesting in that it did not embrace the case that couldn’t remember. To handle this type of case we invented a variation, which was simply to ask the preclear to remember something, anything, and keep him remembering something or anything until his confidence in his own memory rose to a point where he could remember and thus could experience the benefit of old-time Straight Wire. An example of this variation was to ask somebody if he could remember something that had happened today or something that he had had for breakfast, and keep on asking him for various things until he did have a solid reality on one recall or another.
But this too was quite limited as to process, and in order to further improve memories we came out with what is now known as the next-to-the-last list of Self Analysis, which is “Recall something real,” “Recall a time when you were in communication with someone,” “Recall a time when someone was in communication with you,” “Recall a time when you felt some affinity for someone,” “Recall a time when someone felt some affinity for you,” which process capitalized on the ARC triangle which we came out with in July of 1950, which was much better described in the book Notes on the Lectures of November of 1950 and expanded considerably in Science of Survival which was written in the spring of 1951 and released that summer, the above list appearing in Self Analysis, which was written in September of 1951.
Succeeding this “next-to-the-last list of Self Analysis” was Validation Straight Wire, the theory of which was to validate all the good moments in the preclear’s past by having him recall them. An oddity immediately demonstrated itself, however, in the use of Validation Straight Wire to the effect that the preclear would recall just so many moments which were good and would then fall off into moments which were very bad indeed. This phenomenon had, by the way, been observed much earlier as a comment on the running of pleasure moments, a process developed by Parker Morgan in Elizabeth in 1950.
After Validation Straight Wire the whole subject of Straight Wire more or less fell into disrepute and decay, and a great deal of concentration was given to actual incidents on the whole track and an enormous amount of phenomena which had been dug up through my work in Wichita. Only “next-to-the-last list of Self Analysis” continued to be used right up to the time when we developed “Something you wouldn’t mind remembering,” “Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting,” in one of the clinical units of the summer of 1954. Immediately a great many limitations on Straight Wire were swept away and Straight Wire became a much more important process because it was getting much better results. Here for the first time we had entered into the idea that forgettingness was an actual attribute. In other words, it was a skill. A person forgot things so that he could have things. And, realizing that this was a skill and that it was on full automatic we, of course, had the reason why people were not able to remember. They were so anxious to forget.
In the spring of 1955, in the tenth clinical unit, we discovered that “something you wouldn’t mind FORGETTING” was far, far more important than “something you wouldn’t mind remembering,” and made several tests which demonstrated a considerable rise in tone as a result of using this single command: “Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting.” However, because many more interesting things were showing up and occurring we did not give this really the attention it deserved, and actually to this moment the process is not as thoroughly tried as it might be. It might very well occur that this process would succeed many other processes as something which would produce a long-continued and stable result.
With the first clinical unit [October 5—November 16, 1953], which was taught in Camden, New Jersey, we made a considerable codification of “automaticity” and “randomity,” which had first been introduced in the Philadelphia lectures of December, 1952. The understanding of these two things demonstrated that THE GREATEST AUTOMATICITY IN WHICH ANYONE WAS ENGAGED WAS REMEMBERING AND FORGETTING. Thus, exercises on remembering and forgetting were, of course, very, very important.
It should be understood, then, that no amount of engram running or present time processes would handle this highly specialized thing, automatic remembering and automatic forgetting. And in view of the role remembering and forgetting play in everyday living we couldn’t consider the person very thoroughly processed unless we had taken his memory into account. Thus, whatever other processes are run on the individual, something should be done in order to bring this automatic memory factor under control.
We have rather suspected of recent months that it is not necessary to have a great versatility of subject in remembering in order to restore memory. The mere act of remembering something is enough to take over the automaticity. In other words, there isn’t an automaticity for every subject you can remember; there is simply an automaticity on the subject of memory. Similarly on forgetting. One might think there was a forgetting automaticity on every type and subject known, but there is only one mechanism behind all of this and that is simply an automaticity of forgetting.
Now, if you were to stabilize a preclear in present time and do all sorts of other things with him and yet neglect exercising his memory in any degree it is probable that you would have left the sphere of recall untouched to his detriment and would have left him with this automaticity. And the automaticity of remembering and the automaticity of forgetting could, of course, push him on down again. So, we should say that any preclear who becomes stable should have had exercises in remembering and forgetting.
The actual history of Straight Wire is of course a very old one, much older than Dianetics. We did not invent Straight Wire. We discovered and observed a great many mechanics about memory which had been neglected hitherto. But, we find that Straight Wire or memory exercises are actually very ancient and have been used for at least sixty-five years.
There were many excursions and experiments made in Straight Wire in early Dianetic days. One of these was Repetitive Straight Wire. Simply asking a person to remember something over, and over, and over again. This naturally succeeded from the running of an engram. Running an engram through, and through, and through eventually erases it, so it was tried with Straight Wire and it was discovered that this was fairly effective, but again was not an answer.
The old Dianetic auditor can probably remember early Straight Wire with affection and probably can remember a great many successes as a result of using it. And strictly as a nostalgic exercise, he should know now that with OWNERSHIP PROCESSING as given in the Congress of Eastern Scientologists, he could make old-time Straight Wire totally effective with the question “Can you recall a time when somebody else had that condition?” “Can you recall a time when you decided to have that condition?” on all those cases who are already in fairly good condition in the memory department. He would have to ask BOTH of these questions of ANY case in order to get a result and he would have to ask BOTH of these questions MANY, MANY TIMES, until the preclear had flattened his comm lag. This would be a rather crude form of Straight Wire, but it would at least be completing the cycle of action from olden times.
Straight Wire is one of the most agreed upon things in Dianetics and Scientology. There may have been many people who questioned the advisability of running engrams or running secondaries or scanning engrams or doing something else, but, nobody ever questioned very seriously the efficacity of Straight Wire when it worked. It is, and has been broadly accepted as a near synonym for Dianetics and Scientology.

ARTICLE THREE

The Theory of Straight Wire

Memory has played an intimate part in existence since the first Thetan. The creation of time and the creation of memory were concurrent incidents. Let us take a single particle. We find that with this single particle no time is possible, since the space occupied by the single particle would be indeterminate in placing the particle. Unless, of course, there were eight particles demarking the space itself, at which time you would now have nine particles, and it would be very simple to have time. But, with one particle we cannot have time. We have to have two particles to have time. And we have to have two particles to have memory.
We have to have two particles to have memory because we would have to have a reference point for establishing where the moving particle had been if one had remained motionless. In other words, let us take a motionless particle and then let us have another particle move in relationship to that motionless particle; we would then be able to tell that it had moved by remembering that it had been where it was originally. And then remembering successively the positions it had gone through until it arrived at its present time position. The moment that it moved further one would have a situation again of remembering what had been present time for it, but observing what was now its present time position.
MEMORY IS THEN, MECHANICALLY, THE TRACKING OF POSITIONS. Where POSTULATES or CONSIDERATIONS are concerned, however, we must first have the consideration that space, particles in time can exist and then THAT ONE CAN REMEMBER. This latter is more important than the mechanical facts of time. For if one continually makes the consideration that he cannot remember, he is at once making the consideration that he cannot discover the former position of earlier particles, and any advanced student who knows about PERFECT DUPLICATION, or if you care to read about that in The Creation of Human Ability, will find that it would now be next to impossible for the individual to cause the vanquishment of the particle. In other words, if the person cannot remember where the particle came from originally, he cannot establish its original position. And being unable to establish its original position he cannot get an exact duplication of it, which is to say a perfect duplicate of it, and so will get a persistence of the particle. Once one has forgotten its original position, which is the mechanical aspect of this, one is then no longer able to cause it to disappear.
In processing we very often run into a person who has “heavy facsimiles.” In other words, these facsimiles are so heavy and so weighty that he can barely push them around. This is simply basically a postulate that these things are heavy, that energy is heavy, but next to that it is a consideration that one cannot do anything to them. One cannot cause them to vanish—therefore, one cannot cause them to affect one less.
Observing, then, that things tend to become more permanent and more solid the less one can remember where they came from (though this is not a total truth, you understand), we could consider that ALL OBJECTS ARE MEMORY. Or more accurately, that ALL OBJECTS ARE MIS-MEMORY. If an object is there, one comment you could make about it is that everybody has forgotten when and where it was created. And having forgotten when and where it was created, it now persists. Thus, you might say that objects depend, or persistent spaces depend, entirely for their persistence upon forgettingness. Which is to say, mis-memory.
Now, as memory applies to postulates and considerations as well as to spaces and masses, it becomes obvious that conditions, good conditions or bad, would tend to persist where they were mis-remembered. In other words, if you knew exactly where all the particles of your car were created and how many movements back they were created and who had created them (the more important fact) and who had assembled them into a car you would not have any car. It would simply disappear. In other words, a perfect memory would bring about a vanishment of all objects and spaces.
Well, at least that is the theory and the theory is borne out by the fact that it is only necessary to remember who created something to have it diminish in density, or, in case of a light mass of energy, such as an engram, to vanish.
In that Thetans become very possessed with the idea of making nothing out of everything (their primary obsession), memory, an exact and persistent memory, becomes an obsession with the Thetan. He knows that when he no longer remembers the exact genus of all those things in his vicinity he will no longer be able to make them disappear. Therefore, a failure in memory causes a Thetan to be very frantic.
Now, we needn’t go too deeply into just exactly why this is, but I will brush it in passing. ALL THINGS LIKE TO BE DUPLICATED. A THETAN HAS NO MASS, NO SPACE, NO WAVELENGTH, AND NO TIME. Therefore to get a perfect perception of anything, he thinks the best choice would be to look at something which has no mass, no space, no wavelength, and no time. Of course, this is impossible. But, this is a Thetan being duplicated, and this, indeed, would be the most comfortable frame of mind for a Thetan—to have no persistence or non-persistence of any kind in its vicinity. Thus, when a Thetan begins to see more and more spaces (and he is not space) and when he begins to see more and more masses (and he is not mass) and when he begins to see more and more wave motion (and he is not wave motion) he conceives the fact that nothing is duplicating him, which is to say that nothing is taking a look at his nothingness and becoming nothing. In other words, he’s losing control of things.
Well, it just so happens that a Thetan knows that if he could remember the exact place everything had been generated, the exact time and the exact conditions and the exact person who did it, he would then get a disappearance. Thus, when a Thetan begins to object to life and considers that this idea of masses and spaces is foolish and should be discontinued (as the boys evidently believe in the nuclear physics department) they can only think in frantic terms of making nothing out of everything.
It does not happen to be a healthy frame of mind for a Thetan to be obsessed with making nothing out of things. We see people around who, themselves, have considerable bulk but who are unable to make nothing out of things but who try all the time to do so anyway. For instance, you tell a joke; they say, well that’s nothing, and they’ve heard that before. You buy a new hat and they say they’ve always liked it. You invent a new dance step and they say it has been done before. They are, on a covert level, trying to make nothing out of something. These people already know they can’t make nothing out of masses and spaces. They are already obsessed with the idea that masses and spaces are dangerous to them and therefore, they do have to make nothing out of them. And these people at the same time will be obsessed with problems in memory and will probably develop a fantastic comm lag on the auditing question “Give me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting.” It does not follow that everybody who wants to improve his memory is obsessed with making nothing out of everything. But it does demonstrate how we get these obsessions on the subject of memory. Actually you could probably remember one-one hundredth of what you are able to remember and still get along. Certainly I know lots of places where people would employ you if you could remember just one-thousandth of what you are able to remember at this moment. The income tax bureau is one of them.
Memory, strangely enough, has very little to do with intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to pose and resolve problems relating to survival. Without some memory, one would have no track of time, but, an absolutely perfect memory does not necessarily connote a perfect intelligence. If one’s memory were really perfect, he would have no objects or spaces with which to pose or resolve problems. So, therefore, a certain amount of mis-memory (or forgettingness) is necessary to have factors with which to play a game.
When memory is entered as a factor into the posing and resolving of problems one then gets the phenomenon of time track. One conceives through “experience” the IDENTITIES, SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PRESENT TIME FACTORS AND THE FACTORS OF THE PAST. AND HERE WE HAVE THE KEY TO ABERRATION.
Theoretically, a person could not be aberrated who was not living on a time track, since he would have no need of any kind to associate any spaces or objects of the present with any spaces or objects of the past. Now, naturally, no spaces or objects of the present are ever exactly identical to spaces or objects of the past. But, a person through mis-memory will eventually come into a situation where he does actually conceive a present time situation to be identical with a past situation. When he conceives this automatically and with great ease he is then in a fair way to being aberrated.
One could not go so far as to say that no experience at all is necessary to the living of life. But, one could go so far as to say that a total reliance upon experience or hearsay or second-hand observation in life brings a person into a very frightening state of mind.
Therefore, mis-memory could be of this kind. One sees a certain number of factors before him. One misremembers some factors that happened to him earlier sufficiently to conceive that these earlier factors are now identical with the factors he faces. When he has managed this he has essentially no time. In other words, IDENTITY does not give him PAST. He says the factors I face right now ARE the factors which confronted me five years ago. But he does not conceive this articulately. He conceives this on a mis-memory basis. He “feels” that the present factors have a significance which is due to nothing but themselves, but it’s actually due to a combination of past factors. This essentially is about all there is to aberration. Aberration is “NO TIME.” It does not conceive that there is any earlier position for any particle.
Thus, we have the interesting fact that a perfect memory to an extreme and absolute that has never existed would bring about a situation of NO UNIVERSE, NO FORM, NO MASS, NO SPACE. And that a completely IMPERFECT memory, which again has never existed, would bring about a total COLLAPSE of all time, and would bring all factors into the present. Now, somewhere between these two lies the game called SANITY. It is in the effort to attain this game called sanity that the auditor exercises the memory of the preclear. He must exercise the memory in such a way as to uncover a great many similarities which the preclear thought were identities.
Now, here is the subject of valence. By valence we mean personality. Theoretically a person could have his own valence. But, more familiarly the term is used to denote the borrowing of the personality of another. A preclear “in his father’s valence” is acting as though he were his father. The word “valence” means in Latin, strength (valentia). We use it in Dianetics and Scientology as meaning personality, but it has not escaped the value of strength. A person takes at will the valences of a commanding nature or valences of a very obedient nature in order to answer up to various situations. One person may routinely use several valences. In order to handle women he takes the valence of his father, in order to handle students he takes the valence of a bulldog. In order to get drunk he takes the valence of a horse. There may or may not be any sense to the valence beyond the fact that it was a strong valence in a situation relating to the subject. In other words, he has mental image pictures unconsciously experienced by him which have as their dominant or obedient personality things related to the subject which he then identifies with the subject. Many a psychotic is in the valence of a bedpost. Others are in the valence of God. But these are totally stuck valences; any sane person routinely uses in his modus operandi of existence a vast category of valences. To say that somebody is capable of two or three valences would be a misnomer. A person takes many valences. Now, it is not necessary to pick up these valences or these personalities or “strengths” or “weaknesses” in our expanded understanding of the word in order to handle existence. A Thetan is perfectly capable of mocking up a beingness or valence sufficient to the situation simply compounded from the elements of the situation. If he does this easily he is very intelligent. He has a good imagination. Or you might say a good valencination. Only when he has a tremendous successful valence in the past which has enormous command value or enormous obedience value and then when he forgets this and conceives that it is all in the present does he assume anything like a fixed valence. He then is, you might say, “himself.” The “himself” or “herself” is simply a valence which is moderately commanding, moderately obedient and which is “dreamed up” or “taken out of past experience.”
The automaticities of memory are dependent upon this valence situation. By automaticity we mean anything that goes on running outside the control of the individual. This in its severest definition would seem to indicate that everything was automatic except those things upon which the person had his immediate attention. And this is not too far from wrong. It is not bad to have things automatic, it is bad to have placed things on automatic which are detrimental to one’s happiness and life. The more automaticities exist around the individual the less living that individual is likely to do.
This is quite interesting to observe, off the subject a little, in a business office which is determined to modernize with all the latest machinery and equipment. It is the theory that the introduction of all these automaticities will bring down the number of people on staff and will bring up the volume of work. Now, there is a make-or-break point beyond which the introduction of automaticities is detrimental to the business itself and will actually cut down the amount of outgoing communication. In fact, in a great many overly machined business offices the greatest amount of work done is by the repairmen, keeping the machinery in action. But, without a certain amount of automaticity in an office, it is true that very little work gets done.
Harm comes from this factor of automaticity only when people have forgotten that something has been put on automatic, for when a thing is put on automatic, which is to say, when it is put in a situation where it is intended to run without any observation of any kind from anybody and without any knowledge on the part of anybody that it is running, we suddenly find a sphere of deteriorization, and we cannot trace it. We do not know what has broken down since we did not know what was there and had been placed on automatic.
Here memory plays an interesting role. The first requisite to putting something on automatic is to forget that it has been placed on automatic. And that in the severest Scientological use of the word is what we mean by a full automaticity. Something is going on and we do not know its cause. We do not know its cause because we have forgotten that we have placed it there. Or, we have forgotten that anyone placed it there. We do not even know that anything IS there. But, something is happening in that sphere.
Now, although this relates to many parts of life we are apt to specialize on the psychosomatic character of this manifestation. We have forgotten or maybe never did know who put a bad leg into this body. A bad leg is in this body. We try, by moving it around or by manipulation, to change the bad leg and find out that we get an additional persistence to the bad leg. Only by discovering the ownership of the decision or idea or mass of the bad leg would we get a complete vanquishment of the bad leg. Now, if we went just a little bit further and remembered also who made the leg in the first place, and remembered this fully to the extent of remembering who made all the particles that went together and made the leg and who made all of the organizations of food which fed the leg, we would have no leg. So, we see that we could carry memory through to a complete vanquishment.
But, automaticity and memory do not happen to be limited entirely and completely to just one factor—psychosomatic illness. In fact, a person who would work memory simply to get somebody over a psychosomatic illness has himself a very bad identification. Life does not consist of psychosomatic illnesses. As a matter of fact, the Scientology auditor who tells preclears that he is going to get them over their psychosomatic illness has already created a new automaticity, as far as the preclear is concerned.
Now, the PRECLEAR isn’t going to go do it; the AUDITOR, by some necromancy, is going to do it and we’re likely to get a failure on the part of the auditor to remedy that psychosomatic illness. As a matter of fact, an auditor has no business at all promising anybody that he will ever do anything about a psychosomatic illness. Not, of course, because he can’t, because of all the professionals in the world, the auditor is probably the one most likely to knock out a psychosomatic illness. But an auditor who says he’s going to knock out a psychosomatic illness and goes in the direction of knocking such things out is limiting himself so woefully that it’s hardly worth while knowing how to audit. When preclears start telling us that they want to get rid of such and such a psychosomatic illness we are apt to gaze at them with a questioning eye since the person has an insufficiency of problems or he wouldn’t have the psychosomatic illness, and if we took it away he would just get another one unless we also remedied PROBLEMS. And all we can see out of this statement of the preclear is that this preclear has his attention fixed on something and he ought to have his attention unfixed off of it. Well, if he has his attention this thoroughly fixed on a psychosomatic illness he probably, on a gradient scale, has his attention fixed on a great many other and unpleasant things. And as a result we have a problem here in an individual who is stuck all over the track. He’s identifying, he’s misremembering, he is in, to say the least, an interesting state. And even if we did get him over the psychosomatic illness we probably, if we limited the auditing to this, would not have made him happy. So what we tell such a preclear is, “Well, I may or may not do something about the psychosomatic illness, but I will certainly make you feel happier about it.” Usually he is fairly satisfied with such an answer.
The earliest coining of the memory exercises known as “Straight Wire” came from the formula of cause and effect. In 1950 in the early HDA Lectures we described this as the act of stringing a line between present time and some incident in the past, and stringing that line directly and without any detours. In other words, we conceived the auditor was stringing a straight wire of memory between the actual genus of a condition and present time, thus demonstrating that there was a difference of time and space in the condition then and the condition now, and that the preclear conceding this difference would then rid himself of the condition or at least be able to handle it. This essentially was the overcoming of automaticities or the locating of automaticities. The preclear had some engram that had a command value over him and it was necessary to locate the source of that situation in order to bring it under the preclear’s control. The term “Straight Wire” was used to differentiate between Dianetic memory exercises and those which had been used by psychotherapy in the past. And a great need for such differentiation was necessary, because there’s many a Dianetic auditor who permitted “free association” and other unworkable techniques to go on in the guise of auditing. Hence the term “Straight Wire,” and that term seems to be an apt one since it stuck with auditors all during these years.
The motto of Straight Wire could be said to be, DISCOVER THE ACTUAL GENUS OF ANY CONDITION AND YOU WILL PLACE THE CONDITION UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE PRECLEAR.

ARTICLE FOUR

Straight Wire and Present Time

One of the earliest observations of Straight Wire which we made was on no less a preclear than Burke Belknap (then studying to be an HDA) in the small reception room at 42 Aberdeen Road in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Burke had come in complaining of a headache and in an offhand way I said, “I’ll handle that” and asked him to remember who had a headache. He promptly came up with a memory of someone else having a headache and then someone else having a headache and finally of someone who complained about headaches and abruptly his headache was gone. Well, this was very triumphant, but I did not have enough sense to quit at that exact moment but started to run him through the incident he had last recalled, and instantly his headache was back.
Now, we are telling you this for more reason than nostalgia. This was the first time we observed the difference between Straight Wire and engram running to the degree that: Straight Wire did not run out the engram but only got it out of present time. Naturally, in theory, we had had this around for some time. But, here was an exact example of this very thing occurring. In other words, you could remember something and feel good, and then could run immediately into the engram and feel terrible all over again. Now, this immediately and instantly gives us the reason why psychotherapy was unworkable before Dianetics. One would get the preclear into present time (and of course the preclear is always in present time but the engrams are there also, so it is more accurate to say, get the engrams out of present time) and then have the engram get into present time again and have the preclear in the same state as before. In other words, as long as and as often as we wanted to get these mental image pictures of pain and unconsciousness into and out of present time we would have a change accordingly in the preclear. Theoretically we could throw birth into present time and out of present time, into present time and out of present time, and have the preclear as rapidly have and not have the symptoms of birth. Now when we realize that our machinery as a body-plus-Thetan is being continually monitored by the environment and that the machinery which throws engrams into present time is also monitorable by the environment and by others in it, we see that simply throwing the engrams out of present time and keeping the preclear in present time would apparently be inadequate processing. Here evidently we would make a preclear well and would then make him unwell just to the degree that we took out of present time and put into present time the engram causing that unwellness.
Now, in view of the fact that an engram contains pain and unconsciousness, it is very likely to become an automaticity. Thus, we are playing tag with an unknown genus whenever we are playing tag with engrams. A preclear does not like to look at things which suddenly make him feel like his head is being torn half off. Thus, he will continue to keep out of existence for himself, and to refuse control over, all engrams.
By old Dianetic standards, then, Straight Wire was merely a patch-up process. It did not do too much for the preclear but made him momentarily comfortable. It did this simply by slipping out of present time, engrams. Engrams were held in present time by the preclear’s making a bridge between present time and the engram, of locks, which is to say conscious moments which lay on top of the engram. In other words, we could have a sort of a picture of a dark, Lying-in-wait engram, which had happened or had been created at some early date, which had been keyed in by a conscious incident a little bit later, which had been bridged by a repetition of similarities until at last the preclear conceived an identity between the moment of the engram’s occurrence and present time. By this bridge of locks we would then have an engram being present time.
So much for the early attitude. What is the attitude about this now? There is no real change. It’s just that THE PRECLEAR CAN BE BROUGHT TO CONTROL A MASS OF ENERGY AS HEAVY AS AN ENGRAM BY THE GRADIENT SCALE OF CONTROLLING LIGHTER MASSES.
Here we have essentially the idea of the person who lifts a calf every day until the calf becomes a bull. Then we have a person who is able to lift a huge animal. Now, I don’t know that anybody ever tried this, but theoretically it would actually occur. Certainly, it is much more likely that this gradient scale of lifting would more workably apply to locks and engrams than to pure bull.
By Straight Wire, on modern standards, we get the preclear to handle the light key-ins. Over and over and over, new incidents or the same incidents until at last he is able to handle the actual genus of the situation, at which time the condition, of course, will vanish.
The great oddity is that a preclear is so wary of a heavy, hidden mass like an engram, that when it comes into present time automatically he will not or cannot throw it out of present time. And this is the main thing which is wrong with the preclear. A heavy mental image from the past comes into present time, then the preclear cannot throw it out of present time. If he is unable to throw it out of present time it will stay in present time, which is to say, ride along with the preclear.
One of the goals of Modern Straight Wire is to get the preclear to throw the engram out of present time or into present time at will. In other words, to teach him that he doesn’t necessarily have to vanquish all energy masses—that he can handle these energy masses and get them up to him or away from him at will.
A clear, by definition, is somebody who does not have any engrams in present time with him. By actual practice a clear would have to be a stable Thetan exterior since the body itself is composed of energy masses which unfortunately contain engrams.
We are no longer trying to rid present time of all engrams. We are simply trying to bring about an ABILITY on the part of the preclear to handle energy masses in the past or in present time at will. And by a gradient scale to cure his fright of being confronted with a picture and his compulsion and necessity to obey that picture.

ARTICLE FIVE

Straight Wire and Pictures

With the advent of communication processing a new method of handling pictures arose. Within minutes after the first discovery that communication alone would vanquish masses we found that communication would handle pictures themselves. In view of the fact that pictures have been more or less a common denominator of investigation since the earliest Dianetic days, we became very interested in this startling new method of handling the bank.
Whenever a person of the usual Mark I Homo Sapiens type is asked to remember something, he gets a picture along with it. This, no matter what names or description you place upon it, is simply a picture which has been taken of an event in the past, said picture now being in the present. This automatic feed mechanism has gone relatively unnoticed but occasionally described back through the centuries. It seems that this should be considered very usual. However, it was not until Dianetics that anyone made any kind of a thorough study of these pictures.
In the first place, of what were these pictures composed? It was an old saw in mysticism that mental energy was one thing and physical energy was another thing. I suppose this was stated many times out of hopefulness rather than fact. Today enough data has come to hand to establish that this mental energy, such as is contained in a picture, and the energy of earth or of the electric light company, are different only in wavelength. The proof of this is that a person, by remedying havingness, can increase his weight if he only pulls the havingness in, and can decrease his actual weight by throwing the havingness away. Of course, a preclear has to be in fairly good condition and has to be able to throw away or possess havingness at will in order to do this, but in actual experiment weight has been changed many pounds either way by this. And, believe me, if you can weigh mental energy on a set of Toledo scales you certainly have something very intimate to the energy of the electric light company, and you don’t have anything different than the energy of the electric light company, save only in characteristic.
These mental image pictures, then, are actually composed of energy. They have mass, they exist in space, and they follow some very, very definite routines of behavior, the most interesting of which to us just now is the fact that they appear when somebody thinks of something. He thinks of a certain dog, he gets a picture of the dog. When a person is rather far gone, when he thinks of the dog he gets the picture of a house. When he thinks of a house he gets a picture of a cactus. This person’s pictures are not associated with his own thoughts, but are occurring on a total automaticity.
But, what do we have in the first place but an automaticity? An individual thinks of a dog and he gets a picture of that dog. This carried on long enough would bring it about where he would think of one dog and get the picture of another dog. And a little bit further, he would merely think the thought and get a picture without any relationship between the thought and the picture.
Well, if these pictures are actually more or less the same stuff as is sold to you for five cents a kilowatt hour by the power company, then you could suppose that they would have some effect on the human body, and so they do. Pictures are continually being taken by the body or the Thetan or the Thetan’s machinery or the body machinery. You never saw such a complete cinematographic plant in your life as the Thetan-plus-body, Mark I, Homo Sapiens. Something even takes pictures when he is deeply unconscious and during an operation.
Not only does a person take pictures of anything and everything just as you right this moment are taking a picture of this page (if you don’t believe it, close your eyes and take a look at the page again) (oh, you didn’t know you were taking pictures all the time?), but also these pictures then react back on the individual more or less as the incident itself reacted on the individual. Thus, if a person had a bang on the thumb from a hammer, he is certain to have taken a picture of this. Later on this picture gets into present time and his thumb hurts. It is a picture which is impinged upon his beingness so as to reproduce some of the qualities in the picture.
One of the oldest obedience stunts on the track was to convince the Thetan that he ought to “obey the picture.” In fact, according to the O-Meter, people within the last many generations have taught their children to “obey the picture.” In other words, made use of these mental image pictures in order to produce a higher level of obedience on the part of a child. Certainly it might or might not have produced a higher level of obedience, but it did produce a much higher level of conscience and it is in itself practically the anatomy of conscience. Overt act-motivator sequence is itself only the action and reaction of these pictures. A person takes a picture and then the picture turns on him.
Thus, the handling of these pictures becomes very important if one’s going to change the characteristics of an individual. One of the first things, then, that an individual ought to be able to do is to handle these pictures. An individual can’t handle these pictures? He’s in bad shape.
Now, let’s take this thing we call a Black Five. This poor fellow is so far gone he can’t even see pictures any more. He only sees blackness in front of him. Well, this blackness may be some kind of a screen; it may be anything; but at least it prevents him from seeing pictures, and he’s very often keeping himself from being victimized by all these pictures by having a continuous black screen in front of him. That the pictures reach THROUGH the black screen and do influence him anyhow, he hopefully overlooks. However, remember that THIS BLACKNESS ITSELF IS ONLY A PICTURE, and so we don’t have a special category of ( 1 ) people who get pictures, and (2) people who get blackness. We have only one category. We get people who have pictures of various things and people who have pictures of special things. And this is simply a GRADIENT SCALE of how easily does the individual handle these pictures that get into present time. When he handles present time returned pictures very poorly more and more pictures get stacked up in present time and pretty soon he is a fairly “massive” case.
Hence you can appreciate our excitement when we found a new way of handling pictures. There have since been developed, as we became more versed in handling special problems, additional ways, such as Ownership Processing. But to this moment we know of no better routine way of handling pictures than a combination of Straight Wire and the data which we are going to give you here.
Before we go very deeply into this, you should realize that pictures are not bad, and that blackness is not totally bad. Pictures are used by the Thetan to assist his memory. They are not necessary to his memory, but he begins to play with the idea of taking pictures of everything and remembering by pictures as a sort of a game. It is an interesting game. Gives him something to look at. Gives him some mass and makes him happy—up to the point when he collects pictures of great unhappiness; then these moments of unhappiness stay with him simply because he has pictures of them and really for no other reason. As far as blackness is concerned, blackness is usually the protective coating between the preclear and the pictures. Not unusual for a preclear to have a machine, either of his own or belonging to his body, which black-coats every picture that shows up before he looks at it. This keeps him from getting stunned by these pictures. This, by the way, is somewhat different than having blackness in continual and total restimulation. Both of these conditions regarding blackness exist: the machine that makes blackness, and having a black picture in restimulation. There is also simply the blackness of looking around inside of a head, and as yet, the modernness of science has not installed electric lighting inside skulls.
We also get the condition, where these pictures are concerned, of the Thetan’s machinery taking pictures and then trying to show them to the Thetan while the Thetan is inside the head. This is a very interesting condition because the machinery cannot reach the Thetan, but reaches the head of the body instead, and if this machinery is very powerful, which it usually is, the body becomes very uncomfortable solely by reason of having pictures shoved up against it by machinery which is foreign to it.
So we get a lot of conditions which are germane to pictures. But these pictures are not all bad, and the whole subject of pictures is not a bad subject.
And again, before we go any further, you should realize that it is not ABSOLUTELY necessary for the auditor to handle pictures in the fashion we are going to outline now in order to have Straight Wire as given in an earlier article work. But, this is the fillip which really handles pictures and is called “HELLOS AND O.K.’s TO PICTURES.”
The technique has limitations. It is limited by the fact that the auditor can audit Straight Wire on preclears lower on the scale than those who can handle pictures with hellos and O.K.’s. In other words, a rather low toned preclear can simply be run on Straight Wire as given earlier, but when he comes upscale and starts to get pictures this process can then be applied.
The anatomy of the process is simple indeed. Every time the preclear remembers something the auditor asks him, “Did you get a picture?” If the preclear did, which is usually the case, the auditor tells him, “Throw a shower of hellos at it.” The preclear does. The auditor then says, “Have it throw a shower of O.K.’s at you.” The preclear does. The auditor then says, “Is the picture still there?” If the preclear says it is the auditor simply has the preclear complete the cycle of two-way communication with, “Have the picture send a shower of hellos at you,” and when the preclear does, the auditor says, “Throw a shower of O.K.’s at the picture,” which the preclear does. Again the auditor asks him, “Is the picture still there?” If it is, the auditor simply repeats the four commands given above, which is to say, he has the preclear throw a shower of hellos at the picture, has the picture throw a shower of O.K.’s to the preclear, has the picture send a shower of hellos to the preclear, and the preclear send a shower of O.K.’s to the picture. Actually the auditor can have the preclear do this over and over until the picture is gone, for that is the single and solitary goal of the process: to make the picture disappear. It will be discovered that early in processing the auditor will have to make the preclear complete several two-way cycles of communication with the picture before it vanishes, but, as processing continues and as the preclear becomes more and more capable, that fewer and fewer two-way exchanges are necessary to make the picture vanish. And at length all the auditor has to say is, “Throw it away,” and the preclear will be able to do so. Of course, the case which can simply throw the picture away in the first place and get it back at will does not need to use communication processing on this, a fact which most auditors overlook—they neglect to test the preclear to find out whether or not the preclear can throw these pictures away. Now, in the case of blackness this is rather foolish, to ask the preclear to throw hellos at the blackness, since these screens are very resistive, indeed. In the case of blackness one would simply use STRAIGHT WIRE with the question, “Recall a time when you were looking at blackness” over and over and over until the blackness was gone. If the blackness doesn’t go, then it’s a machine which is making the blackness, but this is found to be handleable too by the same process, if it is carried on long enough. And even if that did not work, machine processing would.
Very well. We have here, by throwing showers of hellos and O.K.’s back and forth between the preclear and the picture, a method of vanquishing the picture. BUT, IF YOU AS AN AUDITOR ASSUME THAT ALL PICTURES ARE BAD AND OUGHT TO BE THROWN AWAY, YOU WILL HAVE IN YOUR HANDS IN A VERY SHORT SPACE OF TIME A VERY UNHAPPY PRECLEAR. If he is fairly upscale he will tell you why he is unhappy. If he’s fairly well downscale he will simply hug it bitterly to his bosom. The fact is, you are getting rid of his pictures, and his pictures are not a bad phenomenon, totally. Thus, you were robbing him continually. Now, the old Dianetic auditor who is trained only to make pictures vanish or a person who is obsessed with the idea of making nothing out of everything, is liable to neglect this vital little step, and if this vital little step is neglected this entire process will wind the preclear up in an unhappy state of mind. So, after the picture has been vanquished by either throwing it away or by throwing hellos and O.K.’s back and forth between the preclear and it, the auditor MUST ask the preclear TO GET THE PICTURE BACK. This is, of course, part of the automaticity cycle. The picture got there automatically; well, the preclear had better take over that automaticity—for all automaticities are conquered by having the preclear do what is being done automatically, or by simply sighting the genus of the automaticity.
Thus, having completed this two-way cycle of hellos and O.K.’s, the auditor now says, “Get the picture back.” This usually startles the preclear, for at first the preclear will be very victorious at having gotten rid of this automatic function of pictures. But the preclear, one way or another, will get the picture back. He may get back some other facet of the scene. He may get back a picture different from the first one, but what you want is that same picture. Of course, don’t badger and hound your preclear until he goes out of communication with you to get the same picture back. You can tolerate a certain amount of looseness at this stage of the processing, but what you really want is the same picture back again. Now, having gotten the preclear to get the picture back, you now have him throw once more showers of hellos at it, have it throw showers of O.K.’s at him, have it throw showers of hellos to him, and he throw showers of O.K.’s to it, until it vanishes again. And when it is vanished, you ask the preclear to get the picture back. Now, before you have handled this picture very much you will find usually that the preclear can simply bring the picture up and throw it away at will, at which moment you go on to the next auditing question on Straight Wire, which is, “Recall a time when—” or “Recall a moment of—” whatever you were asking before. And once more you ask him, “Did you get a picture?” You handle it in this fashion. You have him throw hellos and O.K.’s back and forth. You have him throw it away, get it back— you have him handle it, in other words. After a while you will find the preclear will be able to get all sorts of pictures at will and throw them away at will. You will also find that some of his automatic machinery starts to break down. If this starts to happen, why just continue him on the process. You may have to drill him for a short time on mocking up pictures. If you knock out his automatic machinery which is giving him pictures—doing the mock-ups for him—you have made it necessary for you to give him the assurance that he can make pictures, which will again make him happy. Very often a preclear who is unable to make pictures but is getting everything automatically will recover his ability to create pictures once he brings this automaticity under control.
“HELLOS AND O.K.’S TO PICTURES” is a very valuable process. A preclear will work up a gradient scale to where he can throw some hellos and O.K.’s to engrams that pop up and will then be able to bring engrams into present time or throw them out of present time at will. And when he can do this he has no further worries or upsets about energy masses.
You will understand that this process of communication is entirely independent of locating the genus of the picture. The actual knockout of the machinery making the pictures could be accomplished by having the preclear state that this or that CREATED or OWNED the machine, including himself, until the machine was gone. But, this is not a very good process. It is robbing the preclear of something on which he has no reality. However, we expect future developments will embrace something which gives us a superior process along ownership lines.
Remember, now, that our goal is not to make the preclear get rid of every picture that pops up. Our goal is to make him capable of handling those pictures which pop up, throwing them away and getting them back at will.
This process is also used with the technique “Tell me something you wouldn’t mind remembering,” “Tell me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting,” and was originally employed as part of this process.

ARTICLE SIX

Psychoanalysis and Straight Wire

When Sigmund Freud and Breuer first began working on the theory that if an individual could recall enough he could be well, they were working primarily on the assumption that there was something wrong, which they now had to make right, and that the wrongness was a hidden or buried memory.
It is notable to remark today that Scientology does not try to find something wrong in order to make that wrongness right. This introduces a via on the line, introduces an assumption into the case which is not justified. All we assume is that an individual can be more able than he is and we take it from there. We are not looking for hidden memories.
Another thing which Freud assumed was that guilt underlay these hidden memories as their primary propulsive mechanism. This was not necessarily true, for you will discover that anyone, no matter how innocent, who has been struck, if he has been struck hard enough, will begin to believe that he must have been guilty of something. In other words, he gets a reason why he has been punished, which may or may not have any actuality in fact. In other words, any sudden blow or duress can be expected to have as its consequence the feeling that one has been guilty. In order to stay a reasonable or rational being an individual has to assume that there must be a reason for everything. This is not necessarily true at all. Thus, guilt comes about merely from a blow or duress. I imagine if you put a man in prison long enough he would be absolutely certain at the end of that time that he had committed the crime for which he was incarcerated. I suppose that if you questioned a man long enough about his guilt, if this questioning were under duress, he would begin to feel he was guilty of the crime of which he was being accused, which accounts for many of the confessions which are brought forth by third-degree methods. Even the police have begun to question these, having discovered all too often that the person was really innocent although he now believed he was completely guilty. Thus, we have the fact that physical pain and unconsciousness in a memory would produce a HIDINGNESS in the memory, since a person would not want to confront a painful picture, and would bring about a feeling of guilt. All this is resolved simply by MAKING THE INDIVIDUAL CAPABLE OF HANDLING ENERGY PICTURES OR ENERGY MASSES OR SPACES REGARDLESS OF THEIR SIZE, SHAPE OR THREAT.
In performing a psychoanalysis, emphasis was then laid upon memory and upon things about which society expected people to feel guilty. In this alone we have the reason why psychoanalysis is such a long drawn-out affair and why it leaves a person in such a careful frame of mind.
The psychoanalytic patient was expected to talk long enough—without much acknowledgment from the analyst—to disclose hidden memories. The actual hidden memories were, of course, moments of pain and unconsciousness, and if the psychoanalyst had ever gotten a patient into one of these moments of pain and unconsciousness he wouldn’t have known what to do about it. But this was outside the theory if well inside the practice.
In the process of trying to recover hidden memories the analyst was continually in combat with the automatic forgettingness of the patient. By asking a person to recall and recall and recall and recall and think about the past, the analyst often got the individual back down the time track and didn’t get him up again. In the first place, the analyst, not being very able in the field of DUPLICATION seldom gave a repetitive question which would have freed the patient from one line of action.
Further, the analyst was insufficiently observant and inquiring. He may or may not have noticed this phenomenon of energy pictures but, being trained in a rather mystic school, he probably did not believe that these energy pictures possessed any energy and so could not do the patient any harm.
But, let us suppose that we were actually trying to uncover hidden memories for the preclear. If this were the case, then, we would have to get his forgettingness off of automatic and into his control.
If you wish to reform the entire field of psychoanalysis, which is not any particular mission for the Scientologist, as Scientology is not psychotherapy, you yet could do so by the publication of this material:
Have the patient relax and become aware of the fact that you, the analyst, are there, that he is there, that the room is there and that you are about to do some psychoanalysis.
Enter into a discussion with the patient concerning his trials and tribulations in the present-time world, permitting the patient to originate communications and become relaxed about talking with the analyst.
Now that these steps have been accomplished, ask the patient this question, and use no other question aside from incidental and momentary discussions and acknowledgments, no other: “Tell me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting.”
No matter how long the patient took to answer this question, do not abandon it and do not go away from the question. But, at last, still maintaining pleasant relations with the patient, obtain an answer to this question.
Having obtained the patient’s statement that he has at last found something that he is very certain he wouldn’t mind forgetting, the analyst should then say, “Very well,” as an acknowledgment of the fact that the question has been answered. And the analyst should never at any future time omit to acknowledge with a “Very well” or some such statement the fact that the patient has completed the analyst’s command.
Having received an answer to this question, the analyst must now repeat the very same question and again must get an answer to this question and again must acknowledge the fact that an answer has been received.
The analyst should not go into discussions of the material and should not tell the patient what the material means, for the analyst should be well aware of the fact that if the patient has already reached this depth in his psyche he must perforce be capable of reaching much deeper depths and that better information will always be forthcoming.
Even though the analyst finds himself becoming inattentive or upset by the repetition of the same question over and over he must continue this. He must, each time the patient has complied and the analyst has acknowledged, ask again, “Tell me something else you wouldn’t mind forgetting.”
This should be the sum total of the analysis and this program should be continued as long as the patient is being analyzed, whether that be four times a week for a year or four times a week for two years. No other interchange or material should be discussed or addressed than these things the patient would not mind forgetting.
If an analyst were to follow this program and if he were capable of repeating this question or duplicating so often and so long, he would discover that his patient had come into more possession about his life and his beingness than any other program could have accomplished, and that it will no longer be necessary for the analyst to evaluate for or make decisions for the patient.
We recommend that this process be coached to analysts in the hope that the field of psychoanalysis could be made into a successful psychotherapy, for Scientology is not a psychotherapy and does not intend to take the place of any existing psychotherapy.

ARTICLE SEVEN

How to Do Straight Wire

There is a happy medium of two-way communication which must be present in all processing, whether that processing be Opening Procedure by Duplication or Straight Wire.
ENOUGH TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION WILL KEEP THE PRECLEAR AWARE OF BEING AUDITED AND AWARE OF THE AUDITOR’S INTEREST. AN INSUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION MAY CAUSE THE PRECLEAR TO FEEL A LACK OF PARTICIPATION IN HIS CASE, WHICH WILL CAUSE THAT CASE TO SAG OR BOG. TOO MUCH TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION WILL SIMPLY GET IN THE ROAD OF THE PROCESS. An auditor must be aware of these factors and have a feeling for the right amount of two-way communication whenever he is processing a preclear.
One of the most delicate subjects in all auditing and one of the most delicate skills in auditing consists of knowing HOW MUCH TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION TO ENTER UPON AS AN AUDITOR WITH THE PRECLEAR.
Straight Wire requires this as in any other process. However, many errors can be made in Straight Wire with two-way communication which would have peculiarly detrimental effects. The preclear, you must understand, is indulging in recalling his past, and we can forgive preclears for being excited about remembering various pleasant parts or various unpleasant parts of the past. We can also forgive the preclear for trying to justify some of the actions he has suddenly recalled having entered upon in his past. Thus, we can understand that it is necessary for the preclear to be permitted to communicate about what he is doing; otherwise he will feel suppressed and straitjacketed by the auditor who refuses to let him talk. BUT, THE PRECLEAR WHO JUST GOES ON TALKING ENDLESSLY ABOUT WHAT HE IS RECALLING IS NOT DOING HIMSELF ANY GOOD. HE IS NOT DOING THE PROCESS, HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE PROCESS. Thus, to some slight degree he must be checked on this excessive comm lag. The auditor should be very definitely aware of what comm lag is before he does very much auditing. He must also be aware of what acknowledgment is before he does very much auditing.
COMM LAG—COMMUNICATION LAG—IS THE INTERVAL OF TIME BETWEEN THE MOMENT OF THE AUDITOR’S ASKING THE QUESTION AND THE REPLY TO THAT EXACT QUESTION BY THE PRECLEAR. A near reply is not a reply. A reply to some related question is not a reply. The interval between may be occupied by argument from the preclear, talk from the preclear or silence from the preclear. It does not matter what goes on between the asking of the question and the answer to the question; the internal is communication lag. In other words, communication is not taking place during this interval.
A COMMUNICATION LAG IS FLAT WHEN IT IS CONSISTENT. A person may have a habitual lag of ten seconds. He may answer everything after a ten-second pause. If a person then answers after a ten-second pause on a particular process it could be said that his communication lag was flat, since his communication lag is always ten seconds. We say that a question is flat when the communication lag has been similar for three successive questions. Now, that is a FLAT QUESTION. The communication lag might be five seconds, five seconds and five seconds. We would still say with some justice that the QUESTION lag was flat. However, the process lag would not be flat until the actual normal exchange lag was present. The question would no longer influence the communication factors of the preclear when the process is flat. Usually, because these processes are very beneficial, it occurs that the individual under processing talks very rapidly after a process is flat. His basic lag has changed.
There is another kind of communication lag with an automaticity of communication which an auditor should understand. When the question has excited a machine into answer it is quite common for the answers to come very rapidly, often too rapidly for the preclear to articulate. When this occurs the auditor is advancing against a communication SPEED which is as artificial as a communication LAG, and it will be discovered after the question is answered several times that this communication speed will drop into a normal and will then expand out into a communication lag.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT is a very necessary study. AN AUDITOR MUST ALWAYS ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT THE PRECLEAR HAS SAID. This may enter a compulsiveness into auditing for the auditor, but it is nevertheless true that a preclear will keep on talking until he KNOWS he has been acknowledged. Some people would require a sledgehammer in the face to know that they had been acknowledged. One auditor stood in front of a preclear and waggled his finger close to the preclear’s nose for several seconds and said very loudly, “Good!” and the preclear knew she had been acknowledged. It very often happens that the auditor is saying O.K. but is not acknowledging the preclear because the preclear does not understand or even hear the auditor saying O.K. Thus, occasionally an auditor should ask, “I just said O.K. Did you hear that?” And the preclear will sometimes look rather sheepish and realize that he has not known that his statement was acknowledged.
Very often the crankiness or upset of old people or children simply stems from the fact that nobody acknowledges them. They begin to say something and then can’t stop saying it, and will keep on saying it until it has been acknowledged by someone that they have said it. They would have to know that that statement had been acknowledged before they could “come off’ the statement. You could say that a thing persists until it is acknowledged. This, by the way, is quite applicable to machinery. Machinery keeps putting up pictures until the pictures are acknowledged, and the Thetan seldom acknowledges these pictures, and so we get into a dwindling spiral of automaticity which ends up in blackness. It is not a cure, however, to simply have the preclear say “O.K.” to all the machinery.
The auditor should also understand THE AXIOMS as contained in The Creation of Human Ability, particularly the CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE which are outlined in THE AXIOMS. These are quite important. Particularly important are those axioms devoted to “ISNESS” and “NOT-ISNESS.” We find that a person very often not-ises his pictures or not-ises his memory. In other words, he meets his memory or pictures with force. He pushes force against force and then we have accumulation of force, and this is not particularly good. The apparency, or isness, condition of existence comes about, of course, through alter-isness. Where we try to change a mass for a long time we eventually get a mass which is persisting and that persistence is isness. So, we see that CHANGING MASSES WITH ANYTHING LESS THAN LIFE OR MEMORY OR COMMUNICATION OR POSTULATE BRINGS US INTO A CONDITION OF PERSISTENCE OF A CONDITION. The auditor who knows this well knows that if he were to try to change with not-isness or alter-isness a deformed shoulder he would find that the condition of the deformed shoulder was persisting greater than ever.
SUCH A WELL INFORMED AND SKILLED AUDITOR MIGHT USE, WITH GREAT PROFIT, AN ADDITIONAL COMMAND—MAKING TWO STRAIGHT WIRE COMMANDS IN ALL. THE ADDITIONAL COMMAND WOULD BE “RECALL A MOMENT OF PREVENTED     .”
EXAMPLE: THE PROCESS WOULD THEN BE “RECALL A MOMENT OF STUDIOUSNESS.” AND WHEN THIS COMMAND SEEMS FLAT, “RECALL A MOMENT OF PREVENTED STUDIOUSNESS.” THE LATTER COMMAND TAKES OUT THE NOT-ISNESS OF THE PRECLEAR.
ACTUALLY THE BEST RESULTS ARE OBTAINED BY USING THESE TWO COMMANDS, SUPPLYING WHATEVER IS NECESSARY IN THE BLANK. ONE IS RUN FAIRLY FLAT. THEN THE OTHER IS RUN UNTIL IT IS FAIRLY FLAT. THEN THE FIRST IS RUN AGAIN. WHEN IT IS AGAIN FLAT, RUN THE SECOND AND SO ON—AS NEW MATERIAL THUS IS DEVELOPED.
The duplication of questions is something that is very hard for an auditor who has not had much processing to do. He will get discursive, he will go off away from this necessity to duplicate it over and over and over. Thus, many processes are rendered null and void by an auditor failing to complete the process. He cannot stand the idea of duplicating, doing the same thing again and again and again, because he apparently is stacking his time track up. Actually he is not doing so and if he did it long enough, if he simply would go ahead and audit and ask the same question over and over and over again long enough, he would get a drill for himself which would cure him of his inability to duplicate. The biggest stumbling block to auditing is the obsessive change factor on the part of some auditors. Actually, when an auditor has an obsessive change factor he seldom makes a good auditor, because his obsession to change gets into his auditing. He has an obsession to change the preclear so he starts to force the preclear into changes which the preclear does not particularly want. The preclear may want changes but not necessarily the kind the auditor wants. The auditor precomputes the case, in other words, and decides in which direction he’s going to change this preclear. That’s all right and an auditor can do it, but when an auditor obsessively has to change the preclear we discover that the auditor at the same time will change THE PROCESS. In other words, both of these are inabilities to duplicate. An auditor can also err in the opposite direction. He can use the process so long and so consistently and so far beyond its doing the preclear any good that the whole idea of auditing is defeated. For more data on this look at the new Auditor’s Code, which is printed in The Creation of Human Ability and in Dianetics, 1955! These enjoin the auditor to run the process as long as it produces change. When it no longer produces change don’t run it. However, an auditor who changes the process and says to himself, “Well I changed this process because it was no longer producing change,” when in reality it was, and the auditor couldn’t stand the duplication any longer, is, of course, reasoning himself out of good results for the preclear.
The auditor should understand that the discovery of the actual creator or genus of anything will bring about its vanishment. This is also done by communication only. Ownership Processing can be used very effectively on preclears and in Straight Wire, but actually using communication as given in an earlier article is a superior activity. Ownership Processing is run by having the preclear state that this owns the condition or that owns the condition, and just have him keep stating that this or that or the other thing, and including himself, and his machinery and the body’s machinery owns or made the condition, or the pictures own or made the condition until the condition vanishes. One has sighted the actual owner often enough. However, if one went on sighting the wrong owner often enough the picture or condition would strengthen. In other words, you would be mis-owning it. All masses, spaces, conditions depend on mis-ownership for their persistence. In the absence of mis-ownership—we own up to the ownership of everything that we did and know the ownership of everything that everybody else did, or has—why everything would disappear. Ownership Processing is declaring the proper owner. It’s a very amusing process.
Ownership Processing is best done using an O-Meter or any type of physiogalvanometer. Here we see at once that the principal ownership is the response that we get on the meter. We get greater masses when we get mis-ownership. We get more reaction when we get mis-ownership. All the needle of a lie detector or any such instrument registers is mis-ownership. When mis-ownership is present the needle registers and when it is not present the needle doesn’t register. Thus, a lie detector does not detect a lie; it merely detects the mis-ownership of the picture of the incident. A criminal who says that he didn’t do a thing when he did will of course make the picture of the incident become stronger; thus, it will register. Similarly, the criminal could say, “I did it,” when somebody else did and you would get an additional lie or the same reaction. If the preclear says that he caused the picture when something else caused the picture the picture will become stronger and the needle of the meter will register. This is about all there is to electropsychometric auditing.
One of the most notably lacking qualities in the unsuccessful auditor is charity. I am reminded of a section in the new testament which I misquote, because it sounds better, to the effect, “Though I speak with the tongues of angels or of men, though I have not charity, I am as sounding brass or the tinkling of the temple bell.” An auditor who has no charity, who is continually critical of the preclear, who is trying to change the preclear because the preclear is so bad, seldom achieves very great results with the preclear because he’s out of ARC with the preclear. Mercy, charity, kindness are qualities which are not low scale. They are the highest and kingliest qualities there are. And an auditor should never forget them.

ARTICLE EIGHT

Scientology and Straight Wire

It is a great temptation to call anything a psychotherapy which uses memory. Because psychotherapy has devoted itself to memory in the past. This is a fluke or a freak. Psychotherapy should devote itself to aberration.
Because Scientology has a process known as Straight Wire, which uses memory, it might be very easy to conclude that Scientology was then a psychotherapy. And this, of course, would be true if the goals of Scientology were those of psychotherapy.
The goals of psychotherapy are to eradicate unsocial or aberrated behavior in an individual.
The goals of Scientology are to create better abilities in the individual.
Scientology is far more closely related to education and its goals than it is to psychotherapy, but because of the factors which Scientology handles it is perforce not only intimately related to but is basic religion.
If you find anything disturbing about that association—Scientology and religion—we might cockily ask, “If religion treats of the human soul has there ever been a religion before Scientology?”—since there was precious little information available about the human soul until we took our textbooks in hand.
Naturally when you know the broad principles of anything, such as memory and forgettingness (these being two different items), you can apply them to almost anything you want to. And, as we have stated in an earlier article, you certainly could take an elementary form of Straight Wire and apply it to the field of psychoanalysis and let the analyst go on and do much of the things he does. As a matter of fact, if I were a Scientologist practicing in an area which contained some psychoanalysts I would definitely make it my business to associate myself with these people, and train them to give the same question as given in an earlier article, over and over, to duplicate, to acknowledge and to get some good works out of their patients. This is a very simple thing to train somebody in a sharp discipline and it would not be out of order for a Scientologist to take this under his wing because, Lord knows, the analyst has a hard time in the society and has a hard time with his patients. Furthermore, it is not unusual for the field of psychotherapy to turn to the church when it is blocked. And we hope it is not unusual for the church to try to make the world a better place to live in.
But, when you are using Scientology as a Scientologist, and you’re employing Straight Wire, you had better realize that your best results come about BY RETURNING SELF-DETERMINISM TO THE PRECLEAR. Which is to say, make him better able to handle and control himself and his environment. In fact, you will not be able to achieve any results of any lasting quality or of note unless you do this for the preclear. Therefore, the degree to which you suppress his self-determinism by finding things wrong with him will depress as well the results of auditing. As a Scientologist you should concentrate on increasing the abilities of a person.
In the field of education memory is of the essence. Unless we could handle memory well we could not educate people well. Automatic forgettingness sets in on a student almost as fast as the textbook is closed. This is because he is on a forced draft of memory. He is expected to remember everything. Until the day comes when he can forget and remember at will he will be no better than the book from which he has studied. Thus, as a Scientologist you could explain this to an educator and use your skills and technologies to train this educator into the elementary steps of Straight Wire. The delivery of the question, the giving of the acknowledgment, the duplication of the question. You could train the educator into this as a necessary step to education, since every student he has who is failing, is failing not because of a real antipathy toward the subject, but because the automatic characters of his memory are not properly engaged and in gear. Before we would spend years and great quantities of wealth upon the education of a young man, we would certainly see that he was in shape to REMEMBER OR FORGET HIS MATERIAL AT WILL. We would also see to it, even as importantly, THAT HE WAS ABLE TO POSE AND RESOLVE PROBLEMS RELATED TO ANY SUBJECT. Were he able to do these two things he would always be an honor student. Why should we waste time as educators, and as a nation obsessed with education, in handling minds which cannot remember and forget, which cannot pose and resolve problems? Were we to practice this on an educational level and if we were to be careful at all times with all students to bring them into a state of ability with regard to memory and problems and solutions, before we gave them things to have memory and forgettingness about, and problems and solutions, we could probably place eight or nine foreign languages and eighteen or twenty new majors in any standard educational span and do it with success. Therefore, education would be far more effective and would have much greater duration with the individual, and as a result we would have a much higher culture.
In the field of business efficiency, memory, forgettingness and the posing and resolving of problems are the difference between an ineffective slavey and a powerful executive. With these processes, almost any second-rate file clerk could be moved into a valuable asset, and certainly the moving of a business executive from the lower brackets of ability in memory, forgettingness and posing and resolving problems to an upper bracket might mean the make or break of that business.
While Straight Wire does not, in any way, supplant any of the other of the Six Basic Processes, you can be very certain that it can stand by itself as a process. It is very important to know this, for it is the easiest process to teach anyone, and it is the easiest way to obtain stable results.
If you were to essay to teach those people who had the handling of other people in their charge the elements of Straight Wire, exactly how to do it as a drill, not to burden them in any degree with any theory, to reassure them about the phenomena and to turn them loose to do exactly the drill called Straight Wire on those intimate to them, you would have Scientology spreading at a very rapid rate.
The only other solution akin to this would be to teach everyone 8-C. Particularly parents who ordinarily run very poor 8-C on their children. However, 8-C appears to be more childish than Straight Wire. Straight Wire appears to be deep and has great significances connected with it and would be done by adults much more easily. Furthermore, an individual could conceive himself to be very wise in delivering Straight Wire and listening to the answers he got from it, but do not let your student, of course, get so wise that he will stray from the process.
In other words, I recommend to you that you would take some of the people who have some vague interest in Scientology and take a certain facet of their existence and run the basic Straight Wire question given in the earliest article in this series on that one facet until they understand something has happened. Then teach them how to do the process on others. TEACH THEM THESE EXACT RUDIMENTS:
ONE: Awareness of the auditor, the auditing room, that an auditing session is in progress.

TWO: Two-way communication on a casual basis.

THREE: The delivery of the question.

FOUR: Communication lag.

FIVE: The acknowledgment of the question.

SIX: The duplication of that exact question.

Having taught a person to do these things and having taught him to do them well, you could see that you have expanded his livingness and his beingness. He can MEAN more to more people by this knowledge. This knowledge is not difficult to learn; it is not difficult to teach, and we hope that we have placed in your hands at this time something which will help you to disseminate the information of Scientology and to bring about a better culture than that we have. 

P.A.B. No. 56
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

8 July 1955

AXIOM 51 AND COMMUNICATION PROCESSING

Let me give you a small review on communication. Axiom 51 says that MEST cannot change MEST, and we find that postulates and live communication do change MEST. MEST cannot change MEST, therefore a pair of forceps cannot basically change a tooth condition. This is sweeping and I want you to realize how sweeping it actually is. A medical doctor would not be able to alter completely a broken leg. You may say, “That’s silly, of course he could. He could come in and snap the bone back into place and the fellow would feel a lot better.” No, I’m sorry, a medical doctor cannot over a period of time change a broken leg. Do you know what will happen? Let’s look at it from the standpoint of life, now, and we find out that the individual got attention for his broken leg, didn’t he? It will emerge as rheumatism some day. In the next life it will emerge as two broken legs! We’re going to get a repetition of this because as soon as you attempt to change MEST with MEST in one fashion or another you are going to get persistence, and that is all. Persistence of what?

In view of the fact that all conditions are postulated conditions, and that the consideration behind them that they are bad or good is simply again a consideration, if we say persist it doesn’t mean that it is either bad or good, it simply means that condition. What condition is it? The condition we are trying to change. And whenever we try to change MEST with MEST we get a persistence of that condition. It will crop up one way or another, and you will see this time after time.

Dealing as we are in a very high echelon of live communication, when we try to alter a condition with MEST we get this persistence. Restimulation is the condition persisting in the auditor, as an auditor who goes around altering energy masses gets restimulated. The auditor comes along and says, “Now all I have to do is change this energy mass one way or the other,” and he may succeed in doing so as far as he can see for the moment. So he goes off restimulated. That is the condition persisting. It’s going to persist, one way or the other. The only motto back of MEST is “PERSIST.”

But we have this licked. Hence Axiom 51. Postulates and live communication actually can bring about a permanent change and can actually stop a persistence.

Now, this process, “What wouldn’t you mind____communicating with?” “What wouldn’t       mind you communicating with?” is actually not a low echelon process. A low-echelon preclear, one with no mock-ups and very little reality, one who is not well off, will not be touched by this process. He cannot assimilate the process. Why? Because, to run this process, you have to have the cooperation of the preclear’s ability to as-is. You have to have the ability of the preclear to have a cognition and the ability of the preclear to as-is a piece of energy, that is, to make a perfect duplicate of it.

Where, then, does that leave this process to be totally functional? It leaves it upstairs, because when you run it downstairs, the individual begins to “chew energy.” Just “chewing the energy around” doesn’t make it persist, but, with all this chewing, he isn’t as-ising anything. All he is doing is moving mass “A” to position “B.” Anybody who is doing this gets no cognition out of it at all. He is waiting for that piece of energy to tell him something, and this tells you a great deal about the preclear who couldn’t run an engram. He was waiting for the MEST to say something.

The preclear who could run engrams could still play a game well enough to make the MEST say over and over again what the MEST had imprinted on it. That is exactly why an engram could run and why we had success in running engrams, and when an engram disappeared that is exactly what happened. It was up there all right, it was up there in lights, but it wasn’t saying anything. It was a bunch of sound waves imprinted on a bunch of molecules of one kind or another, and the preclear had to sort of pretend it was saying these things over and over. In other words, he made it talk. Now today an individual gets an engram in front of his face and you just tell him to make it talk. Make it say, if you please, exactly what is in the engram, or make it say anything—it doesn’t matter which.

As we look over this running of an engram, let us say that we are getting an individual to run birth. What we are doing is to get an energy mass called birth to articulate to an individual, and it would run very handsomely indeed if we had the preclear saying Okay. This is actually a terrifically effective way to run an engram. If we wanted to start today running engrams, we could, full out, and achieve tremendously superior successes because we could certainly run any kind of an engram in the bank. We could dream it up, and the preclear could dream it up, could do anything he wanted to, just to make these energy masses talk.

Of course very strange phenomena happen on an occluded case when you have him dream up the fact that he has the concept of an engram in front of him. You just look at him and you say, “Now let’s make believe that you have birth in restimulation in front of you.” (This would be a roughie, and a weird way to go about it.) “And now let’s pick up the engram at the point where the doctor is saying, ‘If you will just take this pint of strychnine, mamma, the child will be born much earlier.’ “ You have him to make this concept say this, and have him say Okay to that.

The strange part of it is that you don’t have to pay any attention to whether birth shows up or not. I counted the number of births on an individual one time and it was several thousand, believe me, and they all go back to Fac Ones and things like that. So we just have him get the idea that he has birth in front of him and have it articulate. Quite often this totally occluded case will have a complete birth show up and begin to run off. But, he was totally occluded, wasn’t he? He couldn’t run an engram.

We could just buckle right down at that point and actually run that engram with Okays from the preclear, just as it showed up, or we could go on running a synthetic engram. In either case facsimiles would go out of restimulation in the individual. As long as we have communication those energy masses will disintegrate and you will stop the persistence of the condition.

So let’s look at the optimum way that I know of at this moment—the best way I know of—to separate universes, on which I have had considerable success and to date have had no failures as long as the preclear could at least articulate anything. As long as you can make him do anything at all you can make him do this. You have seen the process already.

“Give me some things you could say to your mother.” If you wanted to make this very perfect, if he is unable to play a game you don’t have to (very often the preclear is unable to play a game), you would say, “Now get the idea mamma is out there saying Okay to all of this.” “Now give me something else you could say to your mother.” Then you say, “Get the idea mamma is out there and have her say ‘Okay.’ “ “Now give me some things that mamma could say to you.”

Now you will get a positive blow-apart in a fairly rapid order of the interiorization of the universe. We know very well that people interiorize into a body, into other bodies, into MEST objects, into planets. So, if you were to run this one all the way backward you would take somebody who is obviously seen to be interiorized into earth, and what would you have him do?

You would say, “All right now, give me something earth could say to you.” If he is really interiorized into earth he’ll think up something. Then you have him say Okay. The next thing you know he will get the ball of earth ‘way out there somewhere. Maybe it’s the first picture he has ever had! You will say, “That’s fine. Now give me some more things that earth could say to you.” “Now give me some things you could say to earth,” and very ordinarily he will come right on up the tone scale. You will never see such perfect behavior of a tone scale as when you use a MEST object.

Then we would pick out (if we really were bent on exteriorizing Mr. Doakes and Mr. Doakes was interiorized into the interiorizations) another universe when we knew that we had the first one blown, and we would know that because his physiological condition would very definitely alter. We would go on to the next likely universe.

We find this fellow who has been a linotype operator for eight thousand seven hundred and sixty-two months, or something of the sort. We don’t have to be specific. We pick a linotype machine, and we say if he got into earth he certainly got there via some sort of apparatus he was controlling, so we say, “All right, what could a linotype machine say to you?” He would think it over for a moment. A very literal-minded fellow would probably say, “It could say ‘clank.’ “

“Okay, have it say clank.”

“You know, I don’t get any sonic on this,” he’d say. (I’ve had this happen.)

“Well, just get the idea of its saying clank.”

“Well, it’s going clank, all right.”

(“Oh no you don’t,” says the auditor, aside and to himself.) “Have it SAY clank.”

“Have it SAY clank? A linotype machine can’t . . . well, I guess it could. On thinking it over I guess a linotype machine could.... All right, I’ll have it say clank.”

“All right. Now have it say something else.” He does, and we blow him out of the universe of the linotype machine.

Now let’s pick the wife he hates worst, or something like that. What could she say? etc. Admittedly this is not a short process, but it keeps going faster and faster. Next we would pull him out of papa and mamma, and maybe grandma and grandpa, and so on. We are doing one of these schoolbook, by the table, separations. Then we say, “Now give me something your body could say to you.”

“My body say something to me?”

And away we would go, and we would blow him out of his head.

It will work with almost that mechanical ease. The question is, how many hours of auditing would it take to bring somebody who is totally interiorized into a planet out through these various stages and finally out of his head? As far as I’m concerned it is the minimum number of hours he could be audited for maximum result.

We could do a tremendous number of things for him. We could do a momentary patch-up on a lot of things, we could do this and we could do that, but if we were going straight toward the goal of making this individual into the highest level of condition that we could make him into, we would follow a process just about like this. It would be slow, and it would be arduous, but we would get better, and better, and better. He would finally get to a point where he could feel these things blow off and blow out on him.

I went so far one time as to try to exteriorize a fellow from his engram bank. I think I exteriorized a lot of thetans from that bank, but I never got the fellow out of it entirely because I didn’t have the time. His track finally stretched out in all directions and he could view it clearly, and then he was terribly interested and wanted to run and have to do with each individual engram—and there were about seventy-six trillion years worth of them. Then there was the whole GE line. So I abandoned that attempt. He felt wonderful, though, and went around telling everybody he was cleared. Compared to his earlier state he sure was. He was cleared easily from eight or nine heavy engrams in about eight or nine hours’ auditing.

The articulation of the actual communication would be something you would do on an individual who is having the vaguest difficulty playing a game, who couldn’t as-is birth at a glance. And this is the conclusion I have reached rather arduously over these past weeks on this. I give you data when I have it.

Axiom 51 is right. It says you can’t change MEST with MEST, but postulates and live communication can change it. But realization on the part of a preclear with no cognition is not possible. So if he can’t realize, that means he can’t as-is, so if he can’t as-is, there he is. But I have seen preclears pass right on up the line from cognition zero to almost instantaneous cognition. In the Air Force they have ceiling zero. We have cognition zero, but it’s the same thing—total fog.

It is immensely safe for an auditor to change by communication. There is no restimulation involved. 

P.A.B. No. 60
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

2 September 1955

“ANYTHING—EVERYTHING—NOTHING”

I want to call your attention to something you might watch with some interest. It is the systematized generality with which a certain type of preclear answers questions. He categorizes. You ask him about a cat and he gives you all cats. Many people will answer in that way, and they very often answer with system.

There is nothing mysterious about this, but it denotes the existence of groupers, good old Book One groupers. When a preclear answers in this fashion, his track is very grouped, whether he knows it or not.

In auditing this type of preclear, I have countered this with some highly general processes. I took up solutions, but I didn’t leave them specific. Why did I leave them unspecific? Why didn’t I leave solutions and problems as solutions and problems? Simply because such a preclear’s attention needs direction.

One of the handiest ways to go about this is just to take the Eight Dynamics with the Know to Mystery Scale. If you are going to categorize something you will have it well covered, and you are going to hit most of the corners of the universe one way or the other.

By way of example, I would like to tell you a little more in detail about one such

case I audited. Although his case level was in poor condition, psychometrically and actually conversationally, this man was sane among sane. He had a very good impulse toward healing, he was very sensible and so forth. He was rather intensely local in his Scientology interests, and he had a tendency toward “the only one” and rather resented anything that might come in from another quarter on this. (This is the critical level.) He was not really powerful, but he was a fine man and had done a lot of good processing.

At the beginning, I had to actually work around in the session to get some sort of communication with the man so he could answer questions. In other words, “Give me some solutions for God” was utterly beyond him. He couldn’t communicate on this basis. “What is God a solution to?” did communicate, so that was the question we settled with, and from there he went on down through all the dynamics. We did not bother to take up “himself” very much because his generality was so great that he probably wasn’t there!

Now this man was not in bad shape. He was in pretty good shape, but case-wise the mechanical aspects of his case—he was grouped, generalized, and far, far too fixated on others to the exclusion of himself. He wasn’t there. The optimum situation is: Earth is here, other people are here, I’m here, my machines are here, my body is here, the reactive bank is here—awareness of all these things. He, however, was so far from being exteriorizable from the body that he had to be pulled out of the planet, then out of some other bodies, and then out of his own head, one way or another. It took some doing!

At first I could only try to develop some kind of two-way communication with this man. I found him hell-for-leather on an obsession toward knowledge, and telling a person that you did not know something was not a communication to him. If you said “When does the train leave?” and he told you “I don’t know,” he would not have communicated to you. I almost bludgeoned him into the recognition that there was a communication involved in telling somebody “I don’t know,” that you did refer to the problem or situation if you said “I don’t know” and went right on off on one of those techniques which can be used on a low-level case: “Give me an unknown datum.”

Consider the case reality! If I asked him for “Something you wouldn’t mind remembering; something you wouldn’t mind forgetting,” I would have actually exceeded his level of reality. Any man who is as obsessed on the subject of having to know as this, normally is sitting in a tremendous “I don’t know.” So I just used one of the R2s: “Give me an unknown datum.” He didn’t interpret the auditing command. He missed on each one of them. Somehow it came out wrong. He couldn’t be audited on whom he wouldn’t mind communicating with. It just didn’t audit. He didn’t have any reality. There was no reality on the process as far as he was concerned. We were just sitting there talking.

Somewhere along the line, when you have to handle such a preclear, you’ve got to find some kind of problem that’s real to him; or something that is real to him; or something that will register if you are trying to get a case entrance on a case of this kind. I get some lulus for some reason or another. This man was really a very able man. There was nothing really wrong with him, nothing specifically upsetting with his life; but his general tone, his general reality was just down—real poor.

I said, “Give me an unknown datum,” and he started reeling them off—and he came into present time with the process. He was naming abstractions, abstractions, abstractions, unknown, unknown, “I don’t know when a train leaves,” and so on— things he wasn’t looking at. Then, the next thing you know, he was giving me unknown data about the material in the immediate auditing room, and he gave me a lot of it. So, for my money, that process flattened.

That’s a very covert way of running 8-C on somebody, isn’t it? “Give me an unknown datum,” and finally he just came up splendidly and was actually looking at his environment.

Actually, just listening to the preclear and predicting about where he is going to go is quite a game. With this man I got groups, high generalities, terrific classifications; he was giving me back Scientology as he had read it out of a book. There wasn’t any thought in it at all. He wasn’t giving me name and energy, but by not addressing the point particularly, but just drumming it and keeping in two-way communication, we were suddenly getting him so specific that he was naming articles in the room.

We, as auditors, know what’s wrong with somebody. It’s a matter of time and energy to resolve it. The preclear doesn’t know what’s wrong with him, so there’s no real talking to him on the subject. If he knew what was wrong with him it wouldn’t be wrong with him! This man was glibly unaware of being there, and he saw nothing strange or peculiar in his answers to questions: “Anything,” “Everything,” and so on. In a situation like this you have to degrade the question down to actual action. If you had two universes, you would say, “What are some things you wouldn’t mind saying to your mother?”—and maybe he would find them. You would go on, and on, and on until that was flat. And then, “Some things you wouldn’t mind saying to your mother,” and make him say them. And on, and on, and on, and you would watch those universes go up in smoke. Always find what universe he is stuck in, and then talk him out of it in this fashion—that is, make him talk himself out of it. You really can!

Now it is almost unimaginable not to be able to run this process on a preclear, and yet here was a preclear that could not run it. In such a case, you have to take the action dramatization of the communication. “What wouldn’t you mind saying to your mother?—Come on, give,” and “What wouldn’t you mind your mother saying to you?” Of course, the first answer you get in this case is the tip-off. It is: “Anything,” “Everything,” “Anywhere,” and then they’ll come up with qualifications. “Well, if we rule out pain, then I wouldn’t mind communicating with bang, and bang, and bang,” and you’d say, “Just a moment. We haven’t ruled out pain.” “Well, then—nothing! I wouldn’t communicate with anything.”

It is interesting in Spotting Spots in Space that this person is very definable. You can test him, and find this case out immediately. You simply say, “All right, let’s spot a spot in the space of this room,” and the fellow will say, “Well, it’s there.” You say, “Now, put your finger on it,” and he will say, “Oh, I couldn’t do that!” “Well, go ahead, put your finger on it,” and he will probably say, “Well—why?” And you get into that! He will not spot a single spot in space. When he does that, he also qualifies everything, he gives everything conditions, and in addition to all that it’s “Anything” and “Everything.”

When you run up against this case, then, he cannot run this process very fast or very easily: “Things your body wouldn’t mind communicating with,” and “Things you wouldn’t mind your body’s communicating with,” because he is in this “Anything Everything” class.

The thing to run then is obviously just what kind of universe he is stuck in, and to begin splitting it up with an axe!

“What wouldn’t you mind your mother saying?”

They’ll hate this process. They’ll practically, if you insist on it long enough, get down and chew the rug. “Give me some things you wouldn’t mind saying to your mother.” It’s just horrible! The thought of having to go through all that communication. But this they can’t dodge. So we can grade the process. We can say this “Anything and Everything” process wouldn’t be the optimum case, and quite possibly wouldn’t run at all “Things you wouldn’t mind so-and-so communicating with, your body communicating with,” or anything else. That process is too subjective. They can’t grasp it enough. They can’t play the game. So you make them sit there and you go on down for this other process.

How do you find out whose universe he’s in? Just ask him who he most resembles in his family.

There are two things which will create change. One of them is Postulates, and the other is Communication. A live communication, postulates, will always create change of one kind or another. Now, the point is, how ably can your preclear communicate? If he can’t communicate very ably, then you are going to have to make him dramatize communication. Mechanical two-way communication is one method of dramatizing communication—you have the preclear refusing mass, and at the same time he’s communicating. This will persuade him to communicate. But there is another way of doing this, which is what I used on this preclear successfully. I actually changed his skin tone, and did something to the universes, and there was some change on his psychometry as a result thereof.

I went further and did him a dirty trick. I gave him the same process to run, but thoroughly flat, on all members of his family, and that process was: “Give me some things you wouldn’t mind      saying to you.” “Give me some things you wouldn’t mind saying to      .”

Now actually, it isn’t that the sense of the thing he is saying or has said has anything to do with it. But with this process your preclear is going to do something peculiar. He is going to pick the bank clean. Any time somebody is super-generalizing on “everythings” and “nothings,” you can absolutely count on the fact that he is not capable of creating energy. He will be able to create some ideas, but this will be rather slow, and he’s lazy. So he will take actual phrases and things that occur to him when his mother really said something—anything—and things he would say to his mother.

With this particular process, we picked his bank clean of things he would say to his mother in about three minutes, and he went into a horrible comm lag. Finally he said, “Well, actually, I never say anything to her. I never did say very much to her.”

Just as a result of that processing and no other (two hours out of the five I used on that process), he had markedly changed his consideration. But if you think he had improved, you are mistaken. He had gone downhill, and the reason he had gone downhill is that he had given it all up. He had really got into “Everything and Nothing” now. He was really willing to let his body communicate with cannon balls. He was willing to let his body communicate with anything destructive. He was not yet covertly hostile to the body; he just didn’t mind communicating.

What changed this was separating the two universes.

The interesting thing about any of these cases is that a person who qualifies all statements, who can never be specific, would apparently suffer intense pain if he were to say “oatmeal” when you asked him to “Give me something you wouldn’t mind eating,” and he never seems to grasp the fact that the auditor wants him to say “oatmeal.” You can just keep on telling him that this is what you want him to say. I have actually made this test, too, by the way (not that it was as a good auditor, but as a good research man). I have sat and I have said to a preclear, “Now, I want you to name a specific kind of food that you wouldn’t mind eating. One is all I want you to name, and one is all I will allow you to name. Now, what kind of food wouldn’t you mind eating?”

“Any kind of food.”

Now, if you get that kind of conversational manifestation, it is a fellow who disperses away from every spot he tries to look at. You’ve got the case pegged, postulate-wise and mechanically. He can’t locate a single spot. You would say, “Where are you from?” and he would say, “I’m from the New England part of the country.” If you ask somebody who can spot a spot “Where are you from?” he is likely to come back with something like this: “I’m from Bramblebury, Vermont. Were you ever there?” He would suspect you had probably been there. You know, anybody could locate that place! Precision. Spotting.

But “Anything and Everything” is an imprecise spotting. It’s buttered all over the universe, and it is peculiar to the mystic. And let me assure you that it is very unusual to find a process short of Spotting Spots in Space which relieves this condition—but that process is: Figure out the universe he is in, make him say something to that universe by asking him, “Things you wouldn’t mind saying to your mother” (or father, or whoever it is). He will hate you like poison before you are through. Halfway through the process he will just as soon cut your throat as look at you. You are making him communicate, and this will break up.

I’m glad we’ve had a good look at this case. I’m glad we have some inkling of this condition, but you are going to run into it. It’s the one that makes an auditor blow his brains out most often. You give the preclear an auditing command. You KNOW this command works. Then this—everything, anything, nothing.

Now let me be very specific to you. This is the thing that drives an auditor away from using good processes. He strikes one of these high generality, unable, on high semantic sensitivity cases, and uses a process, and the auditing command does not communicate at all. He should be sure that the case is incapable of doing that process, but instead of that he will feel that the auditing command must be bad, or the process must be weak. No. It is simply that the process is above the individual’s ability to handle. Now it becomes a study of how far south can human beings go, and how far south can we reach and actually audit them.

Now you will understand that two-way communication simply makes the preclear say something to you, and you say something to him, and he says something to you. We could come up above that a little bit, and we could make him tell us things he would say to people and things people would say to him, and it becomes a “wow” of a process at that level, because you pick the universe and you blow him out of that universe. This universe he is in is probably an “Everything-Nothing” consideration, and you unburden that—and he comes on up. This is an indirect version of Two-Way Communication, and it hits straight at Universe Processing.

There is a solution to that case!

L. RON HUBBARD 
Washington, D. C.

Issue 14                         [1955, ca. mid-September]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

Start That Practice!

L. Ron Hubbard

         Here’s a new successful way to start a practice !
All over the world auditors are succeeding. However, in some areas we understand there are auditors who can’t seem to get going. In one particular area we have heard that some auditors were working at regular jobs. What a waste! In a world without assistance, real honest assistance from anyone but Dianeticists and Scientologists, the waste of ability in these lines is practically criminal!
There’s no lack of willingness on the part of these auditors. It’s finance. They can’t seem to get paying preclears. And to keep on eating they go to work.
Well, we’ve got the solution to that. We’ve been running a pilot project right here in Washington and although we haven’t gotten it all the way through, the auditor we assigned this project to has now begun to look for an assistant and he has turned over a pc to the Guidance Center.
I have been alert to this problem of starting a practice for a long time and I knew that it was crucial in many quarters. Thus when I got this idea I thought that we had better make a good test of it and see what happened and if it worked out then we had our no-practice auditor right into the swing of it.
We started this a month ago. The auditor selected had no real luck and no intensives for about two weeks and then the dam broke.
Here in essence is the project. On a three-time-a-week basis, place in the personal column of the local paper—in a city of some size—the following advertisement:

PERSONAL RELATIONS: I will talk to anyone for you about anything. Call GR 5-8906 between 4 and 6 p.m. Reverend Charles Gringle, Church of Scientology, 1899 Nevada St.

Putting in the auditor’s home phone (getting an answering service also if you want) and his own name we are now ready to go. The ad should run Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday at least or seven a week if you can afford it.
We’ve already varied the wording around to test the best and the above is the one that pulled calls.
You should expect a lull. For a few days people will read it and do nothing. They’ll think it’s a code. But when it appears over and over they will see that it’s really a service and they’ll come out of their comm lag.
Now here’s the trick. DON’T charge for their service. That isn’t where you make it. You DO talk to anyone about anything FOR the caller. You go out and take trouble with his troubles. You help him patch things up with his boss or landlady or wife or the government. And you don’t charge him anything and you don’t straight-talk at him about auditing.
You have to hand, however, literature about Scientology. And you have, of course, your pro card (which gives your minister’s rating) and this should read, this professional card:

The Rev. Charles Gringle, HCA
Consulting Scientologist

GR 5-8906	       452 Fro St.

And you have another card:

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

The Reverend Charles Gringle
Pastor

Meeting every Sunday Morning at
1899 Nevada Street
at 10 a.m.

Repair the ravages of the week
with Scientology services

And you hold that Church meeting even if you seem to be TOO BUSY helping people to spare that hour Sunday morning. You run the service only until 11. One hour’s basic group auditing, the simplest session in the Group Auditor’s Handbook, Session I—always that. You vary it and they’ll leave after five or six sessions. Stay with it and the congregation will stay with you.
NOW you will discover that most of the calls you get are from people in trouble which is best solved by auditing. One or the other of the people concerned will be found to need it badly.
You give them auditing on an hourly basis. You charge $10.00 per hour and carry none of it “on the cuff.” Take it cash in advance. Guarantee nothing. Make sure you stress its spiritual slant and value. Steer clear of promising cures. AND DON’T rush them into auditing. They’ll beg for it soon enough.
Actually do this to be of service to Man. Try to give it away. You’ll find you can’t. Don’t use this just because it’s a “preclear getter,” it’s a lot more than that. It will put you in financial condition and get your Church going.
Now if several auditors in an area do this there are ways and means of settling rows amongst them. Given three local papers and three auditors doing this, agree amongst yourselves who should have which paper and run one auditor to the paper. If you are too many for this then run it all through one switchboard or phone and take watches, allot the house calls, pool the auditing and cash resulting. Or do it one group per paper.
Keep that “Church of Scientology” in the ads so there’s always a trademark on the stunt and it can’t be pushed into by some untrained quack psychologist or Commie psychiatrist.
Actually run that Church!
All right, you’ll learn fast when you start it.
You need this to begin. Your ordination must be in good order. With an HCA you can get that from the Founding Church. Its cost is now $18.00. You had better have one from the Founding Church or the Church of American Science or the Church of Scientology.
Make sure you have a Church Charter. Write in to the Founding Church at 1845 “R” Street, N.W. and make your application.
If you want we’ll send you literature. We have a handout piece at the printers into which you stamp your name and address and which advertises nothing else but you.
When you’ve got these, run your ad and begin. Don’t run your ad unless you’ve got the above straight.
Now the press will contact you. The Code of a Scientologist on the subject of the press is explicit. No interviews.
BUT sooner or later make sure you do all you can to get yourself or your group a TV spot or a radio spot to talk about the calls for help you get and keep it going steadily. Press is a via. Radio and TV are straight communication, relatively speaking. So whatever you do don’t, particularly now, fall away from that Code of a Scientologist and always act within the area of Ability Major 1, “The Scientologist—A Manual on the Dissemination of Material” which you can get from the HASI for $1.00.
Now by the time you have all this started I’ll have something for you in the way of fast assists if what you’ve got isn’t fast enough for you.
In other words, wherever we can, let’s get this show on the road. We don’t care how many Churches of Scientology there are in a town. So long as there’s a leading Church. So long as they’re actually Churches. We don’t care how many ministers we have so long as they’re good auditors and good people, willing to run Churches and help their fellows.
The cost of starting all this is not high. If you’re working keep on working for a little until you get a practice started. Put your interview hours in the right place for you and work harder by putting yourself in two slots at once. If you’re not working and broke, get a job doing anything, finance your project and then cut loose from the job when you are rolling.
Well, here goes a main all-out push across the world. We want 5,000 auditors and 5,000 Churches by 1958.
There’s not a minister anywhere around that measures up to what the public thinks he should be able to do—except a Scientologist.
There’s no remedy for a case like busyness.
There’s no remedy for an attack on an outfit like a full-scale offense toward Theta goals.
Okay?

P.A.B. No. 61
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

16 September 1955

SELLING

It is completely fantastic that we have to sell Dianetics and Scientology. Yet we do.

If this is so, then why, and how?

The world does not know that there is any hope for the mind, the spirit, the intelligence level, weariness and disability. If you talk to a group all about the mechanics of the spirit and fail to talk to them about “There is some hope for it,” you’ve overshot, and right there you have “entered the public case” too high. Its data level does NOT include SOMETHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT.

The careless driver, the faithless wife, the negligent employee are all severe problems. You could confront an individual beset by such problems and talk for half an hour about engrams and have him walk away without asking for help. Why? Because his entrance level is SOMETHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT. You’ll have to sell him on that before you can sell him anything else. Does it take selling? It surely does!

The world has been promised and promised and promised for centuries, with a flop every time. Today the magazines of the cheaper variety are full of psychiatric articles about the miracles of new drugs. Even legislation states that psychiatry “cures 75 percent of its cases”; an outright lie. It knows that as soon as you promise cures you’re Lying. Even the Busy Business Bureaus state that the public should suspect anyone who promises a cure for anything—by which, we believe, it includes psychiatry. So your glowing statements that you can take care of it entirely are received by the beset person not at all. He’s heard it before. He’s spent his money on patent medicine, and medicos, and quack psychologists, or he knows somebody who has, and he knows it won’t work, that there is NO HOPE.

How do we solve this impasse? We don’t over-promise our beset person. We tell him that we have known such things to be helped by Scientology; that if we were persuaded, we might take a crack at it; that the thing isn’t ENTIRELY hopeless, since Scientology, a brand-new science, has been handling things that couldn’t be handled in the past. And we go on in this vein, a sort of two-way comm, until we bring his tone up to where he thinks maybe there IS something that can be done about it if he is very lucky and if we, fortunately, will make an effort. Show him the Code of a Scientologist. But talk to him not about WHAT you can do or HOW you can do it, but that there IS some hope in the matter these days.

Another point is to de-classify Scientology as medicine, psychology, psychoanalysis or psychiatry. Classification with these will doom your point. Your beset person, or the group you are addressing, possesses experience along these lines. Punch this up everywhere: SCIENTOLOGY IS THE ONLY ANGLO-SAXON-developed science of the mind and spirit. Medicine is Latin in origin. Psychology is German (Prof. Wundt, 1862). Psychoanalysis is Austrian (Freud, 1894). Psychiatry is Russian (Pavlov and others in the 1890’s). Scientology is an Anglo-Saxon exact science of the mind and spirit.

         Another point is the goal of Scientology: Ability.

Now, in talking to a group, steer off from Para-Scientology. Lay off the whole track stuff, huh? Lay off the fantastic. And if you have some chap around who insists on telling people about these things, just note him down; he isn’t working for us, fellers. The quickest way to lose a beset person or a group is to load him down with phenomena. Talk, instead, about the fact that something can be done. Talk about the fact that there IS a spiritual side to Man. Talk about the fact that Scientology solves social problems. When they are very initiate and it’s all in good fun and they’ve also got their HPA or HCA, do what you like with the whole track. Or use it in private sessions. Don’t hand it out to the public raw. It’s too strong.

To establish two-way communication (as you MUST do if you are going to communicate at all), you have to talk within the UNDERSTANDING of your audience. Remember that UNDERSTANDING is the peak of ARC. And ARC includes COMMUNICATION. Communication brings about understanding, so communicate a lot. But some understanding must exist to bring about communication, so don’t tell the Ladies’ Aid Society about your whole track space opera and expect them to begin cheering your speech. If their mouths open at all it will be either to say “Huh?” or to snore. And they won’t come back again. This is so much a fact that I want you to write and tell me who and where anytime you hear somebody spout off about whole track to new audiences or to strangers, for by this we find the boys who aren’t in our camp.

Our world today, before we’re well into it, believes that you live one life and get buried, and that’s that; that you don’t go to heaven; that mechanical gimmicks work better than men; that religion was “pie in the sky” and nobody got to eat it; that SCIENCE may or may not be beneficial; that you can’t really do anything about it anyway. That’s a pretty dim and inaccurate view, but that’s the view, just the same.

When raising the tone of the pc, do it gently by small gradients. The rises can get spectacular, but not if you try it with rocket ships. And when you do it, you’ll do it by raising his UNDERSTANDING, but if you fail it was because you jumped ABOVE his understanding and so you became unreal.

Now, the first step in auditing is not a process as such. It’s FIND A PRECLEAR. And the next step is ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF AN AUDITOR. That’s why you don’t do quite so well with mama. You haven’t established the existence of an auditor. To find a preclear, you have to engage what little understanding you are confronting, and then raise it.

Asking a preclear to decide to have processing is silly. You wouldn’t ask him to run Part C of SOP 8-C first, would you? No. You tell him, within his framework of understanding, that auditing is necessary to accomplish his goal, and when to report. You don’t ask an audience to decide to like Dianetics or Scientology. You tell them to like it, to trust it, to learn to hope again with it. You aren’t a scientist, and you don’t have to be wishy-washy and indefinite about what you say. Be simple. Be decisive. Be theta.

To find a pc, you have only to establish the fact that there is hope in auditing and the existence of the auditor.

You don’t have to struggle to tell people what Scientology is, what it is all about. Scientology applied the exact methods of science to the problem of the human mind and spirit, and won. It means the study of knowingness. Its immediate result in application is the bettering of ability in individuals and groups. It is a practical religion for all denominations, and doesn’t require faith in anybody until they have experienced something to have faith about. It helps people who want to be helped, and if they don’t want to be helped it doesn’t insist on helping them. It can be used to train and control people. Its goal is freedom. It has more validated cases in its files than any other practice. It is not an authoritarian science, and is of and for the people; it belongs to the little man and woman, not to huge interests.

By using Scientology you can talk better to people, and understand people better, and get things done or keep things from getting done. Scientology caps about ten thousand years of study that began in Asia and wound up with a quarter of a century of work in the Western Hemisphere. Its practitioners are ministers. These are trained for years, in school and out. These ministers abide by a Code that couldn’t be applied to the healing sciences at all by all reason of its clauses.

If people want to know a lot about Scientology, they’ll have to start from scratch like you did. You do things, you don’t just talk about them. When and if somebody starts running you and Scientology down, get amused, get superior, don’t close terminals. Scientology is like “good roads and good weather.” Everybody is for those. Somebody trying to run it down would be for bad roads and bad weather, and you appeal to that few who like things done right and running right. And so you become amused at opposition.

You don’t demonstrate Scientology on somebody before an audience just to PROVE IT WORKS. You handle this problem by insisting, if you process at all, upon processing the entire group, and you use “three points in the body, three points in the room, find three points in the body” until somebody pops out. Then you smile and hand them your card, and wonder who is running at Epsom Downs next week. Talking or processing, you are in poised control of the subject and your person or audience.

I wouldn’t credit it, if I were on Saturn and somebody told me you had to sell a science which gives the priceless gift of freedom to everyone, that such a stupid planet could exist. But it does, and you are on it.

                                    				Good selling,

							Ron

P.A.B. No. 62
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

30 September 1955

PSYCHIATRISTS

Don’t be terribly surprised if in the next year or two the psychiatrists start pushing auditors around with even greater antagonism. And DON’T be caught flatfooted when they do.

You know, auditor, we HAVE had a fight on our hands. And we have and WILL have a fight on our hands. The old Book One Black Panther mechanism is all right in its place, but it doesn’t do here.

Nearly all the backlash in society against Dianetics and Scientology has a common source-the psychiatrist-psychologist-psychoanalyst clique. Their patter doesn’t vary. Behind the bulwark of authority these people, when asked about you, an auditor, or about the subject or about me, usually say that it is a hoax and that you or I are really just out of an institution for the insane.

Wherever some auditor stupidly decides to co-operate with psychiatrists, he has been gobbled up very quickly. One cannot co-operate with them any more than he can “do business with Hitler.”

You think maybe I’m just sawing out a tune when I say this. Very few people believe the actual true history of our science in the past five years, the amount of attack and antagonism to which it has been subjected. But let it suffice that about two million have been spent to put Dianetics and Scientology out of the running. Because the people trying to do it are, by and large, pretty stupid, and low-toned, the campaign has not succeeded. But the amount of fast action necessary to combat that much money has been, to say the least, exhausting.

I could tell you a lot more about this: I could tell you about the strange finances of the BDR,* of DIANOTES, of other squirrel publications. I could tell you about three actual murders. I could tell you about long strings of psychotics run in on the Foundation and the Association, sent in to us by psychiatrists who then, using LSD and pain-drug-hypnosis, spun them and told everyone Dianetics and Scientology drove people insane. I could tell you about the strange politics and ambitions of psychiatry, so well covered in the book Psychopolitics, and give you a proper riddle as to why we, a small group, the only ANGLO-SAXON DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIELD OF THE MIND AND SPIRIT, have been subjected to so much attack and finance. But I am not telling you stories or being dramatic. I am inviting your co-operation in your own future security. Whether you believe this war exists, or believe the psychiatric rumor that it’s all a figment of my mind, it’s best to be safe in this battle.

It’s best to be safe because it isn’t our battle and it isn’t our objective to ruin psychiatry or medicine. We don’t care about these. Our goals are to make more people more able, to make a rather inefficient society a lot more fun. In order to attain these goals we had better scan the river ahead for shoals and fit our craft so as to survive any, and having done that, lightheartedly continue on our way. Dianetics and Scientology are not political; they desire to overthrow no government. Each auditor anywhere is expected to continue his long-given allegiance. Dianetics and Scientology exist to serve and assist any given officialdom in a proper way. We have in view no empire of madmen all screaming for some dictator or banner. We have our place in the world of things as they are, and we can do an awful lot right in that place, seeing that we know more about the mind, the spirit and religion and even science than any other group in the world.

Granting this, then, we should act to best fit our niches, and so do our jobs. About the only thing which upsets our forward course is the fact that psychiatry and medicine sit close to the advisers of state, and these officials, on matters of the mind, turn to psychiatrists for their opinion, and the psychiatrist there can be counted upon by his cult headquarters to give the right amount of sneer to the official about Dianetics and Scientology. The public as a whole love Dianetics and Scientology. Our word-of-mouth praise is remarkable. But in the official strata, because the psychiatrist is the authority, we are likely to be mud. Similarly, the newspaper, in wanting an opinion of us, calls the local medical or psychiatric board and again gets this formulated sneer and defamation. That the public responds to us and likes us is remarkable in the face of this authoritative calumny. Reversely, the public utterly LOATHES psychiatry. You waste time if you try to defame psychiatry to the public. The public is already in a spitting frame of mind on THAT subject. Coals to Newcastle, strictly. Psychiatry stands in the public mind for ineffectiveness, lies and inhuman brutality. The public is better informed on this than you suspect. The public only avoids YOU, an auditor, when it believes you are a psychiatrist or a psychologist, so there is no team-up; there never will be. The Busy Business Bureaus, advised by psychiatry, will always give Dianetics and Scientology a bad report no matter how hard you work to get them to give a good report. The answer—ignore them. We are an organization for and of the people.

But don’t fail to take the steps to secure yourself an immunity from attack, auditor. Make sure all your papers are in good order. Make sure, no matter where you are in the world (for the last attack upon us was in Central Africa) that your ordination is in good order. Make sure that you are running a good and orderly congregation every Sunday morning. Make sure your Church is registered properly. Make SURE your literature says you make the able more able, and that insanity and illness are no more your problem than they would be the problem of any minister. Stay out of that slough of insanity and severe illness, for you don’t belong there and never will. Practically, I don’t know any auditor who ever came out unscathed entirely when he attempted to work with the severely ill or the insane. The amount of enturbulence caused by contact with such is fantastic.

Now, not to scare you but to inform you, psychiatry has armed itself with several new drugs. One of these, LSD, has the total goal of driving persons insane for 15 to 25 hours—JUST long enough to convince people that your auditing spun the preclear. When you see a process solve a case, and then the case spins, don’t even bother to look for the needle mark on the pc. The APA spent their whole May convention in Atlantic City drooling over the effectiveness of this LSD, WHICH HAS NEVER MADE ANYONE WELL AND IS WELL KNOWN TO HAVE THE TOTAL PURPOSE OF PRODUCING INSANITY. Grim? Fantastic? Ha! Ask the few auditors who’ve had this done to the pc. For the pc or his family often has a psychiatrist looking in, unknown to the auditor. And it HAS happened. Wild? It’s a lot wilder when it’s happening to you as an auditor. The answer? Don’t process people with psychotic histories. That’s simple enough.

Now if it does happen to you, don’t just abandon the case. Give the case a few exercises and observe the recurrence of the weird spin. Observe this carefully. And then bluntly inform the family or the authorities, if you are questioned or called in, THAT YOU AS PASTOR OF THE CONGREGATION TO WHICH THIS PERSON BELONGS HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THE LIFE AND HEALTH OF THIS PERSON AND THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT UNDUE INFLUENCE WAS USED AND THAT SPECIFICALLY YOU GAVE EXERCISES TO AND OBSERVED THE PERSON IN QUESTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THAT PERSON HAD BEEN GIVEN THE INSANITY DRUG LSD SO THAT YOU COULD REPORT IT TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES. And don’t testify otherwise. Sounds wild? Well, always do it if involved in such a thing. You’ll find the family physician or psychiatrist was called in midway in processing (which consists, remember, entirely of making able people more able). You’ll find there is a vested interest somewhere in the insanity of this person. And so testify that you suspect it. We will have to hand lots of literature on LSD, in fact we’ll have the APA convention reports on it for you. If this happens to you, you, minister, are the only policeman who would suspect it. If, then, psychiatry “plants” one on you, look it over, report the sudden occurrence of insanity promptly, testify your suspicion of LSD, produce the literature on it and get the sheriff looking around for that medico or psychiatrist as fast as possible. BUT, don’t look for trouble in the first place. Leave insane people alone. I know we can do things for them. We can also shed light on how to solve the national debt, too.

DON’T ever promise people you will cure them. If they want to know if Scientology will help their arthritis, tell them it often has been known to do so, but that that isn’t an auditor’s goal. If a person becomes more able, he’ll usually feel well. But DON’T advertise that you cure things. If you HAVE to advertise, I’ll give you some tips that work. They don’t include curing ills and insanity.

You, as the most educated people on earth on the subject of the human spirit and MAN, certainly deserve a high role in the field of religion. We can reform all of religion and make it vastly better. Why clash with healing quacks?

Scientology is for the people and of the people. It belongs to them. They are receiving it. They like it. Bear with our troubles with the dull official and Authority and go out and make a happier world.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

5510C03 4LACC-1 The Fundamentals of Scientology.  The Rudiments of Auditing   (Part One)

While Book One has a place close to the top in scientology, the most  fundamental fundamental was invented later.  It appears on page 23 of the  Ability issue called The HCA Manual:

The rudiments:

1. Awareness of the auditor, that an auditing room is present, and that a session is in progress.

2. Two way comm on a casual basis.

3. Delivery of the question

4. The comm lag

5. The acknowledgment

6. Duplication of the exact question by the auditor.    

In order to make any auditing work, these fundamentals must be observed.  If  the session is not precisely conducted, the processes can fail to work.  This  even explains why one might not have a practice: if the public couldn’t find the auditor, there would be no  practice.  This also explains one difficulty in auditing one’s parents: you  need awareness of an auditor, not a child.  To start the session, the PC must  first find out he’s a PC, and he must find the auditor.  In the auditing  situation, students must learn to assume the beingness of auditors and PCs,  not students.  If you exist as a auditor, there will be PC’s; this depends  upon an ability to be.  The relationship between auditor and PC is not so much  one of altitude as one of ARC; you must keep the R in.  When you are auditing  an auditor, for instance, it doesn’t inspire confidence to have to stop and  look up the process.

(There’s a process that makes a PC into a PC: “What are you doing?” run until he cognites he’s being audited.)

A PC goes out of comm with an auditor before he observes that there’s  something wrong with the session, like a code break.  An auditor’s code break  only occurs when the PC thinks the auditor has bad intentions, and where the  auditor does not repair the out comm with a little two way comm.  The auditor  may, if the out ARC is severe, have to use another process on a lower gradient  until ARC is restored.

A gradient scale in auditing need not take a long time for each type of  processing.  For instance, to get the PC to remedy havingness need not take 5  hours; if you stay in two way comm and see what is really happening when the  PC throws away mockups so as to really get rid of them, this could take only 6  to 8 minutes, if you’ve actually got an auditor and a PC.

You must continually be aware of these rudiments, since the PC can stop  being a PC at any time.  Then two way comm gives out.  Whenever two way comm  gives out, the session stops, as far as the PC is concerned.  What starts this  is too little two way comm and too little acknowledgment in the first place.  The PC will get stuck on the time track at the point where he has not been  acknowledged, and the session at that point is in fact over; it’s all now in  the past for the PC.  When he gets restuck later on in session, he’ll blow, or  threaten to.  Sometimes this can be handled merely by the auditor’s starting  all over with the session, thus subtly calling the PC’s attention to the fact  that he’s in a session.  A PC may blow 28 minutes after failure to ack.

The auditor must learn to differentiate between a PC’s dropped  willingness and an increased comm lag.  Where willingness is not there, no  auditing can occur.  The only thing there in the first place is a willingness  to play the game.  Nations topple if they forget this fact.  Willingness to  work, if taxed too heavily, can become a willingness to succumb.  A whip  extracts the last atoms of willingness, but this can easily be turned around.

“The only thing that any nation can tax, that any group can exist on, is  the willingness to play the game: to do, to survive, to continue.”    If you decrease a PC’s willingness to play the game of auditing, you can  hardly expect to increase his willingness to play the game of life.  He must  always audit better than he can live, or he’ll never live better than he can  be audited.  In session he should observably be getting brighter and more  alert.  PC’s always sag a bit when session is over, so don’t be disappointed  when life seems harder than the session.

Helpful hints: You must duplicate the question time and time again,  without killing the PC’s willingness to answer it.  This can be done by adding  some dunnage, but don’t vary the question.  The dunnage consists of casual  two-way communication before and after the question.

“Two-way comm is light, ... airy.... It has life in it and can be  terribly casual and fantastically therapeutic.”

“To remedy havingness is to remedy the need to have.”

Regret is running the time track backwards.    

5510C03 4LACC-2 The Fundamentals of Scientology -- The Rudiments of Auditing  (Part 2)

Here are the reasons why the human mind has not been solved:

1. I don’t know.

2. No idea.

To know about something, is necessary to not-know it first.  This was  an incomprehensibility to philosophers of all ages.  To understand the source  of ideas, you had to understand “no idea”.  One has to be able to not-know  something in order to know something about it.  Dialectical Materialism is a  dramatization of “no idea”.  “No idea” is a workable concept, but as long as  the Dialectical Materialists are only dramatizing it and don’t know it, it is  unworkable.  Dialectical Materialism says that all new ideas are the result of  two old forces.  Hence no idea can be really new.  So there is no possibility  of getting a new idea.  If someone dramatizes something, as with the  Dialectical Materialists, it must have existed earlier as a postulate that  went solid.  Things begin with a consideration and end with a solidity, e.g. a  dramatization or a solid reality.  So an idea is senior to all matter and  conditions.  Above that is the thetan in his native state.  If a thetan wishes  to return to his native state, he often bungles it by assuming that he is in  native state, when he is actually in very bad shape.  This leads to the idiocy  that everything that is true of a thetan’s native state is what continues to  be dramatized, clear down to the bottom of the barrel, and that every  aberration is a reflection of native state and the first and second postulate  theory [Axioms 36 and 37].

Native state is having no idea.  The thetan knows all about all.  He has  no ideas, because he has all the ideas there are.  Now he says that he will  have an idea.  Here, we get Axiom 36: the first postulate gives the second  postulate power.  So the thetan in native state knows all.  He then makes a  first postulate: that he has no idea.  From here, as per Axiom 36, he can make  the second postulate: that he can have an idea.  This is an harmonic on native  state, but it is alter-ised, so it persists and we get time.  The force of  having an idea is the statement that he didn’t have an idea before.  An idea  is a barrier, a stop on the track.  Even a manic idea or a win can be a stop.  So we get:
0. Native State: The thetan knows all but has no specific idea.

1. First Postulate: No idea.  I don’t know.

2. Second postulate: A specific idea.  This is an harmonic on Native State: “I know something.”

3. Third Postulate: Forget.

4. Fourth Postulate: Remember.

For the first time in the history of mankind it has become safe for man  to know something.  It was not safe before because you’d stick to it, because  every mystery could then pull you into it.  The more you knew about it, the  more you were enveloped by it.  This gives the manifestations of a thetan’s  blackness, dropped havingness, illness, etc.  Things known on a second  postulate basis are solid and persist.  Studying anything will produce this  phenomenon.  Scientology has been a safe subject because it has progressed  toward simplicity and has never pretended to contain all knowledge.  There’s a  limited amount of knowingness and unknowingness available.  What gets scarce is  unknowingness.  We let “unknow” go on an automatic basis; we don’t take  responsibility for it [so it gets pulled in on an unknowing basis.] You’d  never get into trouble in processing if you kept on supplying lots of no-idea  instead of using old no-ideas.  When you keep on using old no-ideas to get new  ideas, [eventually] the new ideas jam into the existing no-ideas which have  become so precious that we interiorize into them.  Here, we’ve ignored the  first postulate which provided the power for the second postulate.  One gets  stuck in dramatizing no-idea and loses the volitional ability to postulate an  idea into existence.  People who get stuck in “know about” are in the second  postulate.  If they exteriorize, it’s into the blackness of the third  postulate, which is the harmonic of the first, not-is-ing the knowingness;  thus: “I’ve forgotten it.  “ The fourth postulate is “remember”: an  alter-isness of a not-isness.  This is getting to be very persistent stuff.  From this sequence, we get most solidities and spaces, except for directly  postulated solids and spaces.  [Perhaps the fifth postulate would be  “occlude”.]

All you need to get space is lookingness, which is a dramatization of  knowing.  In lookingness, space is on an automaticity.  That’s why space  continues to exist.  This automatic space, because it’s automatic, tends to  fold up on people, producing condensed spaces and figure-figure at lower  levels.

The above was discovered by the fact of the relative effectiveness of  running “something you wouldn’t mind forgetting” compared with the bogginess  of “Something you wouldn’t mind remembering.” Not-knowingness evidently is the  only solution to prevent interiorization into bodies of knowledge or solid  objects.  Per Axiom 36, if you take out the first postulate, you can knock out  the second one.  For instance, “You realize that over there there’s a bus  running.” It doesn’t affect you, does it?  Until you knew there was a bus over  there, and then you probably got a picture of it or something.  Get the  trick?  Probably a counter-trick would be saying, “I don’t know what’s  standing right here,” inventing something to stand here, then remembering you  said you didn’t know what was there.  So there’s automatic “I don’t know”  before the knowingness.  Running an “I don’t know” process for two hours gives  more gain than 50 hours of “I know”.

The unworkability of “remember” processes shows that psychoanalysis never  gave stable gains.  It gives solid ridges if you keep remembering.  You can  as-is it by having him recall all the times he remembered, or better still,  use forgetting to dissolve the ridge.

Take any troublesome engram, ask the PC what he doesn’t know about it,  and it will blow in minutes.  It upsets the PC to have him make a perfect  duplicate.  But this way only causes fogginess if you don’t acknowledge well  and stay in two way comm.  This also solves the case with the stuck picture.  It’s also safe to use

“What don’t you know about it?”    on chronic somatics.

Not-knowingness is not the goal of humanity or scientology; it’s just the  barrier that has to be crossed.

5510C08 LPLS-1 The Goals of Dianetics and Scientology

Hubbard concluded that the problem of the mind was soluble in 1938. At  this time, the USSR offered him $100,000 and a lab outside of Moscow, for his  manuscripts.  [Later, the Russians stole the manuscript for DMSMH.]

Structure can only modify the mind, but the mind monitors structure.

Sometimes one decides to die, then changes his mind without unmaking the  first decision.  This can produce chronic somatics if the person’s decision to  die gets restimulated.  He won’t be conscious of the first decision at this  point; he thinks he wants to live, but has to do some irrational thing, like  be a professional invalid.  [Succumb postulate?] The basic datum is the Q and  A of survive/destroy, neither fully decided.  When one gets audited and  decides to survive, his IQ can go up and he can become happy and able.

It’s mathematically impossible that accidents could account for  evolution.  Darwinian theory suggests that there is reincarnation, although it  doesn’t state this. 

P.A.B. No. 63
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

14 October 1955

PLAYING THE GAME

The highest activity is playing a game. When one is high toned, he knows that it is a game. As he falls away down the tone scale, he becomes less and less aware of the game, and thereby less and less.

The greatest ability of thought is DIFFERENTIATION. So long as one can differentiate, one is sane. Its opposite is IDENTIFICATION. When one begins to identify, one has “closed terminals” too closely, and believes one terminal is another terminal. The failure to differentiate between two terminals, in an electric motor, would bring about no “moting.” In a pc, it brings about no power or ability to handle power.

The legal definition of sanity is “the ability to tell right from wrong,” and that is a very sooth statement.

Therefore, the highest ability in playing a game would be the ability to know the rightness and wrongness rules of that particular game. As all rightness and wrongness are considerations, and as the game itself is a consideration, the playing of the game requires a high ability to differentiate; particularly it requires an ability to know the rules and the right-rules and the wrong-rules.

When an individual is prone to identify, he is no longer able to differentiate the right-rules and the wrong-rules, and the right-rules become wrong and the wrong-rules become right, and we have a criminal.

A criminal cannot play the game of society. He plays, then, the “game” called “cops and robbers.”

A person who strongly identifies is not necessarily a criminal, but he certainly is having trouble playing the game of society. Instead of playing that game, he “gets tired,” “gets sick.” He has these things happen because he doesn’t want to play the social game. He has a “game” of sorts in “hypochondria.”

Now, if you had a culture which was running a no-game game for anybody, a culture which itself had no game for everybody to play, a culture which had in its government a fixation on keeping anyone from playing the game THEY wanted to play, we would have as its manifestation all manner of curious ills such as those described in various ideologies like Capitalism or Communism. The entire government game would be “Stop playing YOUR game.” The degree of sanity in government would be the degree it permitted strong and active participation in the game of government, in the game of playing your game.

But if people who can’t play the game can’t differentiate, similarly a sane person could find himself very confused to be part of a game which wasn’t differentiating and where the rightness and wrongness rules were unclearly defined. Thus, a government without exact and accurate codes and jurisprudence would discover in its citizens an inability to play the game no matter how sane they were.

Thus, the game can be crazy and its players sane, or the players can be crazy and the game sane. Either condition would affect the other. When we get crazy players and a crazy game, the end product of either of the two imbalances above, we would get anything except a game. We would get chaos. Into this chaos, then, could be injected a new game, and on this alignment we would be able to have people who could play a game playing a game that could be played.

As a useful example of this, let us take people who cannot see anything wrong with slanderous materials on the subject of Scientology. These people, perhaps, also see nothing wrong with Scientology. They read The Aberree or the Daily Worker with equal facility with Ability and see no difference. We have here people who see no difference. They don’t differentiate. They don’t differentiate because they see no game. They see no game because they can’t play a game. Or, habituated to a social structure which had no rules or rightness or wrongness, they have lost, like so many students of various universities, their criteria.

By Axiom 36: A LIE IS A SECOND POSTULATE, STATEMENT OR CONDITION DESIGNED TO MASK A PRIMARY POSTULATE WHICH IS PERMITTED TO REMAIN.

A basic rule is that to as-is a second postulate, it is necessary to as-is only the first postulate preceding it, for upon that one depends the strength of the second.

To run out all games one would only have to find where there are no old games, spotting these one after the other. He would then hit the various cognitions that a game was in progress, for the game was always preceded by no game and all games are tailored by considerations.

Various effects from games are to become “the only one” on games, to become all apathetic about games, to have the rules of the games in reverse so as to counter games.

The remedy of having no game, or not knowing a game is in progress, would be to as-is the first condition and the current condition by simply spotting here and there absences of games. Then make one.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 64
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

28 October 1955

FIRST POSTULATE

We’ve got ourselves a little piece of data here that you might be interested in. It will make this first postulate a little clearer to you.

The native state of a thetan would be the first real postulate, wouldn’t it? There is an oddity that occurs: He continues to insist on this native state clear down to the bottom of the scale.

Let’s take a look at this. Actually, in his native state, he knows everything without looking, or anything, but he doesn’t know any particulars of data. These are all invented. So what you would really call this would be a potentiality, or Pan-Knowingness.

Now as we go on down the scale, he insists upon knowingness, all the way downscale, only he puts it into the form of data, and he gets his knowingness inverted so that all he knows is data, and he loses his capability of knowing.

Another thing that occurs as he goes downscale from top to bottom: He is not looking at anything, and we discover that eventually he begins to insist upon this condition. He starts wearing glasses, not seeing, seeing blackness and so forth. All he is doing is insisting that he is not looking at anything.

We take another one of these things: In his native state he didn’t have any space, and so he goes all the way down the tone scale, clear to the bottom, insisting on no space. Only, how does he make “no space,” finally? He begins to pull in all the energy upon himself, and crowds himself in real tight, and he is making “no space” by getting everything jammed together. But he is still insisting on the native state.

There are a lot of these native states that you can look over, and you will see that you get a whole string of first postulates out of them. Here they are, native states, and they actually are first postulates.

This is peculiar, to note that thetans insist to each other that they be in their native states, and the way they do this is to say “You’re stupid,” “You don’t know about it,” “You don’t know any data,” “You ought to be in jail,” “You should have no space at all,” “You shouldn’t be moving” (cops are always objecting to people for moving, you know). And they insist, one way or the other, that he doesn’t have anything. They say, “You can’t have anything.”

In other words, the whole society will dramatize this native state to some degree, but on what a horrible harmonic! So a thetan, after a while, begins to believe that all these native state postulates are bad. Therefore, he must avoid them, so therefore, he gets entangled, and trapped.
We look this over in processing, and we then move from the locational process up through Two-Way Communication, up into the subjective processes. The subjective processes, therefore, should all be first postulate processes, and the lowest of them would be “Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting.” You wouldn’t ever run “Something you wouldn’t mind remembering.”

All right, there are two other processes that go along in this subjective band which are intensely interesting. They are quite workable.

Now you understand that you do “Union Station,” or objects on locational processing, on “What don’t you know about that object?” and “What doesn’t that object know about you?” But now we have other places we can go, and one of the places we go is, of course, up into the subjective process band, which lies above Two-Way Communication.

Some of the subjective processes which are the most interesting are “Find some no-space,” “Tell me some things you are not looking at,” “Tell me some things that are not looking at you.”

You see at once that these are native state situations so these are very, very good subjective processes. They are run on a straight wire basis. So you see what a neat group that makes. But the ones that run fastest are these first postulate processes. “What aren’t you looking at?” “What isn’t looking at you?” “Locate some no-space,” “What don’t you have to locate?” “Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting”—all these are intensely workable.

We would move up from there into a new oddity, and that would be 8-C. Did you ever hear of 8-C before?

Do you know why 8-C works? 8-C works very interestingly. It is totally on a tolerance of command, and the continuous postulation of feeling or seeing something. 8-C, as a process, assumes the native state in a thetan and then tells him to go to the second postulate.

Here is a thetan. You are processing him. You are evidently assuming that he is in a native state, because you are saying “Look at the wall.” So you assumed that he wasn’t looking at the wall before you said, “Look at the wall.” You are taking over the automaticity of the second postulate. That’s why it works.

The third part of 8-C is just taking over more second postulates. He says, “I’m not looking at anything. Now I’m going to look at something. Now I look at that thing. Now I see it.”

We could probably dress up 8-C a little more workable just on this basis, but I don’t think it’s necessary, at this time, because it works, just the way it sits. But maybe you should understand it a little better just on the basis that we are assuming, all during 8-C, not that the guy is crazy, but that he is in a native state, and that his attention has to be directed to things.

So we take over all these automaticities, and he comes upscale.

          Now let’s apply this native state principle to Opening Procedure by Duplication. We are again telling him to look at one object, and telling him to look at another object.

Natively, he was able to totally duplicate the object. Now he doesn’t know anything about the object, so we could run “don’t know” in here again. We could say, “See that book? Walk over to it. Pick it up.” And now we run a higher first postulate on him: “What don’t you know about it?” “All right. Put it down in exactly the same place. Do you see that bottle? Walk over to it. Pick it up. All right, tell me something you don’t know about it.”

You could run this on this same basis on a first postulate, too, and it would be an intensely workable process.

Of course, when we go up to Remedy of Havingness, we are assuming he doesn’t have anything, and we are giving him something. So we are taking over the automaticity of having something, but we are again assuming that he is in a native state. The process assumes this, and then makes him dramatize, knowingly, the second postulate. Have something. He hasn’t got anything—now he has something.

As far as Route I is concerned, Route I is a far more native state than being in a body, and just drills on it, all by itself, of course, would accomplish a great deal. But you could take Route I and ask him what he didn’t know about these various locations on the Grand Tour and these incidents, all up the track, would blow.

Our assumption, as auditors, that the thetan is in a native state, and that we are then going to make him take over the automaticity of living by doing it himself, is a very valid one, and is evidently the one that produces the greatest result at this time.

So here is just a little change of mind in the way you look at processing. We take the native state of a thetan. We figure out “What is the thetan’s native state?” He is not in contact with space, energy, mass. He doesn’t have any dimension. We take this as the first condition. He can make a postulate out of this condition, and then he makes a second postulate, and the second postulate is a lie.

You can assume that he is in a native state, and make him make the first postulate, and you will have an intensely workable process. We assume he knows all there is to know about people, and then we say, “All right. Tell me something you don’t know about that person.” We are running the first postulate, right away.

Now if you assume a thetan is bad off, plowed in, and is not even vaguely in his native state, you will tend to run processes which will spin him in. If you are running him from the attitude that he has to come upscale to feel a wall, this is a bum deal.

The attitude you should run him from is: Here’s this poor little thetan, all stupid, and we’re going to show him a wall. We will find out that understanding of him, then, proceeds at a much higher rate.

You will get, sooner or later, a very important thing here. It is actually the auditor being there, two-way communication, and the assumption about the native state of the preclear that produces auditing.

When you particularize too solidly on a process, without paying attention to these three things, you don’t get any auditing done.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 65
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

11 November 1955

FROM A LECTURE BY L. RON HUBBARD ON
MEST PROCESSING, JULY 7, 1951

A person’s self-determinism is immediately and directly established in ratio to his handling of MEST.

Self-determinism goes down as a person goes down the tone scale, so what do you finally get? You get a person around 0.5. This person’s self-determinism is OUT. They are not self-determined, they are determined by something else—not by themselves.

Furthermore, they can’t handle MEST.

The “I” confuses the organism itself with the MEST it cannot handle, and selfdeterminism deteriorates.

It happens something like this: The “I” gets to a point where it obviously can’t handle other MEST, so it can’t handle itself, either. It can’t handle space. Not only is it unable to put somebody else through space, it can’t put “self” through space. And so on!

So here you have the tug and pull below 2.0 on the tone scale.

Here is an individual riding at 1.5, and here is another individual riding at 0.5. The 1.5 is trying to make the 0.5 into the 1.5’s MEST. Here is an individual confusing an organism with MEST. Here is the 1.5 trying to take this other person and OWN him as MEST.

If you have, also, a 1.1 here, the 1.5 is trying to make the 1.1 into his MEST and the 1.1 is fighting back to the extent of trying to nullify the 1.5 to the point where the 1.5 is a 0.5—and then the 0.5 becomes the 1.1’s MEST!

Here is the leading order of the tone scale below 2.0.

Nullification is worked on the 1.5 so that the 1.5 can be owned by the person occupying the lower band on the tone scale. The 1.5 will take a 3.0 and try to move him on down to a 0.5 so that the 1.5 can OWN him.

The organism, below 2.0, is more MEST than theta, actually, and entheta, being confused and chaotic like MEST, behaves to a large degree like MEST.

Here is your battle of the strong and the weak. In other words, the battle of the 1.5’s and the 0.5’s.

The only way you can possibly get along is up in the bracket of ARC, because these other things don’t win.

Nobody ever succeeded in owning another organism. It can’t be done.

You can own a horse—with ARC! You can be nice to the horse, and the horse understands you, and you just get along fine. The horse is very glad that you are riding him, and everything is happy—and that horse stays in good shape.

But let’s “own” the horse! “Okay, you brute, you beast, you will do exactly what I say!” Before long, you have a 0.5 horse, and that 0.5 horse will develop spavins, spasms, and everything else.

The only way 3.0’s can operate is on data, and exchange of ideas, and reaching an agreement with relationship to that data.

_____________________

This is an added observation which I now realize I have been “adding” for a long time. 2 and 2 make four unless you insist on having spots before your eyes (instead of stripes) when they make either .22 or 2.2—anyway:

Have you ever seen a person (so called) below 2.0 on the tone scale who ever accepted the fact that Scientology was REAL? I have seen them say, “Why sure, it’s wonderful,” but I have also had the privilege of processing some of these characters, and so far I have yet to see one who had any reality on it. Just an observation, but it continues to explain SO MUCH.

They will sell it, or use somebody else’s idea of its reality to make hay for their own stack (below 2.0 a barn is too much MEST to own, and they have already started in on organisms).

But for themselves? Just you try to process one on an advanced technique, and you will see what I mean.

And so, as sweet thought for the day, I give you all those “tough cases.”

Please, Sir, will you prescribe a process for the processing of processing toward reality on the subject of Scientology itself.

I have a feeling I will hit it in a tape.

When I do, I will send it to you.

                                     					L. RON HUBBARD

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 data in a case. The auditing atmosphere is A-R-C, with gain marked by continuing rises in A-R-C. With SLP a somatic or boil-off means reduced A-R-C and is an indication of an auditing break in A-R-C. 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 re-established 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.
(j) 	Deal with 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.
(I) 	Establish goals by two-way comm and the command, “Assign an intention to
	              (auditor indicating object).”
(m) 	Run SOP 8-C as given in 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 colour.”
“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 colour.”
“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).” 
	“Mock him(her) up again.”

LEVEL SIX

REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS AND SPOTTING SPOTS IN SPACE: 

Route One: 

An exteriorized step done as given in The Creation of Human Ability.

LRH:ts                                    				L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright (©) 1955 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[The above Operational Bulletin basically duplicates an issue dated 8 November 1955 titled Six Levels of Processing - Issue 5. ]

P.A.B. No. 66
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

25 November 1955

FIRST, SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH POSTULATES

Identification and differentiation are the two extremes of processes. An auditor really ought to make this experiment, just to show him the way things go. He should sit a preclear down and ask him what things are like things.

Something curious occurs—he plows right on in. It’s the second postulate. “What thing is like what thing?” is the second postulate.

Now we turn around and run him on what things are different from what things and he clears right up and gets as bright as a dollar.

So if we ask somebody to look around at all those people and find people he is like, we immediately find out why old Dianetics Straight Wire had such a terrific limitation. It had this limitation simply because we were saying, “All right, who had that manifestation?” “Oh, you have a twitch there?—Well, who had that?”

It would only run for four or five questions before it would plow in, so it was a hit-and-run process. The reason for this was: we were running identification.

So, if we were to take somebody out to a railroad station and say, “All right, now pick out some people around here that you are separate from,” he would get sharp and bright, and he would feel wonderful.

Let’s just take a shadow of that now: “Get a person there that you are the same as.” “Now get some things you have that are the same as the things you have.” The same, the same, the same, and all of a sudden this guy goes “Gug!” He doesn’t like it!

So if we ask him “What do you know about that person? Something else you know about that person; something else you know about that person,” we don’t have the full effect, but we have some little echo of this identification effect.

A very searching look at whether it is better to hit and run—one person, another person—tells us immediately something that is quite interesting: that if we found a lot of things you know about that one chair, for instance, the process would be effective, but it would be only about one-tenth as effective as “What do you know about that chair?” “What do you know about that table?” “What do you know about that lamp?”

We find they fit on a scale as follows:
First Postulate:      	NOT- KNOW
Second Postulate:    	KNOW.

So far we have been going with nothing but material objects or spaces.

Now, the third postulate is: FORGET, and the fourth postulate is: REMEMBER.

Forget and Remember stand in relationship to each other as an abstract first postulate, you might say, Forget, and the second postulate is: Remember.

Therefore, Remembering processes and Knowing processes simply make the person able to handle a second postulate. Therefore, they are long.

However, they don’t run out very well.

If we wanted to run out Knowingness, we would run Not-Knowingness.

In view of the fact that a lot of people just know things that are horrible, it would be to some advantage to run out some of this Knowingness. It is very false Knowingness, isn’t it?

So we have the consideration added to each one of these postulates: Good, Bad, Survive, Succumb, and that is added to Not-Know. Good or Bad, to Not-Know. Taking the second postulate we would have Good or Bad, Survive or Succumb, as Know. Good or Bad, Survive or Succumb, as the third postulate, Forget, and Good or Bad, Survive or Succumb, to the fourth postulate, Remember.

Now let’s look at that in conditions of existence, and we discover that an object, or something, must have presented itself, about which the individual didn’t know, and he’d have to decide that he didn’t know about it, before he would decide that he would have to know about it. So he is not-ising his Not-Knowingness, by knowing.

In order to forget about it, he has to not-is his Knowingness. So he has to not-is Knowingness, in order to forget.

To remember it, he will have to have forgotten it. Therefore, he not-ises Forgettingness.

By this pattern and scale we have all the difficulties a mind can get into. This is all a thetan can do, really.

Now we get the Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit Scale. We are familiar with that scale. We call it the DEI Scale. Actually it has Curiosity just above Desire.

So, we find one could be Curious about, Desire, Enforce and Inhibit Not-Knowingness.

We have the consideration, which is Good or Bad, Survive or Succumb, and now we have the volition. The volition of a person about this Not-Knowingness is to be curious about it, desire it, enforce, or inhibit it—or just plain not know it. Take it as its as-isness.

But if he decided not to not-know it, it would disappear. So in order to keep it there, he decides to know something about it.

Everything you get to know anything about becomes more solid, because it is a second postulate.

Now this very tricky set of values is evidently closer to the truth than we have been before, but it has to be worked experimentally, now, to discover how much of this is valid, and how much isn’t valid.

I made a test on one preclear who has a black field and made him good and sick. So we take the fourth postulate. Now get how solid things would become if you were using a fourth postulate.

I had him look at pieces of blackness, and instead of looking, remember them. It would have been easier for him to forget them instead of looking at them—and it was.

We didn’t carry the experiment any further. We just carried this as far as forget and remember—instead of look, let’s remember. It made him good and sick. It didn’t run out his occlusion.

We can understand, if we search a little further in this, what this blackness is, then. An individual decides to KNOW what is in that blackness, and immediately that he decides to know what is in the blackness, he will get a solidity to the blackness, won’t he? It’s a second postulate.

So you see how far this ‘‘figure-figure’’ carried us.

If we run something about that person that you would be willing to not-know and something you would be willing for that person to not-know about you—we will unravel the secrets out of people this way.

The people get better, and we are running closer to the truth than we have been in the past.

I just want to repeat to you, as I often have to do, one of those primary principles that is liable to go astray: This is the principle of Mystery.

The principle of Mystery is, of course, this: The only way anybody gets stuck to anything is by a mystery sandwich. A person cannot be connected to his body, but he can have a mystery between him and his body which will connect him.

Now the oddity is that it is the desire to solve the mystery which does the connection. So, really, the Know to Mystery Scale, on this day, has become the Not-Know to Mystery Scale.

We have pushed our information up just that much further.

You have to understand this thing about the mystery sandwich. It’s two pieces of bread, one of which represents the thetan, one of which represents the body, and the two pieces of bread are pulled together by a mystery. They are kept together by a volition to know the mystery.

And then people run the Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit Scale on that mystery. That keeps them interiorized, and this is really the secret of Interiorization. The secret is a secret. Q-and-A!

Survive and Succumb are simply a consideration. To a being who cannot possibly succumb, succumb is always a second postulate, but it is a second postulate to an actuality.

To really as-is a thing, you have to make a perfect duplicate of it, don’t you? The thing originally appeared, but was not known, so the second postulate came around and altered it into a knowingness. Therefore, in order to get the basic-basic on any chain of actual physical objects, you would simply have to say, “What could I not know about it?”

This is the cycle of alter-isness and not-isness of any perception: The Evolution of Thinkingness.

1. 	OBJECT 	(seen) 	NOT- KNOWN 	(As-is possible)
2.	OBJECT		KNOWN		(Prevented As-is by Alter-is)

3. 	ABSTRACT	FORGOTTEN 	(Not-isness)

4. 	ABSTRACT	REMEMBERED 	(An Alter-is of Not-is)

If you look carefully at number four, you will find that a fixation on remembering produced that tangle which is called a mind. Now, do you see how a mind could be loused up?

Now, added to any of the four above, are the following:

Considerations:    Good, Bad, Survive, Succumb. 
Volition:    Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit.

This is really not a scale, it is a time-plot.

Added to all this, of course, would simply be Confidence, and at any portion of that plot you could add this factor of Confidence. But Confidence goes into Conviction. At any point you have these two things taking place: You have Confidence, which then shifts off into Conviction.

Confidence becomes Conviction, so any one of these four conditions can become fixed, and so unalterable. But you tackle anything on this scale, simply by running the first postulate.

Right now “Waterloo Station” is quite stable just the way you are running it. Actually, “Waterloo Station,” on Know, or running enough Remember, would do this terrific thing: It would make the person totally competent to handle that second postulate. He would no longer be upset about the second postulate. He could handle it or not handle it, as the case might be, but he is liable to come upscale faster if you run what he would be willing to NOT-KNOW about that person. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1 Brunswick House,
83 Palace Gardens Terrace,
London, W.8.
BAY 5780

OPERATIONAL BULLETIN NO. 8	 				            13 December 1955

HANDLING PRESS

If it is absolutely necessary to admit press or talk to press, the only thing which really convinces them is result, and I would refuse to go on with a long line of speculation concerning press, or about it. If it begins to crowd such an operation as the Washington operation too hard for material on Scientology, I would follow this procedure. I would take them up to the big grey file case at 2315 15th Street, and say that it will do all the talking, and that they can if they wish bring any expert in to look over these records. I would then not go along any further along the line whatsoever, but would simply tell them to look over these case histories which are the case histories of Scientology. In other words I would make the file case do the press talking. We are getting along fairly well right now on our policy of no communication with the press but this sooner or later may trip us up, and I think such means of communication as simply insisting that the only thing that talks around there is this grey file case, might possibly become a press gimmick which would be appreciated and taken up. Permit them to bring in any experts to examine these files.

In other places than Washington, D.C., it would be a very good idea to simply accumulate records of this kind and throw them into a file case and, instead of talking about Scientology and what it does on various fronts, to give people who have to have material about Scientology the run of that file case. One which has fifty or sixty cases in it will do more talking in the long run than anything else.

We are entering a new era with Scientology and we should be prepared to hand out data to authorized persons who want it, but I do not think the data handed out should be speculative. I have this afternoon granted an interview on myself as a personality to the Daily Mail feature editor. He may go away and write a great deal about Scientology instead of about me and I decided to make this little test just to find out how it came out. Now we will see what he does write. Certainly he was corrected in an impression he had of me which he had gained from the rumour line. He had me all mocked up as a wild-eyed crusader, and he was quite astonished and friendly during the interview. We talked mainly about Hubbard as the writer, but he did have an awful lot of questions about Scientology

BRAINWASHING MANUAL

The brainwashing manual which came into our possession so mysteriously is being released, not with any intent to unmock psychiatry, but as a necessary piece of information for auditors who are confronted with the problems of brainwashing. Some of these cases are now turning up, and unless the basic philosophy of the brainwasher is understood, they are more difficult to handle. SLP Issue 6 or 7 will very undoubtedly handle brainwashing—7 by the way is not yet released, but 6 will do until it comes along. Therefore there is no point in writing an additional manual to handle this as a specific problem.

Some of the mystery concerning the manuscript on brainwashing which came into our hands in Phoenix was resolved when it was discovered that a book called Psychopolitics (spelled with a K) is in the Library of Congress. It is in German. It was written by a man named Paul Fadkeller, and was published in Berlin in 1947. Although I may be misinformed, and I definitely do not read German, this book is probably the Russian translation.
It is simply our intention to make the book available for 50 cents a copy to people in Dianetics and Scientology so that they can be informed as to the actual character of brainwashing and the mechanics of it. To that degree it is a technical book. There is no intention of handing it around into official quarters since I am sure official quarters must know about it since the book is apparently on file at the Library of Congress, and naturally if it is on file at the Library of Congress, officialdom must know about it. Thus there is no point in beating the drum concerning it.

If I am asked by press or persons in authority concerning our release of this, which I may well be, I will have to reassure them that there is no political significance attached to it. We couldn’t be less interested, but brainwashing happens to be a facet of the human mind and it has been necessary to make available to our own people any and all texts which exist on the subject. We probably should get hold of the book at the Library of Congress and translate it in full, but we do not have the money or the time to do this just now. Thus Don has been asked to mail a copy of the manual as printed to our various professional members, and to make other copies of it available through Box 242, Silver Spring, Maryland, for 50 cents a copy. This is certainly reasonable enough. I don’t think there is any point of any kind in placing it in official hands, as I have said, since even the U. S. Army and Air Force must be fully cognizant of brainwashing, since, as I have noted, a copy of it is on file at the Library of Congress. It could also be noted at the same time that there is a general movement among psychiatry to correct their own profession and to do something to those psychiatrists in it who are hurting and killing people with electric shock and surgery, and thus this is no concern of ours.

I repeat, our interest in this is professional not political. Brainwashing has become so much of a subject that it is very well for anybody having to do with the field of the human mind to be able to understand the intentions behind it and how it is done. This is the only work we have on the subject. If there are any political repercussions to be expected by us, I would consider that we are being very self-conscious, since obviously if there were any political repercussions to be expected, they would have come before this since, as I say, this book has evidently been in very wide circulation already and is on file at the Library of Congress so far as we know. I think the general reaction of the public is that they couldn’t care less.

______________

Out of a letter from Frank Sullivan: . . .
“Randomity. Found an interesting gimmick. Tell someone ‘We have formed a new club. We call it the Society for the Prevention of People—we have found that people cause us all of our troubles—they cause us characters more doggone trouble. Would you like to join?’ If he says ‘yes’ tell him he is in. (Also if you should ask him to be three feet back of his head—he will be.) If he asks just one question, he is out. Doggondest test for a Step One I ever saw. This has been well tested.”

								L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:ts 
Copyright (©) 1955 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1 Brunswick House,
83 Palace Gardens Terrace,
London, W.8.
BAY 5780

OPERATIONAL BULLETIN NO. 9					           19 December 1955

THE TURN OF THE TIDE

The London Daily Mail feature editor, John Hall, took it upon himself on December 13, 1955, to personally interview me, and write exactly what he found. He published in the Daily Mail, a first run paper published in London, Edinburgh, Manchester and Paris, a very long and friendly story which will probably do us more good in the British Isles and France than anything which has happened for a long time. Time Magazine has written eight pages, there have been about 80 columns in U.S. magazines such as Life, Liberty, Look, and there has been untold press released on the subject of Dianetics and Scientology. But aside from one young communist who spent about three minutes talking to me on the stairs, at Elizabeth, and a fellow who wandered in, from Life he said, and never wrote anything, in Los Angeles, there has been no press reporter near me since before the publication of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

That feature editor, John Hall, did take it upon himself to actually do an interview, and that the results were favourable caused me to make a little investigation concerning how press has been operating before, and on what it has been operating. Evidently the total activity of press has been to pick up slanted and hearsay information. So I was interested to find out how this information came into being. Apparently it works this way: to make some sort of “face”, somebody who met me at a cocktail bar then pretends a considerable knowingness on the subject of all of my life and activities, and gives forth at a considerable pace not handicapped in the least by the possession of no data, and this by and large whether done by Scientologists or casual acquaintances has been the total sum of information which has been circulated about myself since the late ‘30s.

As even John Sanborn can tell you, I have been very chary about releasing any actual information about myself. I had a rather large collection of old-time photographs which I thought we might put into Ability, and at the last moment made John put in something else. I have not been anxious, in other words, to put up a big show of myself, thinking that Scientology was enough for its own sake. In this I have apparently made an error. I look over possible available sources of unbiased information concerning my own past, and discover that while it could be traced down on official records in libraries and other places and confirmed, there is no one who even knows enough about it to do that job of coordination. Thus it is necessary that I release some accurate biographical information to supplant some of this rumour and hodge-podge which has been spread around in the name of information. There is plenty of authenticating and documenting material if one cares to look for it.

Now I know that it is extremely bad taste to put out any data concerning oneself, or to talk about oneself, but if people see fit to talk about one and, having nothing to talk about, therefore lie about one, and if this rebounds as widely as it has, through presses, books, plays and motion pictures, certainly one has some responsibility for putting out something like an accurate biographical narrative to say the least, and so we are doing so at this time, and then I can forget about it and go on doing something more important.

For sure, however, the tide has turned on the subject of press, which doesn’t mean, however, that we should give the technical materials of Scientology to press. The best way to talk to press is to sort of two-way comm process them, and show them stacks of case histories, and let the deeds speak.

BRAINWASHING MANUAL
HISTORY

In our studies of brainwashing it has been necessary to procure what information existed on the subject. Fortuitously, in Phoenix there came into our hands two manuscripts on the subject; as well as I can recollect, they were left there at the front desk with the request that they be mailed back to their owner. We are not sure exactly from whom these came, but we understand now that this is unimportant since the subject is broadly rather well known in a book on Psychopolitics. It is to be found in the Library of Congress. It is in German, but we suppose it is the same manual. As we needed this material for research, we read it off onto a tape, compiling the two manuals and removing from them some of their very verbose nomenclature, substituting for it more common English terms, and we have had a few copies of this struck off for use in our research.

It is necessary if one is confronted by a case of brainwashing to understand the motives and general procedures of the people who did it. I must say an inspection of this manual does not make for much respect for the motives of people who brainwash other people. In the early pages of this manual, there is a letter from the person who purportedly gave these manuals to the organization, “Charles Stickley”, supposed to be a professor at Columbia University in New York City. This letter, included in the manuals as printed, makes it definitely and adequately clear that these manuals were reprinted for study by research workers. However, in handing out a copy of one of these manuals to one of our own people who had not heard of it, he made several wrong estimates of the manual itself. At first he thought it was a piece of communist propaganda. Then he thought it was something the organization had composed. Then on further inspection, he did not know what to think and it had to be pointed out to him very specifically that this was a synthesis of a Russian instruction book on the subject of brainwashing, and it had to be pointed out to him that it was reprinted for the benefit of people working to remedy and heal brainwashing. It had to be pointed out to him additionally that there was a cover letter in it which explained these things. Thus if you have one of these copies and it gets away from you which it might, you may find it necessary to explain exactly what it is.

We certainly have the right to have in our possession materials covering something as intimately connected to mental research as brainwashing. We have the right to know why and where and who. Furthermore, this material is evidently well known to various governments and is not classified, since the subject “Psychopolitics” (which is the technical name for brainwashing) is to be found in the major libraries of the world.

In the original text of this book there was a warning to psychopolitical operatives that they must stamp out Dianetics, Christian Science, and practical psychology, as these alone represented a menace to the brainwashing programmes. This reference in the text to Dianetics (which has been known to the Russians since 1938) makes the matter very much our business, quite aside from research. Yet if most of the vagaries and upsets from which we have been suffering have stemmed from a desire on the part of some political group attempting to accomplish a political coup and in the road of which we have been standing, then we certainly have the right to know why we have been knocked around by press and governments to the degree that we have been. Hardly a word uttered against Dianetics and Scientology has had any truth in it. The prevalent official but not the public opinion regarding Dianetics and Scientology is that they are phony sciences, tricked up to hoodwink people. Contrast this with the fact that in Dianetics and Scientology alone in all the world of mental healing lie the answers to increased intelligence and ability, and not very incidentally, in Dianetics and Scientology and in Dianetics in particular, we have the total antidote for the eradication of brainwashing. In other words we could unbrainwash them with Dianetics as fast as they are being brainwashed, given enough staff. Furthermore we can put troops and persons in a condition where they cannot be brainwashed. This we can do in Scientology.

Thus if brainwashing is being counted upon heavily to accomplish a great deal inside and outside the nations under attack, there would be only one organization which would be standing thoroughly in the road of that programme, and if that programme inside a country had advanced to a point where officials could be influenced, then you would discover of course this odd official opinion of Dianetics and Scientology, that they are quack sciences.

We are not planning to use this reprinted manual for purposes of propaganda. However, to prevent any misunderstanding from occurring, the highest police in England and America have both received copies and have been told that this is a reprint manual, and that we do not wish to cause them any extra labour in case another one of them falls into their hands. Actually, however, it is my belief that they have had the original, which is to say the communist version of these manuals, in their possession for years, and have simply been unable to credit it or unable to do anything about it. Thus our reprinted version should come as no shock to them.

It has been my experience with Anglo-Saxon governments that where idea propaganda line attacks were concerned they couldn’t care less. They do not believe that propaganda is effective. Otherwise they would themselves engage in more propaganda activities. The Anglo-Saxon traditionally depends upon force in order to accomplish his ends.

This is one of the reasons why communism has made such vast progress across the face of the world. It is an idea advancing against arms, and the arms of course will never be able to stop an idea. An idea will be necessary to stop the idea. We may very unfortunately be those persons in possession of the idea that will stop the other idea. Certainly the way things are going, if we don’t use our ideas to stop the incoming ideas across the face of earth, we are going to wind up one of these days in the middle of a total communism, living in a totally brainwashed society, the way I look at it.

WASHINGTON CONGRESS

My very best wishes to the Congress and my hopes for a highly successful time by all. I have made several recent tapes on material of some interest and value which have been sent swiftly and rapidly across so that the latest material would be available at the Congress. I have not made, however, a welcoming tape as I ordinarily would, and take this opportunity to thank those people who came, and hope that they go away feeling better, and feeling happier about things. There is no doubt that the Washington operation is on the steep upgrade and my principal communication in Scientology is between myself and the Washington operation where Bill Young, Julia Lewis, Ken Barrett, Don Breeding have things pretty well in hand. The silver ministers’ crosses are ready now and are supposed to be a knockout. The Co-Auditor’s Manual is ready, the “Brainwashing” pamphlet is being released to those who are interested in the subject, and it should be with all a very successful Congress indeed. I wish I were there.

NEWEST PROCESSES

I am tabling up all those processes which have been successful in starting low toned cases. These have amounted to about 24 new processes in the last three or four months. This table will be available in the near future with an analysis on it. However, I wish to call to your attention the singular success of Waterloo Station in handling low-ordered cases. Not-knowingness is time. If a person cannot not-know he becomes the slave of time.

One of the more interesting late developments is a process called “‘Orrible Fates”. You ask the preclear to tell you some ‘orrible fates. The theory of this is very simple and will probably become Axiom 55, which will be to the effect that the cycle of action of the physical universe is create, change, destroy. Thus, anyone trying to make things better and in very close agreement with the physical universe, in reversing this cycle, will bring upon himself some regret. We have a wild example of this in the cycle of action imposed upon us by Christianity in the good works, the hounding and the death of Christ. This mechanism, also handled in Fac One, gives us the oddity that we are trying to put create forward in time, whereas destroy lies forward in time. One then either masters the subject of time, by running not-knowingness processes, or he puts into the future inventions of horrible fates for various persons and himself and this universe, until he runs out the considerable regret which is accumulated every time he has envisioned a good action. Naturally the final solution of this is the solution of agreement with the physical universe. When one breaks this and it is no longer disagreement or agreement, he has really done something, and the keynote of doing this thing is, of course, in “not-knowingness”.

NEW AUDITING STYLE

I have made a direct deliberate test, not of a process but of the auditing style itself as a helpful agent. The keynote of new auditing style is that any boil-off, somatic, anaten, swing of attention or going out of session on the part of the preclear is occasioned by some sort of error or miscomprehension on the part of the auditor, and the preclear. I used a general process not ordinarily very therapeutic, but not destructive, and starting with this process and a preclear, worked only in one direction: to keep the ARC of the preclear advancing continually throughout the session, proceeding from the level of ARC of the preclear just before he came into session—in other words, consistently and consecutively bettered him. I did this by two-way communication, and communication bridges. Every time the preclear tended to go out of session even slightly, every time any slightest sign of dropped awareness occurred, I assumed at once that something had gone wrong with the session. I assumed that something had been said which he didn’t understand, or something had been overlooked, or that something had been done in error on the two-way comm formula, and immediately researched this fact to put the session straight again. In other words, during this entire session I did nothing but put the session straight with two-way communication, and run a relatively noncommittal duplicating process on the preclear. The process I knew of old was not going to produce any grand rise in tone. However, this preclear who was usually difficult to audit finished up a half-hour session in much better condition than this preclear had been in in years.

The assumption here on the part of the auditor is that if the preclear goes into a slump, has a somatic, or otherwise drops in ARC, then a difficulty has arisen with the session. We calculate this from the following: that at the top of the tone scale we have knowingness and awareness, in the middle ranges we have ARC, in the lower ranges somatics, and in the far lower ranges, varying degrees of unconsciousness. Thus when we say that the preclear’s tone should be promoted throughout the session, we mean of course that he must not be slumping toward unconsciousness. He must be advancing toward higher levels of consciousness.

Therefore today it can be said that good auditing does not result in boil-off and somatic unconsciousness, dope-off, or pain, but results in a constant and consistent advance of the ARC of the preclear from the first moment of the session to the end of the session, when it should be much higher, and that any time there is anything wrong at all with the session, the preclear will reply by getting more unconscious. This was about the most arduous and rigorous test that could be made of new auditing style with a difficult preclear and following very solidly the precept that it would be an auditing error if the preclear dropped off in attention or consciousness. Thus when I have said that in the new auditing style we should always advance ARC, I meant exactly what I said, and have even gone so far as to run an auditing session which was nothing more than an auditing session to demonstrate that an auditing session all by itself with the two-way communication consequent to it would result in increased tone for the preclear. By the way, this type of auditing also results in increased tone for the auditor, so we are winning both ways.

REPORTS FROM WASHINGTON

Washington has recently received a stack of forms from me which they were supposed to fill out weekly and send through as reports on conditions, finances, etc. This is really not so much an effort to fill up my “vacuum of information” as it is to get the Washington operation to pay very close attention to these details themselves. The theory is that if they have to compile these data, they will then know these data, and, knowing them, they will see what the situation actually is.

I believe much of the activity which goes on in an organization is done without any real realization of what the condition of the organization is, and it may very well be that for the last five years, only myself and a few others have been actually conscious of the real condition of Dianetics and Scientology organizations with regard to their business organization and finance. This sort of situation cannot of course continue. Dianeticists and Scientologists working inside of organizations and keeping them running would be as competent as they knew what was going on in the organization, and they would know as well what was going on in the organization as they were acquainted with the problems which the organization actually faced in terms of business and finance.

Probably one of the things which has held us back more than anything else was a good working knowledge of business itself. The basic maxim of business is simplicity itself, and that is first, that there must be an organization there, and second, that it must perform its duties and functions, and third, that it must originate communications as well as receive communications, and fourth, that its income must be slightly greater than its outgo, and fifth, that persons inside the organization should know what was going on generally in the organization.

I instituted this report system when I discovered that the Washington operation could sit there and not notice that the training department itself had never originated a single letter of procurement to prospective students. Mary Sue was originating all these letters, and when she left Washington to come over to London (having stayed behind to square things away), the training department, which had the responsibility for emanating all communication on the subject of procurement of students, wrote not one single letter to anyone anywhere. Thus Washington is involved in a slump. Similar to Australia, where internecine warfare kept people from communicating out to the world at large, Washington was brought into an intensified usual Christmas slump by a failure to originate communications. Another circumstance came to my attention which was very amusing. Over a period of two weeks, I was being asked by the downtown office if Silver Spring had received a cheque for expenses. Downtown Washington was communicating with me to find out a datum about Silver Spring which if a map is inspected will be found to be eight miles away. Silver Spring was not communicating this information to downtown Washington, and downtown Washington evidently never thought of asking Silver Spring. I let it ride until they eventually got together on the subject. Interdepartmental bulletins and meetings to exchange information are absolutely necessary if an organization is going to continue in a healthy state.

It is time that the central organization of Scientology began to circulate bulletins on what it is doing. I know definitely that in each department branch of the entire Washington operation everyone, with very small exception, is doing his all-out level best to keep everything rolling and they are doing a wonderful job of it. I think, however, that from department to department the Washington operation doesn’t know this. How about meeting each other, you guys?

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:ts 
Copyright (©) 1955 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 68
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

23 December 1955

FIRST AND SECOND POSTULATE

Here is some very fundamental material that has come up on the first and second postulate.

I have been going over this very carefully, and discover that we can know more about knowing.

We take our first and second postulate Axiom, and we find in this that if you run the first postulate, the second postulate runs out, and difficulties because of the second postulate run out—that there can be, really, no difficulties with the first postulate.

Our first test on this is to have somebody look around and, instead of looking at something, remember it.

He is looking at the wall, so you say, “Remember that wall.” So he looks right straight at it, and remembers it.

He looks at chairs, and things like this, and remembers them. Instead of looking, he remembers. Of course, it is right there in present time, but he is remembering, right there in present time.

This will do some interesting things to ridges. It is just an experiment. It’s not a process.

Now we have him look at some things and forget them! We just have him look around and forget some things.

“What in this room are you willing to forget? Now, instead of looking at it, just forget it.”

The next experiment would be to have him look around and KNOW about some things in the room.

Do you see how that fits in with R2—46, Other People?

The next experiment would be to have him look around and see if there is anything in the room he can not-know about. He is perfectly willing not to know about these various things.

If we run these in this order, we will discover an oddity. Remember and Know are sticky, and Forget and Not-Know are not sticky, but will run.

Well, this becomes very, very fabulous, doesn’t it?
What we have here has already been mentioned in Self Analysis, 1951, Fall, and that is the first ascent into the abstract and away from real objects: Forget and Remember. Those are the first abstract actions a person can take, mentally: Forget and Remember.

Now for the first time, with this Axiom about the first and second postulate, Forget and Remember fit into their proper relationship, and we get them in relationship to the conditions of existence.

The only thing that gets wrong with a thetan, you could say, is that his attention gets stuck on something. Then, when you go ahead, as an auditor, and stick his attention on something, you have the other thing.

There is some more data that I think you ought to have. It’s a little bit advanced in some respects, but it won’t do anybody any harm.

The first is a short note, here, on intentions. We have a process which is: Assign Some Intentions.

This is quite interesting, because it reveals a great deal of automatic machinery. You run a process on a student, such as this: “Now I am supposed to—” and you have him finish the sentence, and acknowledge it, and talk about it. Then you have him say, “Now I am supposed to—” and he tells you.

You just have him say this, each time: “Now I am supposed to—” and have him finish the sentence.

Of course, it could be run on the basis of: “Now what are you supposed to do?”

It is quite interesting that we find a student and a preclear set up in a school, is: “Now I am supposed to learn some processes.” Or: “Now I am supposed to have a short comm lag.” “Now I am supposed to do this—now I am supposed to do that.” “Now I am supposed to resent this breach of the Auditor’s Code!”

That process might loosen up a case or two that gets stuck in student auditing— the kind that isn’t making much progress.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 69
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

6 January 1956

SIX LEVELS OF PROCESSING
Issue 7

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 there—they 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.
7 I (a) 	Find the auditor.
7 I (b) 	Find the preclear.
7 I (c) 	Find the auditing area (light locational processing).
7 I (d) 	Establish that a session is in progress.
7 I (e) 	Accept, discuss every comm preclear originates.
7 I (f) 	Acknowledge every command execution by preclear.
7 I (g) 	Agree on process and command before using it and do not confuse it.
7 I (h) 	Use two-way comm liberally.
7 I (i) 	Follow the Auditor’s Code.
7 I (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 l—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 7 I (1) 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 on problems as above.

7 I (l)        Run pc on ORDERS. Two methods: Opening Procedure 8C 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.

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 gets part 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.
7 I (m) 	“What could change you?” 
	“What would leave you unchanged?”
(Run alternately one question, then the other.)

7 I (n) 	    To prevent all the problem and motivator techniques from adversely affecting the thetan (or if the above processes did), run alternately the following questions:
“Tell me something your body doesn’t have to reach.” 
“Tell me something you could reach.”

LEVEL TWO
This is what changes the Scientometric Tests

7 II (a) WATERLOO STATION

In a populated area (park, RR station, etc.) have pc tell auditor something he wouldn’t mind not-knowing about persons which auditor spots for him, or the persons not-knowing about 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 not-know 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 sake 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?”

7 III (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?”

7 III (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).”

7 III (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).”

7 III (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.

7 V (a)    Create Confusion.
  Commands: “Mock up a confusion. “
  Alternate command: “What confusion could you create?”

7 V (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.”

7 V (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?”

7 V (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. Command:
“Mock up your (father, wife, mother, husband).”
“Mock him (her) up again.”

LEVEL SIX
This exercises their exteriorization and stabilizes

REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS AND SPOTTING SPOTS IN SPACE 
Route One 
An exteriorized step done as given in The Creation of Human Ability.

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1 Brunswick House,
83 Palace Gardens Terrace,
London, W.8.
BAY 8881

OPERATIONAL BULLETIN NO. 13				   	    17 January 1956

Distribution: Washington—Dr. W. H. Young; South Africa—Dr. M. Scholtz; Australia—Dr. John Farrell; New Zealand—Dr. Frank Turnbull; West. Australia—Dr. Stanley Richards; Connecticut— Dr. Dick Halpern; Dublin—Dr. Bernie Green; London—Dr. Jack Parkhouse.

OPERATIONAL BULLETINS GROWING UP

This is the thirteenth issue of Operational Bulletins. So far we have been setting an enviable record of getting Operational Bulletins out on time. They are usually composed on Monday and are mimeographed and mailed late Tuesday afternoon. They are done on a special Gestetner machine which uses blue ink to distinguish them from other mimeographed material released for the various organizations. In every week except Christmas week, when nobody worked on Tuesday and when we were a day late, the Operational Bulletin is setting a record for coming out on time, a noteworthy and unusual circumstance in Dianetics and Scientology publications.

The purpose of Operational Bulletins is of course to furnish information of various types to Scientology organizations and personnel and to give them the jump, “the scoop”, ahead of the rumour line, individual instructions by letter to various personnel and primarily and principally to keep key staff personnel in Scientology from being embarrassed by the sudden change of direction or the solution or arising of certain incidents, so that they can act in the role of people who are “in the know”. This is quite important since we have in the past had many instances whereby things were released to one quarter of the world, were unknown in another quarter of the world and people in the field would ask staff members in some HAS what was going on and these HAS members would not know, much to their embarrassment. The Operational Bulletins give them a chance to have the straight dope and enable them to put people right concerning a great deal of material.

Further, if I started to originate individual letters to each and every key person in Scientology and give him regularly all that was going on we would have in effect merely a repeat of this Operational Bulletin; thus I am enabled to write to persons material which is directly and intimately in their department and to put all generalized information on the communication network covered by the Operational Bulletins.

Operational Bulletins are sent by airmail to every quarter of the globe and although .there are not very many copies of them released, they have the effect of a very wide distribution system. However, you should keep definitely in mind the fact that the information which appears in the Operational Bulletins is not generally well known to the field. In fact practically none of this material is intended for direct consumption by auditors and Scientologists at large. It is not that they would not understand it but in these bulletins I do not spend any time being nice or pulling my punches or being artificially poised about everything and anything. From my viewpoint these Operational Bulletins give me a chance to vent what bad temper I have and to indulge what puckish sense of humour I might conceive to be ill placed in wider spheres.

Alert yourselves, however, to the fact that the material in Operational Bulletins 2 reworded where it is of questionable content to non-Scientologists, can be freely used and quoted in Certainty, Ability, Local Newsletters, in lectures such as those given live by instructors and those given to free group people, and indeed it is expected that the material in Operational Bulletins will get a wider release at the direct discretion and good sense of people in Scientology who are in charge of various publications everywhere.

You know how when I’m right there my closest friends sit around in the office or living room and we take the situation apart, well this is not that good, but the Operational Bulletins are at least something of a substitute for the much closer type of communication that we like and which is quite impossible on a wider publication basis wherein the publication might fall into any set of hands.

OH MY GAWD!

The other day a well known figure in British Scientology was standing in my office being asked to undertake an activity and I said to him, more to make conversation than anything else, “Of course you know that if we were to take on a long series of cases suffering from some specific chronic somatic we would at least, even if we used group processing, alleviate the majority of those cases.” And this gentleman who has been in Scientology for a very long time and has done a very great deal of auditing said to me, “Oh really? Could you do that now?”

WHERE HAS THIS GUY BEEN? Back in Wichita when Susie and I were combing the whole track trying to plow up the various incidents which eventually became What to Audit (in England, The History of Man) we took on a series of polio cases by means of newspaper advertisement. The newspaper advertisement said, “Polio sufferers. A research foundation is undertaking an investigation of polio. Any persons so inflicted who would like to participate in this investigation should phone ----- .” The same ad was also run for arthritics. People with arthritis and polio started to call in and we took these people on, the polio sufferers up at my house, the arthritics down at the foundation, and using the oldest known form of overt acts and motivators, and using effort processing, we alleviated the majority of the cases which presented themselves. The first case that came up immediately, by the way, enrolled in the professional course and other cases took professional auditing afterwards. Don G. Purcell cut the program off without informing us because of course the foundation was supposed to fail. This program alone would have meant the making of Dianetics in that immediate area, and as a matter of fact, is still heard from, although it was only in progress ten days (it happens to be a good gag for any auditor to work). But remember this was 1951, and right there, auditing these people no more than three hours per preclear, we made the majority of these people feel so much better about life that they could get on with it. One girl threw away her crutches immediately. Another one, an old lady, got out of her wheel chair, and what we did in that short program just auditing these few hours using nothing but overt acts, motivators in the manner of effort processing, yet it did so much more for these people than had ever been done for them medically or ever could be done for them medically, that they were astonished beyond gratitude.

And here is this British Scientologist who has been in practice for years standing there in front of my desk and asking me in a surprised tone of voice whether or not we could do anything for polio or other types of illnesses. This man is reputed to have more success with auditing than many others. But if he has not learned that we can alleviate the majority of any illness in any series (as distinct from curing all cases into a state of perfection), then what does this man think we are doing? Does he think that Scientology is a swindle. He must! Either that or he’s never applied it even vaguely to people who were ill.

This matter was a considerable shock to me, as you might well suppose, for it told me at once why the progress of Scientology in Great Britain was relatively limited. A further check into this subject with another person, a much better Scientologist, discovered to me that the British Scientologist is not aware of the wild reactions and phenomena obtained from running engrams. The preclear rolling up in a ball on the bed as he goes into a pre-natal or wriggling his whole body like a fish as he hits a sperm sequence is unknown in Great Britain. Indeed at this late date I suppose that it is more or less unknown in America since it has been two or three years since anybody ran an engram on anybody. But here again was the tremendous drama associated with auditing.

Now if we have forgotten in Great Britain, America, and if we have not established in South Africa or Australia, first that Dianetics or Scientology even in its crudest form could alleviate the majority of man’s illnesses, and that a majority of any series of cases of any specific illness would be alleviated, and if we have not established the various highly convincing phenomena obtained in running engrams, we of course are not making anywhere near the progress we should. Indeed if we have let this material lapse in America and are no longer beating the drum for it, no longer demonstrating it, we of course are going to make very slow progress. There is nothing quite as convincing as getting tipped over into a pre-natal and getting it run out. The phenomena of running birth, of operations, accidents, of the loud zip, pop that comes from electronic explosions hot enough to burn holes in the E-Meter electrodes, and particularly the fantastic efficiency of Dianetics and Scientology in alleviating a majority of illnesses, are any one of them capable of giving enough word of mouth to Dianetics and Scientology across a populace to alert the world to what we really have here. However, if we neglect these things utterly, if our auditors do not know they can happen, we are going to make very slow progress of it.

We can as of this moment process a chronic somatic. I know that some months ago and earlier than that it seemed rather fatal to us to continue to fixate the preclear’s attention on a chronic somatic. But that is not a problem with us right now. It ceased to be a problem the moment I invented an auditing command exactly as follows: “Invent a problem that      (leg, arm, nose, eye, body) could be to you.” Running this command which is in itself a sort of a remedy of havingness, and repairing and remedying the havingness of the preclear as we go, we will discover that practically any and all phenomena associated with the service facsimile will come away and clear up and the limb or nose or eye will get well. This can be used as a word of warning, only on actual terminals. Never use this command, and I mean never, on actual conditions. Never ask the individual to invent problems lameness could be to him. Never ask him what problem blindness could be to him. Lameness and blindness are conditions. We want to know what problems legs or eyes can be to him, since legs and eyes are terminals. In running this command we reduce havingness too rapidly whenever we are stressing conditions. Therefore we run it only on terminals and use only terminals in running it. Handled in this way we do have the answer, as of this moment, to chronic somatics. This is really not news. We have had the answer to chronic somatics for years, and we have actually been able to alleviate the majority of chronic somatics which presented themselves to us.

WHY WE WEREN’T WINNING

The exact reason why our progress through the society was limited might lie in part in the fact that we no longer stressed the alleviation of chronic somatics, but in actuality it is far more important to us that for at least the last year auditors have been auditing in a way which I did not suspect and which does not produce an adequate result upon a preclear.

It is very startling news to me to review Scientology via its psychometric test results and discover that over a period of about four months neither Washington nor London had been getting anything like the rise in ability in its preclears that it had formerly been getting without at once discovering the answer. The answer in this particular case was elusive. If you will examine one of the last Ability’s published in Phoenix, Arizona, you will see two sets of graphs. One of them consists of twenty-five hours by staff auditors on a series of preclears and the other graph consists of five hours on a series of very tough preclears by myself; you will see that the gains of the twenty-five hour intensive and the five-hour intensive are quite similar. In fact the five-hour I was giving was a little bit bigger gain than that being gotten in twenty-five hours by the staff auditor. Now I thought it was merely a smoother presence or a better grip on existence and Dianetics and Scientology that was doing this, but this large generality as a statement of the difficulty was inadequate.

Laterally although my own auditing on preclears was getting better and better, the staff auditing on preclears and the auditing on preclears out in the field was getting worse and worse; less and less gains were being obtained during the last few months. I have spent a very uncomfortable three months researching and looking hard at techniques in Scientology in trying to determine what was happening to preclears who were coming in for auditing and why they were not easily and smoothly progressing as they were being audited. Only at the last did I look hard at something the auditor himself was doing.

You have heard me say dozens and dozens of times I am sure, “When in doubt, remedy havingness.” Well, you ain’t doing it, and you better start right now.

I cannot entirely congratulate my only alertness in discovering this for the matter was presented to me about two weeks ago when I came out with a process known as “body motivators”. I had discovered that a body is very, very hungry for motivators of such a very low level that any and all motivator remedy had in the past escaped it. All you have to do is mock up a mock-up of any kind and have the preclear state an intention into it that it is there to kill the body and instantly it goes into the body. This hunger was so pronounced and widely spread that one auditor suggested that we invent a technique on it called “SOP SLURP”. It was not until three separate auditors asked me how you went about getting a preclear to mock up a mock-up and get it into the body that I awakened to the fact that in our HPA-HCA schools we had not adequately instructed on how to repair and remedy havingness. That was the first inkling. The next was some auditing I myself got in which no havingness was repaired or remedied and even this passed me by; and the next was just a week ago, checking a case to discover with some astonishment that each and every symptom of loss of havingness was missed by the auditor. At that time last week I gave a lecture on the subject of remedying havingness and its necessity, but at the time I gave this lecture, which is available in London and Washington, and which covers the subject fairly adequately, I was not entirely aware of the fact that auditors in general are completely ignorant of the necessity for remedy and repair of havingness.

It is then with considerable shock that I have to report that one of the basic tenets of Scientology invented here in England three years ago and in use for all those three years has been missed and is being overlooked by auditors everywhere and if they are overlooking this, then they are messing up preclears at a most delightful pace.

It may not be that every auditor is obsessed with the idea of making nothing out of preclears, but it certainly looks as if we have overlooked the repair and remedy of havingness, that we have all too many of us been trying to make nothing out of the preclear’s aberrations .the wrong way around. The way to make nothing out of those aberrations is to repair and remedy the preclear’s havingness every time it drops.

What are the symptoms of loss of havingness? Running any as-ising technique, the preclear may become anaten, or he may become slightly nervous or agitated or want a cigarette or seem to break out of the session in some fashion. In either case, he is “down in his havingness”. In other words he has burned up, used up or as-ised too much of his physical body energy in the auditing itself. In view of the fact that every subjective technique puts a sort of a hole in the middle of the electronic mass surrounding a preclear, parts of that mass then begin to cave in on the preclear. Thus running an as-ising technique on a preclear beyond the ability of the preclear to sustain the consequent loss of havingness will bring in on the preclear many new engrams which he did not before have, and a technique which as-ises energy if used without a repair or remedy of havingness will bring about a worsening of the case of the preclear.

For instance, there are several auditors I have not directly trained on staff now working in Washington. Just as this has missed me, it has evidently missed Julia and in London has missed Dr. Walker. A careful study of the Washington staff auditor reports reveals that the only advance in graph of the preclear which is significant and worthy of the name of Scientology during the last few weeks occurred when the auditor repaired and remedied havingness or was using a mock-up type of technique along with as-ising types of techniques. As an example, the preclear audited last week by Dick Morley was run very largely on repairs and remedying of havingness. Old time staff auditor Dick Morley evidently wasn’t taking his finger off any number. He very carefully repaired and remedied havingness and reported it as such and his case did a remarkable jump.

Now exactly what is happening is very simple. A preclear starts to go anaten and the auditor keeps on running the process. This is to some degree my fault. The auditor has been indoctrinated into running the process regardless of what happens. He hasn’t realized that he ought to interrupt any process at any time if the preclear demonstrates a loss of havingness. Anaten is such a demonstration of loss of havingness. All right, another example: the preclear becomes agitated or upset. He reaches for a cigarette. He begins to twitch. His foot begins to wobble. He begins to talk excitedly. He begins to cough while being audited. All of these things demonstrate a loss of havingness. Even the bulk of the somatics which turn on are a demonstration of loss of havingness. These same conditions by the way can result from the preclear believing that the auditor has broken the Auditor’s Code in some fashion or has treated cavalierly or has overcome his power of choice. Both a repair and remedy of havingness are immediately indicated on the observation of anaten or agitation on the part of the preclear, and in addition to this the auditor should carefully go over the session itself to find out if anywhere the preclear believed that his power of choice was being overcome or if the Auditor’s Code was believed to have been broken by the preclear. You understand that the auditor didn’t have to overcome the preclear’s power of choice or break the Auditor’s Code in order to have the preclear believe that this had happened. However, this could be overlooked entirely if the auditor had been careful enough to repair or remedy the havingness of the preclear.

The slightest drop of alertness on the part of the preclear or the slightest agitation or somatic on the part of the preclear should immediately indicate to the auditor that havingness has dropped and must be immediately repaired or remedied. A great deal of time can be spent on the subject of repair and remedy of havingness, and it is very beneficial time spent. It is better to waste time repairing and remedying havingness than to blunder on through. Now there is another thing I have noticed with regard to this. Auditors are running these days toward cognition. Very well. If they expect the preclear to cognite they should not expect him to pull in a bank on himself. If an auditor runs a very obvious process which should bring the preclear toward cognition and if he runs it several auditing commands and then stops and repairs and remedies the preclear’s havingness and then after that asks him the same auditing question two more times, he will discover that he has blown a cognition into view. In other words, you could remedy the havingness of a preclear while his mind was on one particular subject and bring a cognition into existence.

The reason Scientology has been going slowly is in part, as covered above, the fact that we have been neglecting its efficacy in the matter of chronic somatics, but in the main because auditors have not been repairing and remedying the havingness of the preclears and have been running them downhill at a mad rate.

Now boy this is something we have got to jump on in a hurry. We’ve got to get in there and grab every auditor by the scruff of the neck and say, “Listen, do not run an as-ising command beyond the point of alertness of the preclear. The moment that the ARC of the preclear drops or the preclear becomes agitated even vaguely, you get in there and repair or remedy havingness.”

This becomes particularly important today since a few months ago I discovered that you could remedy the havingness of anybody, and I mean just that. You can remedy anybody’s havingness and you can turn on mock-ups on anybody. The fact that the preclear who has a black field or even an invisible field can be caused to mock up blacknesses or invisibilities and shove them into his body brings us into an era of being able to make anybody turn on mock-ups. Getting the preclear to postulate that the blackness is bad for the body will cause that blackness to snap into the body. Getting the preclear to postulate the invisible mass he has mocked up as bad for the body will snap it into the body. Of course after this has been done a few times the consideration of the preclear will change. Then perhaps the blackness or the invisibility will only snap in when the preclear postulates that it is good for the body. He may also have residue left. It is very important to get rid of these repair and remedy havingness residues. By various postulates such as that the residue is a threat to the body, it is good for the body, it is bad for the body, the residue too will snap in.

Let’s differentiate at once here the difference between a repair of havingness and a remedy of havingness. We used to call repair of havingness “giving him some havingness”. It needs a better technical term. Therefore let us call this repair of havingness. It means having the preclear mock up anything he can mock up and in any way it can be done to get him to shove (never pull) that mock-up into the body, and by similar means to get rid of the residue which went along with the mock-up. That is a repair of havingness. It is a one-way flow. It is an inflow. Now a remedy of havingness is getting him to mock up and shove into the body enough masses or simply mock up and copy enough masses to bring him to a point where he can eventually throw one away. In other words, repair of havingness is simply having him mock up things and have him shove them into the body, and a remedy of havingness is having him mock up and shove in and throw away the same type of mock-up. Remedy of havingness is always a superior operation to repair of havingness. Repair of havingness is a very crude stop-gap but can be used at any time. However, a preclear who is working well and on whom havingness can be remedied should at all times have his havingness remedied not repaired. In other words, any mock-up mocked up should both be shoved into the body and mocked up and shoved away, and this should be done in considerable quantity until the preclear is quite relaxed about that particular type of mock-up. One does this, remember, every time the attention of the preclear drops or becomes agitated.

There is one other little point connected with this which is quite important and that is auditors very often audit a preclear into an area of time when the preclear exteriorized. This on a preclear who does not easily exteriorize brings on a considerable grief and sadness. The way to get rid of this is of course to remedy the preclear’s havingness or only repair it and to ask the preclear to recall times when he was not exteriorized. This will bring up at once times when he did exteriorize and recalling these and using further remedy and repair of havingness will get him out of those areas on the time track where he did exteriorize and where fear of exteriorization was built up considerably.

I have noticed another special condition regarding this exteriorization phenomena which is quite important. A preclear will occasionally repair and remedy havingness up to a point where the body disappears. He doesn’t quite know where to put the mass which he has mocked up since he cannot find the body. This is particularly true of preclears who have a very low threshold on havingness. An auditor would be stupid indeed to simply plow along beyond that point where the preclear has already said that he couldn’t find any body to push any havingness into. The moment the preclear does that the auditor should suspect that the preclear has gotten into an exteriorization type incident. It is not, however, necessary that he immediately flounder around and try to find this incident as recommended in the paragraphs just above; he can also repair and remedy havingness in this fashion, and it is very important to know this. Although it is disastrous for a preclear to be asked, “What could your body have?” since he will simply strip the bank of various old facsimiles, it is a very, very good repair of havingness to ask a preclear, “What is there around this room (area) which your body could have?” and then have him pick out specific objects in the environment which he says the body could have. If he does this he will come up the gradient scale of havingness, and his havingness will be repaired or remedied immediately or directly on the Sixth Dynamic. A preclear who cannot get mock-ups and wherein the auditor has either been too clumsy to get the mock-ups turned on or it really was impossible, more or less, the preclear’s havingness can be repaired simply by having him do this process, so this is a very, very important process and one that ought to go down in red letters.

This whole subject of repair and remedy of havingness and its effect upon auditing and the fact that it has not been stressed at all in training, being up there at Level Six in the old Basic Processes, brings us to SLP Issue 8. The entirety of Level One in SLP will be devoted to remedy and repair of havingness.

In SLP Issue 7 we have a great many phenomena associated with the remedy of the body’s havingness. The reason for their position is to bring about an adjustment of the condition of the body before one goes on to other and more complicated ways of processing. Now in Issue 8, all of these various things will be retained but they will be paralleled with a complete remedy of havingness as that particular level of SLP will be gone over. In actual experience it is better to remedy the havingness of a preclear no matter where he is on the tone scale and no matter by what process than to run any significant process. Further, if a preclear cannot at least repair his havingness, to run Waterloo Station on him is to invite disaster, because in this particular process of Level Two he is liable to get himself into a down havingness situation and of course will not be able to not-know anything. He may be chewing up too much energy while trying to not-know. Thus we would have the failures which have occasionally occurred in Waterloo Station. They were simply havingness failures, not a failure of Waterloo Station. Furthermore, there has been a new command suggested for Waterloo Station, “What would you be willing to not-know about that person?” This seems to be a better command at least for the British Isles.

You may believe I am being rather militant and accusing everybody of having pulled an overt act against me by doing this, but the truth of the matter is that no time in my auditing have I ever permitted a preclear to drop in his havingness and I have therefore gone through a considerable period of surprise when I find that this particular thing is being neglected elsewhere. This tells at once what has been happening to our psychometric graphs has been happening to our preclears where they didn’t advance in a hurry and has been definitely interrupting our goals. Any and all field auditors are undoubtedly sinning like mad in this particular direction. We’ve got to make a practice to tap these fellows on the shoulder and say, “Here, you’ve got to repair and remedy havingness, no matter what else you’re running on the preclear, every time he goes anaten or gets agitated in any way.” We’ve got to conduct an educational program in an awful hurry throughout the field. Naturally we should start closest to home and we should take our staff auditors and we should be very, very insistent that they repair and remedy havingness on preclears, and we should hold this up as more important in the early parts of a case than any change of mind or significance. The change of mind occurs after repair and remedy of havingness has been accomplished. If our auditors continue to as-is everything in sight in the preclear, the preclear’s case is going to hang and that is all there is to it.

I have not yet run the sequence I wish to on cognition. I believe that I will be able to run a few commands of a specific as-ising type command and then repair and remedy the preclear’s havingness and finally ask the same as-ising command a couple more times and get an immediate cognition on the part of the preclear. In other words, I believe that you can use repair of havingness or remedy of havingness to get an immediate cognition on almost anything with the preclear.

We also take care of vacuums and separatenesses and everything else with repair or remedy of havingness and running in with it certain other things such as problems, etc. When we discover by two-way communication a weak universe, we could then ask the individual preclear, “Invent a problem that person (weak universe) could be to you,” and then watching him very carefully and repairing his havingness on the subject of that person’s possessions get a very rapid separation of universes. I have noticed that the weak universe phenomena begins when the person elected by the preclear to be a weak universe first began to put MEST anchor points around the preclear. In other words, valuable presents.
Now although I sound very militant about this you should translate that militance into urgency. I feel rather triumphant. I have put my finger on something here which has been a puzzle to me for a very long time. Why did auditors in general fail to get the results on preclears. We have sorted out a great many points and have straightened out a great many things, but none of them have been the real thing. The actuality is this business about repair or remedy of havingness; I am sure that this is it. An auditor can almost audit carelessly if he repairs and remedies the havingness of the preclear adequately. Of course there is a great deal to know about the repair and remedy of havingness which has never been put down. The gradient scales, methods of turning on sonic and visio, and a host of technologies and techniques relating to the repair and remedy of havingness having yet to be delineated adequately. I am, however, attending to this as fast as I can and you can expect in the very near future a considerable rundown on exactly how you go about repairing and remedying havingness. I am even going so far as attempting to make a training film on an animation principle using a live subject and cut-outs to show what it really looks like when the preclear is repairing havingness and what it looks like when he is remedying havingness.

I am as pleased as can be to get a finger on this point and I know doggone well that if East, West, North and South would begin to repair and remedy havingness and stop specializing in the significances without repair or remedy of havingness, we are going to start shooting people up to the top of these psychometric graphs. We can’t help it. This is not going to be a very easy road, I feel, for an auditor recently who was very, very closely coached on the subject of repair and remedy of havingness did go out and manage to lay a considerable egg. The auditor just didn’t get the idea of the agility of a preclear’s havingness. The auditor could not credit the fact that the agitation and excitement of the preclear was actually a loss of havingness. Another auditor could not credit the fact that the continuousness of a preclear’s fear was simply a lack of havingness.

Let me call your attention specifically to the old phenomena of the emotional scale and the engram. We found out that when one engram was keyed in that it fixed the emotional tone of the individual. Then we had him run this and as he converted the havingness of the engram to usable havingness, we found that his tone rose. We discover on these psychometric charts that the “unhappy” section is not moving in recent times. The reason it is not moving is because we aren’t changing the mass of the preclear. In order to change his emotional tone we would have to change his body mass. The best way to change his body mass is repair and remedy havingness and get him on the road with regard to mock-ups. We started out a long time ago to change people on the tone scale. Well here is the answer to changing that position on the tone scale, and we sure better use it.

A lot of this I confess must be a lack of observation on my part but I am so happy to have hold of it and to get this point straightened out that I don’t much care what the basic cause was in relationship to it.

I want you to look accusatively at any and all auditors you run into and say, “Why haven’t you repaired the havingness of preclears you’ve been running as-ising processes on?”

Well, we’ve got this answer taped. Let’s go.

BRAINWASHING BOOK RECALLED

Washington has recalled the brainwashing manual from all those to whom it was issued on request from the government. The manual is not to be issued in general to the public but is to be let out only to our most trusted association members, so that they can aid and understand and further their studies on curing brainwashing. This manual is an exact text on how brainwashing is done. The manual itself had to be written into much more obvious English from the very poor translation which it was originally and thus reads fairly well but is no less deadly for the change.

YOUR PHOTO PLEASE

Any and all persons on the Operational Bulletin distribution list are requested to send as soon as possible either an 8 x 10 studio portrait of self or a very good quality snapshot film, so that an enlargement can be made.

We intend to put up in the various HASs throughout the world the pictures of the various persons intimately connected with Scientology offices. As soon as I have these I will either make the enlargements or have the portraits and will distribute.

Remember now I am waiting for a picture from you, and if you don’t send one you will be missing in the halls of the various HASs, and you don’t want to be missing amongst this crew.

MOTION PICTURES NEEDED

We are hoping to have a reel of 8 mm film of each HAS in the world and its personnel so that we can have this film copied and copies distributed to these various offices for their view in demonstrating to people what the HAS looks like in other areas. If you are interested in this project let me know.

TRAINING SCHEDULE RELEASED

The whys and wherefores of the four levels of courses taught in Scientology rather than schedules of class hours have been put together recently by myself and are being distributed. This schedule will also appear as a PAB since it contains for the most part a rationale of training; a brand new way of teaching the indoctrination course is included. You will probably be getting your copies of this very shortly. The primary difference is the establishing of an auditing attitude on the part of the student before he is taught any processes. There is a difference, procedures to Scientology techniques. An auditor who does not know Scientology procedures is not likely to be able to handle Scientology techniques. This schedule is to be put into action at once everywhere.

BOSS GOES UNPAID

Evidently the only staff person who is not now receiving his pay cheque regularly is myself. When I left Washington there was a considerable ball-up on pay cheques. For reasons best known to himself the former secretary of the Founding Church was not at all ambitious in getting the personnel paid. Now I have finally gotten everybody straightened out due to the help of Hugh Neals, the new Washington bookkeeper. We have been so intent on getting all the records straight one way or the other, however, that we have neglected to notice that I have gone unpaid here for some months. This is a very easy thing to have happen to one if one happens to be the actual management of an organization. The staff can always strike against the management, but who does the management strike against? If it were not for my handiness with dice I probably would have starved to death by this time.

WASHINGTON GIVES TERRIFIC CONGRESS

Under the management of Dr. Young and ably assisted by Dr. Barrett, Dr. Sanborn, Dr. Breeding and at the last minute Dr. Lewis, as well as the other stout fellows, in the Washington area, a terrific congress is reported to have been had. Naturally the numbers of attendants were not as high as the usual central congress even though the fee was much lower due to my absence, but the public was very happy with it which makes me very happy. I wasn’t directly taking the testimony of the Washington staff itself concerning how terrific this congress was. However, people who returned home from the congress then wrote me letters thanking me for the terrific new processes and the wonderful advance Scientology has had so I guess it is now in order to thank the staff now that it has been proved true.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:rd 
Copyright (©) 1956 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1 Brunswick House,
83 Palace Gardens Terrace,
London, W.8.
BAY 8881

OPERATIONAL BULLETIN NO. 14				   	    24 January 1956

AFTER THE FLOOD

Operational Bulletin 13 must have appeared to be a flood of material and it was actually. It contained (1) the road block which has been preventing the progress of Scientology and its remedy, and (2) the outline of basic philosophy behind courses. I hope you read all this because it will undoubtedly have a profound influence upon the forward progress we are making.

The indoctrination course outline in particular is to go into effect at once and it may be expedient to take existing HPA and HCA students and feed them back through this regimen.

As far as repair and remedy of havingness are concerned and body motivators I have made several tapes recently for the coaching course given in London which are available from the London HAS. There are six hours of these tapes or three reels and the set is available for £15. They will be sold to anyone. A £ (pound) is worth $2.80 if you wish to convert this into U.S. dollars. The series includes body motivators, recent materials on exteriorization and a great deal of material which you will probably never see otherwise.

THE ONLY ONES

It is fantastic to have to advertise or sell Scientology. It is the only methodology extant today which alleviates or remedies psychosomatic illness, proofs an individual against a host of casualties, improves reaction time, raises intelligence, and improves ability.

That Scientology has throughout the world today only about 1200 practitioners in full practice could be true only if these people did not understand entirely the capabilities which lay under their hands. The discovery that they were not repairing or remedying havingness—and of course my omission in pointing out this fact—is about the only thing which has brought about failed cases and which slows down the general progress of cases everywhere. Now that this is spotted and swept out of the way, I don’t see any real bar to our forward progress.

Scientologists are the only ones where healing is concerned or where an improved race or culture is concerned. Scientology and Scientologists are the one hope the human race has today.

Let’s not make it a thin one.

COMPARISON OF RESULTS

Do you recall one of the last Abilities issued in Phoenix, Arizona, which contained two graphs. One of the graphs had to do with a composite of all cases audited by staff over a long period of time and the other one had to do with a very long series of preclears I had audited. The staff auditors audited their preclears for 25 hours each. I audited my preclears for five hours each. The results were comparable with perhaps the slightest edge over the staff auditor in my graph. In other words, the results I was getting in five hours were being obtained almost in 25 hours by the staff auditor.

One of the reasons behind this disparity of time was not just the “insight of the old master”. It was the solid reason that I repaired and remedied havingness on my preclears.

Perhaps another influencing point was that I audited these preclears only one hour per day for five consecutive days. When havingness was cut into, the preclear did not for long have to suffer under that duress, but this is probably a minimal reason. Some of the other reasons were acknowledgement and respecting the origin of communication by the preclear, a condition which was not always met by the staff auditor.

This graph, by the way, will explain to some degree my own continuous state of optimism where Dianetics and Scientology were concerned. I always stated what I had found to be true. This was not necessarily true and practised by the auditor. It has therefore been my contest to find out what I was doing so that I could relay the information on and so make the auditor results comparable. This we have evidently more nearly approached today than ever before, particularly with our new indoctrinations schedule and what we have just discovered about the repair and remedy of havingness.

EARLIEST FINDINGS ON HAVINGNESS

It might be amusing for you to know what the earliest finding was in the field of havingness. I wanted to know exactly what happened in terms of intelligence quotient when engrams were run into restimulation and knocked out of restimulation. I therefore set up a series of tests to be accomplished under a very solid regimen as follows: The preclear under test was given a short form Otis IQ test. This took him about ten minutes. The auditor then immediately threw him down the track into such engrams as birth or accidents and when that engram had been run just enough to get into the full restimulation, the preclear was given Form 2 of the Otis IQ which is comparable to Form 1. This was done in a rather long series. The engrams were then erased or de-intensified and the individual was given Form 1 of Otis IQ again.

I set this up simply as a needful datum. I did not anticipate any particular results and was willing to learn from the experiment. I did. It was found that the IQ of the individual raised from five to eight points by the simple fact of being thrown into birth or a heavy engram. This was such a wild result and so unexpected and yet so constant in the testing itself that I had to accept that the restimulation of an engram increased the intelligence quotient of the individual. The de-intensification of the engram by further erasure did not again lower the IQ of the individual, a fact which is accounted for by the mass in the engram being converted by an erasure, not eradicated.

As we understand this today, it was that the preclear was given havingness. The havingness he was given did contain vast significances but the significances were less important than the actual mass itself. Therefore the IQ gain.

This was our first encounter with the relationship between intelligence and mass. What actually occurred in this experiment was not visible to me for years, since the experiment took place in November and December of 1950. The experiment was the only one conducted for me directly on the line of actual research—as distinguished from puttering—by the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation of Elizabeth, N.J. That organization spent $47,000 all told on research. It conducted the above experiment and collected some evidence that in one case of spinal arthritis Dianetic processing had undoubtedly relieved the condition. The research department was at the time conducted by Donald H. Rogers.

Although some might not think otherwise, I feel that in view of the conduct of the above experiment by that department the $47,000 did buy something after all despite all contrary intent.

It should be noted that when we erased an engram we did not erase the mass connected with it. We erased the significance in the mass. We took perceptics out of it and it then could convert into acceptable mass. What was unacceptable was the perceptics and these restrained the individual from utilizing the mass. Actually I should say the individual’s body from utilizing the mass.

We can further learn from this that the figure-figure boy is doing just about this. He is trying to erase out of what mass he can have enough content so that his body can utilize that mass. His figure-figure is actually an effort to erase.

The answer of course is to give him mass he doesn’t have to erase the figure-figure out of. The figure-figure boy is way down on ability to have and is going on a sort of a storage battery philosophy that while he can’t create anything he can at least utilize blocks of stuff that he has stockpiled in his bank.

UTILIZATION OF OPERATIONAL BULLETINS

It has not leaked through several ridges yet, but these Operational Bulletins are for use in other publications and for use by HAS staffs. Having an extremely limited circulation, being destined only for key Scientologists who themselves are dissemination points, these Operational Bulletins are made to contain much information which should reappear in various publications. When utilized in other publications, of an official nature, one should not say that the material is from an Operational Bulletin. One should simply say the material is from L. Ron Hubbard. One can directly quote it or rewrite it giving credit to its source. By quoting the Operational Bulletin one puts into existence into the field the awareness that there is another communication line running which people then begin to desire thus devaluating the value of the PABs, Certainty and Ability. If material placed in these bulletins is not so utilized a communication line is being cut.

I could sit down every couple of weeks and write long articles especially for Ability magazine. I could do the same thing for the PABs. I could also do the same thing every month for Certainty. Sometimes I even do this. But the material which I am handling is generally vitally needed in one or another part of Scientology and I see no reason to deny the one and a half score people who are the key figures in training and processing throughout the world this data simply to introduce a comm lag on it for the benefit of Ability magazine. Thus a better answer for it is to put whatever articles I may have for these publications into Operational Bulletins and send them on through, and then have this material released. Ability, Certainty and the PABs can duplicate each other. It does not matter a bit if they do. It simply gives some material greater emphasis than others by having it repeated in two publications. Not all of this material will be utilized by such publications of course.

I have various ways of getting communications out to people. One of them of course is by personal letter and this system I use rather extensively, but this has the unhandiness of jamming my own secretarial service since much of the material I handle is equally applicable to many persons. I could of course adopt the sloppy system of taking new materials and suggestions and making carbon copies of them and including this in as appendices on various letters. This is in effect what the Operational Bulletins are.

Just because the Operational Bulletins appear on mimeographed pages is no reason they are a rival publication. They are not a rival publication. They do not go out to the world of Scientology except through the medium of Ability, Certainty and the PABs, as well as of course instructors and auditors immediately concerned in the HASs. For instance, in Operational Bulletin 13 there are exactly four PABs. Appendix 1 of Operational Bulletin 13 is to be broken in half and printed in two sections as PABs. In the Operational Bulletin itself, if you will glance at it again, there are two more PABs, but it is not known whether or not they will be so utilized. Certainly in the main body of the Operational Bulletin all that material must be repeated to Scientologists everywhere. It is sufficiently important to be utilized in Certainty, the PABs and Ability. If it isn’t utilized and disseminated then we are just as far behind as we were last month.

Do you know what a German schema is? It is a graph which shows one source breaking down into two sources which break down into four sources which break down into eight sources and so on. Well, if you fit Scientology publications on such a graph you find out that the Operational Bulletins are feeding several sources. This publication is not a competitive medium to Certainty, Ability, the PABs or Saturday Evening Post, the London Times, or the Daily Worker. The Operational Bulletins are for the aid and assistance of Scientology editors of the various publications and the staff of HASs throughout the world. Outside distribution of Operational Bulletins as such is not only discouraged, it is forbidden. And remember never give credit to the Operational Bulletins. Give credit to L. Ron Hubbard as a by-line at the beginning of the article just as though it were specially written for the publication. In the case of the PABs, by the way, the signature or by-line is always at the end of the article not at the beginning. In Certainty and Ability the by-line is at the beginning of the article.

THREE METHODS OF DISSEMINATION

With the introduction of two new courses in the London operation—the weekend professional auditor’s course at HPA level and the dissemination course weekday evenings—we are stressing the fact that there are methods of dissemination of Scientology and gaining and holding a practice and group which are certain and adequately productive of results.

In the dissemination course we are incidentally going to teach the indoctrination week first as contained in Operational Bulletin 13, Appendix 1, and then we are going to review the repair and remedy of havingness and then we are going to lay on the line these three methods of dissemination, how they are done, and what to do with what they gain.

The three methods are (1) “I will talk to anyone”; (2) Illness researches; (3) Casualty contact. These are the major proven methods of dissemination. There are other methods such as street contact, industrial contact, and the old time psychoanalytic contact, but they are not well proven in use. Auditors seem too shy to accost people on the street; although industrialists show some interest, they seldom show cash; and although the psychoanalytic contact, where one simply sits in an office with a sign outside the door and waits for the flies to walk into the spider web, is very definitely in use in Scientology as it was in psychoanalysis, it still is not successful. It builds a limited and constricted practice without any third dynamic appeal. It does very little good for Scientology.

The fourth and entirely possible if hopeful method the auditor might use is to sit and wait for the central organization to send him preclears. Several auditors are doing this and it is not a method of dissemination and will never happen for the good reason that the central organizations in each case are depending on the individual auditor to beat up the brush for Scientology. Thus we have a case of mutual waiting. The central organizations do play a large role in the procurement of preclears, but they do this by general dissemination and good will advertising as well as releasing popular publications which go from hand to hand and cause an alertness to the subject and the existence of auditors. The central organization does not directly solicit preclears to be sent on to auditors. It does very occasionally where any one auditor is concerned refer some correspondent in an area to an auditor. It does this at what seems to it to be a very high rate as it refers commonly ten or twenty preclears a week or used to, but this spread out across 1200 auditors is not very many preclears and so the auditor in the field has never believed that the central organization did anything for him. The central organizations do a very great deal for the individual auditor but they count upon him also to build his own practice and thus Scientology. It is a very limited process where the central organization contacts become the only contacts which were made in the world on the subject of Scientology. If any auditor is trying to pursue the last two methods mentioned which is to say hanging up his sign and waiting for people to walk in the door or if he is simply waiting for the central organization to send him people he better stop waiting.

The methods we must count upon to build groups, practices in Scientology are the first three listed above.

No. 1 “I will talk to anyone” is in very broad and general usage in the United States. It is not yet in general usage in Great Britain or on other continents, even though it has been tested and found extremely successful in London. The entire plan has been covered in one of my articles in an earlier Ability which was written after an actual test I had made in Washington had resulted in success. The gist of this plan is to place in newspapers an ad which says, “Personal counselling. I will talk to anyone for you about anything. Phone Rev. So-and-so between hour and hour.” When the people call up which they do—although the ad sometimes has to run for some days before the first call, since people are waiting to first find out whether it is a code and message or is actually an invitation to phone—they desire the minister to talk to someone for them.

Actually in many cases their problems evaporate in the phone call itself. If the minister simply asks them to repeat the problem several times or asks them what they could do about this. If it is the purpose of the minister simply to solve the problem of the preclear thus phoning, he can of course cancel out his clientele with the greatest of ease. This however is not his purpose. His purpose is to get this individual into a weekly group processing unit. This person he will find is not one of the lower strata of the society or one of its neurotics; he is one of the few remaining citizens who still has a conscience and who wants to get something done. Thus he will discover himself talking, strange as it may seem to him at first, to the better people, although of course he will get his proportion of pranks and nuts. He should actually undertake, and importantly free of charge, the actual commission of executing the communication. He should not talk to the person in such a way as to ease the problem. This may be the last problem this person has and it would be a disservice to simply solve it as easily as that. One makes something of the problem, not makes nothing of it. (If auditors have any fault it is a one way flow in making nothing out of things instead of occasionally making something out of them.) The minister receiving the call should then credit the fact that this is a pretty big problem and should undertake the commission of completing the communication. He should be interested and alert. He should require a personal interview from the person calling. If he cannot get the name and address of the person calling he can always get the name and address of the person the caller wishes him to communicate with. He should get one or the other of these addresses on the first phone call. The auditor should keep a log of such calls and should write down all their particulars and any addresses that he may find in these, otherwise he will become swamped. Also he will lose a lot of potential preclears. The fact that the caller is calling at all says that the caller believes things can be better. This is in the minority in today’s society. It should be cherished and nourished. Thus at the interview the minister places in the hands of the person material relating to the work of the church group which the minister is actually conducting every Sunday morning.

Of course there are ways to derail this particular project. The first I have already delineated in stating that one can as-is the problem the moment the call is received using Scientology techniques, and the other chief one is for the auditor to get “so busy” completing people’s communications that he “doesn’t find time to run a Sunday group”. His purpose is collecting together a Sunday group. Thus he simply couldn’t be busy enough to neglect this point. He has literature to hand which does not insist that the caller who has now come in person attend but which holds out to him the fact that there are other people in his similar circumstances that he might care to meet, and that there are actually methods which make it possible for individuals to solve their own problems, and that these goals are achieved by attending a Sunday morning church which of course is represented to be quite different than what one ordinarily expects by reason of experience with old time congregations. One does not talk about personal auditing unless the subject is forced onto one. After the individual has been persuaded to come to the church group (his communication in the meanwhile having been executed) he will become aware of the fact that individual auditing is available, he will understand what it is, he will also understand that he can benefit from it. There are many instances of course of people simply turning up, learning about auditing and wanting some at once without going to a group and these of course can be cared for. But the main point is to execute the communication of the individual without charge, fee or donation and to get that individual to come to the Sunday morning church group. There he will of course be given an opportunity to join the church at some small membership fee and will be made a part of the group. Of course it stands to reason that any auditor who has a fairly good sized group which is undergoing free processing will get from the group many candidates for (1) personal auditing, and (2) a basic course in Scientology for which charge can be made. It is actually a mistake to charge for group intensives. It is much better in the long run to do only free group processing, individual auditing for a fee, and to teach basic courses in Scientology, usually on certain evenings in the week. People who do not pay for auditing will pay for the course. Many of the people in the course will demand individual auditing.

This whole plan is working a gradient scale in getting people into Scientology. When regarded otherwise it tends to break down. People call up to get their problems solved, drift away. People get their communications through and then lacking auditing begin to burden the minister with additional communications which in the long run mean nothing to him or Scientology. The chief stumbling block auditors have encountered is the actual placing of the ad. It is found that the ad places very poorly in huge city dailies as compared to small suburban papers. Thus even in large cities the ad should be put into the smaller papers. People taking classified ads want to know if the ad has ever appeared before anywhere else. Naturally it has and copies of its placement are available from Dr. Richard Steves, Founding Church of Scientology of New York, Carnegie Hall, New York City, and from the HASUK in London. But much more germanely there is now in existence a society of consulting ministers. This was organized in Washington, D.C., by the Founding Church. It has available a membership at very low cost which gives to the ordained auditor a card which declares his membership in the society. This membership card is an adequate representation of the society and its antecedents and carries on it for the benefit of people on papers such as reporters or classified advertising managers the following legend, “Any question about the activity, integrity or ethics of the above minister or the wording or precedent of any ad he wishes to place should be referred to the society of consulting ministers, the Founding Church of Scientology, 1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., or its British correspondent, the HASUK, 1 Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London, W.8.” (Organizational note: Dr. Young—better have these cards ready as I think you have the society arranged already for some time past.)

The ad itself has attracted sufficient press to give an adequate background. One does not bring the word Scientology into press interviews. One simply talks about the church, its work, and immediately it converses on actual cases which have already been handled. One does not, I repeat does not, discuss Scientology with the press. He discusses this particular project. If the press wants to know what Scientology is, the minister should shrug and say there are lots of textbooks about that, and that he does not propose to teach a course in an advanced science to the pages of the public press, that it is the church and the church’s charitable activities which are behind this, not Scientology. He should also say that today ministers are indoctrinated in many learnings and skills and Scientology happens to be chiefest amongst these.

The tremendous workability of the “I will talk to anyone” ad is attested by the many congregations it has built for auditors and the numerous preclears which they have received from these. The sphere of Scientology is widening markedly because of this particular plan.

Plan No. 2 is rather older and less known. It is still within the confines of ministerial activities but it was originally practised outside those confines. The original ad which was placed to execute the plan “Illness Researches” was placed in Wichita by Mary Sue and myself at the end of 1951. It was tremendously successful and would have continued successful if anyone else had wanted any success in Wichita. The very first person who applied for this ad, immediately after a test audit, enrolled in a professional course. The second person at once purchased a 75 hour intensive and so it went. If I merely wanted a fortune out of Scientology and did not desire the health of Scientology itself, and the good presence and skill of its auditors, I would long since have abandoned research leaving things just as they were and would have continued to run this ad and run a clinic and school to care for its resultant callers.

The exact wording of the ad was as follows: “Polio victims. A research foundation, investigating polio desires volunteers suffering from the after effects of that illness to call for examination at address.” When the people arrived usually with a phone interview first, they were immediately given about three hours of auditing. The techniques in use at that time were effort processing and overt acts and motivators. We alleviated the majority of preclears reporting using only those three hours. We did this for polio victims, arthritics and were about to do it for asthmatics when the surging success of the project frightened various individuals who had other plans for Dianetics. However there was no protest whatever from the newspapers, the public or the preclears. The auditing was given free of charge. It was given under the guise of investigation and was in actuality a research project. Any auditor anywhere can constitute himself as a minister or an auditor, a research worker in the field of any illness. In that he is not offering to treat or cure the illness but is strictly investigating it, the laws concerning medicine do not obtain to him. Anybody even a ditch-digger can look over polio or arthritis or asthma or anything else. It is best that a minister representing himself as a “charitable organization”, which is what he is, do the research so that the ad would then read: “Polio victims—a charitable organization investigating polio desires to examine several victims of the after effects of this illness. Phone So-and-so.”

The interesting hooker in this ad is that anyone suffering from a lasting illness is suffering from it so as to attract attention and bring about an examination of it. These people will go on being examined endlessly. The technique which would be used today would be with the repair and remedy of havingness, appertaining to the illness or injury itself, “Invent a problem that leg (or arm or lungs or stomach) could be to you”. One would use only this process as it is the only safe process to use against a chronic somatic and successfully alleviates such. One would NEVER use “What problem could lameness (a condition) be to you”. Always run the process of problems on the subject of terminals, never on conditions. Of course one would repair the havingness of lame legs and eventually get the individual to throw a bad leg away. If the preclear could not at once invent, one would have him lie about legs or stomach or arms, or whatever is affecting him. One would use up at the most about two hours of auditing time on each case. He would not tell the person he was doing other than investigating the cause. He would tell them he was not interested in curing their polio but that educationally he could of course improve their ability to walk or breathe or whatever. As a side comment, one would omit arthritis as one of these quickies as it showed the lowest level of recovery. One would then follow up the same principles of group. He would compose a group of such people and he would find that they would be very happy to gather together. From this group he would tell them they could have free group processing and he would sell them individual auditing and would teach them basic Scientology and a basic course as in Plan 1 above. This plan has the advantage of not unduly exciting the press but if the press were to arrive one would simply tell them, expanded, the subject of the ad.

A minister investigating polio would have many reasons to do so. He would want to know how much of a drain the illness really was on the society around him, what charitable resources were necessary in order to care for it, how much difficulty it was to people in the immediate family. He would want to know whether or not it was a major or minor factor in the society. But basically he would want to get his hands on those preclears and alleviate their condition. In other words, improve their ability to walk or to breathe. He would want to do this and he would carry the project along by having a group and from this group getting basic courses. Remember today it is no fantasy whatsoever that you can alleviate the majority of sufferers of various chronic illnesses. It is a very simple thing really. We have been able to do it for four years and very good auditors have been doing it regularly for five. We are not in the business of healing here. We are in the business of educating people to walk, to talk, to breathe. Incidently, although it has not been tried, it may be possible to get people from various societies. However, the basic experience on this line is that societies for various illnesses, as well as other organizations, do not exist by and large to assist the illness and are very hard to do business with. As an example, one auditor in the Pacific northwest did not contact the public or individuals but contacted only various organizations in the city. There has never been quite as great a flop as the general practice of this auditor; contacting the public via ads in the public presses is the reliable tested way to do this. The other, of course, can be touched upon as it is not necessarily true that these societies will not furnish people.

Method number 3 has the advantage of requiring little capital and being highly ambulatory. Plans 1 and 2 above require enough money to have a decent consulting room even if it’s only one’s living room and to place ads which can come to a considerable amount. Plan 3 “Casualty Contact” is a reverse vector. Every day in the daily papers one discovers people who have been victimized one way or the other by life. It does not much matter whether that victimizing is in the manner of mental or physical injury. It does matter that the newspapers have a full parade of oddities in terms of accident, illness and bereavement occurring at a constant parade before the eyes. The essence of “Casualty Contact” is good filing and good personal appearance. One takes every daily paper he can get his hands on and cuts from it every story whereby he might have a preclear. He either has the address in the story itself or he gets the address as a minister from the newspaper. As speedily as possible he makes a personal call on the bereaved or injured person. It is probable that he will find on the first day that they are overly burdened with calls since they have been a subject of the public press, and he may find that in two or three days interest in the person has cooled off to a point where his own appearance will admit of an actual interview. He should represent himself to the person or the person’s family as a minister whose compassion was compelled by the newspaper story concerning the person. He should then enter the presence of the person and give a nominal assist, leave his card which states exactly where church services are held every Sunday and, with the statement that a much fuller recovery is possible by coming to these free services, take his departure. A great many miracles will follow in his wake and he is liable to become a subject of the press himself. However, in handling the press he should simply say that it is a mission of the church to assist those who are in need of assistance. He should avoid any lengthy discussions of Scientology and should talk about the work of ministers and how all too few ministers these days get around to places where they are needed. He should use the opportunity to castigate, not to hold classes on Scientology.

Some small percentage of the persons visited or their families will turn up in his group. Thus he will build a group and naturally from that group he will get a great many individual preclears.

All three of the above plans have the frailty of going through their pioneering period and then dwindling off. The auditor back-logs a great many cases and individual appointments and stops his forward thrust into the society itself. The thing for him to do if he is building a practice too big for him to handle is to write the Academy or the HASUK if he is in England, and have some likely young Scientologist newly graduated sent to him to assist him. He should not cease to fire with his ad or with his calls and should not cease to build his group. This is a question of how much is havingness to an auditor. Auditors seem to get terribly well satisfied on three or four regular preclears. Now my idea of a real congregation would be one which you had to hold in a motion picture theatre on Sunday morning. At least 2000 people. And my idea of a good practice is one which has to be handled by about a dozen auditors and which is complete with receptionist, mailing clerks, and deep rugs in the auditing rooms and in the halls. This is purely a consideration of havingness. In doing any one of the three above plans—and I am doing one of the above (No. I) right this moment—I would consider my own mission the completing of the communications or the “investigating of the polio victims” and the continuous outward flow of interest of Scientology. And I would stack up the appointments and do them when I could. I would not build up a group and consider that was big enough, stop putting the ad in the paper and then relax for about three months; later I would find out that all interest had dwindled and ceased and that the word of mouth going through the preclears I had had was bringing in only a trickle of new pcs. I wouldn’t go at it with fire and thunder for a few weeks and then quit, in other words. I would set it up as a regular routine activity and carry forward.

One of the side plans to Plan 2 was to have another person good at finance go around to all those who had been helped by the investigation and tell them that their investigation which helped them was paid for by another person and ask the present person whether or not he wouldn’t like to pay for somebody else’s recovery, but this was never put into effect, although it may be very workable.

Out of these three plans above can come large and vital practices. Only remember this. They must be carried out within the framework of the dissemination of materials, otherwise the failure of indiscretion of one may bring about a cancellation of the good efforts of others. The thing to do is to take one of these plans and carry it forward. They are all good. They will all work. They have all been tested. They are listed in order of workability as above, 1, 2 and 3. I can tell you the wrong thing to do about a practice-do nothing. These will work and success is ahead of you.

								L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-jh 
Copyright (©) 1956 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 72
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

21 February 1956

CHANGES FOR THE PABs

With this, the 72nd PAB, we enter a new format and step up its production to double that which it has been. From now on you will be receiving your PABs weekly instead of every two weeks.

I have gained a great deal of important data during recent weeks and I will be sending this out to you every seven days. There will also be more organizational information in future PABs than there has been in the past and this will keep you informed of the activities of your associations.

THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVINGNESS

A careful study of staff auditors’ reports reveals that the only advances worthy of the name of Scientology occur when the auditor repairs or remedies havingness on the preclear. Without the repair and remedy of havingness no real gains become apparent. A preclear will not progress when his havingness is impaired.

What are the symptoms of loss of havingness? Running any as-ising techniques the preclear may become anaten, or he may become slightly nervous or agitated, or want a cigarette, or seem to break out of the session in some fashion. In either case, he is “down on havingness.” In other words he has burned up, used up, or as-ised, too much of his physical body energy in the auditing itself. In view of the fact that every subjective technique puts a sort of hole in the middle of the electronic mass surrounding a preclear, parts of that mass then begin to cave in on the preclear. Thus running an as-ising technique on a preclear beyond the ability of the preclear to sustain the consequent loss of havingness will bring on in the preclear many new engrams which he did not have before, and a technique which as-ises energy, if used without a repair or remedy of havingness, will bring about a worsening of the case of a preclear.

Now exactly what is happening is very simple. A preclear starts to go anaten and the auditor keeps on running the process. He hasn’t realized that he ought to interrupt a process at any time if the preclear demonstrates a loss of havingness. Anaten is such a demonstration of loss of havingness. All right, another example: the preclear becomes agitated or upset; he reaches for a cigarette; he begins to twitch; his foot begins to wobble; he begins to talk excitedly; he begins to cough while being audited. All of these things demonstrate a loss of havingness. These same conditions, by the way, can result from the preclear believing that the auditor has broken the Auditor’s Code in some fashion or has overcome his power of choice. Both a repair and a remedy of havingness are immediately indicated on the observation of anaten or agitation on the part of the preclear. And in addition the auditor should carefully go over the session itself to find out, if anywhere, the preclear believed his power of choice was being overcome, or if the preclear believed the Auditor’s Code had been broken. You understand that the auditor didn’t necessarily have to overcome the preclear’s power of choice or break the Auditor’s Code in order that the preclear should believe that this has happened. However, this could be overlooked entirely if the auditor had been careful enough to repair or remedy the havingness of the preclear.
The slightest drop of alertness on the part of the preclear, or the slightest agitation or somatic on the part of the preclear, should immediately indicate to the auditor that havingness has dropped and must be immediately repaired or remedied. A great deal of time can be spent on the subject of repair and remedy of havingness, and it is very beneficial time spent. It is better to “waste” time spent repairing and remedying havingness than to blunder on through. Now there is another thing I have noticed with regard to this. Auditors are running these days toward cognition. Very well, if they expect a preclear to cognite they should not expect him to pull in a bank upon himself. If an auditor runs a very obvious process which should bring the preclear toward cognition, and if he runs it several auditing commands and then stops and repairs and remedies the preclear’s havingness, and then after that asks him the same auditing question two more times, he will discover that he has blown a cognition into view. In other words you could remedy the havingness of a preclear while his mind was on one particular subject and bring a cognition into existence.

This becomes particularly important today, since a few months ago I discovered that you could remedy the havingness of anybody, and I mean just that!! You can remedy anybody’s havingness and you can turn on mock-ups on anybody. The fact that the preclear who has a black field can be caused to mock up blacknesses or invisibilities and shove them into his body brings us into an era of being able to make anybody turn on mock-ups. Getting the preclear to postulate that the mocked up blackness is bad for the body will cause that blackness to snap into the body. By getting the preclear to postulate that the invisible mass he has mocked up is bad for the body it will snap into the body. Of course, after this has been done a few times, the consideration of the preclear will change. Then perhaps the blackness or invisibility will only snap in when the preclear postulates that it is good for the body. He may also have a residue left. It is very important to get rid of these repair and remedy of havingness residues. By various postulates, such as that the residue is a threat to the body, it is good for the body, it is bad for the body, the residue too will snap in.

Let’s differentiate at once here the difference between a repair of havingness and a remedy of havingness. We used to call repair of havingness “giving him some havingness.” It needs a better technical term. Therefore let us call this “Repair of Havingness.” It means having the preclear mock up anything he can mock up, and in any way it can be done get him to shove (never pull) that mock-up into the body, and by similar means to get rid of the residue which went along with the mock-up. That is a repair of havingness. It is a one-way flow; it is an inflow.

Now a remedy of havingness is getting him to mock up and shove into the body enough masses to bring him to a point where he can eventually throw one away. In other words repair of havingness is simply having him mock up things and having him shove them into the body, and a remedy of havingness is having him mock up and shove in and throw away the same type of mock-up. Remedy of havingness is always a superior operation to a repair of havingness. Repair of havingness is a very crude stop-gap, but can be used any time. However, a preclear who is working well, and on whom havingness can be remedied, should at all times have his havingness remedied, not repaired. In other words any type of mock-up should be both shoved into the body and mocked up and thrown away, and this should be done in considerable quantity until the preclear is quite relaxed about that particular type of mock-up. One does this, remember, every time the attention of the preclear drops, or he becomes agitated.

There is one other little point connected with this which is quite important, and that is, auditors very often audit a preclear into an area of time when the preclear exteriorized. This, on a preclear who does not exteriorize easily, brings on a considerable grief and sadness. The way to get rid of this is, of course, to remedy the preclear’s havingness or only repair it, and to ask the preclear to recall times when he was not exteriorized. This will bring up at once times when he did exteriorize and where fear of exteriorization was built up considerably.

I have noticed another special condition regarding this exteriorization phenomena which is quite important. A preclear will occasionally repair and remedy havingness up to a point where the body disappears for him. He doesn’t quite know where to put the mass he has mocked up since he cannot find the body. This is particularly true of preclears who have a very low threshold on havingness. An auditor would be stupid indeed to simply plow along beyond that point where the preclear has already said that he couldn’t find any body to push any havingness into. The moment the preclear does that the auditor should suspect that the preclear has gotten into an exteriorization type incident. It is not, however, necessary that he immediately flounder around and try to find this incident, as recommended in the paragraphs just above; he can also repair and remedy havingness in this fashion, and it is very important to know this.

Although it is disastrous for a preclear to be asked “What could your body have?”, since he will simply strip the bank of various old facsimiles, it is a very, very good repair of havingness to ask a preclear “What is there around this room (area) which your body could have?” and then have him pick out specific objects in the environment which he says the body could have. If he does this he will come up the gradient scale of havingness, and his havingness will be repaired immediately or directly on the Sixth Dynamic. With a preclear who cannot get mock-ups and where the auditor has either been too clumsy to get the preclear’s mock-ups turned on or it really was impossible, more or less, the preclear’s havingness can be repaired by having him do this process; so this is a very, very important process, and one that ought to go down in red letters.

This whole subject of repair and remedy of havingness and its effect upon auditing, and the fact that it has not been stressed at all in training, being up there at Level Six in the old Basic Processes, brings us to SLP Issue 8. The entirety of Level One in SLP 8 will be devoted to the repair and remedy of havingness.

In SLP Issue 7 we have a great many phenomena associated with the remedy of the body’s havingness. The reason for their position is to bring about an adjustment of the condition of the body before one goes on to other and more complicated ways of processing. Now, in Issue 8, all of these various things will be retained, but they will be paralleled with a complete remedy of havingness and that particular level of SLP will be gone over. In actual experience it is better to remedy the havingness of a preclear, no matter where he is on the tone scale, and no matter by what process, than to run any significant process. Further, if a preclear cannot at least repair his havingness, to run Waterloo Station is to invite disaster, because in this particular process of Level Two he is liable to get himself into a “down havingness” situation and of course will not be able to not-know anything. He may be chewing up too much energy while trying to not-know. Thus we would have the failures which have occasionally occurred in Waterloo Station. They were simply havingness failures, not a failure of Waterloo Station. Further there has been a new command suggested for Waterloo Station: “What would you be willing to not-know about that person?” This seems to be a better command, at least for the British Isles.

We also take care of the vacuums and separatenesses and everything else with repair or remedy of havingness and running it in with certain other things, such as problems, etc. When we discover by two-way communication a weak universe, we could then ask the individual preclear, “Invent a problem that person (weak universe) could be to you.” Then, watching him very carefully, and repairing his havingness on the subject of that person’s possessions, get a very rapid separation of universes. I have noticed that the weak universe first began when the person elected by the preclear to be a weak universe first began to put MEST anchor points around the preclear. In other words, valuable presents.

I am as pleased as can be to get a finger on this point and I know doggone well that if East, West, North and South will begin to repair and remedy havingness and stop specializing in significances without repair or remedy of havingness, we are going to start shooting people up to the top of these psychometric graphs. We can’t help it.

Let me call your attention specifically to the old phenomena of the emotional scale and the engram. We found out that when one engram was keyed in, it fixed the emotional tone of the individual, Then we had him run this and as he converted the engram to usable havingness, we found that his tone rose. We discover on these psychometric charts that the “unhappy” section does not move if we don’t change the mass of the preclear.

SACRIFICES

The latest news from the research front has to do with the fact that the GE demands and requires and has to have, evidently, sacrifices. The GE does not run on an overt act-motivator sequence, which makes one suspect he is not a thetan. A GE runs exclusively on being sacrificed to. If you have the preclear mock up sacrifices to the GE, you will find these become very readily assimilated.

On a lower level the body accepts motivators; as soon as it is through this motivator band, it accepts sacrifices and finally comes up to a point where it will accept live bodies. When one considers that eating is entirely a matter of absorbing death, one sees this death hunger in processing by running Sacrifices. A person who had bad legs should have a sacrifice of legs run on him and so forth. This is astonishing material. It is almost unbelievable that the GE will not be sacrificed to anything, but will only be sacrificed to, and this phenomenon that the GE is thereby demanding death tells us at once that the atomic bomb will be used and that there are people in the world who will actually crave this sacrifice of cities and even nations.

Aside from being a fantastically workable process, more of which anon, this matter of sacrifices tells us at once a great deal about the future. There will be no moral restraint where the atomic bomb is concerned, for about the highest level in some areas of the world, as to case, is “operating GE.” This tells us too why soldiers will go to war. This explains a great deal of conduct.

The GE evidently operates on the postulate that as long as anything else is alive it can’t live. However, it is becoming more and more doubtful that there is any more life in the body than the thetan puts there, and that the body is a single machine operating on some implanted postulates contained in the energy masses which are activated by the thetan somewhat on the order of the old “pole” theta trap. Many of these considerations can be changed around rather easily. Nothing changes them quite so fast as these sacrifice processes.

In mocking up sacrifices the auditor should use all the skills of creative processing and ensure that the preclear is actually mocking up and is not dragging in old facsimiles from the bank and restimulating genetic line incidents. This can be obviated by having the persons in the mock-ups dressed in modern clothing; mocking up the incident as happening tomorrow; altering the mock-up in some manner, such as turning the face green or something of this nature. Any reasonable way in which you can ensure that you are dealing with mock-ups and not past track facsimiles.

This gives auditors another tool with which to handle chronic somatics.

CHRONIC SOMATICS

There is another process which has a great deal of workability with chronic somatics. I know that some months ago and earlier than that it seemed rather fatal to us to continue to fixate the preclear’s attention on the chronic somatic. But that is not a problem with us right now. It ceased to be a problem the moment I invented an auditing command exactly as follows: “Invent a problem that          (leg, arm, nose, eye, body) could be to you.” Running this command which is in itself a sort of remedy of havingness, and repairing and remedying the havingness of the preclear as we go, we will discover that practically any and all phenomena associated with the service facsimile will come away and clear up, and the limb, nose or eye will get well. This can be used as a word of warning: ONLY ON ACTUAL TERMINALS. Never use this command, and I mean NEVER, on actual conditions. Never ask him to invent problems lameness could be to him. Never ask him what problem blindness could be to him. Lameness and blindness are conditions. We want to know what problems legs or eyes can be to him, since legs and eyes are terminals. In running this command we reduce havingness too rapidly whenever we are stressing conditions. Therefore we run it only on terminals. In running it use only terminals. Handled in this way we do have the answer as of this moment, to chronic somatics. With these processes in SLP and the adequate repair and remedy of havingness we can push our preclears right up through the top.

Let’s get to work.

								L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 74
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

6 March 1956

OFFICE IN IRELAND

Well, hello there. How do you like your PABs coming to you once a week?

What really happened was that I felt that I was getting out of communication with people, and as I was getting out information under a heading called Operational Bulletins it seemed to me to be a good idea to use these as PABs.

If you remember many years ago when the PABs started they were dedicated to setting up auditors and making them a healthy and respected class of professionals, and so with Issue 72 we immediately and abruptly resume this intention through this particular medium. In other words the PABs were dedicated to this in the first place and they go on now doing their best for the auditor.

When the Queen asked me to tip my cap and leave England as an insidious and Communist influence intensely disrupting the very best plans of the Home Secretary, I might have gone straight back to America. However, the Founding Church of Scientology in Washington, D.C. has never been in better shape. With His Nibs as Executive Administrator the situation is under good control. With Ken Barrett running the best academy classes that have been seen in the past year and Julia Lewis doing a bang-up job at the Clinic, with John Sanborn teaching indoctrination, and Dick Steves rolling an HCA class in good shape and keeping the Washington politicos at bay, and with Don Breeding getting an intensive, things could never be better.

I have a habit of turning up where I am needed or turning up data when it is needed, and as England is not yet in perfect shape there at Notting Hill Gate and as enough British brass has interceded on my behalf to permit me on occasion to pop into London, it seemed to me that I had better spend my time setting up an emergency station for Scientology in a country that wasn’t likely to get atom bombed. So here I am in Dublin, Eire, ten days and one completed office in operation deep.

The Irish spring shows signs of being late and we were freezing lately with the rest of you, even though we have a pretty and snug home here in the outskirts of Dublin in a fashionable suburb. Susie and the three kiddies are well and happy and the kids after being cooped up in a London apartment most of the winter are staggered and stunned at a huge yard to play in and are exuberant and boisterous along with the Irish wind. Downtown in the most fashionable square and professional address in Dublin we now have two large suites of offices. The address is 69 Merrion Square, South. Just across from one suite and just next door to the other is the American Embassy. In ten days, with the assistance of Bernie Green, we took an old spacious set of offices and painted them, laid in new linoleum, bought the 101 small items necessary to running things and exactly seven days from my landing had a going concern. We have two pretty Irish girls and a smart Irish office boy, and that lovely Canadian, Margaret Tousaw, and the ubiquitous Dr. Green. During part of last week, Mike Walker, the English shipping department, was over here helping out, and what with American, Irish, Canadian, English and Texan, we are quite international. Eleven days from my landing we have somewhere between fifty and a hundred and fifty applicants for a course, practically none of the applicants having previously heard of Scientology. All this sounds too fast and exaggerated but it is factually and precisely true.

What I am trying to do is this. I am trying to pilot a project in an area not previously noted for Scientology interests which can serve as a model for an auditor in any area of the world just to see how it is done and to pick up pointers. As Ireland has only 3,500,000 people in the total nation you can see that I am working in a relatively small population area which is at the same time noted for its poverty. I am of course taking advantage of the peculiar features of the place, such as the fact that the major export of Ireland is people, and am making all the shots count. However, we have a hurricane of activity going here without previous preparation.

I am having to write all the little brochures, enrollment cards, descriptions and etceteras which are handed out and I am packaging all the course materials and slants of the subject, and all this material is being shaped up so that it can be packaged not only for the public in Ireland, but for the use of auditors elsewhere. Accordingly, as soon as I am satisfied with this material and have the envelopes printed, I shall send one package of it, one of each piece, to every auditor in Scientology.

If the weather is cold the Irish heart is warm. The country and the people could not be improved upon. Unlike Communist-infiltrated England, where Russia has been active with anti-American propaganda in order to rob the crown of its only powerful ally to ready a later banquet for the Russian bear, Ireland is enthusiastically pro American. Lacking things to fight, the Irishman has been shooting up Communism quite enthusiastically and so we don’t even find the medical profession here antipathetic to Scientology. It’s all good roads and good weather.

Probably the greatest oddity of the Irish adventure is that aside from one year’s office rent, some transportation and shipping expenses, and a small loan from London, the entirety of the operation will be supported by Mary Sue’s and my salary from the Founding Church in Washington. As these two salaries amount to slightly less than $200 a week you can see that the Irish operation is not big in terms of staff or offices. However, pay is very low in this area and rent is quite cheap. We can then support this activity for some time but strangely enough, without actually paying any of our bills yet aside from office rent and a couple of other items, we have income in sight adequate to take care of the activity.

It does the old heart good to see people swinging in toward Scientology at this rate. I could always get an operation started and get things wheeling, but we have made so much progress in technology and know-how in the past few years and since I last had to start anything from scratch, that I had not realized the pulling power of Scientology itself. I could be very mean at this point and say that if we have within eleven days of my landing a hundred and fifty people lined up for a course who have never before heard of Scientology, that somebody somewhere in some group or another has been loafing like hell. I might also say that the bulk of the calluses collected in the field must be on a private portion of people’s anatomies, not on their palms and thumbs, for this operation has not in any way depended upon my own identity and reputation. It is Scientology itself and what it can do that is creating the stir. Ireland being somewhat out of the way has not heard my name. Furthermore, no public lecture has been given in order to attract people in and no other mechanism or device has been used that would be peculiarly mine, except perhaps the ability to know how to do things and to make words work effectively, so I am sitting here at this moment wondering why there aren’t eight to ten thousand member groups under the charge and control of every auditor, since there would certainly be a fifty thousand member group directly under the Dublin office within five months if I continue the experiment in earnest. Perhaps the main difference here is complete security on my own behalf as far as Scientology information and capability is concerned and the fact I will freely admit that our auditors all too often lack initial financing capital. The Dublin operation duplicated in any large city would cost about $800.00 done up well, the $800 including the living expenses of the auditor and his while he got going. However, $800.00 is not very many preclears, so it seems to me that an auditor could have immediately gotten some preclears and done some auditing—until he had $800 or $1000 and then could have launched into a wider operation on this pattern, or he might have talked his friends out of an investment in his venture. This, I say, with perhaps a superiority of know-how and ideas, would be the chief difference in starting up the Dublin operation and somebody starting an operation say in Chicago. Well I could say all these things and it would be very mean of me so I won’t say them. I will simply go on shaping this mock-up up until I have gained as much know-how out of it as possible and will let you have a blow-by-blow account of how it happened.

What you should know first is that the Irish adventure is your adventure being conducted on your behalf to help you square away Scientology in your area and put you on easy street, and what is more important to the rest of us, to put mankind in a position of self-defense for the first time on a planet confronted with atomic fission.

THE ATOMIC FIZZLE

Wouldn’t it be very funny if the moguls and high mucky-mucks of the higher insane wards of government were to have their favorite threat—atomic fission—turn into an atomic fizzle. This would be the joke of this or any other century.

Because we’re all professionals here, well schooled in Scientology, let me talk a little bit about past track. This is not the first time that a planet has been threatened by the development of atomic technologies. It is on the past track many places and times that planets have been scorched and made uninhabitable to all forms of life. This tells us as we read our E-Meter that life is capable of abandoning a planet and going to another planet, setting up the painful process of making lichens and moss to make soil out of the stones and building a gradient scale on up to moving beings.

Atomic energy has always been a tragedy. Atomic radiation burns savagely and furiously, and life so burnt in this age and time then is incapable of procreating. In other words, an atomic burn hits mainly at the second dynamic. The reason it does is the number of times planets have been wiped out in the past. When atomic radiation came all procreation became pointless. The genetic line was over-ended and done. There was no use making new cells or new babies. There was no future into which they could go. Thus the appearance of radioactivity tends to aberrate the second dynamic. Its actual use brings about a total apathy on procreation. Radiation first and foremost when it burns is effective simply because the hemoglobin no longer makes new cells and so a person dies of acute anemia. The blood cells are, it is true, the most cowardly of all the body cells. Blood cells lake into the center of the body in a moment of fear or terror. They give up quickest when struck by atomic radiation.

I have been conducting a series of experiments, one of them almost fatal to myself, on the auditing of radiation burns. I have found that we can make an enormous effect upon radiation burns and can cure them in a milder form. That means we are the only agency, the only people on the face of Earth who can cure the effect of atomic radiation. I expect to make further progress in this direction and the whole answer is not yet gained, for the whole answer would be to actually proof a body against radiation itself.

It is rather foolish to believe that a flash of light which actually goes through and is not stopped by ten feet of concrete can yet do things of hideous magnitude to a body. That is all that alpha and gamma and the rest are—a flash of light. There must then be some cooperation on the part of the body to stop the flash which is not present in concrete. True, a newspaper held before the body interposed between it and an atomic flash can keep the body from being severely burned, but remember the actual destructive rays do actually go on through the newspaper and unless stopped by the body itself would go on through the body. On such reasoning I began to experiment to discover what the body was doing in connection with atomic radiation and discovered that it was actually stopping it.

I found out further the procreative aspect of atomic radiation came about because atomic radiation on the early track was used as a punishment mechanism. At first it appeared that atomic radiation was the basis of the second dynamic and its various wavelengths, but this is not true. They were so identified because radiation was used in second dynamic punishments and activities. Radiation is the only thing capable of reaching into the mock-up strata of a thetan and on this high wavelength knocking apart his bank. There are many black fives around whose black screens are actually radiation hunger.

On the basis that the only havingness difficulty is under the heading of “not enough” I caused atomic radiation to be wasted (until the thetan could accept it). The difficulty was trying to operate with radiative mock-ups in the vicinity of bodies. Evidently the thetan has to change his mind very thoroughly before the body can be coaxed into letting radiation pass by. The body is apparently anxious for radiation punishment, since it then no longer has to continue a genetic line.

The problem on which I am working is the actual proofing of a body against damage from bomb flash. That is between us auditors. To publication, however, it is actually factual that we are the only people who can do anything to alleviate or cure atomic fission. No serums or other mechanisms have proven effective. The most effective means of cleaning up radiation or radioactive dust in an area is the common water hose. That is the high tide of anti-radiational research. In Scientology, using standard procedures and including in them an address to radioactive masses, we can cure by remedying havingness with it radiation burns. Indeed, it requires a very skilled piece of auditing with a great deal of havingness remedy, but we can do it.

Now I want you, and by that you I mean you, not a general editorial “you,” to send me at once any article in whatever publication or any book or pamphlet of whatever simple or complex nature you have, know about and can get, to me here at the Scientology Emergency Station, address “Scientology, 69 Merrion Square S., Dublin, Ireland.” Please send me as well any horror material you have. I do not even have a copy of John Hersey’s book on Hiroshima or any newspaper accounts on it. You can help by taking upon yourself personally the responsibility of being the only person who is going to send me any material here. As Ireland is well removed from any such threat, the material extant at this point is very poor. I need this material in order to draw upon it for a book. This book will be called “Atomic Burns, Their Danger, Cure and Prevention,” and it will be, we hope, in all the major book stores of the world and will be, I assure you, translated into the various languages.

You see, the most frightening aspect of atomic radiation is that it is the very most basic ingredient in insanity, and people close to it, handling it or restimulated by it can be no better than totally insane. You see the threat we are up against? Now it may well be that the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission outlawed psychiatrists from its ranks and precincts simply because these, who do at least know insanity when they see it, might have been urging institutionalization of every leading atomic scientist on grounds of paranoia, megalomania, and other psychotic symptoms. My own experience with these people would confirm it. The atomic scientist in the world today on grounds of security is removed from any skilled mental observation of any kind whatsoever. Nobody knows whether they are sane or not. Researches demonstrate that the stuff they are handling would bring about insanity in them in very short order. A light look at the subject demonstrates that they have a craving for the destruction of all life. They are totally careless and conscienceless when questioned on the subject of destruction of men, women and children in cities. They are equally conscienceless concerning the injury of their fellow workers.

A symptom of this insanity visible to us every month or so from Enid, Oklahoma, is a man who was, for a long while, closely connected with atomic energy, and who between attacks on Scientology has horrible writhings concerning his own sanity and alternates attacks upon his auditor with grovelling begging to be relieved of the awfulness of his life. Nothing could be done for this man previously in Scientology, as no research had been done on the peculiar aberration from which he was suffering— overdoses of radiation received while an observer at Eniwetok. The screens which covered his vision were radiation hungry. No one auditing him connected his past experience with atomic energy and his case, since it was not known that there was any relationship. So we have had at least one case in our own midst demonstrating various types of insanity simply by reason of having been connected with atomic energy earlier in his career. There may be others. We know now that these surrender as cases if by auditing they are brought to create and destroy radiative masses in mock-ups. It is, however, a very dangerous piece of auditing and must be done very gently. You may, by the way, have wondered why I never really attacked this particular vilifier in Oklahoma. It was only that I was aware of the fact that his case was unsolvable and that Scientology had indeed failed him, and because I felt sorry for him. I am not the sort of a fellow to kick a dog when he is down and I knew what desperate shape that person was in. I am rather relieved now to know exactly what was wrong in his case, and sometime or other an auditor can be sent down there.

But if we have been caused lies and upsets in our own ranks by the side effects of atomic radiation, then imagine what it would do when close up against a government which is being advised on atomic matters by persons who have long since passed the sanity point. Therefore it looks like thee and me have some work to do. Fortunately Scientology is already well entrenched in many atomic energy areas and many atomic scientist connections know of it and the materials which are developed concerning radiation cure can of course be applied to this particular problem with considerable benefit.

Well all entheta aside, please get that material to me fast.

IMMEDIATE CASH FOR AUDITORS

Associate memberships are now available for sale by auditors to their groups.

The associate member is a member without time limit of Scientology. An associate member does not receive publications but does receive a pin and membership card.

An associate membership costs five shillings in the United Kingdom and areas under the London office, and one dollar in the United States.

The auditor can purchase from the organization the pin and application form already assembled in lots of 25 with brooch backs or button backs for two shillings and sixpence in the U.K. and its areas, or fifty cents in the U.S.

The auditor sends in to the U.K. £3.2.6 to Scientology, 69 Merrion Square S., Dublin, Eire. He will receive in return 13 button-back and 12 brooch-back pins mounted on application cards. An auditor in the U.S. can send $12.50 to Scientology, Washington, or for quicker delivery at this stage to me in Dublin, Eire, and he will receive the same lot.

The auditor then sells these associate memberships to anyone, but we hope to people who are taking or have taken a basic course. He keeps the totality of his receipts. The person to whom he sells the pin and card fills in the application form addressed to the organization provided with the card and has returned to him at once his membership card. The total clerical work on the part of the auditor is sending the order here, receiving and directly selling the card. The associate member newly made by the action is the one who sends in his application. This makes for minimal bookkeeping.

The pin is the lovely little S-and-double-triangle pin designed by Bob Hollanbeck in Phoenix, Arizona. Some of you have already seen them. The design was taken originally from the dust wrapper of Science of Survival’s earliest editions.

Arrangements will be made at a later date for the sale of subscriptions to our improved publication line for general and special memberships, all of which can assist the auditor in financing his activities in Scientology.

The reason we want this membership to be widespread in existence is that the power of an organization is counted by the number of members it has. We must have a membership class which includes everybody and which permits people to be in no doubt as to whether they are with us or not.

A particular oddity of the associate membership card is that it is not renewable. It has no termination date and does not expire every year. It might be a good thing if some other classes of members also became associate memberships if they have any fear of lapsing, since they would at least be an associate member at all times. This, however, would not bring them publications or services.

You must be aware that at this price we are actually selling the card and pin at the actual cost of production.

As this is announced, the manufacture of the pin and card is already arranged and in the works. Acts of God, perils of the sea or strikes could delay the filling of your order for a few days, but this is only an eventuality, and by the time your order gets here the pins should be ready to ship to you.

As a point of incidental interest, I just happen to have by accident in my jewel box where I keep the keepsakes of value that people often send me from various parts of the world the original solid gold S-double-triangle pin made by Bob Hollanbeck. He sawed this out for me personally as a gift in Phoenix last year. If I owe him anything for copying it for everybody’s benefit, I wish he would let me know since I don’t have his address here in Dublin.

There was another slightly smaller S-and-double-triangle pin made and issued from Phoenix a year ago, but it was not from this handmade design of Hollanbeck’s which he intended for my personal wear. By the way, Bob Hollanbeck will make you a Mexican tie-tie with the S and double triangle in solid silver and very beautiful for I think $15. When I have his address I will insert it in a PAB.

AUDITOR INCOME FROM BASIC COURSES

All auditors everywhere in good standing with the academy or London are authorized to teach a basic course in Scientology.

In its program of assisting the auditor to finance himself and the advance of Scientology the central organizations will do all possible to assist him in the teaching of this course.

The course should be a minimum of twenty hours, including some eight hours of group processing and some twelve hours of instruction.

The instruction should be precisely cycle of action, the 8 dynamics, ARC and what each element means, the tone scale, something about havingness and its relation to the tone scale, and how to do an assist. The principal stock in course should be the most elementary and should be repeated often so that everyone in the course actually knows these principles. No other material such as past track, past lives, thetans, clears, or any other data should be introduced into the basic course. The essence of teaching a basic course is to make sure that everybody in the unit understands very well these basic elements.

I am at work at this moment on a Basic Course Manual. However, you need not wait for it.

At the end of your basic course you should give an examination to all persons who were in it covering just exactly these points above and their definitions and uses. You should then ship with the address of this person that examination paper to London or Washington, depending whichever is your most immediate area. The central organization in London or Washington will immediately execute, if the exam was passed, a basic course certificate and send it at once either to you to give to your student or to the student directly as you indicate. Warning: These certificates will not be sent unless the examination paper and the student’s address are included.

The organizations make no charge for this service.

It is expected that a basic course would cost at least £3.10.0 in the U.K. or $10.00 in the U.S. It is also expected that this charge will be made and collected by the auditor and that the auditor will keep for his own uses and the financing of Scientology in his area the totality of basic course fees.

The only way you are going to accumulate a group that will stick with you and forward Scientology is by teaching that group a basic course. Group processing without training doesn’t work.

We are very shortly going to publish a book as possessing the only effective cure for atomic radiation known to man. You will hear more about this later. The best and first thing to do is to create a large group and to teach it a basic course. Let’s get this one out of the way fast. People are talking Scientology and demonstrating its adequacy in their own spheres.

One of the ways of gathering groups for a basic course is to teach for the first week something you will call a free course and which contains perhaps four hours of auditing and six hours of instruction, and give this free course to everybody but don’t let anybody take the same free course twice, and then simply continuing the free course on up into another twenty hours or two weeks, covering these essentials much more precisely, teach a course that you charge for. Remember, the organization does not care how much money you charge for this basic course. It would actually be surprised if you did not charge at least five guineas, or $25.00. There are plenty of ways of accumulating groups. For such basic courses you will learn these as I tell you more about the Irish adventure in later PABs.

TRAINING COST CHANGE

After years of no alteration it may come as a bit of startlement to announce that it will shortly be generally announced and is effective immediately that training costs and charges are changed in the central organization.

For five years the cost of a professional course in the United States has been $500. In London the same course has cost you formerly £125. It is rather interesting how these two figures were arrived at. The $500 fee was set by Parker Morgan in Elizabeth, New Jersey at the end of May in 1950. Parker Morgan, beseiged by requests of people who wanted to take a closer look at Dianetics, invented a status whereby that person could hang around the office and watch what was going on in the Foundation as an intimate observer for one month for $500. There were ten in the first professional course. The only chair case there was Ted Ottison, recruited up from St. Mary’s College. After a few days I took pity on these ten, since although they were interested they were getting very little know-how, and began to give them a daily lecture, and so started the first professional course in Dianetics and Scientology.

The figure was set in London at £125 because that was the cost of maintaining an instructor and quarters for a minimum class of two students over a period of two months and the general one-month hangover of training. As I could not stand by London forever and had no idea that it would have many students, it was necessary that the school remain solvent. It was also necessary that a central organization continue to exist, and that needed finance. Actually the £125 charge was not too far in error, since the London office just barely did remain solvent during my long absence in the U.S. Commie critics, which exist in vast profusion, swept Scientology into its group propaganda about American dollars and was long active in pummelling this £125 fee as demonstrating that Scientology was a get-rich-quick scheme.

The actuality is that in both cases the central organization has to be maintained or auditing itself would go all to pieces everywhere and there would be no way of disseminating new processes, and that it takes far longer than a month or two months or three months to train a professional auditor. He has to be trained by experience as well as formal instruction, and the central organization always has the responsibility for this. As an example, in Australia where an inadequate financing was done the HASI office has been in continual difficulty trying to maintain itself, and as it has failed to maintain itself adequately, the professional auditor in the area of Melbourne has had a rather hard time of it. Part of that squirrel cage of course is the activity of squirrels in the area who always reduce the effectiveness of Scientology and blunt its progress, unable to understand evidently that not everybody shares their own enthusiasm for kicking the bucket. Of course a few of these squirrels were on the side of the allies during the late war. They evidently didn’t get their fill of death, like the most of us who are more intimately connected with the hostilities. A squirrel has used these fees as a target rather continuously, but this is not the reason they are being changed.

Because we can train an auditor today in the eight weeks allowed without having to pay for a great deal of continued training, thanks to the invention of the indoctrination week and dummy auditing—of which I am quietly proud—we can actually afford to train now for less in the United Kingdom. We are going to extend U.S. training into a later retraining period and we are going to do several additional things for the U.S. auditor than we have done before, so the training cost will remain the same for considerable additional service in Washington. In London the fee is dropped to £75.

In view of the fact that we have the basic course planned for auditors in the field and the shortness of distance in the U.K., no rights to train to the level of HCA or HPA will be issued in the United Kingdom. This is actually a kindness, since the grind of training auditors is not remunerative to the individual auditor and actually inhibits his income, which should be much greater by reason of basic courses than it ever would be from teaching professional courses by our experience. This is heightened by the fact that there has only been one application to train made to us in England, which denotes no field enthusiasm for professional training on its own behalf anyway.

In the United States all those rights to train which have been granted to auditors who have not at this date returned in full their percentages and fees to the central organization can be considered cancelled. The organization will certify persons in training to such persons after this date, but only those persons who are at this instant in training actually. No further persons should be enrolled. As soon as auditors with these rights to train engage upon the basic courses they will understand that the teaching of basic courses is far more remunerative. We have had nothing but complaints from auditors with individual rights to train concerning their difficulties with finance. Students do not pay them. Central organizations can cope with this fact but the individual auditor cannot. It is beyond his means to train on charity or on the receipt of a third or half of the professional course fee. The central organization can struggle along with this or collect.

The chief reason the U.S. fee is not dropped is because the auditor being trained now is going to be sent into specific areas and is going to have placed in his hands any and all literature he will need to start things booming and will be assisted by special mailings to the area concerning him from Washington, all of which takes money and which had better come under the course fee. However, as this service will cost about $150, the Washington fee is actually reduced to about $350 to be available for the actual training. We feel it is better in Washington to collect the total fee and use part of it to give the auditor a big push in the area assigned when he leaves, than to leave it to his initiative to scrape up enough money to get the literature and material and make the mailings.

BOOKS IN PROGRESS

I am writing or have scheduled the following books:

1. 	The Elements of Scientology—Basic Course Manual.
2. 	Atomic Burns—Their Danger, Cure and Prevention. (This is the one we mainly need the bookstore list for.)
3. 	Scientology—The Modern Science of Ability (a rewrite of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health).

Abilities by the half-ton, each one of them defining a word in Scientology or pertinent to life.

ACTUALLY HERE

I am actually and factually in Dublin, Eire. There is a terminal here. There are some mailboxes and desks to receive your communication. My body just now is in rather indifferent shape, thanks to an auditing experiment on radiation, but it nevertheless will sit in a chair and hold your communication in its hands and read it over very carefully. When you stamp on the floor or the street of Dublin, there is solid earth there, and the wind blows and the air circulates and there are live people around, and in short this is really a terminal and your communication will be acknowledged at once if you write. I will see if there is anything else I can think of to reassure you as to the communication formula. The truth of the matter is the swarms of people around here aren’t Scientologists and I am a bit lonesome, and you don’t look around very good when I tap you on the shoulder, so write me a letter and let me know your reaction to Associate Memberships and teaching a basic course, and in turn every week I will keep you posted on the material from various parts of the world and in particular on the Irish adventure, which may win or lose—see next week’s installment—and upon the progress of several other mock-ups in which you have a very tightly vested interest.

CABLE FROM WASHINGTON

“HOUSE BILL 6376 PASSED JANUARY 18TH STOP GOES SENATE NEXT WEEK STOP BILL PERMITS ADMISSION OF PERSON TO MENTAL INSTITUTION BY WRITTEN APPLICATION OF INTERESTED PERSON BEFORE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE HELD STOP DISPENSES WITH REQUIREMENT THAT PATIENT BE PRESENT AT HEARING STOP ANYONE CAN BE EXCLUDED FROM HEARING STOP BILL PERTAINS TO ALASKA AT MOMENT STOP BILL SETS UP ONE MILLION ACRES SIBERIAL IN ALASKA FOR INSTITUTIONS STOP LETTER AND BILL FOLLOW STOP WHAT ACTION YOU WANT TA K EN.

                                        					KEN NIBS DICK

P.A.B. No. 78
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

3 April 1956

ADMINISTRATION

A number of vital lessons were learned in setting up and running the college here in Dublin. But they were not all on the subject of the college itself. Some of them were on the subject of Scientology organization.

For six years now we have been stumbling across one horrible thing: Administration. It has come out here in Dublin that the majority of our troubles have been administrational, not technical.

We Scientologists have a lot to learn about administration. I have coded the following as vital bits of data on the subject:

Administration is a form of communication. Adequate administration consists of keeping certain communication terminals in place and making sure that the proper particles go to and through the proper terminals.

Smooth organization consists of having a terminal for each type of activity in which the organization is engaged. There can be four or five activities to one terminal so long as three things are obeyed: (1) the terminal itself has to know it; (2) nearby terminals have to know it; (3) distant terminals have to know it.

Supervision of an organization consists of keeping the terminals in place and keeping the correct traffic (particles and messages) flowing to the right terminals and planning to adjust the communication flow either from outside in or from inside out.

All particles having to do with the exact business of the organization MUST be handled speedily. Particles which are not particularly germane to the organization come in anyway and can be more or less neglected.

Terminals must also originate, not just reply or report.

Command lines must exist in an organization so people know who is boss. But COMMUNICATION LINES are not command lines, contrary to the army psychosis. Communications need not flow up to and down from any command post. Terminals can and should operate independent of the command lines BUT they MUST KEEP THE COMMAND position informed. Terminals can do two things wrong: They can follow command lines with their communications; they can fail to keep command informed.

Filing, invoicing, having the proper forms can be as independently capable of ruining an operation, if they are neglected, as the most flagrant neglect of duty by a terminal.

If orders are filling, if the invoices are right, if the files are kept, if the forms are correct and available, and if everybody knows his job and will do it, an operation will have a hard time failing.

Tight and proper scheduling of classes, appointments, replies and comm origins can forgive a lot of other things. These things are stabilities. If you want an atmosphere of stability, have an atmosphere of precise punctuality.

If you have a system, follow it, hound and harass it into line and keep it there. But if you don’t follow it, junk it and find out what system you ARE following and make that then be the administrational system and keep it tightly in hand.

Let me be terribly accusative and personal. If you have no group or a small group, if your income is low, if you are having a hard time, it is probably due to a lack of good administration in your affairs, not due to your knowledge or lack of charm. You could be a poor auditor and a good administrator in your auditing affairs and still win. You could be a wonderful auditor and a poor administrator and flop completely.

If you are “overworked” you are probably being overworked by bad administration. The fault in administrational work is most intimate to the terminals involved in an administration. If these are each one sound and working well, you’ve won.

One terrible fact stands out in administrational work. If the operation is NOT WELL PLANNED the tendency is to add help. We see this at its worst in governments. These have no equal in adherence to this system. When they see something isn’t running properly, they add some more help. When they still fail to run properly they add even more help. At last you have a government. The totality of its activity seems to consist of correcting mistakes by adding rules and terminals to an already unworkable system. The right way to go about this is to PLAN IN ADVANCE, put that plan to work, REFINE THE PLAN, put that refined plan to work, always on the most basic level, saying always, before one begins to build or reform, “What, exactly, is this outfit here supposed to do?” Answer that question and then plan to make it so and then administer to keep it so. AND ALWAYS ASK THE MAN ON THE JOB WHAT THE HELL YOU SHOULD DO TO HELP HIM OUT. Never sit in some ivory tower and dream up reforms for the organization. Always get your hands dirty. A good executive gets his own communication lines running smoothly and then spends his time going around not giving orders but smoothing out people’s jobs. Eighty percent of most organizations are involved in handling the boo-hoos and nonsense of bad administration. A person who is a minor terminal in an organization should know this too and should put the pressure on the Big Whiz to make sure the comm lines keep running straight.

Now as to the personalities of personnel, it is very true that there are always certain people in an organization poorly managed that the organization would be better off without. These people always do two things: (1) they shovel entheta and Emergency at their foreman and the boss; (2) they are always out of department with their squawks. They are obsessive change, high-critical cases on the personality analysis. They wouldn’t know good news if they had it dropped on them encased in a safe. They can only deal in bad news. If it doesn’t exist they obsessively make it up. In the matter of being “out of department” they are incapable of doing things close to home. The entirety of their real activity is fouling up other terminals while their own department goes to the devil. Show me a man’s personal department and I will show you if he is in or out of department. If the typing battery is always crying about invoicing, you’ll find darned little typing going on. “It’s bad over there” is the theme song. The other type of case an organization can’t afford is the “can’t work,” “you’re working too hard” case. When somebody starts on this one, shoot him from guns. These people—the entheta monger, the out-of-department weeper, the “you’re working too hard”— cannot be afforded by any organization and that’s it. They actively damage things sometimes beyond repair. They are NEVER of benefit to an organization or group. I speak from bitter experience, I assure you. Fire them if you can’t audit them 75 hours.

In Scientology organizations today, regardless of the work people do (we long since fired all the 1, 2, 3s above including the most prominent U.S. squirrels) we give them 75-hour intensives as fast as we have auditors available. We do this because we can tailor-make executives today. If they slide a bit we audit them a bit more until we’ve got them up there and swinging hard at the real enemies of man.

Our concentration right now is on administrational smoothness. Only in that way will we get the groups and auditors we need to knock out the enemy. 

P.A.B. No. 79
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

10 April 1956

THE OPEN CHANNEL

Besides having a couple of other things to do in the last eight years, I have been in search of an open channel for Dianetics and Scientology which would not run into large obstacles and which would thereby make it possible for organizations and auditors to outflow what we know to a maximum with a minimum of difficulty.

When you have to qualify and explain what you are doing continually, you have only in that an obstacle. Since there was no immediate forebear to Dianetics and Scientology, there was no cut groove in the society. Thus we have had to keep company with subjects in the public mind as ragtag as anything can get—i.e. psychology, psychiatry. And of all the drooling idiots I would never choose for bedfellows, believe me, the psychologist and psychiatrist would be below my lowest list. Why? Because they’re fakes. They come from a long line of hoodwinks including such nobles as the priests of Ra, Cagliostro and Wundt. Why? Because they would take the pennies off a dead man’s eyes. Why? Because there are limits where a gentleman stops and the old-time hocus-pocus of the mind just then began.

Naturally, then, we ourselves would get a slap from the same dank brush. One of the principal “everybody knows” is “everybody knows psychology and psychiatry are phoney.” Now it is an oddity that if you accuse a man long enough of being a fake or a robber or a bum he tends to believe he might be one. A young auditor once told me that he “couldn’t get over feeling he was robbing people” when he processed them. He was just running the counter-effort of his environment in its effort to shut him down on Scientology. He was classed by his environment as a psychologist or psychiatrist. He even wore the beard at last. And he squirreled a bit. Why? Because everybody told him that he was a fake and he at length had to accept it, he thought.

Ninety percent of the few auditors who have quit have all suffered from this association with psychologists and psychiatrists to a point where they themselves thought they were phonies—and that therefore the organization and all connected with it must then be phonies. In other words they were counter-efforted into believing they were guilty even though they’d committed no crime.

The Open Channel for which I have searched has been found. I went over to Dublin, a poor, cross-ridden town, and started up a pilot operation. In the charge of the redoubtable Bernie Green, that operation has even chance of out-incoming both the American and British offices. It is Bernie’s and he’s got every chance of really pulling a very steep hill. Were the American College duplicated in London and Washington it would start making history fast. Why? Because it exploits an open channel which runs, like good roads and good weather (of which everyone is in favor), without opposition.

Behold: “Scientology is that branch of psychology which treats of human ability. Old-time Wundtian psychology said that people could not change. Now that we can change people we have to call what we are doing something else than psychology.” They “know” what psychology is (familiar word). They immediately grasp this, get a tiny agreement. Then they are told (gradient scale) that old-time psychology couldn’t change people (which they can verify in psychology texts) and that we can. Follow this with a discussion of IQ and Personality Tests and then brush aside any thought of neurosis or psychosis as part of the picture with “Well, I think we can all agree that any of us have room for improvement,” and you’re off into something the person you are talking to can use. IF YOU CAN SELL ONE PERSON PAINLESSLY ON SCIENTOLOGY YOU CAN SELL GROUPS. IF YOU CAN SELL GROUPS YOU CAN SELL THE WORLD.

I am often amused when somebody shifts one of my mock-ups around—for they very often do it on the basis of removing the motor. Washington recently published the above definition of Scientology with a subtle change: “Scientology is that branch of wisdom which treats of human ability.” They changed the one thing vital in the sentence. The listener is going to classify YOU as a psychologist. He’s read about psychology in the comic strips. He uses the word constantly. It’s an agreement point. You avoid the word entirely as did Washington and you have (1) missed the agreement point and (2) invited him to retain an association not as-ised which will condemn you. So changing one of these mock-ups around may make them non-workus-deadus.

No, you say to anybody, “I’m a Scientologist.” “Scientology? It is that branch of psychology which treats of human ability. Old-time psychology believed you couldn’t change anyone’s intelligence or personality, so when we could we had to call it something else.” “Well, I think you’ll agree that anyone could stand some improvement.” “It’s fascinating that even morons can be made smart.” “You know, an average intelligence is about 108. Well, with a little work a Scientologist can shift that to 120 or 130, you know, make it possible for the person to tackle jobs he couldn’t have understood before.” “All we’re interested in is increasing business efficiency. Has a lot to do with income. Fellow with an IQ of 108 makes, let’s say, $35 a week. He’d be paid more if he was worth it. We raise his IQ to 120 and his pay goes up to $75.” “You know, we don’t need new business ideas or gimmicks. All we need is some people who can carry on existing business efficiently for a change.” “Take government. I don’t think a lot of people in government are smart enough to understand their business.” “I’d sure like to get my hands on some of these officials ....”

That’s all agreement chatter. It’s material which keeps your listener coming. HE knows (and you never infer it) that HE could use this stuff Scientology personally. He’d resent being told he needed psychiatry or psychology, for that would infer he was crazy. But when you talk about IQ and rising pay and how stupid people can get businesses in trouble, you’re right in there on the agreement level. Now if you AVOID psychology entirely, you leave it to the listener to infer it and thereafter you’re a psychologist to him.

I wrote the above, not off the cuff, but straight out of experiences other people and myself have had with it. There’s no counter-effort. All’s well. What you say goes home. So without altering this carefully built mock-up, try it out.

Now unless this mock-up got you some action and Scientology some attendance, it would still be no good. So it has to be backed up with an organization such as “Business Study Group” or “Scientology School of Human Efficiency” or “Chicago School of Personnel Efficiency.” Here the form of the mock-up is looser, but not too much so, for that which the study group or school does is not altered. The actual composition of the group may differ. It may be that the auditor runs one in his living room three times a week for an advanced course and three other evenings a free course. It may be that the auditor can afford to really put up a college type mock-up. So the receipt point for the income of bodies may differ. The entering wedge and the final curriculum neither one differ.

Well, we’ve advertised in help wanted columns and we’ve got some kind of a mock-up to receive bodies. Then what do we do?

We give a free course six evenings in length. (If you’re doing it in a living room, you’ll need two weeks for it at three a week, for the other three evenings will have to hold your Advanced Course.) In this course we teach Cycle of Action, 8 Dynamics (saying we go up to the first third of the seventh and leave the remainder of 7 and all of 8 to the church and so sidestep religious arguments), A-R-C two different evenings, and Havingness. WE TEACH THIS COURSE WITH PRECISION, giving our students precise definitions, not generalities or discussions; we come right down on each one of these and define hell out of it for our free course people; we don’t shilly-shally around and avoid the subject of the evening. We bowl them over. In this free course we give just a little “look around the room” type group auditing. At two hours an evening for six evenings we have twelve lecture hours in a free course. Only two or three should be processing periods and then gently, gently.

When you’ve given this free course of six evenings, you will then sell at the price that will gain you the most people and yet support the endeavor (a nice calculation, that) an Advanced Course.

Of what does this Advanced Course consist? Ah, that is again very precise. It is an additional twenty-four hours of instruction broken into two periods of twelve hours each.

We will call the Free Course “Course A” for the obvious reason that the texts soon to be printed will start with Text A. We will call the next twelve hours of instruction “Course B,” the third twelve hours “Course C.” Thus the texts will be lettered.

The Advanced Course is composed of B-C. The texts for B and C respectively are Science of Survival and Dianetics, 1955!. These, shortened and rewritten, will be Text B (Science of Survival, complete with Tone Scale Chart), Text C (Dianetics, 1955!).

Thus for the next twelve evening hours of lecture after the Free Course one lays heavily into the exact text and chart of Science of Survival. Then for the remaining twelve hours one teaches with exact precision Dianetics, 1955!.

Why this division? Because you don’t want to enroll an Advanced Course every other period. Every time you finish a Free Course, you will want to sign them up and continue them with no pause or break. If you pause, let them hang for a week or two before you get them to enroll, you’ll lose them. Therefore! You will be able to enroll every Free Course at once. The students will step into a complete twelve hours of instruction on either Text B or Text C. Thus a student starting from scratch goes from Text A to Text B to Text C, OR goes from Text A to Text C to Text B.

If you have two rooms, one for the Free Course and one for the Advanced Course, you will then enroll people into the Free Course and into the Advanced Course every week. You will enroll people into the Advanced Course from the Free Course as fast as they finish the Free Course.

By teaching the basics as basics, by teaching the Tone Scale and Communication just as we learned them, you’ll bring people right on upstairs without overwhelming them. If you just process them you worry them because you overwhelm them past their understanding. You’ll get BIGGER IQ RISES by teaching this curriculum than you will by processing them in groups the same number of hours. And you’ll have Scientologists, not preclears.

Now how about individual auditing? If all these classes are evening classes, then you have a lot of free daylight. Well, strictly on a BUSINESS-EFFICIENCY MOCK-UP you make them more able with individual auditing. You make it known to your classes that individual auditing can be had. You say what it is. You touch on illness only by stressing its absenteeism quality and its function in keeping them from getting better jobs. You stress mainly the handling of people, self-assurance, ability to work. You sell them small quantities of auditing. You patch up just what they want with old creative processing and havingness. You charge them hourly rates. You also offer medical check-up if you like.

There is something else you can do. You can arrange with a loan company to lend the person enough to pay for a medical check-up by an M.D. with which you’ve made an arrangement, for their course and for individual auditing. The loan company pays you in cash. The student-pc pays the loan company by the week from his paycheck. This of course has to be carefully greased and made painless. But as the sum is small and as the people who come to you get salaries, you will find a loan company will be very happy to play ball.

The end product we already know is a working person with a higher IQ and with poise the like of which employers haven’t seen lately. Teaching, getting the confusion out of them, always can be counted upon to up their confidence and poise. And you’ll have Scientologists.

Well, what people should you approach? We’ve got some chaps amongst us who have bigshot complexes. These fellows can’t see themselves talking to people less than executives and would scorn talking to “mere stenos.” Let these poor fellows pound their shoes thin trying to sell the BIG COMPANIES all sorts of ideas on improving their help. You, going to and dealing only with stenos, laborers, clerks and the good, solid workaday world with your group, will win. The auditor who still hangs around General Sputters trying to get Mr. Swivelbottom to “buy a course for his help” will be in the anteroom yet while you own two square blocks on the main thoroughfare and have long since trained Mr. Swivelbottom’s help without his consent, knowingness or caringness. The big executives these days are about as progressive as last spring’s snail and have as much love for their people as Fagin for Oliver. Approach the little guy. With help-wanted-column ads.

As close as you come to companies will be Business Colleges and Tech Schools which you will let hire you to lecture free course level to THEIR students in their premises. From these you will also get Advanced Course students because you can hand out your literature. Play ball with such people. Let them sell THEIR courses in your school. And let them sell their courses to include yours. Be real.

There are certain golden rules which will make your operation, break it if you neglect them. DELIVER WHAT YOU PROMISE. SCHEDULE PRECISELY. THE STUDENT IS A CUSTOMER. USE BUSINESS AS A MOTIVE AND STRESS POINT IN ALL EXAMPLES AND LECTURES.

Now there are additional services you can offer if you can deliver them. You can test for IQ and Personality and write a letter to their boss about their improvement at course end. You will wind up with a huge employment roster. You can work with employment offices. (Don’t be an employment office, work WITH all other employment offices. Be an employment wholesaler to employment agencies for a fee, never a retailer, as that’s a profession in itself.)

Sell everybody an Associate Membership who comes to your Free Course. Sell everybody all his texts if you can. That’s added income and you may need it.

Here’s an OPEN CHANNEL in the society. Nobody is really doing it. Not even Carnegie, the closest reach, did this. Nobody balks good roads, good weather or better business efficiency today. And you can let the psychologist and pseudo-psychologist stew in their own rather rancid juices and gibber around their shock machines and mice in their government financed prisons and go straight to hell, whither they are bound, without our knowing or caring.

Are you going to help reach on this OPEN CHANNEL? You know you are.

Problems and other plans were good. But they aren’t as good as this one. Try it out.

NEW MATERIALS

I caught a Trafalgar Square sized lion by the tail lately with new material. New data and a new slant. We’ve gone upstairs further and we understand more. And it doesn’t undo what we know.

So you’ll soon have SLP ISSUE 8. No real changes in steps 2-3-4-5-6. Most of what you already know in step 1. But boy what an increase !

Hang on to your pro membership. We’re just starting this game.

WHAT DO I THINK OF AUDITORS?

(PABs will be sent airmail for $10 a year extra. That’s the commercial for this issue.)

Every now and again somebody tries to get me to say what I think of auditors. They want me to become hypercritical, I guess, so as to match the asker’s tone. Well, I better make a public utterance after all this time.

I think of auditors in a rather intense way. As I know more auditors than anybody else and have a better basis for judgment, on this subject I can be for once an authority.

My opinion of auditors in general is fairly well known to several people.

I think of an auditor as a person with enough guts to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. This quality is rare and this quality is courageous in the extreme.

It is my opinion and knowledge that auditors are amongst the upper tenth of the upper twentieth of intelligent human beings. Their will to do, their motives, their ability to grasp and to use are superior to that of any other profession.

I think of an auditor as having INITIATIVE. He is able to grasp or make a mock-up and put it into action.

Auditors survive better than other people.

If this world has any faintest chance of surviving it will be not because I write, but because auditors can and will think and do.

I think our auditors came from beings lately arrived on Earth who, seeing where it was going, decided to band together to send it elsewhere.

I consider all auditors my friends. I consider them that even when they squirrel. I believe they have a right to express themselves and their own opinions. I would not for a moment hamper their right to think. I think of auditors and Scientologists as the Free People.

Just as they consider one another their people, so I consider them my people.

I think their errors of the past, when they existed, came about because we are new and we are finding out and I don’t think any of their errors were intentional any more than mine were.

I can understand their own reactions because I can understand the counter-effort given them by society, and thus I don’t hold auditors guilty even when they fold up but simply assume we’d better make a better effort into the society to overcome or bypass the counter-effort.

I don’t expect auditors or Scientologists to instantly agree with or seize upon whatever I say. I would be offended if they did and would feel they weren’t a Free People. Since they are intelligent I expect them to think over what’s said, try it, and if it’s good for them, use it. That old auditors sooner or later come back to and use what I have discovered isn’t any testimony to our relationship at all, it’s only a testimony to my being right because I meant to be right in the first place.

I sorrow when I see somebody accomplishing less than he should because he thinks I wouldn’t approve of it. In organizations and out I count upon initiative and good judgment.

The most decent people I have ever known have been auditors. The best hearted people I know are auditors. They are so decent and good hearted I have to work and argue with them to make enough to keep mock-ups rolling well, a thing they are now beginning to do.

I am very proud of Scientologists. I think they’re bright, shiny beautiful people and I’m glad every one of them decided to get born again this time.

I think we’re a fine crew. I know we can make it. And I know that if it’s a better world in the future it will be because Scientologists are what they are, not what I made them.

Now in case there are any further inquiries or doubts on the matter, I assure you I have spoken on the subject and that I have spoken from the bottom of a very experienced heart.

Scientologists are the best people on each of the five continents and that’s all there is to it.

WRITING SCHEDULE

I’ve got my nose in my typewriter trying to steer clear of organizational work, trying to get to you the books you need for courses and programs. It’s kind of rough working without a secretary. But I’ll make it somehow, I hope.

I’m in Spain. You can address me care of the HASI, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8. They’ll packet my mail to me.

H A S U K

Because of many solicitor delays, the HASI in London remains the HASI, not the HASUK, and by advices will continue as the HASI for a very long time to come.

Give Jack Parkhouse there a hand, will you. The HASI needs your help and support. He and Ann and Dennis are able and willing and are doing a fine job—but they need your good will and your help if Scientology is to survive in England.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 80
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

17 April 1956

SCIENTOLOGY’S MOST WORKABLE PROCESS

It is fitting that we give out Scientology’s most workable process in Issue 80 of the oldest continuous publication in our sciences of Dianetics and Scientology.

We have been going with Dianetics and Scientology for a very long time now according to our time continuum. Actually we have been going only a tiny fraction of man’s scientific time continuum. The progress which we have made in the past few years is apparently greater than any combined progress of the preceding ages. This may be due to our ability to capitalize on what is known. It may be due to having been educated in both the Eastern and Western philosophies. It may be due to being born with a lucky slide rule in the mouth. It may be due to the brightness and interest of everyone connected. It may be due to a lot of things, but to whatever it is due, it is true. From a condition no-science-of-mind to a condition science-of-mind has been achieved.

If you have any doubts about our starting condition, no-science-of-mind, go get a Wundtian pseudo-psychology text, read Darwin, read the horrible confusions of Locke, Hume, Spencer, James. If you care to so research you will find that they were a trifle mixed up. Reading them now, knowing as you do Dianetics and Scientology, you can make some small sense from them in some places. BUT if you delete your understanding of Dianetics and Scientology and THEN study them you’ll come up—or, rather, go down—staggering. The test was this: By their tenets could these people make anyone smarter, more sociable, better able? No. The test was also this: By their talk of God and Devil did other men in other fields understand anything of the human soul, the hereafter? No. Well, that’s the way things were in the Dark Ages of 1949. Now we can make men smarter, better, more sociable and yes, more controllable. Now we do know about the “hereafter” and all the rest of it. So something DID happen in 1950 and something has BEEN happening ever since, and despite all our detractors—for Man detracts that which he doesn’t understand—and for all our rocky road, we HAVE attained higher than Man ever attained before and that’s the way it is.

Very well, then WHAT is there in this already high mountain of attainment which is the highest gain? Amongst all this gold where is the super-gold?

I don’t suppose I’ll surprise you very much if I tell you you haven’t had the super-super-gold yet. In fact I didn’t have it myself until very recently and, having discovered it, I’ve been waiting smugly to know it a little better and so give it to you ever since.

Empirically, the super-gold you have had is HAVINGNESS.

Since havingness wasn’t a super-super-gold (for I could see that it itself was an aberration) I continued to look for higher levels of entrance into the problem and so bypassed havingness and even forgot about it for a while—with resultant case chaos. When havingness is neglected, cases do not improve, that’s all there is to it.

Well, amongst all havingnesses, what is the super-gold process? There is one. It is not very fast, it is terribly certain, it does not fail in our experience and its gains are permanent. It is a process known as the Terrible Trio.

Given that, an auditor can put the question, acknowledge, originate, take care of originated comm and in general perform WELL all the primary auditing procedures (as different than techniques) and given that an auditor isn’t simply trying to overwhelm the preclear, the Terrible Trio can then pull up any case if run long enough. You understand, of course, that any TECHNIQUE depends upon the PROCEDURE of auditing. Auditors who have techniques fail on them often are at fault in HOW they audit and no matter how many thousand techniques were given them they’d still fail. Procedures are learned by dummy auditing for scores of hours on end. Then techniques work. (See, we’ve even cracked that major problem of building “insight” and skill into the auditor, the biggest variable of old-time practices! My, how we’ve come along.)

The Terrible Trio stole its name from three people in Scientology, United States against whom a famous (infamous) organization recently stacked its combined talents and lost with violence. The first “Terrible Trio” were Sanborn—Barrett—Steves. When I gave the triple havingness process to the staff auditors working under Julia Lewis in the HGC, somebody there, sensing its effectiveness, dubbed it the Terrible Trio.

Now I know all that is very informal, as is this whole article, but ‘‘scientific papers” as collected by the Ford Foundation and the Department of Sewage of New York are always supposed to have a historical section to tell where it all came from, and I’m simply being formal, you see.

The commands of the Terrible Trio are “Look around the room and tell me what you could have.” “Look around the room and tell me what you would let remain.” And, “Look around the room and tell me what you could dispense with” (run as “Look around the room and tell me with what you could dispense” in Boston and Devon).

These commands are run in ratio. It is not how LONG the process is run, it is how long it requires to finally flatten each command so that any of the three could be run indefinitely without upset to the preclear. The first ratio, to be safe, should be 20 times on the first command, five times on the second and one on the third. This ratio should then be improved gradually, i.e. 10, 8 and 2, then 10, 10 and 4.

At all times the auditor should watch for anaten or agitation (the two A’s of auditing) and if these occur, he has gone too fast OR has made, in the preclear’s opinion, a code break of some sort. If it isn’t the fault of the ratio used, it’s a code break and one should say, “What have I done wrong?” to the preclear; the pc may fish about for several minutes and finally recall that five minutes ago he felt repressed by the auditor in some way.

By advancing the ratio too fast is meant running the second question too long or the third question too long (too many times) without returning to the first, which is the most innocent question. However, one CAN run the first too long without advancing the ratio.

ONLY when the preclear can run any of these without consequence for many, many times, can one then be sure that the process is flat. ONLY when it is ENTIRELY flat inside a room should one attempt to run it outside a room, for the great space of the outdoors on this process is staggering to a preclear with a chronic somatic. The Terrible Trio run too soon outside can make a preclear VERY ill.

Here we have the most tested and vital process in Scientology. There are more advanced processes but they are not yet tested. The Terrible Trio has ALWAYS given a gain in the auditing room, properly audited. It was the Terrible Trio which saved the day when staff auditors were fighting back to security in handling havingness (for there was a short period in the U.S. when, with havingness abandoned, no real gains were had, a condition which I had to explore, fight and whip fast.)

It must be remembered that the PROCEDURE of the auditor must be good before the techniques used by the auditor work uniformly well. Thus the Terrible Trio must be run with exact attention to the rudiments. A pc out of session even though “being audited” won’t improve.

Oddly enough, this process can be self-audited, according to reports, making it about the only self-auditing process possible outside of Self Analysis (which still works).

Well, there you are.

BOTTOM RUNG OF DIANETICS FOUND

It will be good news to old dyed-in-the-engram Dianeticists (who are still convinced that I REALLY had something in Dianetics) that I haven’t forgotten them or the subject.

Dianetics suddenly revived on a discovery I made lately in an area where one would have thought no further discovery was possible.

The entire subject of games brought to life some new material. The recent brief resume in Operational Bulletin 17 on games is as important to us as it is brief. It tells us that there is a central motif on any dynamic which indicates the difference between self-determinism and pan-determinism. One is a master of any game which he can give non-partisanship, in other words, to play both sides. He is committed to any game (self-determinism) in which he can play but one side. Team play occurs in a game when one is playing one side of it. But total pan-determinism would be the ability to play any side or as part of any team, being capable of playing any and all levels of any dynamic.

But what is important here is that games are “overwhelmings.” As a person begins to be unwilling to overwhelm he, of course, begins to be unwilling to win and so loses pan-determinism and sinks into self-determinism. Games are, for our auditing purposes, “contests in overwhelmings.” The primary overwhelming is to take space. Even in sedentary chess the goal is to take space and the game ends with a certain space, identified incidentally by the occupying piece, being overwhelmed but not entered. This very wise game of chess, of course, really nails it since no one can REALLY overwhelm a thing without space, a thetan. Chess ends with the space commanded, the opposing king untaken, only “overwhelmed.” Thus life can be said to be a contest of “overwhelmings.” The use of force, space, pieces, problems, strategy and tactics all resolve into the simple idea of “overwhelmed.” A war and a business differ only in overwhelming by the use of force by the former, and of advertising and products by the latter.

A teammate is someone who assists in the overwhelming of the enemy. Aberration is mainly the overwhelming of teammates (wrong target).

When one views life as a complexity of attempts to overwhelm he begins to understand it rather well. Two people may be playing many games, some between them, some with others. They are opponents in some things, teammates in others. They succeed in the ratio that they can define their games AND overwhelm the proper enemy for each game. Marriages fail only because the games get confused between husband and wife.

All right, seeing that, let’s now look at Dianetics again. The engram was overwhelming the preclear. By auditing it with Dianetic techniques we let the preclear overwhelm the engram—PROVIDING we as auditors weren’t simply using Dianetics to overwhelm preclears. Read over the things that make auditing possible in 1947’s Original Thesis. The truth was there, the underlying reasons why were not.

Very well, if we were trying to overwhelm engrams, WHAT were we trying to defeat? The definition of an engram has been “a moment of pain and unconsciousness.” This should be more technically expressed as “an energy-spatial picture representing a moment of pain and unconsciousness and containing perceptics.”

Well, what is this new discovery? It is an added bit that engrams contained MORE IMPORTANT than pain and unconsciousness. That added bit can be briefly stated as “the moment of shock.” “The moment of shock” is that period of realization by body and thetan that an overwhelming has occurred.

As I have said, an overwhelming does not consist of space, energy, pieces et al. It is the IDEA that an overwhelming has occurred. The winner is convinced (sometimes wrongly, as when World War I became World War II) that he has overwhelmed the opposing player. The loser is convinced that he has been overwhelmed.

By the mechanics of the overt act-motivator sequence a person doing a lot of overwhelming sometimes regrets having done so. Sometimes the overwhelmed (very commonly) takes the winning valence, becomes the person or object he has been overwhelmed by. So if one wins he often regrets it (the matched terminal phenomena is at work here) and when he loses he sometimes becomes the winner in person.

Here we have the proposition that one can win too often or lose too often. In Dianetics where does this fit? It fits as the moment of idea of an overwhelming.

Bloody and wreckaged, some battlers yet do not get the idea they are whipped. The engram received is then not effective against them. Almost untouched, some believe they have been overwhelmed and thus a tiny lock assumes the value of a big engram.

Some people playing against another assume too rapidly they have won; they achieve the idea that they have done an overwhelming. Indeed it is an old tactic to make the enemy think he has won and then knock him flat: not Queensbury but effective. When this last has occurred a “winner” becomes suspicious of having overwhelmed and is liable to become too anxious. Indeed he can become so unsettled about overwhelming others that at length he has to prove it to himself with stiff corpses and nothing short will serve. And a “winner” can become more anxious than this, as most people have now become; he can suppose that no evidence of having overwhelmed others is valid and so he shuns the idea of having overwhelmed. To start to win anything sets up an anxiety which brings about a counter-postulate in him. Restimulating locks and engrams of anxiety, he becomes uncertain and indefinite. Shame, blame, regret occur at the very thought of a win. Why? He cannot get the idea of overwhelming another with any positiveness. Thus he may go through life winning on every hand and feel a completely defeated failure; no evidence is valid to him that he has overwhelmed anything; he has to get big, try harder; but the cancer stays with him and he finally concludes all is defeat.

The usual freedom-monger, the agitator, in his unreasoning and damaging insistence on no rules or barriers anywhere, is able to achieve only a no-game condition. He got that way because he cannot feel a win is possible. At the same time he may be complicated by a certainty that he himself is being defeated at every hand, no matter the evidence. Thus he has to assume more and more vicious and convincing roles until at last there’s shooting in the streets. Thus the regicides of France could not be free even when they had murdered their king and had killed all their nobility; they were so unconvinced that they had won that they promptly lost by setting up Napoleon as an emperor. Dead, the king and nobility had still won in the minds of the French radicals BECAUSE the radicals could not get the idea of having overwhelmed.

In the field of engrams this becomes important. It means that engrams vanish, erase rapidly WHEN the preclear regains the ability to HAVE THE IDEA that he has won and that he has lost. This explains the mysterious efficacy of Rising Scale Processing as developed in the very last days of Dianetic research. It also explains why many preclears could not run an engram. It also explains why my earliest technique of giving small wins over locks turned on sonic and visio. It also explains why some auditors were not successful: They could not let a pc overwhelm anything and they themselves had to overwhelm the pc and used engrams to do it. The auditors did not know they were doing this—they were the first to be heartbroken about case failures; it was just that a subtle factor was at work, more powerful than the pain and unconsciousness of the engram.

Well, that’s stripping it pretty bare. But there’s more to the subject and I will be covering it later on.

The research of Dianetics and Scientology still has its exciting moments. At least WE’RE winning.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 81
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

24 April 1956

PURPOSE

All communication lines should have a purpose. The purpose of this communication line is the advising and orienting of auditors and Scientologists everywhere on the subject of Scientology, the formation and the direction of its organizations and the creation of space in which Man can walk upright and free.

There is a great deal of material packed in tight in these recent PABs. There will be in the next few issues data of sufficient importance to clarify Scientology even for those who have not succeeded well in life, processing or finance. I invite your closest attention as to what is happening here because data has appeared to me to overcome the challenge of an apathetic resistive society in its regard to our efforts.

We are the only people and the only organizations on Earth which have the technology and the ambition to attempt a clarification of situations which in other hands are considered entirely out of control, to wit, the atomic bomb and the decay and confusion of central governments.

There are those who would tell us that our ambitions are too high, that no single group, much less a single man, could bring about a change in the dangerous career of Earth. But such people do not know their history. Single men and determined groups have been the only makers of space in which Man could walk free. Left to the multitude, each inverted with his own selfishness and greed, the affairs of Man do not prosper. Left to an anarchy of nations with no international responsibility, Earth and Mankind cannot prosper.

The Anglo-American civilization was the first new civilization since the Roman Empire. All civilizations between the last collapse of Rome in the 4th Century A.D. and the present moment were some fragment of the Roman Empire or its conquerors. Rome possessed certain technologies which conquered the world. In company with these technologies there was a philosophy and a willingness to do. When the philosophy had faded or had been changed for one far less workable, when the technologies of Rome had been scattered before the hordes of barbarians who now from Moscow once more seek to spread confusion, Man was left to drift, to interpret the word “freedom” as he would and in the main for his own purposes. The disciplines that were Rome faded away. Today the European countries are beginning to function once more. Various portions of civilization are alert. For over a century a new technology has been making space. That technology is Anglo-American in its development. Leaders of the new industrial age in the United States and Great Britain have pressed upon the world know-how and machinery and ways of living which have revolutionized almost every society on Earth. In Berlin, in Paris, in Madrid and Tangiers and Cairo and indeed in Moscow itself we see the evidences of this onslaught. Anglo-American mechanization has even driven the Chinese from their background and into European pants and hats. In India and Burma and Buenos Aires we see the cinema, the automobile, the clock, the booklets and the rifle created by or modelled upon Anglo-American industrial might. Technologically the United States and Great Britain have conquered the world. Philosophically they have failed.

The original impetus of the Anglo-American industrial push was carried along with Protestant Christianity. Somewhere on the way there is one spiritual message which, packaged in with the clock and the cinema and the guns, was lost. Unlike earlier Jesuit successes with native peoples, Protestants’ successes have been few for some reason, possibly because the Jesuit incorporated the religion he found with the religion he brought, and Protestantism remained entirely itself. The spiritual philosophy which should have prepared the way for the proper use of the technology did not succeed.

We are left then with a world of confusion, for the tools and the weapons have gone out and no message has gone with them, even to the United States and Great Britain themselves, to use them properly. We are confronted then with the picture of Man’s failure to keep pace with his humanities alongside the onslaught of his technology. We have humanities in the Dark Ages and technologies in the next century. We are, therefore, confronted within our own nations with strikes, crimes, upsets, juvenile delinquency and problems beyond count. We are confronted at the same time with rebellious Indians, Burmese, and Sinhalese and Chinese and Arabs. We are confronted then with a United States and Great Britain which, having delivered the weapons of slaughter into the hands of others, seemingly have no will to continue their regulation.

The white man within his own countries and within all the countries of Earth has solved the problem technologically. Guns, furniture, linoleum, weaving machines, harvesters, air conditioning, medical advances have each and every one conquered their environments. Though the machine has penetrated such distance and though the machine has made each and every United States citizen and British citizen more independent and capable, it has not been accompanied by a philosophy of use adequate to its potential for harm. Thus we have a chaotic world condition.

We have uncounted communication devices and have not had until Scientology any formula for communication itself. We have a thousand tongues, the phonograph, the motion picture, the radio, the television to talk about affinity and we do not even know what it is. We have numberless realities being created daily in huge antiseptic factories without any understanding of what reality might be, and thus we have created beyond the ability of Man to understand, and unless the understanding of Man can be brought to the level of his own creations Man is doomed as the conquering animal of Earth. So desperate has Man become that he will buy almost any ideology whether it is communism or druidism. He will buy the garbage of Marx and even write it unsuspectingly into the United States Constitution under the heading of “Income Tax.” He will seek solutions to his overpowering problems from indigestible sources such as Russian psychiatry or Wundtian German psychology, neither one of which was intended to free Man or to give him understanding and which were intended only to enslave and debase. Counterfeited ideologies and humanities are not good enough in this age of atomic fission and jet planes. These two alone, unless handled sentiently, can bring about the wipe-out of modern Man.

If you have questioned where you were going with Scientology, if you did not know exactly what you intended to do with Scientology, if you had no real understanding of what Scientology was for, read the above again. You will readily recognize that the typist sitting in some office overwhelmed by routine is equipped immediately with the means of writing letters faster than any amanuensis of past ages but has no understandings of why she should be there or what she should be doing beyond the fact that she “has to have a job.” What hope is there for this girl? Like the operator of a drill press in a factory, like the pilot of a jet plane or like the man himself who designs atomic missiles, she does not know what she is doing or why she is doing it. Therefore, she cannot hope to understand the motives of those around her, nor can she understand any need for any teamwork in the execution of a better civilization. She is being overpowered and engulfed by the business machinery with which she is surrounded. Work and happiness, or comfort or pride exist in such surroundings. From the highest head of state to the lowest menial, saving only Scientologists, in the United States, Great Britain or the rest of the world there is no exact understanding of life itself, thus livingness itself has become as automatic as machinery.

Machines do not bleed, they do not suffer. It is only because Man conceives Man to be an incomprehensible machine that makes Man willing to destroy with such weapons as atomic fission. Only men without purpose, without understanding, men who cannot play the game would so attack their fellows.

What craven cowardice is it that requires a weapon as great as an H-bomb to command compliance with one’s bad temper? One can only gaze with contempt upon a person who in a relatively peaceful society will over-arm himself and over-threaten his fellows.

If Man cared more, if Man had a better understanding of his own purpose, Man would make a better effort to survive, but lost in the confusions of ideologies which were intended to do nothing but confuse him, what chance does he have?

The chance he has is Scientology. We’re giving him that chance and if you do not pass along to him what you know, you yourselves are failing that man, failing yourselves, and failing us. This is Man’s one chance. You must give it to him, otherwise he faces other planets, other times, other elsewheres, but no more here. Scientology is not so much Man’s first science of understanding as his last call to reason.

If you cannot see this as a necessity, this science and technology to fit in with Man’s mission of the machine, then you cannot view Man’s further survival, for it will not exist.

Were we to straighten out on its lower and middle strata the thinkingness of Man, he would have a chance to live. You would give that chance to a person dying in an automobile accident. You would give that chance to a dog; you would give the chance to breathe again and look at the sun to your deadliest enemy. Then why not give it to Man at large? Is it because you cannot see him as an entirety, because you cannot see him as units made up in a similar image to those of your immediate family and friends? You must give Man that chance. Given that chance he can live out his destiny. If that chance is withheld from him he will be no more.

Where Earth pursues her gentle way in her orbit about the sun today there will be a black orb seared, scorched and defaced with ruin, its air polluted by radiation, its surface gouged by pocks, the skeletons of its cities standing black and ruined against a sun which was allowed to set upon the Anglo-American civilization. Perhaps there are other planets, perhaps there will be other times, but here we are right now, our urgings and our strivings ought to carry forward the civilization which we have about us. Perhaps it would be better to start all over and make another one. I do not happen to think so. I think that we can and will continue to create this civilization and continue to bring Man through despite his folly in creating industrially far beyond his ability to understand and then borrowing from those who hated him the technologies he hoped would permit him to survive. We know how and we can do. It is up to us. It is up to you and only then we can say with honesty that it is up to Man.

HCA TRAINING RIGHTS

If you read closely you discovered that only those HCA training rights given to DScns which had not been used and only those which although used did not pay for certification to the central organization were cancelled. Those people training to the level of HCA in the United States who have used their training right to train people to that level and who are in good order financially with the central organization are still in force.

Next time don’t jump to conclusions!

Any and all professional auditors have the complete right to teach a Basic Course and should be teaching the Basic Course regardless of the type of mock-up they use to get people running through this Basic Course. You understand that we can see a real Basic Course, one which trains a minimum of twenty-five or thirty people a week. Anything else we call “peanuts.” So let’s get busy on that one.

In the United States toward the end of the year there will be a DScn Course for those who wish to qualify and procure rights to train; otherwise no such rights will be issued.

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 82
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

____________________________________________________________________

1 May 1956

S C I E N T O L O G Y
TRANSLATOR’S EDITION

by L. Ron Hubbard, Ph.D., C.E.

For the next few issues of the PAB we are running a preview of the Translator’s Edition of Scientology. It is presented not because you are in need of a translation, but because you do need at this time a tight resume of the data of Scientology AS IT SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO BASIC COURSE PEOPLE.

In a Basic Course give them this data. Give people definitions. Repeat them many times. Don’t talk about Scientology in your lectures. Give them Scientology.

Later these materials will be a Basic Course booklet.

Here, as well, are some startling new principles you have not seen before, for since my discovery of them, there has been no written release of the data.

This information is yours to use. It is a new “shot in the arm” for Scientology. These advances have been called incredible. They are only mildly amazing.

                                         					L. RON HUBBARD

NOTE: The Translator’s Edition of SCIENTOLOGY contains the most fundamental principles of the science in such a form that any further reader in another tongue can understand fully what was intended. The difficulties of translation are most apparent when one is asked to translate Scientology who has not had years of experience with it; a translation not based on experience is then colored by the various misunderstandings of the translator, and when the work passes, translated, into the hands of someone who is to use or study it in that tongue, the person is deprived of much of the precision of Scientology. Indeed, it is possible for even a fair translation to still exclude enough in precision of word usage to deprive the science of workability in a tongue for which it was not written originally. While it is no criticism of the English of the translator, it yet brings up the obvious point that not all translators are expert Scientologists and might omit some of the exact meanings without knowing that they had done so. TO OVERCOME THIS I have written here a Translator’s Edition. The ENTIRE TEXT which follows and every word therein is scheduled for translation and must, each word, be literally translated into non-English text. In order to secure exact meanings all words and some phrases which are of questionable status in translation have been given in synonym several times.

This TRANSLATOR’S TEXT must then accompany and be included in all other non-English texts of whatever language; otherwise Scientology might not be found in many respects workable and an entire language area would be without it, since it would not be understandable to it, the translator having erred somewhere in his translation.
I speak in this from experience, having seen DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY already in non-English tongues whose translators were not trained in the science. In engineering, bridges stand or they fall down. That is because engineering is so precise that an error in the engineering science preceding the bridge could result in calamity. Similarly, Scientology works or it doesn’t work. It is not an art. It is the first Science of Humanity to have this engineering precision. Thus literary skill does not count in a translation. Smooth reading does not count. Exact meaning DOES count.

IN TRANSLATING ANYTHING IN SCIENTOLOGY TRANSLATE THIS PAPER FIRST.

Translate also the note above.

_________________________

WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY? Scientology is that branch of psychology which treats of human ability. It is an extension of DIANETICS which is in itself an extension of old-time faculty-psychology of 400 years ago. More acceptable and normal psychology, such as that begun by St. Thomas Aquinas and extended by many later authors, was in 1879 interrupted severely by one Professor Wundt, a Marxist at Leipzig University in Germany. This strange man, in agreement with Marx, conceived that Man was an animal without soul and based all of his work on the principle that there was no “psyche” (a Greek word meaning “spirit”). Psychology, the study of the spirit (or mind) then came into the peculiar position of being “a study of the spirit which denied the spirit.” For the subsequent decades, whipped on by Marxist economists and dialectic materialists, Wundtian “psychology” was taught broadly through the world. It taught that man was an animal. It taught that man could not be bettered. It taught that intelligence never changed. This slave subject, Wundtian psychology, became the standard, mainly because of the indifference or lack of knowledge of people in charge of things. Scientology is actually a new, very basic psychology in the most exact meaning of the word. It can and does change behavior and intelligence, and it can and does assist people to study life. Unlike Wundtian pseudo-psychology, it has no political axe to grind. Scientology is not teaching dialectic materialism under the heading of “psychology. “

The term SCIENTOLOGY is taken from scio (knowing in the fullest meaning of the word) and ology (to study).

Scientology, used by the trained and relatively untrained person, improves the intelligence, ability, behavior, skill and appearance of people.

It is a precise and exact science.

It is employed by an AUDITOR (a Scientology practitioner) upon individuals or small or large groups of people, in their presence. The Auditor makes these people, at their choice, do various exercises, and these exercises (processes) bring about changes for the better in intelligence, behavior and general competence.

HOW IS SCIENTOLOGY USED? Scientology is employed by an Auditor (one who listens and computes) as a set of drills (exercises, processes) upon the individual, and small or large groups. It is also employed as an educational (teaching) subject. It has been found that persons can be processed (drilled) in Scientology with Scientology exercises and can be made well of many, many illnesses and can become brighter, more alert and more competent. BUT if they are only processed they have a tendency to be overwhelmed or startled, and although they may be brighter and more competent they are still held down by an ignorance of life. Therefore it is far better to teach AND process (audit, drill) a person than only to process him. In other words the best use of Scientology is through processing and education in Scientology. In this way there is no imbalance. It is interesting that people only need to study Scientology to have some small rise in their own intelligence, behavior and competence. The study itself is therapeutic (good medicine) by actual testing.

IS SCIENTOLOGY VALID? Tens of thousands of case histories (reports on patients, individual records), all sworn to (attested before public officials), are in the possession of the organizations of Scientology. No other subject on earth except physics and chemistry has had such gruelling testing (proofs, exact findings). Scientology in the hands of an expert (Auditor) can cure some 70% of Man’s illnesses (sicknesses). Scientology is used by some of the largest companies (business organizations) on earth. It is valid. It has been tested.

WHERE IS THERE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY? Scientology has two main organizations. One of these is the HUBBARD ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTOLOGISTS, No. I Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8, United Kingdom. The other is the HUBBARD ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTOLOGISTS INTERNATIONAL, Post Office Box 242, Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S.A. These organizations have offices on every continent of Earth. Scientology practitioners are validated (certified, given diplomas) by these two organizations. Diplomas are given only after very exact training. A person who is skilled in Scientology has a diploma from one of the above two organizations or from the FOUNDING CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. These offices and these people can give you more information about Scientology. The above two organizations have many books in English on the subject of Scientology and Dianetics. The company that is publishing the book you are reading may have more books in your language.

WHO INVENTED SCIENTOLOGY? Scientology was discovered (found), not invented (created). It was organized by L. Ron Hubbard, an American, who has many degrees and is very skilled by reason of study. Sometimes Wundtian psychologists defend themselves by saying Hubbard is insane; actually the Chicago Psychological Institute, a Wundtian organization gave Hubbard many tests at his own request in January of 1951 and found him unusually bright and extremely sane. Hubbard was trained in nuclear physics at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. before he started his studies about the mind. This explains the mathematical precision of Scientology. Doctor Hubbard has been given many honors for his work in the field of the mind. He has been assisted by one of the most numerous organizations in the field of the mind on Earth today, the organizations of Dianetics and Scientology. Scientology organizations contain more members than all other mental health organizations combined.

CAN A PERSON WITHOUT MUCH STUDY USE SCIENTOLOGY? Scientology is practiced in daily life by enormous numbers of people who have no formal training beyond a study of textbooks. Scientology was developed to be used by such people as well as by the trained practitioner. A person studying by himself from textbooks can use Scientology both to help and to heal his fellow human beings.

WHAT SPECIAL USE DOES SCIENTOLOGY HAVE? Scientology does things for people where nothing has been done before. It makes them well from illnesses which were once considered hopeless. It increases their intelligence. It changes their competence and betters their behavior. In addition to these it brings them a better understanding of life. One outstanding thing which it does: it alleviates burns received from atomic bombs. Scientology is the only specific (cure) for radiation (atomic bomb) burns. Scientology processing given to persons burned by radiation can alleviate the majority of the difficulty. This is true even when the person so treating (auditor) is not completely trained.

BASIC PRINCIPLES

Like engineering, Scientology has certain basic principles. These are necessary to a full understanding of the subject. It is not enough to know how to process (drill) people in Scientology. To be effective (good) one must also know the basic principles. Scientology is very exact. The humanities (human studies) of the past were full of opinions. Scientology is full of facts that work.

To study Scientology one should scan (skim) quickly through the basics and find something with which one can agree. Having found ONE THING (one fact) with which he can agree, he should then skim through again and find another fact. He should continue to do this until he feels some friendliness to the subject. When he has achieved this, and only when he has achieved this, he should then study all the basic principles. There is no effort here to be authoritarian (opinionated). No one will try to make the subject difficult except yourself.

You may have been taught that the mind (the spirit, the brain) is a very difficult thing to know about. This is the first principle of Scientology: It is possible to know about the mind.

THE CYCLE OF ACTION

The most fundamental idea in Scientology is called the CYCLE OF ACTION.

CYCLE = a span of time with a beginning and an end; = a section of the totality of time with a beginning and an end; = in beginningless and endless time one can set out periods which do have a beginning and an end insofar as action is concerned.

ACTION = motion or movement; = an act; = a consideration that motion has occurred. In very ancient books it is written that from chaos came a birth, from birth there was growth, when growth was achieved there was then a gradual decay, the decay then ended in death, after death there was chaos.

Scientology expresses this more briefly. THE CYCLE OF ACTION IS AN APPARENCY AS FOLLOWS: CREATE, then SURVIVE, then DESTROY; or Creation, Survival, Destruction. First there is Creation. Then this is followed by Survival. Then this is followed by Destruction.

APPARENCY = appears to be as distinct from actually IS.

This cycle is only an APPARENCY. It is what we see, what we behold, what we believe. We CONSIDER (think, believe, suppose, postulate) that it is so and we then see it so.

A child is born, he grows, he reaches manhood, he grows old, he dies. In Scientology it can be seen that none of these steps are necessary. One considers them so and so they are true. A man can grow old quickly or slowly. He grows old to the degree that he believes he is growing old. Because everyone AGREES that this is the way things are, they go that way. The cycle is not TRUE. It is only APPARENT. It is APPARENT because we believe we see it. It is APPARENT because we AGREE that it should be so.

The test of this principle is as follows: By using the CYCLE OF ACTION can we make anyone well or more intelligent? Thousands of tests have proven that the use of and belief in the CYCLE OF ACTION has made none well or intelligent. Therefore, no matter if we see it, there must be something wrong with it. The woman, growing old, wishing to appear younger, is protesting this CYCLE OF ACTION. She feels there is something wrong with it. There is. We have to find out what the ACTUAL cycle is before we can make people better.

ACTUAL = what is really true; = that which exists despite all apparencies; = that which underlies the way things seem to be; = the way things really are.

THE ACTUAL CYCLE OF ACTION is as follows: CREATE, create-create-create, create-counter-create, no creation, nothingness.

CREATE = make, manufacture, construct, postulate, bring into beingness.
Create-create-create = create again continuously one moment after the next.
Create-counter-create = to create something against a creation; = to create one thing and then create something else against it.
No creation = an absence of any creation; = no creative activity.

An ACTUAL cycle of action, then, consists of various activities but each and every one of them is creative. The cycle of action contains an APPARENCY of SURVIVAL but this is actually only a continuous creation. The APPARENT cycle of action contains DESTRUCTION but the ACTUAL cycle of action tells us what destruction is; DESTRUCTION is one of TWO activities. DESTRUCTION is in terms of action a creation of something against a creation of something else. For example, a wall is seen standing; to be apparent it is necessary that the wall be constantly created; the act of “destruction” is to exert against the wall another creativeness, the action or activity of knocking the wall down; both the wall standing there and the action of knocking it down are “creative” actions. Because we may object to (argue against, dislike) a wall being knocked down we vilify (swear at, scorn) the creativeness involved in knocking it down with the word “destructive.” ACTUALITY tells us that there is no such thing as destruction; there is only creation against a creation. There is another “type of destruction” and this is NO MORE CREATION. By no longer being a party to (a member of) the wall’s creation, the wall, in theory, can cease to exist for one. This is true in ACTUAL PRACTICE in Scientology.

REALITY is the way things appear. REALITY IS APPARENCY. To do anything about reality, one must search into and discover what underlies the APPARENCY. Of what does REALITY consist (what is Reality composed of)? We SEE an APPARENCY which has the CYCLE OF ACTION of CREATE-SURVIVE-DESTROY. More basically (fundamentally, underlying experience) this CYCLE OF ACTION contains nothing but CREATION.

If one stops making something, it no longer exists. If one ceases to create, there is nothingness. When one creates something or beholds something which is created, that thing is still being created. Even if one is creating something with his left hand and has forgotten about it with his right hand, the thing still exists. In other words one can create something without knowing it is still being created. Then he seeks to DESTROY it by a counter-creation (a creation against it). The result is a chaos created by two opposing creations.

LET US BE PRACTICAL. A science is not a science unless it is practical. A theory is no good unless it works. All the fancy and beautiful theory in the world is useless unless it has a use or a workability. Is this CYCLE OF ACTION THEORY USEFUL? It is. So long as we believe that we have to destroy with force in order to destroy at all, as long as we think in terms of destruction, we have chaos.

There is CREATING AND KNOWING ONE IS CREATING. There is CREATING AND NOT KNOWING ONE IS CREATING. When one drives a car or a cart he does many things (performs many acts) which he is not AWARE OF (conscious of, know about) and these we call AUTOMATIC ACTIONS. One is doing something and is not aware that he is doing it. He starts to create something, then places this thought still active beyond his own reach and the creation continues to occur. KNOWINGLY CREATING SOMETHING is always the first condition. One can then purposefully CONTINUE THE CREATION UNKNOWINGLY. Everything he is doing knowingly or unknowingly he is doing here and now, in the present instant, in present time. He KNOWINGLY STARTED THE CREATION in some PAST moment. But the Creation is being done in the present moment. To stop any creation it can be established that one once knew he was creating it, and that thought found and made known again, OR ONE CAN SIMPLY CREATE NEWLY AND CONSCIOUSLY WHAT HE IS ALREADY CREATING UNCONSCIOUSLY (unknowingly). In either case the creation stops. The WRONG WAY is to start a new creation to counter against the old creation; when one does this he gets confusion and chaos.

FOR EXAMPLE a man has a bad leg. He is trying to “get well.” He seeks then to create a good leg. He goes to doctors and wants to be healed. The treatment is difficult and usually somewhat unsuccessful in the case of a very severely crippled leg. SOMETHING is creating a bad leg. Against this he is creating a good leg. The result is confusion and a bad leg. BUT a THIRD creativeness is present. First something was creating, we hope, a good leg. Then a counter-creation (such as an accident to his leg) counter-created a bad leg. Now he is trying to counter-create again a good leg. The result is to wipe out THE ORIGINAL GOOD LEG since THAT IS THE CREATION HE IS TAKING OVER AND EXPOSING WITH HIS EFFORTS TO GET WELL. He wants a good leg. The trouble with him is the counter-creation of a bad leg. The test is factual. Have him create (by a certain Scientology process) bad legs until the countercreation of bad legs is wiped out and the ORIGINAL CREATION OF A GOOD LEG WILL REAPPEAR. This only fails when there is no original creation of a good leg, when this is gone.

FOR EXAMPLE a man has a job. He works at it. That is to say he create create-creates a job throughout the days, weeks and years. As long as he makes a job, the job exists. One day he DEPENDS upon (takes for granted) this job. He no longer creates it. It ceases to exist. He has no job. The APPARENCY is that he loafed (became lazy) and was discharged. The ACTUALITY is that he no longer created a job and so didn’t have one.

FOR EXAMPLE a man depends upon a woman to keep his house for him. One day he no longer has a woman. He can’t keep house EVEN THOUGH BEFORE HE MARRIED THE WOMAN HE COULD KEEP HOUSE.

FOR EXAMPLE a man is sane. He gets the idea (creates the idea) that it would be better to be insane. He starts to go insane (having created it) and then does numberless things in order to stay sane. Here he was already creating the state of sanity. He counter-created insanity. He then counter-created sanity against insanity.

CREATION IN THIS WORK may be thought to exclude God. We are here considering only those things which MAN or Man as a spirit can make or manufacture or think. The subject of WHO or WHAT is doing the creation does not invalidate the cycle. This is a work on the subject of the mind, not a work on the subject of the Supreme Being.

There are many tests for these principles in SCIENTOLOGY. Such tests come under the heading of PROCESSING.

                      							L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 83
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

8 May 1956

S C I E N T O L O G Y
TRANSLATOR’S EDITION

by L. Ron Hubbard, Ph.D., C.E.

Continued from PAB 82

THE CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE

There are three conditions (circumstances, qualities) of existence (apparency, reality, livingness).

These three conditions comprise (make up, constitute) life.

They are BE, DO and HAVE.

THE CONDITION OF BEING is defined as the assumption (choosing) of a category of identity. It could be said to be the role in a game and an example of beingness could be one’s own name. Another example would be his profession. Another example would be his physical characteristics. Each or all of these things could be called his beingness. Beingness is assumed by oneself or given to oneself, or is attained. For example, in the playing of a game each player has his own beingness.

THE SECOND CONDITION OF EXISTENCE IS DOING. By doing we mean action, function, accomplishment, the attainment of goals, the fulfilling of purpose, or any change of position in space.

THE THIRD CONDITION IS HAVINGNESS. By havingness we mean owning, possessing, being capable of commanding, positioning, taking charge of objects, energies or spaces.

The essential definition of having is to be able to touch or permeate or to direct the disposition of.

The game of life demands that one assume a beingness in order to accomplish a doingness in the direction of havingness.

These three conditions are given in an order of seniority (importance) where life is concerned. The ability to be is more important than the ability to do, the ability to do is more important than the ability to have. In most people all three conditions are sufficiently confused (chaotic, baffling) that they are best understood in reverse order.
When one has clarified (brought order into) the idea of possession or havingness, one can then proceed to clarify doingness for general activity, and when this is done one understands beingness or identity.

It is an essential to a successful existence that each of these three conditions be clarified and understood. The ability to assume or to grant (give, allow) beingness is probably the highest of human virtues. It is even more important to be able to permit (allow) other people to have beingness than to be able oneself to assume it.

THE EIGHT DYNAMICS

As one looks out across the confusion which is life or existence to most people, one can discover eight main divisions, to each one of which apply the conditions of existence. Each division contains a cycle of action.

There could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These we call DYNAMICS. These are motives or motivations. We call them THE EIGHT DYNAMICS.

There is no thought or statement here that any one of these eight dynamics is more important than the others. While they are categories (divisions) of the broad game of life they are not necessarily equal to each other. It will be found amongst individuals that each person stresses one of the dynamics more than the others or may stress a combination of dynamics as more important than other combinations.

The purpose in setting forth this division is to increase an understanding of life by placing it in compartments. Having subdivided existence in this fashion each compartment can be inspected as itself and by itself in its relationship to the other compartments of life. In working a puzzle it is necessary to first take pieces of similar color or character and place them in groups. In studying a subject it is necessary to proceed in an orderly fashion. To promote this orderliness it is necessary to assume for our purposes these eight arbitrary compartments of life.

THE FIRST DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence as one’s self. Here we have individuality expressed fully.

THE SECOND DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second Dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself and the Second Dynamic (b) is the family unit including the rearing of children.

THE THIRD DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence in groups of individuals. Any group or part of an entire class could be considered to be a part of the Third Dynamic. The school, the society, the town, the nation are each part of the Third Dynamic and each one is a Third Dynamic.

THE FOURTH DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence as mankind. Whereas the white race would be considered a Third Dynamic, all the races would be considered the Fourth Dynamic.

THE FIFTH DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence of the animal kingdom. This includes all living things whether vegetable or animal. The fish in the sea, the beasts of the field, or of the forest, grass, trees, flowers or anything directly and intimately motivated by life.

THE SIXTH DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence as the physical universe. The physical universe is composed of matter, energy, space and time. In Scientology we take the first letter of each of these words and coin a word MEST.

THE SEVENTH DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence as or of spirits. Anything spiritual, with or without identity, would come under the heading of the Seventh Dynamic.

THE EIGHTH DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence as Infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being. It is carefully observed here that the science of Scientology does not intrude into the Dynamic of the Supreme Being. This is called the Eighth Dynamic because the symbol of infinity stood upright makes the numeral “8.”

The earlier science Dianetics included Dynamics one to four. Scientology embraces Dynamics one through seven as known territory, scientifically demonstrated and classified.

The difficulty of stating the exact definitions of the Dynamics is entirely verbal. Originally the Dynamics read “the urge towards survival as—.” As the science developed it became apparent that survival was only an apparency and only one facet of existence. Both the cycle of action and the three conditions of existence belong in each Dynamic.

A further manifestation of these Dynamics is that they could best be represented as a series of concentric circles wherein the First Dynamic would be the center and each new Dynamic would be successively a circle outside it. The idea of space adjoining enters into these Dynamics.

The basic characteristic of the individual includes his ability to so expand into the other Dynamics, but when the Seventh Dynamic is reached in its entirety one will only then discover the true First Dynamic.

As an example of use of these Dynamics one discovers that a baby at birth is not perceptive beyond the First Dynamic, but as the child grows and interests extend can be seen to embrace other Dynamics. As a further example of use, a person who is incapable of operating on the Third Dynamic is incapable at once of being a part of a team and so might be said to be incapable of a social existence.

As a further comment upon the Eight Dynamics, no one of these Dynamics from One to Seven is more important than any other one of them in terms of orienting the individual. While the Dynamics are not of equal importance, one to the next, the ability of an individual to assume the beingness, doingness and havingness of each Dynamic is an index to his ability to live.

The Eight Dynamics are used in Scientology communication and should be perfectly learned as part of the language of Scientology. The abilities and shortcomings of individuals can be understood by viewing their participation in the various Dynamics.

THE A-R-C TRIANGLE

There is a triangle of considerable importance in Scientology and understanding of it gives a much greater understanding of life, and an ability to use it.

The A-R-C triangle is the keystone of living associations. This triangle is the common denominator to all of life’s activities. The first corner of the triangle is called Affinity. The basic definition of affinity is the consideration of distance, whether good or bad. The most basic function of complete affinity would be the ability to occupy the same space as something else. The word “affinity” is here used to mean love, liking or any other emotional attitude. Affinity is conceived in Scientology to be something of many facets. Affinity is a variable quality. Affinity is here used as a word with the context “degree of liking.” Under affinity we have the various emotional tones ranged from the highest to the lowest and these are, in part, serenity (the highest level), enthusiasm (as we proceed downward towards the baser affinities), conservatism, boredom, antagonism, anger, covert hostility, fear, grief, apathy. Below apathy affinity proceeds into solidities such as matter. Affinity is conceived to be comprised first of thought, then of emotion which contains energy particles, and then as a solid.
The second corner of the triangle is Reality. Reality could be defined as “that which appears to be.” Reality is fundamentally agreement. What we agree to be real is real.

The third corner of the triangle is Communication. In human relationships this is more important than the other two corners of the triangle in understanding the composition of human relations in this universe. Communication is the solvent for all things. It dissolves all things.

The interrelationship of the triangle becomes apparent at once, when one asks, “Have you ever tried to talk to an angry man?” Without a high degree of liking and without some basis of agreement there is no communication. Without communication and some basis of emotional response there can be no reality. Without some basis for agreement and communication there can be no affinity. Thus we call these three things a triangle. Unless we have two corners of a triangle, there cannot be a third corner. Desiring any corner of the triangle, one must include the other two.

The triangle is conceived to be very spacious at the level of serenity and completely condensed at the level of matter. Thus to represent a scale for use one would draw a large triangle with a high part of the scale and succeedingly small triangles down to a dot at the bottom of the scale.

Affinity, reality and communication are the basis of the Scientology Tone Scale which gives a prediction of human behavior as contained in the book Science of Survival, obtainable from the HASI.

As has already been noted, the triangle is not an equilateral triangle. Affinity and Reality are very much less important than Communication. It might be said that the triangle begins with Communication which brings into existence Affinity and Reality.

The most primitive Scientology definition of Communication is “Cause-Distance Effect.” The fundamental manual of Communication is Dianetics, 1955!, obtainable from the HASI.

If you would continue a strong and able communication with someone there must be some basis for agreement. There must be some liking for the person and then communication can exist. We can see, then, that simple talking and writing randomly without knowledge of this would not necessarily be communication. Communication is essentially something which is sent and which is received. The intention to send and the intention to receive must both be present in some degree before an actual communication can take place. Therefore one could have conditions which appear to be communications which were not.

Original with Scientology, as are all these concepts, the A-R-C triangle understood is an extremely useful tool or weapon in human relationships. For instance, amongst the A-R-C triangle laws a communication to be received must approximate the affinity level of the person to whom it is directed.

As people descend the tone scale they become more and more difficult to communicate with, and things with which they will agree become more and more solid; thus we have friendly discourses high on the scale and war at the bottom. Where the affinity level is hate the agreement is solid matter and the communication . . . bullets.

SOME IMPORTANT AUDITING DON’TS

It is important for all auditors to know a few don’ts in conjunction with the do’s recently discovered. Havingness has been isolated as the entering wedge for any and all cases. It has been discovered that when havingness was concentrated upon, in various processes, intelligence quotient gained and personality bettered. The “Terrible Trio” as described in a recent PAB is easily the best opening wedge in a case at this time. There are, of course, some additional havingness processes under test but none of them have to date been thoroughly validated as has the “Terrible Trio.”

Primary auditing “Don’ts” whether for staff auditor or for the professional auditing room all concern themselves with a conservation of havingness in the preclear in the early stages of auditing as well as the later ones. Some very astonishing things have been discovered. This follows:

1.	Taking an inventory or prolonged two-way communication in opening a case have been discovered to reduce havingness sufficiently to worsen an occasional case. If immediately after the inventory two-way comm a scientometric battery was given, it would be found that the case had reduced in IQ and personality qualities. Therefore, we can assume that in some cases prolonged two-way comm and inventory at case beginning have dropped the case level, and although the case was then run many hours on havingness processes, all that happened was that the case regained the lost ground and so the final scientometric result showed “no change in case,” although the case had reduced and had come back. Therefore the rudiments should be established rapidly without too much talking delay and a direct havingness process should be entered upon at once. In the case of a very pressing present time problem it is, of course, a benefit to reduce the problem thoroughly by getting problems of comparable magnitude. This, in itself, in a way is a havingness process.

2.	The “Terrible Trio” run outside rather than in the auditing room has been found, in five separate cases, to produce a collapse of case. The introduction of so much space into havingness reduces havingness faster than it is built up. Therefore, the “Terrible Trio” should be run in the auditing room. Not-Knowingness about people and separateness processes, oddly enough, seem to be runnable exteriorly without involving this factor.

3.	Lying processes such as “Tell me a lie about that wall” are not always havingness processes. It is left to accident which side of the counter-creation is being run by the preclear so that at times the process gets gains and sometimes does not get gains. Running “Problem of comparable magnitude” assures that one is running the creation which is countering the survival of the preclear. This is in no way dangerous. But creative processes in general are not necessarily havingness processes unless they are run “against the preclear,” which is to say unless they are run as counter-creations to the creations of the preclear. “Invent something to restrict you” would be superior to “Tell me a lie about that wall.”

4.	The auditor should be particularly careful to inquire into how or what the preclear is doing. The “Terrible Trio” has failed on occasion, but when the case has been looked into by another auditor, it has been discovered that the process was not understood by the preclear and was not “the least” by the auditor. An example of this was a case which was permitted to run the “Terrible Trio” for many hours without gain which, on investigation, demonstrated that the preclear was assuming that she could have objects similar to the objects she was looking at if she bought them and on this via she was continuing the process. The auditor did not talk with the preclear enough to understand what the preclear was actually doing with the process. One must not forget that golden maxim “Find out what the preclear is doing with the command.”

CAN’T HAVE PROCESSES

Remembering the old dichotomies, it becomes obvious that if havingness is so important in auditing, negative havingness would also have its role somewhere in processes.

It could be said to be true that withheld communication is the single and sole reason for the accumulation of ridges and barriers. However, who withholds this communication? For the principle for withheld communication to exist, it must have been initiated originally by the preclear himself. If we run communications being withheld from a preclear we hit a reduction in havingness or draw a blank. If we run the preclear withholding communication from another, we tend to profit. It is not necessarily true that havingness will gain immediately and automatically by running out the communications the preclear has withheld, for a good deal depends on how the preclear is doing the process.

Havingness could be said to be the result of withheld communication. Just as too much communication will as-is any havingness, so withholding communication will accumulate havingness. This is a sort of an automatic accumulation mechanism. It is true that a thetan can simply mock up masses—there is no reason why there should be a modus operandi accumulation of masses beyond the fact that there is one: withheld communication.

When a person has too little havingness he tends to conserve what havingness he has by withholding communication. You will discover that only low-havingness persons fail to acknowledge or engage in good communication. Should a low-havingness person acknowledge or originate too frequently his havingness would be reduced accordingly. He is restrained from communicating, then, by the sensations consequent to a reduction of his havingness.

Well below the level of communication as such, we have restrained havingness. This is a sub-order of withheld communication. An individual who refuses to let other individuals have things is himself apt to reduce his own havingness accordingly. The mechanism whereby this takes place is a very interesting one. We recall the “winning valence” aspect of cases. We find in Book I that the individual losing is apt to assume the valence of the person who won.

The “winning valence” is a synthetic valence. It is not actually the personality of the person who won. It is the individual’s mock-up of that person which is diminished or augmented by other people’s opinions and by one’s own postulates.

Let us conceive the following circumstance: A little baby with a habitually angry father has many times on the approach of the father stated more or less to himself, “He can’t have this body.” Yet father in the final analysis wins. The baby grows to assume, at length, the valence of father. This is a synthetic valence. It is not father’s actual personality. It is the personality the baby has observed the father to have. This synthetic valence is salted with the baby’s “can’t have” postulates. In other words, this winning valence of father is corrupted by many can’t-have postulates which were not father’s. In view of the fact that these postulates consist of forbidding the father to have the baby, the assumption of the “winning valence” of father results in the assumption of postulates that the person cannot have himself back. He is trapped by “can’t haves” of his own manufacture.

Just as the baby was the cause of his own effect and just as he suffered from this, so do all winning valences forbid the return to identity, since somewhere in the anatomy of the winning valence is the individual’s own postulate that the winning valence cannot have the individual. Thus we have the continuous struggle on the part of people to “be themselves” which trouble is of little avail.

On the basis of this rationale, some tests have already been conducted, but the matter is in no wise completed. This is then given as an advanced look-in on some forward research.

Selecting categories, which is the Eight Dynamics, and selecting them as they seem to be put forward by the preclear—introducing as little arbitrary selection by the auditor as possible and leaving it up to the preclear—one asks what these categories can’t have. One does not stress “from you” but he certainly doesn’t stress what the individual himself “can’t have” for to do so would be to make the individual postulate against himself.

Let us suppose that the preclear’s a man and that the category “women” has been chosen. The auditing question would then be “Tell me something that women can’t have.” On the male preclear, of course, “Tell me something that men can’t have” would also be runnable, since the truth of the matter is the preclear is not a male but has a male body.

On early tests it does not seem to be reductive of havingness to run this process. If this were so I would guess that the process would have to be alternated with such a process as the “Terrible Trio,” but this has not yet been necessary.

If we are trying to return the preclear to himself it would seem that “can’t have” would best assist the reassumption of one’s own identity by the above rationale.

Let me know how you progress with this.

TEACHING THE BASIC COURSE

All qualified auditors should now be running a Basic Course in Scientology. It has been found on test that these courses, through supplying stable data to a student, align many of his confusions and so give rise to an increase in IQ (Intelligence Quotient) and an improvement in the personality traits. This is the way to get a better world and also would give rise to a great deal of interest in your area in the subject. If you have not started your Basic Course you should get moving on this right away.

P.A.B. No. 84
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

15 May 1956

S C I E N T O L O G Y
TRANSLATOR’S EDITION

by L. Ron Hubbard, Ph.D., C.E.

Continued from PAB 83

THE REASON WHY

Life can best be understood by likening it to a game. Since we are exterior to a great number of games we can regard them with a detached eye. If we were exterior to life instead of being involved and immersed in the living of it, it would look to us much like games look to us from our present vantage point.

Despite the amount of suffering, pain, misery, sorrow and travail which can exist in life, the reason for existence is the same reason as one has to play a game—interest, contest, activity and possession. The truth of this assertion is established by an observation of the elements of games and then applying these elements to life itself. When we do this we find nothing left wanting in the panorama of life.

By game we mean contest of person against person, or team against team. When we say games we mean such games as baseball, polo, chess or any other such pastime. It may at one time have struck you as peculiar that men would risk bodily injury in the field of play just for the sake of “amusement.” So it might strike you as peculiar that people would go on living or would enter into the “game of life” at the risk of all the sorrow, travail, and pain just to have something to do. Evidently there is no greater curse than total idleness. Of course there is that condition where a person continues to play a game in which he is no longer interested.

If you will but look about the room and check off items in which you are not interested, you will discover something remarkable. In a short time you will find that there is nothing in the room in which you are not interested. You are interested in everything. However, disinterest itself is one of the mechanisms of play. In order to hide something it is only necessary to make everyone disinterested in the place where the item is hidden. Disinterest is not an immediate result of interest which has worn out. Disinterest is a commodity in itself. It is palpable, it exists.

By studying the elements (factors) of games (contests) we find ourselves in possession of the elements of life.

Life is a game. A game consists of freedom, barriers and purposes. This is a scientific fact, not merely an observation.
Freedom exists amongst barriers. A totality of barriers and a totality of freedom alike are no-game conditions. Each is similarly cruel. Each is similarly purposeless.

Great revolutionary movements fail. They promise unlimited freedom. That is the road to failure. Only stupid visionaries chant of endless freedom. Only the afraid and ignorant speak of and insist upon unlimited barriers.

When the relation between freedom and barriers becomes too unbalanced, an unhappiness results.

“Freedom from” is alright only so long as there is a place to be free to. An endless freedom from is a perfect trap, a fear of all things.

Barriers are composed of inhibiting (limiting) ideas, space, energy, masses and time. Freedom in its entirety would be a total absence of these things—but it would also be a freedom without thought or action, an unhappy condition of total nothingness.

Fixed on too many barriers, man yearns to be free. But launched into total freedom he is purposeless and miserable.

There is freedom amongst barriers. If the barriers are known and the freedoms are known there can be life, living, happiness, a game.

The restrictions of a government, or a job, give an employee his freedom. Without known restrictions, an employee is a slave, doomed to the fears of uncertainty in all his actions.

Executives in business and government can fail in three ways and thus bring about a chaos in their department. They can:
1.       Seem to give endless freedom.
2.       Seem to give endless barriers.
3.       Make neither freedom nor barriers certain.

Executive confidence, therefore, consists of imposing and enforcing an adequate balance between their people’s freedom and the unit’s barriers and in being precise and consistent about those freedoms and barriers. Such an executive, adding only in himself initiative and purpose, can have a department with initiative and purpose.

An employee buying and/or insisting upon freedom only will become a slave. Knowing the above facts he must insist upon a workable balance between freedom and barriers.

An examination of the dynamics above will demonstrate the possibility of a combination of teams. Two third dynamics can engage one another as teams. The first dynamic can ally itself with the fifth dynamic against, let us say, the sixth dynamic and so have a game. In other words, the dynamics are an outline of possible teams and interplays. As everyone is engaged in several games an examination of the dynamics will plot for him and clarify for him the various teams he is playing upon. If an individual can discover that he is only playing on the first dynamic and that he belongs to no other team, it is certain that this individual will lose, for he has before him seven remaining dynamics. And the first dynamic is seldom capable of besting by itself all the remaining dynamics. In Scientology we call this condition the “only one.” Here is self-determinism in the guise of selfish determinism and here is an individual who will most certainly be overwhelmed. To enjoy life one must be some part of life.

There is the principle in Scientology called pan-determinism. This could be loosely defined as determining the activities of two or more sides in a game simultaneously. For instance, a person playing chess is being self-determined and is playing chess against an opponent. A person who is pan-determined on the subject of chess could play both sides of the board. One is pan-determined about any game to which he is senior. He is self-determined only in any game to which he is junior. For instance, a general of an army is pan-determined concerning an argument between two privates or even two companies of his command. He is pan-determined in this case, but when he confronts another army led by another general, he becomes self-determined. The game in this wise could be said to be larger than himself. The game becomes even larger than this when the general seeks to play the parts of all the political heads which should be above him. This is the main reason why dictatorship doesn’t work. It is all but impossible for one man to be pan-determined about the entire system of games which comprise a nation. He starts taking sides and then to that degree becomes much less than the government which he is seeking to run.

It has been stylish in past ages to insist only upon freedom. The French Revolution furnishes an excellent example for this. In the late part of the 18th century, the nobles of France became so self-determined against the remainder of the country and were so incapable of taking the parts of the populace that the nobles were destroyed. Immediately the populace itself sought to take over the government and, being trained and being intensely antipathetic to any and all restraints, their war cry became “Freedom.” They had no further restrictions or barriers. The rules of government were thrown aside. Theft and brigandage took the place of economics. The populace, therefore, found itself in a deeper trap and discovered itself to be involved with a dictatorship which was far more restrictive than anything they had experienced before the Revolution.

Although man continually uses “Freedom” for his war cry he only succeeds in establishing further entrapment for himself. The reason for this is a very simple one. A game consists of freedom and barriers and purposes. When man drops the idea of restrictions or barriers he loses at once control over barriers. He becomes selfdetermined about barriers and not pan-determined, thus he cannot control the barriers. The barriers left uncontrolled then and there trap him.

The dwindling spiral of the apparency create-survive-destroy comes about directly that man shuns barriers. If he considers all restrictions and barriers his enemies he is of course refusing to control them in any way and thus he starts his own dwindling spiral. A race which is educated to think in terms of freedom only is very easily entrapped. No one in the nation will take responsibility for restrictions, therefore restrictions apparently become less and less. As these restrictions lessen so lessens the freedom of the individual. One cannot be free from a wall unless there is a wall. Lacking any restrictions life becomes purposeless, random, chaotic.

A good manager must be capable of taking responsibility for restrictions, in that freedom, to exist, must have barriers. A failure to take initiative on the subject of restrictions or barriers causes these things to arise all by themselves and exist without consent or direction.

There are various states of mind which bring about happiness. That state of mind which insists only upon freedom can bring about nothing but unhappiness. It would be better to develop a thought pattern which looked for new ways to be entrapped and things to be trapped in than to suffer the eventual total entrapment of dwelling upon freedom only. A man who is willing to accept restrictions and barriers and is not afraid of them is free. A man who fights restrictions and barriers will always be trapped.

As it can be seen in any game, purposes become counter-posed. There is the matter of purpose-counter-purpose in almost any game played in a field with two teams. One team has the idea of reaching the goal of the other, and the other has the idea of reaching the goal of the first. Their purposes are at war and this warring of purposes makes a game.

The war of purposes gives us what we call problems. A problem has the anatomy of purposes. A problem consists of two or more purposes opposed. It does not matter what problem you face or have faced, the basic anatomy of that problem is purpose-counter-purpose.

In actual testing in Scientology it has been discovered that a person begins to suffer from problems when he does not have enough of them. There is the old saw (maxim) that if you want a thing done give it to a busy man to do. Similarly, if you want a happy associate make sure that he is a man who can have lots of problems.

From this we get the oddity of a high incidence of neurosis in the families of the rich. These people have very little to do and have very few problems. The basic problems of food, clothing and shelter are already solved for them. We would suppose, then, if it were true that an individual’s happiness depended only upon his freedom, these people would be happy. However, they are not happy. What brings about their unhappiness? It is the lack of problems. Although successful processing in Scientology would depend upon taking all three elements of games into consideration—and indeed that is the secret of bettering people: taking freedom, barriers and purposes into consideration and balancing them—it could be said that you could make a man well simply by sitting down with him and asking him to invent problems, one after the other. The invention of synthetic problems would be found to free his mind and make him more able. Of course, there is another factor involved in this in that it is he who is inventing the problems and therefore he is becoming pan-determined about problems rather than being in one place with all problems opposed to him.

An unhappy man is one who is considering continually how to become free. One sees this in the clerk who is continually trying to avoid work. Although he has a great deal of leisure time he is not enjoying any part of it. He is trying to avoid contact with masses and energies and spaces. He eventually becomes trapped in some sort of a lethargy. If this man could merely change his mind and start “worrying” about how he could get more work to do, his happiness level would increase markedly. One who is plotting continually how to get out of things will be miserable. One who is plotting how to get into things has a much better chance of becoming happy.

There is, of course, the matter of being forced to play games in which one has no interest—a war into which one is drafted is an excellent example of this. One is not interested in the purposes of the war and yet one finds himself fighting it. Thus there must be an additional element and this element is “the power of choice.”

One could say, then, that life is a game and that the ability to play a game consists of tolerance for freedom and barriers and an insight into purposes, with the power of choice over participation.

These four elements—freedom, barriers, purposes and power of choice—are the guiding elements of life. There are only two factors above these and both of them are related to these. The first is the ability to create with of course its negative, the ability to uncreate, and the second is the ability to make a postulate (to consider, to say a thing and have it be true). This, then, is the broad picture of life, and in bringing life into focus and in making it less confusing these elements are used for the analysis.

P.A.B. No. 85
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

22 May 1956

S C I E N T O L O G Y
TRANSLATOR’S EDITION

by L. Ron Hubbard, Ph.D., C.E.

Continued from PAB 84

THE PARTS OF MAN

The individual man is divisible (separable) into three parts (divisions).

The first of these is the spirit, called in Scientology the thetan.

The second of these parts is the mind.

The third of these parts is the body.

Probably the greatest discovery of Scientology and its most forceful contribution to the knowledge of mankind has been the isolation, description and handling of the human spirit. Accomplished in 1951 in the month of July, in Phoenix, Arizona, it was established along scientific rather than religious or humanitarian lines that that thing which is the person, the personality, is separable from the body and the mind at will and without causing bodily death or mental derangement.

In ages past there has been considerable controversy concerning the human spirit or soul, and various attempts to control man have been effective in view of his almost complete ignorance of his own identity. Latterly, spiritualists isolated from the person what they called the astral body and with this they were able to work for various purposes of their own. In Scientology the spirit itself was separated from what the spiritualists called the astral body and there should be no confusion between these two things. As you know that you are where you are at this moment, so you would know if you, a spirit, were detached from your mind and body. Man has not discovered this before because, lacking the technologies of Scientology, he had very little reality upon his detachment from his mind and body, therefore he conceived himself to be at least in part a mind and a body. The entire cult of communism is based upon the fact that one lives only one life, that there is no hereafter and that the individual has no religious significance. Man at large has been close to this state for at least the last century. The state (condition) is of a very low order, excluding as it does all self-recognition.

The thetan (spirit) is described in Scientology as having no mass, no wavelength, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate. The spirit then is not a thing. It is the creator of things.
The residence of the thetan is in the skull or near the body. A thetan can be in one of four conditions. The first would be entirely separate from a body or bodies, or even from this universe. The second would be near a body and knowingly controlling the body. The third would be in the body (the skull) and the fourth would be an inverted condition whereby he was compulsively away from the body and could not approach it. There are degrees (subdivisions) of each one of these four states (conditions). The most optimum of these conditions from the standpoint of man is the second.

A thetan is subject to deterioration. This is at first difficult to understand since the entirety of his activity consists of considering or postulating. He uses, through his postulates, various methods of controlling a body. That he does deteriorate is manifest, but that he can at any moment return to an entirety of his ability is also factual. In that he associates beingness with mass and action, he does not consider himself as having an individual identity or name, unless he is connected with one or more of the games of life.

The processes of Scientology can establish this for the individual with greater or lesser rapidity and one of the many goals of processing in Scientology is to “exteriorize” the individual and place him in the second condition above, since it has been discovered that he is happier and more capable when so situated.

The mind is a network of communications and pictures, energies and masses, which are brought into being by the activities of the thetan versus the physical universe or other thetans. A thetan establishes various systems of control so that he can continue to operate a body and through the body operate things in the physical universe, as well as other bodies. The most obvious portion of the mind is recognizable by anyone not in serious condition. This is the “mental image picture.” In Scientology we call this mental image picture a facsimile when it is a “photograph” of the physical universe sometime in the past. We call this mental image picture a mock-up when it is created by the thetan or for the thetan and does not consist of a photograph of the physical universe.

Various phenomena connect themselves with this entity called the mind. Some people closing their eyes see only blackness, some people see pictures. Some people see pictures made by body reactions. Some people see only black screens; others see golden lines; others see spaces; but the keynote of the entirety of the system called the mind is postulate and perception.

The thetan receives, by the communication system called the mind, various impressions including direct views of the physical universe. In addition to this he receives impressions from past activities, and most important, he himself, being close to a total knowingness, conceives things about the past and future which are independent of immediately present stimuli. The mind is not in its entirety a stimulus-response mechanism as old Marxist psychology would have one believe. The mind has three main divisions. The first of these could be called the analytical mind. The second, the reactive mind, and the third, the somatic mind.

The analytical mind combines perceptions of the immediate environment, of the past (via pictures) and estimations of the future into conclusions which are based upon the realities of situations. The analytical mind combines the potential knowingness of the thetan with the conditions of his surroundings and brings him to independent conclusions. This mind could be said to consist of visual pictures, either of the past or of the physical universe, monitored by and presided over by the knowingness of a thetan. The keynote of the analytical mind is awareness: one knows what one is concluding and knows what he is doing.

The reactive mind is a stimulus-response mechanism, ruggedly built, and operable in trying circumstances. The reactive mind never stops operating. Pictures, of a very low order, are taken by this mind of the environment even in deep states of unconsciousness. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is a literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response.

While it is an order of thinkingness, its ability to conclude rationally is so poor that we find in the reactive mind those various aberrated impulses which are gazed upon as oddities of personality, eccentricities, neuroses and psychoses. It is this mind which stores up all the bad things that have happened to one and throws them back to him again in moments of emergency or danger so as to dictate his actions along lines which have been considered “safe” before. As there is little thinkingness involved in this, the courses of action dictated by the reactive mind are often not safe, but highly dangerous.

The reactive mind is entirely literal in its interpretation of words. As it takes pictures and receives impressions during moments of unconsciousness, a phrase uttered when a blow is struck is likely to be literally interpreted by the reactive mind and become active upon the individual at later times. The mildest stage of this would be arduous training, wherein a pattern is laid into the mind for later use under certain given stimuli.

A harsh and less workable level is the hypnotic trance condition to which the mind is susceptible. Made impressionable by fixed attention, words can be immediately implanted into the reactive mind which become operable without further reason at later times.

An even lower level in the reactive mind is that one associated with blows, drugs, illness, pain and other conditions of unconsciousness. Phrases spoken over an anaesthetized person can have a later effect upon that person. It is not necessarily true that each and every portion of an operation is painstakingly “photographed” by the reactive mind of the unconscious patient, but it is true that a great many of these stimuli are registered. Complete silence in the vicinity of a person under anaesthetic or a person who is unconscious or in deep pain is mandatory if one would preserve the mental health of that person or patient afterwards.

Probably the most therapeutic action which could occur to an individual would be, under Scientology processing, the separation of the thetan from the mind so that the thetan, under no duress and with total knowingness, could view himself and his mind and act accordingly. However, there is a type of exteriorization which is the most aberrative of all traumatic (mentally injurious) actions. This is the condition when an individual is brought, through injury or surgery or shock, very close to death so that he exteriorizes from body and mind. This exteriorization under duress is sudden, inexplicable, and is in itself very shocking, and when this has occurred to an individual it is certain that he will suffer mentally from the experience afterwards.

It could be said that when the reactive mind contains these sudden shocks of exteriorization under duress, attempts to exteriorize the individual later by Scientology are more difficult. However, modern processing has overcome this. The phenomenon of exteriorization under duress is accompanied at times by energy explosions in the various facsimiles of the mind and these cross-associate in the reactive mind; therefore, people become afraid of exteriorization, and at times people are made ill simply by discussing the phenomena, due to the fact that they have exteriorized under duress during some operation or accident.

Exteriorization under duress is the characteristic of death itself; therefore, exteriorization or the departure of the soul is generally associated with death in the minds of most people. It is not necessarily true that one is dead because he exteriorizes, and it is definitely not true that exteriorization not accompanied by a shock, pain or duress is at all painful; indeed it is quite therapeutic.

The third portion of the mind is the somatic mind. This is an even heavier type of mind than the reactive mind since it contains no thinkingness and contains only actingness. The impulses placed against the body by the thetan through various mental machinery arrive at the voluntary, and involuntary, and glandular levels. These have set methods of analysis for any given situation and so respond directly to commands given.

Unfortunately, the somatic mind is subject to each of the minds higher in scale above it and to the thetan. In other words the thetan can independently affect the somatic mind. The analytical mind can affect the somatic mind. The reactive mind can affect the somatic mind. Thus we see that the neurons, the glandular system, the muscles and masses of the body are subject to various impulses, each one of a lower order than the next. Thus it is not odd to discover what we call “psychosomatic” illness. A condition exists here where the thetan does not have an awareness of burdening the somatic mind with various commands or derangements. Neither does the thetan have an awareness of his own participation in the analytical mind causing this action against the body.

In that the thetan is seldom aware of the reactive mind, it is possible then for the reactive mind, with its stimulus-response content, to impinge itself directly, and without further recourse or advice, upon the neurons, muscles and glandular system of the body. In that the reactive mind can hold a fixed command in place, causing a derangement in the somatic mind, it is possible then for illness to exist, for bizarre pains to be felt, for actual physical twists and aberrations to occur, without any conscious knowledge on the part of the thetan. This we call physical illness caused by the mind. In brief, such illness is caused by perceptions received in the reactive mind during moments of pain and unconsciousness.

Whether the facsimile in the mind is received while the thetan is awake or unconscious, the resulting mass of the energy picture is energy just as you see energy in an electric light bulb or from the flames of a fire. At one time it was considered that mental energy was different than physical energy. In Scientology it has been discovered that mental energy is simply a finer, higher level physical energy. The test of this is conclusive in that a thetan “mocking up” (creating) mental image pictures and thrusting them into the body can increase the body mass and by casting them away again can decrease the body mass. This test has actually been made and an increase of as much as thirty pounds, actually measured on scales, has been added to, and subtracted from, a body by creating “mental energy.” Energy is energy. It has different wavelengths and different characteristics. The mental image pictures are capable of reacting upon the physical environment, and the physical environment is capable of reacting upon mental image pictures. Thus the mind actually consists of spaces, energies and masses of the same order as the physical universe, if lighter and different in size and wavelength. For a much more comprehensive picture of the mind one should read The Original Thesis by L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health by the same author. These were written before the discovery of the upper levels of beingness were made and are a very complete picture of the mind itself, its structure and what can be done to it and with it.

The third part of man is the physical body. This can best be studied in such things as Gray’s Anatomy and other anatomical texts. This is the province of the medical doctor. The body is a purely structural study, and the actions and reactions amongst its various structures are complex and intensely interesting.

When Scientology founded Bio-physics, it did so because of the various discoveries which had accumulated concerning mental energy in its reaction against physical energy, and the activities which took place in the body because of these interactions. Bio-physics only became feasible when it was discovered in Scientology that a fixed electrical field existed surrounding a body entirely independent of, but influenceable by, the human mind. The body exists in its own space. That space is created by “anchor points” (points which are anchored in a space different to the physical universe space around a body). The complexity of these anchor points can cause an independent series of electronic flows which can occasion much discomfort to the individual. The balance structure of the body and even its joint action and physical characteristics can be changed by changing this electrical field which exists at a distance from, or within, the body.

The electrical field is paramount and monitors the actual physical structure of the body. Thus the body is not only influenced by the three minds, it is influenced as well by its own electrical field. An expert Scientologist can discover for the average person this field, and can bring about its adjustment, although this is very far from the primary purpose of the Scientologist.

The use of electrical shocks upon a body for any purpose is therefore very dangerous and is not to be condoned by sensible men. Of course, the use of electrical shock was never intended to be therapeutic, but was intended only to bring about obedience by duress and, as far as it can be discovered, to make the entirety of insanity a horror. Electrical shock deranges the electronic field in the vicinity of the body and is almost always succeeded by bad health or physical difficulties and never does otherwise than hasten the death of the person. It has been stated by people using electric shock that if they were denied euthanasia (the right to kill people who were considered to be a burden on a society) they would at least use partial euthanasia in the form of electric shock, brain surgery and drugs. These treatments in some large percentage of cases, however, effect euthanasia.

A knowledge of the mental and physical structure of the body would be absolutely necessary in order to treat the body, and this knowledge has not existed prior to Scientology. The medical doctor achieved many results by working purely with structure and biochemical products, and in the field of emergency surgery and obstetrics and orthopaedics he is indispensable in the society. Medicine, however, does not contain a definition for “mind” and is not expected to invade the field which belongs properly to Scientology.

These three parts of man—the thetan, the mind and the body—are each one different studies, but they influence each other markedly and continually. Of the three, the senior entity is the thetan, for without the thetan there would be no mind or animation in the body. Many speculations in the field of Para-Scientology have been made. Para-Scientology includes all of the uncertainties and unknown territories of life which have not been completely explored and explained. However, as studies have gone forward, it has become more and more apparent that the senior activity of life is that of the thetan, and that in the absence of the spirit no further life exists. In the insect kingdom it is not established whether or not each insect is ordered by a spirit or whether one spirit orders enormous numbers of insects. It is not established how mutation and evolution occur (if they do) and the general Authorship of the physical universe is only speculated upon, since Scientology does not invade the 8th dynamic.

Some facts, however, are completely known. The first of these is that the individual himself is a spirit controlling a body via a mind. The second of these is that the thetan is capable of making space, energy, mass and time. The third of these is that the thetan is separable from the body without the phenomena of death, and can handle and control a body from well outside it. The fourth of these is that the thetan does not care to remember the life which he has just lived, after he has parted from the body and the mind. The fifth of these is that a person dying always exteriorizes. The sixth of these is that a person having exteriorized then returns to a planet and procures, usually, another body of the same type of race as before.

In Para-Scientology there is much discussion about “between lives areas” and other phenomena which might have passed at one time or another for heaven or hell, but it is established completely that a thetan is immortal and that he himself cannot actually experience death and counterfeits it by forgetting. It is adequately manifest that a thetan lives again and that he is very anxious to put something on the “time track” (something for the future) in order to have something to come back to, thus we have the anxieties of sex. There must be additional bodies for the next life.

It is obvious that what we create in our societies during this lifetime affects us during our next lifetime. This is quite different than the “belief” or an idea that this occurs. In Scientology we have very little to do with forcing people to make conclusions. An individual can experience these things for himself and unless he can do so no one expects him to accept them.

The manifestation that our hereafter is our next life entirely alters the general concept of spiritual destiny. There is no argument whatever with the tenets of faith since it is not precisely stated, uniformly, by religions that one immediately goes to a heaven or hell. It is certain that an individual experiences the effect of the civilization which he has had part in creating, in his next lifetime. In other words the individual comes back. He has a responsibility for what goes on today since he will experience it tomorrow.
Sex has been overweighted in importance in old psychotherapy, a practice more or less disgraced at this time. Sex is only one of numerous creative impulses. An anxiety about sex, however, occurs when an individual begins to believe that there will not be a body for him to have during the next lifetime. The common denominator of all aberration (mental derangement) is cessation of creation; as sex is only one kind of creation and a rather low order of it, it will be seen that unhappiness could stem from various cessations of creation. Death itself is a cessation of creation. One stops creating the identity John Jones and the environment and things of John Jones. He stops because he believes he cannot, himself, continue this creation without the assistance of a body, having become dependent upon a mind and a body, the first to do his thinking for him and the second to do his acting. An individual becomes sufficiently morose on the ideas of creation that he can actually bring about the condition.

It will be seen that the three parts of man are intimately associated with control. The anatomy of control is start, change and stop. The loss of control takes place with the loss of pan-determinism. When one becomes too partisan, embraces himself too solidly against the remainder of the environment, he no longer controls the environment to the degree that he might and so is unable to start, change and stop the environment.

It is a scientific definition in Scientology that control consists of start, change and stop. These three manifestations can be graphed alongside of the apparent cycle of action: create, survive, destroy. Any person is somewhere along this curve. An individual who is bent mainly upon survival is intent, usually, upon changing things. An individual who is close to being destroyed is bent mainly upon stopping things. An individual who has a free heart and mind about life is bent upon creating things.

There could be three things wrong with any person, and these would be the inability to start, the inability to change, the inability to stop. Insanity, for the most part, is an inability to stop. A neurosis is a habit which, worsening, flies entirely out of control. One is stopped so often in life that he becomes an enemy of stopping and dislikes stopping so intensely that he himself will not stop things.

In the matter of the parts of man we discover that all things are initiated by the thetan so far as action, activity and behavior are concerned. After such an initiation he can be blunted or warped from course and acted upon in such a way that he becomes too fixed along one line or another and begins to suffer from these three inabilities. However, each one of the parts of man is subject to the anatomy of control.

An individual begins first by being unable himself, and without help, to start, to change, to stop. Then the mind may become prone to these disabilities and is unable to start, change, or stop at will. Then the body itself can become subject to these three disabilities and is unable to start, to change, to stop. The oddity is that an environment can so work upon an individual, however, that a thetan’s body becomes disabled through no choice of his own. Similarly, the reactive mind can become disabled through no choice of either the body or the thetan, but the thetan himself, beyond observing the effect of various causes and having initiated the first thought to be there in the first place, can only become disabled by becoming too partisan, by becoming too little pan-determined, and so bringing himself into difficulties. These difficulties, however, are entirely the difficulties of consideration. As the thetan considers, so he is. In the final analysis the thetan has no problems of his own. The problems are always “other people’s problems” and must exist in the mind or the body or in other people or his surroundings for him to have problems. Thus his difficulties are, in the main, difficulties of staying in the game and keeping the game going.

If a thetan can suffer from anything, it is being out-created (created against too thoroughly). The manifestations of being out-created would be the destruction of his own creations and the overpowering presence of other creations. Thus a thetan can be brought to believe that he is trapped if he is out-created.

In past dissertations on the subject of the mind and philosophies of life there was a great deal of speculation and very little actual proof. Therefore, these philosophies were creations and one philosopher was at work out-creating another philosopher. In Scientology we have this single difference: we are dealing with discoveries. The only thing created about Scientology is the actual books and works in which Scientology is presented. The phenomena of Scientology are discovered and are held in common by all men and all life forms. There is no effort in Scientology to out-create each and every thetan that comes along. It is, of course, possible to conceive Scientology as a creation, and to conceive that it is overwhelming. It should be viewed otherwise, for it is intended as an assistance to life at large, to enable life to make a better civilization and a better game. There are no tenets in Scientology which cannot be demonstrated with entirely scientific procedures.

P.A.B. No. 86
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

29 May 1956

S C I E N T O L O G Y
TRANSLATOR’S EDITION

by L. Ron Hubbard, Ph.D., C.E.

Continued from PAB 85

CAUSATION AND KNOWLEDGE

Scientology as a science is composed of many axioms (self-evident truths as in geometry). There are some fifty-six of these axioms in addition to the two hundred more axioms of Dianetics which preceded the Scientology axioms.

The first axiom in Scientology is: Life is basically a static. (Definition: A static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.)

Definition: In Scientology, the word “postulate” means to cause a thinkingness or consideration. It is a specially applied word and is defined as causative thinkingness.

Axiom 2. The static is capable of considerations, postulates, and opinions.

Axiom 3. Space, energy, objects, form, and time are the result of considerations made and/or agreed upon or not by the static, and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them.

Axiom 4. Space is a viewpoint of dimension. (Space is caused by looking out from a point. The only actuality of space is the agreed upon consideration that one perceives through something and this we call space.)

Axiom 5. Energy consists of postulated particles in space. (One considers that energy exists and that he can perceive energy. He also considers that energy behaves according to certain agreed upon laws. These assumptions or considerations are the totality of energy.)

Axiom 6. Objects consist of grouped particles.

Axiom  7. Time is basically a postulate that space and particles will persist. (The rate of their Persistence is what we measure with clocks and the motion of heavenly bodies.)

Axiom 8. The apparency of time is the change of position of particles in space.

Axiom 9. Change is the primary manifestation of time.

Axiom 10. The highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect.

These first ten axioms of Scientology are the most fundamental “truths” (by which we mean commonly held considerations). Here we have thought and life and the physical universe in their relation one to the other. Regardless of further considerations, ideas, assumptions and conditions there lie beneath them these first ten truths.

It is as though one had entered into an honorable bargain with fellow beings to hold these things in common. Once this is done, or once such a “contract” or agreement exists, one has the fundamentals of a universe. Specialized considerations based on the above make one or another kind of universe.

The physical universe which we see around us and in which we live was created on these fundamentals without regard to Who created it. Its creation was agreed upon. In order to perceive it one must agree that it exists.

There are three classes of universes. There is first, foremost and most evident, the physical universe of spaces, stars, suns, land, sea, air and living forms. Then there is the other fellow’s universe which may or may not be agreed upon by his associates. This he holds to himself. The phenomenon of this universe is included in the field of the “mind” as described earlier. Then listed last here, but first perceived, is one’s own universe.

The phenomenon of universes is an interesting one since one’s own universe can be overwhelmed by the universes of others. These in Scientology we call valences (extra personalities, cells, apparent beingnesses). Valences and universes are the same thing, essentially.

For example, one while living in the physical universe can be overpowered by the universe of, let us say, father. While one still retains his own valence or identity one is yet acting or thinking or suffering or feeling somewhat like father. Even though one is by oneself there is this additional apparent beingness. Although father is absent his commands are still present, thus we get such things as “duty,” “obedience,” “training” and even “education.” Each one of these is caused by some part of another universe to a greater or lesser degree.

Regardless of how one reacts to universes, he still remains in some degree himself. It is the effort of many to struggle “to mind themselves.” The totality of this impulse is the effort to separate one’s own self as a thetan from the various universes with which he feels himself too intimately associated. One is only oppressed by the universe when he feels he can have nothing of that universe. One is only victimized by “father’s universe” when he is in protest against father. One protests against the physical universe only when he feels that he can have no part of it or does not belong in it or, as in religion, is not looked upon kindly by what he conceives to be the Creator of the physical universe.

Universes, as considered in games earlier, could be considered the playing fields of life. One plays willingly or one plays unwillingly. When one begins to play unwillingly he is apt to discover himself victimized and interiorized into the universe of some game. It is against this phenomenon that a person protests. Consider the matter of a jail. On the surface of it, as Voltaire discovered, a jail provides food and shelter and leisure time. This would seem to be the ambition of many people, but the jail provides, as well, a restriction without one’s consent. The only difference between being in jail and being the king in a castle so far as liberty is concerned is one’s own desires in the matter and one’s own ability to command one’s environment. As a king in a castle one would be causative. His will, statement, thinkingness would have an effect upon others. Being in jail one is an effect in that the thinkingness of others finds him its target. Here we have in terms of universes the most rudimentary example of cause and effect.

We must, however, assume, because it is so evident, that an individual only gets into traps and circumstances he intends to get into. Certain it is, that having gotten into such a position, he may be unwilling to remain in it, but a trap is always preceded by one’s own choice of entrance. We must assume a very wide freedom of choice on the part of a thetan since it is almost impossible to conceive how a thetan could get himself trapped even though he consented to it. By actual demonstration a thetan goes through walls, barriers, vanishes space, appears anywhere at will and does other remarkable things. It must be, then, that an individual can be trapped only when he considers that he is trapped, and in view of the fact that the totality of existence is based upon his own considerations, we find that the limitations he has must have been invited to himself, otherwise they could not be eradicated by the individual under processing, since the only one that is present with the preclear is the auditor. The preclear, by processing, can resolve all of his difficulties without going and finding other persons or consulting other universes. Thus the totality of entrapment, aberration—even injury, torture, insanity and other distasteful items—is basically considerations a thetan is making and holding right now in present time. This must be the case since time itself is a postulate or consideration on his own part.

The greatest philosophical clamor or quarrel has been waged around the subject of “knowledge” and there is nothing preposterous on the subject of knowledge that cannot be found in philosophical text. The superiority and ascendancy of Scientology depends upon the fact that it has transcended this philosophical quarrel on the subject of knowingness, and Scientology contains in itself the basics of knowledge.

By knowledge we mean assured belief, that which is known, information, instruction; enlightenment, learning; practical skill. By knowledge we mean data, factors and whatever can be thought about or perceived.

The reason why knowledge has been misunderstood in philosophy is that it is only half the answer. There is no allness to knowledge. By definition, knowledge is that which is perceived or learned or taken from another source. This patently, then, means that when one learns, he is being an effect.

We see in Axiom 10 that “the highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect.” This is in direct contradiction to knowledge although one of course can know how to create an effect.

Opposed to knowledge we have the neglected half of existence, which is the creation of knowledge, the creation of data, the creation of thought, the causative consideration, self-evolved ideas as opposed to ideas otherwise evolved. The reason Scientology is such a fascinating study is that it takes apart the other fellow’s ideas and permits one to create some of his own. Scientology gives us the common denominators of objects, energies, spaces, universes, livingness and thought itself.

There is cause and effect. Cause could be defined as emanation. It could be defined also, for purposes of communication, as source-point. If you consider a river flowing to the sea, the place where it began would be the source-point or cause and the place where it went into the sea would be the effect-point, and the sea would be the effect of the river. The man firing the gun is cause; the man receiving the bullet is effect. The one making a statement is causing a communication, the one receiving the statement is the effect of the communication.

Almost all anxieties and upsets in human relations come about through an imbalance of cause and effect.

One must be willing at once to cause new data, statements, assumptions, considerations and to receive ideas, assumptions, considerations.

So great is the anxiety of a thetan to be an effect that he closely approaches those things which can cause an effect upon him, thus a thetan becomes trapped. On the face of it so few thetans make causative data and so many receive data that it would seem, in view of the fact that a thetan can be touched only by his own consideration, that thetans are more anxious for effects than to be cause.

It is learned under close experiment that there is nothing a thetan actually disdains on an effect level. He pretends not to like or enjoy certain effects and protests against them, but he knows very well that the mechanism of protest causes the effect to approach more closely as a general rule.

The prevailing anxiety, then, is to be an effect, not to be a cause. The entire subject of responsibility is a study of cause and effect in that a person who wants no responsibility is anxious to be an effect only and a person who can assume responsibility must also be willing to be causative.

A thetan can be swung into a “state of consideration” by observing that it is commonly held by others. This keeps him in the universe and this keeps him being effect.

Study, investigation, receiving education and similar activity are all effect activities and result in the assumption of less responsibility. Thus, while it is true that a thetan cannot actually get into trouble, he can, by agreeing with the current agreed upon thought in the universe where he finds himself, take a pattern of thinkingness which makes him less effective because he wishes to be an effect. If he feels he must gather all of his data from elsewhere, he is then the effect of knowledge, the effect of universes and postulates, and he tends to reduce his own ability to form or make knowledge.

In Scientology we can communicate in full these circumstances since we are only calling to attention the pattern which an individual already himself holds, thus we are not actually teaching him anything. We are only pointing out things he has already agreed with or himself caused.

It is not true that an individual is responsible for everything that happens to him. When an individual, wishing many interesting effects, chooses to go into many universes or traps, he can become confused about what he is doing, where he is or what it is all about. Scientology points out what can be seen or changed from a person’s own viewpoint to bring about a change in his own condition.

As an example, a thetan has come to “believe” that the right way to get along in life is to do just as father did. This is an invitation to being in father’s universe. Later on he changes his mind about this but he finds himself still in father’s universe and doesn’t like it. He would be more effective, more capable if he were not now in father’s universe. Customarily in these unenlightened times he waits for death to separate himself from the environment in which he finds himself and puts up with it until then. It is not necessary to do this now that we have Scientology. He can at any moment, given the proper steerage, vacate any trap in which he finds himself and begin again on a new series of considerations.

We cannot, then, talk about knowledge as a totality. It is a single datum. The thirst for knowledge would be the thirst for other thetans’ postulates and would lead one to forget that he himself has been a party to the making of these postulates and that he himself had to follow a certain course in order to put himself in reach of other thetans’ postulates. (Translator’s note: Lacking a proper English word for “causative thinking,” the word “postulate” has been used in slight difference to its English definition. If there is a word in your language which means “self-impulsion” or “creation of a thought” use that instead of a “postulate.”) Because one is the effect of knowledge, causing data, considerations or “facts” to come into being separates one in distance from being an effect. If one is very anxious to be an effect and if this is his basic consideration, he will not take well to causing information to come into existence, but in order to get him out of the traps in which he finds himself it is necessary to some degree that he do so.

Causing few barriers or traps, the individual then loses control over barriers or traps; wishing to be an effect, of course he must lose control of barriers and traps, otherwise he cannot be entrapped by them. The thing to do to free him from a trap is to find what parts of the trap he himself is willing to own, or have, or possess. This places the barriers (which can be spaces, energy movements or obstacles) under his control, and his postulating that he can have or possess this or that causes him to be willing to be or occupy the trap and the moment this occurs he is no longer in the trap, or even if he is still in it to some degree he does not object to it and can leave it when he wishes.

The way to paralyze a nation entirely and to make it completely ungovernable would be to forbid education of any kind within its borders and to inculcate into every person within it the feeling that he must not receive any information from anybody about anything. To make a nation governable it is necessary to hold a kindly view of education and to honor educative persons and measures. To conquer a land it is not necessarily efficient to overwhelm them with guns. Once this is done it is necessary to apply educative measures in order to bring about some sort of agreement amongst the people themselves as well as between the conqueror and the subdued. Only in this way could one have a society, a civilization, or as we say in Scientology, a smoothly running game.

In other words two extremes could be reached. Neither one of which is desirable by the individual. The first extreme could be reached by emphasis only upon self created data or information. This would bring about not only a lack of interpersonal relations, but would also bring about an anxiety to have an effect which would, as it does in barbaric peoples, result in social cruelty unimaginable in a civilized nation. The other extreme would be to forbid in its entirety any self-created information and to condone only data or considerations generated by others than self. Here we would create an individual with no responsibility, so easily handled that he would be only a puppet.

Self-created data is then not a bad thing, neither is education, but one without the other to hold it in some balance will bring about a no-game condition or a no-civilization. Just as individuals can be seen by observing nations so we see the African tribesman, with his complete contempt for truth and his emphasis on brutality and savagery for others but not himself, is a no-civilization, and we see at the other extreme China, slavishly dedicated to ancient scholars, incapable of generating within herself sufficient rulers to continue, without bloodshed, a nation.

We have noted the individual who must be the only one who can make a postulate or command, whose authority is dearer to him than the comfort or state of millions, and have suffered from such men (Napoleon, Hitler, Kaiser Wilhelm, Frederick of Prussia, Genghis Khan, Attila). We have known, too, the scholar who has studied himself blind and is the world’s greatest authority on Government or some such thing, who yet cannot himself manage his bank account or a dog with any certainty. Here we have in either case, a total imbalance. The world-shaker is himself unwilling to be any effect of any kind (and all the men named here were arrant personal cowards) and we have the opposite, a man who would not know what you were talking about if you told him to get an idea of his own.

We see another example of this in the fundamental laws of warfare. A body of troops, to be effective, must be able to attack and to defend. Its implements must be divided 50% for attack and 50% for defense. In other words, even in a crude activity such as warfare, we find that no successful outcome is possible unless the troops can devote half of their energies to attack and half of them to defense.

In the much broader view of life we discover on any dynamic that success depends, or a game depends, or activity depends, or life itself depends upon being willing to be cause equally in ratio to being willing to be an effect. He who would give must be willing to receive. He who would receive must be willing to give. When these tenets are violated the most fundamental principle of human relationships is violated and the result is a no-game condition such as aberration, insanity, antisocialness, criminality, inactivity, laziness, tiredness, mania, fanaticism and all the other things against which men protest. But imbalances between cause and effect also enter randomities into the game of life and cannot be neglected in their potential for creating a game.

Any information is valuable to the degree that you can use it. In other words any information is valuable to the degree that you can make it yours. Scientology, of all the sciences, does not teach you, it only reminds you, for the information was yours in the first place. It is not only the science of life, but it is an account of what you were doing before you forgot what you were doing.

KNOW AND NOT-KNOW

It is the basic mechanism of thinkingness, whether one is postulating or receiving information, that one retain one’s ability to know. It is equally important that one retain one’s ability to not-know.

You will discover that most people are trying not to remember. In other words they are trying to not-know. Education can only become burdensome when one is unable to not-know it. It is necessary that one be able to create, to receive, to know, and to not-know information, data and thoughts. Lacking any one of these skills, for they are skills, no matter how native they are to the individual, one is apt to get into a chaos of thinkingness or creatingness or livingness.

You can look at any eccentric or aberrated person and discover rapidly, by an inspection of him, which one of these four factors he is violating. He either is unable to know or not-know his own created thoughts, or he is unable to know or not-know the thoughts of others. Somewhere, for some reason best known to him, in his anxiety to be part of the game, he has shelved, lost, one of these abilities.

Time is a process of knowing in the present and not-knowing in the future or the past. Remembering is the process of knowing the past; predicting, of knowing the future. Forgetting is the process of not-knowing the past, and being without goals is the process of not-knowing the future.

Exercises in these various items rehabilitate not only the sanity or ability of the individual, but his general capability in living and playing the game.

THE GOAL OF SCIENTOLOGY

The end object of Scientology is not the making into nothing of all of existence or the freeing of the individual of any and all traps everywhere. The goal of Scientology is making the individual capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with his fellows and the playing of a better game.

P.A.B. No. 87
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

5 June 1956

S C I E N T O L O G Y
TRANSLATOR’S EDITION

by L. Ron Hubbard, Ph.D., C.E.

Continued from PAB 86

SCIENTOLOGY PROCESSING

Scientology is applied in many ways to many fields. One particular and specialized method of application of Scientology is its use on individuals and groups of people in the eradication of physical illnesses deriving from mental states and the improvement of their abilities and intelligence. By processing is meant the verbal exercising of a patient (preclear) in exact Scientology processes. There is a great deal of terminology and precision in these processes and their use and they are not combinable with older mental activities such as psychiatry, psychology, psychoanalysis, yoga, massage, etc. However, these processes are capable of addressing or treating the same ills of the mind as are delineated by older methodology, with the addition that Scientology is alone in its ability to successfully eradicate those psychosomatic ills to which it is addressed and is the only science or study known which is capable of uniformly producing marked and significant increases in intelligence and general ability.

Scientology processing, amongst other things, can increase the intelligence quotient of an individual, his ability or desire to communicate, his social attitudes, his capability and domestic harmony, his fertility, his artistic creativity, his reaction time and his health.

An additional sphere of activity allied to processing is Preventive Scientology. In this branch of processing an individual is inhibited or restrained from assuming states lower than he has already suffered from. In other words the progress of tendencies, neuroses, habits and deteriorating activities can be halted by Scientology or their occurrence can be prevented. This is done by processing the individual on standard Scientology processes without particular attention to the disability involved.

Scientology processing is called “auditing” by which the auditor (practitioner) “listens and commands.” The auditor and the preclear (patient) are together out-of-doors or in a quiet place where they will not be disturbed or where they are not being subjected to interrupting influences. The purpose of the auditor is to give the preclear certain and exact commands which the preclear can follow and perform. The purpose of the auditor is to increase the ability of the preclear. The Auditor’s Code is the governing set of rules for the general activity of auditing. The Code follows:

THE AUDITOR’S CODE
1.  Do not evaluate for the preclear.
2.  Do not invalidate or correct the preclear’s data.
3.  Use the processes which improve the preclear’s case.
4.  Keep all appointments once made.
5.  Do not process a preclear after 10 p.m.
6.  Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed.
7.  Do not permit a frequent change of auditors.
8.  Do not sympathize with the preclear.
9.  Never permit the preclear to end the session on his own independent decision.
 10.  Never walk off from a preclear during a session.
 11.  Never get angry with a preclear.
 12.	Always reduce every communication lag encountered by continued use of the same question or process.
 13.  Always continue a process as long as it produces change and no longer.
 14.  Be willing to grant beingness to the preclear.
 15.  Never mix the processes of Scientology with those of various other practices.
 16.	Always remain in good two-way communication with the preclear during sessions.

The Auditor’s Code governs the activity of the auditor during sessions. The activity of the Scientologist in general is governed by another broader code.

THE CODE OF A SCIENTOLOGIST

As a Scientologist, I pledge myself to the Code of Scientology for the good of all:

  1. 	To hear or speak no word of disparagement to the press, public or preclears concerning any of my fellow Scientologists, our professional organization or those whose names are closely connected to this Science.

  2. 	To use the best I know of Scientology to the best of my ability to better my preclears, groups and the world.

  3. 	To refuse to accept for processing and to refuse to accept money from any preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly help.

  4. 	To punish to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends.

  5. 	To prevent the use of Scientology in advertisements of other products.

  6. 	To discourage the abuse of Scientology in the press.

  7. 	To employ Scientology to the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics.

  8. 	To render good processing, sound training and good discipline to those students or peoples entrusted to my care.

  9. 	To refuse to impart the personal secrets of my preclears.

10. 	To engage in no unseemly disputes with the uninformed on the subject of my profession.

As it can be seen, both of these codes are designed to protect the preclear as well as Scientology and the auditor in general. As these codes evolve from many years of observation and experience by a great number of people, it can be said that they are intensely important and are probably complete. Failure to observe them has resulted in a failure of Scientology. Scientology can do what it can do only when it is used within the limits of these two codes. Thus it can be seen that the interjection of peculiarities or practices by the auditor into Scientology processing can actually nullify and eradicate the benefits of that processing. Any hope or promise in Scientology is conditional upon its good use by the individual and its use in particular within the limits of these two codes.

THE CONDITIONS OF AUDITING

Certain definite conditions must prevail and a certain methodology must be followed in order that processing may be beneficial to its fullest extent.

Probably the first condition is a good grasp of Scientology as a Science and its mission in the world.

The second condition would be a relaxed state of mind on the part of the auditor and the confidence that his use of Scientology upon the preclear will not produce a harmful result.

The third requisite should be finding a preclear. By this it is literally meant that one should discover somebody willing to be processed and having discovered one so willing should then make sure that he is aware that he is there being processed.

The fourth requisite would be a quiet place in which to audit with every precaution taken that the preclear will not be interrupted or burst in upon or unduly startled during processing.

All requisites for auditing from here on are entirely concerned with procedures and processes. By auditing procedure is meant the general model of how one goes about addressing a preclear. This includes an ability to place one question, worded exactly the same way, over and over again to the preclear no matter how many times the preclear has answered the question. It should include the ability to acknowledge with a “good” and “all right” every time a preclear executes or completes the execution of a command. It should include the ability to accept a communication from the preclear. When the preclear has something to say the auditor should acknowledge the fact that he has received the preclear’s communication and should pay some attention to the communication. Procedure also includes the ability to sense when the preclear is being over-strained by processing or is being unduly annoyed and to handle such crises in the session to prevent the preclear from leaving. An auditor should also have the ability of handling startling remarks or occurrences by the preclear. An auditor should also have the knack of preventing the preclear from talking obsessively since prolonged conversation markedly reduces the havingness of the preclear and the sooner long dissertations by the preclear are cut off the better for the session in general. Processes, as distinct from procedures, consist of utilizing the principle of the gradient scale to the end of placing the preclear in better control of himself, his mind, the people and the universe around him. By gradient scale is meant a proceeding from simplicity toward greater difficulty, giving the preclear always no more than he can do, but giving him as much as he can do until he can handle a great deal. The idea here is to give the preclear nothing but wins and to refrain from giving the preclear loses in the game of processing. Thus it can be seen that processing is a team activity and is not itself a game whereby the auditor opposes and seeks to defeat the preclear and the preclear seeks to defeat the auditor, for when this condition exists there are little results in processing.

The earliest stage of auditing consists in taking over control of the preclear so as to restore to the preclear more control of himself than he has had. The most fundamental step is then location, whereby the preclear is made to be aware of the fact that he is in an auditing room, that an auditor is present and that the preclear is being a preclear. Those conditions will become quite apparent if one realizes that it would be very difficult for a son to process a father. A father is not likely to recognize anything else than the boy he raised in his auditor. Therefore the father would have to be made aware of the fact that the son was a competent practitioner before the father could be placed under control in processing. One of the most elementary commands in Scientology is “Look at me, who am I?” After a preclear has been asked to do this many times until he can do so quickly and accurately and without protest, it can be said that the preclear will have “found” the auditor.
The preclear is asked by the auditor to control, which is to say, start, change and stop (the anatomy of control) anything he is capable of controlling. In a very bad case this might be a very small object being pushed around on a table, being started and changed and stopped each time specifically and only at the auditor’s command until the preclear himself realizes that he himself can start, change and stop the object. Sometimes four or five hours spent in this exercise are very well spent on a very difficult preclear.

The preclear is then asked to start, change and stop his own body under the auditor’s specific and precise direction. In all of his commands the auditor must be careful never to give a second command before the first one has been fully obeyed. A preclear in this procedure is walked around the room and is made to start, change the direction of and stop his body, one of these at a time, in emphasis, until he realizes that he can do so with ease. Only now could it be said that a session is well in progress or that a preclear is securely under the auditor’s command. It should be noted especially that the goal of Scientology is better self-determinism for the preclear. This rules out at once hypnotism, drugs, alcohol or other control mechanisms used by other and older therapies. It will be found that such things are not only not necessary but they are in direct opposition to the goals of greater ability for the preclear.

The principal points of concentration for the auditor now become the ability of the preclear to have, the ability of the preclear to not-know and the ability of the preclear to play a game.

An additional factor is the ability of the preclear to be himself and not a number of other people such as his father, his mother, his marital partner or his children.

The ability of the preclear is increased by addressing to him the process known as the Trio. These are three questions, or rather commands.

1. 	“Look around here and tell me what you could have.” 
2. 	“Look around here and tell me what you would permit to remain in place.” 
3. 	“Now look around and tell me with what you could dispense.”

No. 1 above is used usually about ten times, then No. 2 is used five times, and No. 3 is used once. This ratio of ten, five and one would be an ordinary or routine approach to havingness. The end in view is to bring the preclear into a condition whereby he can possess or own or have whatever he sees, without further conditions, ramifications or restrictions. This is the most therapeutic of all processes, as elementary as it might seem. It is done without too much two-way communication or discussion with the preclear and it is done until the preclear can answer question one, two and three equally well. It should be noted at once that twenty-five hours of use of this process by an auditor upon a preclear brings about a very high rise in tone. By saying twenty-five hours it is intended to give the idea of the length of time the process should be used. As it is a strain on the usual person to repeat the same question over and over, it will be seen that an auditor should be well disciplined or very well trained before he audits.

In the case of a preclear who is very unable, “can’t have” is substituted for “have” in each of the above questions for a few hours until the preclear is ready for the Trio in its “have” form. This can-can’t is the plus and minus aspect of all thought and in Scientology is called by a specialized word, “dichotomy.”

The rehabilitation of the ability of the preclear to not-know is also rehabilitation of the preclear in the time stream, since the process of time consists of knowing the moment and not-knowing the past and not-knowing the future simultaneously. This process, like all other Scientology processes, is repetitive. The process is run, ordinarily, only after the preclear is in very good condition and is generally run in an exterior well-inhabited place. Here the auditor, without exciting public comment, indicates a person and asks the preclear, “Can you not-know something about that person?” The auditor does not permit the preclear to “not-know” things which the preclear already doesn’t know. The preclear “not-knows” only those things which are visible and apparent about the person. This is also run on other objects in the environment such as walls, floors, chairs and other things. The auditor should not be startled when for the preclear large chunks of the environment start to disappear. This is ordinary routine and in effect the preclear should make the entirety of the environment disappear at his own command. The environment does not disappear for the auditor. The end goal of this “not-know” process is the disappearance of the entire universe, under the preclear’s control, but only for the preclear. It will be discovered while running this that the preclear’s “havingness” may deteriorate. If this happens he was not run enough on the Trio before he was run on this process. It is only necessary in such a case to intersperse “Look around here now and tell me what you could have” with the “not know” command to keep the preclear in good condition. Drop of havingness is manifested by nervous agitation, obsessive talk or semi-unconsciousness or “dopiness” on the part of the preclear. These manifestations indicate only reduction of havingness.

The reverse of the question here is “Tell me something that you would be willing to have that person (indicated by the auditor) not-know about you.” Both sides of the question have to be run (audited). This process can be continued for twenty-five hours or even fifty or seventy-five hours of auditing with considerable benefit so long as it does not react too violently upon the preclear in terms of loss of havingness.

It should be noted that, in running either havingness or “not-know” on a preclear, the preclear may exteriorize. In other words it may become apparent, either by his observation or because the preclear informs him, that the auditor has “exteriorized” a preclear. Under “The Parts of Man” section there is an explanation of this phenomenon. In modern auditing the auditor does not do anything odd about this beyond receive and be interested in the preclear’s statement of the fact. The preclear should not be permitted to become alarmed since it is a usual manifestation. A preclear is in better condition and will audit better exteriorized than “in his head.” Understanding that an actual ability to “not-know” is an ability to erase by self-command the past without suppressing it with energy or going into any other method is necessary to help the preclear. It is the primary rehabilitation in terms of knowingness. Forgetting is a lower manifestation than “not-knowingness.”

P.A.B. No. 88
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

12 June 1956

SCIENTOLOGY
TRANSLATOR’S EDITION

by L. Ron Hubbard, Ph.D., C.E.

Continued from PAB 87

THE CONDITIONS OF AUDITING
Concluded

The third ability to be addressed by the auditor is the ability of the preclear to play a game. First and foremost in the requisites to play a game is the ability to control. One must be able to control something in order to participate in a game. Therefore the general rehabilitation of control by starting, changing and stopping things is a rehabilitation in the ability to play a game. When a preclear refuses to recover, it is because the preclear is using his state as a game, and does not believe that there is any better game for him to play than the state he is in. He may protest if this is called a game. Nevertheless any condition will surrender if the auditor has the preclear invent similar conditions or even tell lies about the existing condition. Inventing games or inventing conditions or inventing problems alike rehabilitate the ability to play a game. Chief amongst these various rehabilitation factors are control (start, change and stop), problems and the willingness to overwhelm or be overwhelmed. One ceases to be able to have games when one loses control over various things, when one becomes short of problems and when one is unwilling to be overwhelmed (in other words, to lose) or to overwhelm (to win). It will be found while running havingness as in the Trio above that one may run down the ability to play a game, since havingness is the reward of a game in part.

In the matter of problems it will be seen that these are completely necessary to the playing of a game. The anatomy of a problem is intention versus intention. This is, of course, in essence the purpose of all games, to have two sides, each one with an opposed intention. Technically a problem is two or more purposes in conflict. It is very simple to detect whether or not the preclear is suffering from a scarcity of games. The preclear who needs more games clutches to himself various present time problems. If an auditor is confronted with a preclear who is being obsessed by a problem in present time he knows two things: (I) that the preclear’s ability to play a game is low, and (2) that he must run an exact process at once to rehabilitate the preclear in session.

It often happens at the beginning of an auditing session that the preclear has encountered a heavy present time problem between sessions. The preclear must always be consulted before the session is actually in progress as to whether or not he has “anything worrying” him. To a preclear who is worried about some present time situation or problem no other process has any greater effectiveness than the following one. The auditor with a very brief discussion of the problem asks the preclear to invent a problem of comparable magnitude. He may have to reword this request to make the preclear understand it completely, but the auditor wants in essence the preclear to invent or create a problem he considers similar to the problem he has. If the preclear is unable to do this, it is necessary then to have him lie about the problem which he has. Lying is the lowest order of creativeness. After he has lied about the problem for a short time, it will be found that he will be able to invent problems. He should be made to invent problem after problem until he is no longer concerned with his present time problem.

The auditor should understand that a preclear who is “now willing to do something about the problem” has not been run long enough on the invention of problems of comparable magnitude. As long as the preclear is attempting to do something about the problem, the problem is still of obsessive importance to him. No session can be continued successfully until such a present time problem is entirely flat, and it has been the experience that when a present time problem was not completely eradicated by this process that the remainder of the session or indeed the entire course of auditing may be interrupted.

When a preclear does not seem to be advancing under auditing, a thing which he does markedly and observedly, it must then be supposed that the preclear has a present time problem which has not been eradicated and which must be handled in auditing. Although the auditor gives the preclear to understand that he too believes this present time problem is extremely important, the auditor should not believe that this process will not handle any present time problem, since it will. This process should be done on some preclears in company with the Trio.

If the preclear is asked to “lie about” or “invent a problem of comparable magnitude,” and while doing so becomes agitated or unconscious or begins to talk wildly or obsessively, it must be assumed that he will have to have some havingness run on him until the agitation or manifestation ceases so that the problem of comparable magnitude process can be resumed.

Another aspect of the ability to play a game is the willingness to win and the willingness to lose. An individual has to be willing to be cause or willing to be an effect. As far as games are concerned this is reduced to a willingness to win and a willingness to lose. People become afraid of defeat and afraid of failure. The entire anatomy of failure is only that one’s postulates or intentions are reversed in action. For instance, one intends to strike a wall and strikes it. That is a win. One intends not to strike a wall and doesn’t strike it. That is again a win. One intends not to strike a wall and strikes it. That is a lose. One intends to strike a wall and can’t strike it. This is again a lose. It will be seen in this as well as other things that the most significant therapy there is is changing the mind. All things are as one considers they are and in no other way. If it is sufficiently simple to give the definition of winning and losing, so it is simple to process the matter.

This condition is best expressed, it appears, in processing by a process known as “overwhelming.” An elementary way of running this is to take the preclear outside where there are numbers of people to observe and, indicating a person, to ask the preclear, “What could overwhelm that person?” When the preclear answers this, he is asked about the same person, “What could that person overwhelm?” He is then asked as the third question, “Look around here and tell me what you could have.” These three questions are run one after the other. Then another person is chosen and then the three questions are asked again. This process can be varied in its wording but the central idea must remain as above. The preclear can be asked “What would you permit to overwhelm that person?” and “What would you permit that person to overwhelm?” and of course “Look around here and tell me what you could have.” This is only one of a number of possible processes on the subject of overwhelming, but it should be noted that asking the preclear to think of things which would overwhelm him could be fatal to the case. Where overwhelming is handled, the preclear should be given a detached view.

A counter-position to havingness processes, but one which is less therapeutic is “separateness.” One asks the preclear to look round and discover things which are separate from things. This is repeated over and over. It is, however, destructive of havingness even though it will occasionally prove beneficial.

It will be seen that havingness (barriers), “not-knowingness” (being in present time and not in the past or the future), purposes (problems, antagonists, or intention-counter-intention), and separateness (freedom) will cover the anatomy of games. It is not to be thought, however, that havingness addresses itself only to games. Many other factors enter into it. In amongst all of these, it is of the greatest single importance.

One addresses in these days of Scientology the subjective self, the mind, as little as possible. One keeps the preclear alert to the broad environment around him. An address to the various energy patterns of the mind is less beneficial than exercises which directly approach other people or the physical universe. Therefore, asking a preclear to sit still and answer the question “What could you have?” when it is answered by the preclear from his experience or on the score of things which are not present, is found to be non-therapeutic and is found instead to decrease the ability and intelligence of the preclear. This is what is known as a subjective (inside the mind only) process.

These are the principal processes which produce marked gains. There are other processes and there are combinations of processes but these given here are the most important. A Scientologist knowing the mind completely can of course do many “tricks” with the conditions of people to improve them. One of these is the ability to address a psychosomatic illness such as a crippled leg which, having nothing physically wrong with it, yet is not usable. The auditor could ask the preclear “Tell me a lie about your leg” with a possible relief of the pain or symptom. Asking the preclear repeatedly “Look around here and tell me something your leg could have” would undoubtedly release the somatic. Asking the preclear with the bad leg “What problem could your leg be to you?” or desiring him to “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to your leg” would produce a distinct change in the condition of the leg. This would apply to any other body part or organ. It would also apply, strangely enough, to the preclear’s possessions. If a preclear had a vehicle or cart which was out of repair or troublesome to him one could ask him “What problem could a cart be to you?” and thus, requesting him to invent many such problems, one would discover that he had solved his problems with the cart. There is the phenomenon in existence that the preclear already has many set games. When one asks him to give the auditor problems, he already has the manifestations of as-ising or erasing taking place. Thought erases, therefore the number of problems or games the preclear would have would be reduced by asking him to recount those which he already has. Asking the preclear to describe his symptoms is far less than therapeutic and may result in a worsening of those symptoms, contrary to what some schools of thought have believed in the past but which accounts for their failures.

There are specific things which one must avoid in auditing. These follow:

1. Significances. The easiest thing a thetan does is change his mind. The most difficult thing he does is handle the environment in which he finds himself situated. Therefore, asking a thetan to run out various ideas is a fallacy. It is a mistake. Asking the preclear to think over something can also be an error. Asking a preclear to do exercises which concern his mind alone can be entirely fatal. A preclear is processed between himself and his environment. If he is processed between himself and his mind, he is processed up too short a view and his condition will worsen.

2. Two-way communication. There can be far too much two-way communication or far too much communication in an auditing session. Communication involves the reduction of havingness. Letting a preclear talk on and on or obsessively is to let a preclear reduce his havingness. The preclear who is permitted to go on talking will talk himself down the tone scale and into a bad condition. It is better for the auditor simply and discourteously to tell a preclear to “shut up” than to have the preclear run himself “out of the bottom” on havingness. You can observe this for yourself if you permit a person who is not too able to talk about his troubles. He will begin to talk more and more hecticly. He is reducing his havingness.
He will eventually talk himself down the tone scale into apathy, at which time he will be willing to tell you (as you insist upon it) that he “feels better” when, as a matter of fact, he is actually worse. Asking a preclear “How do you feel now?” can reduce his havingness since he looks over his present time condition and as-ises some mass.

3. Too many processes. It is possible to run a preclear on too many processes in too short a time with a reduction of the preclear’s recovery. This is handled by observing the communication lag of the preclear. It will be discovered that the preclear will space his answers to a repeated question differently with each answer. When a long period ensues between the question and his answer to the question a second time, he is said to have a “communication lag.” The “communication lag” is the length of time between the placing of the question by the auditor and the answering of that exact question by the preclear. It is not the length of time between the placing of the question by the auditor and some statement by the preclear. It will be found that the communication lag lengthens and shortens on a repeated question. The question on the tenth time it has been asked may detect no significant lag. This is the time to stop asking that question since it now has no appreciable communication lag. One can leave any process when the communication lag for three successive questions is the same.

In order to get from one process to another one employs a communication bridge which to a marked degree reduces the liability of too many processes. A communication bridge is always used. Before a question is asked, the preclear should have the question discussed with him and the wording of the question agreed upon as though he were making a contract with the auditor. The auditor says that he is going to have the preclear do certain things and finds out if it’s all right with the preclear if the auditor asks him to do these things. This is the first part of a communication bridge. It precedes all questions, but when one is changing from one process to another the bridge becomes a bridge indeed. One levels out the old process by asking the preclear whether or not he doesn’t think it is safe to leave that process now. One discusses the possible benefit received from the process and then tells the preclear that he is no longer going to use that process. Now he tells the preclear he is going to use a new process, describes the process and gets an agreement on it. When the agreement is achieved, then he uses this process. The communication bridge is used at all times. The last half of it, the agreement on a new process, is used always before any process is begun.

4. Failure to handle the present time problem. Probably more cases are stalled or found unable to benefit in processing because of the neglect of the present time problem as covered above than any other single item.

5. Unconsciousness, “dopiness” or agitation on the part of the preclear is not a mark of good condition. It is a loss of havingness. The preclear must never be processed into unconsciousness or “dopiness.” He should always be kept alert. The basic phenomenon of unconsciousness is “a flow which has flowed too long in one direction.” If one talks too long at somebody he will render him unconscious. In order to wake up the target of all that talk, it is necessary to get the unconscious person to do some talking. It is simply necessary to reverse any flow to make unconsciousness disappear, but this is normally cared for in modern Scientology by running the Trio above.

Books on auditing are available from the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8, and from the Distribution Center Incorporated, Box 242, Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S.A., as well as from the local groups and other Scientology Offices throughout the world. Magnetic lecture tapes with lectures on Scientology for groups and auditors are also available. Individual processing by the staff auditors of Clinics is available from the above addresses and also at the Hubbard Guidance Center, 2315 15th Street Northwest, Washington, D.C. Training as an auditor is obtainable. An auditor should be trained in the very fine schools of the HASI London or the Founding Church in Washington, D.C. the same. These are the only official sources for diplomas in auditing and in professional Scientology.

THE FUTURE OF SCIENTOLOGY

With man now equipped with weapons sufficient to destroy all mankind on Earth, the emergence of a new science capable of handling man is vital. Scientology is such a science. It was born in the same crucible as the atomic bomb. The basic intelligence of Scientology came from nuclear physics, higher mathematics and the understanding of the ancients in the East. Scientology can and does do exactly what it says it can do. In Washington, D.C. there is an enormous file cabinet filled with thousands of case histories, fully validated and sworn to, which attest the scientific thoroughness of Scientology. With Scientology man can prevent insanity, criminality and war. It is for man to use. It is for the betterment of man. The primary race of Earth is not between one nation and another today. The only race that matters at this moment is the one being run between Scientology and the Atomic Bomb. The history of man, as has been said by well-known authorities, may well depend upon which one wins.

F I N I S

P.A.B. No. 89
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

19 June 1956

S C I E N T O L O G Y
REVISION OF TRANSLATOR’S EDITION

Well, we have finally come to the end of the Translator’s Edition of Scientology.

This book running for so many PABs undoubtedly brought to you many new aspects of Scientology. The reason for this lies in the fact that there has not been a new book for some time and the research material has been piling up here undergoing re-codification and so was included all in a rush in the Translator’s Edition.

Now, for me, begins the job of rewriting the Translator’s Edition for book form, since I believe you have noticed, as I did, many typographical errors. The Translator’s Edition must also include on its rewrite considerable additional information on processing, although I think you will agree with me that it was a real triumph to get the entirety of processing crammed into two PABs, Nos. 87 and 88, but of course as always happens even those two PABs could stand some re-codification, and two or three very important processes and tips must be included in them. It should be apparent to all of us that as this Translator’s Edition will go and is going into very many languages it may just happen that Scientology will be represented entirely textbook wise by the Translator’s Edition and it may occur that in several of these rarer languages no further text will be available. This is very probably the case with one translation that is now in progress which is going to a country of several hundred million people who, of course, could afford the few pence necessary for the booklet, but who will probably be left without any further information of any kind.

As a tip to translators here and there who are undertaking these translations, the refurbished edition which is coming out in booklet form in English in a few weeks should be consulted before your translation leaves your hand and goes to a printer in your language. One reason for this is the fact that the therapy section is not entirely complete and another reason for it is that some of the typographical errors unavoidable in getting out something quickly in the PABs will be entirely eradicated in the booklet. Thus, if you are translating this you should begin at once from the PABs to hand and order immediately from the HASI, No. l Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8, a copy of the Translator’s Edition at the special PAB price of 5/-d. As the shilling is worth 14 American cents, this is a price of 70 cents. However, it will take forever to get to you unless you include two-and-a-half shillings or an additional 35 cents for airmail postage, so thus a fast copy of the Translator’s Edition will come to you for 7/6d airmail or I dollar and 5 cents American wherever you are throughout the world.

Do not for a moment bother your translators with the matter of royalties. All that I ask of you is that the Translator’s Edition text made up here in full without any cutting or editing has my “by-line” on it and that it includes the addresses of the HASI in London and the United States. So, you translators, there is no difficulty here of royalties. I am not asking for any. If you can get royalties for translating it, they are yours.

Furthermore, translators, I would not worry about somebody else translating it into the same language as you are translating it into. That two editions might appear in the same language is of interest only to authors who are attempting to acquire royalties. As you have herein the author’s permission and need no other special permission, there is then no possibility of legal conflict because you are publishing a book somebody else is publishing in your language.

I suggest that the published title in your language is something like the “Fundamentals of Thinking” or “Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thinking” or, if it translates better in your language, the “Fundamentals of Life” or the “Fundamentals of Mental Science.” The word “Scientology” should appear on the cover, as it is already becoming known very broadly throughout the world.

The reason I make my “by-line” a condition is so that there can be no royalty conflicts of any kind whatsoever. If the book were published without a “by-line” or with some other authorship there could be royalty claims, thus such release would be outside the grant made herein and so could be contested if such a “wildcat” edition appeared.

I realize that the book is a necessity to any person whose study of Scientology is hampered by a current life childhood spent with another language, therefore the Translator’s Edition should be of considerable help.

Do not for a moment suppose that the HASI or myself have any grip on editors or publishers in other languages than English. We cannot assist you on getting the book printed in, for instance, Greece, but with the manuscript translated and with your information that the textbooks on Scientology are the most advanced material on the mind in the United States of America you should have no difficulty in getting this book published. It is up to you to place it. Therefore, I call upon the initiative of anyone who has contacts in any country, no matter how small, or in any language to translate the book and display all necessary initiative in getting into print in that country.

To give you some sort of an idea what these exact materials can do, there is one small country right now which has had Scientology addressed to it on the working man’s level. There is every obstacle in this country against the dissemination of material on thought or the mind. All this country seems to have absorbed in the past was revolutionary materials. Any material offered to it that was constructive and told it to support its own government and told it to get civilized has hitherto been ignored by that country. Scientology in the form contained in the Translator’s Edition was disseminated into the teeth of an economic revolution. In a few short months thousands of people of the working class have not only absorbed Scientology but are using Scientology in their everyday work. Several members of their government have studied Scientology in this cursory fashion and, coincidentally or not, a new stability has come to that country which is amazing even to itself. Scientology has power. To display that power it must be disseminated.

We have a certain mission of civilizing the peoples of Earth. The first step to take in getting shoes on them is to translate the Translator’s Edition and release it in a very cheap booklet form and make sure that it becomes disseminated in that area.

The Translator’s Edition does not, of course, contain all there is to know in Scientology, but it contains the essentials. There is even material considerably in advance of that contained in the Translator’s Edition which the auditor, the most practiced auditor, will be happy to get his hands on. So ending the Translator’s Edition did not end the trail of research and did not end the PABs. 

LRH Research Release to HGC of June 26th, 1956                 	            via     HCO

CURRENT PROCESSES

The following processes are released to Staff, HGC for their use and comments.

Please be very specific concerning the action of the process reported upon.

We are codifying processes for general release. Be very sure you add into your reports any other process you found necessary in running a case.

Report on usual forms.

                                        				L R H

* * * * * * * * * *

 l. 	Establish Rudiments by control of pc—
    	Have him start-change-stop small objects, then body like 8c.
	Emphasize starting, then stopping, then changing until rudiments are established.

2. 	Run “Look around this room and tell me what your body (theta body in black case) can’t have.”
    	Etc on Trio.

3. 	If pc cannot make anything happen with thought run Axiom 10 processes “Look around room and tell me what is having no effect on that (object).” Then “What could you cause?” “Lie about an effect that wall (object) is having on you.”

	Run also “What effect could you have” on valences. Also continuing effects, locate some.
    	Also “What could you expect from (valence)” you are having trouble with in pc.

4. 	Run can’t have, have, on body parts Vs Mest Universe “Look around and tell me what your (leg) can’t (can) have.”

	Separate valences with “Look around and tell me what your (valence) can’t (can) have. “

5. 	If confusion or boil-off sets in, pc has stripped out too many stable data. Have him mock up confusions.
    	“What confusion could you cause?” Also minus randomity.

6. 	If he is stuck in pictures have him make portions, then all of them, solid. Stress injured parts—make solid.
    	Don’t leave in restimulation.

7. 	If antipathetic to people, or secretive, have pc spot people or parts of people outside that he, his body, theta body, can’t (can) have.

8. 	Run Waterloo Station on “What can you not-know about that person?” Intersperse with “Look around and tell me what you could have.”

9. 	On special phobias, fixed ideas, run “Look around and tell me what that idea could have.” “Mock up a confusion for which that idea could be a stable datum.” “Tell me an idea of incomparable magnitude.”

10. 	Problems—run out with problems of comparable magnitude.

11. 	Have him decide to get a mock-up (unmock something) and then stop it because it would spoil the game.

12. 	Lie about, invent games he could really play.

13. 	Invent problems he could really have.

14. 	Exteriorize by havingness on body or theta body, thinking placed thought, Route One.

15. 	Attempt to run engrams on willing pcs using standard old time return to the moment, and new “Make it more solid”. Example: Straight wire question— “What part of your past wouldn’t you mind re-experiencing with total solidity?” He says one. Return him to it. Have him make it solid on a gradient scale. Return him to pt. Ask question again. Return him to new moment, etc. Be careful not to tangle track. Make note of your variations of process. Stress making solid any parts of body injured in any incident. Don’t leave pc bounced off walls etc.

16. 	Invent an identity. “Invent a father (valence).” “Invent a (reverse relationship such as son).”

* * * * * * * * * *

DON’TS 

Don’t run significances—they’re stable data. Use two-way comm sparingly. If a compulsive outflow case must talk, shut him up.

Don’t run too many processes. Flatten them, then use a comm bridge.

Don’t fail to handle pt problem adequately.

Don’t tolerate dopiness or anaten. Have him mock up confusions or reverse flow.

E N D

P.A.B. No. 90
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

26 June 1956

THE ORGANIZATIONS OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY

Anyone engaging upon a delineation of the histories of Dianetics and Scientology organizations is apt to go in for organizational names, organizational places, numbers of members, the general legal upsets attendant to any new type of organization on Earth and other matters which are not even important.

The history of organizations in Dianetics and Scientology is a history of people. It is the history of a number of people finding their feet, finding their initiative and finding their way of life. It could be said that the history of these organizations parallels the history of case levels. The more we know the better we get. The better we get, the better we organize.

In 1950 I said that the subject would go as well as it worked. I have no reason to alter that view. I have concentrated, therefore, on the skills and methods of training better auditors rather than upon stacks of legal papers. Many people in the field would have us believe that the legal papers were important. They would have us believe that the levels of service offered by the organizations were important, even more important than the progress of the science itself. These people may have their opinion; however, my belief uttered in 1950 is the one which has won.

For today I am announcing to you that we have won organizationally.

The organizational structure of Dianetics and Scientology today is a simple one. There are three main central organizations. These are the Founding Church at 1812 19th Street, N.W. of Washington, D.C.; the HASI in the United States and in London at Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8; and the HDRF which can be contacted through Box 242 in Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S.A. To all intents and purposes these break down to be the HASI in LONDON and the FOUNDING CHURCH in WASHINGTON, D.C. These train auditors, audit preclears, and sell books, as well as do research and control the worldwide network of Dianetics and Scientology. Autonomous but dependent upon these organizations, there are several HASI offices throughout the world and there are several Churches of Scientology directly connected to the Founding Church. Then there are a large number of organizations, autonomous in operation but dependent upon the central organizations for their authority, such as the Churches in California run by John McCormick (San Diego) and others, all of them grouped under the Church of Scientology of California operated by Dr. Farber in Los Angeles. This Church, in turn, is chartered and franchised by the Church in Washington. There are operations and organizations autonomous but dependent upon the central organization on every continent of Earth. Offices such as that maintained by Margaret Scholtz in South Africa are halfway between an independent organization and a HASI office. It would not be possible here to list all the organizations such as McCormick’s for it would require a considerable amount of space.

Another type of organization is the group. Official groups of the HASI and official congregations of the various churches exist in very large numbers in the United States and Great Britain and elsewhere through the world. To charter a group one only needs to write the HASI. Exactly how many groups there are and exactly how many people are contained in these groups is not at this time a matter of complete record, but the number of groups and people is enormous. There were people scattered around the world of whom the organization would never have heard had it not invented and released the Associate Membership. We are hard put at this moment to get manufactured enough “ ‘S’-and-Double-Triangle” Badges to supply the avalanche of requests for them. Evidently many of the people in these groups, while sharing the expenses of the group, had never before communicated with the central organization. It is doubtful if there was any restraint in their doing so but they conceived that their communication line through their local auditor and group secretary and president was completely adequate, and so it very probably has been.

There are now more auditors in active practice throughout the world than there are psychoanalysts, a dying breed. These auditors have more preclears than the psychoanalysts have patients, but the comparison is not entirely possible since psychoanalytic patients are normally in need of mental “therapy” and are patients in fact whereas the clientele of auditors is for the most part composed of people interested in becoming more intelligent and more able.

Now you may believe that all has been told about organizations when the existing state and numerousness of them has been reviewed. Nothing could be further from the fact.

For the survival of the subject itself it is vitally necessary to carry forward and maintain central organizations not only in Washington and London, but wherever auditors are trained to be auditors. We have proven this over and over and over again. The further the subjects Dianetics and Scientology go from source, the less workable they become. In the libraries and files of the central organizations of Washington, D.C. and London are thousands of reels of tape, tens of thousands of case records, millions of words of careful notes, all of the books on the subject and all the results of 25 years of work. More important than these in Washington, D.C. and London there are people who have been in continuous contact with these organizations, so that no point of their evolution is overlooked or missed and nothing learned about training or practice has been forgotten. No single auditor practicing somewhere away from this vast library and this enormous collection of records could hope to keep an equivalent technology. Yet that technology is available to him and must continue to be available from the central organizations.

Now let me give you some sort of an idea what these organizations do and why they exist. In developing Dianetics and Scientology over the last 25 years a great deal of the basic work was lost because there was no central depository for its materials. There is one whole textbook written in 1938 entirely missing now. There are several hundred case records of the earliest work done that are missing. Because we have organization this no longer occurs. More important than this the central organizations are testing ground and repository of collected opinions of auditors. For example, in December I noticed that the Clinical gains in the Hubbard Guidance Centers in London and in Washington, all of which are carefully recorded and tabulated (so carefully recorded and tabulated that the activity would be the envy of any vast university psychology department any place in the world), showed a lessening improvement in preclears for the same number of hours of auditing. It took me from December until late February to reach at and discover what we had suddenly dropped. With the assistance of Dr. Julia Lewis in Washington and her staff auditors and Dr. Ann Walker in London and her staff auditors, I was able at length to isolate from the continuingly submitted records the one factor which had been omitted and which made a lessening of case gains occur. This factor was havingness. Once located we immediately applied ourselves to every possible means of handling havingness. I at length isolated MEST universe havingness as being the single advancing factor in these cases, and this was borne out by these staffs. Now I have gone further than that, but that is a story of research not of organization.

It has been discovered that we are developing technologies of training and codifying material at a continuingly rapid rate, but we can now completely guarantee to any student or old auditor coming in to either of the central organizations that (1) his case failures will thereafter cease to occur and that (2) his own case will come under his control. Every time we take an auditor in from the field and put him on staff we have to work him over, no matter how good he was in the first place. Within the central organizations at this time Scientology is a subject so workable and so well understood by staff that a manner of confidence exists never before known. Now it is the job of the central organizations to push this know-how out into the field and extend it as far as the last auditor and preclear that we contact through this chain.

THE HISTORY OF ORGANIZATIONS

The early history of organizations may be of interest.

At first, to keep an organization running, starting with the first organization, the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation in New Jersey, one LRH had to work himself half to death at the rate of about twenty hours a day, even buying desks and hiring typists. That was not because one LRH was the senior member of the Board of Directors. He was not, which added to his burdens. Not in actual control of the organization, putting out nearly all of the energy to keep them running, I discovered that we didn’t have an organization. We had some chaps signed up under a legal directive from the government specifying who was supposed to occupy certain positions and carry forward certain responsibilities. We even had a general (ha!) manager, the best that we could procure from the business world. Later on we even had all the talent of Kansas Oil. We had hot and cold running secretaries, accountants so confused as to be in great demand by Internal Revenue, and the very finest of printers and editors that money could buy, but we didn’t have an organization. Why? Because the entire concentration on advance was unfortunately heavy in my own hands. I have had these people say that we ought to forget any new materials of any kind, that we should not advance at all, we should simply (as a millionaire once involved in these organizations once put it) “make the money.” These people did not compose an organization. They did not have truth or sincerity in them. They were “Man, Issue 1950,” a thing which, by and large, wasn’t so hot as a mechanical contraption.

On the staffs of these organizations there were some sincere and very worthwhile people. These people tried hard. These people worked hard. These people tried to carry out the goals of Dianetics and, later, Scientology. We owe these people a very great deal. They were operating in the main as individuals, trying to wear half-a-dozen hats each and trying to help me get a show on the road, and gradually I stopped working twenty hours a day and only worked sixteen hours a day and a great deal of my activity passed into the hands of these very worthwhile people on staff. But we were not yet an organization. We were a group with a common goal and there are great differences between organizations and groups with common goals. Because we had a legal name which could be bandied, harassed and raised the devil with in courts, everyone believed that we had an organization. We didn’t. We had me working hard and a few guys, God bless them, working like mad, and we had a lot of “business” people riding the gravy train and banking needed funds to their own names in Florida. We were swamped!

To give you some idea of the enormity of the task we confronted, we had, for the first time in the history of man, sailed out and along a completely new line of approach in the field of life and religion without any background and with darned little support. We were learning as we went. No other organization on the face of the earth has the shape which the organizations of Dianetics and Scientology were to attain eventually. Therefore, we had to learn the know-how of organization before we could have one.

Naturally it was very easy to upset such an “organization” by simply upsetting the man whose name was on everything. Therefore all sorts of crazy things happened. I was sued for divorce by women I wasn’t married to; my sanity was pronounced upon by people who had never seen me or read my works. Some people in the “organization” (the “business” people) were very loud on the subject of me, but those who were loudest will have been found to have been most interested in their own personal remunerations. We didn’t have an organization. Organizationally we had a chaos. Why? Because we had to invent an organization before we could have one. We actually had to create people before we had people who could run organizations, and this, I believe, is one of the most difficult feats ever attempted in any field, but we did it.

The first person to give me any really active help in the field of research was a girl trained in science at the university, and that was Mary Sue Hubbard. We covered and reviewed the entirety of whole track phenomena and exteriorization phenomena between 1952 and 1954. In the fall of 1952 more actual assistance in England was given me. From there on it became more obvious that we had more and more able people on every hand. My own work hours were lessening. There were more people pitching in and actually doing the job they were supposed to do. We were beginning to have something that looked like an organization.

Now you understand that it doesn’t matter what is written in the legal records of a city, state or country; an organization is not something settled by a sheaf of papers. Organizations are composed of people. Even governments forget this one and so drift down into chaos. An organization is something which has its own spirit. It is composed of people or living beings who are governed by certain rules and purposes and who know how to do their jobs. That is an organization and when any of those factors are neglected it becomes a “thing” even though it still has a name and legal standing.

Thus the years wore on. The evolution was a simple one. I knew what I was doing and where I was going, but I was just one guy. Then one by one others stepped up and put their shoulders against the wheel and began to shove effectively. At first their efforts were scattered and sometimes even opposing, but the efforts were sincere. These few were then joined by others and these others gradually worked themselves out of their enturbulence and ceased to oppose and began to give effective assistance, and all the while what we today call our organization was learning its own rules, codes and know-hows. It was gathering under itself a group spirit. At first it began to appear that any time a person left his post, the post was unfillable, but little by little, the organization itself began to recover the ability to create people who could fill its posts, thus freeing key personnel for higher jobs.

Then there was another aspect to organization. This was the aspect of finance. First only my own encouragement and letters and writings brought any real finance into what we were calling organization, and even up to 1955 this state continued. To be solvent organizations had to stage various stunts and special offers. There was never a moment when one could relax on the financial state of Dianetics and Scientology. Much had to be done. There was very little with which to do it and very early in the game there were those who took its funds for themselves. But this condition would not continue forever.

Now I will tell you about another organization, so-called, and call it directly by name, the Ford Foundation. This group was founded and formed in the same year that the first book Dianetics was issued, 1950. In the six years following, this group, having had at its disposal in any single year more funds than have been available to all the people in Dianetics and Scientology combined from any source whatsoever, has yet not advanced any real distance in a realization of its goals. This organization was supposed to study and found a scientific understanding of Man. Its goal was almost identical with the goal of the first Foundation in Dianetics. Six years later we find that this organization has spent hundreds of times as much money as the central organizations of Dianetics and Scientology and has yet to discover any single slightest advance in Man’s knowledge of Man. Evidently a collection of desks involved in shuffling research papers which didn’t mean anything in the first place, the Ford Foundation apparently has squandered the money needed so desperately by those of us who were actually sincere about where we were going and what we were doing.

The Ford Foundation, after six years of shuffling, has only one valuable paper in its entire files of which I have any knowledge. That paper is a report given by one of its own men who officially attended an HAS Hubbard Certified Auditor Course in Phoenix, Arizona, and who said on paper and officially to the Ford Foundation that in Scientology now existed all that they ever hoped to accomplish in the Ford Foundation. Yet here are these millions of dollars avalanching out in the expenditures from the Ford Foundation without any hope or promise of any kind for a betterment of Man.

This is not really a criticism of the Ford Foundation—it is only a statement of how such foundations operate. Wonderfully financed, beautifully sponsored, perfectly connected with all the powers that be, yet they are not organizations. Probably the type of organization which is handsomely endowed to study certain things is robbed at the outset of its purposes, since the man who wanted the thing done was the man who gave some money to some others. These others wanted the money. Is that enough comment? In other words one of these tenets of organizational cohesion was violated before ink was dried upon the endowment. For example, there is an organization in California (where else?) which was endowed by some millionaire who wanted all possible evidence corroborating spiritual phenomena. The man to whom these funds were entrusted has used them from that day forward to actively disprove the activities and findings of Rhine and has attacked all investigators as charlatans and has not added one single thing to the knowledge of spiritual phenomena, but has balked all those who would. So maybe we were fortunate in not being a superlatively well-endowed group. We have had to fight our way and that fightingness has given us the independence which we now discover in our midst. We owe no man anything.

Far-flung members of our organization often ask themselves (if they think about it at all) what they are buying with their book purchases or their courses or their processing. For one thing they are buying the least costly and most important job of research which has ever been done on this planet. The real reason that central organizations process people for a fee and train people for a fee is to disseminate the capabilities and abilities of Scientology, but the secondary reason which becomes primary in the central organizations is to buy organization itself and to advance the science. The reason that we object to “squirrels,” people like the Communist Association of Dianetic Auditors in California, is because they do not pay their way. We find their papers full of the materials which were hard won by myself and the central organizations and yet we have nothing but debits on our records to show that they passed our way. These people have as their major fault no cognizance of effort. These people also have given us ample experience of financial irresponsibility. People such as our best known “squirrels” are perfectly willing to snatch our hard won materials and misuse them, but they are not willing to support the effort which brought these materials into being. In other words, their existence is parasitic. Completely aside from the perversion of materials, this is what we have against them. Fortunately they number one in thousands; their lies, stupidities, vilifications are all a statement that they are unwilling to pay for what they use. They are cheap. The rest of us paid our way and we have won.

What have your dollars bought? What have your pounds bought? In Washington, D.C., in London, in Australia, in New Zealand and in South Africa and in South America, they have bought the know-how of organization and the know-how of the mind. They have bought knowledge which Man never before possessed and which Man therefore considers priceless. There is no way one could put a financial value on the information which we hold in our hands today. Yet that information has been purchased for less money than is spent on secretarial help in any given year by the Ford Foundation. By all calculations this information should have cost billions of dollars. It has not cost that because some of us were willing to work as hard as we worked in order to achieve it and are selfless enough to give it not at its market value, but only at the desire of men to know and to be helped.

Organizationally we have won.

What have we won? We have won independence and initiative as organizations

Let me tell you what has just happened. This is important in Scientology. It is more important than a few of us getting clearer than we are. For six months the HASI in London and the Founding Church in Washington, D.C. have existed on their own efforts, have accumulated their own finance without any especial help or stunt. For the heads of the 1956 organizations are assisted and helped by many, but they are no longer helped on an individual basis. They are helped on an organizational basis. This is a very important thing.

For six months the HASI in London and the Founding Church in Washington, D.C. have been self-supporting, with little or no assistance from stunts. They are doing this because they themselves are giving service. They are training better auditors than anyone before thought possible. They are getting more results in their intensives than anyone could have found real two or three years ago. What these two organizations are doing, if done in a department of a major university in the United Kingdom or the United States, would cause headlines. You would find people streaming from every other university of the world to find out just exactly how they were doing this incredible thing of raising intelligence and changing and increasing the abilities of Man. But this could never have happened in a university since it required independent thought and action with no compromise with vested interest.

These organizations are, then, today, organizations. They are organizations because they are giving service. They are giving service to the people. They are giving service to their membership. They are giving service to themselves and they are financially responsible as themselves without any special stunts or actions rather than routine activities.

I hope you realize that this is the news that it is.

So this is the history of the organizations of Dianetics and Scientology. It is a history of a bunch of people working like the devil with the work of one man and then increasing that knowledge and information and then finally beginning to pull together as a team and at last existing as organizations, powerful, strong and calm. I am proud of them and their people. 

P.A.B. No. 91
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
217a Kensington High Street, London W.8
_____________________________________________________________________
3 July 1956

THE ANATOMY OF FAILURE

Two things are of paramount importance in Scientology. They are WIN and LOSE.

Occupying the original Chart of Attitudes composed by myself in the autumn of 1951, Win and Lose have occupied ever since a predominant place in processing. A preclear can be stuck in either Wins or Loses. This might come as a surprise that a preclear could be stuck in a win, but the facts of a case are that a preclear is stuck in any reversal between intention or expectance. One knows of the man who lives forever after his having won the race and one knows as well the man who lives forever after the failure of his business.

Primarily, the person who is living forever after in some sort of incident is living the survival of something which overwhelmed him rather than his own survival.

The anatomy of winning or losing, either one, is the anatomy of postulate and reverse-postulate. One intends to do something by making a postulate that it will take place, yet something else takes place. This is a reversal of postulate.

Now let us consider exactly what a failure is. It is only a failure of postulate. It is the failure of an intention. The intention is one thing, the result of the intention is a reverse. This is a failure.

One would say, offhand, that a person who ran a car into a stone wall would have a failure. However, this is simply a social belief that one should not run cars into the wall. There are four conditions which could be involved with running a car into the wall. Running a car into the wall is not a failure without the addition of postulates.

One does not intend to run the car into the wall and yet runs it into the wall. This is a failure.

One intends to run the car into the wall and runs the car into the wall. This is a win.

One intends not to run the car into the wall and doesn’t run it into the wall. This is a win.

One intends to run the car into the wall and doesn’t run a car into a wall. This is a failure.

Thus we can see that running the car into the wall, or not running the car into the wall, do not themselves establish, except by public agreement as to the conditions of failure, an actual failure. The failure derives from failing to do what one intended to do. When one does what one intends to do one has a win. When one intends to do one thing and accomplishes something else one has a lose.

A person is stuck in “Wins” only when he intended to lose and won. A runner never expected to win. He was simply part of the field most of his career and then spectacularly, and almost by accident, he won. It is certain that he will be stuck in that win. Therefore the only wins that a person gets stuck in are those which were not intentional.

Regret itself is entirely the study of the reversed postulate. One intended to do something good and one did something bad. Similarly it could also happen that one intends to do something bad and accidentally did something good. Either incident would be regretted. Examples of the first condition are easy to conceive. In the second category I once knew a man who intended to “get the best of” a woman of somewhat Herculean proportions. Somewhere in this contest the woman fell ill and he healed her and did it to such an excellent degree that the woman, to whom mercy was unknown, thereafter promptly overwhelmed him entirely. Here we have the public belief that to heal is good but in this particular case it was regretted by the individual and would have been regretted even though he did not experience a later loss.

It is an interesting commentary upon the mental anatomy of man that he seldom intends to do something good without actually accomplishing something good. One can always go upstairs into doing well. Failures are the most marked when one intends to do something bad and doesn’t accomplish it. For instance, a gunman misses his enemy. He generally lives to regret it because his intention basically was not for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics—the definition of good.

It must be understood by the auditor that the preclear is not stuck in failures or wins. The preclear is stuck in reversed postulates. He intended to do one thing and another thing happened. This is only aberrative when the other thing that happened was a direct reverse.

There are several methods of running this particular phenomenon and it is a very important one in the repertoire of the auditor.

The first and oldest method was Rising Scale Processing. In this process, an individual was asked to get one of the lower postulates on the Chart of Attitudes and then carry it “upward” until he could get the higher idea. In this particular case one would ask the preclear to get the idea of losing and would then ask him to change that as nearly as he could to the idea of winning. This process might be improved by asking the preclear to get the idea of losing and then get the idea of being engaged in a game and have him do this over and over until he could hold the idea of being engaged in a game. One would then have him get the idea of winning and would thereafter have him get the idea of being engaged in a game. You see, both winning and losing are no-game conditions. One can be as afraid of winning as of losing, because one always loses when one wins or loses, the difference being that one loses the game.

A more modern idea of running this would be to get the preclear to make one postulate and then conceive that its reverse occurred, then to have him say, “That defeats me.”

An example of this would be the classical example of telling the preclear, “Command that wall to fall down.” “Now, observe that it did not.” “Now decide to do it yourself.” This will demonstrate to him primarily the mechanism of how he comes to do everything himself, because he knows that if he tells something else to do something it will disobey him and he will get a lose.

An even more advanced method of running this would be to get the preclear to hold two ideas at the same time and have him place out in front of him a person with the idea of living and a person opposite him with the idea of dying. When he can do this, have him make the first person say to the second person, “Die,” and have the second person live as a result. Use various types of postulates until the person takes much less personally the idea of a postulate becoming reversed. In other words, this and other mechanisms can be used to habituate the person to the idea that postulates can turn around and do something else. As soon as he relaxes on this subject he will become much easier and less apprehensive about losing.

Failure consists exactly of something else happening rather than the intention.

An example of this: We are taught that “all men are nice to everyone, that there is no murder or insanity or upset anywhere in life,” and so gradually we intend that a smooth, uneventful and fruitful life will result. Then we discover that people do bad things to people, that people nag us so that they impede us. That our goals, ambitions and accomplishments are not worthwhile in other people’s opinions, and so we have a failure. Here the failure is actually the failure of having a right intention toward life. What is the right intention toward life? To be very, very safe, it is the intention to have what happens what will happen. If one knows that life is going to be tricky, cruel, arduous and vicious at times, then one is not surprised by it. One does not hope so sanguinely, or one does not intend so ferociously that all will be “sweetness and light” and one is not so dismayed when “sweetness and light” does not occur.

Romantic novels teach us that the hero always wins and that good always triumphs. Now, it so happens that the hero doesn’t always win and that good does not always triumph. On a shorter view we can see villainy triumphing all about us. The truth of the matter is that the villainy is sooner or later going to lose in an entirely different way than the villain expects. One cannot go through life victimizing one’s fellow beings and wind up in anything but a trap—the victim himself. However, one doesn’t observe this in the common course of life. One sees the villains succeeding everywhere, evidently amassing money, cutting their brother’s throat, receiving the fruits of the courts and coming to rule over men. Without looking at the final consequence of this, which is there just as certainly as the sun rises and sets, one begins to believe that evil triumphs whereas one has been taught that only good triumphs. This causes the person himself to have a failure and actually causes his downfall. The safe way to intend life to go on happening is the way life goes on happening. A much healthier attitude is to change life where one can change it and not be heartbroken because one has not changed it further. In other words one can intend to change life for the better and can succeed. With Dianetics and Scientology, particularly, he can accomplish this. Before Dianetics and Scientology he probably couldn’t, so it would not have been safe or healthy to expect to change life in any way. But now he can at least change life in the sphere where he exists, and thus that things can become better becomes an actuality.

It would be a certain way to produce a failed attitude of mind in a person to indoctrinate him in one direction and have him experience the reverse.

In Dianetics and Scientology the auditor has maintained an optimistic attitude towards what is going to happen to his cases. By and large this is justified, but occasionally he intends to make somebody well and the person, even though he became a bit better, continues to complain about his bad state of health. This was much commoner four years ago than it is today when we understand more, but unfortunately has resulted in a series of failures for some auditors. If an auditor who has experienced this will get the idea that he is going to make the patient well and then have the patient in mock-up collapse and then get the idea that he is going to make the patient well and get the patient to collapse again, and carry this out by old Creative Processing, all of his past auditing failures will drop away as having no importance.

The first and foremost lesson taught by failure is that one’s postulate didn’t stick. There are several methods and processes of running postulates to practice their “sticking,” but the foremost of these would be to run out the idea that one should be dismayed simply because a something else happens. Actually if everything happened which you intended to happen there would be no randomity or interest in life whatsoever. People shudder back from the idea that their postulates and orders will always be obeyed. They will not always be obeyed and that is what makes the game of life a game; otherwise it would be one long continuous win, which is a no-game condition. 

P.A.B. No. 92
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

10 July 1956

A CRITIQUE OF PSYCHOANALYSIS

(Definition: Psychoanalysis is a system of mental therapy developed by Sigmund Freud in Austria in 1894 and which depends upon the following practices for its effects: the patient is made to discourse [free associate] on and recall his childhood for years while the practitioner effects a transfer of the patient’s personality to his own and searches for hidden sexual incidents believed by Freud to be the only cause of aberration; the practitioner reads sexual significance into all discourse and evaluates it for the patient along sexual lines; the entirety of the cases of psychoanalysis have never been tabulated and little or no testing has been done to establish the validity of the system.
                                                            —Markham, The Way of the Mind, page 32)

It is the unkind fate of subjects which fail, to be overhauled and criticized by later understandings. Such, perhaps, cheerfully may be the fate of Dianetics and Scientology-and I say cheerfully—if their improvement in later centuries leads to an even greater freedom and understanding for mankind. But now and then it becomes necessary to eradicate from a new subject things which it has inherited from an old. And only because this has become necessary am I persuaded to tread upon the toes of the “grandfather” to Dianetics and Scientology.

It is necessary to understand first that we are actually indebted to psychoanalysis and its originator, the debarred doctor, Sigmund Freud. My basic, if unappreciated, education in the field of the mind came from Commander Thompson of the Medical Corps of the U.S. Navy, who was Freud’s personal student. Better than others, then, some sixty-two years after Freud’s original declarations, I could be considered qualified to criticize the failure of not only the basic work of Freud but the later offshoots which, while following his original tenets, yet sought to expand information on psychoanalysis. Very few living analysts today have as direct a connection with the subject as I do and there are few who can boast of the successes with the subject which I can. For I have used psychoanalysis as a practitioner and have achieved some certain successes with it, were one to call a success the sporadic eradication of the severe neurosis in a known mental patient. Further, there is my own enfranchisement by the Freudians when they were all but obliterated in Europe by Russia.

Having established then my possible qualifications to criticize and having compounded such right by having bettered the results of Freud, I feel it is necessary to overhaul rapidly the points of failure of psychoanalysis as we understand the mind today.

In the earliest beginnings of Dianetics it is possible to trace a considerable psychoanalytic influence. There was the matter of ransacking the past, the matter of believing with Freud that if one could talk over his difficulties they would alleviate, and there was the matter of concentrating on early childhood. Our first improvements on psychoanalysis itself consisted of the abandonment of talk alone and the direct address to the incident in its own area of time as a mental image picture susceptible to erasure. But many of the things which Freud thought might exist, such as “life in the womb,” “birth trauma,” we in Dianetics and Scientology confirmed and for them provided an adequate alleviation. The discovery of the engram is entirely the property of Dianetics. Methods of its erasure are also owned entirely by Dianetics, but both of these were pointed to by early Freudian analysis and hypnotism.

It was in Scientology and the anatomy of Life that one departed entirely from the tenets and teachings and fundamentals of psychoanalysis and sprang forward into the actual causes of things, for Scientology, unlike Dianetics, is not a psychotherapy. It is therefore from the dominance of Scientology rather than from the viewpoint of Dianetics that one can understand the failings of psychoanalysis, its dangers and the reasons why it did not produce what it should have produced. This is not to enter Scientology as a mental therapy, but Scientology is a broad understanding of Life and is certainly capable of looking at a mental therapy AND delineating its errors.

LACK OF GENERAL ADVANCE

The first solid criticism of psychoanalysis is inherent in its failure to advance. Sciences are living things. When they are based upon truths they advance and evolve. Psychoanalysis did not advance or did not evolve. There is little, if any, difference between the writings of Freud in 1894 and the declarations of analysts today unless it is a deteriorated difference; the writings of Freud in the late nineteenth century were clearer and more precise than those which are published today. The earlier writings of Freud had in them the saving ingredient of humanity, which is woefully lacking in later workers in the field of psychoanalysis.

The failure of psychoanalysis to expand, to improve and to embrace other fields of livingness, despite its ambitions, is the clearest observation that can be made detrimental to psychoanalysis. Successful things expand, disseminate and invade. Psychoanalysis has not, and today is almost a lost subject. There are fewer analysts in the world today than there were fifteen years ago despite the enormous wages which could have been earned by them. The complete structure of modern psychoanalysis is the same today as in 1894.

In the face of a successful subject one seldom finds newer and more brutal subjects arising and flourishing. That psychoanalysis could be discarded in favor of Russian Psychiatry as practiced today in Europe and the United States is a terrible condemnation of psychoanalysis itself. It must have failed to have made men this desperate. The treatment of the insane today is far worse than it was two centuries ago and the brutality practiced under the name of “mental healing” cannot be regarded with equanimity by any civilized man.

We discover psychoanalysis to have been superseded by tyrannous sadism, practiced by unprincipled men, themselves evidently in the last stages of dementia. This, then, is the end of the trail for psychoanalysis—a world of failure and brutality. Today men who call themselves analysts are merrily sawing out patients’ brains, shocking them with murderous drugs, striking them with high voltages, burying them underneath mounds of ice, placing them in restraints, “sterilizing” them sexually and generally conducting themselves much as their patients would were they given the chance. It is up to us to realize, then, that psychoanalysis in its pure practice is dead the moment the spirit of humanity in which Freud developed the work is betrayed by the handing over of a patient to the merciless misconduct which passes today for treatment.

But completely aside from this general lack of advance, there were certain definite flaws in psychoanalysis which we Dianeticists and Scientologists must inspect, lest we fall into these errors and go the way of the analyst. We have learned certain things in Dianetics and Scientology, and we have learned several Not-Dos which psychoanalysis considered Must-Dos. This article, then, is a list and description of these.

OVER-COMMUNICATION

Communication has the power of eradicating spaces and masses. Communication can create spaces as well as eradicate space, but it cannot create mass. If any mass is created it is created by the command that it be created, and is not created by the communication itself.

We have learned that possession of or contact with mass and the ability to tolerate mass are the bases of good therapy. To use indiscriminately something which erases and vanquishes any and all masses is in direct argument with the very well measured results we are obtaining today using mass acquisition techniques.

If you wish to make this test, you have only to take a person who is somewhat disturbed and make him talk about his disturbance. While there is a point when he seems less agitated concerning the disturbance itself, there is no point when he, as a whole person, is bettered beyond his initial state. If this person is permitted or forced to talk, he will bring himself lower and lower in tone. All one needs to do is watch the emotional content of his communication to realize that he is going down in tone.

A practical application is that a person in a disturbed state, permitted to talk, will not cease to be disturbed. Told to be quiet and given, no matter how, a remedy of his mass, it will be discovered that he rapidly regains his equilibrium. In practice it is far better to tell a patient who is compulsively recounting his difficulties to shut up than to permit him to go on speaking.

In psychoanalysis it was pretended that a patient only needed to talk about his difficulties to have them disappear. Naturally, so long as his mass was not entirely unbalanced a person not in bad condition would be able to talk away some minor difficulty without suffering badly from the result of the drop in mass. Freud has said that a great many people were not to be saved or healed by psychoanalysis. It is interesting that this entire category of people is included in the statement that they are very low on havingness or masses. In other words, when a person was so low on masses that he could not afford to eradicate a mass, he could not then be healed by psychoanalysis, but the strange part of it is that people who were fairly well off in mass at the end of a two- or five-year psychoanalytic sprint had been found to be so deficient in mass as to be almost impossible to deal with.

Free association and all other communication means detailed by Freud are only superficially therapeutic. A remedy of the tolerance of mass is therapeutic on all levels of case. You may or may not be aware that a psychoanalytic patient is supposed to talk hour in and hour out for years to his analyst before any recovery is experienced; that no recovery is thereafter experienced in most cases is a very plain case, to the Scientologist, of induced mass starvation.

Two-way communication must be used sparingly and must be accompanied by a replacement of those masses eradicated in the process. Otherwise communication is not therapeutic.

RECALLING

A second tenet of psychoanalysis was that all one had to do was to recall hidden incidents to have them disappear. An analyst expected his patient to go on recalling endlessly, and expected sooner or later that the patient would turn up some interesting bric-a-brac which was the basic difficulty in his case.

Had the analyst known the character of the entire genetic line, had he known of the countless billions of incidents which were hidden from his patient over and above minor secrets of present-life childhood, he would have abandoned this idea that the exposure of a few hidden incidents would bring about a recovery of the patient. Actually, it is true that a patient can be made a little happier by recovering some lost moment he has forgotten, but the condition is not stable and does not continue.

The analyst used to excess the idea of remembering. We in Scientology know the principle of knowingness and not-knowingness, and know that it is as important to be able to not-know things as to know them. The fixation on endless remembering as found in psychoanalysis would be very destructive to the patient and indeed in practice proved so, even under the eyes of the more critical analyst.

It would have been far better had the analyst asked the person time and time again, “Tell me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting.” However, a test of this on a patient who is already deficient in havingness, demonstrated the same phenomenon observed in over-communication. The patient under the impact of this command went down in tone, but did satisfactorily remove several overt acts.

It can be considered, with our experience in testing, an impossibility to eradicate the difficulties of the past in an individual by making him endlessly recall his past. We have the case histories and the tests and the careful observation necessary to establish this point beyond any contest.

TRANSFERENCE

We find another error in psychoanalysis under the heading of “transference.” The actual definition of “transference” in psychoanalysis is sufficiently unstable to bring about considerable argument as to what is meant by transference. In fact, in Dianetics we had to re-establish an entirely different condition which we called “valences” to denote the shift from one’s own personality into that of another.

Transference in psychoanalysis was used to denote the transference of the patient into the valence of the practitioner. This was the way which Commander Thompson described the phenomenon to me and nothing has been learnt from later analysts to disprove this basic definition of Freud’s.

We know in Dianetics and Scientology that the acquisition of additional valences means no more and no less than a scarcity of identities. One wonders a little at a practitioner who would be so certain of his own high quality that he would demand that every patient assume the analyst’s identity. This presents us with a very amusing picture of an entire world full of analysts.

However, there were other connotations to this thing called transference. But their significance was never plumbed or solved in the field of psychoanalysis. A valence, the assumption of the identity of another, can be quite destructive to the personality of any person, but such an action means only a scarcity of identities. Requiring a person to invent identities brings about a drop in the number of personalities obsessively held or dramatized by that person.

However, transference accidentally was not a totally bad step, but a step actually in the right direction. The analyst made the person aware of the fact that he could assume at least one more identity and this, we suppose, was the basis of all therapeutic results obtained by the use of transference. But the loss of one’s own personality to the extent of assuming yet another identity—that of the analyst—could not have proved other than destructive to the personality of the patient, and thus we must assume that the entire sphere of transference was an error.

As we increase this list you may find it questionable that psychoanalysis ever intended at any time to improve anyone if they used only those methods and mechanisms calculated to depress and enslave the patient. However, there was the saving grace of giving to the patients’ difficulties the attention of the analyst, and this mixed with the ingredient of humanity, mercy and kindness must have produced what results were produced by psychoanalysis.

CONCENTRATION ON SEX

Those in Dianetics and Scientology are aware of the existence of eight separate spheres of beingness—the eight dynamics—and know that the second dynamic is only one of these eight. They are also aware of the fact that a concentration on one dynamic to the exclusion of the others cuts back the ability to live to just that degree that the concentration takes place. In other words, one who is concentrated on only one dynamic could be said to be only one-eighth alive.

As Freud worked in a very sexually inhibited era it is natural that he would pick upon something which was intensely aberrative to the people in his immediate vicinity. Furthermore, he had a racial fixation on sex, a fixation sufficiently pronounced to cause it to infect contagiously all modern European stock.

However, to one who has adventured amongst barbarian peoples and who has inspected aberration in its many guises, the concentration on sex as the sole offender as pretended in the “libido theory” of Sigmund Freud becomes unreal. Races which have no sexual inhibitions of any kind are yet aberrated. In fact I know of several savage races which find so little meaning in sex that they do not even bother to trace ancestry seriously, and when they do wish to connect themselves with a family connect themselves on the mother’s side, as one can be fairly certain what woman bore him when one is uncertain as to who influenced the birth from the masculine side. Yet these races, free as the wind on the second dynamic, are yet intensely aberrated in other quarters. Some are aberrated on the eighth dynamic of God, some on the first of self. The American Indian, for instance, is enormously aberrated in the field of animals, but not much inhibited in the field of sex.

It must have required a considerable mental gymnasticism to have combed everything down to sex, and when Freud did so he did no more therapeutically than to give a stable datum to the confusion of the mind which other people living in a sexually inhibited time could accept. Therefore, the advancement of sex, just as the advancement of lanterns or the advancement of chewing tobacco, as the single source of human aberration could have brought a tiny amount of stability to the confusions surrounding the problems of the mind.

But the concentration on sex is not a true one and has led the psychoanalyst down many a blind alley and has inhibited him from observing rationally and truthfully what is going on in his patients, which is a pity, since if he had done this observation properly he would have discovered a great deal more than he has discovered in the sixty-two years of his existence.

Later analysts sought to expand the second dynamic ideas of Sigmund Freud into “social” activities. In other words they tried to go up to the third dynamic of groups, but their search forward was not successful.

You see, there is a considerable amount of attention concentrated on sex, but to say that everything stems from sex is to invalidate the ability of people to create themselves. Sex is simply a low order massive level of creation. True, it is a powerful one, but people in the grip of the inspiration of work, group activities, religion, very often experience far greater emotional or ecstatic impact than from sex, which, all things said, is fun, but not entire. Sex could have been tossed aside with Ovid’s works and yet have left a full mental science.

SIGNIFICANCES

The reading of sexual significances into each and every action of a person could not but continue to expand the grip sex already had upon the person. Thus it could be said that the Freudian concentration on significances themselves was extremely detrimental to patients in general. The more such significances added to a case, the less chance the case has to recover.

There is a process in Scientology known as “assigning the reason why.” It is a rather old process and is not particularly useful since it considerably reduces the mass tolerance of the individual. One has the air about one give various reasons why. The result of this is to add up an adequate number of significances to the individual, and to desensitize his fixation on having to know the reasons back of certain motions, combinations and beingnesses. Today one could assign reasons why to the walls with considerable recovery.

As the total significance to existence is the significance that the being puts there, the adding of significance to his life without adding as well games, spirit, havingness and other things, could be a considerable detriment to his happiness, and has proven so in psychoanalysis.

To be concluded ....

CENTER STAFF—RON                               			                     14 July 1956

FIVE TYPES OF VALENCES

A rule has showed up. Never process a no-game condition, only a game condition.

No-Game conditions: know, opponent has, arrivals, solutions, namelessness, pan determinism, friendship, win, lose, effect on self, no effect others.

Game conditions—to be processed: problems, not-know, attention, can’t have (opponent), have (self), self-determinism, survival, no effect on self, effect on others, identities.

Example: thoughts that would have no effect on you, thoughts that would have effect on (father). No reverse.

This accounts for randomity in process application.

I felt clever last week and worked this out. And it works!

Valences are:

      1 .      Own valence (identity)

      2.       Body valence (human identity)

      3.       Exchanged valence (direct assumption of another valence)

      4.       Attention valence (valence assumed to get attention from another)

      5.       Synthetic valence (valence described to pc and assumed)

On I—no change desired. On 2 body run as opponent. On 3 exact valence run as problem and can’t have. On 4 valence of B assumed to get attention from A, remedy have and problem on A. On 5 run can’t have and problems on person (or book or film) who told pc.

Them’s how we’ve missed on some profiles which are valence pictures. He’s in Mother’s valence but separation on Mother didn’t work. Why? Maybe he was in an attention valence requiring separation from father or in a synthetic as described by grandma. Voila—

From LRH to HGC Staff	   					      July 20, 1956.

How to really split a valence (after much testing):

1. 	Get pc under control with Start-Change-Stop—lots of it.

2. 	Unjam track with Solids. “What do you see? Make it solid.”
  	(Anything jamming track can be run as a valence below.)

3. 	Choose valence or valences, weakest universe preferred.

4. 	“What would interest                     ?”

5. 	“What would get the attention of                     ?”

6. 	“What                    can’t have.” (objectively on room)

7. 	“What could you protect                     from?”

8. 	“What communication could you prevent                      from originating?”

9. 	Problems of Comparable Magnitude to                   (not necessarily to be run at this point but anywhere in formula).

10. 	“Invent a game you could play with 	               .”

Then 4 to 10 again to check.

Run Havingness as needed.

Keep pc under control with S-C-S on body.

The above formula is a killer on valences. I took 100 hours of testing to check it out.

								Best,

   									LRH

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
21 7a Kensington High Street, London W.8
RUSH								    	        July 22nd, 1956
To U.S. ONLY Julia Lewis, Dick Steves, L. Ron Hubbard, Jnr.
To England ONLY   Association Secretary (Jack Parkhouse)
           	         Director of Processing (Ann Walker)
           	         Director of Training (Dennis Stephens)
Staff Auditors, Instructors and Auditors close to Operation only.

TECHNICAL BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1956

I feel the urge to communicate to you the best news since 1950.

I have whipped the problems of the whole track and memory of the past and can resolve the worst cases we have ever had. That is a huge statement but  I have solved and can untangle in an intensive the problems of the vacuum and havingness plus memory and health and have just done so. Hence the exuberance.

Also, other auditors can solve these in a case as well. NIBS has just cracked two six-year-standing Black Fives using some of this material and Herbie Parkhouse has had considerable luck with solids.

We are now capable of solving Book One style cases to the extreme level of clear.

No wild burst of enthusiasm is here intended. I have to put the finishing touches on a lot of things and the process is still slow—25 to 75 hours. But I’ve now done it and seen it done to worse cases than any you’ve had. And that’s fact!

Okay. It’s not simple. It requires a minute understanding of Book One. It would take me 50 pages to explain all I’ve lately found about vacuums. You haven’t seen the last of me or of study, but you will have seen the last of unsuccessful cases providing only that we have time and environment in which to audit them.

We can make homo novis. (AND give a grin to those who kept standing around bleating, “Where are the clears?”)

We know more about life now than life does—for a fact, since it was reaching, we can communicate about the reactions.

The process is concerned with “making it solid” combined with effects. It isn’t easy. It is wonderfully complex and delicate. But it has been done. And it is being done.

Our cases gained but sometimes slumped. Why? Because an electronic vacuum restimulated on the track after sessions, and robbed the case’s havingness.

A vacuum isn’t a hole. It’s a collapsed bank. Every lifetime bank is collapsed into a vacuum.

The formula is—

1. 	Run pc on start-change and stop for hours until he is under auditor’s control, in session and (often) exteriorized.

2. 	Then run him with commands “What are you looking at?” “Good.” “Make it solid.”

	He will eventually hit a vacuum. (He’d hit it faster on “Recall a can’t have” but it’s too fast.) Here’s the tangle. The vacuum is a super-cold mass or an electric shock. This “drank up” bank electronically (brainwashed him). The energy drunk turned black. Hence black cases. (Does not apply only to black cases however.)

3. 	Run, interspersed with solids and “objective can’t have” on the room, “Tell me an effect object (that drank bank) could not have on you,” and “Tell me an effect you could have on object.” Object may be electrodes or supercold plate or even a supercold glass.

Caution, handle one vacuum at a time. These vacuums go back for 76 Trillion years. They were the original brainwash thetans did to one another, then psychiatrists (on the whole track) did expertly (modern psychiatrists are punks, modern shock too feeble to do more than restimulate old vacuums).

Take the vacuum that comes up running solids, or even “Recall a can’t have”, whatever it is and solve it as above.

This is delicate auditing. If you restimulate a vacuum too hard, the whole track groups on it.

Read Book One. Add vacuums instead of word groupers, use above and you’ll probably get through to success. Nibs did and I had given him less than you have here. Of course, he’s one of the best auditors in the business, so go easy. And Herbie Parkhouse is no slouch.

CAUTIONARY

This is true—

1. 	We have created the permanent stable clear.

2. 	In creating him we have a homo novis in the full sense, not just an Operating Thetan.

3. 	We now know more than life. An oddity indeed!

4. 	We now know more about psychiatry than psychiatrists. We can brainwash faster than the Russians (20 secs to total amnesia against three years to slightly confused loyalty).

5. 	We can undo whatever psychiatrists do, even the tougher grade from away back. We can therefore undo a brainwash in 25 to 75 hours.

6. 	We can create something better than that outlined and promised in Book One.

B U T

1. 	We need to know more and be more accurate than ever before about the time track and auditing. I have not given a thousandth of what I know about this.

2. 	We have a new game but also new responsibilities amongst men.

3. 	This data in the wrong hands before we are fully prepared could raise the Devil literally.

4. 	Because we know more than the Insanity Gang, we’re not fighting them.

5. 	Because we can undo what we do, we must retain a fine moral sense, tougher by far than any of the past.

6. 	We can create better than in Book One now only if we know Book One and know our full subject.

AND WE DO NOT YET KNOW ALL THE SAFETY PRECAUTION TO BE USED.

--------------------

I will be giving this data in full at the Games Congress, Shoreham Hotel, WASHINGTON, D.C., August 31st, to September 3rd, 1956.

The exact regimen of this will be SLP 8 and will include the total picture of separating valences from bodies (which must still be done by the auditor, a formula I now have).

I have given you this data in this bulletin at this time because now I know I know and I want you to share in seeing the surge of vision which will be our future.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

P.S. (Actually, contrary to rumor, it hasn’t all been done before. If it had been, the guy who is saying it has would be clear!)

P.A.B. No. 93
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
217a Kensington High Street, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

24 July 1956

A CRITIQUE OF PSYCHOANALYSIS
Continued

Any auditor knows that the self-determinism of the preclear is reduced markedly and alarmingly by evaluating for the preclear on the subject of his own case; in fact, one can make a test of this with the end product near insanity. One has a person tell him what the person is worried about in life and then one informs that person the reason why this is so and informs him with sufficient force and logic to bring about an utter conviction on the part of that person that this is the case. What happens here is that one adds confusion to the case rather than otherwise.

All a practitioner can hope to do is steer the person in certain directions where that person will then make certain discoveries and where that person will be able to reconsider and cognite to the end of having a more proper view of things.

The real thing wrong with evaluation is that data or significances have a tendency to eradicate masses when they are intimately applied. It is quite one thing to say what all life is about and to give an individual the basis for a better and wider look at life as we do in Dianetics and Scientology, and it is quite another thing to find that the person is in his mother’s valence, and then begin to evaluate for him concerning his mother.

The most harmful example of this is to find someone upset, for instance, about his father, and then to explain to him, as the analyst does, that his father is probably a very good man and meant all for the best. To do this is to throw the patient into an apathy. As apathy is at least quiet, it has in later years been considered a desirable state for people who might have some socially destructive impulses. Apathy became, then, the end goal of later analysts, and is, of course, the only goal of the psychiatrist. That is why these people evaluate for their patients in the manner given.

When a patient in an asylum has told her “doctor” that she was recalling incidents from the mother’s womb, the “doctor” is prone to tell her that is all nonsense, she has to face reality, and so forth, which evaluates for her.

The real crime of evaluation is to tell the patient he is wrong. Evaluation itself as a broad subject is not particularly harmful so long as it does not completely invalidate the person to whom the remarks are addressed. Thus you could give a person a general framework of life so long as you are not crowding it against an entirely different framework of life. As an example, a Scientologist tells some religionist whose life is entirely oriented on religious principles of some archaic and antiquated creed that his beliefs are all wrong and that the truth lies otherwise. As the Scientologist is going straight up against a life entirely oriented by these ancient creeds, he is apt to produce in his action a considerable apathy on the part of the religionist. He is not apt to get in truth a convert to Scientology. He is apt to get a candidate for a mental hospital instead.

A person can be led out of any serious fixed beliefs by getting him to agree that there are wider beliefs to assume, but this must be done in full observance of ARC, and is not done by direct evaluation. This is, by the way, why we sometimes fail to convert people in older “healing” methods to Dianetics and Scientology. We simply fly into the teeth of their stable data and leave them all confused. We, knowing life, are far too convincing. “They” cannot but partially agree.

Evaluation for a person could be defined as the action of shaking his stable data without giving him further stable data with which he can agree or in which he can believe.

The analyst from Freud’s time onward has been supremely guilty of this. That it must be called guilt is observable in the fact that evaluation—reversal of the patient’s beliefs and data directly to the patient—has placed many psychoanalytic patients in hospitals.

INVALIDATION

The subjects of significances, evaluation and invalidation have become interdependent in Scientology.

In invalidation we have more fully than in evaluation a capital crime.

With significances we are simply discussing reasons why. With evaluation we are only giving new stable data, but with invalidation we are overtly and consciously knocking whatever props the patient may have out from under him.

The greatest invalidation, of course, is to be struck when one does not expect to be struck, to be criticized when one does not think he merits criticism. Essentially it is the act of telling a person that although he thinks he should be there, he is really not supposed to be there and the use of thoughts or force in order to accomplish his not-thereness. Reversely, it is also making a person sorry for his absence. In essence it is saying that a person has no validity, therefore that a person’s thoughts and postulates have no validity.

The commonest conduct by analysts in hospitals is to invalidate. Actually the entire activity of psychiatry, with its drugs and shocks and restraints, is invalidation.

In actuality evaluation belongs more properly to the field of psychoanalysis than does invalidation. Invalidation belongs to the modern psychiatrist, since it can have considerable brutality connected with it.

FAILURE TO OBSERVE

Another reason why psychoanalysis has failed lies in its failure to observe.

It would be thought that if many thousands of men financed by many, many millions of dollars were to look for a long period of time at insane people, they would sooner or later codify certain definite theories of observations, which when added up would bring about certain conclusions. In fact, one could not expect less than this from the most mechanical computer arranged.

Analysis must have been based upon erroneous premises. It must have been, because it led to no additional observation. A Dianeticist or a Scientologist setting out to observe phenomena will cover the track of Dianetics and Scientology. This is fairly certain, because it has been done now for many years by many, many people. The observations of Dianetics and Scientology have been productive of a considerable number of new observations. This is not the case with psychoanalysis. Only those few examples which seemed to validate the basic principles of psychoanalysis were observed by the analyst and where data fell outside this sphere it was not observed and codified.

A true and proper scientific method as given in Book One, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, is as follows:

1. 	Make a series of careful observations.

a. 	These observations must be repeated, and are acceptable as observations only if many people following the prescribed techniques can duplicate the results.

b. 	Variations of the prescribed techniques must be tried to eliminate the possibility that the observed results might be due to a factor other than that intended. As a gross example, suppose it is reported that a magnet will attract objects. Demonstration shows it does attract and lift iron balls; that is Step (a) above. Now variations of the experiment show that the magnet attracts iron but not copper, silver, etc. The observed effect—attraction—is real. Variation of the original experiment is needed to show the actual limits of the effect.

2.	Combining all relevant data, from all relevant experiments, formulate a hypothesis.

a. 	The hypothesis must explain all observed data.

b. 	It must not demand as a consequence of its logical development, the existence of phenomena that do not, in fact, exist.

c. 	But it should indicate the existence of real, hitherto unobserved facts.

3. 	Using the hypothesis, predict new facts.

a. 	A logical structure broad enough to explain all observed, relevant phenomena will necessarily imply further phenomena that have not yet been observed. Use this mechanism to predict the existence of something which, under previous theories, would not exist.

4. 	Perform an experiment and make observations on these predictions.

5. 	As a result of the experiment, discard the hypothesis, or advance it now to the status of “Theory.”

6. 	Make further predictions, further experiments, and collect more observational evidence until a contradictory relevant fact is found.

7. 	Discard the old theory, take the new total of observational data, and form a new hypothesis.

8. 	See Step Three.

It is as though the psychoanalyst from Freud forward was looking for confirmation of his own beliefs.

The most serious defect which a researcher can have is a fondness for his own beliefs so great that he looks only for confirmation of these. A researcher must possess the ability to discard and reassume theories at will. He must not nurse to his bosom one theory and then try to align all data to that theory. He must align data to a theory, it is true, but when that data does not add up to that theory, that theory must be discarded and a new one must be assumed. Only in this way is progress made. That the basic tenets of psychoanalysis were never abandoned or reformed shows a certain fondness for them which was not borne out in actual practice or observation.

The dramatization of the mental image picture (the engram), the demonstration of overt act-motivator sequences and a hundred thousand other Dianetic and Scientology phenomena, went entirely unobserved by psychoanalysts. They even looked at them and saw them not. In that healing consists of getting at what is wrong and making it right, the approach of the Dianeticist was intensely successful. In that what was wrong with the patient was not a psychoanalytic theory was enough to cause the analyst to invalidate the patient and remain secure in his theoretical assumptions, the analyst actually did not make people well; and this is the primary reason why: He failed utterly to observe the data of the patients.

HYPNOTISM

Probably the most fundamental error of psychoanalysis was its early dependence upon hypnotism. Breuer, as Freud’s co-worker, actually exhumed the original data on which Freud based his libido theory in 1894. Breuer used hypnotism.

The use of hypnotism denotes an anxiety to produce an effect beyond the power of the individual to produce an effect by normal knowledge and means. It is the belief that the patient must be in a comatose state before something can be done to him. The medical doctor and the analyst and psychiatrist alike have held this tenet.

Basically, a good therapy would wake people up, make them more alert, make them more able, happier, more competent. Hypnotism is the exact reverse to this. We have here another failure to observe. Anyone observing hypnotic patients would see that after they have been hypnotized they are less able.

Narcosynthesis and other nonsense has had to be run out of more Dianetic preclears than I would care to count before their cases could advance. The continual use of hypnotism (and an inexpert use it was, to one versed in Eastern hypnotism!) and the use of hypnotic drugs to “diagnose” or “plumb the depths” of some patient is a confession that one does not know the general rules of life. If one does not know these general rules, of course, he is apt to look almost anywhere, even into the wastebasket, for an answer.

Hypnotic command or hypnotic diagnosis does not lead to well patients. It leads to slaves, and if you will observe any people who have been continually hypnotized you will find that it has been detrimental to them. This does not even require very much close observation.

There is nothing essentially wrong with hypnotism so long as one can undo hypnotism. We can undo hypnotism, therefore it is not very important whether we hypnotize people or not; but the analyst could not unhypnotize people. He did not even know what the mechanism of hypnotism was, and as a result he was not thereby entitled to use it. Only that person who is able to produce both the kill and the cure should be permitted to kill. If you could bring a dead man to life at once without any bodily harm to him, it would be all right for you then to kill men—providing you brought them back to life. It is perfectly all right for you to hypnotize people so long as you can unhypnotize them. Psychoanalysts and psychiatrists cannot do this. Therefore this particular phenomena in the mind should be well beyond their reach.

ABANDONMENT OF CASES

We think very poorly of the auditor who abandons cases without doing much for them. It must be harshly said, on ample evidence, that the analyst does very little else but abandon cases.

The first hours in analysis are usually spent, according to a survey made back in Dianetic days, finding how much the patient can pay. After that, the patient is persuaded to believe that it will require about a year of four separate sessions of one hour each per week to establish whether or not analysis can do anything for him. At the end of a year, of course, he is so habituated to coming to the analyst and handing over almost the entirety of his pay check that he does not stop doing so, and forgets that the analyst has ever said that it would require a year just to find out. Nothing is being done for the patient but he does not notice this. When the patient runs out of money, he is abandoned. This is our unfortunate finding in the case of psychoanalysis.

It is quite one thing to leave a case when one has bettered it of its current worries, and it is quite another to leave it when one has worsened it. The Dianeticist does the former quite often. The patient expects to be a Dianetic clear and does not reach that goal-only recovers from a couple of psychosomatic illnesses and two or three deep neuroses, and yet wants more auditing. The auditor is then entitled to tell him no. But in the case of the person who is worsened by the therapist, the abandonment of that case becomes inevitable, if the therapist ever could have done anything for the case in the first place.

Naturally we are walking on rather thin ground here since there are many people around who believe that Dianetics did not do all for them that it should, and I am the first to agree with this, since we had too few skilled practitioners and we ourselves were too pressed for time which was being consumed by long and arduous processes to pay attention to every complaint which came our way. But our intention in Dianetics was never otherwise than to do all we possibly, humanly could for the preclear. I am afraid that the analytic approach does not fall within this category. The analyst must have known when he first enlisted the patient that the patient would worsen, since the analyst rarely experienced anything else in his practice. Therefore we have a basic intention which is entirely at variance with our ideas of the way the world ought to run.

It is interesting to note that our attempt to survey psychoanalytical suicide met with many savage rebuffs. Yet we were able to discover that some 35% of the people “in” psychoanalysis committed suicide either during an analysis or within three months after the analysis. In our efforts to discover the why of this we received only one answer common to all of the analysts interviewed, and that was, “He came to me too late.”

It can be seen that this is a rather shallow way to look at things, for any of us today in Scientology could say, “Well, the human race came to us too late,” and we could then throw up our hands and not do anything about it, whereas, as a matter of fact, the remark is almost correct. Yet we are still doing something about it and in Dianetics and Scientology we have gotten no great number of suicides. As a matter of fact, I know of but one actual suicide in all the hundreds of thousands of cases which we have had our hands on and that one was political, not therapy.

FAILURE TO VALIDATE BY TESTING

It might be asked in this modern age why psychoanalysis never permitted itself to be before and after tested. This is probably the greatest condemnation of the entire subject of psychoanalysis.

One looks in vain for actual authentic records of improvement of cases because of psychoanalytic sessions. While the psychoanalyst is very anxious to have us in Dianetics validate our science, he himself has never validated his. Had he done so, we would have to hand an accurate record of cases tested before analysis and after analysis.

The whole idea of testing does not belong to either the psychoanalyst or the psychologist. Testing goes clear back to the dimmest days of Greece. Man has always been testing man to discover his existing state or changes in it.

The oldest precursor of testing known to us is probably graphology, but on the other hand it may be phrenology. The ancient witch was in essence doing a psychometric test on her visitor. Tests of guilt and innocence by responses was a subject for medieval courts. So at no time could the psychoanalyst have said that he was not familiar with the whole project and idea of testing.

In modern times testing (erroneously within the framework of “psychology”) has been excessively available to the analyst, and yet he has never produced to my knowledge any booklet or pamphlet concerning the various differences of patients before and after an analysis and has certainly never codified his subject.

Why has he not done this? Is it because he could not? I am afraid that is the reason why. I am afraid that psychoanalysts have tested their patients before and afterwards and have found them worse afterwards and so have never released the results. It would be nearly impossible for a practitioner not to attempt this sometime during his career. Therefore we find all the results of psychoanalysis based upon the opinion of the analysts themselves. If one has ever sat in a coffee house talking to auditors about the wonders which have been produced in cases which one knows are still spinning, one will see that it is a human error to assume a greater result than has been achieved. Now, however, in fairness to these auditors most of their results are factual and they have every right to brag about them. But in the case of the analyst, one never hears about recoveries. One hears only about symptoms. If one has ever had the painful experience of spending an evening with analysts, one would realize that the dramatization of the patient’s symptoms was the entirety of the conversational fare. If one can talk only about symptoms and never about the release of symptoms, one then assumes that the release of symptoms has not been accomplished.

SUMMARY

Well, how does all this affect us? Are we in any way affected by the fate and failures of psychoanalysis?

Yes. In two ways.

In the first way, we are able to sort out of psychoanalysis various don’ts, and, as these crept into early Dianetics from psychoanalysis, it is necessary for us at this time to reassess and evaluate what we are doing. One can summarize these rather rapidly. One does not force a person to communicate who is low on havingness. One does not specialize entirely in recalls. One does not occasion or force a transference into another personality. One does not concentrate on the second dynamic. One does not specialize in significances. One does not evaluate for or invalidate the patient. One observes what he is doing from the patient and not from the textbook, making sure that one is actually observing the patient. One does not use hypnotism. One does not abandon cases when they have been worsened. One does not fail to validate by testing, and one sees security in the general expansion and advance of a subject itself. We can learn these don’ts because we see a corpse lying there very dead because they did not know these don’ts, so we should not repeat them.

Is there any other way we are affected by the psychoanalyst? Yes. The psychoanalyst and various mental practitioners have not conducted themselves ethically in this society. The psychoanalyst, the psychologist, and the psychiatrist have been guilty of not delivering. Whatever may be said about Dianetics and Scientology, whatever may be said about me or my enthusiasm, I can assure you that we and I have delivered. We mean what we say when we write down in a summary of case histories that we cured so many cases of so-and-so, and we alleviated so many cases of such-and-such; we are not guilty of anything but what we actually did. We are guilty occasionally in misinterpreting exactly how we achieved these alleviations. A case in point is in 1947 when I was using a recall method which rehabilitated the confidence of the person to face his pictures. This brought about a cessation of his stimulus-response mechanisms in their entirety, and so created a clear. Even by the time Book One had come along some of this technology (because it wasn’t properly understood) had been forgotten or overlooked. But later on it was rehabilitated and brought to the fore, and it is in full use at this time. We have said we would deliver so-and-so and we are delivering so-and-so, and those things which we have intended to deliver and have not yet delivered we still intend to deliver and will continue to strive down to the last thought wave to accomplish. Our efforts and activities are sincere. There has never been a more sincere group on the face of Earth than those who are in the ranks of Dianetics and Scientology. These people can be trusted. You can go to almost any person practicing Dianetics and Scientology and receive some part of the benefit inherent in these subjects. He will try, he will try decently and he will make the best changes he can accomplish take place in your case. This is more true than ever today with our new programs of indoctrination and training, and I would say that in a relatively short time the totality of result to be obtained from Dianetics and Scientology will be obtainable from each and every properly certified practitioner throughout the world.

We have here an intensely sincere group. We have a fine ethical background. We are trying, we are honest, we are decent.

How does this make psychoanalysis in any way affect us? Well, I am very sorry to have to say this, but the psychoanalyst has not been honest, he has victimized the public. A psychoanalysis costs better than $9000 (£3219) and yet does not attain as much result as one opening of session by one auditor (£2). In fact this $9000 “cure” is apt to deteriorate the case entirely. The psychoanalyst has made specious and large statements concerning his abilities to act, and has never even tried to press forward and bring those conditions into existence. He has joined hand and glove with the psychiatrist, and is murdering and butchering his patients. It is the least safe thing that one could do to place himself in the hands of an old-time practitioner today.

The public is entirely and intensely aware of this. The public is aware of the fact that the last person you want to see is a psychoanalyst or a psychologist or a psychiatrist. The public is forced to go to these people by the law, and the only reason they go near them is because they were at one time the faint hope that existed, but their faint hope no longer has to have recourse to them. These practitioners have had to enforce their position by law, lacking results.

Psychoanalysis, psychology, and psychiatry have influenced the Christian ministry today to place even members of congregations into their hands (based on an actual poll of 1,700 ministers). The psychiatrist, the psychoanalyst and the psychologist may have a fight one with another amongst themselves, but they hold this in common: They have given into the public the rightful opinion that the mental practitioners prior to the year 1950 were entirely valueless and were not earning their salt. They have given rise to a public atmosphere of disdain and contempt for anyone practicing in the field of the mind. Therefore they do to some slight degree affect us. Therefore we should make very very clear to the entire public that we are not psychologists, psychoanalysts, or psychiatrists, and any of us who fall from grace and attempt to use these old cloaks to further our own pocketbook should be despised by their fellow auditors. The one chain of logic we must break is that “people who work in the field of the mind are all crazy; they can do nothing for us, therefore we must not go to them.”

My own attitude, whether I am known to be me or not, when I am confronted with the idea that I am connected with old-time mental healing, is to become enormously amused and to make it completely clear that Scientology and Dianetics had to come about and had to be called by different names because they did something that the old-time fields of mental activity never did do.

You are to some slight degree affected by the repute of the psychoanalyst and he has not helped us out. He has attacked his patients sexually under drugs. He has lied about his cases. He has worked himself up in a legal position before the courts so that he is listened to by the judges, and yet only opinion is used by him to declare people insane and sane.

This is an empire which we are today inheriting. It is an empire we must clean up. It is an empire which has not been clean. Therefore it is up to us to do the very best we can to make this new empire of the mind a good solid ethical thing in which people can believe, and to make that empire something which serves man, rather than victimizes him.

FINIS

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 
217a Kensington High Street, London W.8

August 13, 1956

To: HGC Washington D.C. 
	and London

SCIENTOLOGY PROCESS CHART

The following processes on the Know—Mystery Scale are in current use, having been tested and found effective.

The most effective single processes are solids, problems and start-change-stop.

The list is used starting with the Mystery band.

The list is done with complete attention to running Games Condition only.

K N O W
NOT KNOW

Objective, outside, persons, objects.

Auditor indicates object
		“Tell me something you could not-know about	          ,”
and 	“Look around, tell me something you could have.”

L O O K (PERCEIVE)

Put unknown perceptions in walls and exterior objects.
(Sight, sounds, smells, tactiles.)

E M O T I O N

Objective, outside or in Auditing Room.

Put                    (emotion bottom to top of Tone Scale) into that (indicated object).

E F F O R T

Solids—Introverted-(facsimiles) “What are you looking at?” “Make it Solid.” 
(Don’t forget invisible particles.)

Extroverted—”Look around the room and find something you wouldn’t mind making Solid.” “Make it Solid.”

Fight the wall (body or mock-ups).

T H I N K

Put postulate “Want to know” in walls. Make it know.
S Y M B O L S

Mock up somebody inventing something for others to know about.

Mock up Mest being curious.

“What is it?” objective.

Mock up people obj with postulates in them “How do I get rid of all of it?”

Lie about (invent) Individualities. (An identity that could cope with it.)

Lie about (invent) opponents.

E A T

List some inedibles.

Look around room, find something your body can’t have.

S E X

What would interest (valences).

An effect you wouldn’t mind causing on opposite sex.

M Y S T E R Y

Mock up a confusion.

Confusions you wouldn’t mind creating.

Invent a stable datum for “that” confusion.

Mock up a confusion for which practice) would be a stable datum.

Put interest, disinterest in objects. (Find something uninteresting in this room.)

Waste Cases.

(postulate, valence, some old healing

Problems of Comparable Magnitude (to anything). 

Start-Change-Stop preclear’s body or small objects. 

Flip-flopping (by mock-up). 

Processes run upwards from this point as a gradient scale of difficultness.

                                    					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :re .rd

P.A.B. No. 94
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
217a Kensington High Street, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

15 August 1956

THE ANATOMY OF TRAPS

What is is not necessarily what should be.

The way a thetan lives is not and never will be the way thetans should live.

The basic reason for this is the desire for randomity, summed up in the desire of the thetan for a game. Infinite wellness is undesirable if it means that the thetan is to be in a state of total knowingness, total serenity, nameless, without ARC or contact with any environment. Evidently a thetan would rather be intelligent in relation to his environment, identified and identifiable, capable of emotion and experience and in ARC of whatever kind, with whatever type of playing field he may fancy. In other words, a thetan believes that he should be involved in a game. The deepest and most basic rationale is understood by the fact that a thetan must be part of the game. If he is not he is unhappy, no matter how purely and beautifully knowing and serene he may become.

However, there is a difference in games which is marked and obvious. There is the matter of playing a game and knowing one is playing a game, and not knowing one is playing a game. Between these two things is a world of difference. A thetan who is engaged in games he does not know he is playing is unhappy, since he does not believe he is playing a game and finds himself nevertheless in motion. This is what the preclear objects to when he comes to the auditor to be audited. The preclear suspects that he is playing a game and does not know what game he is playing. He simply wants to find out. He does not want to stop playing all games. If the auditor proceeds in the direction of making him stop all of his games, if the auditor erases all of the preclear’s games, why, the preclear is resultantly unhappy. The preclear wants to know what game he is playing and that is all there is to it.

In the matter of traps we have in essence a similar condition to the state of mind regarding games. Traps are part of games. That is all they are. To believe that a thetan could not get out of any trap he has gotten into is folly, since it is very difficult for a thetan to maintain and not go through every barrier which presents itself.

Here we have the difference between the ideal and the actual. The thetan who is in a trap could get out of one with ease if it did not violate his condition of games. Were games not a fact and a rationale of life, traps would be non-existent. If games were no object whatever, getting out of a trap would be simplicity itself.

One is trapped by those things to which he will not grant havingness. A game condition demands that one denies havingness. Therefore games trap.

To maintain a games condition in a preclear it is best to run can’t have on objects, valences and people. For example: “Tell me something in this room your mother can’t have” is a highly effective process, particularly if one has first run “What effect could you have on mother?” The “can’t have” on mother is a games condition and runs out the games one has played with mother. Therefore the process is workable. The process runs out exactly what one has done in order to be trapped in the mother’s valence. One has, in playing games with mother, said that mother could not have this and could not have that, since to permit mother to have something is to violate a games condition. Let us be very sharply clear here. Permitting things to have things is to make allies or teammates of those things, and when these do not prove by their conduct to be teammates, one is then guilty of permitting an opponent to have something, which is a no-game condition.

The rule is: Whatever one has denied havingness to has to some degree become a trap.

When one runs “can’t have” on the object, he runs out the original denial of havingness to the object.

Here is where processing meets its biggest obstacle: Running havingness such as “Look around the room and tell me what your mother could have” conflicts with the fact that one has already postulated numerously on the track that mother cannot have things. Running the permission of mother to have things untraps the thetan from mother only so long as it does not cause him to fail in his games condition with mother.

In practice one has to settle the whole question of mother as an opponent before one can have a mother. “Invent an opponent of comparable magnitude to mother,” “Mock up mother in violent motion,” “Look around the room and tell me something mother can’t have” settles this opponent-mother condition. One does not run “can have” on mother, only on self. That one audits out a game condition to obtain a higher tone is a major discovery in auditing and is all that is used today.

It is an easy thing to say “One is trapped by those things to which he has denied havingness,” but the truth of the matter is that if he did not and had not denied havingness, he would not have had a game. It is necessary, then, to settle the games condition on each and every object from which you would untrap a thetan before you then run the havingness process necessary to permit him to grant havingness to the trap. In the first place he and the trap are actually playing a game, and it may be that he has not enough games in order to surrender the game of the trap. If he had enough games in order to surrender the game of the trap, he would theoretically come out of it, and he would certainly come out of it if he was put into a condition whereby he could actually grant havingness to the trap.

Jails, theta traps, pole traps, bodies, each and every thing, large or small, including the MEST universe, which could operate as a trap, follow this same rule.

The basic havingness of course, that the thetan is denying the trap, is denying the trap a thetan—and this, properly worded, works quite well in processing. But unless a thetan denied things himself he would be in a no-game condition—a thing which he cannot and does not tolerate.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

THE GOAL OF AUDITORS

To penetrate a case at its level of certainty of motionlessness and by processes, run by good procedure, to improve that certainty and the level and to improve certainty on each level, the preclear always at cause until the preclear, through objective and creative processes, is brought to an ability, theoretical, to mock up in its entirety, a body and a universe visible to all.

We introduce games condition by having preclear at cause, even though the common denominator is motionlessness, a no game condition.

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
217a Kensington High Street, London W.8

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST 1956

After a study of processing in general and much testing by HGCs London and Washington and in particular by my own and HCO auditing, the following scale of processes can be considered optimum at this time in the light of what we know. Until further extensive testing is available we can consider the following to be the most productive processes and these should be used by staff on outside pcs and taught in classes.

HGC PROCEDURE OF AUG. 20

1 . 	Make pc at ease in session, build some A-R-C without too much 2-way comm. Get pc’s viewpoint. Make him feel auditor regards goals seriously. Run comp mag on pt problem.

2. 	Run S-C-S on objects stressing each of them more or less equally, running each until fairly flat. This could take from a half-hour to 25 hours depending on pc. Away and to pc on stop is highly effective.

3. 	8c part (a) on body if pc in poor shape. Get it flat if so. (At least until he has no somatics.)

4. 	S-C-S on body.

5. 	Locational processing as extroversion process for S-C-S on 4 (run with 4 as an alternating process if needed).

6. 	S-C-S on body specializing on stop.

7. 	Connection processes. (Look around and find something you wouldn’t mind connecting with you.)

8. 	Before and After Solids.

	Select an engram from mid life which pc has mentioned or an age and have him find a picture before it. If picture isn’t an engram have him make it solid. Then one after the selected time. Keep him out of engrams and painful incidents by having him get earlier or later ones that aren’t painful before you let him make it “more solid”. Don’t change your engram target or selected age no matter what other incident comes up.

	Quit only when pc has been getting them close to pt. Close by telling him “come to present time”, an operation which requires a few seconds or a minute.

	Before and After Solids brings up the case computation, the service facsimile and vacuums and discharges them.

9. 	Run, Look around here and find something you wouldn’t mind making solid, as the objective version of 8.
* * * * * * * * * *
Havingness processes, optional as indicated.

Run problems, Trio on self (what you can have in room), can’t have on others or body, creative process havingness, and putting things into walls, ceiling and floor and not know plus Trio on people outside.

And mock up confusions for stable data, name, etc. Also Axiom 10 processes.

By creative processing pc can be required to mock up a motionless object and “hold it still”. If it can be made still for an instant have him let it go and mock up another. Use general, heavy objects at first. Then selected objects to run out inabilities of pc (such as typewriters, palettes, books, etc).

Fight the wall can be used but only with great care.

Have pc run motionlessness by having him “Find an object” “Tell it to be still”. “Is it?”

There are a great many ways to strip obsessive motion from a pc. Any workable one can be run. Remember that emphasis on all control processes is on STOP. Run stillness, not motion.

Observe the following:

Havingness drops when compulsive game cond. comes in. Repair havingness rather than run out agitation.

Pcs, I discover, go from minus tone scale up to being able to have problems or tone or solids. Any case has some point that goes from no-effect or unreal or don’t care up to apathy. Cases go north to apathy. There are no-tone cases. These are compulsive G.C.

Thinkingness processes reduce havingness no matter what button they hit. Solids, effort, emotion, perceive are all above think.

The pc’s cognitions are valuable. But don’t run thought out faster than havingness and solids in general run in. Never shoot for phrases. Ignore them. Before and After Solids, calmly run, bring up vast numbers of computations. Don’t knock out havingness with too much 2-way. Don’t go out of A-R-C with pc with too little 2-way. How much 2-way or think is answered by “how can we get solids into this case”.

Always run on a game condition basis. Enemy can have is deadly on pc. Can’t have on enemy okay. Effect on pc is fatal. Pc’s Effect on others okay. What pc could change is fine. What could change pc terrible.

The path to truth lies through solids, effort, emotion, perception and Not Know; it is not to be found amongst thinking.

On Control, it is the first step toward solids. Pc won’t start until he is sure he can stop.

To have pc insist on light is to bring him to tolerate and handle the dark.

Profiles and IQ gain when pc regains ability in solids in bank and universe and can plank emotion into walls wholesale. Intolerance of solids made him think. Failure to control solids made him intolerant of them. Thus havingness is the first goal.

Havingness is reduced by bad A-R-C, inaccurate or clumsy auditing, running thinking processes and ignoring real pt problems.

Reality begins with good A-R-C with auditor and becomes tolerable with regained control of Mest and gets real with solids. That’s the best track for high gains in the light of what we know now.

LRH:re.rd                                  				L. RON HUBBARD

Issue 34                             [1956, ca. late August]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

Havingness

L. Ron Hubbard

Prepared from a lecture to the London Auditors’ Meeting,
31 January 1956, entitled “Basic Lecture on Havingness.”

We have talked and written a great deal on the subject of havingness ever since the days of the research in 1952 and 1953 which led up to the codification of SCIENTOLOGY: 8-8008, which was the anatomy of universes. It would seem that this point could be overstressed. Perhaps we could say more than needs to be said about havingness. Yet no matter how many reams we have written and how many hours we have talked about this thing, we probably haven’t even scratched, not even scratched the subject of havingness.

Everything that has ever been said about Creative Processing and about problems and solutions and about perception and spacation and about the “Black Five” has been on this subject.

First and foremost, HAVINGNESS IS THE POSTULATE THAT ONE MUST COMMUNICATE versus THE POSTULATE THAT ONE MUST COMMUNICATE TO SOMETHING.

You can see at once that this poses a cross-postulate. These two musts are not the same must. They are cross-purposes.

If one has nothing to communicate TO, all he can do is communicate THROUGH. He would have the condition of endless space with nothing stopping the communication all the way.

Now I want to call your attention to a little sport that is carried on in one part of the world. It used to be a Greek sport, then was transferred to Spain and Mexico. They got a bull, who was crazy enough to pick up a mock-up in that general neighborhood, and they get him in there and have him run at a cape. He runs at the cape, he goes through the cape and he runs at the cape and he goes through the cape. And you just watch this bull’s MORALE deteriorate!

Then they take some old horse that is padded with blankets (the padding is never thick enough—Spanish thirst for blood) and they let the bull finally charge and push at the horse. Usually the bull gets the horse and the picador over between the fence and himself. The fence is nice and solid. The bull starts to really go to town.

You can see his morale go up, up, up, up, up, up.

In fact he would practically be a well bull if he could find that horse and that fence solid enough. Well, as gory as the spectacle may or may not be, the point of the matter is that while the bull is working on this the picador leans on him very heavily into the hump with a big fork and discourages him from finding something solid and from pushing that hard. 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 just hits this red cape) and he finds again nothing there, he’s done. Without being really hurt (he’s just sore and he’s lost a small amount of blood) he just loses his nerve. He finally stands there in terror, and then he sinks into apathy, and he gets to such a point that the matador can walk over and fixate him. A good matador (once in a blue moon you see a good matador) will simply fix the bull into any position. He could probably stand him up in the air if he wanted to, because the bull is in a state of shock. He is hypnotized. He believes that there is nothing solid anywhere, and that no matter how hard he charges he will hit nothing. He’s gone. If they simply kept him pushing at the red cape a little longer he would probably fall over dead anyhow. They wouldn’t have to use a sword.

Now, the physical aspect of a bullfight and the aspect of a thetan in the physical universe are not too wide apart, not too different, since the trick in both is to get them to charge at nothing: To get a bull to charge at a cape where he thinks there is something and to have him find out that there is nothing behind the red of the cape; to get a thetan, a living being, to move toward or put out a communication toward something and to then convince him that there is nothing there after all.

And then the trick is to convince them that there is nothing they can charge, until at last they do not believe that they can touch or lean on anything. A thetan then has a feeling that if he did utter a communication he would only spend what mass he had, because the communication would just go on out there forever and endlessly.

No longer to be able to touch anything, no longer anything real.

Now, these two counter-postulates. If an individual supposes that he should communicate and if his joy and game and desire is communication (and it has to have that game postulate) 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, any time he says anything, because it never arrives anywhere. No termination and no terminal.

So he eventually does this interesting thing—he says something into a mass which HE HIMSELF PUTS THERE in order to have something to say something to.

Now—however we want to classify this—whatever conditions or significances we wish to place upon this action—it nevertheless follows that this aspect of man fighting himself is man merely trying to reassure himself that there will be something there to hit with his communication.

Whenever you could say to someone that the only trouble he is having with himself is his fighting himself and putting up barriers to himself, you can also understand that this is what he is doing and why he is doing it. You don’t have to classify any further.

An individual goes along putting up barriers and masses and pictures, so that, in case there is nothing there to receive his communication, he can reassure himself that there is something there after all, because he put it there and then found it. He runs into his own barriers, his own terminals.

A thetan doesn’t like the idea (and this not liking is again only a consideration) of speaking into a vast and endless nothingness, so what he does is to accumulate his own terminals.

And so we get the phenomenon 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 capable of constructing totally a universe himself. The cycle is something like this: He builds a universe of one kind or another himself. Then he by agreement finds himself involved in a larger universe. To a marked degree he simply invests the universe, which he has himself created, into this larger universe. Sometimes he doesn’t like it, sometimes he does. But he then finds himself cojoining and existing with and in the physical universe.

And now, the physical universe does not offer him a sufficient number of terminals, terminals sufficient in number and magnitude to the potential volume of communication of which he is capable.

He then begins to manufacture his private universe all over again.

Now, it is very important for you to understand that the “universes” that people are packing around with them when they come in 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.

It IS quite interesting that anybody could find an insufficiency of universe in a universe that is so capable of solidity as the physical universe. That is one of the madder things that do happen.

It is done by disenfranchising the individual. He is told and persuaded that 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. The terminal cannot exist for him. That’s all it means.

And so he stops talking to it, because it doesn’t exist. An interesting opinion that someone could get into—that the wall doesn’t exist—because it happens to be the truth of the matter. It’s very easy, then, for him to fall into that one, because the wall is considerated.

The wall exists and is there only because someone considered it was there. When one no longer considers a wall to be there it is not there. Thus if one is FORCED into having no wall (or disenfranchised of the wall), he can nevertheless have the opinion that there is no wall, and it will be true.

We find him forced into truth. I’ve said before that the probable summary of aberration all up and down the track is that an individual is forced into truth and AWAY from a game. As long as one can ably create EVEN AS LOW A LEVEL AS LIE, or slightly less low level, a problem, he can still 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.

There are at least several routes for coming upon the truth of something, and of these routes the least practicable for the individual is through subjection by force to a truth. Nevertheless, the truth of something, even when arrived at by the route of subjection and force, will as-is the something and cause its vanishment, and thus it is no longer had. This is called by auditors the depletion of havingness. One is made to admit that what he conceives to be there is what is there and it vanishes for him. This is not such a great oddity, since the individual never intended himself to be the receipt point for what he has caused, and when his intention is overthrown in this matter, and he does become receipt point, or termination point, for this, the thing is terminated, and so, of course, it vanishes.

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, schoolteachers and so forth. “You must tell the truth.” And then, they wonder whether there is anything anywhere around that will explain the fact that a child ceases to be creative and imaginative after he’s been around for a while.

They must conceive that there is something dreadfully, dreadfully destructive in this child’s lying. A person who would conceive the imaginative impulses of a child to be lies and therefore bad is in an interesting condition himself. He is 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 the manifestation of a child who goes to his parent and asks for a nickel. He goes through the various levels of the tone scale and he slides on down and finally tells his Pa, when he hits bottom, even if his Pa holds out the nickel to him that he doesn’t want the nickel and he just wanders off in apathy.

That child could get into the position where he HAS TO make nothing of every nickel that he comes across. Take a rich father denying a child pennies. It’s an interesting and well-known fact that the rich man’s son is usually more aberrated on the subject of havingness than the other kids. He is continually told that he can have everything, and all kinds of things are actually forced on him in some fashion. But his power of choice, especially where money is concerned, is overthrown and overridden, and he finally comes into the conviction that there isn’t any money anyway. And the old man’s fortune falls finally into his hands and SWISH—it’s gone.

You take just about any rich man’s son and audit him and you will normally discover that he cannot have money. Money is something that if it came into his vision he’d have to make nothing of it at once. The various enforcements that have been put upon him because of the importance of the amount of money in his family have at last turned him around into an inhibition of having money. This is a fascinating thing.

Now let us leave such a relatively interesting subject as money for the relatively uninteresting subject of a wall, and we find that the same thing applies to a wall. A wall or an object or anything that is solid. A child says, “I just shot a giraffe out in the yard, Mama.” His mother is in pretty good condition, and she says, “You did? Well now you make sure you bury it.”

Or, Mama’s not in so very good shape, and is pretty well done in on the subject of havingness, and she knows there’s no giraffe in the backyard, of course not. “Johnny,” she says, “you really didn’t see a giraffe in the backyard now did you. Now tell me. You realize you break my heart with these lies.”

This is a standard happenstance to mock-ups in children.

I have had as a writer some of the damedest things told to me about purely imaginative sequences in stories of mine. I have had people turn around to me and tell me from time to time, about something in a story, “That didn’t really happen, you know.” Well, of course it didn’t. There wasn’t a word of truth in the whole sequence. They get very upset about it. 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 regards to walls, etc., 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 doesn’t really exist (it would 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!
I wrote a story one time called “Beyond The Black Nebula.” Well, I don’t know whether there’s anything on the other side of the black nebula—I never looked—but WOW! People got upset about that story. I 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.

Probably this barrier, as they read the story, was threatening to get actual and thick. And they were saying, “Well, maybe there is this barrier.”

“You shouldn’t do this to us, Ron.” That kind of a reaction.

Well here is 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 in which it was given. The spirit of game. But when a person could no longer have, he could no longer accept anything offered to him. A very interesting thing. I imagine there are a great many girls who, if you walked up to them and handed them a pearl necklace, would have to assure themselves that it was a phoney or something of the sort, or that it was worthless for some reason. They’d probably take it down at once to have it assayed just to be sure, and if they were told that it was a real pearl necklace they’d be quite upset about it. You could probably spin them in and ruin their whole lives by giving them a pearl necklace.

One of the ways people make nothing of things is to misintend them. So that, you could come back the next week, perhaps, and find that she’s using the necklace to decorate a cake.

You find this among savage tribes particularly. On a high-toned basis people would be doing this to make something persist. On a low-toned basis they would be simply trying to get rid of it by saying it doesn’t exist or isn’t the way it is. So you get one manifestation meaning two different things, relative to where the person is situated as to havingness. Can have and can’t have.

This whole subject of havingness, while it embraces all of existence and all of experience, boils down to two things: communication and terminals.

And there is a great oddity about the whole thing. Any time you as an auditor had difficulty with the problem of havingness with a preclear, or had any difficulty with the problem of the preclear, that’s because you departed from this rather strange maxim: THERE CAN’T BE ENOUGH HAVINGNESS.

You see? You never get a superabundance of terminals. The other day I saw Helen of Troy (the movie!). You hear the Greeks outside the walls. Now, you’d say they would be resenting those walls badly. In other words, they were trying to NOT HAVE those walls, so that they COULD have the spoils of Troy. Fine. There’s a certain greed there. They want the spoils inside the walls. They can’t have those. The walls say they can’t have the spoils.

The funny part of the whole thing is that the reason they couldn’t have them is: they couldn’t have the walls!

You can develop almost any situation in life and resolve it on that basis.

If you’re trying to get over a barrier to gain something else, then it’s a cinch you can’t have the barrier.

If you can come into possession of the barrier you come into possession also of what it is a barrier to.

The only reason a person can get trapped is that he can’t have traps. And the only reason he goes out and GETS himself trapped is because he CANNOT BE TRAPPED. It’s really quite interesting.

Now, if you really have all the walls and barriers of the physical universe, they pose no problem to you. Here is the situation in which we get the total vanishment of things—you start owning something properly (addressing the truth of the ownership) and it doesn’t exist any more. There is a difference here between the two kinds of operations you can undertake about having and owning. You find that HAVE is maybe a MISOWNERSHIP. So here are two systems: own and have, or own and misown.

In order to have a problem, in order to have a game, we have to select out some of the walls and barriers as unhavable. And then you can have a problem in connection with some OTHER havingness.

METHODS

If you do not have methods of acquisition, there is really no acquisition possible. There would be a total acquisition. If you had a total acquisition you would own everything there is. The way to own everything there is is simply to own everything there is without any system of owning everything there is.

The trouble with owning everything without using any system for owning everything is that it is much too true, and being true, does not make a persistence, so that, by owning everything there is you end up having nothing.

The two postulates which when counterposed bring about havingness are: communicate and communicate to something. This brings about some problems which are very odd: “I must communicate and there must be a barrier to communicate to, but of course a barrier is antipathetic to communication. No, a barrier is necessary to communication, no, a barrier is antipathetic to communication. No, a barrier is necessary to communication because a 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. That would be an interesting problem. That would throw someone into apathy.

But the funny part of it is that it wouldn’t throw him into apathy anywhere as fast as simply being able to go through that wall and take his body with him. That would upset him. I guarantee you, that would upset him.

No barriers. Nothing stops anything anywhere.

STOPS

Now, let us have a look at the remedy of havingness in the light of STOPS.

In Dianetics we have the “command phrase.” Command phrases come down to just three things: start, change or stop.

But the whole subject of the engram is the subject of “can’t have.” A moment of pain or unconsciousness is a moment of can’t have. If, at a certain moment, an individual couldn’t have the environment, couldn’t have the circumstances he was undergoing, violently couldn’t have these things, then it is a certainty that he’ll pile up an engram right at that spot in time. That’s what he’ll have—an engram.

Let’s see how that would be. He resists the environment to such a degree and considers it so foreign, so solid and so dangerous, that he makes something very much like a plaster cast of that moment, a kind of energy plaster cast of the environment. Thus a facsimile. This thing is far more durable than any cast of stone or plaster.

This tells us something very important. The VISIBLE engrams were those of LOSS. Those things in the environment that the individual couldn’t have, he resisted.

There is a very peculiar thing about these facsimiles, these can’t-have pictures. They’re backwards. They are usually black backed. The energy pushed upon these things is black energy. It’s just as if one had a lot of pictures turned face to the wall. That’s the blackness of lots of cases, and the reason why blackness succeeds a lot of pictures.

Handling the environment with energy and then with heavy energy goes down a certain road. There is a thing called a tensor beam. A thetan can do something that a physicist has not yet learned to do with energy. He can make a beam grab something. That’s a tractor beam.

Have you been talked to lately by someone who didn’t really have anything to say, but kept on talking? It seems sometimes as though he had a tensor beam around your neck and he’s holding you there, and you can’t leave.

The electronic structure of a pretty girl who’s just walked down the street is a very interesting thing to behold. Every guy she’s passed has put a tensor beam over her head.

Well, that’s “MUSTN’T LET THAT TERMINAL GO ANY FURTHER AWAY.” That’s the motto of that beam.

So the individual can have and then he can lose. He decides he can lose, and if he feels he is going to lose any part of his environment, he will hook a beam over it and he’ll hold it there in front of him. If you take a facsimile apart very carefully, aside from simply mocked-up or copied facsimiles, you’ll see that it is cross-sectionalized as a tractor beam. He’s trying to hold something from leaving him.

He is unable to retain to him the actual object. He makes a picture of the object that he can look at straight. He’ll say, “Oh, I don’t like these pictures. They bother me. Take a few away from me,” etc.

Below that level he goes into blackness, which is simply pressing on things to push them away. He’s in that frame of mind about things. Anyone’s got some blackness. It isn’t true that some cases are black and some are not.

When it turns up on a preclear you are auditing on remedy of havingness, you can have him mock up some blackness and shove it in.

So we get engrams of resistance and the engrams of resistance are black.

And we get engrams of Mustn’t Go Away, and they’re 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 his secondary universe. It isn’t really his universe. It’s pictures of the physical universe which he retains 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 his friend, and they have been very good friends for a long time, and his friend says, “I’m going to Galway now, and I’ll be up there for a couple of years.” And he feels terrible about it. He tries to persuade him not to go. He can’t tolerate all that distance between himself and his friend. Friends are scarce.

Another fellow has lots of friends. One of them says, “I’m going to Galway.” He says, “O.K., fine. I’ll be up to see you sometime pretty soon.”

That says he can tolerate that distance and this Galway business doesn’t much reduce his havingness. He’d be in good shape—easy to get along with.

It’s not so easy to get along with someone that you are the only one to.

All right now, as we look over the general situation in regard to havingness, we find that the scale declines from having one’s own universe exclusively, to: cooperating with a 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. We get a flip from must have to resist parts of the physical universe and from there we go on to: total not have.

That is a disenfranchisement of the individual. The story of processing in Scientology is the story of the reversal of that disenfranchisement.

If all the people in the world were suddenly to have no use for any pay, goods or commodities, there would not be the game. They would not be regulatable in any way. If they decided that everything was theirs anyway, and that they didn’t need anything, there would not be this game. That would be too high a level of game for a game to be in progress.

Now, nobody pretends that anybody is going to get up to that level of game. The funny part of it is, however, that as they get up toward that level of game, they go back toward not-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, now—you 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 having to make nothing of everything there is?” Are you by any chance in that band? Or, are you enjoying life? These are the same questions. No difference, except that one fellow wouldn’t be in the universe. He wouldn’t be there so hypothetically to ask. But the guy who can’t have anything is there to get. He is certainly there. He’s stuck.

STUCK

Now, let’s look at this thing called stuck. The old engram. We used to have holders, groupers, denyers, etc. These are embryonic barriers. These are barriers aborning, you might say. The statement or postulate to stop. And the 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 the condition of the bull. Almost unknowingly he does this. So that there will be 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 he is in. There is an earlier universe, which is his own universe, and which has walls and barriers, too. But, for our processing purposes, we’re talking about this primary universe, the physical universe. We’re talking of the reactive mind, the facsimiles, engrams, energy pictures, 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 and where it comes from.

AUDITING THE HAVINGNESS SCALE

Very often you have to get the preclear over the hump on the subject of havingness on his reactive mind. These secondary universes could just as well be called reactive universes. With creative processes, mock-up processes, we can handle this reactive bank havingness. You understand that this is not the preclear’s Own Universe.

These extend at once to a higher echelon—the physical universe. So then, you remedy his havingness totally on the physical universe and get him to have everything in the physical universe—no longer with mock-ups. You just have him look around at things and find out what he can have. When you have him totally remedy this subject, he is then in a position to create a home universe—a universe of his own.

There you have the graduated scale—it goes from REACTIVE to PHYSICAL to HOME UNIVERSE.

How far can you go with havingness? You could separate somebody 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. Then he’d have to know that he could create something else.

This game of havingness is absolutely necessary to auditing.

Apparently, to many people, havingness means barriers and barriers mean lack of freedom. But to you, an auditor, barriers should mean a game. And you should know that an absence of barriers is the trouble with a preclear when a preclear is having trouble. HE JUST DOESN’T HAVE ENOUGH BARRIERS.

Now, when a preclear’s got a cold, that doesn’t mean that you are going to tell him he hasn’t got enough colds. It somehow wouldn’t communicate. But there it is-the preclear HASN’T got enough colds. Preclear has migraine headaches—hasn’t got enough migraine headaches. Whatever it is, whatever the condition is, something has gotten scarce, and the next step after getting scarce is, for it to get valuable. The mechanism of something getting valuable—it first must get scarce.

After becoming scarce a thing becomes very, very valuable; and then it becomes so valuable, it’s 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 even existed. Now, I’m sure there’s many a girl who is very good-looking who has reached this point about Kohinoor diamonds. She’d kind of doubt if they exist. They’re probably all cut glass. “I don’t see what’s so good about them—even if they do exist.”

She’s in apathy on the subject, and that’s very dangerous. If women got that way about diamonds, fur coats, Rolls Royces, bank accounts—do you know what would happen? The whole game with the society would just be gone.

AUDITING HAVINGNESS

As an auditor looking over this material on havingness you may also be looking at the points where processing hasn’t measured up for you on yourself.

So let’s not, in trying to do something with the preclear, ourselves fall across this one. You’ve got the situation well in hand if you have this, that barriers are not necessarily bad, that barriers are, to the contrary, necessary, and that what has happened to the preclear is that he has run out of barriers, and thus has run out of games, and has come to the place of detesting barriers. Therefore we will simply figure out some way of giving the preclear some barriers.
There are two interesting little processes that come up on these lines.

One, a process for the auditor who has gotten into a flinching position regarding preclears—can’t have preclears—is a little game that you can play.

Do you ever find yourself flinching from a preclear, just flinching a little bit and backing away from the session? If you were to take a look at your own immediate vicinity you would discover that your own space was collapsed to about there at the end of your nose. The preclear’s got all the rest of the space of the room. But you’re being uncomfortable. What happens? You can’t have the preclear, so you put a barrier up there that you can have and talk to anyhow. This is a completely standard practice with people, but for an auditor it is not standard and not practical at all.

To a degree you have gone out of communication with the preclear. Here’s a little stunt. You just find something about the preclear that you can have.

What has happened is that you have run out of havingness of the preclear. That’s all that has happened. And then you go out of session as an auditor. The beginning of it is when you at some time had too few preclears. You have too few preclears, and then 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’s rattling on at a gruelling rate of horror, horrible fates, and so forth, and you start backing up a little bit. You know, it’s all for the preclear, and your space finally collapses to about the tip of your nose, and you’ve run out of havingness of one preclear.

You’re liable to lose another one, then another one and then it gets to be a habit. Then, “Well, I haven’t audited anybody for weeks. There isn’t anybody to audit.” Very hard to find preclears.

But the same law applies. If there is anything wrong on the subject of havingness or the subject of terminals, it is that there are not enough. There cannot be a superabundance of terminals.

This street could not be stacked full enough of preclears really to satisfy your idea of a few preclears, if you were really rolling.

It would be, “Well, I’ve got 8,000 preclears to audit between now and next month.” That’s the frame of mind you’d be in, if you could really have them all. “Audit one on the phone, one in front of me.” And the couple of preclears in the waiting room—put them in the antechamber and have them co-audit. (I’ve done that, by the way. Somehow don’t like to have people wait.)

If you find yourself backing off from the preclear, you can build your havingness of the preclear back up again. As you’re auditing him, you can quietly and privately pick it up. You’d think I was joking if I told you the things you can do with a preclear when you are really able to have a preclear.

But there is this little stunt. You just quietly look the situation over, and start adding up, SOMETHING YOU CAN HAVE ABOUT THE PRECLEAR. Just one thing after another. Add them up and repair your havingness of preclears.

WALLS

Now, here is another little process that you can use on the other side of this thing. You are faced with a great many preclears in this world who can’t have a wall or anything else. And you want to have some way of giving them some barriers.
Just have the preclear start mocking up walls, flat against his nose.

It doesn’t matter what kind of walls. It’s one of these processes that can just go on and on with continuing cognition. He’ll get better and better walls. He’ll start protesting at once about these walls. He’ll say, “Up against my nose! Isn’t that awfully close for a wall?”

So we just get walls, walls, walls, and more walls. Don’t do anything with them. Let them evaporate or stay there or do anything else. Just keep mocking up walls.

In doing this you are capitalizing on some information that the preclear might not have, but that you do have. A wall actually is a very specialized kind of a barrier. He often won’t recognize a person as a communication terminal or something which will act as a backstop. He can’t see that. But he knows, more or less, that if he did run against a wall and hit his head on it, there would be an impact. He knows this. So you have him mock up walls, and you capitalize on this amount of information.

There are some fancier things you could do with this, but having the preclear mock up walls flat against his nose is what you want at this point to get him up to the game of having a session.

SCARCE

Now, if you will just check over this datum that there can’t be enough terminals and that when the preclear complains of having something it’s something he doesn’t have and can’t have and can’t get enough of, then you will be in a very good position regarding the auditing of a preclear.

Suppose it’s the very tough preclear. He’s in real bad shape. He’s going to come in to you and he knows exactly what he’s doing—he’s going to make nothing out of everything. Nothing out of this, nothing out of that, nothing out of something else, and nothing out of that and nothing out of you and he goes away and makes nothing out of your bill!

And if you let him get away with this he’s going to stay in processing forever, but what’s the point?

So, the preclear’s got a ridge. Conclusion: he hasn’t got enough ridges. Preclear’s got a cold: he hasn’t got enough colds. Preclear’s got a bum leg: not enough bum legs. Bad lungs: not enough bad lungs.

When we were studying havingness three years ago I rather supposed it was an interchange of energy which discharged the bad and left the good. I always stated that a little cautiously to myself; it just didn’t seem quite right. It wasn’t quite workable.

We can see now that the mystery of this thing had to do with these counterpostulates that comprise havingness. We find that we didn’t have him mock up enough colds and bad enough colds. Not enough.

When we do this, the preclear discovers that there are more colds in the world than just this one; there is not this great scarcity of colds. And he’ll let go of it. It becomes less valuable.

Now there is one other point here. Since the condition is only a condition, as, for instance, a cold is a cold, or a headache is a headache, and is NOT a terminal, your rule in auditing is to address the TERMINAL involved, rather than the condition. Thus you would run a process, “What problem could that arm be to you?” and not, “What problem could that burn be to you?” The terminal is the arm, not the burn. Actually you would be bringing up the preclear’s reality on his arm to the point where it could be a terminal to him without the burn.

OBJECTIVE

Now, as we look over this general situation, we discover that we must bring our preclear into possession of a great deal more of the physical universe than he has.

Regardless of the subjective remedies, we’ve got to get him into a physical universe remedy too. And the way we do that is this. We ask him to “Look around here, what could you have?” You don’t let him do this subjectively. You make him open 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 could 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 to where they can have something. If they’re making nothing out of everything they can’t have anything. Those two statements 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. 

WASHINGTON DC	              				                      Via HCO LONDON

BRIEFING BULLETIN

STAFF AND SEMINAR LEADERS

GAMES CONGRESS, SHOREHAM HOTEL
31 August—3 September 1956

THEORY: 	The most adequate answer to life’s puzzle is Games. The ordinary concept of games or play is comprehensible to anyone.

Games have many factors. Some work well in processing, some don’t, all explain life.

The basic game of a thetan is evidently nothing versus something as in the process “make it solid”. He can never really be something, thus can never really duplicate in himself a solid—yet he makes solids across spaces out of game impulse.

PRACTICE:  Always process toward a games condition. Never process toward a no-game-condition. Always process games conditions. Never process no-game conditions. This is more complicated than you think.

All games are aberrative. All games are continuing by definition since an unstarted game isn’t a game and a finished game isn’t a game.

In the following list we have most processable games conditions and the most to be avoided no-game-conditions.

Each item on both lists could be “knowing games condition” or “unknowing games condition”, “knowing no-games-condition”, “unknowing no-games-condition”.

Using both lists at a knowing games level, we have sanity. At an unknowing games level we have aberration, neurosis or psychosis.

GAMES CONDITION	NO-GAMES-CONDITION
KNOWING OR UNKNOWING	KNOWING OR UNKNOWING
Not know	Know
      forget	      remember
Interest
Disinterest
Attention	No Attention
Self-Determinism	Pan-Determinism
Identity	Namelessness
Individuality
Problems	Solutions
Can’t Have	Have
      (games have some
         havingness)
Alive	Neither alive nor dead
Opponents	Friends—alone
Facsimiles	No pictures or Universes
Continued Solidity	No spaces or solids
Continued Adherence
      Loyalty, disloyalty	No friends or enemies
      betrayal, help
Motion	No Motion
Emotion	Serenity
Continued Action	Motionless
Hot	No temperature
Cold
Thinking	Knowing
Hate
     (some love)
Continued Doubt of Result	Win—Lose
     (Expecting a Revelation)
No Effect on Self	Effect on Self
Effect on others	No Effect on others
Stop Communication	No A R C
Change Communication	No No-A R C
Into It	Out of It
Agitation	Calm
Noise	Silence
     (some silence)
Control	No Control
Start—Change—Stop
Change Most Imp
Responsibility	No Responsibility

Inspecting these two lists we find all unlimited and highly workable processes under Games Conditions. We find all limited and unworkable processes under No-Game-Conditions. We then avoid No-Game-Conditions in processing. We process the pc playing as a game in all phases.

It is true that the Game Condition List contains a regimen unworkable in life. It isn’t supposed to be. It’s aberrative and we process it.

The only certain processes which can be run on No-Game-Conditions are Consequences (the penalty resulting from) and “Mock up a confusion to which (no-game-cond) could be a stable datum.”

Now behold that the list of No-Game-Conditions is a summary of the native state of a thetan. That means that the native state not only doesn’t process but winds the pc up in difficulties if processed. To establish native state you run out the Unknowing Games Condition of the preclear.

BEST PROCESSES

Control Processing—Start—Change and Stop on objects or pc’s body, emphasis on change.
Fight the Wall—Have pc with actual body or mock-ups fight the walls of room or objects in outside environment.
Opponents—Lie about, invent, opponents. This goes all the way south.
Individuality—Lie about, invent, an individuality that would impress people (8 dynamics).
Escape Processing—Mock up a mock-up and say bodies, Mest U, can’t have it.
Effect Processing—Lie about an effect you’re having. (I’m not having any effect from my tooth.)
Lie about an effect you are having on __________.
Problems—Lie about, invent, problem of comp mag to	        . How could that be a
problem to you? Also consequences of solutions.
Solids—What are you looking at? Make it solid.

VACUUMS

A vacuum is a super-cold object which if brought in contact with bank, drinks bank. Objects at 25°F or less have high electrical capacitance, low resistance. This was psychiatry billions of years ago. Shocks, ether, can act similarly. This is how one mechanically forgets past. He depends on pictures, loses pictures to a vacuum incident. Vacuums restimulate and drink up pc’s havingness. They are just incidents. This is brainwashing. You encounter these running solids. Opponents, individualities, more solids, problems, undo them.

RESTIMULATION

When one violates a game-condition, intends to have an effect on something and doesn’t, he often puts the effect on his body. He thus gets a no-effect on opponent, makes an effect on self.

This is restimulation. It is also stimulus-response.

“Effect you could have on                       (people, pcs, etc)” remedies this.

Self audit while auditing same thing. Same process resolves.
* * * * * * * * * *
TO SEPARATE VALENCES

The separation of valences is done by the following steps:

  1. 	Get pc under control with start-change-stop. Lots of it.
  2. 	Unjam track with “What are you looking at—make it solid.”—(anything
 	jamming track can be run as a valence below.)
  3. 	Choose valence or valences, weakest universe preferred.
  4. 	“What would interest       (universe so chosen)?”
  5. 	“Invent an opponent of comparable magnitude to          .”
  6. 	“What would get the attention of           ?”
  7. 	“What        can’t have. (objectively only on room)”
  8. 	“What could you protect        from?”
  9. 	“What communication could you prevent	          from originating?”
10. 	Problems of comparable magnitude to______
11. 	“Invent a game you could play with	.”
12. 	“Make        fight the wall.”

         Then run 4 to 12 again to check

VALENCES

“What would interest	                      ?”
“What could get the attention of	             ?”
“What                        can’t have?”
“What could you protect                         from?”
“What could you protect your body from______________?”
“What would disinterest you?”
“What communication could you prevent	             from originating?”

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:re.bh 30/7/56

P.A.B. No. 95
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
20 Buckingham Street, London W.C.2

_____________________________________________________________________

1 September 1956

VALENCES

Amongst the several types of valences the least suspected and most interesting in terms of processing is the “synthetic valence.”

By synthetic valence we mean those valences which have never actually confronted the preclear in the flesh. The first valence is of course the preclear’s “own valence,” which is his own concept of himself. The next is the valence additive to him by the characteristics of his body. The next is the “direct valence” by which he has transferred identity with someone who has directly confronted him, and following this there is the “attention valence,” the valence one has assumed because it got attention from another valence. And at the end of this list there is the synthetic valence, and of all of them it is the most baffling.

The greatest historical example of this is probably Charles XII of Sweden who read the “romance of Alexander” by pseudo-Callisthenes and became so much an Alexander that he spent the remainder of his days attacking Russia in an effort to emulate his hero. Charles XII had never confronted Alexander—he had only been told about Alexander—but he had nevertheless assumed the valence of Alexander in most of his activities.

The little boy who looks at television and sees the cowboy in the white hat triumphing over all, or who sees Superman in the comic books, and then assumes these identities, is actually doing more or less a direct transfer. Where he is simply told about these and has never been confronted with any form of any kind to corroborate the telling, he would have a case of synthetic valence. He has been read to about Tom Sawyer and becomes Tom Sawyer without ever seeing Tom Sawyer or looking at Tom Sawyer. This would be a case of synthetic valence.

We get the synthetic valence in many amusing and non-aberrative games conditions and here it does us little problem making. But the synthetic valence can become an evil genius in a case when it has been carefully and expressly tailored as an alteration from the direct valence which might have occurred. As an example of this we have the case of the father who, in the mother’s absence or even when she is sporadically present, tells the children consistently and continually what a bad mother they have. Father continually describes mother as a certain type of character and the children are then adjured not to transfer into this type of character. Naturally, resisting it, they do not actually transfer into mother’s valence, but transfer into a synthetic valence of mother. In the case where mother, let us say, ran away or was lost to the family early in the child’s life, he may have no real recollection of mother, but may have a synthetic valence of mother. This becomes very difficult to run because it is run mainly on a sonic level.

As another example, one is told consistently and continually that all men of force or all conquerors are bad, and one is warned never to become a conqueror. This is of course an excellent way to make nothing out of an individual, but here we have a false valence—a personality which never existed—and we discover in the lives of the conquerors that they actually were not totally possessed of bad characteristics. In order to dominate his fellow beings to the marked extent necessary in a conqueror, one could not possess totally bad characteristics, and the actual character of most conquerors is quite different than the assigned character given them by the society—a fact which does not make a conqueror any less liable for the crimes he commits, but which gives us an insight into the tailor-making of characters who never lived.

The keynote of all synthetic valences is that a character has been developed or created more or less out of whole cloth, possibly with some small foundation, but certainly with exaggeration, which puts into existence a being who never breathed or coughed or spat. The police and newspapers are continually doing this. You actually don’t know whether the criminals who have been arrested by the police and tried in the newspapers were the people who were arrested or not, since they are assigned a synthetic valence and are condemned as very bad people indeed. Of course some of these criminals were or are bad, but the chances are that amongst this legion of people arrested and tried in the newspapers there were some who were quite deserving men and whose actual character and behavior did not even vaguely compare with the represented character.

We have a flagrant case of synthetic valences when newspapers and other public media, and even word of mouth gossip, begin to take to pieces anyone’s character and put in its place some synthetic understanding which was never a real person. In this way we begin to believe there are many more bad people in the world than there are.

In my own experience with bad men—and I have met several of various nationalities—I have seen some men who could put up a rather ferocious front, but I have never found one of them totally lacking in human warmth. Yet were I to read the newspapers and popular books on such people I would begin to believe it would be possible for a complete demon to exist who would never respond to any decent impulse. Yet I have argued bandits into a more amenable state of mind and have even taken a gun away from a Federal Marshal and showed him how to use it and told him not to be nervous and put it back in his holster, when he was bound and determined to take me into custody. In other words, you can actually create an effect on almost anybody. The synthetic valence is an effort to tell you and people that beings can exist who are so bad that no effect can be produced on them. Of course this makes everybody subservient to them.

The greatest historical example of this was the invention of the Devil by the Persian priests who were called together to synthesize a new religion for Persia. The Devil they invented there was borrowed later on by the Christians and was set up as something so evil that nothing could affect it. The Devil, of course, is the championship synthetic valence of all time. There are no devils upon whom one cannot produce an effect.

The way to run out any synthetic valence, of course, is to run out the valence of the person or book which told one about the synthetic valence.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 96
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
20 Buckingham Street, London W.C.2

_____________________________________________________________________

15 September 1956

JUSTICE

What is justice?

“The quality of mercy is not strained—it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven . . .” may be poetic but it is not definitive. It does, however, demonstrate that even in Shakespeare’s time men were adrift on the subject of justice, injustice, severity and mercy.

People speak of an action as unjust, or an action as just. What do they mean? ‘ii et unless we can understand exactly what is meant by these terms, we certainly cannot undertake to evaluate the actions of individuals, communities and nations. For the lack of an ability to so evaluate, misunderstandings come about, which have in the past led to combative personal relationships and on the international scene to war. An individual or a nation fails or refuses to understand the measures taken by another or fails to fall within the agreement of the pattern to which others are accustomed and chaos results.

In Scientology the following definitions now exist:

JUSTICE—The impartial administration of the laws of the land in accordance with the extant level of the severity-mercy ratio of the people.

LAWS—The codified agreements of the people crystallizing their customs and representing their believed-in necessities of conduct.

MERCY—A lessening away from the public’s acceptance of discipline necessary to guarantee their mutual security.

SEVERITY—An increase in that discipline believed necessary by the people to guarantee their security.

INJUSTICE—Failure to administer existing law.

EQUITY—Any civil procedure holding citizens responsible to citizens which delivers decision to persons in accordance with the general expectancy in such cases.

RIGHTS—The franchises of citizenship according to existing codes.

When laws are not derived from custom or when a new law contravenes an uncancelled old law, exact law becomes confused and injustice is then inevitable.

Basic justice can occur only when codified law or a majority-held custom exists.

Observing these definitions, jurisprudence only then becomes possible. Law courts, legislatures and legislation become confused, as nothing is possible in the absence of an understanding of such principles.

Laws which do not derive from agreement amongst the society which we call custom, are unenforceable unless there is then a widespread agreement that this is customary in the society. No matter how many police are hired, no matter the purity of prose with which the legislation is written, no matter the signatures occurring on the enforcing document, the public will not obey that law. Similarly, when a government acts to ignore certain basic customs amongst the people and refuses to enforce them, that government then finds itself in a state of civil turmoil with its people on that subject. We can look at any public-government battle and discover that it stems exactly from a violation of these principles.

An understanding on the part of a nation of the difficulties of another is necessary to a continued peace. When one nation begins to misunderstand the motives and justices conceived necessary by another nation, stress sets up which eventually leads to war, all too often. For example, there is an existing upset in the world whereby the people of the United States and Great Britain are highly critical of the Government of the Union of South Africa for their “treatment of native peoples.” It is considered in England and the United States that the Government of South Africa is altogether too harsh with its native peoples. It is sadly humorous to notice that the native in South Africa, however, holds an exactly reverse opinion and the fault he finds with the South African Government is that it is far too lenient in its administration of laws throughout the native populace. As an example, an African guilty of cattle theft according to tribal law would probably be beaten over a considerable period in time and then buried in an anthill. The South African Government gives such a crime a punishment of a short period in jail, which is not at all adequate to guarantee the security of the remaining natives who own cattle. The most flagrant example is the white nurse, Quilan, who was torn to pieces and eaten by three men and a woman during recent riots in South Africa. The African tribal punishment would have decreed that these people themselves be killed and eaten. The South African Government incurred a great deal of censure from its native population by giving these people only six months in jail. In other words, what is severe to an African and what is severe to an Englishman or an American are entirely different matters. What is merciful to an African, what is merciful to an Anglo-American is quite different. Thus what is justice to an African is quite different than what is justice to an Anglo-American.

Whenever there is an excessive commotion amongst a people against its government, the government is then invited to act as an opponent to the people. If a government is acting towards its people as though it were an opponent of the people and not a member of the team, it becomes obvious that many of these points which violate the customs of the people must exist in the law codes of the country. Wherever such a point exists turbulence results.

And that is justice.

                                    					L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
20 Buckingham Street, London W.C.2

HCO PROCESSING SHEET OF 20 SEPTEMBER 1956

The following are useful and advantageous processes.

Comment: In running motionlessness on a preclear it will be discovered that the preclear must have an intention to have the thing still and must have some cognition that it got still and must have been able to have put the idea that it be still in the object. Unless the auditor is sufficiently inquisitive to have this occur you’re not going to get any upgrading results on your profile. The old saw “find out what the preclear is doing and how he is doing it” never worked more advantageously than when running holding things, keeping them still, or letting them be totally uncontrolled.

Comment: Self-determinism in the field of motion consists of by own power of choice permitting a thing to be still or not to be still, permitting a thing to be changed or not to be changed, permitting a thing to be started or not to be started, must be rehabilitated in the preclear. In other words, self-determinism consists here of returning his power of choice over controlling or not controlling at will. The preclear who is obsessively controlling will sooner or later fail to control and then will be controlled by something. The obsession to control, to start, to change, to stop, will be found to enter into the ARC triangle and is what depresses the preclear down scale on the tone scale.

Comment: The entirety of Games processing from an auditing standpoint summates into the necessity that all auditing be done with the preclear at cause; that is to say the preclear must do it to something else. Do not run things which are done to the preclear. In other words, have the preclear do things to the walls, do things to people, do things to his own body and do not run his own body, people, or the walls doing things to the preclear; that works out in the general activity.

Havingness:   The Trio run “Look around the room and find something you wouldn’t mind having” or “Look around the room and find something you could have” “could permit to remain” or “dispense with”, is completely legitimate as a process and will be found to be as advantageous as ever and should be run whenever the preclear becomes unduly agitated. Games processes demand that all can’t haves be run on something else than the preclear. In any situation where another terminal than the preclear is involved can’t have is run on that terminal. Have is not ever run on any terminal other than the preclear. Have is only run on the preclear himself. Can’t have is run on all other subjects, objects, valences and activities. In addition to this be very certain that you use terminals, not conditions; in other words, to run can’t have on “your asthma” is extremely foolish and will reduce the preclear’s havingness. Asthma is a condition of the respiratory organs—the proper auditing command is “Look around the room and find something that your respiratory organs cannot have” or “Look around the room and find something you would not permit your respiratory organs to have”.

Solids:   It will be discovered that holding things still, keeping things there and making things solid are all a gradient scale and if the auditing command is run on a book “Look at that book. Keep it there” or “Look at that book. Keep it from going away” that stillness and solids will follow as a condition. The fundamental command then is “Keep it there” from which stills, or stillness, or motionlessness and then solids ensue. However running motionlessness directly or solids directly is permissible.

Observation of objects:  Objective processes can be run by having the preclear locate objects and “Keep it from going away” followed by the alternate command “Permit it to be totally uncontrolled”.

Alternate commands:   The idea of alternate commands has not been properly understood by auditors. We have A and B commands. One is A: Look at it, two is B: Look away from it. The way an alternate command is run is to run: Look at it, Look away from it, Look at it, Look away from it, Look at it, Look away from it; not to run Look at it fifty times and then Look away from it fifty times. This is an alternate command basis. The Change-Unchange commands are extremely valuable when run on an alternate basis. One does not, however, flatten Change and then turn around and flatten Unchange. One runs Change, Unchange; Change, Unchange; one command for each. This has become important in our methods of running stillness.

Stop processes:   Stop processes can be run either of two ways. One can simply run Stop as itself and continue to run Stop, on various things such as the body, or he can run Stop, totally uncontrol, Stop, totally uncontrol, Stop, totally uncontrol; or Stop, in total motion, Stop, in total motion, on an alternate basis. It has not been tested or ascertained which of these methods, flattening Stop itself or running Stop and then “totally uncontrolled”, produces the highest gain; however it is known that Stop processes produce gain particularly on low-toned preclears.

Connectedness:   Have the preclear look around and find what he could be connected with. This is run in this fashion: “What in this room would you connect with yourself?” It is not run in this fashion: “What could you connect with in this room?” since the latter is a No-Games condition.

Stop-C-S:   After a preclear has been run on Start-C-S (one would simply and calmly flatten to some degree each one of the points of control, start, change and stop, in order to get a session going) there is a process known as Stop-C-S. This is a distinctly different process. Once one has plain S-C-S in operation then one has the commands of Stop-C-S. These are the same, but one specialises in Stopping the body. One has the preclear stop the body over and over and as the preclear becomes more accustomed to doing this one then changes the process on him to this extent—the auditor asks the preclear in running Stop-C-S, to “stop the body absolutely still”. This imposes a new discipline on the preclear and makes the process extremely difficult for him. It is only done when S-C-S and ordinary Stop-C-S have been to some slight degree flattened. Following up this “stop the body absolutely still” one can introduce Change into the process for a few commands in order to unflatten the Stop-C-S that has flattened. In other words when the Stop of Stop-C-S on an object or the body seems to be flat, one can run a few Change the body or Change the object and unflatten the Stop once more with a resultant alteration in the preclear’s ability to perform. When Stop-C-S seems flat then it should be unflattened at first by running Change-S-S with emphasis on Change and then when Change no longer upsets his ability to stop it, Starting it should be run as an alternate to Stop-C-S in order to unflatten it again.

It will be noted that higher toned preclears do not make very rapid gains on Stop-C-S, S-C-S, and “Hold it still” or “Keep it there” or “Keep it from going away”. It will be found that on preclears that have profiles already above the make-break line, middle line, of a profile sheet, that it is usually necessary to run subjective processes so as to separate valences to run over and under on the bank and in general to sort things out faster than on the more blunt processes. In other words, we have found the processes now which operate on relatively low scale cases and in order to improve a case above the level of solids when he has things fairly well under control it is necessary to do other things. This does not however excuse the running of figure-figure processes on preclears who can’t do anything with them. If you think that Stop-C-S and associated processes are flat then you should run subjective processes on valences or solids on the bank in order to recover the entirety of life span for the preclear. In other words, we go about the business of digging up unknowns. We flatten his reactions to such things as light, sound and other material. We separate out valences by having him mock them up and “Keep them there”, by making them still, by making them solid. We go in for the higher level of changes.

When a preclear seems to be all the way up to the top on all these processes it is then only necessary to run him on the re-establishment of abilities. One re-establishes his ability to speak Arabic, for instance, by having him mock up a mosque and keep it there (gradient scale from largest down to more significant objects in terms of the Arab world) and other things until these can be admitted by him to be totally solid. One then has him Stop an Arab from speaking Arabic by having him mock up an Arab and keep him from speaking Arabic and then eventually run Change and Start on this Arab. One also must run Arabs of different ages and run groups of Arabs and Arabs of different professions whose ability to speak Arabic is being controlled by the preclear. Any other skill can be sorted out and rehabilitated in the preclear from his back track in this fashion.

Remember that the key-note of all processing is to recover unknowns, therefore Not-know processes should be run on higher level preclears so as to get them into a command of the idea of Not-know.

In order to establish exactly where your preclear is you only need to ascertain his reaction to various solids and speeds of impact. Once you have done this you have established exactly where the preclear is on the tone scale. This reaction to solids is far more reliable than profile tests from the auditor’s standpoint. Preclears who cannot tolerate solids will have to be worked for a very, very long time on Keeping things from going away and Holding them still and finally Making things solid, no matter where the preclear registered on the profile sheets.

We have apparently undercut cases now to the point where we are getting fairly rapid gains on very low scale cases. It is time for us now to think of what we are going to do with cases who are upstairs, but you must always be sure that your case isn’t one of these cases that is simply dubbing in a high tone. This is very easy to establish. The skill with which a person can run Stop-C-S in its most arduous forms, his ability to handle light by “Keeping it there” and motion in general is the establishing factor on where a case sits on the tone scale as far as an auditor is concerned. There are no other tests which are better than this so an auditor had better not take either the profile or the preclear’s say-so concerning the state of case. The auditor has a far better test himself in either of these.

In order to rehabilitate a preclear it is necessary then to restore his ability to start, to change and to stop his body, objects, subjective mock-ups, engrams, the solid environment around him and to increase in the main his ability to control solids. This then goes up to his ability to control black objects and blackness, his ability to control invisible particles, his ability to control space. Working in this fashion it is then possible to raise the preclear consistently up the tone scale. It will be noted that solids are reality, whereas reality is basically agreement on a thought level, it actually happens that a preclear can mock up things which are solid. A preclear who is very, very far down scale is unable to do this and is unable to tolerate solids. So, if you want to raise a preclear’s reality, you’d better raise his ability to tolerate solids. This is done first by “Keeping things from going away”, next by “Holding things still” and finally by “Making it solid”. In solids we have located the R of the A-R-C triangle and communication as-ises solids but solids must be creatable by the preclear. Thus we have an upward advance of A-R-C monitored by his ability to tolerate solids.

The current program of Scientology is to place its organizational staff personnel and auditors in such a condition that they are capable of reaching, handling and controlling people and groups. If we do this we will shortly be the most advanced organization on the face of Earth, whether we have propaganda, good word of mouth or anything else. This is the road which we’re taking in advancing Scientology and its organizations. Thus you see the necessity of establishing objective and subjective Start, Change and Stop on individuals. You are reminded that S-C-S also runs on communication and runs as well on affinity (such as “conceive the wall to be embarrassed” “stop it from being embarrassed”).

More is being learned about these processes as I work with preclears and the science itself, but the first thing that I have learned is that an auditor in order to run Stop-C-S has to be himself capable of tolerating easily all up and down the band, otherwise he fails to understand the process and fails to make it work. It is as therapeutic today for an auditor to audit a preclear on S-C-S and Stop-C-S on the body, for the auditor, as it is for the preclear—if not more so.

LRH:re.rd 
Dict’d Sept 13.                              				L. RON HUBBARD 
Typed Sept  20 1956.

SCIENTOLOGY 

THE FUNDAMENTALS

OF THOUGHT

by

L. Ron Hubbard

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE VITAL STATISTICS OF SCIENTOLOGY	1
BASIC PRINCIPLES	3
THE CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE	6
THE EIGHT DYNAMICS	10
THE A-R-C TRIANGLE	12
THE REASON WHY	14
THE PARTS OF MAN	18
CAUSATION OF KNOWLEDGE	25
KNOW AND NOT-KNOW	30
THE GOAL OF SCIENTOLOGY	31
SCIENTOLOGY PROCESSING	32
EXACT PROCESSES	34

CHAPTER ONE

THE VITAL STATISTICS OF SCIENTOLOGY

What is Scientology?

Scientology is that branch of psychology which treats of (embraces) human ability. It is an extension of DIANETICS which is in itself an extension of old-time faculty-psychology of 400 years ago. More acceptable and normal psychology such as that begun by St. Thomas Aquinas and extended by many later authors was, in 1879, interrupted severely by one Professor Wundt, a Marxist at Leipzig University in Germany. This man conceived that man was an animal without soul and based all of his work on the principle that there was no “psyche” (a Greek word meaning “spirit”).

Psychology, the study of the spirit (or mind) then came into the peculiar position of being “a study of the spirit which denied the spirit”. For the subsequent decades, Wundtian “psychology” was taught broadly throughout the world. It taught that man was an animal. It taught that man could not be bettered. It taught that intelligence never changed. This subject, Wundtian psychology, became standard, mainly because of the indifference or lack of knowledge of people in charge of universities.

Scientology is actually a new but very basic psychology in the most exact meaning of the word. It can and does change behavior and intelligence, and it can and does assist people to study life. Unlike Wundtianpseudo-psychology, it has no political aspiration. Scientology is not teaching dialectical materialism under the heading of “psychology”.

The term SCIENTOLOGY is taken from the Latin word SCIO (knowing in the fullest meaning of the word) and the Greekword LOGOS (study).

Scientology, used by the trained and untrained person, improves the health, intelligence, ability, behavior, skill and appearance of people.

It is a precise and exact science, designed for an age of exact sciences.

It is employed by an AUDITOR (a Scientology practitioner) upon individuals or small or large groups of people in their presence. The Auditor makes these people, at their choice, do various exercises, and these exercises (processes) bring about changes for the better in intelligence, behavior and general competence. It is employed as well by persons in business and government to solve problems and to establish better organization.

It is also employed by the average person to bring better order into life.

How is Scientology Used ?

Scientology is employed by an Auditor (one who listens and commands) as a set of drills (exercises, processes) upon the individual, and small or large groups. It is also employed as an educational (teaching) subject. It has been found that persons can be processed (drilled) in Scientology with Scientology exercises and can be freed from their major anxieties and can become brighter, more alert and more competent. BUT if they are only processed they have a tendency to be overwhelmed or startled, and although they may be brighter and more competent they are still held down by an ignorance of life. Therefore it is far better to teach AND process (audit, drill) a person than only to process him. In other words, the best use of Scientology is through processing and education in Scientology. In this way there is no imbalance. It is interesting that people only need to study Scientology to have some small rise in their own intelligence, behavior and competence. The study itself is therapeutic (goodmedicine) by actual testing.
It is also used by business and government leaders to establish or improve organization. It is used as well by the individual at home or at his work to make a better life.

Is Scientology Valid ?

Tens of thousands of case histories (reports on persons who have been processed, individual records) all sworn to (attested before public officials), are in the possession of the organizations of Scientology. No other subject on earth except physics and chemistry has had such gruelling testing (proofs, exact findings). Scientology in the hands of an expert (Auditor) can restore man’s ability to handle any and all of his problems. Scientology is used by some of the largest companies (business organizations) on Earth. It is valid. It has been tested. It is the only thoroughly tested system of improving human relations, intelligence and character, and is the only one which does.

Where is there more information about Scientology?

The world headquarters for Scientology is the Hubbard College of Scientology, Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex, England. In addition, there are major Scientology organizations on practically every continent on earth. Scientology practitioners are validated (certified, given diplomas) by these organizations. Diplomas are given only after very exact training. A person who is skilled in Scientology procedures has a diploma from one of these organizations. A list of these organizations is provided at the back of this book. These offices and these people can give you more information about Scientology. There have also been many books published in English, as well as other languages, on the subject of Dianetics and Scientology. The publisher of the book you are reading may have more books in your language.

Can a Person without much Study use Scientology?

Scientology is practiced in daily life by enormous numbers of people who have no formal training in the humanities beyond a study of textbooks. Scientology was developed to be used by such people as well as by the trained practitioner. A person studying by himself from textbooks can use Scientology to help his fellow human beings.

What Special Use Does Scientology Have?

Scientology does things for people where nothing has been done before. It restores people’s ability to handle conditions which were once considered hopeless. It increases their intelligence. It changes their competence and betters their behavior. In addition to these it brings them a better understanding of life.

Who Invented Scientology ?

Scientology was discovered (found), not invented (created). It was organized by L. Ron Hubbard, an American, who has many degrees and is very skilled by reason of study. Hubbard was trained in nuclear physics at George Washington University in Washington, D. C., before he started his studies about the mind. This explains the mathematical precision of Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard has been given many honors for his work in the field of the mind. He has been assisted by one of the largest organizations, numerically speaking, in the field of the mind on Earth today, the organizations of Dianetics and Scientology. 

EDITOR’S NOTE

CHAPTER TWO

BASIC PRINCIPLES

Like engineering, Scientology has certain basic principles. These are necessary to a full understanding of the subject. It is not enough to know how to process (drill) people in Scientology. To be effective (good) one must also know the basic principles. Scientology is very exact. The humanities (human studies) of the past were full of opinions. Scientology is full of facts that work.

To study Scientology one should scan (skim) quickly through the basics and find something with which one can agree. Having found ONE THING (one fact) with which he can agree, one should then skim through again and find another fact. One should continue to do this until he feels some friendliness to the subject. When one has achieved this, and only when one has achieved this, he should then study all the basic principles. There is no effort here to be authoritarian (opinionated). No one will try to make the subject difficult.

You may have been taught that the mind (thought, the brain) is a very difficult thing to know about. This is the first principle of Scientology: It is possible to know about the mind, the spirit and Life.

The Cycle of Action

The most fundamental idea in Scientology is called the CYCLE OF ACTION. CYCLE = a span of time with a beginning and an end = a section of the totality of time with a beginning and an end = in beginningless and endless time one can set out periods which do have a beginning and an end insofar as action is concerned. ACTION = motion or movement = an act = a consideration that motion has occurred.

In very ancient books it is written that from chaos came birth, from birth there was growth, when growth was achieved there was then a gradual decay, the decay then ended in death. After death there was chaos.

Scientology expresses this more briefly. THE CYCLE OF ACTION IS AN APPARENCY AS FOLLOWS: CREATE, then SURVIVE, then DESTROY; or Creation, Survival, Destruction. First there is Creation. Then this is followed by Survival. Then this is followed by Destruction.

APPARENCY = appears to be, as distinct from what actually IS.

This cycle is only an APPARENCY. It is what we see, what we behold, what we believe. We CONSIDER (think, believe, suppose, postulate) that it is so and then we see it so.

A child is born, he grows, he reaches manhood, he grows old, he dies. In Scientology it can be seen that none of these steps are necessary. One considers them so, and so they are “true”. A man can grow old quickly or slowly. He grows old to the degree that he believes he is growing old. Because everyone AGREES that this is the way things are, they go that way. The cycle is not TRUE. It is only APPARENT. It is APPARENT because we believe we see it. It is APPARENT because we AGREE that it should be so.

The test of this principle is as follows: By using the CYCLE OF ACTION can we make anyone well or more intelligent? Thousands of tests have proven that the use of and belief in the CYCLE OF ACTION has made none well or intelligent. Therefore, no matter if we see it, there must be something wrong with it. The woman, growing old, wishing to appear younger, is protesting this CYCLE OF ACTION. She feels there is something wrong with it. There is. We have to find out what the ACTUAL cycle is before we can make people better.
ACTUAL = what is really true = that which exists despite all apparencies = that which-underlies the way things seem to be = the way things really are.

THE ACTUAL CYCLE OF ACTION is as follows: CREATE, create-create-create, create-counter-create, no creation, nothingness.

CREATE = make, manufacture, construct, postulate, bring into beingness = CREATE.

Create-create-create = create again continuously one moment after the next = SURVIVAL.

Create-counter-create = to create something against a creation = to create one thing and then create some thing else against it = DESTROY.

No creation = an absence of any creation = no creative activity.

AN ACTUAL cycle of action then consists of various activities, but each and every one of them is creative. The cycle of action contains an APPARENCY of SURVIVAL, but this is actually only a continuous creation. The APPARENT cycle of action contains DESTRUCTION, but the ACTUAL cycle of action tells us what destruction is. DESTRUCTION is one of TWO activities. DESTRUCTION is (in terms of action) a creation of something against a creation of something else. For example, a wall is seen standing. To be apparent it is necessary that the wall be constantly created. The act of “destruction” is to exert against the wall another creativeness, that of the action or activity of knocking the wall down. Both the wall standing there and the action of knocking it down are “creative” actions. Because we may object to (argue against, dislike) a wall being knocked down, we vilify (swear at, scorn) the creativeness involved in knocking it down with the word “destructive”. ACTUALITY tells us that there is no such thing as destruction. There is only creation against a creation. There is another “type of destruction” and this is NO MORE CREATION. By no longer being a party to (a member of) the wall’s creation, the wall, in theory, can cease to exist for one. This is true in ACTUAL PRACTICE in Scientology.

REALITY is the way things appear. REALITY IS APPARENCY. To do anything about reality, one must search into and discover what underlies the APPARENCY. Of what does REALITY consist (what is Reality composed of)? We SEE an APPARENCY which has the CYCLE OF ACTION OF CREATE-SURVIVEDESTROY. More basically (fundamentally) this CYCLE OF ACTION contains nothing but CREATION.

If one stops making something completely and ceases to be a party to its manufacture, it no longer exists for one. If one ceases to create, there is nothingness. When one creates something or beholds something which is created, that thing is still being created. Even if one is creating something with his left hand and has forgotten about it with his right hand, the thing still exists. In other words, one can create something without knowing it is still being created. Then one seeks to DESTROY it by a counter-creation (a creation against it). The result is a chaos created by two opposing creations.

LET US BE PRACTICAL. A science is not a science unless it is practical. A theory is no good unless it works. All the fancy and beautiful theory in the world is useless unless it has a use or a workability. Is this CYCLE OF ACTION THEORY USEFUL? It is. So long as we believe that we have to destroy with force in order to destroy at all, as long as we think in terms of destruction, we have chaos.

There is CREATING AND KNOWING ONE IS CREATING. There is CREATING AND NOT KNOWING ONE IS CREATING. When one drives a car or a cart he does many things (performs many acts) which he is not AWARE OF (conscious of, knows about), and these we call AUTOMATIC ACTIONS. One is doing something and is not aware that he is doing it. One starts to create something, then places this thought still active beyond his own reach and the creation continues to occur.
KNOWINGLY CREATING SOMETHING is always the first condition. One can then purposefully CONTINUE THE CREATION UNKNOWINGLY. Everything one is doing knowingly or unknowingly one is doing here and now, in the present instant, in present time. ONE KNOWINGLY STARTED ANY CREATION in some PAST moment. But the Creation is being done in the present moment.

To stop any creation it can be established that one once knew one was creating it—finding that thought and making it known again—OR ONE CAN SIMPLY CREATE NEWLY AND CONSCIOUSLY WHAT ONE IS ALREADY CREATING UNCONSCIOUSLY (unknowingly). In either case the creation stops. The WRONG WAY is to start a new creation to counter against the old creation; when one does this he gets confusion and chaos.

FOR EXAMPLE, a man has a bad leg. He is trying to “get well”. He seeks then to create a good leg. He goes to doctors and wants to be healed. The treatment is difficult and usually somewhat unsuccessful in the case of a very severely crippled leg. SOMETHING is creating a bad leg. Against this he is creating a good leg. The result is confusion and a bad leg. BUT a THIRD creativeness is present. First something was creating, we hope, a good leg. Then a counter-creation (such as an accident to his leg) counter-created a bad leg. Now he is trying to counter-create again a good leg. The result is to wipe out the ORIGINAL GOOD LEG since THAT IS THE CREATION HE IS TAKING OVER AND EXPOSING WITH HIS EFFORTS TO GET WELL. He wants a good leg. The trouble with him is the countercreation of a bad leg. The test is factual. Have him create (by a certain Scientology process) bad legs until the counter-creation of bad legs is wiped out and the ORIGINAL CREATION OF A GOOD LEG WILL REAPPEAR. This only fails when there is no original creation of a good leg, when the original creation of a good leg is gone.

FOR EXAMPLE, a man has a job. He works at it. That is to say he create-create-creates a job throughout the days, weeks and years. As long as he makes a job, the job exists. One day he DEPENDS upon (takes for granted) this job. He no longer creates it. It ceases to exist. He has no job. The APPARENCY is that he loafed (became lazy) and was discharged. The ACTUALITY is that he no longer created a job and so didn’t have one.

FOR EXAMPLE, a man depends upon a woman to keep his house for him. One day he no longer has a woman. He can’t keep house EVEN THOUGH BEFORE HE MARRIED THE WOMAN HE COULD KEEP HOUSE .

FOR EXAMPLE, a man is sane. He gets the idea (creates the idea) that it would be better to be insane. He starts to go insane (having created it) and then does numberless things in order to stay sane. Here he was already creating the state of sanity. He counter-created insanity. He then counter-created sanity against insanity.

CREATION IN THIS WORK may be thought to exclude God. We are here considering only those things which man or man as a spirit can make or manufacture or think. The subject of WHO or WHAT is doing the creation does not invalidate the cycle. This is a work on the subject of the mind, not a work on the subject of the Supreme Being.

LYING is the lowest order of creativity.

There are many tests for these principles in SCIENTOLOGY. Such tests come under the heading of PROCESSING .

CHAPTER THREE

THE CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE

There are three conditions (circumstances, qualities) of existence (apparency, reality, livingness).

These three conditions comprise (make up, constitute) life.

They are BE, DO and HAVE.

THE CONDITION OF BEING iS defined as the assumption (choosing) of a category of identity. It could be said to be the role in a game and an example of beingness could be one’s own name. Another example would be one’s profession. Another example would be one’s physical characteristics. Each or all of these things could be called one’s beingness. Beingness is assumed by oneself or given to one’s self, or is attained. For example, in the playing of a game each player has his own beingness.

THE SECOND CONDITION OF EXISTENCE IS DOING. By doing we mean action, function, accomplishment, the attainment of goals, the fulfilling of purpose, or any change of position in space.

THE THIRD CONDITION IS HAVINGNESS. By havingness we mean owning, possessing, being capable of commanding, positioning, taking charge of objects, energies or spaces.

The essential definition of having is to be able to touch or permeate or to direct the disposition of.

The game of life demands that one assume a beingness in order to accomplish a doingness in the direction of havingness.

These three conditions are given in an order of seniority (importance) where life is concerned. The ability to be is more important than the ability to do. The ability to do is more important than the ability to have. In most people all three conditions are sufficiently confused (chaotic, baffling) that they are best understood in reverse order. When one has clarified (brought order into) the idea of possession or havingness, one can then proceed to clarify doingness for general activity, and when this is done one understands beingness or identity.

It is an essential to a successful existence that each of these three conditions be clarified and understood. The ability to assume or to grant (give, allow) beingness is probably the highest of human virtues. It is even more important to be able to permit (allow) other people to have beingness than to be able oneself to assume it.

Beingness = Identity

If you ask an Auditor how these work in processing, he will tell you that there is a specialized form of each of these conditions. The Auditing form of Beingness is Identity. To achieve a betterment of beingness and the granting of beingness, the Auditor remedies with processing the scarcity of identities of the preclear. The preclear is often found in valences (other identities): his father’s or mother’s or marital partner’s or any or all of thousands of possible people. He is unable to achieve or obtain (he thinks) enough identity or an identity of his own. He decries or criticizes the identities of others (fails to grant beingness to them) .

He himself cannot obtain enough identity to feel he has an identity. Identity is so scarce that it’s too valuable. Nobody must have one. To be with such a person is therefore an uncomfortable experience since he does not credit our identity—does not grant us beingness.

The “cure” for this is elementary. Let us say he is obviously in father’s valence (identity). He got into father’s valence when he found he could get no attention from mother. Observing that father got some of her attention, he took father’s identity. However, let us say he didn’t like father. The Auditor finds him hating “himself”. “Himself” is really father.

A clever Auditor (see section under Processing) would see that while he was in father’s valence, it was really mother’s attention that was sought.

The Auditor does not inform his preclear of such a finding. He asks the preclear to lie about (lowest form of creativity) identities which would attract mother’s attention. Then, when the preclear can do this, the Auditor would have him invent identities which would attract mother’s attention.

Suddenly the preclear would be no longer in father’s valence. However, he would have been not only in father’s but also in mother’s valence so the same process would have to be done on father. “Lie about,” the Auditor would say, “identities which would attract father’s attention,” then “invent one,” until the preclear had many and would no longer be in mother’s valence.

Solving father and mother valences is fundamental, since most people are somewhat “in them” or revolted from them. But people can be “stuck” in all sorts of identities, even bedposts when humans are too valuable to be used.

The rule is that the more aperson is “stuck” in avalence or identity, the fewer he conceives to exist. And the harder he thinks it is to get attention. Thus he can become exhibitionistic (displaying himself too thoroughly, being too much there at all times) or he can become dispersed (hiding himself, being vague, not there most of the time).

People err, in identity, in being too apparent or too little apparent. The remedy of either is the remedy of their scarcity of identity.

Identity and Attention

One “needs” an identity to play the game, as covered later, but mainly to “get attention”.

A being looks at things. To balance the flow of his attention, he feels he must also be looked at. Thus he becomes attention-hungry.

Unlike yellow and brown people, the white does not usually believe he can get attention from matter or objects. The yellow and brown believe for the most part (and it is all a matter of consideration) that rocks, trees, walls, etc., can give them attention. The white man seldom believes this and so is likely to become anxious about people. Thus the white saves people, prevents famine, flood, disease and revolution forpeople as the only purveyors of attention are scarce. The white goes further. He often believes he can get attention only from whites and that yellow and brown peoples’ attention is worthless. Thus the yellow and brown races are not very progressive, but, by and large, saner. And the white race is progressive but more frantic. The yellow and brown races do not understand white concern for “bad conditions” since what are a few million dead men? There are plenty of identities and there is plenty of attention, they think. The white can’t understand them. Nor can they understand the white.

Attention and Identity form a group of two. Attention makes space. Identity closes space.

Attention is a method of knowing. Inattention is a method of not-knowing.

Identity is a method of making known. Lack of identity is a method of making unknown.

Valences

The whole study of valences is a fascinating one. A valence is defined as “a false identity assumed unwittingly”. An identity is modified by valences. People who can be nobody may try to be everybody. People who are seeking a way out of scarcity of identity may become fixed in false valences. Nations can become fixed in valences of countries they have conquered in war, etc., etc.

A rule is that a person assumes the identity of that which gets attention. Another rule is that the person assumes the identity of that which makes him fail (for he gave it his attention, didn’t he?)

There is a basic personality, a person’s own identity. He colors or drowns this with valences as he loses or wins in life. He can be dug up.

Do =Effect

Doing can be defined as the action of creating an effect. An effect in creation is action.

An Auditor, processing a preclear, would always use “effect processes” to increase doingness.

“What effect could you create on father?” would be a typical Auditor question.

If a preclear is fixated by books, a machine, a tool or a person, the Auditor asks him to lie about, then invent effects he could create upon it. At first the preclear may be able to think of none. Then as the process is continued he may become wildly imaginative or even cruel. Further running will bring the preclear into a more comfortable frame of mind. Criminals or maniacs are people who are frantically attempting to create an effect long after they know they cannot. They cannot then create decent effects, only violent effects. Neither can they work (do).

Despair of creating an effect brings about aberration and irrational conduct. It also brings about laziness and carelessness.

Command of attention is necessary to creating an effect. Therefore when one conceives he cannot easily get attention, he seeks to create stronger effects. He creates effects to get attention. He gets attention to create effects.

As in Axiom 10 (given later), the creation of an effect is the highest purpose in this universe. Thus when one cannot create effects, he has no purpose. And thus it works out in Life. It may be all right to be a stern and unrelenting superior or parent, but such create laziness and criminals. If one cannot have an effect created upon one. (and one is known to another), very definitely harmful results will ensue.

As one believes he creates the least effect upon unconscious or dead people, these, as in hospitals or China, become the subject of much aberrated activity. “What effect could you create on an unconscious person (or a dead person)?” asked over and over by an Auditor obtains some astonishing results.

An artist stops his work when he believes he can no longer create an effect.
A person actually dies for lack of being able to create an effect.

BUT security often depends on being able to create no effect.

The whole subject of survival is bound up in no-effect. Obviously those things on which no-effect can be made, survive.

If one is anxious about survival (a foolish thing, for he can’t do anything else) he becomes anxious to have about him things which resist all effects. But as his only anxiety is about the survival of a valence or identity, remedy of the scarcity of these can resolve the matter.

Another cycle of action, containing also the classes of effects, is START-CHANGE-and-STOP. This is the definition of control.

Havingness

As there must be a playing field (see Chapter Twelve) for a game to be held, so there must be havingness. One must be able to possess.

There are millions of methods of possession in life. The obvious one becomes overlooked. If one can see a thing he can have it—if he thinks he can.

The degree to which one can live is the degree to which one can own. To own is not to label or cart away. To own is to be able to see or touch or occupy.

One loses to the degree he is forbidden to have. But to play a game one must be able to believe he can’t have.

Effect and Have

Effect and Have form a pair like Attention and Identity. An effect should be on or against something. Thus havingness. If one’s attention never meets anything he doesn’t always like it. Thus he wants objects.

Effect makes distance. Have shortens distance.

Problems

Man or any life form in this universe seems to love problems. A problem is more important than freedom. Problems keep up interest. When a man has a problem very thoroughly and can’t solve it, he really has too few problems. He needs more.

The insanity among the idle is a matter of problem scarcity.

A problem is defined as two or more purposes in opposition. Or Intention versus Intention.

Out of the conditions of existence above can come many complex problems.

If a man had all the attention in the world he would be unhappy. If he had all the identities possible, he would still be unhappy. If he could blow up Earth or create any other huge effect he wanted without limit, he would be miserable (or insane). If he could own everything everywhere he would be dulled to apathy. Or so it seems. For these conditions of existence are all subordinate to the need of problems, by current Scientology reasoning and results.

Thus to have a person lie about problems or invent problems of the same size as the ones he has, or the valences he is in, or to invent data of the same or different size as the one he is fixed upon is to make a well man.

Probably the problem is the antidote to unconsciousness. It is certainly the antidote for boredom. But in making up the problems of life he consults the conditions of existence: Be, Do, Have and their necessary partner in every case, Attention.

CHAPTER FOUR

THE EIGHT DYNAMICS

As one looks out across the confusion which is life or existence to most people, one can discover eight main divisions, to each of which apply the conditions of existence. Each division contains a cycle of action.

There could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These we call DYNAMICS. These are motives or motivations. We call them THE EIGHT DYNAMICS.

There is no thought or statement here that any one of these eight dynamics is more important than the others. While they are categories (divisions) of the broad game of life they are not necessarily equal to each other. It will be found amongst individuals that each person stresses one of the dynamics more than the others, or may stress a combination of dynamics as more important-than other combinations.

The purpose in setting forth this division is to increase an understanding of life by placing it in compartments. Having subdivided existence in this fashion, each compartment can be inspected as itself and by itself in its relationship to the other compartments of life. In working a puzzle it is necessary to first take pieces of similar color or character and place them in groups. In studying a subject it is necessary to proceed in an orderly fashion. To promote this orderliness it is necessary to assume for our purposes these eight arbitrary compartments of life.

THE FIRST DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence as one’s self. Here we have individuality expressed fully. This can be called the SELF DYNAMIC.

THE SECOND DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second Dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself and the Second Dynamic (b) is the family unit, including the rearing of children. This can be called the SEX DYNAMIC.

THE THIRD DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence in groups of individuals. Any group or part of an entire class could be considered to be a part of the Third Dynamic. The school, the society, the town, the nation are each part of the Third Dynamic, and each one is a Third Dynamic. This can be called the GROUP DYNAMIC.

THE FOURTH DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence as mankind. Whereas the white race would be considered a Third Dynamic, all the races would be considered the Fourth Dynamic. This can be called the MANKIND DYNAMIC.

THE FIFTH DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence of the animal kingdom. This includes all living things whether vegetable or animal. The fish in the sea, the beasts of the field, or of the forest, grass, trees, flowers or anything directly and intimately motivated by life. This can be called the ANIMAL DYNAMIC.

THE SIXTH DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence as the physical universe. The physical universe is composed of matter, energy, space and time. In Scientology we take the first letter of each of these words and coin a word, MESS. This can be called the UNIVERSE DYNAMIC.

THE SEVENTH DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence as or of spirits. Anything spiritual, with or without identity, would come under the heading of the Seventh Dynamic. This can be called the SPIRITUAL DYNAMIC.

THE EIGHTH DYNAMIC—is the urge toward existence as Infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being. It is carefully observed here that the science of Scientology does not intrude into the Dynamic of the Supreme Being. This is called the Eighth Dynamic because the symbol of infinity stood upright makes the numeral “8”. This can be called the INFINITY or GOD DYNAMIC.

Scientologists usually call these by number.

The earlier science Dianetics included Dynamics One to Four. Scientology embraces Dynamics One through Seven as known territory, scientifically demonstrated and classified.

The difficulty of stating the exact definitions of the dynamics is entirely verbal. Originally the dynamics read “the urge toward survival as—”. As the science developed it became apparent that survival was only an apparency and only one facet of existence. Both the cycle of action and the three conditions of existence belong in each dynamic.

A further manifestation of these dynamics is that they could best be represented as a series of concentric circles wherein the First Dynamic would be the center and each new Dynamic would be successively a circle outside it. The idea of space adjoining enters into these Dynamics.

The basic characteristic of the individual includes his ability to so expand into the other dynamics, but when the Seventh Dynamic is reached in its entirety one will only then discover the true First Dynamic.

As an example of use of these Dynamics one discovers that a baby at birth is not perceptive beyond the First Dynamic, but as the child grows and interests extend can be seen to embrace other dynamics. As a further example of use, a person who is incapable of operating on the Third Dynamic is incapable at once of being a part of a team and so might be said to be incapable of a social existence.

As a further comment upon the Eight Dynamics, no one of these Dynamics from One to Seven is more important than any other one of them in terms of orienting the individual. While the dynamics are not of equal importance, one to the next, the ability of an individual to assume the beingness, doingness and havingness of each dynamic is an index of his ability to live.

The Eight Dynamics are used in Scientology communication and should be perfectly learned as part of the language of Scientology. The abilities and shortcomings of individuals can be understood by viewing their participation in the various dynamics.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE A-R-C TRIANGLE

There is a triangle of considerable importance in Scientology, and understanding of it gives a much greater understanding of life and an ability to use it.

The A-R-C triangle is the keystone of living associations. This triangle is the common denominator of all of life’s activities. The first corner of the triangle is called Affinity. The basic definition of affinity is the consideration of distance, whether good or bad. The most basic function of complete affinity would be the ability to occupy the same space as something else.

The word “affinity” is here used to mean love, liking or any other emotional attitude. Affinity is conceived in Scientology to be something of many facets. Affinity is a variable quality. Affinity is here used as a word with the context “degree of liking”. Under affinity we have the various emotional tones ranged from the highest to the lowest, and these are, in part, serenity (the highest level), enthusiasm (as we proceed downward toward the baser affinities), conservatism, boredom, antagonism, anger, covert hostility, fear, grief, apathy. This, in Scientology, is called the Tone Scale. Below apathy, affinity proceeds into solidities such as matter. Affinity is conceived to be comprised first of thought, then of emotion which contains energy particles, and then as a solid.

The second corner of the triangle is Reality. Reality could be defined as “that which appears to be”. Reality is fundamentally agreement. What we agree to be real is real.

The third corner of the triangle is Communication. In human relationships this is more important than the other two corners of the triangle in understanding the composition of human relations in this universe. Communication is the solvent for all things. It dissolves all things.

The inter-relationship of the triangle becomes apparent at once when one asks, “Have you ever tried to talk to an angry man?” Without a high degree of liking and without some basis of agreement there is no communication. Without communication and some basis of emotional response there can be no reality. Without some basis for agreement and communication there can be no affinity. Thus we call these three things a triangle. Unless we have two corners of a triangle, there cannot be a third corner. Desiring any corner of the triangle, one must include the other two.

The triangle is conceived to be very spacious at the level of serenity and completely condensed at the level of matter. Thus to represent a scale for use one would draw a large triangle with a high part of the scale and succeedingly small triangles down to a dot at the bottom of the scale.

Affinity, reality and communication are the basis of the Scientology Tone Scale, which gives a prediction of human behavior as contained in Science of Survival.

As has already been noted, the triangle is not an equilateral triangle. Affinity and Reality are very much less important than Communication. It might be said that the triangle begins with Communication, which brings into existence Affinity and Reality.

The most primitive Scientology definition of Communication is “Cause-Distance-Effect”. The fundamental manual of Communication is the book, Dianetics 55!

A-R-C are understanding.

If you would continue a strong and able communication with someone there must be some basis for agreement. There must be some liking for the person and then communication can exist. We can see then that simple talking and writing randomly without knowledge of this would not necessarily be communication. Communication is essentially something which is sent and which is received. The intention to send and the intention to receive must both be present in some degree before an actual communication can take place. Therefore one could have conditions which appeared to be communications which were not.

Original with Scientology, as are all these concepts, the A-R-C triangle understood is an extremely useful tool or weapon in human relationships. For instance, among the A-R-C triangle laws, a communication to be received must approximate the affinity level of the person to whom it is directed .

As people descend the tone scale they become more and more difficult to communicate with, and things with which they will agree become more and more solid. Thus we have friendly discourse high on the scale and war at the bottom. Where the affinity level is hate, the agreement is solid matter, and the communications . . . bullets.

CHAPTER SIX

THE REASON WHY

Life can best be understood by likening it to a game. Since we are exterior to a great number of games we can regard them with a detached eye. If we were exterior to Life instead of being involved and immersed in the living of it, it would look to us much like games look to us from our present vantage point.

Despite the amount of suffering, pain, misery, sorrow and travail which can exist in life, the reason for existence is the same reason as one has to play a game—interest, contest, activity and possession. The truth of this assertion is established by an observation of the elements of games and then applying these elements to life itself. When we do this we find nothing left wanting in the panorama of life.

By game we mean contest of person against person, or team against team. When we say games we mean such games as baseball, polo, chess or any other such pastime. It may at one time have struck you as peculiar that men would risk bodily injury in the field of play just for the sake of “amusement”. So it might strike you as peculiar that people would go on living or would enter into the “game of life” at the risk of all the sorrow, travail and pain just to have something to do. Evidently there is no greater curse than total idleness. Of course there is that condition where a person continues to play a game in which he is no longer interested.

If you will but look about the room and check off items in which you are not interested, you will discover something remarkable. In a short time you will find that there is nothing in the room in which you are not interested. You are interested in everything. However, disinterest itself is one of the mechanisms of play. In order to hide something it is only necessary to make everyone disinterested in the place where the item is hidden. Disinterest is not an immediate result of interest which has worn out. Disinterest is a commodity in itself. It is palpable, it exists.

By studying the elements (factors) of games (contests) we find ourselves in possession of the elements of life.

Life is a game. A game consists of freedom, barriers and purposes. This is a scientific fact, not merely an observation.

Freedom exists amongst barriers. A totality of barriers and a totality of freedom alike are no-game conditions. Each is similarly cruel. Each is similarly purposeless.

Great revolutionary movements fail. They promise unlimited freedom. That is the road to failure. Only stupid visionaries chant of endless freedom. Only the afraid and the ignorant speak of and insist upon unlimited barriers.

When the relation between freedom and barriers becomes too unbalanced, an unhappiness results.

“Freedom from” is all right only so long as there is a place to be free to. An endless desire for freedom from is a perfect trap, a fear of all things.

Barriers are composed of inhibiting (limiting) ideas, space, energy, masses and time. Freedom in its entirety would be a total absence of these things—but it would also be a freedom without thought or action, an unhappy condition of total nothingness.

Fixed on too many barriers, man yearns to be free. But launched into total freedom he is purposeless and miserable.

There is freedom amongst barriers. If the barriers are known and the freedoms are known there can be life, living, happiness, a game.

The restrictions of a government, or a job, give an employee his freedom. Without known restrictions, an employee is a slave, doomed to the fears of uncertainty in all his actions.

Executives in business and government can fail in three ways and thus bring about a chaos in their department. They can:

	(1) 	seem to give endless freedom;
	(2)	seem to give endless barriers;
	(3) 	make neither freedom nor barriers certain.

Executive competence, therefore, consists of imposing and enforcing an adequate balance between their people’s freedom and the unit’s barriers and in being precise and consistent about those freedoms and barriers. Such an executive adding only in himself initiative and purpose can have a department with initiative and purpose.

An employee, buying and/or insisting upon freedom only, will become a slave. Knowing the above facts he must insist upon a workable balance between freedom and barriers.

An examination of the dynamics above will demonstrate the possibility of a combination of teams. Two group dynamics can engage one another as teams. The self dynamic can ally itself with the animal dynamic against, let us say, the universe dynamic and so have a game. In other words, the dynamics are an outline of possible teams and interplays. As everyone is engaged in several games, an examination of the dynamics will plot and clarify for him the various teams he is playing on and those he is playing against. If an individual can discover that he is only playing on the self dynamic and that he belongs to no other team it is certain that this individual will lose, for he has before him seven remaining dynamics. And the self dynamic is seldom capable of besting by itself all the remaining dynamics. In Scientology we call this condition the “only one”. Here is selfish determinism in the guise of self-determinism and here is an individual who will most certainly be overwhelmed. To enjoy life one must be willing to be some part of life.

There is the principle in Scientology called pandeterminism. This could be loosely defined as determining the activities of two or more sides in a game simultaneously. For instance, a person playing chess is being selfdetermined and is playing chess against an opponent. A person who is pan-determined on the subject of chess could play both sides of the board.

A being is pan-determined about any game to which he is senior. He is self-determined only in a game to which he is junior. For instance, a general of an army is pan-determined concerning an argument between two privates or even two companies of his command. He is pan-determined in this case; but when he confronts another army, led by another general, he becomes self-determined. The game in this wise could be said to be larger than himself. The game becomes even larger than this when the general seeks to play the parts of all the political heads which should be above him. This is the main reason why dictatorship doesn’t work. It is all but impossible for one man to be pan-determined about the entire system of games which comprise a nation. He starts taking sides and then to that degree becomes much less than the government which he is seeking to run.

It has been stylish in past ages to insist upon only freedom. The French Revolution furnishes an excellent example for this. In the late part of the 18th century, the nobles of France became so self-determined against the remainder of the country and were so incapable of taking the parts of the populace that the nobles were destroyed. Immediately the populace itself sought to take over the government, and, being trained and being intensely antipathetic to any and all restraints, their war cry became “Freedom”. They had no further restrictions of barriers. The rules of government were thrown aside. Theft and brigandage took the place of economics. The populace, therefore, found itself in a deeper trap and discovered itself to be involved with a dictatorship which was far more restrictive than anything it had experienced before the Revolution.

Although man continually uses “Freedom” for his war cry he only succeeds in establishing further entrapment for himself. The reason for this is a very simple one. A game consists of freedom and barriers and purposes. When man drops the idea of restrictions or barriers he loses at once control over barriers. He becomes self-determined about barriers and not pan-determined, thus he cannot control the barriers. The barriers left uncontrolled trap him then and there.

The dwindling spiral of the apparency Create-Survive-Destroy comes about directly when man shuns barriers. If he considers all restrictions and barriers his enemies, he is of course refusing to control them in any way and thus he starts his own dwindling spiral. A race which is educated to think in terms of freedom only is very easily entrapped. No one in the nation will take responsibility for restrictions, therefore restrictions apparently become less and less. Actually they become more and more. As these restrictions lessen, so lessens the freedom of the individual. One cannot be free from a wall unless there is a wall. Lacking any restrictions life becomes purposeless, random, chaotic.

A good manager must be capable of taking responsibility for restrictions in that freedom, to exist, must have barriers. A failure to take initiative on the subject of restrictions or barriers causes them to arise all by themselves and exist without consent or direction.

There are various states of mind which bring about happiness. That state of mind which insists only upon freedom can bring about nothing but unhappiness. It would be better to develop a thought pattern which looked for new ways to be entrapped, and things to be trapped in, than to suffer the eventual total entrapment of dwelling upon freedom only. A man who is willing to accept restrictions and barriers, and is not afraid of them, is free. A man who does nothing but fight restrictions and barriers will usually be trapped. The way to have endless war is “abandon” all war.

As it can be seen in any game, purposes become counter-posed. There is a matter of purpose-counterpurpose in almost any game played in a field with two teams. One team has the idea of reaching the goal of the other, and the other has the idea of reaching the goal of the first. Their purposes are at war, and this warring of purposes makes a game.

The war of purposes gives us what we call problems. A problem consists of two or more purposes opposed. It does not matter what problem you face or have faced, the basic anatomy of that problem is purpose-counter-purpose.

In actual testing in Scientology it has been discovered that a person begins to suffer from problems when he does not have enough of them. There is the old saw (maxim) that if you want a thing done, give it to a busy man to do. Similarly if you want a happy associate, make sure that he is a man who can have lots of problems.

From this we get the oddity of a high incidence of neurosis in the families of the rich. These people have very

little to do and have very few problems. The basic problems of food, clothing and shelter are already solved for them. We would suppose, then, if it were true that an individual’s happiness depended only upon his freedom, that these people would be happy. However, they are not happy. What brings about their unhappiness? It is the lack of problems.

SELF-DETERMINISM is a condition of determining the actions of self. It is a First (Self) Dynamic action and leaves the remaining seven undetermined or, in actuality, in opposition to the self. Thus if one wants to take on the rest of life in a free-for-all fight, one could be entirely insistent upon total self-determinism. As the remainder of the dynamics must have a say in one’s self to function, they fight at once any attempt at total self-determinism.

PAN-DETERMINISM means determining the action of self and others. It means wider determinism than self. In an aberrated fashion we see this in an effort to control all others to aggrandize (make important) self. Pandeterminism is across determinism or determinism of two sides. If one controls (monitors) both sides of a chess game one is “above” the game.

One is self-determined, then, in any situation in which he is fighting. He is pan-determined in any situation which he is controlling.

To become pan-determined rather than only selfdetermined, it is necessary to view both sides.

A problem is an intention-counter-intention. It is then something that has two opposing sides. By creating problems one tends to view both sides in opposition and so becomes pan-determined.

Thus a problem only appears to be necessary to man. The problem is the closest reality man has to pandeterminism. In processing, the invention of problems then shows a wider view and so exteriorizes one from difficulty.

Although successful processing in Scientology would depend upon taking all three elements of games into consideration—and indeed that is the secret of bettering people: taking freedom, barriers and purposes into consideration and balancing them—it is true that you could make a man well simply by sitting down with him and asking him to invent problems one after the other. The invention of synthetic problems would be found to free his mind and make him more able. Of course, there is another factor involved in this in that it is he who is inventing the problems and therefore he is becoming pan-determined about problems rather than being in one place with all problems opposed to him.

An unhappy man is one who is considering continually how to become free. One sees this in the clerk who is continually trying to avoid work. Although he has a great deal of leisure time he is not enjoying any part of it. He is trying to avoid contact with people, objects, energies and spaces. He eventually becomes trapped in a sort of lethargy. If this man could merely change his mind and start “worrying” about how he could get more work to do, his happiness level would increase markedly. One who is plotting continually how to get out of things will be miserable. One who is plotting how to get into things has a much better chance of becoming happy.

There is, of course, the matter of being forced to play games in which one has no interest—a war into which one is drafted is an excellent example of this. One is not interested in the purposes of the war and yet one finds himself fighting it. Thus there must be an additional element, and this element is “the power of choice”.

One could say, then, that life is a game and that the ability to play a game consists of tolerance for freedom and barriers and an insight into purposes, with the power of choice over participation.

These four elements, freedom, barriers, purposes and power of choice, are the guiding elements of life. There are only two factors above these, and both of them are related to these. The first is the ability to create, with, of course, its negative, the ability to uncreate; and the second is the ability to make a postulate (to consider, to say a thing and have it be true). This, then, is the broad picture of life, and these elements are used in its understanding, in bringing life into focus and in making it less confusing.

CHAPTER SEVEN

THE PARTS OF MAN

The individual man is divisible (separable) into three parts (divisions) .

The first of these is the spirit, called in Scientology the Thetan. The second of these parts is the Mind . The third of these parts is the Body.

Probably the greatest discovery of Scientology and its most forceful contribution to the knowledge of mankind has been the isolation, description and handling of the human spirit, accomplished in July, 1951, in Phoenix, Arizona. I established along scientific rather than religious or humanitarian lines that that thing which is the person, the personality, is separable from the body and the mind at will and without causing bodily death or mental derangement.

In ages past there has been considerable controversy concerning the human spirit or soul, and various attempts to control man have been effective in view of his almost complete ignorance of his own identity. Latterly spiritualists isolated from the person what they called the astral body, and with this they were able to work for various purposes of their own. In Scientology the spirit itself was separated from what the spiritualists called the astral body and there should be no confusion between these two things. As you know that you are where you are at this moment, so you would know if you, a spirit, were detached from your mind and body. Man had not discovered this before because, lacking the technologies of Scientology, he had very little reality upon his detachment from his mind and body and therefore conceived himself to be at least in part a mind and a body. The entire cult of communism is based upon the fact that one lives only one life, that there is no hereafter and that the individual has no religious significance. Man at large has been close to this state for at least the last century. The state (condition) is of avery low order, excluding as it does all self-recognition.

The Spirit

The thetan (spirit) is described in Scientology as having no mass, no wave-length, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate. The spirit, then, is not a thing. It is the creator of things.

The usual residence of the thetan is in the skull or near the body. A thetan can be in one of four conditions. The first would be entirely separate from a body or bodies, or even from this universe. The second would be near a body and knowingly controlling the body. The third would be in the body (the skull) and the fourth would be an inverted condition whereby he was compulsively away from the body and could not approach it. There are degrees (subdivisions) of each one of these four states (conditions). The most optimum of these conditions, from the standpoint of man, is the second.

A thetan is subject to deterioration. This is at first difficult to understand since the entirety of his activity consists of considering or postulating. He uses, through his postulates, various methods of controlling a body. That he does deteriorate is manifest, but that he can at any moment return to an entirety of his ability is also factual. In that he associates beingness with mass and action, he does not consider himself as having an individual identity or name unless he is connected with one or more of the games of life.

The processes of Scientology can establish this for the individual with greater or lesser rapidity, and one of the many goals of processing in Scientology is to “exteriorize” the individual and place him in the second condition above, since it has been discovered that he is happier and more capable when so situated.

The Mind

The mind is a communication and control system between the thetan and his environment. The mind is a network of communications and pictures, energies and masses, which are brought into being by the activities of the thetan versus the physical universe or other thetans. A thetan establishes various systems of control so that he can continue to operate a body and through the body operate things in the physical universe, as well as other bodies. The most obvious portion of the mind is recognizable by anyone not in serious condition. This is the “mental image picture”. In Scientology we call this mental image picture a facsimile when it is a “photograph” of the physical universe sometime in the past. We call this mental image picture a mock-up when it is created by the thetan or for the thetan and does not consist of a photograph of the physical universe. We call a mental image picture a “hallucination”, or more properly an automaticity (something uncontrolled) when it is created by another and seen by self.

Various phenomena connect themselves with this entity called the mind. Some people closing their eyes see only blackness, some people see pictures. Some people see pictures made by body reactions. Some people see only black screens. Others see golden lines. Others see spaces. But the keynote of the entirety of the system called the mind is postulate and perception. Easily ten thousand new, separate mental phenomena, not hitherto seen by earlier observers, have been classified in Scientology and Dianetics.

The thetan receives, by the communication system called the mind, various impressions, including direct views of the physical universe. In addition to this he receives impressions from past activities and, most important, he himself, being close to a total knowingness, conceives things about the past and future which are independent of immediately present stimuli. The mind is not in its entirety a stimulus-response mechanism as old Marxist psychology, as once taught in universities, would have one believe. The mind has three main divisions. The first of these could be called the analytical mind, the second the reactive mind, and the third the somatic mind.

The Analytical Mind

The analytical mind combines perceptions of the immediate environment, of the past (via pictures) and estimations of the future into conclusions which are based upon the realities of situations. The analytical mind combines the potential knowingness of the thetan with the conditions of his surroundings and brings him to independent conclusions. This mind could be said to consist of visual pictures either of the past or of the physical universe, monitored by, and presided over by, the knowingness of a thetan. The keynote of the analytical mind is awareness. One knows what one is concluding and knows what one is doing.

The Reactive Mind

The reactive mind is a stimulus-response mechanism, ruggedly built, and operable in trying circumstances. The reactive mind never stops operating. Pictures of the environment, of a very low order, are taken by this mind even in deep states of unconsciousness. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. Dianetics concerned itself mainly with this one mind.

While it is an order of thinkingness, the ability of the reactive mind to conclude rationally is so poor that we find in the reactive mind those various aberrated impulses which are gazed upon as oddities of personality, eccentricities, neuroses and psychoses. It is this mind which stores up all the bad things that have happened to one and throws them back to him again in moments of emergency or danger so as to dictate his actions along lines which have been considered “safe” before. As there is little thinkingness involved in this, the courses of action dictated by the reactive mind are often not safe, but highly dangerous.

The reactive mind is entirely literal in its interpretation of words and actions. As it takes pictures and receives impressions during moments of unconsciousness, a phrase uttered when a blow is struck is likely to be literally interpreted by the reactive mind and becomes active upon the body and analytical mind at later times. The mildest stage of this would be arduous training, wherein a pattern is laid into the mind for later use under certain given stimuli.

A harsh and less workable level is the hypnotic trance condition to which the mind is susceptible. Made impressionable by fixed attention, words can be immediately implanted into the reactive mind which become operable under restimulation at later times.

An even lower level in the reactive mind is that one associated with blows, drugs, illness, pain and other conditions of unconsciousness. Phrases spoken over an anaesthetized person can have a later effect upon that person. It is not necessarily true that each and every portion of an operation is painstakingly “photographed” by the reactive mind of the unconscious patient, but it is true that a great many of these stimuli are registered. Complete silence, in the vicinity of a person under anaesthetic or a person who is unconscious or in deep pain, is mandatory if one would preserve the mental health of that person or patient afterwards.

Probably the most therapeutic action which could occur to an individual would be, under Scientology processing, the separation of the thetan from the mind so that the thetan, under no duress and with total knowingness, could view himself and his mind and act accordingly. However, there is a type of exteriorization which is the most aberrative of all traumatic (mentally injurious) actions. This is the condition when an individual is brought, through injury or surgery or shock, very close to death so that he exteriorizes from body and mind. This exteriorization under duress is sudden, and to the patient inexplicable, and is in itself very shocking. When this has occurred to an individual, it is certain that he will suffer mentally from the experience afterwards.

It could be said that when the reactive mind contains these sudden shocks of exteriorization under duress, attempts to exteriorize the individual later by Scientology are more difficult. However, modern processing has overcome this. The phenomenon of exteriorization under duress is accompanied at times by energy explosions in the various facsimiles of the mind, and these cross-associate in the reactive mind. Therefore, people become afraid of exteriorization, and at times people are made ill simply by discussing the phenomenon, due to the fact that they have exteriorized under duress, during some operation, or during some accident.

Exteriorization under duress is the characteristic of death itself. Therefore, exteriorization or the departure of the soul is generally associated with death in the minds of most people. It is not necessarily true that one is dead because he exteriorizes, and it is definitely not true that exteriorization not accompanied by a shock, pain or duress is at all painful. Indeed, it is quite therapeutic.

The Somatic Mind

The third portion of the mind is the somatic mind. This is an even heavier type of mind than the reactive mind since it contains no thinkingness and contains only actingness. The impulses placed against the body by the thetan through various mental machinery arrive at the voluntary, involuntary and glandular levels. These have set methods of analysis for any given situation and so respond directly to commands given.

Unfortunately the somatic mind is subject to each of the minds higher in scale above it and to the thetan. In other words, the thetan can independently affect the somatic mind. The analytical mind can affect the somatic mind. The reactive mind can affect the somatic mind. Thus we see that the neurons, the glandular system, the muscles and masses of the body are subject to various impulses, each one of a lower order than the next. Thus it is not odd to discover what we call “psychosomatic” illness. A condition exists here where the thetan does not have an awareness of burdening the somatic mind with various commands or derangements. Neither does the thetan have an awareness of his own participation in the analytical mind causing this action against the body.

In that the thetan is seldom aware of the reactive mind, it is possible then for the reactive mind, with its stimulusresponse content, to impinge itself directly, and without further recourse or advice, upon the neurons, muscles and glandular system of the body. In that the reactive mind can hold a fixed command in place, causing a derangement in the somatic mind, it is possible then for illness to exist, for bizarre pains to be felt, for actual physical twists and aberrations to occur, without any conscious knowledge on the part of the thetan. This we call physical illness caused by the mind. In brief, such illness is caused by perceptions received in the reactive mind during moments of pain and unconsciousness.

Whether the facsimile in the mind is received while the thetan is awake or unconscious, the resulting mass of the energy picture is energy just as you see energy in an electric light bulb or from the flames of a fire. At one time it was considered that mental energy was different from physical energy. In Scientology it has been discovered that mental energy is simply a finer, higher level physical energy. The test of this is conclusive in that a thetan “mocking up” (creating) mental image pictures and thrusting them into the body can increase the body mass and, by casting them away again, can decrease the body mass. This test has actually been made and an increase of as much as 30 pounds, actually measured on scales, has been added to, and subtracted from, a body by creating “mental energy”. Energy is energy. It has different wave-lengths and different characteristics. The mental image pictures are capable of reacting upon the physical environment, and the physical environment is capable of reacting on mental image pictures. Thus the mind actually consists of spaces, energies and masses of the same order as the physical universe, if lighter and different in size and wave-length. For a much more comprehensive picture of the mind one should read Dianetics: The Original Thesis and Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. These were written before the discoveries of the upper levels of beingness were made and are a very complete picture of the mind itself, its structure and what can be done to it and with it.

The Body

The third part of man is the physical body. This can best be studied in such books as Grey’s Anatomy and other anatomical texts. This is the province of the medical doctor and, usually, the old-time psychiatrist or psychologist who were involved in the main in body worship. The body is a purely structural study, and the actions and reactions amongst its various structures are complex and intensely interesting.

When Scientology established bio-physics, it did so because of the various discoveries which had accumulated concerning mental energy in its reaction against physical energy, and the activities which took place in the body because of these interactions. Bio-physics only became feasible when it was discovered in Scientology that a fixed electrical field existed surrounding a body entirely independent of, but influenceable by, the human mind. The body exists in its own space. That space is created by “anchor points” (points which are anchored in a space different to the physical universe space around a body). The complexity of these anchor points can cause an independent series of electronic flows which can occasion much discomfort to the individual. The balance structure of the body and even its joint action and physical characteristics can be changed by changing this electrical field which exists at a distance from, or within, the body.

The electrical field is paramount and monitors the actual physical structure of the body. Thus the body is not only influenced by the three minds, it is influenced as well by its own electrical field. An expert Scientologist can discover for the average person this field, and can bring about its adjustment, although this is very far from the primary purpose of the Scientologist.

The use of electrical shocks upon a body for any purpose is therefore very dangerous and is not condoned by sensible men. Of course, the use of electrical shock was never intended to be therapeutic, but was intended only to bring about obedience by duress, and, as far as it can be discovered, to make the entirety of insanity a horror. Electrical shock deranges the electronic field in the vicinity of the body and is always succeeded by bad health or physical difficulties and never does otherwise than hasten the death of the person. It has been stated by people using electric shock that if they were denied euthanasia (the right to kill people who were considered to be a burden on a society) they would at least use partial euthanasia in the form of electric shock, brain surgery and drugs. These treatments in some large percentage of cases, however, effected euthanasia as they were expected to do.

A knowledge of both the mental and physical structure of the body would be necessary in order to treat the body, and this knowledge has not existed prior to Scientology. The medical doctor has achieved many results by working purely with structure and bio-chemical products, and in the field of emergency surgery and obstetrics and orthopaedics, he is indispensable in the society. Medicine, however, has not previously even contained a definition for “mind” and is not expected to invade the field which belongs properly to Scientology.

These three parts of man, the thetan, the mind and the body, are each one different studies, but they influence each other markedly and continually. Of the three, the senior entity is the thetan, for without the thetan there would be no mind or animation in the body, while without a body or a mind there is still animation and life in the thetan. The thetan is the person. You are you in a body.

Many speculations in the field of para-Scientology have been made. Para-Scientology includes all of the uncertainties and unknown territories of life which have not been completely explored and explained. However, as studies have gone forward, it has become more and more apparent that the senior activity of life is that of the thetan, and that in the absence of the spirit no further life exists. In the insect kingdom it is not established whether or not each insect is ordered by a spirit or whether one spirit orders enormous numbers of insects. It is not established how mutation and evolution occur (if they do), and the general Authorship of the physical universe is only speculated upon, since Scientology does not invade the Eighth Dynamic.

Some facts, however, are completely known. The first of these is that the individual himself is a spirit controlling a body via a mind. The second of these is that the thetan is capable of making space, energy, mass and time. The third of these is that the thetan is separable from the body without the phenomenon of death, and can handle and control a body from well outside it. The fourth of these is that the thetan does not care to remember the life which he has just lived, after he has parted from the body and the mind. The fifth of these is that a person dying always exteriorizes. The sixth of these is that the person, having exteriorized, usually returns to a planet and procures, usually, another body of the same type of race as before.

In para-Scientology there is much discussion about “between lives areas” and other phenomena which might have passed at one time or another for heaven or hell, but it is established completely that a thetan is immortal and that he himself cannot actually experience death and counterfeits it by forgetting. It is adequately manifest that a thetan lives again and that he is very anxious to put something on the “time track” (something for the future) in order to have something to come back to, thus we have the anxieties of sex. There must be additional bodies for the next life.

It is obvious that what we create in our societies during this lifetime affects us during our next lifetime. This is quite different from the “belief”, or the idea, that this occurs. In Scientology we have very little to do with forcing people to make conclusions. An individual can experience these things for himself and unless he can do so no one expects him to accept them.

The manifestation that our hereafter is our next life entirely alters the general concept of spiritual destiny. There is no argument whatsoever with the tenets of faith since it is not precisely stated, uniformly, by religions that one immediately goes to a heaven or hell. It is certain that an individual experiences the effect of the civilization which he has had part in creating, in his next lifetime. In other words, the individual comes back. He has a responsibility for what goes on today since he will experience it tomorrow.

Sex has been overweighted in importance in old psychotherapy, an importance more or less disgraced at this time. Sex is only one of numerous creative impulses. An anxiety about sex, however, occurs when an individual begins to believe that there will not be a body for him to have during the next lifetime.

The common denominator of all aberration (mental derangement) is cessation of creation. As sex is only one kind of creation and a rather low order of it, it will be seen that unhappiness could stem from various cessations of creation. Death itself is a cessation of creation. One stops creating the identity John Jones and the environment and things of John Jones. He stops because he believes he cannot, himself, continue this creation without the assistance of a body, having become dependent upon a mind and a body, the first to do his thinking for him and the second to do his acting. An individual becoming sufficiently morose on the ideas of creation can actually bring about the condition of an inability to create.

Control

It will be seen that the three parts of man are intimately associated with control. The anatomy of control is start, change and stop. The loss of control takes place with the loss of pan-determinism. When one becomes too partisan, braces himself too solidly against the remainder of the environment, he no longer controls the environment to the degree that he might and so is unable to start, change and stop the environment.

It is a scientific definition in Scientology that control consists of start, change and stop. These three manifestations can be graphed alongside the apparent cycle of action: create, survive, destroy. Any person is somewhere along this curve. An individual who is bent mainly upon survival is intent, usually, upon changing things. An individual who is close to being destroyed is bent mainly upon stopping things. An individual who has a free heart and mind about life is bent upon creating things.

There could be three things wrong with any person, and these would be the inability to start, the inability to change, the inability to stop. Insanity, for the most part, is an inability to stop. A neurosis is a habit which, worsening, flies entirely out of control. One is stopped so often in life that he becomes an enemy of stopping and dislikes stopping so intensely that he himself will not stop things. Neurosis and psychosis of all classes are entirely inabilities to start, to change or to stop.

In the matter of the parts of man we discover that all things are initiated by the thetan so far as action, activity and behavior are concerned. After such an initiation he can be blunted or warped from course and acted upon in such a way that his attention becomes too fixed along one line or another and begins to suffer from these three inabilities. However, each one of the parts of man is subject to the anatomy of control.

An individual begins first by being unable himself, without help, to start, to change and to stop. Then the mind may become prone to these disabilities and is unable to start, change or to stop at will. Then the body itself can become subject to these three disabilities and is unable to start, to change and to stop. The oddity is, however, that an environment can so work upon a thetan that his body becomes disabled through no choice of his own. Similarly the reactive mind can become disabled through no choice of either the body or the thetan. But the thetan himself, beyond observing the effect of various causes and having initiated the thought to be there, can only become disabled by becoming too partisan, by becoming too little pandetermined, and so bringing himself into difficulties. These difficulties, however, are entirely the difficulties of consideration. As the thetan considers, so he is. In the final analysis the thetan has no problems of his own. The problems are always “other people’s problems” and must exist in the mind or the body or in other people or his surroundings for him to have problems. Thus his difficulties are, in the main, difficulties of staying in the game and keeping the game going.

If a thetan can suffer from anything, it is being out-created (created against too thoroughly). The manifestations of being out-created would be the destruction of his own creations and the overpowering presence of other creations. Thus a thetan can be brought to believe that he is trapped if he is out-created.

In past dissertations on the subject of the mind and philosophies of life there was a great deal of speculation and very little actual proof. Therefore, these philosophies were creations, and one philosopher was at work outcreating another philosopher. In Scientology we have this single difference. We are dealing with discoveries. The only things created about Scientology are the actual books and works in which Scientology is presented. The phenomena of Scientology are discovered and are held in common by all men and all life forms. There is no effort in Scientology to out-create each and every thetan that comes along. It is, of course, possible to conceive Scientology as a creation, and to conceive that it is overwhelming. It should be viewed otherwise, for it is intended as an assistance to life at large, to enable life to make a better civilization and a better game. There are no tenets in Scientology which cannot be demonstrated with entirely scientific procedures.

CHAPTER EIGHT

CAUSATION OF KNOWLEDGE

Scientology as a science is composed of many axioms (self-evident truths, as in geometry). There are some fifty-eight of these axioms in addition to the two hundred more axioms of Dianetics which preceded the Scientology axioms.

The first axioms in Scientology are:

Axiom 1. Life is basically a static. (Definition: A life static has no mass, no motion, no wave-length, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.)
Definition: In Scientology, the word “postulate” means to cause a thinkingness or consideration. It is a specially applied word and is defined as causative thinkingness.

Axiom 2. The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions.

Axiom 3. Space, energy, objects, form and time are the result of considerations made and/or agreed upon or not by the static, and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them.

Axiom 4. Space is a viewpoint of dimension. (Space is caused by looking out from a point. The only actuality of space is the agreed-upon consideration that one perceives through something, and this we call space.)

Axiom 5. Energy consists of postulated particles in space. (One considers that energy exists and that he can perceive energy. One also considers that energy behaves according to certain agreed-upon laws. These assumptions or considerations are the totality of energy.)

Axiom 6. Objects consist of grouped particles and solids.

Axiom 7. Time is basically a postulate that space and particles will persist. (The rate of their persistence is what we measure with clocks and the motion of heavenly bodies.)

Axiom 8. The apparency of time is the change of position of particles in space.

Axiom 9. Change is the primary manifestation of time.

Axiom 10. The highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect.

These first ten axioms of Scientology are the most fundamental “truths” (by which we mean commonly held considerations). Here we have thought and life and the physical universe in their relation, one to the other. Regardless of further considerations, ideas, assumptions and conditions there lies beneath them these first ten truths.

It is as though one had entered into an honorable bargain with fellow beings to hold these things in common. Once this is done, or once such a “contract” or agreement exists, one has the fundamentals of a universe. Specialized considerations based on the above make one or another kind of universe.

The physical universe which we see around us and in which we live was created on these fundamentals without regard to Who created it. Its creation was agreed upon. In order to perceive it, one must agree that it exists.

There are three classes of universes. There is first, foremost and most evident, the physical universe of spaces, stars, suns, land, sea, air and living forms. Then there is the other fellow’s universe which may or may not be agreed upon by his associates. This he holds to himself. The phenomenon of this universe is included in the field of the “mind” as described earlier. Then, listed last here, but first perceived, is one’s own universe.

The phenomenon of universes is an interesting one, since one’s own universe can be overwhelmed by the universes of others. These in Scientology we call valences (extra personalities, cells, apparent beingnesses). Valences and universes are the same thing, essentially.

For example, one while living in the physical universe can be overpowered by the universe of, let us say, father. While one still retains his own valence or identity, one is yet acting or thinking or suffering or feeling somewhat like father. Even though one is by oneself, there is this additional apparent beingness. Although father is absent, his commands are still present. Thus we get such things as “duty”, “obedience”, “training” and even”education”. Each one of these is caused by some part of another universe to a greater or lesser degree.

Regardless of how one reacts to universes, he still remains in some degree himself. It is the effort of many to struggle against universes or valences. In fact, this is a game and the essence of games. The totality of the impulse of aberrated people is the effort to separate one’s own self as a thetan from the various universes with which he feels himself too intimately associated. One is only oppressed by a universe when he feels he can have nothing of that universe. One is only victimized by “Father’s universe” when one is in protest against father. One protests against the physical universe only when he feels that he can have no part of it or does not belong in it or, as in religion, is not looked upon kindly by what he conceives to be the Creator of the physical universe. There is a basic law about universes: the postulates of the creator of any universe are the postulates which “work” in that universe. Thus one may feel uncomfortable in the universe of another.

Universes, as considered in games earlier, could be considered the playing fields of life. One plays willingly or one plays unwillingly. When one begins to play unwillingly he is apt to discover himself victimized by and interiorized into the universe of some game. It is against this phenomenon that a person protests. Consider the matter of a jail. On the surface of it, as Voltaire discovered, a jail provides food and shelter and leisure time. This would seem to be the ambition of many people, but the jail provides as well a restriction without one’s consent. The only difference between being in jail and being the king in a castle, so far as liberty is concerned, is one’s own desires in the matter and one’s own ability to command one’s environment. As a king in a castle one would be causative. His will, statement, thinkingness would have an effect upon others. Being in jail, one is an effect in that the thinkingness of others finds him its target. Here we have in terms of universes the most rudimentary example of cause and effect.

We must, however, assume, because it is so evident, that an individual only gets into traps and circumstances he intends to get into. Certain it is that, having gotten into such a position, he may be unwilling to remain in it, but a trap is always preceded by one’s own choice of entrance. We must assume a very wide freedom of choice on the part of a thetan, since it is almost impossible to conceive how a thetan could get himself trapped even though he consented to it. By actual demonstration a thetan goes through walls, barriers, vanishes space, appears anywhere at will and does other remarkable things. It must be, then, that an individual can be trapped only when he considers that he is trapped. In view of the fact that the totality of existence is based upon his own considerations, we find that the limitations he has must have been invited by himself— otherwise they could not be eradicated by the individual under processing, since the only one who is present with the preclear is the Auditor, and past associates of the preclear, while not present, do desensitize, under auditing, in the preclear’s mind. Therefore it must have been the preclear who kept them there. The preclear by processing can resolve all of his difficulties without going and finding other persons or consulting other universes. Thus the totality of entrapment, aberration, even injury, torture, insanity and other distasteful items are basically considerations a thetan is making and holding right now in present time. This must be the case since time itself is a postulate or consideration on his own part.
The greatest philosophical clamor or quarrel has been waged around the subject of “knowledge”, and there is nothing preposterous on the subject of knowledge that cannot be found in the philosophical texts. The superiority and ascendancy of Scientology depends upon the fact that it has transcended this philosophical quarrel on the subject of knowingness, and Scientology contains in itself the basics of knowledge.

By knowledge we mean assured belief, that which is known, information, instruction, enlightenment, learning, practical skill. By knowledge we mean data, factors and whatever can be thought about or perceived.

The reason why knowledge has been misunderstood in philosophy is that it is only half the answer. There is no allness to knowledge. By definition, knowledge is that which is perceived or learned or taken from another source. This patently then means that when one learns he is being an effect.

We see in Axiom 10 that “the highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect.” This is in direct contradiction to knowledge, although one of course can know how to create an effect.

Opposed to knowledge we have the neglected half of existence, which is the creation of knowledge, the creation of data, the creation of thought, the causative consideration, self-evolved ideas as opposed to ideas otherwise evolved. The reason Scientology is such a fascinating study is that it takes apart the other fellow’s ideas and permits one to create some of his own. Scientology gives us the common denominators of objects, energies, spaces, universes, livingness and thought itself.

There is cause and effect. Cause could be defined as emanation. It could be defined also, for purposes of communication, as source-point. If you consider a river flowing to the sea, the place where it began would be the source-point or cause, and the place where it went into the sea would be the effect-point, and the sea would be the effect of the river. The man firing the gun is cause; the man receiving the bullet is effect. The one making a statement is causing a communication, the one receiving the statement is the effect of the communication. A basic definition of communication is cause-distance-effect.

Almost all anxieties and upsets in human relations come about through an imbalance of cause and effect.

One must be willing at once to cause new data, statements, assumptions, considerations, and to receive ideas, assumptions, considerations.

So great is the anxiety of a thetan to be an effect that he closely approaches those things which can cause an effect upon him. Thus a thetan becomes trapped. On the face of it so few thetans make causative data and so many receive data that it would seem, in view of the fact that a thetan can be touched only by his own consideration, that thetans are more anxious for effects than to be cause.

It is learned under close experiments that there is nothing a thetan actually disdains on an effect level. He pretends not to like or enjoy certain effects and protests against them, but he knows very well that the mechanism of protest causes the effect to approach more closely as a general rule. This came about by his repeated failure to cause an effect and to receive no-effect in games. Insisting on no-effect for himself, he lost. Then he had to say he liked the effect.

The prevailing anxiety, then, is to be an effect, not to be a cause. The entire subject of responsibility is a study of cause and effect in that a person who wants no responsibility is anxious to be an effect only, and a person who can assume responsibility must also be willing to be causative.

A thetan can be swung into a “state of consideration” by observing that it is commonly held by others. This keeps him in the universe and this keeps him being effect.

Study, investigation, receiving education and similar activity are all effect activities and result in the assumption of less responsibility. Thus, while it is true that a thetan cannot actually get into trouble, he can, by agreeing with the current agreed-upon thought in the universe where he finds himself, take a pattern of thinkingness which makes him less effective because he wishes to be an effect. If he feels he must gather all of his data from elsewhere, he is then the effect of knowledge, the effect of universes and postulates, and he tends to reduce his own ability to form or make knowledge thirst for other thetans’ postulates and would lead one to forget that he himself has been a party to the making of these postulates and that he himself had to follow a certain course in order to put himself in reach of other thetans’ postulates.

(Note to Translators: Lacking a proper English word for “causative thinking”, the word “postulate” has been used in slight difference to its English definition. If there is a word in your language which means “self-impulsion” or “creation of a thought”, use that instead of “postulate”.)

Because one is the effect of knowledge, causing data, considerations or “facts” to come into being separates one in distance from being an effect. If one is very anxious to be an effect and if this is his basic consideration, he will not take well to causing information to come into existence, but in order to get him out of the traps in which he finds himself, it is necessary to some degree that he do so.

Causing few barriers or traps, the individual then loses control over barriers or traps; wishing to be an effect, of course he must lose control of barriers and traps, otherwise he cannot be entrapped by them. The thing to do to free him from a trap is to have him find what parts of the trap he himself is willing to create, own, have or possess. This places the barriers (which can be spaces, energy movements or obstacles) under his control, and his postulating that he can have or possess this or that causes him to be willing to be or occupy the trap. The moment this occurs he is no longer in the trap, or even if he is still in it to some degree he does not object to it and can leave it when he wishes.

Civilization and Savagery

The way to paralyze a nation entirely and to make it completely ungovernable would be to forbid education of any kind within its borders and to inculcate into every person within it the feeling that he must not receive any information from anybody about anything. To make a nation governable it is necessary to hold a kindly view of education and to honor educative persons and measures. To conquer a land it is not necessarily efficient to overwhelm it with guns. Once this is done it is necessary to apply educative measures in order to bring about some sort of agreement amongst the people themselves, as well as between the conqueror and the subdued. Only in this way could one have a society, a civilization or, as we say in Scientology, a smoothly running game.

In other words, two extremes could be reached, neither one of which is desirable for the individual. The first extreme could be reached by emphasis only upon self-created data or information. This would bring about not only a lack of interpersonal relations, but also an anxiety to have an effect which would, as it does in barbaric peoples, result in social cruelty unimaginable in a civilized nation. The other extreme would be to forbid in its entirety any self-created information and to condone only data or considerations generated by others than self. Here we would create an individual with no responsibility, so easily handled that he would be only a puppet.

Self-created data is then not a bad thing, neither is education, but one without the other to hold it in some balance will bring about a no-game condition or a nocivilization. Just as individuals can be seen by observing nations, so we see the African tribesman, with his complete contempt for truth and his emphasis on brutality and savagery for others but not himself, is a no-civilization. And we see at the other extreme China, slavishly dedicated to ancient scholars, incapable of generating within herself sufficient rulers to continue, without bloodshed, a nation.

We have noted the individual who must be the only one who can make a postulate or command, whose authority is dearer to him than the comfort or state of millions, and we have suffered from such men (Napoleon, Hitler, Kaiser Wilhelm, Frederick of Prussia, Genghis Khan, Attila). We have known, too, the scholar who has studied himself into blindness and is the world’s greatest authority on government or some such thing, who yet cannot himself manage his bank account or a dog with any certainty. Here we have, in either case, a total imbalance. The world shaker is himself unwilling to be any effect of any kind (and all the men named here were arrant personal cowards) and we have the opposite, a man who would not know what you were talking about if you told him to get an idea of his own.

We see another example of this in the fundamental laws of warfare. A body of troops, to be effective, must be able to attack and to defend. Its implements must be divided 50% for attack and 50% for defense. In other words, even in a crude activity such as warfare, we find that no successful outcome is possible unless the troops can devote half of their energies to attack and half of them to defense.

In the much broader view of life we discover on any dynamic that success or a game or activity or life itself depends upon being willing to be cause as well as willing to be an effect. He who would give must be willing to receive. He who would receive must be willing to give. When these tenets are violated, the most fundamental principle of human relationships is violated, and the result is a no-game condition such as aberration, insanity, anti-socialness, criminality, inactivity, laziness, tiredness, mania, fanaticism and all the other things against which men protest. But imbalances between cause and effect also enter randomities (unpredicted motions) into the game of life and cannot be neglected in their potential for creating a game.

Any information is valuable to the degree that you can use it. In other words, any information is valuable to the degree that you can make it yours. Scientology, of all the sciences, does not teach you—it only reminds you, for the information was yours in the first place. It is not only the science of life, but it is an account of what you were doing before you forgot what you were doing.

CHAPTER NINE

KNOW AND NOT-KNOW

It is a mechanism of thinkingness, whether one is postulating or receiving information, that one retain one’s ability to know. It is equally important that one retain one’s ability to not-know. Thought consists entirely of knowing and not-knowing and the shades of gray between.

You will discover that most people are trying not to remember. In other words, they are trying to not-know. Education can only become burdensome when one is unable to not-know it. It is necessary that one be able to create, to receive, to know, and to not-know information, data and thoughts. Lacking any one of these skills, for they are skills, no matter how native they are to the individual, one is apt to get into a chaos of thinkingness or creatingness or livingness.

You can look at any eccentric or aberrated person and discover rapidly, by an inspection of him, which one of these four factors he is violating. He either is unable to know or not-know his own created thoughts, or he is unable to know or not-know the thoughts of others. Somewhere, for some reason best known to him, in his anxiety to be part of the game, he has shelved or lost one of these abilities.

Time is a process of knowing in the present and not-knowing in the future or the past. Remembering is the process of knowing the past; prediction is the process of knowing the future. Forgetting is the process of notknowing the past, and living “only for today” is the process of not-knowing the future.

Exercises in these various items rehabilitate not only the sanity or ability of the individual, but his general capability in living and playing the game.

CHAPTER TEN

THE GOAL OF SCIENTOLOGY

The end object of Scientology is not the making into nothing of all of existence or the freeing of the individual of any and all traps everywhere. 

The goal of Scientology is the making of the individual capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with his fellows, and the playing of a better game.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

SCIENTOLOGY PROCESSING

Scientology is applied in many ways to many fields. One particular and specialized method of application of Scientology is its use on individuals and groups of people in the eradication of physical problems deriving from mental states and the improvement of their abilities and intelligence. By processing is meant the verbal exercising of an individual (preclear) in exact Scientology processes. There is a great deal of terminology and precision in these processes and their use, and they are not combinable with older mental activities such as psychiatry, psychology, psychoanalysis, yoga, massage, etc. However, these processes are capable of addressing or treating the same ills of the mind as are delineated by older methodology, with the addition that Scientology is alone in its ability to successfully eradicate those psychosomatic problems to which it is addressed. It is the only science or study known which is capable of uniformly producing marked and significant increases in intelligence and general ability.

Scientology processing amongst other things can improve the intelligence quotient of an individual, his ability or desire to communicate, his social attitudes, his capability and domestic harmony, his fertility, his artistic creativity, his reaction time and his health.

An additional sphere of activity allied to processing is preventive Scientology. In this branch of processing, an individual is freed from assuming states lower than those he has already suffered from. In other words, the progress of tendencies, neuroses, habits and deteriorating activities can be halted by Scientology or their occurrence can be prevented. This is done by processing the individual on standard Scientology processes without particular attention to the aberration involved.

Scientology processing is called “auditing”, by which the auditor (practitioner) “listens, computes and commands”. The auditor and preclear (person receiving auditing) are together out-of-doors or in a quiet place where they will not be disturbed or where they are not being subjected to interrupting influences. The purpose of the auditor is to give the preclear certain and exact commands which the preclear can follow and perform. The purpose of the auditor is to increase the ability of the preclear. The Auditor’s Code is the governing set of rules for the general activity of auditing. The Code follows:

The Auditor’s Code

1. 	Do not evaluate for the preclear.
2. 	Do not invalidate or correct the preclear’s data.
3. 	Use the processes which improve the preclear’s case.
4. 	Keep all appointments once made.
5. 	Donotprocessapreclearafter 10p.m.
6. 	Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed or who has not received enough rest.
7. 	Do not permit a frequent change of auditors.
8. 	Do not sympathize with the preclear.
9. 	Never permit the preclear to end the session on his own independent decision.
10. 	Never walk off from a preclear during a session.
11. 	Never get angry with a preclear.
12. 	Always reduce every communication lag encountered by continued use of the same question or process.
13. 	Always continue a process as long as it produces change and no longer.
14. 	Be willing to grant beingness to the preclear.
15. 	Never mix the processes of Scientology with those of various other practices.
16. 	Maintain two-way communication with the preclear.
17. 	Never use Scientology to obtain personal and unusual favors or unusual compliance from the preclear for the auditor’s own personal profit.
18. 	Estimate the current case of your preclear with reality and do not audit another imagined case.
19. 	Do not explain, justify, or make excuses for any auditor mistakes whether real or imagined.

The Auditor’s Code governs the activity of the auditor during sessions. The activity of the Scientologist in general is governed by another broader code.

The Code of a Scientologist

As a Scientologist, I pledge myself to the code of Scientology for the good of all:

1. 	To hear or speak no word of disparagement to the press, public or preclears concerning any of my fellow Scientologists, our professional organization or those whose names are closely connected to this Science, nor to place in danger any such person.
2. 	To use the best I know of Scientology to the best of my ability to better my preclears, groups and the world.
3. 	To refuse to accept for processing and to refuse to accept money from any preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly help.
4. 	To deter to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends.
5. 	To prevent the use of Scientology in advertisements of other products.
6. 	To discourage the abuse of Scientology in the press.
7. 	To employ Scientology to the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics.
8. 	To render good processing, sound training and good discipline to those students or peoples entrusted to my care.
9. 	To refuse to impart the personal secrets of my preclear.s
10. 	To engage in no unseemly disputes with the uninformed on the subject of my profession.
11. 	To completely refrain from discussing the case of another auditor’s preclear with that preclear or within his hearing.

As it can be seen, both of these codes are designed to protect the preclear as well as Scientology and the auditor in general. As these codes evolve from many years of observation and experience by a great number of people, it can be said that they are intensely important and are probably complete. Failure to observe them has resulted in a failure of Scientology. Scientology can do what it can do only when it is used within the limits of these two codes. Thus it can be seen that the interjection of peculiarities or practices by the auditor into Scientology processing can actually nullify and eradicate the benefits of that processing. Any hope or promise in Scientology is conditional upon its good use by the individual and its use in particular within the limits of these two codes.

The Conditions of Auditing

Certain definite conditions must prevail and a certain methodology must be followed in order that processing may be beneficial to its fullest extent. Probably the first condition is a good grasp of Scientology as a science and its mission in the world. The second condition would be a relaxed state of mind on the part of the auditor and the confidence that his use of Scientology upon the preclear will not produce a harmful result. The third requisite should be finding a preclear. By this it is literally meant that one should discover somebody willing to be processed, and, having discovered one so willing, should then make sure that he is aware that he is there being processed. The fourth requisite would be a quiet place in which to audit, with every precaution taken that the preclear will not be interrupted or burst in upon or unduly startled during processing.

CHAPTER TWELVE

EXACT PROCESSES

Auditing 
Game and No-Game Conditions

In Scientology, the most important single elements to the auditor are Game Conditions and No-Game Conditions. Reason—all games are aberrative.

All processing is directed toward game conditions. Little or no processing is directed toward no-game conditions. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to know exactly what these are, for one could be superficial about it and lose.

Rule—all Games are aberrative, some are fun.

The Elements of Games to auditors are:

A game consists of freedoms, barriers and purposes.

In a game one’s own team or self must receive no-effect and must deliver an effect upon the other team or opponent.

A game should have space and, preferably, a playing field.

A game is played in the same time continuum for both sides (all players).

A game must have something which one does not have in order for it to be won.

Some part of the dynamics must be excluded for a game condition to exist. The amount of the dynamics excluded represents the tone of the game.

Games occur only when there is intention opposing intention, purpose opposing purpose.

A scarcity of games forces the preclear to accept less desirable games.

Participation in any game (whether it be the game of sick-man, jealous-wife or polio) is preferable to being in a no-game condition.

The type of game entered by a person is determined by his consideration as to how much and what kind of an effect he may receive while trying to deliver an effect.

Games are the basic mechanism for continuing attention.

To play a game one must be able to not-know his past and future and not-know his opponent’s complete intentions.

Game Conditions are: 
Attention 
Identity 
Effect on Opponents
No-effect on Self
Can’t Have on opponents and goals and their areas
Have on tools of play, own goals and field
Purpose
Problems of play
Self-determinism
Opponents
The possibility of loss
The possibility of winning
Communication
Non-arrival

No-Game Conditions are:
Knowing All
Not-Knowing Everything
Serenity
Namelessness
No-effect on opponent
Effect on self or team
Have everything
Can’t Have nothing
Solutions
Pan-Determinism
Friendship with All
Understanding
Total Communication
No Communication
Win
Lose
No Universe
No Playing Field
Arrival
Death

Process only with those conditions listed as Game Conditions. Do not process directly toward those conditions listed as No-Game Conditions. So doing, the auditor will run out (erase) the aberrative effect of games and restore an ability to play a game.

Identities—Valences

There are four identities or valences.

When one is in his “own” valence he is said to be “himself “.

As he departs from his own identity he comes in to the following:

Exchanged Valence: One has directly superimposed the identity of another on his own. Example—Daughter becomes own mother to some degree. Remedy—One directly runs out mother.

Attention Valence: One has become the valence B because one wants attention from C. Example—One becomes mother because mother received attention from father while self did not. Remedy—Run out father even though preclear appears in valence of mother.

Synthetic Valence: One takes a valence about which he has been told. Example—Mother tells child false things about father, accuses child of being like father, with result that child is forced into father’s valence. Remedy—Run out mother even though preclear does not seem to be near mother’s valence.

All requisites for auditing from here on are entirely concerned with procedures and processes. By auditing procedure is meant the general model of how one goes about addressing a preclear. This includes an ability to place one question worded exactly the same way over and over again to the preclear no matter how many times the preclear has answered the question. It should include the ability to acknowledge with a “good” and “all right” every time a preclear executes or completes the execution of a command. It should include the ability to accept a communication from the preclear. When the preclear has something to say, the auditor should acknowledge the fact that he has received the preclear.s communication and should pay some attention to the communication.

Procedure also includes the ability to sense when the preclear is being over-strained by processing or is being unduly annoyed and to handle such crises in the session to prevent the preclear from leaving. An auditor should also have the ability of handling startling remarks or occurrences by the preclear. An auditor should also have the knack of preventing the preclear from talking obsessively since prolonged conversation markedly reduces the havingness of the preclear, and the sooner long dissertations by the preclear are cut off the better for the session in general.

Processes as distinct from procedures consist of utilizing the principle of the gradient scale to the end of placing the preclear in better control of himself, his mind, the people and the universe around him.

By gradient scale is meant a proceeding from simplicity toward greater difficulty, giving the preclear always no more than he can do, but giving him as much as he can do until he can handle a great deal. The idea here is to give the preclear nothing but wins and to refrain from giving the preclear losses in the game of processing. Thus it can be seen that processing is a team activity and is not itself a game whereby the auditor opposes and seeks to defeat the preclear and the preclear seeks to defeat the auditor, for when this condition exists little results in processing.

The earliest stage of auditing consists in taking over control of the preclear so as to restore to the preclear more control of himself than he has had. The most fundamental step is then location, whereby the preclear is made to be aware of the fact that he is in an auditing room, that an auditor is present and that the preclear is being a preclear.

Those conditions will become quite apparent if one realizes that it would be very difficult for a son to process a father. A father is not likely to recognize anything else than the boy he raised in his auditor. Therefore the father would have to be made aware of the fact that the son was a competent practitioner before the father could be placed under control in processing. One of the most elementary commands in Scientology is “Look at me, who am I?” After a preclear has been asked to do this many times until he can do so quickly and accurately and without protest, it can be said that the preclear will have “found” the auditor.

The preclear is asked by the auditor to control, which is to say, start, change and stop (the anatomy of control) anything he is capable of controlling. In a very bad case this might be a very small object being pushed around on a table, being started and changed and stopped each time specifically and only at the auditor’s command until the preclear himself realizes that he himself can start, change and stop the object. Sometimes four or five hours spent in this exercise are very well spent on a very difficult preclear.

The preclear is then asked to start, change and stop his own body under the auditor’s specific and precise direction. In all of his commands the auditor must be careful never to give a second command before the first one has been fully obeyed. A preclear in this procedure is walked around the room and is made to start, change the direction of and stop his body, emphasizing one of these at a time, until he realizes that he can do so with ease. Only now could it be said that a session is well in progress or that a preclear is securely under the auditor’s command.

It should be noted especially that the goal of Scientology is better self-determinism for the preclear. This rules out at once hypnotism, drugs, alcohol or other control mechanisms used by other and older therapies. It will be found that such things are not only not necessary, but they are in direct opposition to the goals of greater ability for the preclear.

The principal points of concentration for the auditor now become the ability of the preclear to have, the ability of the preclear to not-know, and the ability of the preclear to play a game.

An additional factor is the ability of the preclear to be himself and not a number of other people, such as his father, his mother, his marital partner or his children.

The ability of the preclear is increased by addressing to him the process known as the Trio. These are three questions, or rather commands.

1. 	“Look around here and tell me what you could have.” 
2. 	“Look around here and tell me what you would permit to remain in place.”
3. 	“Look around here and tell me with what you could dispense.”

No. 1 above is used usually about ten times, then No. 2 is used five times, and No. 3 is used once. This ratio of ten, five and one would be an ordinary or routine approach to havingness. The end in view is to bring the preclear into a condition whereby he can possess or own or have whatever he sees, without further conditions, ramifications or restrictions. This is the most therapeutic of all processes, elementary as it might seem. It is done without too much two-way communication or discussion with the preclear, and it is done until the preclear can answer questions one, two and three equally well. It should be noted at once that twenty-five hours of use of this process by an auditor upon a preclear brings about a very high rise in tone. By saying twenty-five hours it is intended to give the idea of the length of time the process should be used. As it is a strain on the usual person to repeat the same question over and over, it will be seen that an auditor should be well disciplined or very well trained before he audits.

In the case of a preclear who is very unable, “Can’t have “ is substituted for “have”, etc., in each of the above questions for a few hours, until the preclear is ready for the Trio in its “have” form. This can-can’t is the plus and minus aspect of all thought and in Scientology is called by a specialized word dichotomy.

The rehabilitation of the ability of the preclear to not-know is also rehabilitation of the preclear in the time stream since the process of time consists of knowing the moment and not-knowing the past and not-knowing the future simultaneously. This process, like all other Scientology processes, is repetitive. The process is run, ordinarily, only after the preclear is in very good condition and is generally run in an exterior well inhabited place. Here the auditor, without exciting public comment, indicates a person and asks the preclear “Can you not-know something about that person?” The auditor does not permit the preclear to “not-know” things which the preclear already doesn’t know. The preclear “not-knows” only those things which are visible and apparent about the person. This is also run on objects in the environment such as walls, floors, chairs and other things. The auditor should not be startled when for the preclear large chunks of the environment start to disappear. This is ordinary routine and in effect the preclear should make the entirety of the environment disappear at his own command. The environment does not disappear for the auditor. The end goal of this “not-know” process is the disappearance of the entire universe, under the preclear’s control, but only for the preclear.

It will be discovered while running this that the preclear’s “havingness” may deteriorate. If this happens, he was not run enough on the Trio before he was run on this process. It is only necessary in such a case to intersperse

“Look around here and tell me what you could have” with the “not-know” command to keep the preclear in good condition. Drop of havingness is manifested by nervous agitation, obsessive talk or semi-unconsciousness or “dopiness” on the part of the preclear. These manifestations indicate only reduction of havingness.

The reverse of the question here is “Tell me something that you would be willing to have that person (indicated by the auditor) not-know about you.” Both sides of the question have to be run (audited). This process can be continued for twenty-five hours or even fifty or seventyfive hours of auditing with considerable benefit so long as it does not react too violently upon the preclear in terms of loss of havingness.

It should be noted that, in running either havingness or “not-know” on a preclear, the preclear may “exteriorize”. In other words, it may become apparent, either by his observation or because the preclear informs him, that the auditor has “exteriorized” a preclear. Under “The Parts of Man” section there is an explanation of this phenomenon In modern auditing the auditor does not do anything odd about this beyond receive and be interested in the preclear’s statement of the fact. The preclear should not be permitted to become alarmed since it is a usual manifestation. A preclear is in better condition and will audit better exteriorized than “in his head”. Understanding that an actual ability to “not-know” is an ability to erase the past by self-command without suppressing it with energy or going into any other method is necessary to help the preclear. It is the primary rehabilitation in terms of knowingness. Forgetting is a lower manifestation than “not-knowingness”.

The third ability to be addressed by the auditor is the ability of the preclear to play a game. First and foremost in the requisites to playing a game is the ability to control. One must be able to control something in order to participate in a game. Therefore the general rehabilitation of control by starting, changing and stopping things is a rehabilitation of the ability to play a game. When a preclear refuses to recover, it is because the preclear is using his state as a game, and does not believe that there is any better game for him to play than the state he is in. He may protest if this is called a game. Nevertheless, any condition will surrender if the auditor has the preclear invent similar conditions or even tell lies about the existing condition. Inventing games or inventing conditions or inventing problems alike rehabilitates the ability to play a game. Chief amongst these various rehabilitation factors are control (start, change and stop), problems, and the willingness to overwhelm or be overwhelmed. One ceases to be able to have games when one loses control over various things, when one becomes short of problems and when one is unwilling to be overwhelmed (in other words, to lose) or to overwhelm (to win). It will be found while running havingness as in the Trio above that one may run down the ability to play a game, since havingness is the reward of a game in part.

In the matter of problems it will be seen that these are completely necessary to the playing of a game. The anatomy of a problem is intention versus intention. This is, of course, in essence the purpose of all games, to have two sides, each one with an opposed intention. Technically a problem is two or more purposes in conflict. It is very simple to detect whether or not the preclear is suffering from a scarcity of games. The preclear who needs more games clutches to himself various present-time problems. If an auditor is confronted with a preclear who is being obsessed by a problem in present-time he knows two things: (1) that the preclear’s ability to play agame islow, and (2) that he must run an exact process at once to rehabilitate the preclear in session.

It often happens at the beginning of an auditing session that the preclear has encountered a heavy present-time problem between sessions. The preclear must always be consulted before the session is actually in progress as to whether or not he has “anything worrying” him. To a preclear who is worried about some present-time situation or problem no other process has any greater effectiveness than the following one. The auditor after a very brief discussion of the problem asks the preclear “to invent” a problem of comparable magnitude. He may have to re-word this request to make the preclear understand it completely, but the auditor wants in essence the preclear to invent or create a problem he considers similar to the problem he has. If the preclear is unable to do this, it is necessary then to have him lie about the problem which he has. Lying is the lowest order of creativeness. After he has lied about the problem for a short time, it will be found that he will be able to invent problems. He should be made to invent problem after problem until he is no longer concerned with his present-time problem.

The auditor should understand that a preclear who is “now willing to do something about the problem” has not been run long enough on the invention of problems of comparable magnitude. As long as the preclear is attempting to do something about the problem, the problem is still of obsessive importance to him. No session can be continued successfully until such a present-time problem is entirely flat, and it has been the experience, when a present-time problem was not completely eradicated by this process, that the remainder of the session or indeed the entire course of auditing may be interrupted.

When a preclear does not seem to be advancing under auditing, a thing which he does markedly and observedly, it must then be supposed that the preclear has a present-time problem which has not been eradicated and which must be handled in auditing. Although the auditor gives the preclear to understand that he too believes this present-time problem is extremely important, the auditor should not believe that this process will not handle any present-time problem, since it will. This process should be done on some preclears in company with the Trio.

If the preclear is asked to “lie about” or “invent a problem of comparable magnitude,” and while doing so becomes agitated or unconscious or begins to talk wildly or obsessively, it must be assumed that he will have to have some havingness run on him until the agitation or manifestation ceases so that the problem of comparable magnitude process can be resumed.

Another aspect of the ability to play a game is the willingness to win and the willingness to lose. An individual has to be willing to be cause or willing to be an effect. As far as games are concerned, this is reduced to a willingness to win and a willingness to lose. People become afraid of defeat and afraid of failure. The entire anatomy of failure is only that one’s postulates or intentions are reversed in action. For instance, one intends to strike a wall and strikes it. That is a win. One intends not to strike a wall and doesn’t strike it. That is again a win. One intends not to strike a wall and strikes it. That is a lose. One intends to strike a wall and can’t strike it. This is again a lose. It will be seen in this as well as other things that the most significant therapy there is is changing one’s mind. All things are as one considers they are and no other way. If it is sufficiently simple to give the definition of winning and losing, so it is simple to process the matter.

This condition is best expressed, it appears, in processing by a process known as “overwhelming”. An elementary way of running this is to take the preclear outside where there are numbers of people to observe and, indicating a person, to ask the preclear “What could overwhelm that person?” When the preclear answers this, he is asked about the same person, “What could that person overwhelm?” He is then asked as the third question, “Look around here and tell me what you could have. “ These three questions are run one after the other. Then another person is chosen and then the three questions are asked again.

This process can be varied in its wording, but the central idea must remain as above. The preclear can be asked, “What would you permit to overwhelm that person?” and “What would you permit that person to overwhelm?” and of course “Look around here and tell me what you could have. “ This is only one of a number of possible processes on the subject of overwhelming, but it should be noted that asking the preclear to think of things which would overwhelm him could be fatal to the case. Where overwhelming is handled, the preclear should be given a detached view.

A counter-position to havingness processes, but one which is less therapeutic, is “separateness”. One asks the preclear to look around and discover things which are separate from things. This is repeated over and over. It is, however, destructive of havingness even though it will occasionally prove beneficial.

It will be seen that havingness (barriers), “notknowingness” (being in present time and not in the past or the future), purposes (problems, antagonists, or intentioncounter-intention), and separateness (freedom) will cover the anatomy of games. It is not to be thought, however, that havingness addresses itself only to games. Many other factors enter into it. In amongst all of these, it is of. the greatest single importance.

One addresses in these days of Scientology the subjective self, the mind, as little as possible. One keeps the preclear alert to the broad environment around him. An address to the various energy patterns of the mind is less beneficial than exercises which directly approach other people or the physical universe. Therefore, asking a preclear to sit still and answer the question “What could you have?”, when it is answered by the preclear from his experience or on the score of things which are not present, is found to be non-therapeutic and is found instead to decrease the ability and intelligence of the preclear. This is what is known as a subjective (inside the mind only) process.

These are the principal processes which produce marked gains. There are other processes and there are combinations of processes, but these given here are the most important. A Scientologist knowing the mind completely can of course do many “tricks” with the conditions of people to improve them. One of these is the ability to address a psychosomatic illness such as a crippled leg which, having nothing physically wrong with it, yet is not usable. The auditor could ask the preclear “Tell me a lie about your leg” with a possible relief of the pain or symptoms. Asking the preclear repeatedly “Look around here and tell me something your leg could have” would undoubtedly release the somatic. Asking the preclear with the bad leg “What problem could your leg be to you?” or desiring him to “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to your leg” would produce a distinct change in the condition of the leg. This would apply to any other body part or organ. It would also apply, strangely enough, to the preclear’s possessions. If a preclear had avehicle or cart which was out of repair or troublesome to him, one could ask him “What problem could a cart be to you?” and thus requesting him to invent many such problems one would discover that he had solved his problems with the cart. There is a phenomenon in existence that the preclear already has many set games, and when the auditor asks him to give some problems, he already has the manifestations of as-ising or erasing taking place. Thought erases; therefore the number of problems or games the preclear would have would be reduced by asking him to recount those which he already has. Asking the preclear to describe his symptoms is far less therapeutic and may result in a worsening of those symptoms, contrary to what some schools of thought have believed in the past but which accounts for their failures.

There are specific things which one must avoid in auditing. These follow:

1. Significances. The easiest thing a thetan does is change his mind. The most difficult thing he does is handle the environment in which he finds himself situated. Therefore, asking a thetan to run out various ideas is a fallacy. It is a mistake. Asking the preclear to think over something can also be an error. Asking a preclear to do exercises which concern his mind alone can be entirely fatal. A preclear is processed between himself and his environment. If he is processed between himself and his mind, he is processed up too short a view and his condition will worsen.

2. Two-way communication. There can be far too much two-way communication or far too much communication in an auditing session. Communication involves the reduction of havingness. Letting a preclear talk on and on or obsessively is to let a preclear reduce his havingness. The preclear who is permitted to go on talking will talk himself down the tone scale and into a bad condition. It is better for the auditor simply and discourteously to tell a preclear to “shut up” than to have the preclear run himself “out of the bottom” on havingness. You can observe this for yourself if you permit a person who is not too able to talk about his troubles to keep on talking. He will begin to talk more and more hectically. He is reducing his havingness. He will eventually talk himself down the tone scale into apathy at which time he will be willing to tell you (as you insist upon it) that he “feels better” when, as a matter of fact, he is actually worse. Asking a preclear “How do you feel now4” can reduce his havingness since he looks over his present-time condition and as-ises some mass.

3. Too many processes. It is possible to run a preclear on too many processes in too short a time with a reduction of the preclear’s recovery. This is handled by observing the communication lag of the preclear. It will be discovered that the preclear will space his answers to a repeated question differently with each answer. When a long period ensues between the question and his answer to the question a second time, he is said to have a “communication lag”. The “communication lag” is the length of time between the placing of the question by the auditor and the answering of that exact question by the preclear. It is not the length of time between the placing of the question by the auditor and some statement by the preclear.

It will be found that the communication lag lengthens and shortens on a repeated question. The question on the tenth time it has been asked may detect no significant lag. This is the time to stop asking that question since it now has no appreciable communication lag. One can leave any process when the communication lag for three successive questions is the same. In order to get from one process to another, one employs a communication bridge which to a marked degree reduces the liability of too many processes. A communication bridge is always used.

Before a question is asked, the preclear should have the question discussed with him and the wording of the question agreed upon, as though he were making a contract with the auditor. The auditor says that he is going to have the preclear do certain things and finds out if it’s all right with the preclear if the auditor asks him to do these things. This is the first part of a communication bridge. It precedes all questions, but when one is changing from one process to another the bridge becomes a bridge indeed. One levels out the old process by asking the preclear whether or not he doesn’t think it is safe to leave that process now. One discusses with the preclear the possible benefit received from the process and then tells the preclear that he is no longer going to use that process. Now he tells the preclear he is going to use a new process, describes the process and gets an agreement on it. When the agreement is achieved, then he uses this process. The communication bridge is used at all times. The last half of it, the agreement on a new process, is used always before any process is begun.

4. Failure to handle the present-time problem. Probably more cases are stalled or found unable to benefit in processing because of the neglect of the present-time problem, as covered above, than any other single item.

5. Unconsciousness, “dopiness” or agitation on the part of the preclear is not a mark of good condition. It is a loss of havingness. The preclear must never be processed into unconsciousness or “dopiness”. He should always be kept alert. The basic phenomenon of unconsciousness is “a flow which has flowed too long in one direction.” If one talks too long at somebody he will render him unconscious. In order to wake up the target of all that talk, it is necessary to get the person to do some talking. It is simply necessary to reverse any flow to make unconsciousness disappear, but this is normally cared for in modern Scientology by running the Trio above.

The Future of Scientology

With man now equipped with weapons sufficient to destroy all mankind on Earth, the emergence of a new science capable of handling man is vital. Scientology is such a science. It was born in the same crucible as the atomic bomb. The basic intelligence of Scientology came from nuclear physics, higher mathematics and the understanding of the ancients in the East. Scientology can and does do exactly what it says it can do. In Washington, D, there is an enormous file cabinet filled with thousands of case histories, fully validated and sworn to, which attest the scientific thoroughness of Scientology. With Scientology man can prevent insanity, criminality and war. It is for man to use. It is for the betterment of man. The primary race of Earth is not between one nation and another today. The only race that matters at this moment is the one being run between Scientology and the atomic bomb. The history of man, as has been said by well-known authorities, may well depend upon which one wins.

P.A.B. No. 97
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
20 Buckingham Street, Strand, London W.C.2

_____________________________________________________________________

1 October 1956

START- CHANGE- STOP

Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s August 1956 HPA/HPC tape lectures

This is the entrance to rough cases nowadays. The lowest entrance to a case which we have today is the same for a low case as it is for a high case. This process does not criticize the preclear’s case.

It is below the establishing of the rudiments, but should still be audited in the modern manner of Communication Bridges, Acknowledgments, etc.

Only one procedure that would be lower than this process would be a highly specialized procedure having to do with an individual who has lost the use of his voice, sight, hearing or his capability of moving his hands.

It becomes necessary for the auditor to become inventive in order to establish communication, but he should stick as nearly as possible to these procedures. The lowest processes which would be addressed to any case would simply be the first process of SLP 8, which is not, as we were saying before, “Find the auditor,” “Find the preclear” etc., but the process which leads up to that. This is an interesting process since it is in itself capable of producing a full result and is an extremely simple one.

Start, change, and stop is the anatomy of control. This is a cycle of action. There is continue (persist) on the middle of the curve and other cycles within cycles of action, but the important factors are Start, Change, and Stop.

These three parts of control are run flat individually. Then pick up the other part of the cycle and run that flat in this order: We run Change flat, and then run Start very flat and then we run STOP flat.

It would be a mistake at this point to say this process is finished, for the excellent reason that if you ran Change again you would find further considerations shifting in the preclear, and then if you ran Start you would find it unflattened, so you would run it again and then run and flatten Stop.

It would not be possible to say how long you would have to run the process altogether. On somebody who was total machinery and who never had been in session, this would be a rough process. On a case that is in good condition, this would run easier. The preclear would consider it interesting and would exteriorize much better.

The end result of this process is exteriorization. For someone who is compulsively exteriorized this would be excellent, as he would slide into his head and eventually come out of it again, but not on a compulsive level this time.

One meets with three conditions in auditing: the preclear who is compulsively interiorized, the preclear who is compulsively exteriorized, and the preclear who is buttered all over the universe. This case run on S-C-S would greatly accumulate the ability to collect himself—this might not occur until you have run him for five or more hours on it.

If this process is continued long enough the preclear will be moving his body by postulate—i.e. from the outside—not by beams, stimulus-response, etc.

This process does not go all the way up because of the preclear’s attention span. Most preclears can’t stay on a process for more than a few moments, so you would vary the process a little to keep him interested. His actual response, however, is not important as long as he does it.

There is no such thing as bad control, only non-positive control. Good control is positive control and positive control is not bad control. We get a lower level there than moving the body. This is S-C-S on objects. It is always safest to run this on someone you are trying out. Somebody to whom a body is not real should be run using an object instead of his body.

To run this process the auditor and preclear should both stand up. This gives reality, and the auditor duplicating (mimicry) the preclear will bring about greater ARC. The session always fails when the auditor sits down while running S-C-S.

It runs this way:

The auditor points out a spot on the floor to the preclear and says, “Do you see that spot? Good, well, we’ll call that Spot A. Now you stand there. Okay.” The auditor now indicates another spot and says, “Now do you see that other spot? Good, we’ll call that Spot B. All right, now when I tell you to change the body’s position I want you to move it from Spot A to Spot B. All right? Good. Change the body’s position. Fine.” Then you say, “Do you see that spot? Well, we’ll call that Spot C (we use three spots so that we don’t run a duplication process on him). Now when I tell you to change the body’s position I want you to move the body from Spot B to Spot C. Do you understand that? All right, change the body’s position.”

You can ask him “Did you change the body’s position?” if his case isn’t too low, but it’s not advisable on a low case at first.

Then go back to Spot A. It does not have to be the same Spot A each time, as it makes the process too much like duplication, brings the preclear to predict the process too easily and do it machinewise.

Each time you make a contract with the preclear. You don’t depend on any former understanding with this process. Each moment in time is new. We make each move in time a new move. He doesn’t have to depend on his memory so you repeat again each time as above—the whole wording as given.

On Start we emphasize START. You say, “Do you see that wall over there? Good. Now when I give you this command I want you to move the body in that direction. When I say START I want you to start the body. All right. Start. Fine.” He may protest that he had to stop the body and change it as well—what is happening is that the word “control” is starting to ungroup and as you get start, change and stop apart and distinct from each other, the individual’s ability to control the body increases and he gains more confidence in being able to control it from a greater and greater distance.
The next command would be: “All right, when I tell you to start the body you start the body. Okay. Start the body.”

The third command is for STOP. “I am going to ask you to get the body moving over there toward that wall and somewhere along the line I am going to tell you to stop and I want you to stop the body. Is that all right?” He agrees and you say, “Get the body moving.” You don’t say start. He does, and you say “Stop” and “Did you stop the body?”

Stop is the most important part of S-C-S. The preclear has been told all along the line to stop. He was made effect all the time. Now you bring him to do just this under his own control and self-determinism and he takes over the automaticity.

Eventually the preclear will flatten each one of these in turn. You may have to do Stop one more time than the others.

You should walk around with him so that he can feel the mimicry context of this. If you sit down he will soon go out of ARC and leave the session.

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 OCTOBER 1956

HIGH SCHOOL INDOCTRINATION

The conduct of High School Indoctrination is, of necessity, an extremely precise activity.

High School Indoctrination is given to Staff Auditors and very advanced students after these have long since satisfactorily passed routine Indoctrination.

High School Indoctrination, at the moment, consists only of teaching an auditor not to let a preclear stop him.

The failure of most sessions is the action of the preclear in going out of session. The preclear goes out of session at any moment when the preclear starts to control the session. When the preclear controls the session he is out of session. Therefore, it is necessary for the preclear not to stop or alter the course of action of an auditor. The moment that a preclear can satisfactorily, to himself, stop the auditor that preclear is out of session and the probability of doing him much good while he is out of session is very remote.

In High School Indoctrination the technique 8C, simply having a fellow walk over to the wall and touch it and let go, is followed. The person being indoctrinated or the “auditor” starts to use this 8C upon his “preclear” who is actually the one doing the High School Indoctrination. The “preclear” does everything in his power to stop, divert, change or alter the intention of the auditor. It will be found that such simple things as “Just a moment, my shoe is untied” are the best in effecting this stopping. The auditor can be thrown aside into running some other process by announcing to him that a facsimile has just appeared or that one should really use his left hand since one is left-handed.

The “auditor” in High School Indoctrination loses at any moment when he is made to pause. If he is made to pause or interrupt his session in any way then the session has to be started over again. He has “lost”.

Because High School Indoctrination is rather hard on the Instructor, it is run for only 45 minutes and an exact moment of stopping the session, in actuality, is agreed upon. “We are going to stop this session now at five o’clock exactly, it now being four-fifteen.” Then the session is entered and is run for these 45 minutes. To run one longer is sometimes almost fatal on the High School Indoctrinator.

Then, for the ensuing hour, the High School Indoctrinator runs the person being indoctrinated with Stop-C-S. This is to reverse the positions which have been occupied.

Therefore, to use High School Indoctrination, it is necessary that a two hour period be free and that the first 45 minutes of it be devoted to High School Indoctrination, a short break be taken, and then auditing of the person being indoctrinated who was, in the first 45 minutes, acting as the “auditor” (to be given Stop-C-S by the former “preclear”).

High School Indoctrination depends for its effectiveness mainly upon the cleverness of the person doing the Indoctrination. He has to be very smooth, very often his most casual efforts are the greatest and will be found to be the most effective.

The final goal of High School Indoctrination is to have a Staff Auditor or Advanced Auditor who is not capable of being halted by a preclear under any circumstances. Because the person doing the High School Indoctrination always has higher altitude, being higher on Staff or in Scientology, it will be found that the person being indoctrinated is much more likely to become confused during the Indoctrination than he would be in the average session. However, it has been learned that those people who become confused in any way during High School Indoctrination have, in the course of their auditing career, “blown” several preclears. It will also be found that they have not achieved very high results in auditing. They were too willing to be stopped, too easily rattled, too easily thrown aside and did not know their subject well enough.

Some of the effects which can be made on people undergoing High School Indoctrination are quite startling. They can be made to swear or even cry after being stopped as arduously and viciously as they can be stopped by a person doing the Indoctrination.

There is no reason to list the number of commands or dodges or attempted stops which the person doing the Indoctrination can use. It is only necessary to synthesise these if only out of one’s own experience with very difficult preclears who would rather have done anything than be audited. It is better to think these up on the spur of the moment than otherwise. Planned dodges can be used where one goes very smoothly through the thing for eight or nine commands without offering the least difficulty or resistance and then suddenly hauls back on the next one and says “I won’t”. This occasionally completely stops a person being indoctrinated.

High School Indoctrination must be given to every Staff Auditor regardless of any former training and it must be given by a person with considerable altitude over that auditor, such as the Director of Processing or the Technical Director of an operation.

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 98
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
20 Buckingham Street, Strand, London W.C.2

_____________________________________________________________________

15 October 1956

CREATIVE PROCESSES, MOTIONS,

STOPS and PERCEPTIONS

Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s August 1956 HPA/HPC tape lectures

You will find in auditing a preclear that certain of his mock-ups still exist on his time track. So when a preclear makes a facsimile or dub-in it is still in a certain time-space spot.

Some facsimiles are so signally a failure that they float. They go skidding along the track. That is survival (no-effect). They weren’t nailed down.

One could say that he is stuck in that moment of time.

You could do this to a person and say “When I snap my fingers an age will flash” and snap your fingers, and he may say “Six.” What does that mean? It means that the preclear is stuck in that age.

A man of 55 years with the face of a body of 5 years has certain speech, sexual and other mannerisms which have “floated” up with him to the age of 55. In other words, he is in a reaction pattern of the age of 5.

The age of a facsimile will flash. With an E-Meter you will see where he is stuck. Where there is charge (motion) the needle is in motion, and where he is stuck the needle will freeze right down to motionlessness when you are on the moment of stuckness.

A person is hit on his head with a sledgehammer at the age of 5, and at 55 he is still there. He still has that facsimile floating about.

It isn’t perception that bounces, sticks, groups one on the track. Perceptions such as sight, sound, etc., in a facsimile are discovered to be a simple key-in of motions and solids.

A person is stuck when he wishes to escape motion.

An individual in a high games condition is in motion. The game gets too high, and he drops out. So he goes into a no-games condition. You can call this a rest point on the track.

He was in high motion, didn’t like it after a while, found a stop point and he stopped. For example, a man is playing the game of “Fighting the Wars of India.”

After a while he gets tired of it, and one day, in a battle, when everything is in violent motion, he considers that this isn’t worth it any more and somebody spears him through the chest. This is a stop point on the game.

Whenever he is reminded of the high motion he remembers that there was a stop point on the track; i.e., lifetimes later he walks in London and sees an Indian being run over by a car, and suddenly all this unexpected motion reminds him of the old game of the Indian Wars and he remembers the stop point on the track, how he got out of the game. This preclear comes to you complaining of his chest—he’s either got TB, chest trouble or something, and this blows when you audit solids.

There is an exact stop point in the middle of the facsimile where a game has ended, and your preclear wants to get into this stop point to escape a high-motion games condition because that stop point was the solution to all that danger and motion.

The solution to danger and motion, reactively, is a stop point.

An engram is a moment of pain and/or unconsciousness in an exact moment of time (or a mental image picture containing moments of pain and/or unconsciousness).

So a person who is in the middle of some painful incident which happened centuries ago is in this rest point, escaping from imagined danger and motion.

This is an exact mechanism which you must know and with which you must work.

You may ask how somebody gets out of a stuck point from which he cannot escape.

He is on the stuck point because there was too much motion on either side of it. So if he comes out of it he runs into the rest of the motion which he desired to escape. So the stuck point, as far as he is concerned, is okay.

In order to run this, you make him (the preclear) take over the automaticity of the motion that happened before and after the incident.

Have him mock up the motion that happened before the incident. (DON’T HAVE HIM RUN THE FACSIMILES BECAUSE HE WILL EAT THEM ALL UP AND BE VERY MAD WITH YOU AFTERWARDS.) Have him put new motion into the incident by mock-ups. (DON’T RUN THE OLD MOTION OUT!)

By throwing new motion in you are showing him that he can get the motion under control.

Do the same for after the incident occurred and he will shake loose from that point. You don’t erase the stuck point. You improve his tolerance of motion.

DON’T RUN THE STUCK POINT. It runs for 165 hours without release. IT IS SERIOUS AND CONTAINS A VACUUM IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. You handle vacuums and stop (games conditions) by handling the motion.

A fellow with no stuck points is the “agitation case,” spastics and any condition which is obsessed with high compulsive, obsessed motion.

High obsessed motion is lower on the scale than somebody who sleeps all the while. This gives us caution. If somebody runs out of stop points he is in trouble.

So handle all motion in a period that turns up, otherwise we leave him stuck in the middle of the incident. Move him right out of the incident. Handle all the motion by putting in new motion.
An individual can be audited too briefly on any type of given motion. So move him right out, for he will rather have the stop point than be stuck in the middle of an incident.

A vacuum confuses all this.

A vacuum is a super-cold object that attracts electronically into it the whole track.

Just preceding a vacuum is the most violent motion of facsimiles you have ever observed because it may have a million years of facsimiles, places, faces, stop points, etc., in it.

So where are the stuck points? It is in the vacuum among all the scramble of facsimiles.

This is common in space opera. An object out in space which is -273 degrees has infinite capacitance and zero resistance, and it is hungry. It picks up that electrical energy at a fantastic rate. It pulls a person’s whole track in when, out in space, he touches it.

(That’s all there is to brainwashing.)

Handle this by having facsimiles fly around in mock-ups. Do this on gradient scales. (A gradient scale is a scale of conditions ranging from zero to infinity.) Next thing he has avalanches that he can start, stop and change, mock up, etc., and he doesn’t care about vacuums any longer.

After this have him invent some games and individualities to get the game sorted

A game doesn’t only consist of motion, but of enemies and individualities to fight those enemies with.

So all these factors MUST be taken into account or else you will be processing your preclear towards succumb.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

Issue 36                            [1956, ca. mid October]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

Randomity and Automaticity

L. Ron Hubbard
Prepared from a lecture to the 4th London ACC,
2 November 1955, entitled “Randomity and Automaticities.”

THE VOCABULARIES OF SCIENCE

In all scientific systems you have a number of code words which operate as communication carriers, and when a person does not know these words well, he’s having difficulty with the science itself. I’ve seen a senior in science falling down in his comprehension of a later part of the science because he had never gotten the nomenclature of the science straight to begin with. He did not know exactly what a British Thermal Unit was, or something like that—therefore later on when he’s solving some vast and involved problem there’s a datum rambling around in his head and it’s not stable at all—it’s getting confused—it’s mixed up with all other data. And that is only because he didn’t understand what the term was in the first place.

So just as you learn semaphore signals, just as you learn Morse Code, just as you learn baby talk, so, when you become conversant with any particular specialized subject, you must become conversant with its terminology. Your understanding of it then increases. Otherwise understanding is impeded by these words rattling around and not joining themselves to anything. If you know vaguely that such and such a word exists and yet have no definite understanding of what it means, it does not align. Thus a misunderstanding of a word can cause a misalignment of a subject and this really is the basis of the primary confusion in Man’s understanding of the mind.

There have been so many words assigned to various parts of the mind that one would be staggered if he merely catalogued all of these things. Take for instance the tremendous background and technology of psychoanalysis. Overpoweringly complicated material, most of it merely descriptive, some of it action terminology, such as the censor, the id, the ego, the alter-ego, and what not. Most of these things lined up, each one meaning a specific thing. But the practitioners who began to study this science did not have a good founding in the exact sciences—in other words they didn’t have a model of the exact sciences. And in the humanities they could be as careless as they liked with their words, because the humanities were not expected to be precise or exact—not a criticism of them—it just means that you could have a looser command of the language.

When they got into the study of Freud they got into this interesting thing—to one person an id was one thing and to another person it was something else. And alter-ego was this and it was that. The confusion of terms, there, practically all by itself, became the totality of confusion of psychoanalysis.

Actually psychoanalysis is as easy to understand certainly as Japanese. Japanese is a baby talk—very, very hard to read, very, very easy to talk. If you can imagine a language which tells you which is the subject, which is the verb, which is the object, every time it speaks, you can imagine this baby-talk kind of a language. One that doesn’t have various classes or conjugations of verbs. A very faint kind of a language. Nevertheless, it merely consists, in order to communicate with a Japanese, of knowing the meanings of certain words, and if you know the meanings of those words precisely, then when a Japanese comes up to you and says, “Do you want a cup of tea?” you don’t immediately get up because you thought he said, “Wet paint.” You have a communication possibility.

Well, similarly, with the language of psychoanalysis, the great difficulties inherent in understanding such a thing as psychoanalysis became much less difficult when one viewed psychoanalysis as a code system to relay certain meanings. It did not then become a problem of whether or not these phenomena existed or didn’t exist. It simply became a problem of words meaning a certain precise thing. And if they meant that thing to everybody, then everybody was talking psychoanalysis, and if it didn’t mean this thing to everybody, then people weren’t talking psychoanalysis. Who knows what they were talking. The next thing you know they were talking Jungianism—the next thing you know they were talking Adlerianism—and the amount of difference between these various items is minute to say the least. But the language difficulties then made many practitioners in that field at odds with the theory, which they did not at any rate understand.

You find out in Scientology that a rather arduous background in mathematics and in what is at least laughingly called the exact sciences nevertheless made for a very arduously firm choice of word definition. There are certain phenomena named, and these phenomena are specific. They are not random, they are very, very precise. For instance, an engram is an engram. It is a mental picture of a moment of pain and unconsciousness. That is an engram, and if you know that you can find an engram.

But we have had, in the case of the word engram, something of a cross-up, since there was an early use of the word in biology, although it seemed to have gone out of usage, so that a biologist will come along now and then and look at the word engram and say, yes I know what an engram is.

Well, they know what they MEAN by the word engram, but they have never seen one. The engrams we are talking about in Dianetics and Scientology we can see, but they wouldn’t ever quite know what we were talking about if they thought it was an energy trace on a cell. This was not discoverable with microscopes or anything of the sort, so I considered it a lost word and quite accidentally crossed up this word with the earlier biological use.

I remember one time learning Igoroti in a single night. I sat up by kerosene lantern and took a list of words that had been made by an old missionary in the hills in Luzon—the Igorot had a very simple language. This missionary had phoneticized their language and he had made a list of their main words and their usage and grammar. And I remember sitting up under a mosquito net with the mosquitos hungrily chomping their beaks just outside the net, and learning this language—three hundred words just memorizing these words and what they meant. And the next day I started to get them in line and align them with people, and was speaking Igoroti in a very short time.

The point here is, that it is not difficult to learn a language if you understand that you are learning a language. The first way to learn the language of Scientology is to understand clearly that you ARE learning a LANGUAGE and that it has in it perhaps fifty, sixty or seventy words, and that each of these words has a PRECISE DEFINITION.

As far as nomenclature is concerned in Scientology, what we usually did was to take a verb and make a noun of it so that there wouldn’t be any cross-up of definition. It’s an interesting system that has been employed. We try to minimize the number of words introduced. That might sound strange, but we have tried to minimize it. In giving a special terminology, we have only named those things which were really important to the auditor, phenomena which an auditor really had to understand. Therefore a knowledge of the exact definition of a word brought exact understanding of the phenomenon. It’s that simple.

A knowledge of Scientology first and foremost, then, is a vocabulary knowledge. There are probably not more than sixty words in Scientology of special meaning.

We have not named to any extent invisible phenomena. An engram is a very viewable phenomenon. If you’ve ever run one on a preclear you know how visible it is, to the preclear and to you.

The first word we have, however, in the entire language of Scientology, is, unfortunately, a NON-viewable thing—the Static. It is non-viewable but it is experienceable, so it isn’t completely removed into the never-never land. But from there on we do have almost all of our terminology in VIEWABLE form. It’s examinable. It can be measured.

A fellow by the name of Wundt, in 1879 in Leipzig, Germany, invented a thing called psychology, which was mainly—his main interest seems to have been—the study of mental behavior through physiology. The subject which has come down to us from there called psychology has not been defined much differently since Wundt, and that is the way the mind has been studied—through physiology. Well, the man’s hunch wasn’t too far wrong, in that practically everything in the mind is viewable and does have some mass and does exist in space and is something that you could put your hands on very easily and say “that is THAT.”

We don’t know whether Wundt knew this or not. The psychologists don’t know it even vaguely today, and they think that what they are dealing with is a totally abstract, theoretical, never-never land subject, and that’s why they choose it.

But if YOU don’t know this then you’re apt to go adrift on the terminology of Scientology and on Scientology itself. You’re apt to go very badly adrift and believe that we’re dealing with abstracts and intangibles. This may be an overlooked supposition on your part. Psychology studies abstracts and intangibles. We’re not studying, however, psychology.

We’re studying hearable, measurable, weighable, meterable phenomena—right below the level of Static. From the Static you go immediately into experienceable, viewable phenomena. And even the Static is experienceable.

So we’re not outside the realm of experience anywhere in Scientology. Everything we deal with is something that can have concrete form or example. This is an interesting thing.

I’ve given you this fast summary on terminology itself so that you could see that if this word randomity and if the word automaticity cannot be clearly understood it must be being viewed then as some abstract thing, and it’s not an abstract thing.

RANDOMITY

We find the earliest introduction of the subject randomity in the Dianetic Axioms in the fall of 1951.

The word RANDOMITY was needed as a further expression of MOTION. I’ve been talking to you recently of “things that were too motionless”—tolerance of things which were too motionless and tolerance of things which had too much motion. We find that we have to increase people’s tolerance of these. It shows us that if people had difficulties with the tolerance of things that were too motionless and too motionful, we had with this word randomity a rather upset circumstance people didn’t like to grasp this word. Well, we have a further explanation of it today, and as a result of that further explanation we have a better chance of gripping this and using it.
Randomity means in essence COMPARABLE MOTION. Comparable to what? Comparable to the consideration of motion. So we have PLUS randomity and we have MINUS randomity. In other words we can have, from the individual’s consideration, too much or too little motion, or enough motion. What’s ENOUGH motion measured by? The consideration of the individual. Take, for example, a man eating a meal in the presence of two friends. He thought he was eating about right. The fellow next to him thought he was eating too fast and the fellow across from him thought he was eating too slow.

So, it’s a consideration of motion. A traffic cop views the field of automobile traffic with a consideration of minus randomity compared to the motorist’s idea of motion of cars. The motorist’s consideration of optimum randomity is plus randomity compared to the cop’s consideration.

If you’ve ever driven down a deserted highway you may remember having a little, vague suspicion that there was something not quite right about going down that road all by yourself. No other traffic to view. This tells you at once that it may or may not be a road. You know that you consider it a road—but do other people? An eight-lane highway could give you this idea that the road was closed, under repair, or that it wasn’t considered by everyone else to be a road at all, if there were no traffic in sight for very many miles.

There is a certain amount of traffic randomity that a motorist is used to and is comfortable about. A New York cabbie, if you put him in a cab out in the middle of Arizona, would be outside his area of optimum randomity. He’d want at least a hundred and fifty cars stacked up at the next intersection, and here he has to drive a hundred miles to get any intersection at all. It’s his consideration of motion.

Well, he has a certain tolerance for the random particles which in the case of traffic follow certain channels, but which nevertheless are pretty random on those channels. So he has the idea of randomity in traffic.

Randomity also contains the aspect of UNEXPECTEDNESS. Unexpectedness is inherent to the idea of randomness. In other words you have to have ENOUGH unexpectedness. You have your idea of how much unexpectedness there should be in life. Well, so does the New York taxi driver have his idea of how much unexpectedness there should be in traffic, and if he were to drive in a totally orderly community where the unexpectedness was zero this man would probably go to sleep or go unconscious or do something—he would eventually run off the road. But maybe after he was at it for many, many weeks he would “get used to it.”

So then this word randomity contains the idea of CONDITIONING. It is the only place where we find the subject of conditioning in Dianetics and Scientology.

The reason I’m talking about randomity here is that it is one of the wider concepts, and a little harder perhaps to grasp than any other. Yet you can set it up and view it very easily.

We could set up something like this: a table that a person could sit in front of which would have all kinds of holes and runways in it for marbles. We could have these marbles popping up through the holes and taking different paths and bumping around at different levels and rates of speed and abundance.

In other words, we could have a table set up that would present a person with a certain level of randomity and we could include a controlled unexpectedness factor.

We could find out from this actually what the person’s idea of optimum motion was. We could find out what amount of unexpectedness and rapidness of motion he would be comfortable about.

After a while the person starts to get nervous if you pop too many marbles out of those holes. They’re coming out of the holes, and there are lots of them, and they’re disappearing and appearing completely unexpectedly, smashing and cracking together and so forth, and he’s likely to sit there and say, “There’s just too damned many marbles!” He doesn’t like it.

Just below that level of motion he’ll say, “That’s interesting.”

And just below that level he sits there and says, “... marbles ....” One pops up and runs across the table, another one pops up, the first disappears, another one pops up and runs across the table, etc., and he says, “Ho-hum . . . marbles.” That is MINUS RANDOMITY.

When he was interested, that was HIS randomity; that was optimum randomity. Where you had too many marbles moving too fast you had PLUS RANDOMITY. With relationship to what, though? With relationship to this person, this thinkingness, this mind. His idea of randomity was what it was.

You see that it has to be this way when you test a youngster who likes action on something like this. His reaction to the test would be that you would have to have the marbles popping up and shooting across there with such a suddenness and such a blur and such a whirr and such a snap that you yourself would probably stand there and watch and feel slightly uncomfortable. And this kid says, “My, how interesting.” But you drop it down to the number of marbles that was optimum for this other fellow and the kid will say, “Oh, let’s go out and play ball.”

Now we have to have this thing called randomity. It’s an unfortunate thing if it is incomprehensible at times. We have to have these things—plus randomity, minus randomity and optimum randomity.

What is his idea of unexpected motion necessary to the living of a life? How much randomity does he have to have to live? Which at the same time would say—stay interested in life. How much would he have to have?

A guy in space opera? WOW! Well, you have to have a fight between fleets at least once a week. You didn’t have a good liberty at all unless five men were killed. That time was no fun at all—after they shot all the women there was just nothing left to do.

Idea of the amount of motion, unexpectedness, sudden event, the twist and turn to life is very, very high there. Therefore you have space opera engrams very easily in suspense on the track. They look like confusion. A fellow has been in space opera, and now he looks at the engram, and he says, “No-sir, that’s confusion.”

Now the only reason we’re resurrecting this word and dusting it off and using it more frequently is that it is a better statement of confusion than the word confusion. The word confusion means at once PLUS RANDOMITY, and it’s therefore a specialized kind of randomity. It means: motion unexpected above the tolerance level of the person viewing it. And that is the definition of the word confusion.

So if a STABLE DATUM is necessary to the alignment of data, and if a stable datum can be pulled out of an area of aligned data with the result of confusion, we have to have a better understanding of what we mean by confusion. If we’re going to process it we certainly had better understand it. It better be a nice, clear thing to us, because we are likely to look at a preclear and consider that he is under a confusion. When as a matter of fact, he might be in a MINUS RANDOMITY.

A good statement of a minus randomity would be: things are too slow. Things are certainly slow around here. Life is dull. There is nothing happening.

A consideration of how much motion and unexpectedness of motion there is in the environment—how much unexpected happenstance, how much pattern of action—and this would be minus when there was too little for the tolerance of the individual.

So we need to have a word to match confusion. It looks like there is a hole in the English language. Thus once more we have this word randomity. It’s describing something which has been viewed which is not adequately described in English. And that we are viewing it and describing it and naming it somewhere within the bounds of comprehensibility is quite remarkable.

MINUS RANDOMITY is the opposite of CONFUSION. “Things are too stable.” “Do you know that little Benny has not fallen out of the window for three days!” “Do you realize I have not burned myself all morning!” “Do you realize there hasn’t been a single accident out there on the highway all afternoon!” “How dull—everything is travelling only at rocket speed!” That could be one fellow’s idea of minus randomity, or opposite of confusion. Things are not sufficiently confusing, random, unexpected, in motion, so he’s saying, “How dull.”

This other chap looks at one horse walking down one street and says to himself, “Horse!!!  Things are going too fast around here for me !”

Unless you understand that there can be a difference of consideration about this you would have a hard time trying to grasp the preclear’s idea of how much stable data he needs. Now how much stable data do you think this fellow needs? One horse going down one street. He needs ONE STABLE DATUM PER PARTICLE. Therefore, he needs an ENORMOUS amount of information to keep the world from falling in on him and turning upside down and spilling in his lap. He just needs a tremendous quantity. He needs dictionaries full, he needs encyclopedias full, he needs libraries full, he needs scribes working on every side continually to catalogue, catalogue, catalogue, catalogue. And each word to him is not only a stable datum, it’s a Sacred Datum. If we moved just one word out of line in a cataloguing of a hundred million words this fellow would become extremely uncomfortable.

We have whole sciences which are cataloguing sciences. If Francis Bacon hadn’t wanted to give an example of what science was, we would probably never, even today, have had a science of botany. But Bacon used once, as an illustration of what a science would be, a science of botany. He used the classification of flowers as his illustration and instantly it became a science and from there on it is catalogued. For a fellow to be willing to study botany he has to be willing to tolerate a tremendous lack of motion, from most of our viewpoints. But from his own viewpoint his ability to tolerate motion or no motion never comes in question. He’s perfectly happy going along with one-stable-datum-per-item.

To most of us this would be unthinkably arduous. So you can see that we have an intolerance for that little randomity.

The bottom line of this gradient scale would appear to be one-stable-datum-per particle. That should be the bottom of the randomity scale—but it isn’t. The bottom would be no particle, no space. And we would be back to a static. And out of this you at once recognize why a static wants havingness and particles: you have a game.

Below minus randomity is NO RANDOMITY. Of any kind. People do not usually like this at all. Starting up scale we get—a few particles. One could be at this point for two reasons: because he is shuddering away from confusion and therefore is getting a stable-datum-per-particle, or he could be at that point because he has a tremendous tolerance for confusion AND for motionlessness.

Now if he is cataloguing one stable datum per particle at the minus randomity end of the scale, then he is doing this interesting thing: This fellow is shuddering away from all confusion and particles because he’s trying to USE UP all existing particles and stable data. He’s trying to match these two things. So he’s trying to use up all possible confusion.
If this same fellow had a high tolerance of confusion in the first place and had used up all these particles in this fashion, matching particle for stable datum, with everything catalogued, everything in order, he would run out of confusions. And he would have a SCARCITY OF confusion. So, taking another look at this randomity scale: we could have a scarcity of confusion, or a scarcity of motionlessness. A scarcity at either end. We could have either condition or both conditions, and NOT depending upon which end we were viewing it from.

Then we ask this: What is plus randomity and what is minus randomity?

FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE INDIVIDUAL, SOMETHING WHICH HAS IN IT TOO MUCH MOTION OR UNEXPECTEDNESS FOR HIS TOLERANCE is plus randomity, and THAT THING WHICH HAS TOO LITTLE MOTION IN IT FOR HIS TOLERANCE is minus randomity.

Now, how he gets into these states is the entire subject of scarcity.

For example: the fellow who falls into a plus randomity with great speed. His tolerance of motion is so slight that almost any motion is a plus randomity to him. A second horse gets into the street and he practically has a nervous breakdown. That fellow will have a tendency to do this: instead of matching a stable datum for a particle, he will take all particles and stop them (he starts to apply force) and then bring all of these particles into a mass so that they are each taken care of. He can look at this whole group of particles and say, “That’s a table.” “That’s a rock.” Now he’s got ALL of the particles named. He’s named it a rock. He’s not going to do anything about these particles. He’s going to just mass them. That is the state of mind which gets you mass.

Unless you simply mock it up to have a mass—there’s always that going on—mock up a universe to have a universe, etc., or you can evolve them or have reasons for them. But this is usually the case: that an individual who is obsessively making mass has an intolerance of motion to the degree that a second horse on the street would give him a nervous breakdown. So he takes any particles that are in motion and he is actually ill about this until he can take the particles and push them together and say, “Ah, a rock. Whew! Now we can have some peace around here.”

At the other end, the fellow in space opera: There’s been a riot that morning, there’s been a fire in Bunker 4, three prisoners have escaped and were shot in the courtyard, and so forth, and this fellow is saying, “Gee, things have slowed down around here! Let’s create some confusion and get some motion started. Let’s drop a false message into the message center: WE ARE ABOUT TO BE ATTACKED BY THE PRUVIANS or something. Let’s get something GOING around here.”

Well now, that individual will DISPERSE things. He’ll disperse things preferably with an unknown. And then he has an enormous amount of data, none of which has any identification at all. His level of expectedness and unexpectedness is way up. He’ll have a wonderful time wondering if he can possibly make head or tail of any of this: “Gosh, look at that! The president shot, and I’m plugged, and gee, you know, I can’t make any sense out of it at all?!?!?!?!?”

You get the idea, then, how people vary unexpectedness and motion to fit their own considerations. There is, however, such a thing as a state of good health in connection with this. That sounds odd, but there is one, and that is: for an individual to act in either capacity by changing his consideration on the subject of randomity itself. In other words, retain or attain liberty of increasing or decreasing tolerance on motion at will. You can look at two horses on the street and say, “That’s too many,” or look at a morning in space opera and say, “That’s too slow,” with no difficulty whatsoever. Or you can say that the morning in space opera was too fast and the two horses on the street were not enough. You could do anything you wanted on it. That would be a state of health regarding tolerance level of randomity. But where an individual has lost his ability to vary his considerations of confusion and motionlessness, which is to say, his plus and minus randomity, he has lost his ability to have a game, and will then find himself being put out of games which do not fit his fixed opinion. Therefore he has limited himself in the number of games into which he can enter. As an individual can shift his consideration of randomity, so he can play large numbers of games. And as his consideration on the subject of randomity becomes more and more fixed, so that there is just a certain amount of motion he can tolerate, just a certain amount of motion that he can’t tolerate, when he’s fixed right there somewhere on the scale between total confusion and total motionlessness, and that’s IT, he has to find a game which fits that idea of a game, his idea of an optimum randomity. What, then, is a game? A game is an optimum randomity. That is a satisfactory game— optimum randomity. What is an end-of-game? Un-optimum randomity—without regard to whether it is plus or minus, too fast for him or too slow for him. That’s just both sides of a fixed consideration.

An individual’s ability to LIVE, then, will to a marked degree depend upon his ability to shift his consideration of what is confusion, what is motionlessness. And if he can’t shift this opinion—he is sunk.

The organization or the person which tells the individual to conform to the environment, tells him to FIX his opinion of randomity to that environment, has asked that individual to die the moment the randomity factor alters in the environment. It’s asked him to run out of games.

Another factor enters into this which is the saving grace, and that is, the emergency factor or the NECESSITY LEVEL. A necessity level is a sudden increase of randomity to a sufficiency that the individual makes a momentary adjustment to it—in other words, momentarily increases his tolerance for unexpected motion. The unexpected motion there is so great that it puts him into a higher level of motion and he takes care of it. That is necessity level—it is the randomity itself driving the person. When the randomity kicks the person, he knows he must move.

But necessity level only occurs where the individual is in a total stimulus-response condition with the randomity itself. And it is nothing to count upon at all. Give them that much more motion and people are just as likely to stay fixed as to go faster.

Create TOO MUCH randomity TOO FAST, and people WILL stay fixed. They will not react on a necessity level at all.

Unfortunately there is no such thing as a “non-necessity level” or a “non emergency level,” where things suddenly move too slow for the individual. We don’t have any mechanism to take care of that.

So people try to build up their tolerance for speed by going faster and faster and faster, and they think they then can go faster and faster and faster, and they never drop back toward tolerance of motionlessness. It’s actually more important in this time and place to adjust people’s ideas of motionlessness and the tolerance of motionlessness than the tolerance for speed. There are very many ways you could do this—you could have a person SIT motionless for a very long time, but he usually can’t tolerate that. It exceeds his tolerances instead of building his tolerances on a gradient scale. Certain processes have done this to some extent for quite a while now, to considerable benefit.

One way you could do this is have the preclear say things are going fast when they are practically standing still, and then he tolerates them easily, but actually he’s gotten around it, hasn’t tolerated any motionlessness, he has simply tolerated his new consideration.

The auditor has a great deal to do with this today. He can actually produce plus and minus randomity in the individual at will. He can stuff the individual full, one way or the other, of stable data. And that produces for the individual to some degree, minus randomity. He can pull some stable data out of the reactive banks, and he will at once produce plus randomity. He can thus alter his reaction to motion, his randomity, by handling DATA. But remember, this is a low order of thing compared to changing the CONSIDERATION of a person.

Now, as an auditor, you have to know that you can add to or subtract from the data of an individual, and thereby give him plus or minus randomity. Remember, though, that he would only get a plus or minus randomity if he had a fixed consideration on the situation. But you have to know this business about putting in and pulling out stable data and producing randomity because it explains THE VARIOUS REACTIONS OF THE PRECLEAR TO AUDITING. He’s learning more, the world’s getting more and more even, more and more stable to him, more real, and all of a sudden he adjusts by giving up a stable datum (which you very often misname a consideration). Here he is, getting more data, and his attitude, his consideration of randomity is FIXED. So as you give him more data and he spots more things and he gets more stable data all around, why, he simply gives up some of his old data; you haven’t actually changed his randomity. If you’re doing a smooth job of A-R-C, you’re gradually upgrading him to a higher tolerance of everything. One of the ways he will adjust it is to suddenly spit out some old, aberrated datum. That is a stable datum. You have simply moved in one stable datum and moved out one stable datum. The point of this is, you have to change his consideration of speed, that’s all. You have to change his ABILITY to change his consideration of speed.

AUTOMATICITY

All right, what, then, is this thing called AUTOMATICITY? If automaticity is related to randomity, which it is, then IT would have a lot to do with consideration, too, wouldn’t it? Automaticity means: non self-determined action which ought to be determined by the individual. The individual ought to be determining an action and he is not determining it. That’s a pretty broad consideration. It’s something not under the control of the individual. But if we said, something not under the control of the individual, as a total, unqualified definition of automaticity, we would have this, then: That car that just went down the street would be an automaticity to you. You didn’t have control of it. So this is not a precision definition. The precision definition has “which ought to be under the control of the individual.”

An individual will tolerate within himself so much random action of the materials which he ought to be controlling. For instance, you, if you are a fairly good driver, would have no difficulty, when you were starting your car in the morning, in tolerating the fact that it killed a couple of times before you got it going. So the sudden stopping of the motor was not really an automaticity to you. There is an expectedness in it. Or let’s take an unexpectedness—you shifted the gears and didn’t quite get it in gear—if your tolerance of randomity was good, if your ability to change considerations was good, you’d flip the gear in, and then it didn’t quite go in again and you had to make a second pass at it. That’s an UNexpected motion. It’s still not really an automaticity, except in the severest definition of the word. Something has occurred which you should have controlled but didn’t.

Now, we see automaticity and use the word mainly in connection with just this: motion in the bank—facsimiles in motion around one—under the control or not under the control of the individual.

Many an individual will get all kinds of fast motions in the bank—pictures, action, machinery, etc., and not even consider it vaguely random “That’s all right,” he says. But they should be controlling it—it ought to be doing what they say. Well, from their opinion, it IS.

This other fellow, a fellow with a different consideration of randomity, gets one picture shifting an inch to the right unexpectedly—”There’s an automaticity going on here,” he says.

Another fellow has a machine; he tells it to mock up dogs, so it mocks up blue dogs, pink dogs, and then moves over to the other side and mocks up green dogs, purple dogs, and then mocks up from the back dogs with hats on, dogs with canes, dogs with heavy fur, dogs with light fur, dogs with five feet, dogs with two feet—”Ho hum—life’s running as usual ....”
When the preclear says to you that there’s an awful lot of action in the bank, that means that he considers that the action in the bank which he is confronting is an awful lot. It doesn’t tell you how much action YOU would say there is in the bank. So it’s the PRECLEAR’S consideration and opinion that makes an automaticity. Not yours. It’s the amount of randomness which he ought to be controlling but which he isn’t controlling, and that depends upon the amount of randomness which he can tolerate. And if he can tolerate a tremendous amount of randomity, plus or minus, then nothing looks random to him at all. And the funny part of it is—he can control it, too. And where these two things join at the crossroads you’ve got control of phenomena in the bank. If an individual can tolerate it he can control it.

If he can’t tolerate it, he can’t control it and that’s all there is to it.

I hope you have some better understanding of these two words and what we are doing today in auditing. The relation of Stable Datum to confusion is actually the relation of the stable datum to randomity. You have to have a clear understanding of randomity before you enter in upon that in teaching Scientology, auditing preclears and in developing your own understanding of the material of Scientology. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
HCO BULLETIN OF 26 OCTOBER 1956

HPA-HCA TRAINING PROCESSES

The following training processes are recommended as necessary to the education of an HPA or HCA student, from the moment of his enrollment until his graduation. It does not particularly matter whether the HPA or HCA has been indoctrinated in the “very latest techniques”, but it does matter that he is able to run the following. If he can do this, then he can carry on with almost any other technique.

l. CONFRONT A PRECLEAR. This is done by the Indoctrination Course. The student is taught how to handle communication with the preclear by dummy sessions and demonstrations by the instructor. Confirm and grind in auditor-pc relationship and Rudiments—”Look at me. Who am I?” and the reality scale.

2. ARC STRAIGHTWIRE. This is run as the first process audited by the student on a fellow student, after leaving the Indoctrination Course. The barest elements of ARC straightwire are used, and then the therapeutic technique is undertaken, on the basis of “Tell me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting”. The basis of this process is to give the student subjective reality on the time track of human beings, and to demonstrate that people slide back into the past and up toward present time as they remember various items, which phenomena should be pointed out and observed by the student.

3. SUBJECTIVE HAVINGNESS. This should be run both to give the student reality on the bank of the human being, and upon havingness itself. If the case being audited on subjective havingness is a black case, then the student is required to have the preclear mock up a blackness or black objects in the blackness and remedy the havingness with those, regardless of any dope-off, until the individual has a clear field or can go on to some other process.

4. 8-C (a), (b), (c), with emphasis on (a) and instruction with regard to the preclear’s ability to handle decisions. This is the first walk-about process, and is vital in the training of a Scientologist.

5. OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION, old style. The “not-know” version could be run, but is a little complicated.

6. OVER AND UNDER ON THE BANK in making things solid.

7. KEEPING THINGS FROM GOING AWAY, in terms of small alternate objects, with concentration on the fact that this is a havingness process, and also holds things still.

8. TERRIBLE TRIO. Both sides, the “can have” for the preclear, the “can’t have” for the preclear’s enemies.

Training should be completed with a very fast review of the more recent processes, and giving these into the student’s hands, not as something in which he has been trained but as something that he can use as fast as he attains reality upon them.

Of the above list, the first six are the most important, from the standpoint of training.

Throughout training, the student should be carefully monitored as to his ability to communicate with his preclear. Auditing procedure should not be neglected, from the moment of entrance into Indoctrination until graduation, since it is style of auditing we wish to achieve rather than teaching of processes.

When the student is taught data, he should be given a high power of choice over the data in which he is instructed, but he should be instructed in such a way that he can achieve the reality of the data, since it is true and factual.

LRH:dt.nm							L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 99
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

1 November 1956

FACSIMILES & SOLIDS

Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s August 1956 HPA/HPC tape lectures

For material about facsimiles, the best is in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, American edition.

More recent processes turn up all the phenomena of facsimiles, engrams, locks, secondaries, etc., so it is vitally necessary that this material is well known.

A facsimile is an energy picture made by a thetan or the body’s machinery of the physical universe environment. It is like a photograph. It is made of mental energy. It means copy of the physical universe.

On the track facsimiles have been corrupted. It became a picture which may be a facsimile but isn’t. It would run and look like a facsimile, but is a picture of something which didn’t really happen. Automatic mock-up is a better description. It is changed from the physical universe.

For example: A man walks down the street and sees a girl. He has a picture of the girl. As he walks down the street his machinery gets to work and he then has a picture of a bedroom. He never saw her in the bedroom, but on a delusory basis he puts her into one.

If he is totally sane there is no liability to this. Those pictures are not aberrative unless the preclear is way down scale, when he will start mourning over this girl he only saw once in the street. He has failed to differentiate between his facsimile and mock-

Delusion and hallucination come under the heading of this alteration of the physical universe facsimile.

This delusory picture is called “dub-in”—a term taken from the movie world.

Next is the plain mock-up, which you know is only a mock-up and not a facsimile or a dub-in.

The auditor’s error in the past was failing to recognize facsimiles as facsimiles and too often calling them dub-ins.

A source of dub-in is “Somebody told you,” and if a person is in a wrong valence he gets pictures of things this valence has told him—e.g., preclear is in mother’s universe, and she has told him all about how horrible father is. One day he looks through his bank and finds pictures of father beating mother, a thing which never really happened.

Mother said so and this contains mother’s mock-ups which are dub-ins.

The only worrisome source of dub-ins is, being in the wrong valence.

One makes them up out of remarks which are dub-ins, and these we call SYNTHETICS.

Split universes and the preclear finds his own facsimiles, which are sometimes quite startling to him.

Don’t make the mistake of calling a real facsimile a dub-in and refusing to process it. No matter where it comes from, whether dub-in or facsimile, this is handled by mock-ups and you don’t have to differentiate.

Remember not to ignore the whole track phenomena—which are facts. Don’t assault facts of this nature unless you want to make a game out of it, and when you do so, be aware that you are doing it.

In modern living the foremost reason of the failure of modern psychotherapy is that they never believed what the patient was saying and never understood what was happening. The preclear told them about prenatals, etc., and was invalidated when he wasn’t believed.

In the genetic entity’s bank are such things as the sperm sequence, ovum sequence and the sperm-ovum sequence, and they are three separate lines of engrams.

Furthermore, on the sperm sequence we can move back on the GE line to father and often find the wrong father.

As we come forward we find the development of the preclear’s body in the womb (gestation) with pictures along the line. These pictures have black visio or they have a dub-in which was made out of pictures which were heard by the child and then the child dubbed in the environment but the actual visio is black. It is dark and noisy in the womb.

You may run into a vacuum which compares to a super-cold piece of metal, which when contacted by the thetan pulls in the entirety of his bank.

Afterwards, when trying to remedy his havingness, you have him sitting in the middle of the vacuum. Of course, this picture of a super-cold object is still behaving like a super-cold object. This accounts for the way people get stuck in space opera. They were in space suits out in space and got shot. As long as they were warm they were okay, but the moment they touched a super-cold object, their bank rushed in and they were brainwashed.

The prenatal area is black and a vacuum is so confusing that the blackness is the total answer a thetan can give to it. He covers all that up with blackness.

So one has two types of blackness here.

A third type of blackness is when a man walks in the dark, stumbles over something and gets an engram—which is totally black. One gets accustomed to these various kinds of facsimiles. It is not necessary to go into them. The main point is that they ARE there and must be handled.

The heart of some of all consequences in living, guilt, conscience, various conflicts are contained in the electronic phenomena of the bank—facsimiles, dub-ins and mockups.

This bank is the apparently unalterable pattern of behavior.
In order to change about the behavior of body and facsimiles, it is necessary to change the thetan. It is necessary to change the bank.

There are three types of bank:
                   l. The Somatic Bank,
                  2. The Analytical Bank, and
3. The Reactive Bank.

You know the analytical bank is there but not that the reactive bank is there. It sneaks up on you and one day the sperm sequence restimulates you and you start to wiggle—that a small picture like that will make a whole body wiggle is but a matter of consideration.

Remember all these are considerations.

A facsimile could influence the whole body or just one part of it.

The preclear accepts the analytical bank but is surprised to find reactive pictures, such as prenatals, past lives, etc., turning up while he is being audited.

These pictures were primarily created to have an effect on somebody else. When they ceased to have an effect on somebody else, they began to have an effect on the preclear’s body. Therefore they survive. The definition of survival is “no-effect.” A game will continue as long as there is no absolute effect occurring. An action will occur until the end of the action cycle, which is start-change-stop.

The thetan uses pictures to handle and control the body. The “facsimiles under the preclear’s control” is a wonderful piece of machinery, and out of his control, a nightmare. He gets aberrated.

A facsimile contains all perceptions (about 54 or more; I stopped counting at 54), e.g., joint positions, body motion, perception of heat, small motion, photons (visio). Touch, smell, sight and sound actually have to be handled sooner or later if you are handling any facsimiles.

Facsimiles were first designed to have an effect upon somebody else. To a thetan his body is somebody else, so while he is having an effect on the body, he is still having a win.

Because there have been other facsimiles on the GE line, his stimulus does very often not get the exact response on the body. It gets some other response and introduces an unknown element.

The thetan thinks he is just handling one bank—he is actually handling thousands of banks that have been there before him. There are not other thetans in the body. The facsimiles are just the residue of other thetans in the bank. These are the facsimiles and reactions made by other thetans in the bank and this is often a very spooky thing.

When a thetan runs into this amount of unknownness—he wants the body to jump and it lies down to sleep—he is apt to get puzzled.

Life is a contest of trying to get a body or other bodies to do the various stimulus-response mechanisms.

We need sound to handle the bank. We say something and something restimulates. All kinds of meanings and significances creep into this bank and people can get stuck on certain phrases in these banks, and it is wonderful how a certain phrase can aberrate a single life. (Refer to: Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.)

There is no doubt about this bank being powerful and formidable, but so is our ability today to handle it.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 NOVEMBER 1956

HGC PRECLEAR COMPLAINTS

On any HGC preclear complaint, we will give more auditing for cash, and tear up
any old HGC note (requisite: real complaint grounds).

LRH:mek.rd		                    				L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 100
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

15 November 1956

THE AUDITING OF SOLIDS

Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s August 1956 HPA/HPC tape lectures

Auditing could boil down to one process—that is, if the preclear is capable of doing it. Also, most importantly, if the auditor, if he has been recently indoctrinated, has established the rudiments, has the preclear well in the session and can handle any randomities that occur. In other words, this process takes the whole of Scientology into account.

That process is called SOLIDS.

The way to run Solids is:

Find the principal stop point on the track, the principal vacuum or something you think might have been. Failing that you just arbitrarily pick an age somewhere in the middle—an incident after which the preclear says he became different to what he was before.

Before giving the command, explain to him the proper meaning of the word “facsimile.” Don’t use the words “incident” or “pictures.”

Then you say, “Can you find a facsimile later than the incident?”—you mean the vacuum.

He finds one later and when he does you tell him, “Make it solid.” If the preclear is being pedantic give this command: “Make it more solid than you first perceived it.”

Making it a little more solid than it was is sufficient. The preclear will at first be using effort, but after a while he will be working by postulate.

Keep running this until the facsimile flicker-flacks and changes, and then take the preclear off it. Don’t let the preclear communicate too much.

(Incidentally, don’t have the preclear forget to make the invisible particles in the facsimile more solid as well, otherwise they will eventually build up a ridge to which the other facsimiles, as he finds them, will stick. Making the invisible particles solid will obviate that.

If the preclear doesn’t understand what you mean by making the invisible particles more solid, ask him to open his eyes and look at the wall. Then ask him to make the particles between him and the wall more solid. He will then understand what you mean by invisible particles.)
Then you say, “Can you find a facsimile earlier than the incident?”

He finds one earlier than the incident and you say, “Make it solid.” After a while the automaticity of the facsimile disappearing or changing will wear off.

The preclear will not only make the picture more solid, he will stop it dead in its tracks. It won’t blow unless you introduce this other command: “All right, dispose of that. “

“Now can you find one later than (the age)?” “All right, make it solid.” “Okay, dispose of that.”

Keep him out of engrams because we are not running anything out. We are increasing and improving his ability. WE ARE RUNNING SOMETHING IN.

You are having your preclear, who has no mass, motion or space, confront something which has, and he cannot duplicate it, nor it him. And you are coaxing him into the understanding that he can.

You are trying to make the preclear capable of making things more solid.

You are not trying to undo vacuums, engrams or operations.

You are trying to show him that he can handle a facsimile and make it solid.

See that the preclear does not directly address an engram or vacuum or a difficulty. Also don’t upset his power of choice by telling him not to do it. Steer his attention off it. Tell him he can find a facsimile earlier or later than that.

Don’t get sloppy as an auditor. It’s a tough process. Use and maintain good 8-C to make sure that the preclear is always following directions. Make sure he does. Keep him at it and see that he executes the commands as given, for if he makes things solid before you ask him to, he may take the road which contains a lot of dynamite, such as touching a vacuum.

The preclear is not bright while he is being audited because his bank is too fascinating to him.

Keep him running the process and your preclear will suddenly realize what his conflicts with the environment are. These conflicts with the environment with which he is engaged are the real conflicts of life. Gradually his perceptics will turn on, BUT ONLY WHEN SOME EMOTION HAS TURNED ON. It’s because you are running the band above solids.

It isn’t an end-all process because there are other things above solids and effort.

It has an extroverted side which is better than the old Trio—i.e.:

“Look around the room and find something you can have,” “Look around the room and find something you can permit to remain,” and “Look around the room and find something you can dispense with.”

This process runs this way: “Look around the room and find something you wouldn’t mind being solid.”

He finds something and you say, “Good. Make it more solid.” If you said, “Make it solid” you would be invalidating him.

The preclear will say that the walls are getting very solid, too solid, for his comfort, because he has probably been taught in physics class that walls are composed of small particles with holes in them—which isn’t true. Solids shed small particles, but that does not mean that a solid is made up of small particles.

Making something solid later or earlier in this lifetime only, is the limitation of this process.

After this his track starts coming in. As he makes things solid, the havingness starts filling the vacuum areas.

Don’t run vacuum areas by making them solid or you’ll sit in that auditing chair for a pretty long time.

The preclear will start picking up losses. Everything he picks up and makes solid is a loss, which is the first and foremost reason why he made facsimiles in the first place. They are substitutions for loss and that is the explanation of the phenomenon of sublimation.

He will keep on talking about the loss of possessions, marital partners and familial connections. This does not violate game conditions because he is running losses of things and times he lost and because you are not auditing the losses, you are auditing the pictures. As long as you are auditing the pictures you have got the primary game still going.

Don’t have the preclear make incidents solid. Only have him make facsimiles of the incident solid, otherwise he will be feeling terrible. The thetan’s game is to make nothing out of a facsimile, which is a no-game condition. He is going toward the truth, and by making the facsimile solid, you are going towards making a game.

When running solids subjectively, the preclear will start getting things way up the track when you ask him to find a facsimile earlier than the incident. You don’t care about the incident. You want to know where the incident is so you don’t run into it.

The values of running before and after facsimiles by making them solid, and auditing directly towards the reduction of a vacuum, are not comparable. If you try to take something out of the bank, you will lose.

If you try to ADD something to the bank you will win.

Why don’t we just run S-C-S and blow the preclear out of his head and stabilize him through some exteriorization drills? Because we want to get the preclear to make things in his head more solid. Otherwise for the rest of his career in this universe, he will be leary on heads. The only thing that is wrong with any preclear who is stuck in the head is that he cannot handle the stuff that is there.

This process is the best to date and it takes a long time to run, but for the amount of ability it regains in the case it is the fastest process we have.

This process belongs to “EFFORT” on the Know-to-Mystery Scale.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

HCO TRAINING BULLETIN

30 November, 1956

SLP 8

1.     	Getting into communication with your preclear.

A. 	Mimicry (psycho rushes around in the middle of the room and jumps up and screams; and you rush around in the middle of the room and jump up and scream).

B. 	Touching the preclear (on locational or any other process where you walk the preclear around, you are in communication with him to the degree that you touch him). Gradient scale, touching him on the elbow, taking hold of his elbow, and eventually making his body turn this way and that.

Commands: “Look at me. Who am I?” “Who does this hand belong to?” (Auditor indicating own hand, or various parts of his body, being sure to maintain some physical contact with preclears below 2. 0 on tone scale, where communication is solid).

2. 	Havingness, subjective. (This is just a patch-up of havingness so that if the preclear caves in you have something to fish him out with, which he has been conditioned
	to.) “Mock up a .....” “Push it into the body.”

3. 	Part A of 8-C. “Do you see that .....” (auditor indicates wall or object), “Walk over to it.” “Touch it.” “Let go of it.”

4. 	Control Process, tactile 8-Cb. “Look around the room and find something you   wouldn’t mind having,” or “.....could have.” “Walk over to it and feel it.”

5. 	Start-C-S. (Don’t run any part of it very long.) “When I say start, you start the
	body,” or “ .......the (object).” “Start.” “When I say change, you change the  (body or object) from..............to......” (locations designated by auditor).   “Change.” “When I say stop, you stop the (body or object).” “Stop.”

6. 	Keep it from Going Away. “Find some objects in the room you don’t dislike.” (Have him spot quite a few, maybe 20. You select out of these three you are sure are non-significant to this preclear. Have him go and get them and place them some distance apart—at least three feet between object I and object 3—and not directly in front of him; two objects on one side, one way off side, the other slightly off side, and one way off the other side.)

A.	“Look at ......	“ (auditor mentions object 1).
	“Pick it up.”
      	“Keep it from going away” (“Now you keep it from going away” is the
      	insistent version and he must be doing it. Check to see that he is doing it.)
      	“Put it back in exactly the same place.” (Command agreed upon beforehand
      	so that he isn’t surprised by this.)
	“Look at .......(object 2),” then repeat above commands.
	“Look at .......(object 3),” then repeat above commands.
B. 	“Look at .......(object 1).”
      	“Pick it up.”
      	“Keep it from going away.”
      	“Put it back in exactly the same place.”
      	“Leave it totally uncontrolled.”
	“Look at .......(object 2),” then repeat above commands.
	“Look at .......(object 3),” then repeat above commands.

Part A is run several times before running part B.
7. 	Keep it from going away on the body. (Everything you run on the right foot you run on the left foot, everything you run on the right ear you run on the left ear, everything you run on the head you run on the feet, etc.)
   	“Keep your hand from going away.”
   	“Now make it flip-flop.”
	“Keep it from going away.” “Now make it flip-flop.”

8. 	Keep it from going away, by sight.

9. 	Connectedness.
	“Look around and find something you wouldn’t mind making connect with you.” “On how many vias could you make it connect?”

10. 	Handling of confusion. “Make the wall say to (preclear, his body, part of his body, etc), ‘This means go to ..	‘ “ (Preclear furnishes the name, a different  name each time, for each of the six sides of the room.) Then, “Make the wall say	to (as above), ‘This means don’t go to ......’ “ (As above.) Alternate, once around the six sides of the room on “This means go to ......,” then on “ don’t go to .....” until fairly flat.

   	Then, “This means stay in.........”, “This means don’t stay in........” (run as above).

11 . 	“Confuse that wall.”

12. 	Causing confusions.
   	“A confusion which you could cause.” “Mock up a confusion.”

13. 	Stop-C-S.
A. 	“Now, I’m going to give you a little process—a little drill that we have here in Scientology. First, I want you to get your body moving toward that wall over there and somewhere along the line I’ll say ‘stop’, and I want you to stop your body. Got that? All right.” “Now get it moving.” “Stop.” “That’s fine. “
	“All right, now turn around here” (taking him by the elbow). “Now, we’re going to run a little process. I’m going to ask you to get your body moving toward that wall and somewhere along the line I’m going to say ‘stop’, and when I say stop, I want you to stop your body.”
      	Repeat above commands.
	“........stop your body absolutely still.”
	“........stop your body absolutely still and do it as quickly after I say ‘stop’
      	as you possibly can.”

B. 	“When I ask you to change your body, I want you to change the body’s position from a to b.” (Locations designated by auditor.) “Let’s see how rapidly you can change the body’s position.”

C. 	“When I say ‘start’, I want you to start the body moving.” “Start.”

14. 	Tolerance of motion and stillness. Preclear sitting at a window, or ambulatory.
	“Look at the street.” “Now find something still.” “Now find something in motion.” “Find something still.” “Find something in motion.”

15. “With what could you ally your control,” or “Invent a way to control people,” or “Look around and find something that would assist you in controlling people.”

16. 	Over and Under solids. Have him pick the centre of his life, an engram in the middle of his life; the commands are before and after this point.
   	“Get a facsimile of something after that.”
   	“Keep it from going away.”
   	“Leave it totally uncontrolled.”
	“Get a facsimile of something before that.” 
	“Keep it from going away.” 
	“Leave it totally uncontrolled.”

	or “Make it solid,” “Let go of it.” 
	or “Make it solid,” “Skip it.”

17. 	Time Process. Select command wording to communicate to the preclear. “Invent a way to (best, overcome, overwhelm, beat, whip, make subservient, put in the background, make know it’s been licked) time.”

18. 	Valences.
   	“Mock up a woman,” then, “Mock up........” (first significant woman in this lifetime, then a later one, etc).
   	“Mock up a man,” then as above.
	“Mock up a ..	.” (robot, or any other valence spotted).

19. 	“Invent an individuality to cope with it,” alternate with “Invent a worse situation.”
	
20. 	“Invent an enemy.” Get the valence to fight the wall will strip valences.

21. 	Keep it from going away on the body. “Keep your body from going away,” alternate with “Leave it totally uncontrolled” (safest in mock-up form), or, “Now make it flip-flop.”

22. 	Mock-up Start-C-S. Start-C-S on mocked up body.

23. 	Mock-up Stop-C-S. Stop-C-S on mocked up body. Change run as, “Mock up the body.” “Make it flip-flop.”

24. 	Rehabilitation of abilities. For any ability the preclear always wanted to have and couldn’t do. For example, for speaking Arabic:

“Mock up ....” (Arabic objects), “Keep it from going away,” then “Mock up    (Arab men, women and children),” “Keep (him, her) from going away,” then    “Mock up (Arab men, women, children),” “Stop (him, her) from talking,” “Start    (him, her) talking.”

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 101
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

1 December 1956

GAMES CONDITIONS THEORY

Prepared from the research papers of L. Ron Hubbard

THEORY: The most adequate answer to life’s puzzle is GAMES. The ordinary concept of games or play is comprehensible to anyone.

Games have many factors. Some work well in processing, some don’t, all explain life.

The basic game of a thetan is evidently nothing versus something as in the process “Make it solid.” He can never really be something, thus can never really duplicate himself a solid—yet he makes solids across spaces out of game impulse.

PRACTICE: Always process toward a games condition. Never process toward a no-games condition. Always process games conditions. Never process no-games conditions. This is more complicated than you think.

All games are aberrative. All games are continuing by definition, since an unstarted game isn’t a game and a finished game isn’t a game.

In the following list we have the most processable games conditions and the most-to-be-avoided no-games conditions.

Each column of the list could be KNOWING or UNKNOWING—”knowing games condition” or “unknowing games condition,” “knowing no-games condition” or “unknowing no-games condition.”

Using both lists at a knowing games level, we have sanity. At an unknowing games level we have aberration, neurosis or psychosis.

GAMES CONDITION	NO-GAMES CONDITION
(Knowing or Unknowing)	(Knowing or Unknowing)

Not-know	Know
      Forget	      Remember
Interest
Disinterest
Attention	No attention
Self-Determinism	Pan-Determinism
Identity	Namelessness
      Individuality
Problems	Solutions
Can’t Have	Have
      (games have some havingness)
Alive	Neither alive nor dead
Opponents	Friends alone
Facsimiles	No pictures or universes
Continued Solidity	No spaces or solids
Continued adherence	No friends or enemies
       Loyalty, Disloyalty
       Betrayal, Help
Motion	No motion
Emotion	Serenity
Continued action	Motionless
Hot, cold	No temperature
Thinking	Knowing
Hate
       (some Love)
Continued doubt of result	Win-Lose
       (Expecting a Revelation)
No effect on self	Effect on self
Effect on others	No effect on others
Stop communication	No ARC
Change communication	No no-ARC
Into it	Out of it
Agitation	Calm
Noise	Silence
       (some Silence)
Control	No control
Start-Change-Stop
       (Change the most important)
Responsibility	No responsibility

Inspecting these two lists we find all unlimited and highly workable processes under GAMES CONDITIONS. We find all limited and unworkable processes under No-Games Conditions.

We process the preclear playing as a game in all phases. We then avoid No-Games Conditions in processing.

It is true that the Games Condition List contains a regimen unworkable in life. It isn’t supposed to be. It’s aberrative and we process it.

The ONLY certain processes which can be run on No-Games Conditions are Consequences (the penalty resulting from) and “Mock up a confusion to which (the no-games condition) could be a stable datum.”

Now behold that the list of No-Games Conditions is a summary of the NATIVE STATE of a thetan. That means that the Native State not only does not process but winds the preclear up in difficulties if processed.

To establish the native state run out the UNKNOWING GAMES CONDITIONS of the preclear.

From native state a thetan apparently descends thusly:

NATIVE STATE			SERENITY			KNOWING,
									NO-GAMES

           TO				       TO			       TO

OPERATING			          TONE SCALE	                 KNOWING GAMES
   THETAN		                      				           CONDITIONS

           TO				       TO			       TO

								         UNKNOWING
      BODIES			        ANTAGONISM	   		   GAMES
			                                                                      CONDITIONS

           TO				       TO			       TO

    REACTIVE	                           MINUS	                     UNKNOWING
       BANKS	                                 TONE SCALE	                       NO-GAMES
								          CONDITIONS

Processing, however, does not take the exact reverse route. Operating at a level of knowing games conditions, auditing converts the unknowing games and no-games conditions of the preclear into knowing games conditions and into further knowing games conditions. A further goal of auditing may very well be the attainment of no-game. It would be a knowing no-game, however, not an unknowing, and it would not be actually a condition.

Bad condition of case would be unknowing condition concerning games. Good condition is knowing games condition. No condition would be native state. 

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 DECEMBER 1956

Training, London—Washington

B.SCN.—H.A.A. TECHNIQUES

Procedure emphasis:

Communication (Mimicry, Learning) 
Control (Absolute versions)

Commands:

All commands used in actual session are to be Havingness Scale commands, used with the above procedures.

The Havingness Scale is as follows:

Create
Contribute to
Confront
Have
Substitute
Waste
Substituted
Had
Confronted
Contributed to
Created

The rule of the Havingness Scale is that the auditor clears the preclear at any level by running the level just above it.

The techniques are objective with such form as “Look around - - -”.

The techniques consist of any command which gives one objective and one subjective target, or two objective targets.

Pay full attention to game condition.

LRH:dt.rd							L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 102
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 December 1956

A CASE REPORT

COMMENTS AND INFORMATION ON BACK OF

APA SHEET

Auditor:	L. Ron Hubbard, Jr.

	        FIRST TEST			        AFTER 25 HOURS
		Non-Lang. 	99				Non-Lang. 	96
		Lang. 		117				Lang. 		153
		Total IQ 	110				Total IQ 	124

Pc happy—wishes he’d had Nibs for the 3 weeks. Looks alive now.
                              				 (Dr. Julia Lewis, Director of Processing)

This is very smart, clever auditing. Auditor sees case, sets goal, diagnoses and resolves! We’ve got a real auditor here! On (pc), too! Wow! (LRH)

AUDITOR’S DAILY REPORT

Monday.
Pc has had about 800 hours of processing with very little results. He has given auditors a hard time in the past. He won’t give me one.
I ran, today, all day, Rudiments by Control. Pc started to come off a lot of machines and started to follow my orders happily.
I am only going to try to fix up his present time problems and get him into present time.
He seems to be badly stuck in some whopper of an engram.
                                   				   (Vacuum full of engrams. LRH)

Tuesday.
Ran pc on 8-C, part A, this morning, and, as I’d done yesterday, established the session with Rudiments by Control. Pc will now follow my directions and is in session. He stopped altering the commands. He is a pc now.
Ran him today using Dianetics, Book One, techniques with the new added command, “Make it more solid” using a gradient scale. The engram I ran him through is an electrocution deal where he stepped on a third rail when he was a young boy. His track is caved in on it and there he is. Stuck. It started to unwind.
                                     				     (That’s it ! The grouper. LRH)

Pull him out of this and he will be steamboating. Terrible Trio and other processes have no effect on him. Like water on a duck. Or like trying to destroy a pillbox with a beanshooter.
In this engram his body died and he went to a report station. He goes around in Serenity of Death.
                                               					        (Right! LRH)

Wednesday.
Holiday.

Thursday.
Ran pc all day today on the same engram in the same manner as on Tuesday. This is slowly unraveling and, as it is running out his tone comes up.
He almost dropped his accent at one time during the session (he didn’t learn English until he was seven years old). He popped in and out of the engram several times. And because of this engram he has had no reality on his body with his eyes closed since he was twelve years old. He is now aware of his body with his eyes closed.
Pc is coming up the line. Lots of cognitions. If I have time, I want to run universes.
           (So true! Effect you could have on steel, rails, would
                                                        have helped here maybe. Things rails can’t have. LRH)

Friday.
Ran pc on same engram again today in the same manner as yesterday. It is all out except the one moment of jolt he received as he stepped on the third rail. The tremendous impact and electrical charge is frozen in space and time. Ran it a bit more in the afternoon session and found that his havingness was too low to let go of all this energy. So I ran Terrible Trio and it worked very well. He found that he was having the facsimile of the object instead of the object itself. Now he is having the object. At least now he can remedy his havingness.
                                                                                                             (Excellent ! LRH)

Saturday.
Ran pc on Terrible Trio and Service Facsimile using the commands “What could it get you into?” “What could it get you out of?”
Pc cognited on Service Facsimile and it broke away and moved out. Pc ran Terrible Trio very, very well. Pc felt much better at the end of his intensive. He was satisfied. So was I.
Pc is now ready to run Terrible Trio and Mother’s and Father’s universes with good reality and benefit. Before, it wouldn’t have worked as well. So, next auditor, run them !

GENERAL COMMENTS: Pc had never really been in session before and had never been in present time. Pc is a long way from being in good shape and could use a lot of work on havingness and universes.

THE PROBLEMS OF 
WORK

by 

L. Ron Hubbard

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter One	1
ON WHAT DOES HOLDING A JOB DEPEND?	1
Chapter Two	5
HANDLING THE CONFUSIONS OF THE WORK-A-DAY WORLD	5
Chapter Three	10
IS WORK NECESSARY?	10
Chapter Four	14
THE SECRET OF EFFICIENCY	14
Chapter Five	22
LIFE AS A GAME	22
Chapter Six	27
AFFINITY, REALITY AND COMMUNICATION	27
Chapter Seven	33
EXHAUSTION	33
Chapter Eight	39
THE MAN WHO SUCCEEDS	39
FIRST AID	41

Chapter One

ON WHAT DOES HOLDING A JOB DEPEND?

	On what does holding a job depend?

	Familial connections? Who you know? Personal charm? Luck? Education? Industry? Interest?  Intelligence? Personal ability?

	To one grown old and even somewhat cynical in the world of work, the first several seem to have dominance.  Only the young appear to be left with the illusion or delusion that Personal Ability, Intelligence, Interest, Education and Industry have anything to do with it; and the very, very cynical would have us believe that indeed these are only the symptoms of being very young.

	We have too often seen the son become the foreman, the new son-in-law, yesterday the shipping clerk, soar to board membership, and we all too often have known that the son and son-in-law not only had no aptitude in the first place but that with no fear of discipline they act more carelessly of the firm than the worst employee present.  Familial connection is something dependent upon the accident of birth.

	But, leaving familial connection until some other day, what have we left? There is Who You Know. Personal connection plays a dominant part in obtaining, keeping and improving a position, there can be no doubt of this.  One has a friend who works for the Jim-Jambo Company; the friend knows of an opening; the friend has other friends and these still other friends and so into the Jim Jambo Company one can settle down and work with some security and hope of rise.

	And then there is the matter of personal charm. How often have we seen the young stenographer who couldn’t spell “cat” suddenly soar, with her typing fingers still all thumbs, to the post of the executive secretary to the boss, wherein, while she can’t spell “cat” any better, she can certainly spell raise and raise again and perhaps even “supper club” or diamond necklace. And we have also seen the young man with a good “front” soar above his elders because he could perhaps tell the right joke or play a slightly worse game of golf.

	We have seen, too, the factor of Education all gone awry in firms and governments and the trained man, at how much cost of eyesight become learned beyond credit, yet passed over for some chap who didn’t have a degree to his name beyond a certain degree of push. We have seen the untutored madly ordering the millions and the wise advising a score.

	Industry as well seems to have scant place to those cynical few of us who have seen it all. The eagerness of the young to slave is all too often braked by the older head who says, “Why get in a sweat about it, young’un? It’ll all come out the same.” And perhaps we’ve stayed after hours and daubed ourselves with ink, or lingered at our post beyond all demand of duty, only to watch in times to come the lazy one we scorned draw the better pay. And we’ve said it isn’t justice -- something less than that.

	And Interest, too, we’ve seen come all to naught. When our absorption in the deadly game of firm or unit with its rivals made us lay aside neglected our own wife, or life, and when we’ve burned the night and leisure time to work out solutions gauged to save our firm, and have sent them in, and have had them come back, neglected, and soon have beheld our fellow worker, whose total interest was a man or stamps and not the firm at all, go up to higher posts, we had some cause to be less interested, we thought. And Interest in our work became condemned by those around us who, not understanding it, became tired of hearing it in our mouths.

	Intelligence, against this hard beaten parade of broken illusions, would seem to have no bearing whatever upon our fates. When we see the stupid rule the many, when we see the plans and decisions passed which would have been condemned even by the children of the workers, we wonder what Intelligence could have to do with it. Better to be dumb, we might come to think, than have our own wits continually outraged by the stupidities which pass for company planning.

	Personal ability, against this torrent, this confusing chaos of random causes for promotion and better pay, would seem a wasted item. We have seen our own wasted.  We have seen the abilities of others scorned. We have seen the unable rise while the able remained neglected or even unemployed. So personal ability would not seem the factor it might once have been to us, small cogwheels in the clashing gears of business fate. It must then certainly be luck and nothing but luck the whole way down.

	And so it seems to appear even to an “experienced” eye that the obtaining, the holding, and the improving of a job are all dependent upon a chaos of causes, all of them out of our control. We accept, instead of orderly expectancy, a tumbling mass of accidentals as our fate.

	We try a little. We dress well and cleanly in order to apply for a position, we take ourselves to the place of work daily, we shuffle the papers or the boxes or the machinery parts in a fashion we hope will pass, we leave by crowded transport to our homes and expect another day’s dull toil.

	Occasionally we start up a correspondence course to give us a small edge on our fellows -- and often drop it before it is done: it seems that we cannot even do this little to help us on our way against this flood of accidentals.

	We become ill. We run out of sick leave. Still but hardly recovered we now have no job. We become the victims of an accidental cabal or slander and we have no job. We are thrust up against jobs we cannot do and then again we have no job. We grow too old, our time is spent in remembering how fast we once were, and one day we have no job.

	The lot of the man in the work-a-day world is Uncertainty. His goal is Security. But only few attain this goal. The rest of us worry from day to day, from year to year, about our ability to get work, hold work, improve our lots. And all too often our worst fears take place.  Once we had the rich to look toward and envy, but now the taxes which we bear have reduced, despite their clever accountants, even their number. States and governments rise and promise us all Security and then give us restrictions which make that seem shaky too.

	From day to day new threats impose themselves on our consciousness. A world where the machine is king makes Man a cog, and we are told of new developments which do the work of thousands of us and so we starve.

	The advertisements thrust at us in our transports, newspapers, streets, radios and TV all manner of things to own. And no matter how delightful they are to own, WE the men who make them can’t own them -- not on our pay.    And Christmases leave us a little ashamed at how little we can buy and we make the coat do just another year. And the years advance and we grow no younger. And each hour confronts us with the accidents which might make or break our futures. No wonder we believe in luck alone.

	Well, there is the problem.

	To eat we must have a job. To live we must continue to be acceptable on our jobs. To better ourselves we must hope for the breaks. And it all appears a huge, disheartening confusion composed of accidents, good luck and bad luck, or drudgery with nothing to win at the end of it.

	What would you give for something to lift you out of such ruts? Perhaps you are not in them but if not you’re one of the lucky ones. Men, to escape these ruts, have perpetrated the bloodiest wars and revolutions of history.  Whole dynasties have been cut to the dust in an overpowering convulsion born from despair. Jobs get few. Holding them becomes more and more accidental. At last none can longer stand the strain of insecurity and the answer is raw, red revolution. And does this come to anything? No. Revolution is that act of displacing a tyranny with a tyranny ten times more despotic than the old. Changing governments, not even changing firms can change basic security.

	The quest for security is a quest for constancy and peace. A worker deserves these things. He creates the goods. He should have the wherewithal to live. Instead, he has a chaos.

	But where is this chaos? Is it in the worker’s family?  Some say so. Is it in the character of capital? Some say so.  Is this chaos born of bad government? Many have said so.  Is it in the worker himself? Some would like him to think that.

	No, it is not in any of these things. The chaos of insecurity exists in the chaos of data about work and about people. If you have no compasses by which to steer through life, you get lost. So many recent elements -- of the Industrial Age -- have entered into life that life itself needs to be better understood.

	Work and security are parts of life. If life is not understood then neither will these parts of life be understood. If all life seems chaotic, a matter of guess and chance, then certainly work will seem chaotic.

	But the role of work in existence is a greater role than any other. Some say we spend a third of our lives in bed and therefore beds are important. But we spend more than a third of our lives at work and if we don’t work we don’t have a bed, so it seems that work is more important by far. If you add up the various parts of life, love or sports or entertainment, you will find that the majority of concentration is not on any of these but upon WORK.  Work is the major role of our existences whether we like it or not. If we don’t like it we don’t like life.

	If we find a man a bit insane, old time “ologies” would have had us look up his love-life or his childhood. A newer idea and a better one is to look up his security and conditions of work. As Security goes bad in a nation, insanity rises. If we were to attack national insanity problems and conquer them we wouldn’t build better insane asylums -- we would better the conditions of work.

	Life is seven-tenths work, one-tenth familial, one-tenth political and one-tenth relaxation. Economics -- the paycheck, struggle for -- is seven-tenths of existence. Lose a man his income or his job and you find him in bad mental condition, usually. If we’re going to find proofs of this anywhere, we’ll find them everywhere. Worry over security, worry over worth, worries about being able to do things in life for others, are the principal worries of existence. Let’s be very simple. People with nothing to do, people without purpose most easily become neurotic or mad. Work, basically, is not a drudgery, it is something to do. The pay-check tells us we are worth something. And of course it buys us what we have to have to live. Or almost does.

	All right. Work-security, then, is important. But security itself is an understanding. Insecurity is UNKNOWNNESS. When one is Insecure, he simply doesn’t know. He is not sure. Men who KNOW are secure. Men who don’t know believe in luck. One is made insecure by not knowing whether or not he is going to be sacked. Thus he worries. And so it is with all insecurity. INSECURITY EXISTS IN THE ABSENCE OF KNOWLEDGE. All security derives from knowledge.

	One KNOWS he will be cared for no matter what happens. That is a security. In the absence of certain knowledge it could also be a fallacy. Luck is chance. To depend upon luck is to depend upon not-knowingness.
	But in truth how could one have knowledge about life when life itself had not been brought, as knowledge, into order. When the subject of life itself was a chaos, how could work, as a part of life, be anything but a chaos?

	If LIVINGNESS is an unknown subject, then WORKINGNESS and all pertaining to work must be an unknown subject, exposed to cynicism, hopelessness and guesses.

	To obtain, hold and improve a job, one would have to know the exact, precision rules of life if one were to have a complete security. It would not be enough to know, fairly well, one’s job. That would not be a security, for as time went on we would see, as we have listed, too many chances entering into it.

	Knowledge of the general underlying rules of life would bring about a security of life. Knowledge of the underlying rules of life would also bring about a security in a job.

	Scientology is a science of life. It is the first entirely Western effort to understand life. All earlier efforts came from Asia or Eastern Europe. And they failed. None of them gave greater security. None of them could change human behavior for the better. None of them -- and they bragged about it -could change human intelligence.  Scientology is something new under the sun, but young as it is, it is still the only completely and thoroughly tested and validated science of existence. It doesn’t demand twenty years of sitting on spikes to find out one is mortal. It doesn’t demand a vast study of rats to know that Man is confused.

	Scientology can and does change human behavior for the better. It puts the individual under the control of himself -- where he belongs. Scientology can and does increase human intelligence. By the most exact tests known it has been proven that Scientology can greatly increase intelligence in an individual. And Scientology can do other things. It can reduce reaction time and it can pull the years off one’s appearance. But there is no intention here to give a list of all it can do. It is a science of life and it works. It adequately handles the basic rules of life and it brings order into chaos.

	A science of life would be, actually, a science of good order. Such things as accidents and luck would, if you could but understand their underlying principles, be under your control.

	As we have seen here, even those who aren’t cynical can see that many chances enter into obtaining, holding and improving one’s job. Some of these chances seem so wide and out of control that nothing at all could be done about them. If we could but reduce the chanciness of a job. If we could make the right friends and be sure that our education would count and have some slight security that our interest and intelligence and native ability would not go all to waste, why then, things would be better, wouldn’t they?

	Well, we’ll see what Scientology can do to reduce the chanciness of the work-a-day world -- for you and for those you know. What’s life all about anyway?

Chapter Two

HANDLING THE CONFUSIONS OF THE WORK-A-DAY WORLD

	We have seen how one might be led to believe there was something confusing about navigating one’s career in the world of work. And confusion there is to one who is not equipped with guides and maps.

	Basically, it all seemed very simple, this thing called work, getting a job. One was educated into some skill and one read an ad, or was sent by a friend and was interviewed for a job. And one got it and then reported every day and did the things assigned and as time went on, hoped for a raise in pay. And time going even further on brought one to hope for a pension or a governmental regime that would pay old age benefits. And that was the simple pattern of it.

	But times change and simple patterns have a habit of being deranged. The various incidents and accidents of fate entered into the picture. Completely aside from personal factors, larger views alter things. The government in sweeping economy fails to grant adequate pension. The business for which one works is shattered by a time of depression. Or one’s health fails inexplicably and one is left on charity.

	The worker in his work-a-day world is no towering giant amongst his many foes. The tinsel path sketched so happily by rabble-rousers, the great affection held for the worker by this or that ideology or political figure, do not reflect fact. A man working at a job is faced by difficulties large enough to him, no matter how small they might seem to a successful industrialist. A few percent rise in taxes may mean that he thereafter goes without tobacco.  An entrance upon bad times for the business may result in lessened pay, and there may go any and all luxuries and even some necessities, or the job.

	The effect of international currents, governments, business trends and markets all usually beyond his concern, the worker is perfectly entitled to believe that his fate is not quite entirely predictable. Indeed, he might even be entitled to be confused.

	A man can starve to death in a few days. Few workers have many days of margin in their pockets if the currents change. Thus many things which would be no vast problem to the very secure are watched as menaces by the worker. And these things can become so many that all life seems too confused to be borne and one sinks into an apathy of day-to-day grind, without much hope, trusting that the next storm, by luck, will pass over him.

	As one looks at the many factors which might derange his life and undermine his security, the impression is, confusion seems well founded and it can be said with truth that all difficulties are fundamentally confusions. Given enough menace, enough unknown, a man ducks his head and tries to swing through it blindly. He has been overcome by confusions.

	Enough unsolved problems add up to a huge confusion.  Every now and then,
on his job, enough conflicting orders bring the worker into a state of confusion. A modern plant can be so poorly managed that the entire thing appears to be a vast confusion to which no answer is possible.

	Luck is the usual answer one resorts to in a confusion.  If the forces about one seem too great, one can always “rely on his luck”. By luck we mean “destiny not personally guided”. When one turns loose of an automobile wheel and hopes the car will stay on the road, by luck, he is often disappointed. And so it is in life. Those things left to chance become less likely to work themselves out. One has seen a friend shutting his eyes to the bill collectors and gritting his teeth while he hopes that he will win at the races and solve all his problems. One has known people who handled their lives this way for years. Indeed, one of Dickens’ great characters had the entire philosophy of “waiting for something to turn up”. But luck, while we grant that it IS a potent element is only necessary amid a strong current of confusing factors. If one has to have LUCK to see him through then it follows that one isn’t any longer at his own automobile wheel and it follows, too, that one is dealing with a confusion.

	A confusion can be defined as any set of factors or circumstances which do not seem to have any immediate solution. More broadly, a confusion in this universe is RANDOM MOTION.

	If you were to stand in heavy traffic you would be likely to feel confused by all the motion whizzing around you. If you were to stand in a heavy storm, with leaves and papers flying by, you would be likely to be confused.

	Is it possible to actually understand a confusion? Is there any such thing as an “anatomy of confusion”? Yes, there is.

	If, as a switchboard operator, you had ten calls hitting your board at once, you might feel confused. But is there any answer to the situation? If as a shop foreman you have three emergencies and an accident all at the same time, you might feel confused. But is there any answer to that?

	A confusion is only a confusion so long as ALL particles are in motion. A confusion is only a confusion so long as no factor is clearly defined or understood.

	Confusion is the basic cause of stupidity. To the stupid all things except the very simple ones are confused. Thus if one knew the anatomy of confusion, no matter how bright one might be, he would be brighter.

	If you have ever had to teach some young aspirant who was not too bright, you will understand this well. You attempt to explain how such-and-so works. You go over it and over it and over it. And then you turn him loose and he promptly makes a complete botch of it. He “didn’t understand”, he “didn’t grasp it”. You can simplify your understanding of his misunderstanding by saying, very rightly, “he was confused”.

	Ninety-nine percent of all education fails, when it fails, on the grounds that the student was confused.

	And not only in the realm of the job, but in life itself, when failure approaches, it is born, one way or another, from confusion. To learn of machinery or to live life, one has to be able either to stand up to confusion or to take it apart.

	We have in Scientology a certain doctrine about confusion. It is called the Doctrine of the Stable Datum.

	If you saw a great many pieces of paper whirling about a room they would look confused until you picked out one piece of paper to be the piece of paper by which everything else was in motion. In other words, a confusing motion can be understood by conceiving one thing to be motionless.

	In a stream of traffic all would be confusion unless you were to conceive one car to be motionless in relation to the other cars and so to see others in relation to the one.

	The switchboard operator receiving ten calls at once solves the confusion by labelling, correctly or incorrectly, one call as the first call to receive her attention. The confusion of ten calls all at once becomes less confusing the moment she singles out one call to be answered. The shop foreman confronted by three emergencies and an accident needs only to elect his FIRST target of attention to start the cycle of bringing about order again.

	Until one selects ONE datum, ONE factor, ONE particular in a confusion of particles, the confusion continues. The ONE thing selected and used becomes the STABLE DATUM for the remainder.

	Any body of knowledge, more particularly and exactly, is built from ONE DATUM. That is its STABLE DATUM. Invalidate it and the entire body of knowledge falls apart. A stable datum does not have to be the correct one. It is simply the one that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which others are aligned.

	Now, in teaching a young aspirant to use a machine, he failed to grasp your directions, if he did, because he lacked a stable datum. ONE FACT had to be brought home to him first. Grasping that, he could grasp others. One is stupid, then, or confused in any confusing situation until he has fully grasped ONE FACT or one item.

	Confusions, no matter how big and formidable they may seem, are composed of data or factors or particles.  They have pieces. Grasp one piece and locate it thoroughly. Then see how the others function in relation to it and you have steadied the confusion and, relating other things to what you have grasped, you will soon have mastered the confusion in its entirety.

	In teaching a boy to run a machine, don’t throw a torrent of data at him and then point out his errors; that’s confusion to him, that makes him respond stupidly. Find some entrance point to his confusion, ONE DATUM. Tell him, “This is a machine.” It may be that all the directions were flung at someone who had no real certainty, no real order of existence. “This is a machine,” you say. Then make him sure of it. Make him feel it, fiddle with it, push at it. “This is a machine,” tell him. And you’d be surprised how long it may take but you’d be surprised as well how his certainty increases. 
	Out of all the complexities he must learn to operate it, he must know ONE DATUM first. It is not even important WHICH datum he first learns well beyond that it is better to teach him a SIMPLE BASIC DATUM. You can show him what it does, you can explain to him the final product, you can tell him why HE has been selected to run this machine.  BUT you MUST make one basic datum clear to him or else he will be lost in confusion.

	Confusion is uncertainty. Confusion is stupidity.  Confusion is insecurity. When you think of uncertainty, stupidity and insecurity, think of confusion and you’ll have it down pat.

	What, then, is Certainty? Lack of confusion. What then is Intelligence? Ability to handle confusion. What then is Security? The ability to go through or around or to bring order to confusion. Certainty, Intelligence and Security are lack of or ability to handle confusion.

	How does luck fit into confusion? Luck is the hope that some uncontrolled chance will get one through. Counting on luck is an abandonment of control. That’s apathy.

	There is GOOD control and BAD control. The difference between them is Certainty and Uncertainty. Good control is certain, positive, predictable. Bad control is uncertain, variable and unpredictable. With good control one can be certain, with bad control one is never certain.  A foreman who makes a rule effective today but not” tomorrow, who makes George obey but not James, is exercising bad control; in that foreman’s wake will come uncertainty and insecurity, no matter what his personal attributes may be.

	Because there can be so much uncertain, stupid control, some of us begin to believe that all control is bad. But this is very far from true. Control is necessary if one would bring any order into confusions. One must be able to control things, his body, his thoughts at least to some degree, to do anything whatever.

	A confusion could be called an UNCONTROLLED RANDOMNESS. Only those who can exert some control over that randomness can handle confusions. Those who cannot exert control actually breed confusions.

	The difference between good and bad control then becomes more obvious. The difference between good and bad here is DEGREE. A thorough positive control can be predicted by others. Therefore it is good control. A non-positive, sloppy control cannot be predicted; therefore it is a bad control. Intention also has something to do with control. Control can be used for constructive purposes or destructive purposes; but you will discover that when destructive purposes are INTENDED, bad control is used.

	Thus there is a great deal to this entire subject of CONFUSION. You may find it rather odd for confusion itself to be used here as a target. But you will find that it is an excellent common denominator to all that we consider evil in life. And if one can become master of confusions, his attention is freed for constructive activity. So long as one is being confused by confusions, all he can think about are destructive things -- what he wants to do most is to destroy the confusion.

	So let us then learn first how to destroy confusions.  And this, we find, is a rather simple thing. When ALL particles seem to be in motion, halt one and see how the others move according to it and then you will find less confusion present. With one adopted as a STABLE DATUM others can be made to fall in line. Thus an emergency, a machine, a job or life itself can be viewed and understood and one can be free.

	Let us take a glance at how this works. In the first chapter we listed a number of things which might influence obtaining, holding and improving a job. One can handle this entire problem, as people most often do, by entering into the problem the single datum, “I can get and hold a job.” By clutching to this as a single belief, the confusions and insecurities of life become less effective, less confusing.

	But suppose one has done this: suppose that without further investigating the problem, one, when young, gritted his teeth and shut his eyes and said, “I can get and hold a job, come what may. Therefore I am not going to worry about the economics of existence any more.” Well, that was fine.

	Later on, without warning, one got fired. One was out of work for ten weeks. He felt then, even when he did get a new job, less secure, less confident. And let us say that some accident occurred and one was out of a job again.        

	When once more unemployed, he was once more even less confident, less secure. Why? Let us take a look at the opposite side of this Doctrine of the Stable Datum. If we do, we learn that confusions are held ineffective by stable data and that, when the stable datum is shaken, the confusion comes into being again.

	Let us envision a confusion as stopped. It is still scattered but it is stopped. What stopped it? The adoption of a stable datum. Let us say that one was bothered badly in the home by a mother-in-law. One day, after a quarrel, one stalked out and by inspiration, said to himself, “All mothers-in-law are evil.” That was a decision. That, rightly or wrongly, was a stable datum adopted in a confusion. At once one felt better. He could deal with or live with the problem now. He knew that “all mothers-in-law” were evil. It wasn’t true, but it was a stable datum. Then one day, when he was in trouble, his mother-in-law stepped forward, true-blue, and paid not only the rent but the other debt too. At once he felt very confused. This act of kindness should not have been a thing to bring in confusion. After all, hadn’t she solved the problem? Then why does one feel upset about it? BECAUSE THE STABLE DATUM HAS BEEN SHAKEN. The entire confusion of the past problem came into action again by reason of the demonstrated falsity of the stable datum.

	To make anyone confused, all you have to do is locate their stable data and invalidate them. By criticism or proof it is only necessary to shake these few stable data to get all a person’s confusions back into action.

	You see, stable data do not have to be true. They are simply adopted. When adopted, then one looks at other data in relation to them. Thus the adoption of ANY stable datum will tend to nullify the confusion addressed. BUT if that stable datum is shaken, invalidated, disproven, then one is left again with the confusion. Of course, all one has to do is adopt a new stable datum or put the old stable datum back in place, but he’d have to know Scientology in order to accomplish this smoothly.

	Let us say one has no fears of national economy because of an heroic political figure who is trying his best.  That man is the stable datum to all one’s confusions about national economy.  Thus one “isn’t worried”. But one day circumstances or his political enemies shake him as a datum. They “prove” he was really dishonest. One then becomes worried all over again about national economy.  Maybe you adopted some philosophy because the speaker seemed such a pleasant chap. Then some person carefully proves to you that the speaker was actually a thief or worse. One adopted the philosophy because one needed some peace from his thoughts. Invalidating the speaker would then at once bring back the confusion one faced originally.

	All right. We looked at the confusion of the work-a-day world when we were young and we held it all back by stating grimly, “I can get and keep a job.” That was the stable datum. We did get a job. But we got fired. The confusion of the work-a-day world then became very confusing. If we have only the one stable datum, “I can get and keep a job,” as our total answer to all the various problems listed in the first chapter, then, assuredly, one is going to spend some confusing periods in his working life.  A far, far better stable datum would be, “I understand about life and jobs. Therefore I can get, hold and improve them.” And that’s where we are going in this book.

Chapter Three

IS WORK NECESSARY?

	An understanding of life is necessary to the living of it. Otherwise life becomes a trap. To so many of us in the work-a-day world this trap takes the form of WORK. If only we didn’t have to work, how many delightful things could we do! If only we had some other way of getting money... Travel, vacations, new clothes... what a host of things would be ours if only we didn’t have to work!

	It is almost an educational factor of our society that work, duress of, is the root of our unhappiness. We hear unions and welfare states as well as individuals basing all their plea upon a reduction of work. Getting rid of work by virtue of reduced hours and the introduction of automatic machinery has become the by-word of the mid-twentieth century.

	Yet the most disheartening thing which could happen to most of us would be the loss of all future jobs. To be denied the right to work is to be denied any part of the society in which we live.

	The rich man’s son, the moneyed dowager, neither of them works. Neither is sane. When we look for neurosis and folly in our society we look toward those who do not or cannot work. When we look over the background of a criminal we look at “inability to work”. Somehow the right to work seems to be bound up in happiness and the zest of living. And demonstrably the denial of work is bound up with madness and insanity.

	As the amount of automatic machinery increases in our society, so increases the percentile of our people who are insane. Child labor laws, injunctions against overtime, demands for many papers and skills and conditions of being alike combine to reduce the amount of work that can be done by an individual.

	Have you ever seen a retired man who pined for his desk? Today “the doctrine of limited work” educates us to believe that at such and such an age we must stop work.  Why is this so popular when we can see for ourselves that the end of work is the end of life in most cases?

	Speaking politically for a moment, from the standpoint of sanity. Man more dearly needs the Right to Work than he does an endless number of pretended freedoms. Yet we carefully discourage in our children and in our society those people who MAKE work. Unless work is made there will be no work to do. Work is not something which springs ready-made into our sight. Work is something that is created. New inventions, new markets, new systems of distribution must be created and brought into existence as times change and old methods, old markets, old systems become inadequate and wear out. Somebody created the jobs we do. When we work we either do a job created by ourselves or by another.

	It is not enough to coast along in a job. The job, day by day, has to be made by us, no matter who created it in the first place.

	To work is to participate in the activities of our society.  To be refused a part in the activities of our society is to be cast out by it.

	Somebody invented the difference between work and play. Play was seen to be something that was interesting and work was seen to be something that was arduous and necessary and therefore not interesting. But when we have our vacations and go and “play” we are usually very glad to get back to the “daily grind”. Play is almost purposeless. Work has a purpose.

	In truth, only the constant refusal on the part of the society to give us work results in our distaste of work when it exists. The man who cannot work was forbidden the right to work. When we go back in the history of the notoriously unable-to-work criminal, we find that he was first and foremost convinced that he must not work -- he was forbidden to work whether by his father or mother or school or early life. Part of his education was that he must not work. What was left? Revenge upon the society which refused to let him take part in its activities.

	Let us re-define work and play. Play should be called “work without a purpose”. It could also be called “activity without purpose”. That would make work be defined as “activity with purpose”. Where we have fault to find with working, it grows out of our own fear that we will not be permitted to continue work.

	There is nothing wrong with automation, with all this installation of machines to do our work, so long as the powers-that-be remember to create ADDITIONAL WORK for us. Automation could be a blessing to the whole world, PROVIDING as many new jobs are invented as were disposed of by machinery. THEN we’d have production And if the powers-that-be didn’t fumble their basic economics and created enough money for us to buy all the new products, THERE would be prosperity indeed.  So it isn’t automation that is at fault; if automation leaves people unemployed, SOMEBODY wasn’t permitted to invent new jobs for us. Of course, if every new business is flattened by restriction and if every man who would invent work was prohibited from doing so, then and only then would automatic machinery bring about our down, fall.

	Despite the much-advertised joys of vacations and endless play, such things have never been other than a curse for Man. The earliest mention of it was by Homer in the Lotus Isles. And didn’t that crew go to pieces.

	No, definitely there is more to work and working than having to have a pay-check. Of course there are jobs more interesting than other jobs. Of course there are positions which are more remunerative than other positions. But when one contrasts the right to have a position with NO right to have one, then one will choose even the less interesting and poorer paid tasks.

	Did you know that a mad person could be made well simply by getting him convinced that he has some purpose in life? Well, that can happen. It doesn’t matter how thin or artificial that purpose may be, mad people can be made sane with it. One instance comes to mind of a crazy girl for whom nothing could be done. That was the point in her case -- nothing could be done for her. But one night near the asylum an auto accident occurred and an overworked doctor, seeing her near, ordered her to do some things for the victims. She became well. She became a staff nurse.  She was never insane thereafter.

	Now, no-one pretends that we are all mad if we don’t work. But it is an astonishing thing that we drift in that direction when we are forbidden to labor.

	Great revolutions occur out of a mass inability to work.  The crowds rebel not because they are angry over privileges, which they always say, but because they have gone mad, having no work. It is truth that revolutions cannot occur when people are all employed. And it doesn’t matter how arduously they are employed either.  Revolutions occur when people have been too often forbidden to work. They go up in madness and the state often comes down in ruins. NO revolution ever won anything. Life evolves into a better condition by means of hard work, not by threats.

	If automatic machinery threw enough people out of work -- even though the machines were producing a plenty -- there would be a revolution. Why? Because by robbing them of work, people have been robbed of a purpose in life. When that goes, all goes.
A good purpose, a bad purpose, it does not matter, so long as a purpose exists. WHY?

	Now, do not think we have strayed very far from the last chapter. We haven’t. Here is an understanding of life.  Life has certain stable data that ARE the stable data of livingness. Once grasped, then life -- and that part of it called work -- can be understood.

	Life is basically a created thing. But it has many elements in it creating against many other elements in it.  A confusion occurs whenever two or more things start creating against each other. Thus life, viewed impartially, can seem to be a confusion.

	If one were to sit amongst all this livingness, all this creatingness, all this warfare, without any purpose -- such an existence in its entirety would be fatal. To be part of a universe, a civilization, and yet to have no purpose, is the route to madness.

	The exertion of energy, the exercise, the time spent, the things done are all of a lower order of importance. Just to have Something To Do and a Reason To Do It exerts a control over life itself. If you have no purpose, you have no purchase on the small first particle necessary to make the whole understandable. Thus life can become a terrible burden.

	In the United States a quarter of a century ago, and in other lands as well, there was something called a depression. It came out of a lack of understanding of economics during a period of transition into a machine age. During it a great president saw that work had been denied to his people. He created work. He thought he did it to get money into circulation to buy all the things the country could now make. Therefore he did not really rescue the bulk of his people from despair. For the work he gave them was to be carelessly done, poorly done. All that was being demanded was time spent on the job. He had a wonderful opportunity to turn a country into a beautiful thing. But the work given had no purpose.

	Men who detest one job or another detest it because they can’t see where it is going or can’t believe they are doing any important thing. They are “working”, that is to say, they report and go through motions and draw a pay-check. But they aren’t truly a part of the scheme of things. They don’t feel they have anything to win.

	In our civilization the Stable Datum to the confusion of existence is WORK. And the Stable Datum of work is Purpose. Even if the purpose is just getting a pay-check, it is still purpose.

	Any of us, probably, could do more important things than we are doing. Any of us could use some changes in our tasks. But none of us, and still stay alive and sane, could do without something to do.

	When we grow timid in the face of circumstance it is because our Purpose, our Stable Data, have been invalidated.

	It is, as we have shown, rather easy to knock a person into a state of confusion. All you have to do is locate his Stable Datum on any subject and shake it. This is a trick we all use. For instance, we are arguing about economics with a friend: we don’t agree with him. We ask him where he got such an idea. He says somebody wrote it in such-and-so. We attack the writer or the paper and discredit it. In other words, we win our argument by shaking his Stable Datum as nearly as we can find it.

	Life is competitive. Many of us forget we are part of a team called Man, in contest with who knows what else to Survive. We attack Man and attack our friends. In the course of holding a job, it seems only natural that here and there in the organization would be people who were so insecure in their own tasks that they seek to spread insecurity around them.

	Having drunk of confusion too deeply, having too few Stable Data, a person can begin to dramatize confusion, to spread it, to consciously try to make everything and everybody confused. One of the favorite targets of such people is the Stable Datum of Work. Although usually such people cannot even do their own jobs they are very anxious to make others tired of theirs. They “cut down the competition” by carving up the Stable Data of others.

	Beware these people who come around and inquire “sympathetically” about your health because you look “overworked”. It is almost easier to get “overloafed” than overworked. Beware these people who want you to sign a petition to shorten the hours to be spent on the job. The end product of that is no job. And beware, too, the fellow who is always taking it “out of the firm” because the firm can afford it. Remember, that firm is part yours, no matter if they fire you tomorrow. Such people are trying to pull out from under you the Stable Datum of Work.

	If you are afraid of losing your job, it is because you suffer already from too many forbiddings to work. The only way to hold a job is to make it every day, to create it and keep it created. If you have no wish to create and continue that job then there must be something at cross-purposes with purpose. There is something wrong between what you think would be a good purpose and what purpose your job has.

	Government jobs are an interesting example because, so often, nobody seems to care really whether the job has purpose or not. Too often the purpose of having a government job is just to have a government job. Here in particular one has to understand about life and work itself, for a government job has to be created continually to continue. And if it seems to have no purpose then one should look over government itself and get at its purpose, for the purpose of the government as a whole, in some part, would be the purpose of the job held, no matter how small.

	Anyone suffering from a distaste for work must basically have a feeling that he isn’t really allowed to work.  Thus work is not a stable datum in life. And he must have, as well, some cross-purpose about the purposes of his job.  And, too, he usually is associated with people in his job who are trying to make work into something less than tasteful. But he is to be pitied because he is unhappy. He is Unhappy because he is confused. Why is he confused? Because he has no Stable Datum for his life. And a Stable Datum for life itself is the basis of good living as well as good job orientation.

Chapter Four

THE SECRET OF EFFICIENCY

	What is control?

	Whether one handles a machine of the size of a car or as small as a typewriter or even an accounting pen, one is faced with the problems of control. An object is of no use to anyone if it cannot be controlled. Just as a dancer must be able to control his body, so must a worker in an office or a factory be able to control his body, the machines of his work and to some degree the environment around him.

	The primary difference between “the worker” in an office or a factory and an executive is that the executive controls minds, bodies and placement of communications, raw materials and products, and the worker controls in the main his immediate tools. However, it is far too easy for those anxious to agitate labor into measures not necessarily good for it, and for executives who themselves are anxious for control and anxious about it, to forget that the worker who does not control his materials of work and who is himself a controlled factor only, is practically useless to the plant itself. Both management and labor must be able to control their immediate environment.  The most apparent difference between an executive and a “worker” is that the executive controls more environment than the “worker”. To that degree, then, the executive must be more capable than the “worker” or the plant or business is doomed to difficulty if not failure.

	What is a good workman? He is one who can positively control his equipment or tools of trade or who can control the communication lines with which he is intimately connected.

	What is a bad worker? A bad worker is one who is unable to control the equipment he is supposed to control or the communication lines he is supposed to handle.

	People who wish to control others, but who do not wish others to control anything bring us into a difficulty by establishing a fallacy. That fallacy is that there is such a thing as “bad” control. Control is either well done or not done. If a person is controlling something he is controlling it. If he is controlling it poorly he is not controlling it. A machine which is being run well is controlled. A machine which is not being run well is not being controlled.  Therefore we see that bad control is actually a not-control. People who tell you that control is bad are trying to tell you that automobile accidents and industrial accidents are good.

	Attempted control for bad or covert purposes is harmful and it carries with it the ingredient of unknowingness.  The person who is attempting control is actually not controlling. He is simply seeking to control and his efforts are in the main indefinite and unpositive, which of course are characteristics which control does not countenance.  When unknowingness is entered into control, control can become antipathetic, but it does not become a fact. If you have ever covertly controlled your car you will understand what is meant. If you handled your steering wheel in such a way that the car would not “know” which way it was then supposed to go you would soon be involved in difficulties. You must handle the steering wheel of a car in such a way that the car then turns the proper turns and remains on a straight course on a straight road. There is nothing hidden about your intention of controlling the car and there is nothing unknown about the response of the car. When a car fails to respond to your handling of the steering wheel control has ceased to exist.

	In other words, one either controls something or he does not. If he does not we have developed a misnomer.  We have developed the idea that there is such a thing as bad control.

	People who have been “badly controlled”, which is to say, who have been merely shaken up and have not been controlled at all, begin to believe that there is something bad about control but they would really not know what control is since they have not been controlled in actuality. To understand this further one would have to know one of the very basic principles of Scientology which is the anatomy of control. In part this principle consists as follows: Control may be subdivided into three separate parts. These parts are START, CHANGE and STOP.

	Start, change and stop also comprise a cycle of action.  The CYCLE OF ACTION is seen in the turning of a simple wheel. The wheel starts and then any given spot on it changes position and then the wheel is stopped. It does not matter how long the wheel is in motion, it still follows this cycle of action. A man walking a short distance starts, changes the position of his body and stops his body. He has, if he does this, completed a cycle of action. On a longer span a company starts, continues and at some date, early or late, ceases to exist. In change we get change of position in space or change of existence in time. In start we have simple start and in stop we have simply stop.

	Things may start slowly or rapidly, things may stop slowly or rapidly, things may change very rapidly while they are going. Thus the rate of start, the rate of change and the rate of stop have little to do with the fact that a cycle of action does consist of start, change and stop.

	The ancients referred to this cycle of action in a much more detailed fashion. We find the Vedic Hymns talking about a cycle of action in this wise: First there is chaos, then from the chaos something emerges and can be said to have been born, it grows, it persists, it decays and dies and chaos ensues. Although this in essence is an inaccurate statement it is the earliest example of a cycle of action.

	A modern Scientology example of a cycle of action is much more simply stated and is much more accurate. A cycle of action is start, change and stop. This parallels another cycle of action which is that of life itself. The cycle of action of life is CREATION, SURVIVAL and DESTRUCTION. Survival could be said to be any change, whether in size or in age or in position in space. The essence of survival is change. Creation is of course starting, destruction is of course stopping. Thus we have in Scientology two very useful cycles of action, the first of them being start, change and stop and the more detailed one being create, survive, destroy.

	Start, change and stop imply the conditions of a being or an object. Create, survive, destroy imply the intention of life toward objects.

	Control consists entirely of starting, changing and stopping. There are no other factors in positive control. If one can start something, change its position in space or existence in time and stop it, all at will, he can be said to control it, whatever it may be. If one can barely manage to start something, can only with difficulty continue its change of position or existence in time, and if one can only doubtfully stop something, he cannot be said to control it well, and for our purposes he would be said to be able to control it poorly or dangerously. If he cannot start something, if he cannot change its position in space, if he cannot stop something, then he is definitely not in control of it. If he is trying to start, change and stop something or somebody without positively doing so he has entered unknowingness into the activity and the result will be questionable to say the least.

	Thus there is such a thing as good control. Good control would consist of knowingness and positiveness. A girl who can start a typewriter, continue its motion and then stop it could be said to be in control of the typewriter. If she had difficulties in starting it, in continuing its action and in stopping it she would not only be in “bad control” of the typewriter, she would be a bad stenographer.

	Where “bad control” enters in, so enter incompetence, accidents, difficulties, inefficiency and, not the least, considerable misery and unhappiness. As we define bad control as not-control, or as an unknowing attempt at control without actually effecting control, it can be said that unpositiveness results in a great many difficulties.
	To give you some idea of how far this might go in life, you might get the idea of being moved around in a room by somebody. This somebody would tell you to go to the desk, then would tell you to go to a chair, then would tell you to go to the door. Each time he tells you to go somewhere, you of course have to start yourself, change your body’s position and stop yourself. Now oddly enough you would not mind this if you knew that somebody was telling you to do it and you were capable of performing the action and you were not receiving orders in such a wise as to interrupt your obedience of the command before you completed it. 

	Let us say, for instance, that somebody told you to go to the desk, but before you arrived at the desk he told you to go to a chair, but before you arrived at the chair told you to go to the door and then claimed you were wrong in not having gone to the desk. You would be, at that time, confused. This would be “bad control” since it does not permit you to finish any cycle of action before another cycle of action is demanded of you. Thus your cycles of action become involved and a confusion results.               

	But this in essence would not be control since control must involve an understandable or knowing positiveness.  Good control would not change the order before you had a chance to arrive at the desk. It would let you arrive at the desk before you were asked to start again for the chair. It would let you arrive at the chair before you were asked to start again for the door. Now you would not mind the positive control but it is certain that you would be quite upset by the broken series of orders which did not permit you to finish any cycle of action. Now, to give you some idea of how this could influence one’s life -- which would you rather have give you a series of orders such as above, to move around a room: your father or your mother? It is certain that you had the most trouble with the parent you would not have chosen to have given you those orders.

	Control is so far from being bad that a person who is sane and in very good condition does not resent good, positive control and is himself able to administer good, positive control to people and objects. A person who is not in very good condition resents even the most casual directions and is actually not capable of controlling people or objects. The latter person is also inefficient and has many difficulties with work and with life.

	When a person cannot control things or when he resists things controlling him he involves himself with difficulties not only with people but with objects. It is also apparent that people with control difficulties more readily become ill and fail in other ways.

	When a person is incapable of controlling a piece of machinery it often occurs that the machinery reverses the matter and begins to control him. As an example, a driver who cannot exert positive control on a car is quite likely eventually to be controlled by that car. Instead of a driver driving a car down the street we have a car taking a “driver” down the street and sooner or later the car, not being very expert at control, winds its driver up in a ditch.

	Even mechanical failures are attributable to a lack of control. It will be discovered that an individual who cannot easily control a machine is quite likely to have considerable difficulties with that machine. The machine itself suffers sometimes in nearly inexplicable ways.          

	Motors run for some men and do not run for others. Some machinery will go on for years in the hands of a mechanic, but when the mechanic leaves it and another takes his place who is not adept, the machine may be found to break down and experience difficulties never before noticed in it. It is stretching things a little bit to infer that a person who cannot control things needs only to look at a piece of machinery to have something go wrong with it, and yet there are cases on record where this has happened.  The factor involved is more easily understood in, for instance, an accounting department. A person who cannot control figures of course sooner or later involves the books he is keeping in complexities and intricacies which not even an expert accountant can straighten out.

	The cycle of action of this universe is start, change and stop. This is also the anatomy of control. Almost the entire subject of control is summed up in the ability to start, change and stop one’s activities, body and one’s environment.

	A habit is simply something one cannot stop. Here we have an example of no control whatever and we have the step beyond the last extremity of entirely lost control.  Control begins to dwindle when one is able to change things and stop things but is not still capable of starting them. Once a thing is started, such a person can change and stop it. A further dwindling of control, if one can now call it such, would be the loss of an ability to change something or continue its existence in time. This would leave one simply with the ability to stop things. When one finally loses the ability to stop something, that thing has to some degree become his master.

	In the stop of start, change and stop we see in essence the entirety of the stable datum. If one can stop just one particle or datum in a confusion of particles or data one has begun a control of that confusion. In the matter of a mass of calls coming into a switchboard simultaneously, each call insistently demanding the attention of an operator, control is asserted on the switchboard by the operator’s stopping just one demand. It does not particularly matter which demand is stopped. Handling just one call permits one then to handle another call and so forth until one has changed the condition of the switchboard from a total confusion to a handled situation. One feels confused when there is nothing in a situation which he can stop. When he can at least stop one thing in a situation he will then find it is possible to stop others and finally will recover the ability to change certain factors in the situation.  From this he graduates into an ability to change anything in the situation and finally is capable of starting some line of action.

	Control is then found to be very intimate to confusion.  A worker who is easily confused is a worker who cannot control things. An executive who is frantic in the face of an emergency is an executive who even in good times does not feel that he has any ability to actually start, change and stop situations in which he is involved as an executive.

	Franticness, helplessness, incompetence, inefficiency and other undesirable factors in a job are all traceable to inabilities to start, change and stop things.

	Let us say that a plant has a good manager. The manager can start, change and stop the various activities in which the plant is involved; can start, change and stop the various machinery of the plant; can start, change and stop the raw materials and the products of the plant; and can start, change and stop various labor activities or difficulties. But let us say that this plant is unfortunate enough to have only one person in it who can start, change and stop things. Now unless the executive is going to handle all the incoming raw materials, turn on and off all the machinery, process every piece of material in the place and ship the finished products himself, he will be unable to run the plant. Similarly an office manager who himself can start, change and stop any of the activities of an office or handle them, if he were the only one in the office who could, would be powerless actually to run a very large office.

	In a plant or in an office it is then necessary for an executive, no matter how good he may be, to be supported by subordinates who themselves are not unwilling to be started, changed and stopped by him, but who can themselves start, change and stop the activities or personnel in their own immediate environment in the plant.

	Now given a good executive in a plant or office and given good subordinates (defining as good, their ability to start, change and stop things), we would yet have difficulty if we reached lower down on the command chart and discovered that we did not have any working people who themselves were capable of starting, changing and stopping their own particular jobs. We would have a condition here where the executive and the foreman would then be forced to do everything that was really being done in the plant. To actually have a good plant we would have to have an executive, foreman and workers, all of whom in their own environment were capable of starting, changing and stopping things and who were at the same time (including the executives) not unwilling to be started, changed and stopped in their duties, providing positive and understandable orders were used.

	As we look this over we see less and less the picture we have been uniformly presented with in plants and offices of the “management” and “laborers”. As soon as we discover one worker in a plant who does not have to start, change or stop himself or anything else we would then have somebody who would justify this title of “laborer”.  It is apparent that from the topmost member of the board down to the lowest worker on the payroll, each and every one of them is involved with starting, changing and stopping people, materials, machinery, products and pieces of the environment. In other words, each and every one of them present in a plant or an office is actually managing something. As soon as an executive realizes this he is then capable of running a far more efficient business since he is capable then of selecting out from amongst them, people who are best at starting, changing and stopping things, and these by example can bring others into a state of mind where they too are willing to positively start, change and stop things.

	We have people in the work-a-day world, whether managers or janitors, who are for instance fixated (stuck) on starting. These people can start all day and all night but they never get going. Such people talk about big schemes and big deals; such people talk a lot of enthusiasm about getting going but never themselves seem to move.

	Others, no matter what their class or classification, get fixated on change. These manifest this usually by insisting that everything “keep running”. They talk all the time about “keeping things going” but they will not listen to any new ideas or will not receive any new machinery, since that would necessitate stopping some old machinery and starting some new machinery. Thus we get antiquated plants and systems continued on forever, long past their usefulness or economic value. A subdivision of this is the person who must change everything all the time. This is actually another manifestation of trying to keep things running, but instead of keeping things running, these people shift everything there is to be shifted all the time.  If an order is issued they change the order. If they receive the word to go they change it to stay. But this, it will be seen, is an unbalanced condition where these people are actually unwilling to keep anything running anywhere and are in reality on an obsessive stop.

	Plants, businesses, factories, ships and even the government are victimized particularly by people who can only stop things. No matter how well some unit may be running, some order is issued that stops whatever it is doing. It is enough for such people to discover that something is going to do something to cause it to stop. Usually one gets around this by failing to inform such people that something is running.

	Thus we can see that there are people who abuse the cycle of action of start, change and stop and who are themselves fixated upon one or another factor in the cycle of action or who are incapable of withstanding any factor in it, which means, of course, that they are in a continuous and arduous confusion.

	It is noteworthy that those people who can only start things are normally creative. The artist, the writer, the designer is looked upon to start things. He actually might also be capable of continuing them or stopping them but his purest function is creation.

	There are amongst very rational and good men those whose greatest ability is continuing things. They can also start things and stop things if they can really continue things. It is upon these men that we depend for the survival of a business or an operation.

	Then there is the class that is used by the society to stop things. Such people have normally a police function.  Certain things are declared to be bad and these things so designated are then turned over to people to stop them. Imperfect production is stopped by inspectors. Bribery, corruption or crime is stopped by police. Other nationally aggressive persons are stopped by the military. And it should occasion no surprise that these specialists in stop are of course specializing in destroy. It should occasion no further surprise that when one looks at the element in the society most likely to decay the society, one looks for those whose job it is to specialize in stops. These people in the main, while serving a very good function for the society at large, if they became fully in charge, as in a police state, would only destroy the state and its people, as has been noted since the days of Napoleon. The most recent nation which turned over the entire function of the state to police was Germany and Germany was stopped very thoroughly. Germany also effected nothing but destruction.

	When we have a society which is very good at starting we have a creative society. When we have a society which is very good at keeping things running we have a society that endures. When we have a society that is only capable of stopping things we have a society which is destructive or which is itself destroyed. Therefore we must realize that a balance amongst these three factors of start, change and stop is necessary, not only in an individual, but in a business, and not only in a business but in a nation. When one can only do one of these one is considerably limited in his usefulness. The optimum condition would be for everyone from manager down to janitor to be capable of starting, changing and stopping and to be able to endure being started, changed and stopped. Thus we would have a balanced and relatively unconfused business activity.

	No business can succeed unless it has been properly started, unless it is progressing through time or changing position in space and unless it is capable of stopping harmful practices and even competitors.

	As it is with a nation or a business so it would be with an individual holding down a single job. He should be able to start, change and stop anything under his immediate control. If he is running a machine he should be able to start the machine, to keep it turning (changing) and to stop it, and this should be under his own determinism. His machine should not be started by some engineer and stopped at some period of the day without any attention from himself. Furthermore, if he felt the machine should be shut down and oiled he should have the authority to do so and should not have to withstand the pummeling of some machine foreman who, without understanding the situation, simply observed that a machine was stopped which according to his lights ought to be running.

	Even a janitor, to have any efficiency at his job and thus to have a clean set of offices or a plant, would have to be able to start, change and stop the various objects having to do with his particular job. He should not have to keep on sweeping after the floor is clean and he should not have to stop sweeping before he has cleaned the floor and he should be able to start sweeping the floor when he believes it ought to be swept. Naturally if he is able to do these things he is also able to co-operate with his fellow workers, and himself be stopped or started or altered in his activity, so as to execute his job while making it possible for them to do their jobs.

	Here, however, we envision a nation or a plant or an office or a small section or department running without any supervision at all, whereas there would be executives and foremen and workers. It is doubtful if supervision of others would occupy much of anyone’s time. As the ability of the worker and foreman and executive to start, change and stop those things which they should handle and control declines, it will be discovered that supervision enters it. The less capable people are of starting, changing and stopping the people or objects under their immediate control, the more supervision they require. When supervision gets up to 80 percent of the plant’s activities it is certain that the confusion will be so great that inefficiency will result in such magnitude as to ruin the activity.

	Supervision then is actually a criticism of the junior. It implies that a junior does not know or is not able in the field of control.

	Co-operation and alignment of activity is different than supervision. Where one has a chain of command one does not necessarily have supervision. One does have, however, co-ordinated planning for an entire operation which is then relayed to others in the operation so that coordination can take place. If everybody is agreed on the worthwhileness of any activity and if everybody in that activity were capable of actually controlling those items or persons which were in his immediate sphere of action, it would be found that planning would not have to engage in much supervision in order to effect the execution of the ideas involved. This is a very high order of dream. Only where Scientology has been thoroughly at work could such a thing occur -- that an organization could run in agreement with itself without supervision or punitive action.

	One is able to gauge those workers around him by the amount of confusion in which they are involved. That confusion tells one at once the degree of inability to control things. That inability to control things may not be entirely the fault of the worker. There are two things which can be psychotic: one is the surroundings and the other is the person. A sane man has difficulty in insane surroundings. An insane man has difficulty in even the sanest and most orderly surroundings. Thus there are two factors involved in any operation: the person and the surroundings. It could also be said there are two factors involved in any business: the surroundings of the business itself and the business. One sane business trying to operate in a world of madmen would have a very great difficulty getting along. One way or another the inability of the madmen to start, change and stop things would infect the business and deteriorate its efficiency.

	Thus it is not enough that an individual himself be capable of controlling his job. He must also be able to tolerate the confusion of those around him who cannot control their jobs, or he must be able to tolerate sane and steady control from those around him.

	Insanity is contagious. Confusion is contagious. Have you ever talked to a confused man without yourself, at the end of the conversation, feeling a little confused?  Thus it is in work. If one is working with a great many men who are incapable, one begins, himself, to feel incapable.  It is not enough to live alone. It is impossible to work alone. Realizing this one also understands that his ability to control the immediate machinery or work tools with which he is involved would also include an ability to assist others in his vicinity to control those things with which they are involved.

	Many a good worker has been lost to a factory because the good worker could not make his own work good enough to satisfy himself, being faced in his job with so many confused elements and orders that he at last rebelled. Thus good workers can be spoiled. In any department it is possible to spot the people who spoil good workers. They are the people who cannot start, change and stop such things as communication or machinery and who are themselves most liable to franticness and confusion. These are the people who would rather have solutions thrown in the waste-basket and problems posted on the bulletin board.

	What could one do if he were surrounded by people who were confused and incapable of starting, changing and stopping their various activities? He could himself become sufficiently capable at his own job that he would set a fine example for others and thus himself be a stable datum in the confusion of that area. He could do even more than this. He could understand how to handle them and, so understanding, could bring orderliness into the minds and activities of those men so as to balk their inabilities as they might affect him. But in order to do the latter he would have to know a great deal about Scientology and its various principles, and that is somewhat beyond the scope of this particular volume.

	For the individual worker who wishes to do a good job and to go on having a job and to rise in his position it is almost enough that he understand his job thoroughly so that no part of it confuses him and so that he can start, change or stop anything with which he is connected in that job and that he himself can tolerate being started, changed and stopped by his superiors without himself becoming unsettled. In other words, the greatest asset and greatest job insurance a worker could have would be a calmness of mind concerning what he was doing. A calmness of mind is derived from the ability to start, change and stop the objects and activities with which he is involved and to be able to be started, changed and stopped by others without himself being as confused as they are.

	Thus the secret of doing a good job is the secret of control itself. One not only continues to create a job, day by day, week by week, month by month, he also continues the job by permitting it to progress, and he is also capable of stopping or ending any cycle of work and letting it remain finished.

	Workers are most often victimized by bosses, juniors, or marital partners who are not themselves capable of controlling anything, yet who will not be controlled and who in some peculiar way are obsessed on the idea of control. A worker who is thus intimately connected with something that he himself cannot control and which is incapable of actually or really controlling him, performs his work in a confused state which can only lead to difficulties and distaste for work itself.

	It can be said that the only thing bad about working is that it is so very often associated with inabilities to control. When these are present then the work itself seems tiresome, arduous and uninteresting, and one would rather do anything else than continue that particular work. There are many solutions to this. First amongst them is to regain control of the items or functions which one is most intimately connected with in doing his job.

	However, control in itself is not an entire answer to everything, for if it were one would have to be able to control everything, not only in his own job, but in an office or on earth, before he could be happy. We discover in examining control that the limits of control should be extended only across one’s actual sphere of operation. When an individual attempts to extend control far beyond his active interest in a job or in life he encounters difficulty. Thus there is a limit to the “area of control” which, if violated, violates many things. There is almost a maxim that if an individual consistently seeks to operate outside his own department he will not take care of his own department. As a matter of fact, in Scientology organizations it has been discovered that a person who is consistently involving himself with things far beyond his actual scope of interest is not covering his actual scope of interest. Thus there is obviously another factor involved than control. This factor is willingness not to control and is fully as important as control itself.

Chapter Five

LIFE AS A GAME

	It is quite obvious that if anyone controlled everything he would have no game. There would be no unpredictable factors, no surprises in life. This might be said to be a Hell of considerable magnitude.

	If one could control everything absolutely he would of course be able to predict everything absolutely. If he could predict the course and action of every motion in the entirety of existence he would of course have no real interest in it.

	We have already looked at the necessity of controlling the immediate objects of work, but remember it is necessary, if one controls these immediate objects, to have other objects or environments which one does not absolutely control. Why is this?

	It is because life is a game.

	The word “game” is used here advisedly. When one is mired down in the sometimes titanic struggle of existence he is apt to discount the fact that there is joy in living. He is apt to disbelieve that such a thing as fun can exist. Indeed people, when they reach into their thirties, begin to wonder what happened to their childhood when they actually could enjoy things. One begins to wonder if pleasure of living isn’t itself some sort of trap, and one begins to believe that it is not a good thing to become too interested in new people and new things, since these will only lead to heartbreak. There are men who have decided that in view of the fact that loss brings so much pain, they had better not acquire at all. It is far superior according to these to live a life of only medium privation than to live a life of considerable luxury, since then if they lost what they had the pain would be much less.

	Life, however, is a game. It is very easy to see a game in terms of cricket or football. It is not so easy to see life as a game when one is forced to rise before the sun and reach his home only after it sets, after a day of arduous and relatively unthanked toil. One is likely to dispute that such an activity could be a game at all. Nevertheless it is obvious in various experiments which have been made in Scientology that life, no matter what its emotional tone or lack of it, is in essence a game and that the elements of life itself are the elements of games.

	Any job is a game.

	A game consists of freedoms, barriers and purposes.  There are many more complicated factors involved in games, but these are all listed in Scientology.

	Primary amongst these is the necessity in a game to have an opponent or an enemy. Also a necessity is to have problems. Another necessity is to have sufficient individuality to cope with a situation. To live life fully, then, one must have, in addition to “something to do”, a higher purpose, and this purpose, to be a purpose at all, must have counter-purposes or purposes which prevent it from occurring. One must have individualities which oppose the purpose or activities of one, and if one lacks these things it is certain that he will invent them.

	This last is very important. If a person lacks problems, opponents and counter-purposes to his own, he will invent them. Here we have in essence the totality of aberration. But more intimately to our purposes we have the difficulties which arise from work.

	If we had a foreman who capably controlled everything in his area and did nothing else, and if that foreman were not entirely mentally balanced in all ways (which is to say if he were human), we would find that foreman inventing personalities for the workers under him and reasons why they were opposing him and actual oppositions. We would find him selecting out one or more of his workmen to chastise, with, according to the foreman, very good reason, but in actuality without any further reason than that the foreman obsessively needed opponents. Now very many involved classifications can be read into this by ancient mental analyzes but none of these need to be examined. The truth of the matter is that a man must have a game and if he does not have one he will make one. If that man is aberrated and not entirely competent he will make an intensely aberrated game.

	Where an executive finds all running far too smoothly in his immediate vicinity he is likely to cause some trouble just to have something to do -unless that executive is in very good mental condition indeed. Thus we have management pretending, often without any actual basis in fact, that labor is against it. Similarly, we occasionally have labor certain that management, which is in fact quite competent, is against labor. Here we have invented a game where no game can actually exist.

	When men become very shortsighted they cannot look actually beyond their own environment. There is in any office, plant, or activity the game of the office, plant or activity itself versus its competitors and versus its outer environment. If that office, plant or activity and all the personnel within it are conducting themselves on a wholly rational and effective basis they choose the outside world and other rival concerns for their game. If they are not up to par and are incapable of seeing the real game they will make up a game and the game will begin to be played inside the office and inside the plant.

	In playing games one has individuals and teams. Teams play against teams; individuals play against individuals.  When an individual is not permitted to be fully a part of the team he is apt to choose other members of the team as his opponents for, remember, man must have a game.

	Out of all these complexities come the various complexities of work and the problems of production and communication.

	If everybody in a plant were able to control his own sphere of interest in that plant and if everybody in the plant were doing his own job, there would actually be no lack of game, for there are other plants, other activities in the outside world and these always furnish game enough for any rational organization. But supposing the people in an organization cannot control their own sphere, cannot control their own activities, and are obsessively attempting to create aberrated games all about them. Then we would have a condition whereby the plant, office or concern would not be able to effectively fight its environment and would produce poorly, if not collapse.

	Aberrated or not aberrated, competent or not competent, remember, life is a game and the motto of any individual or team alive is, “There must be a game.” If individuals are in good mental and physical condition they actually play the game which is obvious and in plain sight. If they are not in good condition and if they are themselves incapable of controlling their own immediate environment, they will begin to play games with their tools. Here the machinist will find his machine suddenly incapable of producing. One would not go so far as to say that he will actually break the machine so that he can have a game with it, but he will be in a mild state of fury regarding that machinery continually. The bookkeeper, unable to control his immediate tools of trade and not well-fitted into his concern, will begin to play a game with his own figures and will fail to get balances. His adding machine will break down, his papers will get lost and other things will occur under his immediate nose which never should happen, and if he were in good shape and could play the actual game of keeping other people in the plant straight so far as their accounts and figures are concerned, he would be efficient.

	Efficiency, then, could be defined as the ability to play the game to hand. Inefficiency could be defined as an inability to play the game to hand, with a necessity to invent games with things which one should actually be able to control with ease.

	This sounds almost too simple, but unfortunately for the professors that try to make things complicated, it is just that simple. Of course there are a number of ways men can become too aberrated. That is not the subject of this book. The subject of this book is work.

	Now realizing that life must be a game, one should realize that there is a limit to the area one would control and still retain an interest in life. Interest is mainly kindled by the unpredictable. Control is important. Uncontrol is, if anything, even more important. To actually handle a machine perfectly one must be willing to control it or not to control it. When control itself becomes obsessive we begin to find things wrong with it. The individual who absolutely has to control everything in sight is upsetting to all of us and this individual is why we have begun to find things wrong with control. It sounds very strange to say that uncontrol must also be under control, but this is, in essence, true. One must be willing to leave certain parts of the world uncontrolled. If he cannot, he rapidly drops downscale and gets into a situation where he is obsessively attempting to control things which he never will be able to control and thus renders himself unhappy, begins to doubt his ability to control those things which he actually should be able to control and so at length loses his ability to control anything. And this, in essence, is what in Scientology we call the dwindling spiral of control.

	There are mental factors which we will not discuss here, which tend to accumulate the failure to control to a point where one is no longer confident of his ability to control.

	The truth of the matter is an individual actually desires to have some part of life uncontrolled. When this part of life hurts him sufficiently he then resigns himself to the necessity of controlling it and so makes himself relatively unhappy if he never will be able to do so. A game consists of freedom, barriers and purposes. It also consists of control and uncontrol.

	An opponent in a game must be an uncontrolled factor.  Otherwise one would know exactly where the game was going and how it would end and it would not be a game at all.

	Where one football team would be totally capable of controlling the other football team, we have no football game. This is a matter of no contest. There would be no joy or sport in playing that game of football. Now if a football player has been seriously injured playing football, a new unknowing factor enters into football for him.  This injury lodges in what we call the “reactive mind”. It is a mind which is unseen and which works all the time. One normally works on what we call the “analytical mind” and this we know all about. Anything that we have forgotten or moments of unconsciousness and pain become locked away in the reactive mind and are then capable of reacting upon the individual in such a way as to make him refrain from doing something which was once dangerous. While this is a rather technical subject it is nevertheless necessary to understand that one’s past has a tendency to accumulate and victimize one in the future.  

	Thus, in the case of the football player, while he plays football he is apt to be restimulated or react from the old injury received in football and so feels less than a spirit of fun while playing football. He becomes anxious. He becomes very grim on the subject of football and this is expressed by an effort to actively control the players on another team so that they will not injure him again.

	In a motorcycle race a famous motorcycle rider was injured. Two weeks later in another race we find this motorcycle rider falling out on the fifth lap without injury or incident but simply pulling over into the pits. He did this immediately after a motorcycle swerved close to him. He recognized at once that he was unable to control that motorcycle. He felt then incapable of controlling his own motorcycle and so knew one thing -- he had to get out of that race. And just as this motorcycle rider abandoned that race, so all of us at one time or another have abandoned sections of life.

	Now, up to the time he had that accident the motorcycle rider was perfectly willing to not control any other motorcycle on the track save his own. He did not worry about these other motorcycles since they had never injured him and the motorcycle racing game was still a game to him. However, during the accident there was a moment when he sought to control another motorcycle than his own and another rider. He failed in that effort.  Thus in his “reactive mind” there is an actual mental image picture of his failing to control a motorcycle. Thus in future racing he is less competent. He is afraid of his own machine. He has identified his own machine with somebody else’s machine. This is a failure of control.

	Now, in order to become a good motorcycle racer again this man would have to resume his attitude of carelessness regarding the control of the other machines and riders on the track and reassume his own ability to control his own machine. If he were able to do this he would become once more a daring, efficient and winning motorcycle rider demonstrating great competence. Only a Scientology practitioner could put him back into this condition -- and a Scientology practitioner would be able to do this probably in a very few hours. This, however, is not a textbook on how to eradicate former ills, but an explanation of why men become incompetent in the handling of their immediate tools of trade. These men have attempted to leave uncontrolled all the world around them up to the moment when the world around them hurt them. They then conceived the idea that they should control more than their own jobs. They failed to control more than their own jobs and were instantly convinced that they were incapable of controlling something. This is quite different than leaving things uncontrolled. To be capable of controlling things and to be capable of leaving things uncontrolled are both necessary to a good life and doing a good job. To become convinced that one cannot control something is an entirely different thing.

	The whole feeling of self-confidence and competence actually derives from one’s ability to control or leave uncontrolled the various items and people in his surroundings. When he becomes obsessed with a necessity to control something rather beyond his sphere of control, he is disabused of his ability to control those things close to him. A person eventually gets into a state of mind where he cannot pay any attention at all to his own job but can only reach out into the outer environment and seek, effectively or otherwise, to stop, start or change things which have in reality very little to do with his own job.  Here we have the agitator, the inefficient worker, the individual who is going to fail. He is going to fail because he has failed at some time in the past.

	This is not quite as hopeless as it looks because it takes actual physical injury and very heavy duress to make an individual feel that he is incapable of controlling things.  The day-to-day handling of machinery is not what deteriorates one’s ability to work or handle life. It is not true that one gets old and tired and his ability to do things wears out. It is true that one becomes injured in sudden, short moments and thereafter carries that injury into his future work and the injury is what causes him to deteriorate. The eradication of the injury brings him back to an ability to control his own environment.

	The entire subject of work, then, brings us to the value of uncontrol. A machinist doing a good job should be able to relax as far as his machine is concerned. He should be able to let it run or not let it run, to start it or not to start it, to stop it or not to stop it. If he can do these things, all with confidence and a calm state of mind, he can then handle that machine and it will be discovered that the machine will run well for him

	Now let us say the machine bites him, he hurts his hand in it, some other worker jostles against him at the wrong moment, some tool given to him is defective and shatters.  An actual physical pain enters into the situation. He tends to fall away from the machine. He tends then to concentrate much more heavily on the machine than he should. He is no longer willing to leave it uncontrolled.  When he is working with that machine he must control it.  Now as he has entered duress into this situation and as he is already anxious about it, it is fairly certain that the machine will hurt him again. This gives him a second injury and with this injury he feels an even stronger urge to control the machine. You see, during the moments of injury the machine was out of control. Now while out-of-control is a game condition, it is not desired or welcome to this particular machinist. Eventually, it is certain he will look upon this machine as some sort of a demon. He will, you might say, run the machine all day and at night while asleep run it too. He will spend his week-ends and his holidays still running that machine.  Eventually he will not be able to stand the sight of that machine and will flinch at the idea of working it a moment longer.

	This picture becomes slightly complicated by the fact that it is not always the injury delivered to him by his own particular machine which causes him to feel anxious about machinery. A man who has been in an automobile accident may return to the working of a machine with considerable qualms about machines in general. He begins to identify his own machine with other machines and all machines become the same machine and that is the machine that hurt him.

	There are other conditions which enter into lighter phases of work. In the matter of a clerk we may have a circumstance where he is ill from some other area than his area of work and yet, because he has little time off, is forced to work, sick or not. The tools of his own work, his filing cabinets or his pens or his books or the very room, become identified with his feeling of sickness and he feels that these, too, have bitten him. Thus he becomes obsessed in his control of them and actually degenerates in his ability to control them just as the machinist does.  Even though these tools have not actually injured him he associates them with being injured. In other words, he identifies his own sickness with the work he is doing. Thus even a clerk whose tools of trade are not particularly dangerous can become upset about his tools of trade and can first exert enormous control over them on an obsessed basis and at length abandon any control of them and feel he would rather be beaten than do an instant’s more work in his particular sphere.

	One of the ways of getting over such a condition is simply to touch or handle one’s various tools of trade and the surroundings in which he works. If a man were to go all the way around an office in which he had worked for years and touch the walls and window ledges and the equipment of tables and desks and chairs, ascertaining carefully the feel of each one, carefully locating each one with regard to the walls and other items in the room, he would feel much better about the entire room. He would be, in essence, moving himself from a moment of time where he was sick or injured, up to present time. The maxim here is that one must do one’s work in present time. One must not continue to work in old moments of injury.

	If acquaintance with one’s tools, or touching one’s tools of the trade and discovering exactly where and how they are, is so beneficial, then what would be the mechanism behind this? We will leave until later in this book some drills and exercises calculated to rehabilitate one’s ability to work, and look for a moment at this new factor.

Chapter Six

AFFINITY, REALITY AND COMMUNICATION

	There are three factors in Scientology which are of the utmost importance in handling life. These three factors answer the questions, How should I talk to people?-How can I sell people things?-How can I give new ideas to people?-How can I find what people are thinking about?-How can I handle my work better?

	We call these three factors in Scientology the A-R-C triangle. It is called a triangle because it has three related points. The first of these points is Affinity. The second of these points is Reality. The third of these points and the most important is Communication.

	By Affinity we mean emotional response. We mean the feeling of affection or lack of it, of emotion or misemotion connected with life. By Reality we mean the solid objects, the real things of life. By Communication we mean an interchange of ideas between two terminals.  

	Without affinity there is no reality or communication.  Without reality there is no affinity or communication. Without communication there is neither affinity nor reality. Now these are sweeping statements but are nevertheless very valuable and are true.

	Have you ever tried to talk to an angry man? An angry man’s communication is at a level of misemotion which repels all terminals from him. Therefore his communication factor is very low, even though very loud. He is attempting to destroy something or some other terminal, therefore his reality is very poor. Very likely what he is being angry about apparently is not what has made him mad. An angry man is not truthful. Thus it could be said that his reality, even on the subject he is attempting to voice, is poor.

	There must be good affinity (which is to say affection) between two people before they are very real to each other (and reality must here be used as a gradient, with things being more real than other things). There must be good affinity between two people before they can talk together with any truth or confidence. Before two people can be real to each other there must be some communication between them. They must at least see each other, which is in itself a form of communication. Before two people can feel any affinity for each other they must, to some degree, be real.

	These three terms are interdependent one upon the other, and when one drops the other two drop also. When one rises the other two rise also. It is only necessary to improve one corner of this very valuable triangle in Scientology in order to improve the remaining two corners. It is only necessary to improve two corners of the triangle to improve the third.

	To give you some idea of a practical application of this, there is the case of the young girl who had run away from home and whose parents would no longer talk to her. The girl, as a clerk in an office, was quite despondent and was doing very bad work. A Scientologist whose attention had been directed to her by the office manager, gave her an interview and discovered that her parents were intensely angry with her and would no longer communicate with her at all. They had been so upset at her refusal (actually her inability) to follow a career as a concert pianist for which they had her studying at great expense that they had “washed their hands of her”, and the unpleasantness had forced her to run away to a distant point. Since that time they had not communicated with her but had spoken to people she had known in her home neighborhood in very bitter terms concerning her. In such a state of mind, since she was intimately involved with her parents and wished to be on the best possible terms with them, she could not work. Her failure to perform her work was jamming communication lines in her own office. In other words, her affinity was very low and her reality on things was quite low since she might be said to have been elsewhere most of the time, and thus the communication lines which passed through her hands were equally low and successfully jammed other communication lines in the office, at which time this matter became of intense interest to the office manager. Now ordinarily in the work-a-day world the office manager would have dismissed her and found another girl. But employment was critical at the time and this office manager knew the modern thing to do. He sent for a Scientologist.

	The Scientologist knowing well this A-R-C triangle did a very ordinary thing -- to a Scientologist -- which apparently worked magic as far as the girl was concerned. He told the girl that she must write to her parents -regardless of whether they replied or not she must write -- and she did so. Naturally there was no reply. Why was there no reply from the parents? Well, the girl, having disobeyed them and having moved out from underneath their control, was apparently no longer in contact with them. These parents did not consider her as real. She did not actually exist as far as they were concerned. They had actually said this to themselves. They had actually tried to wipe her out of their lives since she was such a disappointment. Therefore they had no emotion about her whatsoever except perhaps a sort of apathy. They had been unable to control her and so they were apathetic about her since they had failed to control her. At this stage the parents were glumly apathetic about the girl and she was not very real to them at all. As a matter of fact, as they had started her on a career she could not complete, the girl could not have been very real to them in the first place since the career was undoubtedly beyond the girl’s capabilities. So the Scientologist had her write a letter. This letter was, as we say in Scientology, entirely “good roads and good weather”. The girl said that she was working in this other city, that the weather was good, that she was getting along well, and hoped that they were both well and sent them her love. The letter carefully did not take up any of the problems or activities immediately behind her leaving home. The A of the letter, the affinity, was quite high; the C was present. What the Scientologist was trying to do was establish R, reality: the reality of the situation of the girl’s being in another city and the actual reality of her existence in the world. He knew that she was sufficiently involved with her parents that if they did not consider her real, she was not even real to herself. Of course the parents did not answer this first letter but the Scientologist had the girl write again.

	After four letters, all of which said more or less the same things and entirely ignored the idea that there had been no reply, there was a sudden letter from the mother to the girl which was angry, not with the girl but with one of her old playmates. The girl, coached, was held in line by the Scientologist and was not permitted to explode back through the communication line but was coaxed into writing a surprised, pleasant letter expressing her happiness at having heard from her mother. After this two letters came, one from the father and one from the mother, both of them were very affectionate and hoped the girl was doing well. The girl of course replied to these very joyously but would have been completely propitiative if the Scientologist had permitted her to do so.  Instead, a happy letter went back to each of them, and in return two more letters came, both of them very congratulatory to the girl at having found a job and found something that she was interested in doing in life, with requests as to where her clothes should be sent and actually a small draft of money to help her along in the city. The parents had already begun to plan the new career of the girl which was in exact line with what the girl could do in life -- stenographic work.

	Of course the Scientologist knew exactly what was going to happen. He knew that their affinity and reality would come up and the girl’s reality, affinity and communication in the office itself would rise as soon as this situation was remedied. He remedied with communication, expressing affinity from the girl and this of course, as it always does, produced reaction. The girl’s work came up to par, the girl began to progress and now that her feeling of reality was sufficiently high actually became a very valuable office worker.

	Probably the reason why the A-R-C triangle went so long undiscovered was the fact that a person in apathy rises through various tones. These tones are quite uniform; one follows the next and people always come up through these tones one after the other. These are the tones of affinity, and the Tone Scale of Dianetics and Scientology is probably the best possible way of predicting what is going to happen next or what a person actually will do.

	The Tone Scale starts well below apathy. In other words, a person is feeling no emotion about a subject at all. An example of this was the American attitude concerning the atomic bomb; something about which they should have been very concerned was so far beyond their ability to control and so likely to end their existence that they were below apathy about it. They actually did not even feel that it was very much of a problem. Americans processed on this particular subject had to be worked with for some little time until they began to feel apathetic about the atomic bomb. This was really an advance over the feeling of no emotion whatsoever on a subject which should have intimately concerned them. In other words, on many subjects and problems people are actually well below apathy. There the Tone Scale starts, on utter, dead null far below death itself. Going up into improved tones one encounters the level of body death, apathy, grief, fear, anger, antagonism, boredom, enthusiasm and serenity, in that order. There are many small stops between these tones, but one knowing anything about human beings should definitely know these particular emotions. 

	A person who is in apathy, when his tone is improved, feels grief. 

	A person in grief, when his tone improves, feels fear. 

	A person in fear, when his tone improves feels anger. 

	A person in anger, when his tone improves feels antagonism. 

	A person in antagonism, when his tone improves feels boredom. 

	When a person in boredom improves his tone, he is enthusiastic.
	      
	When an enthusiastic person improves his tone, he feels serenity. 

	Actually the below apathy level is so low as to constitute a no-affinity, no-emotion, no-problem, no-consequence state of mind on things which are actually tremendously important.

	The area below apathy is an area without pain, interest, beingness or anything else that matters to anyone, but it is an area of great danger since one is below the level of being able to respond to anything and may accordingly lose everything without apparently noticing it. A workman who is in very bad condition and who is actually a liability to the organization may not be capable of experiencing pain or any emotion on any subject. He is below apathy.  We have seen workmen who would hurt their hand and think nothing of it and go right on working even though their hand was very badly injured. People in dispensaries working in industrial areas are quite amazed sometimes to discover how little attention some workmen pay to their own injuries. It is an ugly fact that people who pay no attention to their own injuries and who are not even feeling pain from those injuries are not and never will be, without some attention from a Scientologist, efficient people. They are liabilities to have around. They do not respond properly. If such a person is working a crane and the crane suddenly goes out of control to dump its load on a group of men, that sub-apathy crane operator will simply let the crane drop its load. In other words, he is a potential murderer. He cannot stop anything, he cannot change anything and he cannot start anything and yet, on some automatic response basis, he manages some of the time to hold down a job, but the moment a real emergency confronts him he is not likely to respond properly and accidents result. Where there are accidents in industry they stem from these people in the sub-apathy tone range. Where bad mistakes are made in offices which cost firms a great deal of money, lost time and cause other personnel difficulties, such mistakes are found rather uniformly to stem from these sub-apathy people. 

	So do not think that one of these states of being unable to feel anything, of being dumb, of being incapable of pain or joy is any use to anyone. It is not. A person who is in this condition cannot control things and in actuality is not there sufficiently to be controlled by anyone else and does strange and unpredictable things.

	Just as a person can be chronically in sub-apathy, so a person can be in apathy. This is dangerous enough but is at least expressed. Only when we get up into apathy itself do we have the A-R-C triangle beginning to manifest itself and become visible. Communication from the person himself, not from some circuit or training pattern is to be expected. People can be chronically in grief, chronically in fear, chronically in anger, or in antagonism, or boredom, or actually can be “stuck in enthusiasm”. A person who is truly able is normally fairly serene about things. He can, however, express other emotions. It is a mistake to believe that a total serenity is of any real value.         

	When a situation which demands tears cannot be cried about one is not in serenity as a chronic tone. This sub-apathy can be mistaken rather easily for serenity, but of course only by a very untrained observer. One glance at the physical condition of the person is enough to differentiate. People who are in sub-apathy are normally quite ill.

	Just as we have a range of the Tone Scale thus covering the subject of affinity, so do we have one for communication. On the level of each of the emotions we have a communication factor. In sub-apathy an individual is not really communicating at all. Some social response or training pattern or, as we say, “circuit’ is communicating. The person himself does not seem to be there and isn’t really talking. Therefore his communications are sometimes strange to say the least. He does the wrong things at the wrong time. He says the wrong things at the wrong time. Naturally when a person is stuck on any of the bands of the Tone Scale, sub-apathy, apathy, grief, fear, anger, antagonism, boredom, enthusiasm, or serenity, he voices communications with that emotional tone. A person who is always angry about something is stuck in anger. Such a person is not as bad off as somebody in sub-apathy, but he is still rather dangerous to have around since he will make trouble, and a person who is angry does not control things well. The communication characteristics of people at these various levels on the Tone Scale are quite fascinating. They say things and handle communication each in a distinct characteristic fashion for each level of the Tone Scale.

	Just as in affinity and communication, there is a level of reality for each of the affinity levels. Reality is an intensely interesting subject since it has to do in the main with relative solids. In other words, the solidity of things and the emotional tone of people have a definite connection. People low on the Tone Scale cannot tolerate solids. They cannot tolerate a solid object. The thing is not real to them; it is thin or lacking weight. As they come upscale, the same object becomes more and more solid and they can finally see it in its true level of solidity. In other words, these people have a definite reaction to mass at various points on the scale. Things are bright to them or very, very dull. If you could look through the eyes of the person in sub-apathy you would see a very watery, thin, dreamy, misty, unreal world indeed. If you looked through the eyes of an angry man you would see a world which was menacingly solid, where all the solids posed a brutality toward him, but they still would not be sufficiently solid or sufficiently real or visible for a person in good condition. A person in serenity can see solids as they are, as bright as they are, and can tolerate an enormous heaviness or solidity without reacting to it. In other words, as we go up the Tone Scale from the lowest to the highest, things can get more and more solid and more and more real.

	Affinity is most closely related to space. In fact affinity could be defined as the “consideration of distance” since terminals which are far apart or close together have different affinity reactions one to another. Reality, as we have seen, is most intimately connected with solids.  Communication consists of the flow of ideas or particles across space between solids.

	While these definitions may seem very elementary and would not at all satisfy an M.I.T. professor, they actually outreach and encompass an M.I.T. professor’s whole field of activity. Truths do not have to be complicated.

	There are, as described at considerable length and studied with considerable depth in Scientology, many interrelations of spaces and solids, and ideas or particles, since these are the most intimate things to livingness itself and comprise the universe around us. But the most basic thing we should know about A-R-C is simply emotional tone which is affinity, the actuality of things which is reality, and the relative communication ability concerning them.

	Men who can do things are very high on affinity, very high in terms of reality and are very capable in terms of communication. If you wish to measure their various capabilities you should study the subject much further. A whole book has been written about this triangle called Science of Survival.

	Then how would you talk to a man? You cannot talk adequately to a man if you are in a sub-apathy condition.  In fact you would not talk to him at all. You would have to have a little higher affinity than that to discuss things with anyone. Your ability to talk to any given man has to do with your emotional response to any given man.  

	Anyone has different emotional responses to different people around him. In view of the fact that two terminals, or, that is to say, two people, are always involved in communication, one could see that someone else would have to be somewhat real. If one does not care about other people at all one will have a great deal of difficulty talking to them, that is certain. The way to talk to a man then would be to find something to like about him and to discuss something with which he can agree. This is the downfall of most new ideas. One does not discuss subjects with which the other person has any point of agreement at all and we come to a final factor with regard to reality.

	That with which we agree tends to be more real than that with which we do not agree. There is a definite co-ordination between agreement and reality. Those things are real which we agree are real. Those things are not real which we agree are not real. On those things upon which we disagree we have very little reality. An experiment based on this would be an even jocular discussion between two men of a third man who is present. The two men agree on something with which the third man cannot agree. The third man will drop in emotional tone and will actually become less real to the two who are discussing him.

	How do you talk to a man then? You establish reality by finding something with which you both agree. Then you attempt to maintain as high an affinity level as possible by knowing there is something you can like about him. And you are then able to talk with him. If you do not have the first two conditions it is fairly certain that the third condition will not be present, which is to say, you will not be able to talk to him easily.

	You should realize in using the A-R-C triangle that, once more, the emotional tones are progressed through as one begins to develop communication. In other words, somewhere up the line somebody who has been totally apathetic about us is liable to become angry at us. If one can simply persevere up through this anger, he reaches only antagonism, then boredom and finally enthusiasm and a perfect communication level of understanding.               

	Marriages fall apart simply because of a failure of communication, because of a failure of reality and affinity. When communication starts failing the affinity starts dropping. People have secrets from each other and the affinity starts out the bottom.

	Similarly, in an office or a business it is perfectly easy to establish those people who are doing things which are not to the best interests of the firm, since these people go gradually and sometimes not so gradually out of communication with the firm. Their emotional tone towards their superiors and those around them starts dropping and finally goes out the bottom.

	As can be seen the A-R-C triangle is intimately bound up with an ability to control and an ability to leave uncontrolled. When an individual attempts to control something and fails to do so he then experiences an antipathy toward that thing. In other words, he has not been right, he has been wrong. His intention has failed. His intention has, you might say, backfired upon him. Thus as one attempts to control things and then fails to control them he is likely to drop down Tone Scale about those things. Thus an individual who has been betrayed by the tools of his own trade is apt to treat them with a lowering affinity level. He becomes bored with them, he becomes antagonistic toward them, he becomes angry with them (and at this stage the machinery begins to break up) and finally he becomes afraid of them, he becomes sad about them, he becomes apathetic about them and no longer cares about them at all. At this stage he certainly cannot use them at all. Actually from the level of boredom down the ability to use one’s tools of the trade is consistently lowered.

	Now, how could one knowing this raise his ability to control the tools of the trade without even going to a Scientologist? Naturally if a Scientologist took over in this situation the entirety of control of tools or an area or of life could be regained, but, lacking this, how could one simply handle the exact articles with which he is right now and immediately associated?

	By using A-R-C he could regain in some measure both his control of the tools and his enthusiasm for work. He would do this by communicating and discovering his willingness for these and the people around him to be real or solid. An individual could regain his ability over his immediate tools simply by touching them and letting them go. This might seem rather pointless and he is apt to reach the level of boredom and become bored with the process. Just above this level is the pay of becoming enthusiastic. It sounds very strange that if one simply touched his automobile and let go and touched it and let go and touched it and let go and touched it and let go, possibly for some hours, he would regain not only his enthusiasm for the automobile but a tremendous ability to control the car which he had never suspected in himself at all. Similarly with people, since these often object to being touched, one can communicate. If one really communicates and communicates well to these people, listens to what they have to say and acknowledges what they say and says what he has to say to them gently enough and often enough so that it is actually received by them, he will regain to a very marked degree his ability to associate and co-ordinate the actions of those people with whom he is immediately surrounded. Here we have A-R-C immediately adjusted to work. It sounds strange that if we made a bookkeeper pick up and lay down his pencil or pen for a couple of hours he would regain his ability to handle it and would improve in his ability to make figures; and that if we got him to touch and let go of his ledger for a considerable length of time he would be more capable of handling that ledger and would make far fewer mistakes with it. This sounds like magic. It is magic. It is Scientology.

Chapter Seven

EXHAUSTION

	To work or not to work, that is the question. The answer to that question in most men’s minds is exhaustion.

	One begins to feel, after he has been long on a job and has been considerably abused on that job, that to work any more would be quite beyond his endurance.              

	He is tired. The thought of doing certain things makes him tired. He thinks of raising his energy or of being able to force his way along a little bit further, and if he does so he is thinking in the wrong channels since the answer to exhaustion has little if anything to do with energy.

	Exhaustion is a very important subject, not only to an individual involved in earning his own living but to the state as well.

	Scientology has rather completely established the fact that the downfall of the individual begins when he is no longer able to work. All it is necessary to do to degrade or upset an individual is to prevent him from working.  Even the police have now come to recognize the basic Scientology principle that the primary thing wrong with a criminal is that he cannot work, and police have begun to look for this factor in an individual in establishing his criminality.

	The basic difficulty with all juvenile delinquency is the one-time apparently humane program of forbidding children to labor in any way. Doubtless it was once a fact that child labor was abused, that children were worked too hard, that their growths were stunted and that they were, in general, used. It is highly doubtful if the infamous Mr. Marx ever saw in America young boys being pulled off machines dead from work and thrown onto dump heaps.  Where there was an abuse of this matter, there was a public outcry against it, and legislation was enacted to prevent children from working. This legislation with all the good intention of the world is, however, directly responsible for juvenile delinquency. 

	Forbidding children to work, and particularly forbidding teenagers to make their own way in the world and earn their own money, creates a family difficulty, so that it becomes almost impossible to raise a family, and creates as well, and particularly, a state of mind in the teenager that the world does not want him and he has already lost his game before he has begun it. Then with something like universal military training staring him in the face so that he dare not start a career, he is of course thrust into a deep sub-apathy on the subject of work, and, when he at length is faced with the necessity of making his own way in the world, he rises into an apathy and does nothing about it at all. It is highly supportive of this fact that our greatest citizens worked, usually when they were quite young. 

	In the Anglo-American civilization the highest level of endeavor was achieved by boys who, from the age of 12, on farms, had their own duties and had a definite place in the world. Children in the main are quite willing to work. A two, three, four year old child is usually to be found haunting his father or her mother trying to help out either with tools or dust rags, and the kind parent who is really fond of the children responds in the reasonable, and long ago normal, manner of being patient enough to let the child actually assist. 

	A child so permitted then develops the idea that his presence and activity is desired and he quite calmly sets about a career of accomplishment. The child who is warped or pressed into some career, but is not permitted to assist in those early years, is convinced that he is not wanted, that the world has no part of him. 

	And later on he will come into very definite difficulties regarding work. However, the child who at three or four wants to work in this modern society is discouraged and is actually prevented from working, and after he is made to be idle until seven, eight or nine, is suddenly saddled with certain chores. Now this child is already educated into the fact that he must not work and so the idea of work is a sphere where he “knows he does not belong”, and so he always feels uncomfortable in performing various activities. 

	Later on in his teens he is actively prevented from getting the sort of a job which will permit him to buy the clothes and treats for his friends which he feels are demanded of him and so he begins to feel he is not a part of the society. Not being part of the society, he is then against the society and desires nothing but destructive activities.

	The subject of exhaustion is also the subject of prevented work. In the case of soldiers and sailors hospitalized during any one of these recent wars, it is found that a few months in the hospital tends to break the morale of the soldier or sailor to such a point that he may become a questionable asset when returned to his service.

	This is not necessarily the result of his lowered abilities. It is the result of injury compounded by inactivity. A soldier who is wounded and cared for in a field hospital close to the front and is returned to duty the moment he can possibly support such duties will be found to retain, in a large measure, his morale. Of course the injury received has a tendency to repel him from the level of action which he once thought best but, even so, he is in better shape than a soldier who is sent to a hospital in the rear. The soldier who is sent to the hospital in the rear is being told, according to his viewpoint, that he is not particularly necessary to the war. 

	Without actually adding up these principles, the word “exhaustion” began a general use coupled with neurosis. This was based on the fact that people with a neurosis simply looked exhausted. There was no more co-ordination to it than that. Actually a person who has been denied the right to work, particularly one who has been injured and then denied the right to work, will eventually encounter exhaustion.

	Technically in Scientology it is discovered that there is no such thing as gradual diminishing by continuing contact of the energy of the individual. One does not become exhausted simply because one has worked too long or too hard. One becomes exhausted when he has worked sufficiently long to restimulate some old injury.  One of the characteristics of this injury will be exhaustion. Chronic exhaustion, then, is not the product of long hours and arduous application. It is the product of the accumulation of the shocks and injuries incident to life, each of them perhaps only a few seconds or a few hours long and adding up perhaps to a totality of only fifty or seventy-five hours. But this accumulation -- the accumulation of injury, repulsion and shock -- eventually mounts up to a complete inability to do anything.

	Exhaustion can then be trained into a person by refusing to allow him as a child to have any part in the society, or it can be beaten into a person by the various injuries or shocks he may receive incident to his particular activities. Clear up either of these two points and you have cleared up exhaustion.  Exhaustion, then, is actually the subject of a Scientology practitioner since only a Scientologist can adequately handle it.

	There is a point, however, which is below exhaustion.  This is the point of not knowing when one is tired. An individual can become a sort of hectic puppet that goes on working and working without even realizing that he is working at all, and suddenly collapses from a tiredness he was not experiencing. This is our sub-zero or sub-apathy Tone Scale again.

	And again we have the subject of control. Here the individual has failed to control things, has tried and then gone down Tone Scale about them into the sub-zero band. Eventually he is incapable of handling anything even resembling tools of the trade or an environment of work and so is unable to inhabit such an environment or handle such tools. The individual can then have many hard words cast in his direction. He can be called lazy, he can be called a bum, he can be called criminal. But the truth of the matter is he is no more capable of righting his own condition without expert help than he is capable of diving to the center of the earth.

	There are some means of recovering one’s verve and enthusiasm for work short of close work with a Scientology practitioner. These are relatively simple and very easy to understand. We have in Scientology something we call Introversion and something else we call Extroversion.

	Introversion is a simple thing. It means looking in too closely. And Extroversion is also a simple thing. It means nothing more than being able to look outward. It could be said that there are introverted personalities and extroverted personalities. An extroverted personality is one who is capable of looking around the environment.  An introverted personality is only capable of looking inward at himself.

	When we examine the A-R-C Tone Scale we see at once that an introverted personality is shying away from solids.  In other words he is not confronting reality. Reality is agreement in the mental plane and is solids in the physical plane.

	A person who is capable of looking at the world around him and seeing it quite real and quite bright is of course in a state of extroversion. He can look out, in other words.  He can also work. He can also see situations and handle and control those things which he has to handle and control, and can stand by and watch those things which he does not have to control and be interested in them therefore.

	The person who is introverted is a person who has probably passed exhaustion some way back. He has had his attention focused closer and closer to him (basically by old injuries which are still capable of exerting their influence upon him) until he is actually looking inward and not outward. He is shying away from solid objects.   He does not see a reality in other people and things around him.

	Now let us take the actual subject of work. Work is the application of attention and action to people or objects located in space.

	When one is no longer able to confront people or objects or the space in which they are located, he begins to have a lost feeling. He begins to move in a mistiness.  Things are not real to him and he is relatively incapable of controlling those things around him. He has accidents. He has bad luck. He has things turn against him simply because he is not handling them or controlling them or even observing them correctly. The future to him seems very bad, so bad sometimes that he cannot face it. This person could be said to be severely introverted.

	In work his attention is riveted on objects which are usually at the most only a few feet from him. He pays his closest attention to articles which are within the reach of his hands. This puts his attention away from extroversion at least to some spot in focus in front of his face. His attention fixes there. If this is coincident with some old injury incident or operation, he is likely to fix his attention as well on some spot in former times and become restimulated, so that he gets the pains and ills and the feeling of tiredness or apathy or sub-apathy which he had during that moment of injury. As his attention is continuously riveted there he of course has a tendency to look only there, even when he is not working.

	Let us take an accountant. An accountant’s eyes are on books at fixed distances from his eyes. At length he becomes “short-sighted”. Actually he doesn’t become short-sighted, he becomes book-sighted. His eyes most easily fix on a certain point in distance. Now as he fixes his attention there he tends to withdraw even from that point until at length he does not quite reach even his own books.  Then he is fitted with glasses so that he can see the books more clearly. His vision and his attention are much the same thing.

	A person who has a machine or books or objects continually at a fixed distance from him leaves his work and tends to keep his attention fixed exactly where his work was. In other words, his attention never really leaves his work at all. Although he goes home he is still really sitting in the office. His attention is still fixed on the environment of his work. If this environment is coincident with some injury or accident (and who does not have one of these at least) he begins to feel weariness or tiredness.

	Is there a cure for this? Of course only a Scientology practitioner could clear up this difficulty entirely. But the worker does have something which he can do.

	Now here is the wrong thing to do regardless of whether one is a bookkeeper, an accountant, a clerk, an executive or a machinist. The wrong thing to do is to leave work, go home, sit down and fix attention on an object more or less at the same distance from one as one confronts continually at work. In the case of a foreman, for instance, who is continually talking to men at a certain distance away from him, the wrong thing for him to do is to go home and talk to his wife at the same distance. The next thing she knows, she will be getting orders just as though she were a member of the shop. Definitely the wrong thing to do is to go home and sit down and read a paper, eat some dinner and go to bed. If a man practiced the routine of working all day and then sitting down “to rest” with a book or a newspaper in the evening, it is certain that sooner or later he would start to feel quite exhausted and then after a while would fall even below that and would not even wonder at his unwillingness to perform tasks which were once very easy to him.

	Is there a right thing to do? Yes there is. An individual who is continually fixed upon some object of work should fix his attention otherwise after working hours.

	Now here is a process known as “Take a Walk”. This process is very easy to perform. When one feels tired on finishing his work, no matter if the thought of doing so is almost all that he can tolerate without falling through the floor, he should go out and walk around the block until he feels rested. In short, he should walk around the block and look at things until he sees the things he is walking near. It does not matter how many times he walked around the block, he should walk around the block until he feels better.

	In doing this it will be found that one will become a little brighter at first and then will become very much more tired. He will become sufficiently tired that he knows now that he should go to bed and have a good night’s sleep. This is not the time to stop walking since he is walking through exhausted. He is walking out his exhausted. He is not handling the 
exhaustion by physical exercise. The physical exercise has always appeared to be the more important factor to people but the exercise is relatively unimportant. The factor that is important is the unfixing of his attention from his work to the material world in which he is living.

	Masses are reality. To increase one’s affinity and communication it is actually necessary to be able to confront and tolerate masses. Therefore walking around the block and looking at buildings will be found to bring one upscale. When one is so tired that he can barely drag himself around, or is so tired that he is hectically unable to rest at all, it is actually necessary that he confront masses. He is simply low on the Tone Scale. It is even doubtful if there is such a thing as a “fall of physical energy”. Naturally there is a limit to this process. One cannot work all day and walk around the block all night and go to work the next day again and still expect to feel relieved. But one should certainly spend some time extroverting after having introverted all day.

	“Take a Walk” is, within reason, a near cure-all. If one feels antagonistic towards one’s wife, the wrong thing to do is to beat her. The right thing to do is to go out and take a walk around the block until one feels better, and make her walk around the block in the opposite direction until an extroversion from the situation is achieved. It will be discovered that all domestic quarrels, particularly amongst working people, stem from the fact that, having been overfixed (rather than overstrained) on one’s work and the situations connected with it, one has failed to control certain things in his working environment. He then comes home and seeks to find something he can control. This is usually the marital partner or the children, and when one fails even there he is apt to drop down scale with a vengeance.

	The extroversion of attention is as necessary as the work itself. There is nothing really wrong with introverting attention or with work. If one didn’t have something to be interested in he would go to pieces entirely. But if one works it will be found that an unnatural tiredness is apt to set in. When this is found to be the case then the answer to this is not a drop into unconsciousness for a few hours as in sleep, but in actually extroverting the attention and then getting a really relaxing sleep.

	These principles of extroversion and introversion have many ramifications and, although “Take a Walk” is almost laughable in its simplicity, there are many more complicated processes in case one wished to get more complicated. However, in the main “Take a Walk” will take care of an enormous number of difficulties attendant to work. Remember that when doing it one will get more tired at first and will then get fresher. This phenomenon has been noted by athletes. It is called the second wind.  

	The second wind is really getting enough environment and enough mass in order to run out the exhausted of the last race. There is no such thing as a second wind. There is such a thing as a return to extroversion on the physical world in which one lives.

	Similar to “Take a Walk” is another process known as “Look Them Over”. If one has been talking to people all day, has been selling people all day or has been handling people who are difficult to handle all day, the wrong thing to do is to run away from all the people there are in the world. You see, the person who gets over-strained when handling people has had large difficulties with people. He has perhaps been operated upon by doctors, and the half-seen vision of them standing around the operating table identifies all people with doctors, that is to say, all people who stand still. This, by the way, is one of the reasons why doctors become so thoroughly hated in a society since they do insist on practices known as surgery and anaesthesia and such incidents become interlocked with everyday incidents.

	Exhaustion because of contact with people actually necessitates that the “havingness” (another Scientology term for reality) of people has been reduced. One’s attention has been fixated upon certain people while his attention, he felt, ought to be on other people, and this straining of attention has actually cut down the number of people that he was observing. Fixed attention, then, upon a few people can actually limit the number of people one can “have”, which is to say, limits one’s reality on people in general.

	The cure for this is a very simple one. One should go to a place that is very well populated such as a railroad station or a main street and should simply walk along the street noting people. Simply look at people -- that is all. It will be found after a while that one feels people aren’t so bad and one has a much kinder attitude towards them and, more importantly, the job condition of becoming overstrained with people tends to go away if one makes a practice of doing this every late afternoon for a few weeks.

	This is one of the smartest things that a salesman can do, since a salesman, above and beyond others, has a vested interest in being able to handle people and get them to do exactly what he wants them to do, that is, buy what he has to sell. As he fixes his attention on just one too many customers, he gets tired of the whole idea of talking to people or selling and goes down Tone Scale in all of his activities and operations and begins to consider himself all kinds of a swindler and at length doesn’t consider himself anything at all. He, like the others, should simply find populated places and walk along looking at people. He will find after a while that people really do exist and that they aren’t so bad. One of the things that happens to people in high government is that they are being continually “protected from” the people and they at length become quite disgusted with the whole subject and are apt to do all manner of strange things. (See the lives of Hitler and Napoleon.)

	This principle of extroversion and introversion could go much further in a society than it does. There is something that could be done by the government and by businesses in general which would probably eradicate the idea of strikes and would increase production quite markedly. Workers on strike are usually discontented not so much with the conditions of work, but with work itself. They feel they are being victimized, they are being pressed into working at times when they do not want to work, and a strike comes as an actual relief. They can fight something. They can do something else than stand there and fiddle with a piece of machinery or account books.   

	Dissatisfied workers are striking workers. If people become exhausted at work, if people are not content with work, if people are upset with work, they can be counted upon to find a sufficient number of grievances to strike.  And, if management is given enough trouble and lack of co-operation on the part of the people on the lower chains of command, it can be certain that management sooner or later will create situations which cause workers to strike.  In other words, bad conditions of work are actually not the reason for labor troubles and disputes. Weariness of work itself or an inability to control the area and environments of work are the actual cause of labor difficulties.

	Any management given sufficient income to do so, if that management is not terribly aberrated, will pay a decent working wage. And any workman given half a chance will perform his duties cheerfully. But once the environment itself becomes overstrained, once the company itself has become introverted by overt acts on the part of the government, once the workers have been shown that they have no control over management, there can be after that labor disputes. Underlying all these obvious principles, however, are the principles of introversion and extroversion. Workers become so introverted at their tasks that they no longer are capable of affinity for their leaders and are no longer capable actually of viewing the environment in which they work. Therefore someone can come along and tell them that all the executives are ogres, which is obviously not true, and on the executive level someone can come along and tell the executives that all the workers are ogres, which is obviously, on that side, not true either.

	In the absence of broad treatment on individuals, which is a gargantuan task, a full program could be worked out that would handle the principle of introversion. It is certain that if workers or managers get introverted enough they will then find ways and means of inventing aberrated games such as strikes, and so disrupt production and decent relationships and living conditions within the factory, the office, or the concern.

	The cure would be to extrovert workers on a very broad scale. This could be done as one solution by making it possible for all workers to have two jobs. It would be necessary for the company, or related interests such as the government, to make available a sufficient number of public works projects to provide work for workers outside the sphere of exact application. In other words, a man who is made to work continually inside and at a very fixed task would find a considerable relief at being able to go outside and work, particularly at some disrelated task.  As an example, it would be a considerable relief to an accountant to be able to dig ditches for a while. A machinist running a stationary machine would actually find it a very joyful experience to push around a bulldozer.

	Such a plan then would actually take introversion and extroversion with a large hand and bring it about. Workers who are working in fixed positions with their attention very close to them would then be permitted to look more widely and to handle things which tended to extrovert them. Such a program would be very ambitious but it would be found, it is certain, to result in better labor-management relations, better production and a considerable lessening of working and public tension on the subjects of jobs and pay.

	In short, there are many things that could be done with the basic principle of extroversion-introversion. The principle is very simple: when an individual is made too introverted things become less real in his surroundings and he has less affinity for them and cannot communicate with them well. Furthermore, what does communicate is apt to communicate at his lowered Tone Scale so that even good news will be poorly received by him. In such a condition he becomes tired easily. Introversion results in weariness, exhaustion and then an inability to work. The remedy for it is extroversion, a good look at and communication with the wider environment, and unless this is practiced, then, in view of the fact that any worker is subject to injuries or illnesses of one kind or another, a dwindling spiral will ensue which makes work less and less palatable until at length it cannot be performed at all and we have the basis of not only a non-productive, but a criminal society.

Chapter Eight

THE MAN WHO SUCCEEDS

	The conditions of success are few and easily stated.

	Jobs are not held consistently and in actuality by flukes of fate or fortune. Those who depend upon luck generally experience bad luck. The ability to hold a job depends in the main upon ability. One must be able to control his work and must be able to be controlled in doing his work.  One must be able, as well, to leave certain areas uncontrolled. One’s intelligence is directly related to his ability. There is no such thing as being too smart. But there is such a thing as being too stupid.

	But one may be both able and intelligent without succeeding. A vital part of success is the ability to handle and control, not only one’s tools of the trade, but the people with whom one is surrounded. In order to do this one must be capable of a very high level of affinity, he must be able to tolerate massive realities and he must also be able to give and receive communication.

	The ingredients of success are then: First an ability to confront work with joy and not honor; a wish to do work for its own sake, not because one “has to have a pay-check”. One must be able to work without driving oneself or experiencing deep depths of exhausted. If one experiences these things there is something wrong with him. There is some element in his environment that he should be controlling that he isn’t controlling, or his accumulated injuries are such as to make him shy away from all people and masses with whom he should be in intimate contact.

	The ingredients of successful work are: training and experience in the subject being addressed, good general intelligence and ability, a capability of high affinity, a tolerance of reality, and the ability to communicate and receive ideas. Given these things there is left only a slim chance of failure. Given these things a man can ignore all of the accidents of birth, marriage or fortune, for birth, marriage and fortune are not capable of placing these necessary ingredients in one’s hands. One could have all the money in the world and yet be unable to perform an hour’s honest labor. Such a man would be a miserably unhappy one.

	The person who studiously avoids work usually works far longer and far harder than the man who pleasantly confronts it and does it. Men who cannot work are not happy men.

	Work is the stable datum of this society. Without something to do there is nothing for which to live. A man who cannot work is as good as dead and usually prefers death and works to achieve it.

	The mysteries of life are not today, with Scientology, very mysterious. Mystery is not a needful ingredient. Only the very aberrated man desires to have vast secrets held away from him Scientology has slashed through many of the complexities which have been erected for men and has bared the core of these problems. Scientology for the first time in Man’s history can predictably raise intelligence, increase ability, bring about a return of the ability to play a game, and permits Man to escape from the dwindling spiral of his own disabilities. Therefore work itself can become a game, a pleasant and happy thing.

	There is one thing which has been learned in Scientology which is very important to the state of mind of the workman. One very often feels in his society that he is working for the immediate pay-check and that he does not gain for the whole society anything of any importance. He does not know several things. One of these is how few good workmen are. On the level of executives, it is interesting to note how precious any large company finds a man who can handle and control jobs and men really is. Such people are rare. All the empty space in the structure of this work-a-day world is at the top.
	And there is another thing which is quite important, and that is the fact that the world today has been led to believe, by mental philosophies calculated to betray them, that when one is dead it is all over and done with and that one has no further responsibility for anything. It is highly doubtful if this is true. One inherits tomorrow what he died out of yesterday.

	Another thing we know is that men are not dispensable.  It is a mechanism of old philosophies to tell men that if they think they are indispensable they should go down to the graveyard and take a look -- those men were indispensable too. This is the surest foolishness. If you really looked carefully in the graveyard you would find the machinist who set the models going in yesteryear and without whom there would be no industry today. It is doubtful if such a feat is being performed just now. A workman is not just a workman. A laborer is not just a laborer. An office worker is not just an office worker.  They are living, breathing, important pillars on which the entire structure of our civilization is erected. They are not cogs in a mighty machine. They are the machine itself.

	We have come to a low level of the ability to work.  Offices depend very often on no more than one or two men, and the additional staffs seem to add only complexity to the activities of the scene. Countries move forward on the production of just a few factories. It is as though the world were being held together by a handful of desperate men who by working themselves to death may keep the rest of the world going, but again they may not.  It is to them that this book is dedicated.

FIRST AID

	If somebody is injured, you can assist in many ways.  Recovery from a burn or bruise or even sprains or breaks is much swifter with SCIENTOLOGY assists.

	The most elementary assist is easily done. For ages Man has known that “laying on of hands” or Mother’s kiss was effective therapy. Even gripping, in pain, an injured member, seems to help. But Man neglected the most important part of “laying on of hands”. This follows.

	Do this exactly and do it with a minimum of talk.

	Place your index finger or fingers or palm on the injured member, very lightly, and say to the person, “Put your attention on my hand”. Now change the position of your finger or palm and have the person do it again.

	It is best to touch the individual on spots which are further from his head than the injury.

	Do not talk excessively. But coax him, as you touch, briefly, spot after spot, to put his attention on your finger or fingers or palm.

	Change the spot every moment or two. Be calm. Be reassuring.

	If the person experiences pain or trembling as a result, keep on, for the assist is working.

	Continue in this fashion for many minutes or half an hour if necessary, until pain or upset is gone.

	During this assist the person has his eyes closed.

	It is not power from your finger which is aiding him.  It is power he generates by “looking” at your finger down through his body. You are putting him into communication with the injury. His communication with it brings about the recovery.

	Ordinarily injuries, sprains, burns, scalds, broken bones, headaches and colds heal slowly because the individual is avoiding this area with his own energy.

P.A.B. No. 103
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 January 1957

So we’re cause again. Here is the Code of a Scientologist being used as a pattern for the medicos in the United States.

“The Code of a Scientologist”

As a Scientologist, I pledge myself to the Code of Scientology for the good of all:

l. 	To hear or speak no word of disparagement to the press, public or preclears concerning any of my fellow Scientologists, our professional organization or those whose names are closely connected to this science.

2. 	To use the best I know of Scientology, to the best of my ability, to better my preclears, groups and the world.

3. 	To refuse to accept for processing, and to refuse to accept money from, any preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly help.

4. 	To punish to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends.

5. 	To prevent the use of Scientology in advertisements of other products.

6. 	To discourage the abuse of Scientology in the press.

7. 	To employ Scientology to the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics.

8. 	To render good processing, sound training and good discipline to those students or peoples entrusted to my care.

9. 	To refuse to impart the personal secrets of my preclears.

10. 	To engage in no unseemly disputes with the uninformed on the subject of my profession.”

Using it, the A.M.A. has now proposed the following code for all medicos as given in “The Doctor’s New Conscience” in Look Magazine, December 11, 1956. You see, they aren’t completely brave:
“The A.M.A.’s Proposed Principles of Medical Ethics”

These principles are intended to serve physicians, individually or collectively, as a guide to ethical conduct. They are not laws; rather they are standards by which a physician may determine the propriety of his own conduct. They are intended to aid physicians in their relationship with patients, with colleagues, with members of allied professions and with the public, to maintain, under God, as they have through the ages, the highest moral standards.

l. 	The prime objective of the medical profession is to render service to humanity with full respect for both the dignity of man and the rights of patients. Physicians must merit the confidence of those entrusted to their care, rendering to each a full measure of service and devotion.

2. 	Physicians should strive continuously to improve their medical knowledge and skill and should make available the benefits of their professional attainments.

3. 	A physician should not base his practice on an exclusive dogma or a sectarian system, nor should he associate voluntarily with those who indulge in such practices,

4. 	The medical profession must be safeguarded against members deficient in moral character and professional competence. Physicians should observe all laws, uphold the dignity and honor of the profession and accept its self-imposed disciplines. They should expose, without hesitation, illegal or unethical conduct of fellow members of the profession.

5. 	Except in emergencies, a physician may choose whom he will serve. Having undertaken the care of a patient, the physician may not neglect him. Unless he has been discharged, he may discontinue his services only after having given adequate notice. He should not solicit patients.

6. 	A physician should not dispose of his services under terms or conditions which will interfere with or impair the free and complete exercise of his independent medical judgment and skill or cause deterioration of the quality of medical care.

7. 	In the practice of medicine, a physician should limit the source of his professional income to medical services actually rendered by him to his patient.

8. 	A physician should seek consultation in doubtful or difficult cases, upon request or when it appears that the quality of medical service may be enhanced thereby.

9. 	Confidence entrusted to physicians or deficiencies observed in the disposition or character of patients, during the course of medical attendance, should not be revealed except as required by law or unless it becomes necessary in order to protect the health and welfare of the individual or the community.

10. 	The responsibilities of the physician extend not only to the individual but also to society and demand his cooperation and participation in activities which have as their objective the improvement of the health and welfare of the individual and the community.”

We are advising them to use our Number 3. You see how they recoiled from it.

P.A.B. No. 105
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

l February 1957

THE STORY OF A STATIC

Once upon a time there was a thetan, and he was a happy little thetan and the world was a simple thing. It was all very, very simple.

And then one day somebody told him he was simple.

And ever since that time he has been trying to prove that he is not.

And that is the history of the Universe, the Human Race, the Fifth Invaders, the Fourth Invaders, the 31/2 Invaders, the people on Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, Arcturus, the Markab Galaxy, the Markab System, the Psi Galaxy, Galaxy 82—

I don’t care where you look—that’s the story.

Only it’s too simple a story, much too simple a story, because a thetan would have to admit he was simple if he understood it.

                                        				L R H

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 6 FEBRUARY 1957

The following procedure is not for general release to the field, and is to be released only to organizational staff. The reason it is not being generally released to the field is that very few auditors have the skill necessary to run these techniques. The entirety of this will be released, somewhat modified, and much more expanded, some time in the future, and forms the backbone of a book. Therefore, I will appreciate your courtesy in not releasing these techniques to anyone, but keeping them in the Clinic until the book can be written, since you will scoop me if you do not, and the book will have that much less meaningfulness and appeal. The reason I am releasing these at this moment is that we need them, and we have every right to use them, but I do not wish them to be generally released, since they are actually so powerful that an auditor who is badly schooled would not be able to handle them at all on preclears. He is better off using that in which he has been trained. It will take a book to get him totally oriented on this subject.

PROCEDURE CCH

This procedure has two forms, it has the long form and the short form. The long form is omitted here since it is not necessary in any broad number of cases, and the short form is entirely right out through the top.

The name, “CCH”, is taken from Communication-Control-Havingness. These are the immediate exercise targets of this procedure.

The goal of this procedure is to take the preclear from as far south as preclears can be reached, straight on through as far north as a preclear can be pushed. Therefore, the breadth of Procedure CCH is much greater than any other auditing procedure ever released.

This procedure is covered rather adequately in the long series of lectures of the 1 6th ACC which specifically cover technique. This does not mean the entirety of the 16th ACC lectures, it means that section of the 16th ACC lectures which was immediately addressed to technique. A study of these lectures is recommended before extensive use of Procedure CCH is engaged upon in the Clinics. Copies of these lectures are being made available to Washington and London.

The goal of the Auditor is to discover an ability in the preclear and improve it.

The first discoverable ability of a preclear is communication in one form or another. This even applies to a person in a comatose state. Such a person quite ordinarily responds to tactile if you do not expect him to acknowledge. He is not able to acknowledge our communication to him by tactile since he at first cannot sufficiently or adequately control the body in order to make the reply.

HPA/HCA PROCESSES

Group 1: Communication Processes, taught in Indoctrination:

*	Parts of Communication

*A. “Look at me. Who am l ?”

*B. Hand contact mimicry. Commands: “Put your hands against mine,” then “mimic and contribute to the motion of my hands.” Acknowledge when the preclear has completed the command. Then say “Put your hands in your lap.” Then the auditor does the same. Repeat this process.

*C. 	Hand Mimicry (gradient scale of spaces). Hand mimicry is run the same as hand contact mimicry, with the following changes in the commands: “Put your hands up facing mine, with about one inch distance between your hands and mine.” Then, “Mimic and contribute to the motions of my hands, while maintaining the same distance between our hands.” Acknowledge. Then, “Put your hands in your lap.” Auditor then puts his hands in his lap. When this level of the process is flat, the auditor then puts more space between himself and the preclear, on a gradient scale, and changes the distance part of the command accordingly. Use a gradient scale to a limit of 3 feet.

*D. 	Mirror image hand mimicry. The commands are “Put your hands up facing mine.” “Mimic my commands mirror-wise; that is, when I move my hand back, you move your hand back on the same side of the body, and when I move my hands forward, you move your hands forward correspondingly.” “Good. Put your hands in your lap.”

  E. 	Full body mimicry. The auditor picks two spaces in the auditing room, marking them out with chairs or other objects, or using the rug. One space is for the preclear, and the other for the auditor. The auditor explains to the preclear as follows: “I am going to step into my space and deliver a command to you which will consist of a series of body positions. When I have finished executing this command I will step out of the space. You are then, without any further command on my part, to step into your space and mimic the command I have given. When you have finished doing that, then you step out of that space and that will be the end of that command.” The process is then repeated. If the preclear is not doing a good job of mimicking the auditor or is thrown into inordinately long communication lags, the process may be run with the auditor stepping into his space and giving the command while at the same time, the preclear steps into his space and mimics the command. That is to say, the command is executed simultaneously by the auditor and the preclear instead of the auditor first executing it and then the preclear following it, with a mimic.

Group II. Location-Control Processes:

Parts of Control

  A. 	Locational. “Locate the __.” The auditor has the preclear locate the floor, the ceiling, the walls, the furniture in the room, and other objects and bodies.

*B. 	Connectedness. “Look around here and find something you wouldn’t mind making connect with you.” Make sure while running this process that the preclear is making (causing) things to connect with him rather than he connecting with the things. If he connects with the things, it is a no-games condition. It is important that this be stressed in the session.

*C. 	8-C Solids. “Do you see that ____over there?” “Good.” “Walk over to it.” “Good.” “Touch it.” “Good.” “Now, make it a little more solid.” “Good.” “Let go of____.” “Good.” The process is then repeated, with the auditor selecting the object each time.

  D. 	S-C-S. “I am going to tell you to start the body. Then I want you to start the body.” “All right.” “Start the body.” If the preclear has started the body, he acknowledges the execution of the command. The auditor then repeats this process. Note: These commands must be used exactly, and be duplicated by the auditor. You should also get the preclear’s agreement to do it each time. The change portion of S-C-S is run as follows: The auditor picks and arranges with the preclear the location of three spots in the room. The auditor then designates these spots as Spot A, Spot B, and Spot C, and has the preclear stand in one of them. The command, duplicated each time, is as follows: “I’m going to tell you to change the body from Spot ___ to Spot___. Then you change the body from___to___. Okay?” When the preclear indicates that he has heard this and understood, the auditor then gives the command, “Change the body from___to___.” Spots A, B and C may be chosen by the auditor in any order. The Stop portion of S-C-S is run as follows: “I’m going to tell you to get the body moving in that direction.” The auditor indicates a direction across the room. “I then want you to get the body moving, and somewhere along the line I’ll tell you to stop. I then want you to stop the body.” When the preclear has stopped his body, the auditor then acknowledges and repeats the process and commands. As in the previous two, the auditor always duplicates the commands and gets the agreement of the preclear to make sure that he has started, changed and stopped the body himself, while running the above three processes.

Group III. Duplication Processes:

  A. 	Opening Procedure by Duplication. “Go over to the___.” “Look at it.” “Pick it up.” “What is its colour?” “What is its temperature?” “What is its weight?” “Put it down in exactly the same place.” The preclear obeys each command and answers each question in turn. The auditor then says, indicating the other object, “Go over to the___.” “Look at it.” “Pick it up.” “What is its colour?” “What is its temperature?” “What is its weight?” “Put it down in exactly the same place.” The auditor using the same words, same objects, and the same formula over and over again. This process must be run with good ARC at all times, and with a good duplication of the commands, and with good control.

*B. 	Keep it from going away. The auditor asks the preclear to select a number of objects in the room which appear real to the preclear. The auditor then selects two of these objects. These objects should be of a size that is easy to handle with the hands, and of a significance as non-restimulative as possible to the preclear. The auditor then selects two of these objects and places them either on a table in front of the preclear within easy reach and with some distance between them, or else on the arms of the preclear’s chair, one object on each arm. The commands of the process are: “Pick up the___.” “Good.” “Keep it from going away.” “Good.” When the preclear has kept it from going away for at least an instant and with certainty, the auditor then says, “Put it back exactly where you found it.” “Good.” The auditor then says, indicating the other object, “Pick up the___.” “Good.” “Keep it from going away.” “Good.” “Put it back exactly where you found it.” “Good.” The process is repeated.

*C. 	Hold it still. The commands for this process and the execution of it are the same as the process “Keep it from going away”, with the following exceptions: the command “Hold it still” is used in place of the command “Keep it from going away”.

Group IV. Havingness Processes:

Objective Havingness

  A. 	Terrible Trio “Look around here and find something you would be willing to have.” “Look around here and find something you would be willing to permit to remain where it is.” “Look around here and find something you would be willing to dispense with.”

  B. 	Trio on Valences. “Look around here and find something___can’t have.” Run this command until flat then run “Look around here and find something you can have.” (NOTE: should be a person, such as mother, father, sister, etc.)

 C. 	Objective Solids. “Look around here and find something.” “Okay.” “Make it a little more solid.”

Group V. Subjective Havingness:

A. 	Subjective Havingness. “Mock up___.” “Make it a little more solid.” “Do what you like with the mock-up.” 1. Confusions; 2. Wasting havingness.

B. 	Straight Wire. “Tell me something you would be willing to forget.” Preclear answers, auditor acknowledges. Repeat until flat.

*C. 	Then and Now Solids. “Get a facsimile.” “Make it a little more solid.” “Look at the environment.” “Make it a little more solid.” Repeat this process.

Group VI. Thought Processes:

  A. 	Rising Scale. This run on emotion and/or attitude charts, by running from the lowest to the top of the respective scale. “Put      into the wall.” Preclear answers, auditor acknowledges. (Example, “Put apathy into the wall,” etc.)

*B. 	Present-time problem. “Invent a problem of Comparable Magnitude to ___.” “How could that be a problem to you?” The blank in this case being a terminal; best to use a single terminal with a minimum of condition.

  C. 	Find a spot. “Look around here and find a place you could light.” Preclear answers, auditor acknowledges. “Invent a consequence of your having lighted.” Preclear answers, auditor acknowledges.

*D. Thoughts in Walls.
	(1) “Have the front wall say to you, ‘This means go to___.” Preclear supplies the blank, the blank being a location. This is run on front, back, right, left, ceiling and floor—use same order throughout. After one round, you alternate “Have the front wall say to you, ‘This means don’t go to                ___.” When these alternates are flat, run:
	(2) “Have the front wall say to you, ‘This means stay in ___,” which is alternated with “Have the front wall say to you, ‘This means don’t stay in___”
Run pairs (1) and (2) comparatively flat—this is the only process for terror stomach.

  E. 	Objective Not Know. “Look around here and find something you wouldn’t mind not knowing.”

							L. RON HUBBARD

This Bulletin subject to
correction

LRH: rs.lnd.rd
Copyright (©)1957	      
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED				Feb 6, 1957.

P.A.B. No. 106
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 February 1957

GOOD PROCESSES

Prepared from the research papers of L. Ron Hubbard

The material in recent PABs, much of it, has come from an LRH research paper that still contains material, not covered, on some modern processes and general theory of primary value. In the research paper it is given in extremely staccato fashion, as the paper was the basis for conferences where the material could be expanded. Here is some more of the material.

The best processes are those which fastest convert unknowing games conditions to knowing games conditions. This does not disregard the fact that one’s goal of processing might be, at a very far reach, the static. No-games conditions do describe the static and various harmonics of the static. The no-games conditions list does not anywhere describe workable processing tools. Games conditions, and games conditions only, do that.

Here are some of those fastest processes:

CONTROL. Start, Change and Stop on objects or preclear’s body, emphasis on stop. Why emphasis on stop? It has long been known in Scientology (see Scientology 8-80) that the ability to hold points, locations, masses and objects, including bodies, in space at one’s own direction and choice is the essence of control. Without the ability to fix locations in space there is no self-determinism. Where one is concerned with the physical universe he collapses if he cannot hold space.

The exact commands and procedure of control processes are contained in recent PABs as well as in early Bulletins to be released.

The effectiveness of any processing is as great as the extreme of good control is exercised by the auditor. A corollary to this is that how well one lives life is measured by the extent of his good control of the things within his actual boundaries of interest.

FIGHT THE WALL. This is a very fascinating process. The auditor makes (he has to make him) the preclear fight the wall bodily. Since there is no accepted social behavior in man on this subject, the way that a preclear will DO this process varies somewhat wildly. What his running of the process does is to bring him up to a confrontingness of walls and environment. It does this through exercising a games condition (fighting) and causing the preclear to exercise this games condition knowingly. It is not designed to 7 nor does it, run out the preclear’s ability to fight.

The total command is, having directed the preclear’s attention to a wall, “Fight the wall.” You don’t tell them how to fight it, you tell them to fight it. The amount of bruised knuckles and holes in plaster can be cut down by providing the preclear with a mattress or other protector and it works just as well. The purpose of the process is not damage, although preclears are known to go into fighting walls with a peculiar enthusiasm.
This can also be run by mock-ups but not as a substitute for making the preclear use his body. Do not make a thinkingness process of this, it is a doingness and a confrontingness process. It can be run outdoors on trees, etc., as well as in the auditing room.

OPPONENTS. The main thing about opponents is that there are not enough of them. An opponent is a games condition. Have the preclear tell lies about the subject of opponents. That is a good process. Have the preclear invent opponents. Of these two, Invent is best, but Lie is a lower harmonic of Invent and can be run all the way south.

When opponents become scarce to an individual they become so precious and valuable that he will neither confront, have, nor let go of anything he considers to be one. He will fight himself and do all sorts of things but he will not do these things. He becomes extremely aberrated on this point and will attempt to “discover” enemies or “find out” or some such thing. This is a compulsive games condition, with unknownness. Havingness is extremely poor on such an individual.

The exact commands are “Tell me a lie about an opponent,” “Tell me a lie about opponents,” “Invent an opponent.”

INDIVIDUALITY. A lot is said about individuality. Indeed it is a highly important subject. Either individuality is a very bad thing and causes human troubles, is a very good thing, or it is a games condition. The truth is that individuality is an aberration and a games condition. It therefore, good or bad, processes, whereas namelessness (unidentifiedness) does not. An extreme or exaggerated view on the subject of individuality is a havingness upset and contains unknowingness. Knowingness about identity includes awareness of game. A good process is “Invent an individuality that would impress people.” Run it for all eight dynamics. Examples: “Invent an individuality that would impress animals,” “Invent an individuality that would impress God.”

CAN’T HAVE. An interesting little creative processing process is “Mock up a mockup” and then “Say that bodies can’t have it” or “Say that your body can’t have it.” A further use of this is to say that the MEST universe can’t have it. Auditors call this “Escape Processing.”

EFFECT. Lie about an effect you are having. Examples: “I’m not having any effect from my tooth,” “I’m not having any effect from that wall” or “That wall is giving me some money.” Lie about an effect you are having on (any dynamic).

PROBLEMS. Problems must be handled in auditing. Never leave the present time problem unhandled. This does not mean that the problem is flat when the preclear says he now knows what to do about it or can solve it, etc. The problem is not flat until he can tolerate it solved or not solved. If he MUST solve it then he is not able to tolerate the problem and it is not flat. People think that all problems or some problems MUST be solved. They think this because they cannot tolerate or confront the problems.

Problems are processed by “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to (the problem).” Until preclear can have the problem.

Undercutting the above, is, having the preclear tell lies about the problem.

Inventing problems of comparable magnitude must each time be questioned as to “How could that be a problem to you?”

Another process related to problems is “Consequences of Solutions.” Since a problem not confronted persists and confronted does not persist, then preclears can discover that they have been not solving problems because they were scarce.

SOLIDS. “What are you looking at?”, “Make it solid,” “What are you looking at?”, etc.

VACUUMS. A vacuum is a super-cold object which, if brought into contact with bank, drinks bank. Objects at 25°F or less have high electrical capacitance, low resistance. This was psychiatry before Earth. Shocks, ether, can act similarly. This is how one mechanically forgets the past. He depends on pictures, loses pictures to a vacuum incident. Vacuums drink up the preclear’s havingness. They are just incidents and they are brainwashing. You encounter these running solids. Opponents, individualities, more solids, problems, undo them.

RESTIMULATION. When one violates a games condition, intends to have an effect on something and doesn’t, one often puts the effect on the body. One thus gets “no-effect” on opponent, makes an effect on self. This is restimulation. It is also stimulus-response.

“Effect you could have on (people, preclears, any dynamic)” remedies this. The condition of self-auditing while auditing is the above restimulation. The same process resolves it.

TO SPLIT VALENCES

A term that really makes a psychiatrist feel like somebody is “schizo,” their nickname for the schizophrenic. It is an odd misnomer in that it means split personality and the trouble with a schizo is that he needs splitting, not that he’s split. He’s in another’s valence, and what is required is to remove or split the preclear out of that other’s valence.

STEPS. A series of steps rather than a single process or command worked best by test at the Hubbard Guidance Center and the London HASI Clinic.

1. 	Get the preclear under control with Start-Change-Stop. Lots of it. This can’t be slid over or brushed through carelessly. The total reason for getting the preclear under good control is that he is under bad control or he wouldn’t be a preclear, even though the bad control is his own. Though it is his own it is not knowing. The auditor’s job is to make the preclear CAUSATIVE throughout. The preclear must be CAUSE toward all things in the session. The control by the auditor is necessary because, left to his own devices, as he has been for aeons, the preclear will be EFFECT of his reactive bank, pictures, circuits and figure-figure. The one thing, of course, that the preclear is effect of in session and not causative toward is the auditing. The auditor pan-determines the whole thing.
2. 	Unjam the track with “What are you looking at? Make it solid.” Anything jamming (sticking, holding) the track (time) can be run AS A VALENCE in the following steps. Examples could be: Mother, dog, book, machine, town, house, gun, etc. You can readily see in this command “Make it solid” that the preclear is being CAUSE toward the thing or person. It is of considerable relief to the preclear.
3. 	Choose valence or valences, weakest universe preferred. At this point skill comes into great demand. The OBVIOUS here would be usually the correct valence to run. Obvious to the AUDITOR. It won’t be obvious to the preclear. For example, the weakest universe would be to the preclear the one that gives no trouble. He never gets bothered or upset about that person. He never even thinks about that person or when he does it is only with the mildest feelings. Why? Because he’s “wearing the head” of that person! He’s looking FROM, not AT. If you find you have picked the wrong valence to run, go back to (1) and choose again at (3).
4. 	“What would interest (universe so chosen)?” Run this flat.
5. 	“Invent an opponent of comparable magnitude to      .” You are getting a games condition here. Scarcity of opponents is the stickiest condition there is in human relations. Run this until preclear does it well and comm lag is flat.
6. 	“What would get the attention of      ?” Here the preclear will name or invent things that would get the attention of the universe being run. What you know about the SERVICE FACSIMILE will apply here. Run it out this way. “What would get the attention of      ?”
7. 	“Look around here and find something that      can’t have.” Answers must be things physically observable in the auditing environment. This must be run very, very flat. A key process.
8. 	“What could you protect      from?” This actually could be run as above, having the preclear look around the room and find what he could protect____from. However, if (7) has been run flat as a pancake it can be run as a subjective process as given.
9. 	“What communication could you prevent      from originating?” You will see that this gives the preclear a games condition and an opponent. It isn’t flat when the preclear is still giving answers from the bank. He should make some.
10. 	Problems of Comparable Magnitude. The command is: “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to      .” This is an important process. Note that it has to be flattened well and that it is not flat when the preclear says he feels better about it or will handle it. It is flat when the preclear can HAVE the problem, does not HAVE TO solve it. Could have it, permit it to remain, or dispense with it. Problems: games condition. Solutions: no-game condition.
11. 	“Invent a game you could play with      .” This light-hearted little process is dynamite. Don’t neglect it. Run it on the preclear and you’ll see what a high-level process looks like when it really bites. (It will bite if you have properly run the preceding ten steps.)
12. 	“Make      fight the wall.” This is done, of course, with mock-ups, until the preclear does them extremely well and with full control of the mock-ups and comm lag is flat.
13. 	Run (4) to ( 12) again to check.

This procedure cleans up universes and valences. When running this, keep the preclear at it and do not lapse into discussion or excessive two-way comm aside from the processes themselves. Use two-way communication in delivering the process to the preclear, not in getting the preclear to deliver the bank to the auditor.

This is a lot of processes for one bulletin, but we can include more detailed material on these in future PABs. 

5410C20 8ACC-14 The Parts of Man

This is a discussion of the parts of Man as understood through R2-61 and R2-62.  The parts of Man are related to overts and motivators.  [This is because a thetan as such cannot be harmed and therefore cannot  receive a motivator.  So he would have to have a confusion of identity to  receive a motivator.]

Man consists of four distinct, separate, though related, parts:

1. Thetan

2. Body

3. Thetan machinery

4. Reactive/somatic mind.

Dianetics covers the first four dynamics.  Even the first dynamic can be  split into these four parts.  When you thought you were treating the first  dynamic, you were actually treating the third.  The absolute Book 1 clear  would be the awareness of awareness unit.

Around the end of 1951, LRH mentions that erasure of all facsimiles would  result in demolishment of the body (See Advanced Procedures and Axioms).  In  Book 1, we were talking about engrams of this lifetime.  Erasing these would  give a relative clear.  The only trouble was that the awareness of awareness  unit, after a few years of this research, kept insisting on exteriorizing, and  it turned out to be the person himself.  If he felt bad when he was out --  sort of with no character -- he is not stabilized.

So the first dynamic is the awareness of awareness unit, as modified by  various things.  Pieces of thetan machinery are his creations, hidden and  forgotten by him.  All the energy used by the machines really comes from the  thetan, though, for randomity, he may consider that he needs to eat to keep on  going.  He can also understand something from someone else, add it to his own  machinery, and blame someone for giving him a machine.

The thetan invests the body with characteristics, then he is afraid of  losing these characteristics.  But this is really no problem.  He can invest  himself with these characteristics.

The thetan can also duplicate himself.  He can create a new, different  life unit with full determinism, power, personality, etc.  It could have more  power than he if it is set up that way.  Sex is the super-condensed,  many-times-via’d activity of creating other life forms.  It is only more  complex because it is considered to be.  The Thetan actually needs no system  to create a living being.

Thetan machinery is not intended to have a life of its own, but sometimes  the thetan endows machinery with life.  In DMSMH, LRH talks of the possibility  of setting the mind alongside the body.  This was misinterpreted worst in  E-therapy.  One can do this and get himself haunted by living beings.  He can  create them, then go off and leave them.  This is basic life multiplication --  a 1D creating a 3D through a 2D.  So mankind could have one common ancestor.  It would not make that one superior, however, since the offspring could just  as well be the superior ones.  Furthermore, an individual could just  repostulate himself back into his creative unit and thus disappear, especially  since, in reality, there is no time.  All one could lose would be the  knowingness that he had done it.  One would have to shut that off for  oneself.  Now do you think you understand valence a little better?

Having multiplied himself often, an individual had laid aside this  ability, begun to hang on to the “only one” computation, and is holding his  ability to be himself closely to himself.  He tries hard to maintain an  identity as a 1D.  He becomes too involved in his own agreements and thinks he  needs sex to create a being, but even that creates only a body, which is the  granted beingness of many individualities, based upon one individuality that  started that genetic line.  The thetan got so complex, with all his machinery,  and so interlocked with so many other individualities; he granted so much  beingness in all directions that he forgot who and what he was and just knew  he was supposed to be this identity and repeat the manufactured creation of  this identity.  This would make him solid, and his machinery would have  composited.  At this point, he would be a body, and his machinery would become  the reactive/somatic mind.  The thetan gets so solid as a body that he can be  taken over and controlled by another thetan and his machines.  The reactive  mind that goes along with a body cannot be controlled unless another thetan  comes along and takes over the body.  However, the body can control the  reactive mind.  There is no difference between the reactive and the somatic  mind.

A thetan can create another thetan.  From this, we can get a species,  which implies other species, hence a 5th dynamic.  Thetans are generally not  as anxious to control animal bodies as human bodies, since men’s affairs are  complex enough to be interesting to control.  So animals are generally body +  reactive mind: a condensed thetan + machinery.

By addressing the alter-ised complexity, as in psychotherapy, we would  never get an as-is-ness, but just more mass.  The auditor thus must address  the right part: the thetan.  Otherwise he might as well try to process a rock as a body: the rock is more complex, being  denser (therefore it has more vias on the comm lines).  The distance from  cause to effect in a rock has so many vias and complexities in it that it  loses both cause and effect for the rock.  The impulse towards religion in  most people is to discover basic cause; however, it leads them to go through  vias, which gets them lost.  The way to find cause is to find the highest  level of freedom, assume it, and then know, because you will be cause and will  therefore be capable of being an effect.

As processing improves, we find that the better we understand something,  the better we can control it, and the less need to process it so that it can  be controlled.  So, in modern scientology and dianetics, it is only necessary  to knock out the factors you don’t want to process because you understand them  well enough to control them.  The first of these is the reactive mind.  There  is no sense in processing it since we know how to control it.  Also, there’s  no use in processing the body -- medicine will take care of that.  Machinery  is interesting, but it’s not necessary.  So we’re left with only the thetan to  process, and we process the thetan just enough so that he can take control of  his other parts, having recognized them.  “Right thought”, as in Christian  Science, would work fine if you had a clear to begin with.  The Christian  Scientists have limits on what “right thought” is.  But actually, right  thought is optimum survival on all dynamics.

So, in processing, we can start with “Be three feet back of your head.”  For those who don’t respond to that, the overt-motivator sequence is a good  place to start; it’s the mechanical process by which a thetan becomes solid  enough to be a body, surrounded by his machinery, which has become the bank.  Behind the overt-motivator sequence lies the consideration that matches the  overt and motivator.  You must be downstairs from pan-determinism to  self-determinism for this to happen.

A justifier is the mockup or overt act demanded by a person guilty of an  unmotivated act.  It is something nonexistent, as an effort to justify the  unmotivated act.  It’s a false motivator.  There’s nothing really wrong with  the motivator-overt sequence; it balances out; no one gets insane or even  hurt by it.  But the unmotivated act - justifier sequence is the villain! thus  the thetan is doomed, because he can never really receive a motivator.  That’s  the whole reason for the dwindling spiral.  A thetan can never be harmed, but  he can consider he’s been harmed, act harmed, and dwindle.  Everything the PC  tells you is a search for a justifier.  His search through his bank quickly  as-is-es his few true motivators.  So he has too many overts and must get  himself sick, downtrodden and betrayed [motivator hunger].  He gives  justifiers and pretends they’re motivators.

The way you could get him into this dwindling spiral is to define harm  for him.  This gets into good and evil: R2-61 and R2-62.  It only requires the  consideration that harm can take place to set off the unmotivated  act/justifier sequence.  You just get this consideration from yourself.  A  person must have intended harmful destruction and succeeded to define the  concept, “harmful” for himself.  Only when someone destroys something he’s  created does he define harm for the other fellow.  He had to do it first  himself, because he had to communicate first to be communicated to, since  otherwise he couldn’t have been located.

Any solidity or departure from the static is a lie.  The way we depart  from the absolute truth of static is via the lies of justifiers.  This is the  source of all inability’s and deficiencies.

The thetan also has an anxiety about creating an effect.  Another thetan  can never get a motivator; a thetan knows he can never receive an effect except as he considers it and agrees, so he knows he  can never create an effect on another thetan.  So he must consider life units  as solids.  He gets upset when he considers them thetans.  Hence people turn  away from scientology because they are afraid of exterior beings.  The thetan  wants to create an effect but can’t without being guilty of an unmotivated  act.  All he had to do to get messed up was to discover he could harm others;  he then tried to justify his unmotivated acts and got solid, and his whole  past track would be nearly all hallucination.  The insane pack along an  enormous number of mocked up facsimiles = justifiers = pictures of things that  never occurred.

A good violent fast way to handle this state of affairs is to have the PC  mock up things that anything on the seventh dynamic could do to him.  This  remedies his havingness [motivator hunger].  You can actually use all  dynamics.  Another process: the PC spots all the spots where he or anyone  considered that harm could be or had been done.  [R2-61 and R2-62, in Creation  of Human Ability].    

P.A.B. No. 107
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 March 1957

SPECIFIC FOR TERROR STOMACH

There is a specific process which goes this way. You ask the preclear to put into the six sides of the room, the four walls, the ceiling and the floor, in regular order, the statement to him or to some part of his body “This means go to     “ and the preclear furnishes the location. He does this with each wall, the floor and the ceiling, in rotation. Now you had better let him have the walls, etc., first of all say it to him, then after a while say it to his body. Now the next time round you get him to put into the walls, etc. “This means don’t go to      .” Then the next time we go around to “This means go to      ,” and finally we get this thing flat. These commands are run in alternation until it seems fairly flat.

Now the reason why you ask him to supply the name of the location each time is simply to see how his communication lag is coming along. If you didn’t ask him to add the name you would not see his comm lag. When you ask him to originate a location this puts a little stopper on the line. Now when we have that pair of commands fairly flat we go on into the next pair. “This means stay in     “ is completed with all the six sides of the room, and the alternation command in this case is “This means don’t stay in      ,” and we run these alternately covering the six sides of the room each time.

Now, of course, this is essentially the anatomy of the confusion—the confusion basically of a person doing, or trying to do, two things at once. So we get him to sort out the stable data. This is a technique which has been with us for some time. It is what we call one of our specifics, and it is a specific for a terror stomach.

Now this is something for you to have because these terror stomachs can cause you some difficulty. For instance, one of the commonest things that you find in prison work or in people who are under pressure from the police in one way or another is the terror stomach. With some people just the thought of possibly being arrested would turn one on. Now just why the police are the commonest restimulator of the terror stomach lies, of course, on the back track.

The stomach is guilty of the overt act of eating, it is continuously guilty of this act and becomes quite frantic on the whole subject of being incarcerated. This is rather funny, because the stomach is already incarcerated and is continually incarcerating—it puts food into jail three times a day; and so we get police putting somebody away as being the commonest restimulator of the terror stomach. A terror stomach is simply a confusion in a high degree of restimulation in the vicinity of the vagus nerve. This is one of the larger nerves and it goes into agitation under this restimulation. Now medical science has already solved this, already knows how to take care of it: they simply cut the vagus nerve—that it brings on a fairly early death and completely disrupts the entirety of the gastric system is, of course, not considered. It is comparable with electric shock, which, incidentally, is almost uniformly followed by an early stroke.

Now here we have a specific and this somatic has not had any alleviation from any other process prior to Spring, 1956. At that time some other processes came in which are, to some degree, faster. But they have not yet been tested on a terror stomach with any thoroughness. They are more powerful, but they have not been thoroughly tested against this specific somatic.

With good auditing and good communication we can, apparently at any tone level, seem to be able to use this process successfully. This is quite remarkable. The terror stomach flattens out and if it does recur, it will be quite minor. But the preclear should be warned about this so that if it does recur he can come in again to see the auditor, who can continue the process and flatten it further.

It is a specific and for a long time I figured out the confusion of where to go and where to stay, and figured out the disenfranchisement of the game somewhat. Disenfranchisement brought about a condition of confusion which was best expressed in the stomach evidently. We can handle that today. I can tell you with some confidence that the only thing that would interrupt your ability to handle this would, of course, be your communication with the preclear. This would have to be pretty good before you could use this process. To establish communication with a preclear suffering from the terror stomach is, of course, one of the more interesting things to do because the preclear is quite frantic. He leaps around, goes in and out of session, etc. Nevertheless, in spite of this, the process does level out the terror stomach which is just a bundle of confusion.

With this process one would apparently be dealing with a no-games condition, because something is talking to the preclear. But remember that the preclear is making something talk to him for the first time. The walls are always telling people something, and when walls become warnings and when the various items of the physical universe become associated all under the headings of warnings, then you have a terror stomach. Well the common denominator of a warning is not conditional actually, it is a warning about change of position. What has deteriorated in the preclear is the ability to differentiate messages so that all messages mean “Go to      , don’t go to____’ stay in      , and don’t stay in      .” The process runs out, in essence, the bad 8-C of the universe and you just turn it into good 8-C.

When running the process, ask the preclear if he is putting the postulate behind the wall, in the wall, just ahead of the wall, ask him how it is going now, what is the progress of the various points, how much space is the postulate occupying now, has he any inclination to put the postulate into the whole building, or compulsion to do this or that, and so on. You just go on policing it you see, but don’t slow it down with too much policing because this process is a quantity process—unlike almost any other process we have—it’s very low scale and so is quantitative, i.e. how many times he gets it into the wall. So you want him to do as many of these commands as possible.

Now the reason I bring up this process is to acquaint you with it and also because it is so wonderfully illustrative of the relationship between aberration and learning rate, a subject which I will be continuing in another PAB.

                                       				L. RON HUBBARD

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 MARCH 1957

COPIES TO:
Director Of Training
Indoc Instructor
Asst Indoc Instructor
HCO—LONDON

GOAL OF INDOCTRINATION COURSE

1. 	To give new student a reality on Scientology.

	(No matter what this takes- should include a couple hours professional auditing.)

2. 	The Communication formula.

3. 	The Positions of Auditing.

4. 	The Communication formula used in the positions of auditing. Theoretical Material taught. The Codes of Scientology.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:rds jh

P.A.B. No. 108
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 March 1957

LEARNING RATE
(Part 1 )

This is one of the more important things with which we have to do. Scientology has always been the science of knowing how to know. With some diffidence I tell you it is also the basic science of education. Education happens to be just one part of a large whole. Education is seldom creative and is, therefore, just a middle ground of activity. Getting people to know something rather than getting people to invent something to know, you will see are quite different. In Scientology itself, however, we engage in a great number of educational activities and just for that reason alone you should understand education.

Education really takes off from a series of basics which we have a good grip on, and nobody ever knew where education took off from before. Well, it takes off from Scientology. This is factually true: nobody ever before had these basics. It is quite amazing. If you asked an educator about these things—on how you taught people and so forth—he would be flabbergasted. Some of his ideas are interesting and complicated enough to be fascinating, but they are not sufficiently effective. In order to educate somebody you had to know what the mind was all about, and unless you knew the nearly total anatomy of the mind you could not hope then to do much educating, and the educational world did not know the anatomy of the mind and so they didn’t do much educating. That is the simple background of the situation. But the funny part of it is, that if you tell an educator some of the basics of education he will agree with you all the time. He knew these things all the time, he will tell you, but a little conversation will show you that these things are not aligned properly and are tied up with all sorts of extraneous data and that he has no idea of relative importance of the various data, both pertinent and extraneous. He could not evaluate for you the data you have fed him, but would be in such total agreement with the basics that you feel that he would be rather apt to go anaten, stagger, yawn, etc., but he would know for sure that he had met someone who could tell him about his business.

If you know about the mind you can educate a mind. This is certain and quite true. Now here is the coordination: You have a wall say to yourself, “This means go to_____.” What are you actually doing? You are really running out the total significance of a wall. You are evidently doing about half a hundred different things while doing this process. If you listed the things which make this process work you would be likely to have a couple of sheets of foolscap. But let us take one of them here and let us see how walls are always teaching you something, how fire plugs are always teaching you something, and how grass is always teaching you something, etc. The least that a wall teaches you is that it is a wall. Now when you ask a preclear to walk over and touch that wall as in Step A of 8-C, he finally finds out that there is a wall there, which is the goal of the process. Now what is this but learning that he has a wall there?

Now process lag and learning lag would be the same thing for these purposes. It takes him this long to find out there is a wall. You will understand that the wall gets more solid to the preclear and a lot of other parts of Scientology immediately accrue that are off the subject of learning rate, but we are just taking up this one thing. We call this thing a learning lag. A learning lag is how long it takes the wall to get the message through to the preclear. Well, it takes as long as the preclear is in a high unknowing games condition. High unknown games condition is “no effect on self and effect on other things,” and yet his ability in the universe depends upon his differentiation amongst objects. For the wall says to him “This is a wall,” but because there can be no effect on self in a very obsessive way, the wall saying to him “This is a wall” means of course “This is a hospital spittoon.” No differentiation in perception. This is sometimes quite evident in a sudden exteriorization because of a loss of havingness which occurs at that time.

It is not that his MEST body is what gives him perception—this is not true—but the havingness of the MEST body makes his perception possible. You reduce his havingness by exteriorizing him suddenly and his perception goes by the board and of course he goes downscale, and LOOK is way up there at the top of the Know to Mystery Scale just below KNOW and you drop him down the scale to NO-LOOK, and sometimes in a sudden exteriorization you may drop him down to a delusory look. They not only don’t see what is there, they see something that is not there. Well what is this in essence but an inability to perceive, which is an inability to learn?

Suddenly exteriorized, with havingness dropped, they look at the ceiling and it is the same ceiling they were looking at a moment before with their MEST body’s eyes. But it is now a hospital ceiling. Well some via is occurring between themselves and the lesson the ceiling is trying to give them, and that lesson is “This is a ceiling.” They don’t perceive that, they perceive a “better” lesson. What do we mean by a “better” lesson? We mean a more convincing one. The hospital ceiling was a far better lesson, it was much more convincing. It was saying “This is a ceiling” to somebody who was so anaten and fogged out that he just could not resist learning that lesson or differentiate, and so the hospital ceiling kept saying to a person in this condition “This is a ceiling” until it became all possible ceilings. The moment you reduce his havingness he drops in tone and picks up the most dominant lessons.

As we go downscale, then, with a preclear, he can be expected to pick up more and more dominant lessons. And what is aberration? Aberration would simply be a pattern of convictions, and we could say for the purposes of education that aberration is really a series of lessons that were learned too well. For example, a fellow was raised in a tough neighborhood and was taught that the thing to do to get on in life was to bash everybody over the head, and he learnt this lesson very very well. But he never learnt another lesson which was presented to him later in life that the way to get on in life was to be able to live with the people. Therefore, we find that what is wrong with him is a lesson learned too well—a wrong lesson. The schoolboy who studies his lessons very often reads something which is not in the book and learns it much better than what is in the book. This is because we get into alteration and change of location at once. Now a wrong location and a wrong datum are more or less the same thing. When we move data into solids we get the most dominant thing they perceive—location. First we have postulates and then we have located postulates. That is a lower order of postulate, but is still higher than most people’s heads.

We find out, then, that aberration consists of a number of lessons which a person has learned too well. That would be an interesting way to talk about it and would certainly grip the imagination of an educator. But there is something else riding alongside of it which wipes it out as a total explanation, and that is his willingness to learn a wrong lesson and that is his learning lag. Now why is he willing to learn these wrong lessons? He just is. He has decided some time or other without any prompting that this was the way things were. Now many people, simply by getting into the band of agreement are way up tone scale from where they were before, but remember people can go downscale into agreement too. So the datum is confirmed, he generated it himself, and then it was agreed.

Now and only now do we enter the field we could call learning rate or learning lag, or education. Just for no reason at all, he assumed, for instance, that his mother was a bad woman.  He had no reason, he just assumed it—no prenatals in other words. One day he decided she was a beast and went along playing the game that he was a sad little orphan, just out of “thin air,” and then one day (he had been postulating this all the time) she blows up which she never did before and does something dreadful to him like sending him to bed without supper, or issuing threats, etc., and this confirms his assumed belief. Now take the reversal that he has postulated his mother as an angel and all of a sudden she turns and becomes a drunkard, etc. He is then always trying to convince people that she is a good woman and yet he knows that she is a bad one. Then one day he gives up entirely and he now has another conviction, only he didn’t generate this conviction, it was exterior to him.

Now one of the fondest things that your preclear thinks is that he caused everything everywhere but he covers this up and advertises to one and all, including himself, that he is not responsible for anything that ever happened to him. Now this is quite remarkable, because it is a complete reversal. In advertising that he is totally irresponsible he yet really believes that he basically caused everything. Now you know from old-time Ownership Processing that if you misown something it gets very real and solid-so at least 50% of the things that happened to him have been from exterior sources. If they are in restimulation they are the things that didn’t happen to him, you see, and the things that did happen to him are misowned the other way. He is misowning both ways. He says he caused something but this was really caused by someone else if it is in heavy restimulation. In other words, there are other things that work in the universe besides the preclear. He not only has to discover that he exists but that other things exist too.

The random factors in a case lead us, then, to conclude that the premises of education and conviction only go for a short distance. They go up to self-generated data, and that’s quite a way, but it doesn’t take us the whole distance. Therefore, handle this thing as far as it goes—handle the premise of learning rate and lag and other material of this character just as far as it goes. It is terribly effective as far as it goes—it is so effective that you are likely to go completely overboard and then wonder what happened—but what happened is that you moved out of that range into the range of self-generated non-caused attitudes. Non-caused attitudes are undone by communication, so we find communication vastly superior to education. Communication will always undo education, but it has to be terrible communication to do nothing but fix ideas.

What do we have in terms of processes here? Well, we have a lot of processes. I am not trying to give you anything but a decent resume here of the exact place something occupies before I tell you about it, because this is so good you will possibly try to supplant communication with education. You must not do that because self-generated data can supplant education. Now where do we go, then, with this thing called education, learning rate, learning lag and so forth? Well, let us become glib—not me, but all of us-with regard to such a thing as industry and learning rate. We will take that up in the next PAB.

                                       				L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 109
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication In Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 April 1957

LEARNING RATE
(Part 2)

To continue with how we use this factor of learning rate and learning lag and so forth. You can interest an industrialist by telling him that it is learning rate that is impeding his own operation. How many instructions has he put out that have not been followed? You can say that these people really do want to cooperate with him but that the learning rate is so poor that these people cannot absorb the instructions. This is the stable datum—something he will understand—a better stable datum than anyone else will ever give him. “Labor is all bad” is the usual stable datum given to him. You will explain to him the trouble with his executives and foremen, etc., the reason why his production curve is down, or his machinery busted up, etc., is entirely because the learning rate varies from person to person. You can remind him of the stupid child and the bright child in the same classroom—one child doesn’t learn as much as the other simply because it takes one child too long to learn what the other child learns rapidly. But it is learning rate; it isn’t learning quantity. Now you get very technical at this point and explain the difference between these two children is the learning rate.

Do not go into quantity—but he will assume at once that the length of time it takes somebody to learn something establishes then how much he knows. That is not quite true, but it is awfully convincing. You can say to him, “Now actually there are not thirty people, Mr. Industrialist, in the thousands in your plant, who are really the cause of your labor difficulties. Certainly not more than thirty. These people are against you because they don’t know you.” Immediately he will say, “That is so true.” You continue, “They don’t know you because their learning rate is so poor that they have no idea what you are trying to do or what you want them to do. They are merely in revolt and they don’t know against what.” This will make sense to the industrialist. You tell him, “Now, I could pick these people out with the greatest of ease.” You could do this through the use of Personality Analysis tests which should make it quite clear to you, and he could check these against their service records, and you can be quite sure that the records would agree with your analysis. He will wonder how you could establish their learning rate so rapidly when you didn’t even talk to these people. Just use “learning rate” as a substitute conversationally for aberration, comm lag, etc., and it translates. So we are in communication with him even if it is a bit of a stretch. We are in communication.

I’ll give you an example. A stupid judge is one who can’t learn the rights and wrongs, the in’s and out’s, from the witnesses, and all the attorneys will tell you at once that this man is a stupid judge because his decisions are incorrect. But sometimes they take a person who is simply a stupid judge and they say he is a vicious judge, but actually you could say his difficulty in learning is so great that he becomes emotionally disturbed at the thought of learning and therefore exerts punishment in revenge on the people who have brought this torture upon him. His learning faculties are so poor that it becomes painful for him to learn.

You see how you could just talk to somebody and without accusing anybody of being insane or aberrated, etc., you could probably sell him processing for the whole of his executive and foremen levels of his staff to increase their learning rate. And the reason for this? So that his postulates will stick; that is, what he can see will happen. But this is not what you do.

At this point, you have a point of agreement and you as a Scientologist take departure from it. You have made a point of agreement that it is learning rate and learning lag that causes randomity on his communication lines. You can tell him this and convince him because it is almost true, and it is certainly true within the realm of his experience. But you, in actually processing people, depart from it. You’re not interested exclusively in the employer’s postulates sticking. You’re not interested at all in this. You are interested in giving the person determinism over data. You’re not interested in a person’s learning rate really, but in his power of choice to establish or review the importance of data. This is what you re-establish with the person. You don’t teach him, then, to get into a state of hypnotic impulse; you teach him power of choice over data, and only then will the data become of use to him, and then only can he become social in his behavior.

The answer to the question is in total disagreement with the industrialist’s modus operandi. It is not in agreement at all. I have talked to some of these boys within the last year, and it is quite interesting that the moment I started to establish the fluidity and the right to think for labor, the right to live, and the right to be for labor, we were talking on different planets, and this is the secret of their failure. If their system of money control was a successful system there would be more of it today than there is, and it would be an increasing system, and it is not. It is a decreasing system. They must have a short glance at something, but you’re not going to involve yourself with this short glance. Management will buy learning rate completely. They will buy this whole thing because they themselves cannot face communication, but they can face learning. Communication is too high for them, and we have tried to sell them this for several years. It is too high for them because you are trying to make them face a Static. They will not do this, but they will, however, face learning rate.

So what do you tell them, knowing this full well? You say you are going to increase the learning rate of their staff members. You don’t discuss technically how you do it. You just give him wonderful examples, e.g., ask how long it takes a person to learn to use one of his machines well. He may say it needs an apprenticeship of five years. Then you can reply, what a long time, obviously due to the very slow learning rate. Then ask him, how does he know the man can really run the machine—ask him about his repair and maintenance bill. You can tell him that certainly, he, personally, knows about these machines, but that is why he is sitting at the top in an administrative post. But what about these other people? How does he know that they know?

Take the junior executive who is not very effective, doesn’t get things done. His learning rate is so poor that he doesn’t understand what his employer wants done. It could be that he is very willing to do anything for him, but he never finds out what. Now let’s have a conference with this employee and see if this is the case. And sure enough, it always is the case. If you’re dealing with somebody who can’t get things done, you are for sure dealing with someone who cannot absorb data. And you just prove it by getting into communication without mentioning communication. You will talk about learning rate and learning lag. I’ve tried this out and found that you can do wonders with it in ordinary conversation.

The definition of you, as a Scientologist, in such a circumstance would be someone who decreases the learning lag of people—increases their speed of assimilation of data. This is how you could describe your job. You can talk about reaction time and the vast amount of data that the environment demands of people, etc. Take a professional football team; one of the most difficult things here is that they have to learn new plays all the time. What if they have a good player who cannot learn new plays and always uses the old ones? That is where they lose their games. Well, what do we do? We speed up the ability of learning new plays. Now you can really start to get technical. You have some agreement here, your listener has not yet begun to suspect that you can do something for him, but that will be a matter of just a short time.

Learning rate is important to the truck driver. He has to learn that there is a truck in front of him on the road before he can put his brakes on. Now, suppose it takes him a long time to learn this—he has a wreck. So people with low learning rates are accident prone. Your job as a Scientologist is to make sure that people have fast reaction time by increasing their learning rate. But do not forget that this is purely a method of obtaining agreement and introducing your subject—it is not an end in itself.

This occupies a fairly interesting section in Scientology, but its accomplishment is not effected by direct drill. This is never done. Why did it take people nine months to learn to recognize an aircraft in 1/1 25th of a second on the aircraft recognition courses? Because it was done by drill and the recognition officer very, very often was not so good at recognizing planes. But increasing learning rate by drill, etc., usually only increases familiarity and automaticity.

Learning rate governs reading time. There are many systems which speed up your reading time, but the practice of reading or the practice of acting simply increases the familiarity with what you are doing to a point where you can neglect it, and that is never the goal of a Scientologist. His goal is not to get something more automatic, his goal is to establish or re-establish power of choice over data.

A totally fixed datum is in the past. Where would a person have to go to recover it? In the past, of course. A person, to stay in present time, has to have all his data in a relatively fluid condition, so the re-establishment of the power of choice over data—to be able to accept it or reject it at will—comes first, and the whole process of increasing learning rate, which is a secondary thing, is the process of recovering power of choice over data.

All education is trying to do is fix data and all Scientology is trying to do is fix or unfix it at will. This is what a Scientologist is doing and that is the goal of the processes used, and incidentally, they are the only things that will increase learning rate and cut down learning lag and increase reaction time, etc.

But the final product in the framework of the society itself is actually coming from something else than the society believes it is coming from. Now anybody will happily let you come in and teach or process a person as much as you please about his job if they think this is the drill to increase his learning rate, and so you have freedom to process people. But what you are doing, is re-establishing his power of choice over the data he has. He always then winds up knowing more about it, and his learning rate depends upon that power of choice to fix or unfix data at will, and some processes which I will be giving you in future PABs will be aimed at doing this very precisely.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W. 1
Phone: LANgham 3601

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 APRIL 1957

GROUP AUDITlNG

Group Auditing is as effective as we can continue control over the group. As therapeutic as the control can be bettered.

Control can be of attention, person (body) and thinkingness. Should any of these break down, auditing value stops.

Attention is easiest—thinkingness is hardest.

Order of control factors available to the auditor, group or individual auditor, are:

1. 	ATTENTION
2. 	PERSON
3. 	THINKINGNESS.

Thus the group auditor has only available to him in any group which contains new or unclear people

1. 	ATTENTION
2. 	PERSON.

Thus we see at once that a significance process or any process aimed at thinkingness in a new or rugged group or one which contains any rough case must NOT BE run.

Let’s audit the WHOLE group always, not just the disciplined ones. So we must delete all thinkingness processes from group auditing—and that is quite a trick.

	Model Processes in order.

1. 	“Look at (indicated wall, etc).”

2. 	“Take your right hand and touch your head (chair, right foot, left hand, etc).”

3. 	“Feel your chair,” “Look at the front wall.” Run one command then the other one time each (alternating).

4. 	Put up two objects, right and left sides of room in view of group. “Look at object one.” “Look at object two.”

5. 	Hand mimicry mirror image from Group Auditor.

6. 	Hand each of group an object. Auditor also takes one. Then group is made to do a simple mimicked motion of his object by the auditor. Auditor repeats his motion with the object until WHOLE group has done it right.

7. 	Group standing mimicking auditor.

8. 	Verbal mimicry—beware of repeater techniques.
As each one of these could be itself a total of group auditing, the length of time it is to be run is long. You would be surprised how a group’s interest stays up. (The reason Group Auditors vary commands is they’re afraid interest will flag.)

The institution of the Assistant Group Auditor must here come into its own. Group chairs are widely spaced so the Assistant Group Auditor can walk through. Anyone not doing the command is manually guided into doing it (not verbally) by the Assistant Group Auditor.

The auditor asks only “Did he do the command?” not “Did the command have an effect upon his health?” If the former persists, the latter follows.

The use of significance in a command puts thinkingness beyond the auditor’s control. Hence “See that wall, put it there” is wrong with the “put it there”. The pc has to THINK that. The auditor cannot be sure he did and cannot enforce it easily.

All group auditing is done from tone 40.0.

NOTE: I have never written a book about group auditing. Now that we’ve found that from control proceeds communication ability, I can.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jt.rs.nm 
Copyright (©) 1957 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO LONDON BULLETIN OF 9 APRIL 1957

LIST OF “PURPOSES”
as posted on Org Board

Purpose of Organization. To disseminate Scientology. To advance and protect its membership. To hold the lines and data of Scientology clean and clear. To educate and process people toward the goal of a civilized age on Earth second to none. To Survive on all Dynamics.
L. Ron Hubbard. To develop and disseminate Scientology. To support and assist Scientologists. To write better books. To act as a court of appeals in all organizational disputes. To form and to make official policies and orders affecting the FC.
Org Secty. To execute policies and orders. To coordinate organizational activities. To care for legal and public concerns of the organization.
Mary Sue Hubbard. To carry on Scientology. To be certain the organization remains solvent.
Accounting Unit. To expedite, handle and police the financial items from the moment they enter the organizational comm lines to the moment they depart.
HCO. To be the office of LRH. To handle and expedite the comm lines of LRH. To prepare or handle the preparation of all manuscripts and other to-be-published material of Scientology. To keep, use and care for LRH’s office equipment. To assist the organizations of Scientology and their people. To set a good example of efficiency to organizations.
Advisory Council. To advise the executives of the organization as to needed changes and policies. To act as a meeting ground of department heads. To assemble and report the statistics of finance and action to the Exec Dir. To advance ideas for promotion and improvement.
Staff Mtg. To gather agreement and permit staff origination upon matters relating to personnel and duties. To report on performance of duties. To suggest promotional, maintenance and organizational changes to FC executives.
Technical Division: To insure good training and processing, good service and ARC inside and outside the organization.
Administrative Division. To insure good and accurate communication inside the organization. To handle business and administrative affairs. To insure good working quarters and conditions for and good work from organizational personnel.
Academy of Scientology: To train the best auditors in the world.
HGC. To do more for people’s health and ability than has ever before been possible and to give the best auditing possible. To help people.
PE Unit. To make a better worker of the worker, a better executive of the executive, a better Homo Sapiens on all dynamics.
Dept. of Registrar. To communicate what we have to offer to those who care to be better and to help and to respond effectively when they reply.
Secretarial Unit. To expedite the communications of the organization.
Shipping Unit. To swiftly and competently furnish the public with the materials of Scientology.
Maintenance Unit. To maintain suitable quarters, clean and in repair, for the organization.
Indoc Instructor. To give people a reality on Scientology and to teach the communication formula by Dummy Auditing.
HPA Course. To create a competent auditor with a good grasp of theory and practice of Scientology. All 5 levels of indoc.

								L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:-.mek jh							
Copyright (©) 1957	
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 110
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 April 1957

EDUCATION

Education—point of agreement.

The learning processes are all of them extremely interesting to the auditor because they bring to his attention at once that the common denominator of communication and aberration is at once “telling somebody something.” You say to somebody “hello”-you mean in essence “I am here, you are there and I recognize it.” It’s the relay of an idea. Well, now, learning itself has been, for I don’t know how long, very compartmented, it’s been very carefully grooved, so that learning as we speak of it then prior to 1956 meant what they meant in school—and that was “the inflow of ideas.”

Now when you speak to somebody out in the public about learning he thinks you’re talking about inflow of ideas, from some source or another either from a book or a teacher. That is a very narrow look, and when I talked to you about this before I was using learning in that definition—an inflow of ideas.

It is not true that learning rate or the rate one will permit ideas to inflow is the common denominator of aberration or anything else, but it looks like it. The truth of the matter is, if you only considered inflow it would be like considering the motivator without the overt act. Now you know as an auditor how important it is to look at the overt act rather than the motivator. Don’t look at these inflows all the time. If you continue to look at these inflows and nothing but these inflows you will make as many mistakes as have been made in the past umpteen thousands of years in the field of education; and let’s not make these mistakes all over again.

Education could have been defined this way: “Education is the process of placing data in the recalls of another.” Do you see that? That’s what education thought it was doing. It thought it was placing ideas in the recalls of another and making a recall possible by somebody else of data related to him. Now that’s not very complicated, and that is the trouble with it: it is not complicated enough for educators. Now we deal with simplicities and this is the first time we really find fault on the line of simplicity—it’s an idiot’s definition—and that’s the process that is being carried on at this moment at Yale, Princeton, Harvard and Columbia; down here at George Washington, at Oxford, Cambridge and the Sorbonne—any place across the world at which they consider themselves tops in education—they are placing ideas in the recall of others.

A few schools departed from this from time to time, almost by accident, and usually under duress from their student bodies. Heidelberg is an example of this. Heidelberg never considered the relay of ideas important; it considered having been to Heidelberg important, and that was quite different.

As long as we maintain this idea of “inflow only” we are in trouble. Education does not happen. If education means inflowing ideas then you are also talking about hypnotism. You see, there’s no differentiation there; we are talking about beating somebody up and laying in an engram. This too would be education, wouldn’t it? So we have education and aberration very, very closely associated.

In fact, education WAS aberration. Life was busy teaching somebody a lesson and the lesson it succeeded in teaching him was not to do any more living. And that little lesson, then, was always at the base of education and it was done so that education itself could be considered aberration. In other words educational systems did the lazy thing, they did the easy thing: they simply paralleled the game of the MEST universe in teaching somebody not to live, and living paralleled it. Why, they then thought they were doing a good job. But let’s look at education as it was done. You taught somebody something by saying “Pigs have snouts.” They’re not supposed to say “Yes,” the classroom is supposed to be quiet. Later on you put an examination in front of them and it says: “What do      have?” and they’re supposed to immediately answer and write: “     have snouts.” You’re supposed to be able to associate this completely. So it’s just a test of recall.

Now as you know, therapeutically, recalls—and by the way, if you don’t know this try it some time: just sit and ask somebody to recall something about some person and do nothing but that and notice that you get a decline of case. That’s an interesting thing. You had to use the whole of the ARC formula, something really real, some time you were in communication with, and the reverse side of it too—in other words, the entirety of the straight-wire formula, inflow and outflow—to get away with it. But if you just asked somebody to remember something about George, remember something else about George, remember something else about George—if you asked him what he was doing, he’s picking up every moment he ever saw George motionless. This erases, you see, all the rest points of George and leaves nothing but the confusions and the halfway feeling that George is there, so we sort of move George as a disembodied entity into present time and confirm the valence. Now this is quite a trick, but you just knock these rest points out and George becomes a confusion. Therefore, nothing but recall used therapeutically and educationally would wind somebody up in rather a confused state. He would be sort of half hypnotized, just nothing but recalls. So if you give people data like “Pigs have snouts” and then ask them “What      has a snout?” or “What      has a      ?” you have given them a stable datum and now you’re taking it away from them.

You might look up some time a university record as to suicide and nervous breakdown; such a record is honestly kept, I know. I did this once and I had a lot of trouble. I wanted to know how many students had committed suicide in that university and they wouldn’t own up to it, but I found out there had been quite a few and there’d been a great many nervous breakdowns, all at examination time. They spend the whole semester giving somebody some stable data and then at examination time they take that all away suddenly. In other words, simply implanting the recall and then pulling it back out again has been defined as education; but it is nothing but a black operation—nothing but. To do this to little kids is to do away with their initiative; therefore a time for revolution in the field of education is definitely at hand.

Education would have to be defined much more broadly. But remember in the old logics about action definitions. Well, you’d have to give it an action definition; it would have to be a real definition that gave its use and a purpose for it, to be of any kind of a game itself. The reason why teachers go into a no-game condition is because teaching itself is not really a game. It is putting a bunch of other people in a no-game condition, and of course that’s only part of a game. To teach a subject it would be necessary for the person being taught to be able to receive a non-significant, disrelated idea from another person. You see, that would be a necessity in order to teach somebody something.

The next condition that we would have to meet would be making certain that person could maintain his power of choice over the data given to him. So we would give him some data which were incorrect, and giving him these incorrect data we would find out if he could remember them and if he could reject them. The idea of being able to reject a datum and still remember it, to know that it’s untrue and non-factual and still be able to recall it, is of course bettered by a further action: being able to wipe it out completely or not even recall it; and that is a skill.
The next thing would be to feed him a datum, have him give objective examples and active examples of this datum so that it’s not then just a string of words, and then ascertain whether or not he could still reject it or accept it and then ask him to rephrase it, and eventually he will form something which will to him be an agreeable stable datum, and having done this we would then have accomplished power of choice over a datum. To get him to remember or repeat a non-significant datum would be the longest haul at first, and you may find people who have a terribly long haul on the subject of incorrect data. You give him an incorrect datum and he can’t reject it, but when you have made that possible you can then give him a datum, have him give objective examples of the datum, have him rephrase it, give objective examples of his datum, accept it, reject it, handle it, throw it around, and the next thing you know he has something which will buff the entirety of confusion surrounding that subject. You have created there something which is armor plate as far as he is concerned. He KNOWS a datum. Now he doesn’t KNOW it as recall; that’s the trick, you see. This is entirely different.

Now it’s hard to describe how he knows it, because there’s nothing there to describe except the datum itself, so to write long chapters on this new type of knowingness would be an impossibility—it’s something that is experienced, it easily goes on beyond the field of description.

All right, let’s take a look then at education and find out why you would do this that way—rather than to just place something in somebody’s recalls, to have him really know it as a datum. Why would you do this? Would there be any sense in this at all? Well, yes, there certainly would be. The individual would be able to USE that datum. He would be able to evaluate its importance, he would be able to handle it and handle with it many other things. In other words you have given him something for his utilization.

Now I want to tell you a little difference in the field of education itself. The stress of “teaching” in a modern school today is this: “How to occupy the child’s time.” That’s right—that’s what they teach in modern training schools. Great stress is put on this; you have a child just so long, he has to be taken out of his home for that length of time, you have to keep him occupied in school and that’s just about it, and you wonder why a child of twelve or thirteen doesn’t really know how to spell, his penmanship is poor, his reading is worse, and so on—that’s because a different thing has come into view. Now this is not the tradition of the little red schoolhouse of song and storybook through the generations. There was another tradition in this country, and I don’t know where the tradition I have just described came from, but this other tradition was the American tradition and it went like this: You had to get ‘em and put some shoes on ‘em in a hurry and teach ‘em readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmetic as fast as you could because they weren’t going to be in school very long, and the teacher who was put through normal school, so called, a hundred years ago was taught that. You have got to be fast, you never know when papa’s going to take him out and put him behind the plough. Give him some education before it happens to him. You probably will get them in the winter months when there’s not much work to do, but in the summer you’re never going to get them. Hence the summer vacation.

Of course, the child loves this idea; he doesn’t have too much sympathy with education in the most part, as it is performed; but if school really educated him I’m afraid you’d have an entirely different attitude on the part of the child. Now I have been very fortunate to know in my life quite a few real geniuses—fellows that really wrote their name fairly large in the world of literature and science—and I consider myself very fortunate to have known them because they are so rare. Why are they so rare? I found something peculiar about these fellows—they were for the most part taught in peculiar schools! They were taught in some YMCA school or they were taught by some Englishman who ran a little college for difficult children in the street; they were all taught—it seems—in some kind of off-breed school. Now this is peculiar, because the school existed to a large measure to take care of people who were slopovers from the usual educational system—there wasn’t very much education involved. The fellow would come in and he’d be interested in something and therefore they had the master give him his head. One chap by the way, who gave us solid fuel, rockets and assist take-offs for airplanes too heavily loaded on aircraft carriers, and all the rest of this rocketry panorama, and who formed Aerojet in California and so on. The late Jack Parsons, by the way, was not a chemist the way we think of chemists. He was not taught in the field of chemistry beyond this fact: There was a little professor who opened up a school. Nobody could do anything with Jack so they sent him over to this school and the professor found out he was interested in chemical experiments and turned him loose in the laboratory and gave him a lot of encouragement. He eventually became quite a man. It is interesting that this completely sloppy type of education is apparently quite workable.

Here are some LEARNING PROCESSES. Try them out and see the difference between KNOWING a datum and knowing it as a recall.

1. 	Learning Process No. 1:

	(Flatten each part thoroughly before going to next.)
(a) 	Give pc 3 numbers. Have him repeat. See if he remembered. Repeat this process.
(b) 	Give him incorrect datum. Have him repeat it. Discover if he could remember it. Discover if he could reject it. Repeat this process.
(c) 	Give him vital datum (concerning rudiments of auditing in the case of a Scientologist, for example). See if he can repeat it. See if he can rephrase it. Have him give objective examples. See if he can reject it. Repeat this process.

2. 	Learning Process No. 2:

(a) 	Discover things Auditor and pc can agree on in vicinity.
(b) 	Feed pc vital data (Scientology and rudiments, for example). Get him to give objective examples, rephrase and reject and accept.

3. 	Learning Process No. 3:

	Have pc discover unimportant data in environment.

4. 	Assigning Identity:

This is a Walkabout, inside and outside.
Commands: “Look around here and find something you could have,” “For what is it used?” (or “What is it called?”), “Could you invent another use (name) for it?”

5. 	Objective Forgettingness:

This is a Not-Know Process. It is another Walkabout.
Commands: “Look around here and find something it would be all right to forget (or not-know).”

If these five processes are flattened early in the week, note the changes, repeat, and effect further changes.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 111
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 May 1957

EYESIGHT AND GLASSES

Compiled from ACC tape material of L. Ron Hubbard

It is interesting to know that a thetan doesn’t look through his eyeballs. He has two little gold discs, one in front of each eye lens. These are not the lenses of the eyes, but, as you might say, mocked-up energy. They are little gold discs that are superimposed over the eye and he looks through these. The eyeballs merely serve to locate these discs.

An eyeball isn’t even a good camera. Some people, dissecting eyeballs to find out how people looked with them, have been totally baffled since the first time this was done because it is about the worst camera that anybody ever had anything to do with.

What the ophthalmologist doesn’t know is that the individual looks through these little discs—the ones in front of each eye—and when things begin to deteriorate, or when the anchor points of the body deteriorate, they are liable to follow suit. They become distorted one way or another.

They begin to Q-and-A with the distortions of the eye themselves—the eye reacts to light, so these little golden shields react to light. After a while the little gold shield becomes black or corrodes in some fashion which makes it very difficult to look through.

Of course, we don’t know why he is looking through them in the first place. When they do deteriorate the individual starts wearing glasses. The person thinks this is necessary. The next thing he does is to make the lenses of the glasses stronger.

He puts on a pair of glasses. This is a big shield—a big disc. This disc also goes in front of the eyeball and he knows this and he cannot see things unless he looks through one. The reason why glasses become very difficult in an auditing problem is that one is not auditing glasses.

I have audited glasses, just as an experiment, for a long time. Havingness in terms of glasses, or in terms of eyeballs, does produce some sort of change, but havingness in terms of little golden discs produces an awful alteration in terms of eyesight, sometimes faster than is comfortable.

You can take this old-time effort processing and produce a change of vision with everybody with no permanence, but a fantastic alteration of vision can occur, making somebody very uncomfortable.

Have the preclear get the effort to see, followed by the effort not to see, followed by the effort to see, one after the other. The next thing you know is that all the little muscles in the eyes will start to Q-and-A with the little golden lenses in front of the eyeballs, which are changing under all this processing, and the next thing you know is that he is seeing double, cross-eyed, or something like that.

Things will turn on with tremendous brilliance as though somebody swung a rheostat-and he will turn it down quickly because that would mean that he would be confronting too much. You should thus change his idea of what he should be able to confront. If you change that idea, he will then adjust the machinery of sight. But if you attack the machinery of sight directly, you are just forcing him to confront and you get this phenomenon of a person turning up his vision and turning it down again at once.

You get the person capable of being able to get beautiful scenes and visio in the bank and then going totally black. You get a person cleared up tonight and tomorrow morning he is a psychotic wreck. That is all under the heading of HAVINGNESS and CONFRONTINGNESS. When you remedy havingness and confrontingness, he will remedy the rest of it.

There is no reason why a thetan couldn’t stand in the middle of the room and look at everything just as clear and flat and hard as it ever was. He doesn’t need any mechanics. He certainly has to be able to be it, and have it. In other words, he has to be able to occupy the middle of something, and he has to be able to do a lot of things before he can even see something. But all of these things adjust on straight havingness.

Havingness will change vision and special perception. That is something nobody can argue with, but the whole problem of glasses is the problem of confronting.

I once had a bomb go off in my face with some authority some time or another, because I was standing in a place where I shouldn’t have been standing at all, a total miscalculation on my part. The startlement that I could miscalculate to this degree did me in. After that I couldn’t see. Finally my eyesight turned on a bit and got way up to 3120, 4/20—that in the Service is “what wall?” I was doing combat service and navigation and every other thing I was supposed to do, with that kind of eyesight, clear through until 1946. After the war was over I was still wearing black glasses. I was trying to write books, and “what piece of paper” in “what typewriter.”

My instincts are very good and I was perceptive enough and wasn’t unwilling to confront things to such a degree that I ran into doors or did embarrassing things, but I was rather upset because my marksmanship was way off. I shot too many bullets into too many forbidden directions, I guess, or something of the sort—that used to be a great hobby of mine.

So I wore glasses, contact lenses, trying to increase my vision. I found out that vision increased only when you diminutivized the subjects you were looking at. In other words, the more powerful the glasses become, the smaller they make the objects you look at appear. Think that over for a moment in terms of confrontingness and it will amuse you. Of course, the world isn’t quite as formidable if it gets that small.

A very high-powered pair of glasses reduces the size of the face you are looking at by about half. People who are wearing glasses are very often not aware of this. But if you put a new pair of glasses on somebody’s nose and put him in a car and tell him to drive, he does some of the most fantastic things. In other words, confrontingness is altered by glasses. I don’t know that sight or lines or clarity of vision is altered, but certainly confrontingness is altered by a pair of lenses.

The moment I found that out, I was vastly amused because I didn’t want things to be that small, and my eyes were simply recovering from having been torn up, which was an interesting state of affairs. I got some processing, ran out a lot of these things, and my eyes came back up and flickered all over the place—they got anywhere from 15/20 to 25/20, which means they were above normal sometimes and way below normal at other intervals. I found one day whilst reading a report that I couldn’t make out anything. The printing was all blurry and going askew. There were ghost letters riding above every line and I just couldn’t make head or tail of the report. I was thinking that I’d better use a monocle or a magnifying glass. I suddenly realized that I was reading an AMA report with a total unwillingness to confront it. I threw it aside, picked up a novel and the print was perfect.

So I can sympathize with those who wear glasses because I have been over the jumps. I have been all the way at the bottom of not even being able to find the door, to almost being able to find the door, on up to being able to find two doors.

Where is the havingness of the person located in terms of the body? A scholar has a fixed vision point at a certain distance from his eyes. He has had havingness in that point and then he hasn’t had havingness. If you make somebody “keep a book from going away” at that distance his eyesight will change all over the place. Just have him “open a book and keep it from going away,” “Now leave it uncontrolled,” “Now keep it from going away.” He gets headaches, eyeburn, his eyes practically bleed before you get through because you are restoring the havingness at the exact distance where it was fixed and lost.

You get all sorts of phenomena of this character, but it isn’t really a problem of how good are the optic nerves. Of course, you shove an icepick through a person’s eyes like the psychiatrists do—he is not going to be able to see well because he has already got “now I am not supposed to see with the thing.”

I have an awfully hard time with blind people on this “Now I am supposed to.” I can get them to see, get them to do everything. Then they suddenly realize that they were not supposed to be able to see—and they shut off their sight again, but you process some more, and so on. But any time you have a vagary in the adjustment of sight, it is a vagary in the adjustment of havingness.

There must be something there to observe. The havingness goes by quantity. Don’t get the idea that people are afraid of seeing anything. You’re figuring right along with the type of figure-figure that has never worked for anybody in any time or place. He is just afraid to look at things, so we will take him out and make him confront things. If, by some necromancy, he is able to have that thing or some part of it, then he will be able to see it and will not be afraid of it. If we can get him to confront, then his fears will change. People know this. But this other thing, that people are afraid of things, that they have irrational terrors and all that, is all pretty well resolved on just this one basis. There is something there to confront, then there isn’t anything there to confront. This is a loss of havingness. If their havingness goes down far enough, i.e. their idea of quantity falls far enough out of adjustment, they will begin to detest seeing it. They won’t quite like to see it. Now there can be too much of it or too little of it. In either case the scarcity or importance or responsibility factors alter and they get so that they cannot confront it. They are perfectly willing to listen to a radio, but are they willing to listen to a radio 24 hours a day? They finally say, “This is too much, I cannot confront it,” and they turn off their hearing in some fashion.

You can actually fool your considerations to this degree. You say, “Look at all the books I’ve got to write or read. Look at that—a tremendous number of them there.” You got one little book which is not going to last you two hours. Actually, you can have much too little to read. It is quite fascinating. The variations in confronting are a tremendous study.

Astigmatism, a distortion of image, is only an anxiety to alter the image. You get an astigmatic condition when a person is trying to work it over into a substitute, if he possibly can. Here again it is a case of not enough—he didn’t have enough.

Some men’s wives just disappear right in front of their faces. Just a black statue will be standing there. That’s visual occlusion, or the woman will disappear entirely. She will have no midriff or something like that. Only they don’t tell anybody about it, for this means, of course, that they are mad—or something wrong there with his havingness of his wife and his willingness to confront or not to confront that girl.

There is another factor that enters in. He would actually be in love with Martha but be married to Jane. So Jane gets blurry because he is trying to see Martha and he will do it on an axis. He will twist all things over.

There is another whole class of sight disabilities which are not allowed by or listed by the bulk of ophthalmologists. These people do not really go in for these things. They say these are bizarre effects and they doubt that anybody really sees them, which is a fascinating way of dodging out from presented phenomena.

A thetan with a buffer in front of him feels that he cannot receive various wavelengths and he knows there are some dangerous ones. He thinks they are dangerous to him and he has a tremendous number of considerations about this.

The considerations are utterly fabulous in quantity concerning the amount of protection one has to have, the conditions under which one can do things. This degenerates to a point where a man can only see well when he is wearing a certain pair of carpet slippers. It can get this far removed—I got this from a writer once—he could only write when he was wearing a certain pair of carpet slippers. I talked this over with him and all of a sudden discovered that he could only see when he was wearing that pair of carpet slippers. 

P.A.B. No. 112
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________
                               
15 May 1957

 

Copyright (©) 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON

HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 17 MAY 1957

cc: 	Dir of Training 
Dir of Processing 
Comm Course Instructor 
Night HCA Instructor 
Org Secretary 
HCO Board of Review 
Registrar PE Found Instructor 
Bulletin Board HCO London—for 
distribution there

DEFINITIONS

A CONSULTANT is an instructor who is on duty sporadically or from time to time but not routinely in any one place.

AN INSTRUCTOR is one who has regular classes and who is assigned to places at specific times.

A COACH is a student who is standing in the role of “pc”.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: md.rd
5-17-57

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 20 MAY 1957

INTERIM PROCESS

While auditors are learning to handle CCH this learning process is recommended.

Objective Show Me is as workable as any old-time process and is very easy to run. Therefore, all HGC preclears until further notice in Washington shall be run on Objective Show Me as follows.

Objective Show Me is first run as simple Locational and is run in this way until it is flat as simple Locational:

Commands: “Show me that (object).”

The second stage is run alternately between body and room objects. The commands are: “Show me that (object),” then “Show me your (body part),” “Show me that (object),” “Show me your (body part).”

The third stage of Objective Show Me is run similar to Opening Procedure by Duplication. Two objects such as a chair and a table near together are selected and one part of the preclear’s body such as the head, the eyes, the right hand, etc, is selected. The preclear is asked to show the auditor the table, the body part, the chair, the body part, the table, the body part, the chair, etc.

Care should be taken in running this process not to use body parts which will embarrass the preclear. The target of the process is actually the engram bank and it will be found that at great long length the preclear will come clear of facsimiles. The target of the process is not the second dynamic and in running it any specialization toward second dynamic aberration defeats the process thoroughly.

This process actually will produce a clear if it is carefully and completely run.

It is not a Tone 40 process, which means that you acknowledge the originations of the preclear.

                                       				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: md.nm
May 20, 1957

This Bulletin applies to outside preclears. CCH should be used on Staff.

Issue 47				[1957, ca. mid-May]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

The Radiation Picture
and Scientology

L. Ron Hubbard

The country has become very involved with radiation in the past year or so and as we in Scientology have achieved a much clearer understanding of this I think I owe you a rundown on Scientology and radiation.

At the outset let me assure you that our total interests in radiation at this time are two only: that radiation can create hysteria, and Scientology handles hysteria, and secondly that hysteria, because of radiation, puts people in rather poor condition and Scientology can rehabilitate them. We have no political or international interest in radiation.

As you can remember, the HASI in Phoenix, Arizona, was there at the time when a great deal of bomb testing was being done in Nevada only 250 miles away. At that time we had some vague interest in radiation, but it was more in the direction of locating any deposits of uranium which might have escaped notice. Being in possession of instruments which could measure radiation, we were quite shocked to discover that the atmosphere and the grand pianos began to count somewhat alarmingly. This was immediately after an H-bomb had been buried under nine feet of dirt and had been exploded. These radioactive dust particles swirled around the Southwest for quite a while before they separated themselves out.

We were worried. We were worried because the amount of radiation was obviously alarmingly great and I was as worried as the rest, perhaps even more so because of my responsibility for our people in the Phoenix area. I felt that we could not go on in the immediate vicinity of a great deal of testing and so I came East to give a Congress and establish offices somewhere away from that area. There were other local reasons but this radiation reason was more or less primary.

Back East we made no further tests but we continued to be impressed. We read about radiation in the public press, we read how the government was saying how it was not dangerous, and we read apparently responsible scientists on the subject saying that it was very dangerous. But because we had seen grand pianos counting like uranium mines, we were, of course, of the opinion that radiation was an extremely dangerous thing.

Without further examination of this subject and paying attention only to what was printed in the public presses, we saw no reason to change our attitude concerning radiation. But some things have happened recently which have brought about a considerable change.

I have just completed a Congress in London and was in communication with Members of Parliament through a HASI representative on the subject of radiation. It was clearly and cleanly stated by an authoritative Member of the British Government that Russia was making full use of the hysteria factors inherent in radiation in order to stop England from constructing H-bombs and to impede her defenses in other ways. He had incontrovertible proof that the hysteria campaign being conducted by Russia inside England and the United States was totally an effort to impede their national defense.

Russian campaigns you must understand are of the mental, brainwashing type. Radiation is tailor-made to their agent provocateur tactics.

When I returned to America two things became very obvious. The first of these was that only the press of Russia and the United States did not report my remarks made at the Nuclear Radiation and Health Congress at the Royal Empire Society Hall in London. Other newspapers the world around carried the remarks as headline news. These remarks were to the effect that the greatest danger of radiation was hysteria. At the Congress I said that the H-bomb was not a weapon because it was far too powerful, it would not coerce obedience but only terror. These remarks are more or less complete in a book now being published called All About Radiation, for the British market only.

Another thing that happened is that I remembered why I left the Author’s League of America some years ago. Its Board had begun to offer prizes to deify minorities and it was taking other party-line data and trying to foist it off on American writers. The Newspaper Guild, so far as I know, is not entirely clear of this influence.

The other thing I did was to take a Geiger counter and make a test of Washington. A little earlier this Geiger counter had been giving false evidence because the stick used with the counter, as will happen, evidently had some uranium stuck to it. But with the counter in good operating order and clean, it was discovered that the background count of Washington, D.C., was the same as it was in 1932 when I was going to George Washington University and studying radiation. In other words, there has apparently been no general increase of count in London or Washington because of bomb testing. I did more than this. I made a calculation of the amount of gamma and cosmic rays which fall on Earth’s surface daily and compared this to the amount of test radiation waste which would be thrown into the atmosphere yearly. The figures do not compare. The added man-made radiation will probably never add up to your luminous dial watch.

On the whole track, radiation was dangerous for the good reason that there was more radiation in those times that could be exploded. However, radiation is a half-life matter and the older the universe gets the less radiation there is available to throw at people. And a good thing, too.

While we have no doubt whatsoever of the actual dangers of a bomb dropping on a city, we are now in a position to doubt rather thoroughly the vaunted harm from test bombing which is being sold the populations of Earth, evidently by the Communist propagandists.

The U.S. population is being stampeded by Russia toward leaving the U.S. defenseless. Already this has accomplished a defective U.S. civil defense and is gaining momentum toward a public demand for no bombs. This is how Russia works. Russia works on the population imagination. Russia uses any knowledge of the mind she has to instill fear and bring about destruction. She is an unworthy purveyor of scientific information.

Russia has already succeeded rather well in this field of seizing control of the mind. There is no essential difference between dialectic materialism and Wundtian psychology. Yet, Wundtian psychology is taught in all the universities of the United States. England, being an older and more mature government than the United States Government, has already awakened to this and is taking active government steps to halt this matter of public panic. England, for instance, is not buying Wundtian psychology. England is buying Scientology in rather large amounts. But this is not yet true of the United States. That it will come about in the future is more or less a certain thing, but that it does not exist at the time is a fact. Only the better IQs of the U.S. as yet buy Scientology.

We can be assured on the score of fallout—it isn’t dangerous at this time. It does not compare to the amount of “natural radiation” with which we are being bombarded. If you went down to Florida to live you would increase your radiation count much more than it would be increased if you stayed well North and the government blew off ten thousand more test bombs. In other words, just exposure to a clearer view of the sun will give you more radiation than you could be hit with in the near future because of test bombs. It’s just a fact that there isn’t enough uranium around to actually thoroughly contaminate the atmosphere at this time. I know that this is in controversy to my own statements on the subject—which is very interesting. My own statements were made in the light of our earlier experience. We had experienced test fallout in Phoenix and I had not made further tests or calculations. In other words, I myself had been swept up in this campaign to frighten the populace half to death.

The reaction to radiation is thus entirely, completely, and wholly mental!

Dianazene depends for its reaction upon whole-track radiation incidents, and x-ray and sunburn in the current life. By taking away the engram which can react to the worry about radiation, worry about radiation is then made non-painful.

If you add all this up you will clearly see that scare talk about radiation is the source of radiation sickness in our present world. The Atom Bomb is too powerful a weapon to be used for control of human beings and is therefore not a weapon. But it does promise the population no future, and so promising, it damps out efforts toward survival. This itself can bring on sickness.

But we should not delude ourselves in thinking that actual radiation in dangerous quantities is adrift in this atmosphere at this time. It is not. All I invite you to do is to get a Scintillometer or Geiger counter and test around.

There is probably an ionospheric flash which gives a tiny sudden shock of radiation for the briefest instant of time—less than the amount you would get from a simple x-ray—and this acts as a restimulator to whole-track incidents. But it isn’t true that radiation is drifting around biting you at this time.

On the subject of strontium-90 it is interesting to note that a sufficient intake of calcium renders a person completely immuned to any effects of strontium-90. A child should be made to drink more milk and probably should have his diet fortified a little bit with calcium if anybody is truly worried about it.

This fight, then, is in the propaganda field. It is not in the field of actual science. I am extremely surprised at some of the scientists who are saying that radiation is dangerous. These men professionally should know their business and they are not expressing the true data. On the other hand, neither is the government making actual data available. The government is seeking to convince the public on the score of opinion. Opinion has no validity in science. If you want to know about radiation, why, go and look for some radiation in the atmosphere and if you cannot find more than the usual background count then you must assume that there isn’t any extra radiation in the atmosphere. I am not saying that the scientists who have been beating the drum on the dangers of radiation are Communist-inspired. I am not saying that these men are Communists. I am merely saying that they are aiding and assisting a Communist campaign.

We will not assist Commie propaganda aimed at stampeding the U.S. public into revolt against U.S. defense. The U.S. can bargain her way out of this. I am very hopeful that a general control of radiation the world around will be achieved and I am sure that if it is not achieved, national governments are dead. I am also fairly sure that there will never be such a thing as an atomic war. I have looked this over rather carefully and I personally don’t believe that national governments will last long enough at their present rate of non-survival activity.

Our cue is to make nothing out of radiation, if we mention it at all. People who are worried about radiation are worried because enough talk about it has thrown enough engrams into restimulation to make them actually quite ill. We can do something about restimulation. But we have no business aiding this public hysteria in any way. We are the people who take care of hysteria and not the people who stir it up. What we are doing is a bit bigger than one of Man’s new destructive toys.

Our campaign is to sell Scientology. If we sell it well, psychiatry and psychology will collapse. For instance, one of the most unfortunate things that psychiatry and psychology have ever engaged upon has been this mental health campaign of this spring. These people are not capable of withstanding public scrutiny. Their general activities are sufficiently harmful to their patients that if they stick their head up just a little bit further, even people in the government will be able to see that there is a swindle involved there. I expect within the next two or three years to see a complete and thorough congressional investigation of “charity rackets” and would expect to see psychiatry and psychology leading the van in those who are being investigated. Before you begin to advertise that you can do something, you should be able to do it. We ourselves are suffering from a comm lag of seven years. Not for seven years were we able to train auditors uniformly up to a level to get the maximum possible results out of Dianetics and Scientology. We, accordingly, experienced a considerable public kickback. Now we are making our promises good. It is possible for us to withstand the most minute and searching scrutiny on the subject of what we are doing and how we are doing it. The Validation Program of all Certificates which we are now entered upon is a very worthwhile step in this direction. We can today train an auditor. We can train him very very well. We have the processes which make an auditor able to audit. And this will accrue into our attaining dominance in the field of the human mind rather easily. All psychiatry and psychology need to do is to fight us a little harder, to advertise themselves a little more strongly, and the public and the government will see to it that they collapse. Furthermore, psychiatry and psychology are playing it too close to the government. And if people begin to turn away from the government because of the government’s promise to extinguish them with an H-bomb, they will also turn away from anybody who supported the government in the field of brainwashing.

We have gone a little off track here with radiation, danger of; with politics, the need to do something about; and we are not off track any more. We are in the business of Scientology. And Scientology rises considerably above the tinkerings of a few somewhat deranged scientists and the bickerings of a few misanthropic men wearing political crowns for the moment.

We have today very easily the most powerful “weapon” extant in the fourth dynamic. That weapon is Scientology. We are not using it for evil, we are using it for good. Therefore, we will win with it.

The answer to all this is to sell Scientology to individuals. Don’t try to sell it to groups. One doesn’t easily talk to a group. One should sell it to individuals and he should use the skills of Scientology to bring about a better understanding on the part of individuals of themselves and of himself.

I am not saying that the various governments might not do something dangerous with testing. I am not saying that H-bombs are good weapons. I am only saying we can survive it. I am only saying that we have one case—me—who has had 502 times the “allowed” amount and is surviving nicely, thank you, and other cases that are in like condition because of good processing. I am saying that with good, modern auditing a Scientologist can survive it—so why worry about it. As an organization and as individuals we’re going up-tone faster than others are going down. And Man faces many enemies more dangerous than Radiation.

I am giving you all this in explanation of what you will now begin to see come from the central organization and that will be Scientology—good auditors—validation of old certificates—good processing—bona fide clears—other things which we have waited to see all these years. We are making the grade now rather easily. We are doing things that we never thought were possible before. We are living up to any optimism which I ever gave out. I knew I could do it. I am afraid that I was over-confident in some other directions, but there is one thing that I have never done. I have never told you other than what I believed implicitly and completely. I have been as honest with you as I knew how to be and I have been as honest about my shortcomings as I have been about my victories. You can count on that, you know you can—for you always

I invite your cooperation in this new campaign of ours—a brand-new campaign:

To sell Scientology, Sanity and Survival to the individuals alive on Earth today. Thank you.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MAY 1957

STABLE DATA FOR INSTRUCTORS

1. 	Keep students busy at all times. Do not let them have unassigned work while at the Academy.

2. 	The Director of Training is not the Director of Processing. If after the student intensive and a week’s Comm Course a student’s case is not in condition so the student can be trained, the Director of Training or the Instructor should send the student to the Registrar and should not attempt a patch-up by another student. When the Director of Training constitutes himself the Director of Processing he not only denies the organization income but most usually continues the agony of the student and does not get training done.

3. 	Answer the student’s questions.

4. 	The stability of the Director of Training and his Instructors depends upon the apparency of their agreement with me on what should be trained and how it should be trained. When they innovate in disagreement with organized schedules they lower the appearance of stability and deprive themselves usually of the cooperation of students.

5. 	It is not the place of the Director of Training or an Instructor to defend the organization, LRH, or the past track of Dianetics and Scientology. Any new subject combating vested interests develops some randomity. Rather than defend against critical attacks by students it is much more productive to look over the student’s case with an eye to sending him to the Registrar.

6. 	The Director of Training and his Instructors are there to give service. Service is always harder to give on an individualized basis and easier to give on a wide group basis. However, we are training individuals and even though it is difficult, service must be given.

7. 	On the head of the Director of Training and his Instructors rests any future failure the student may have in processing preclears. Quality of training is to the level of Staff Auditor HGC.

IF A STUDENT CANNOT BE TRUSTED UPON GRADUATION
WITH AN HGC PRECLEAR, HE SHOULD NOT BE GRADUATED
OR CERTIFIED.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:md.rd
5-24-57

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JUNE 1957

EXPLANATION OF ABERRATIVE CHARACTER OF

RADIATION

As cosmic rays, gamma, x-rays, et al, apparently move through solids without encountering resistance, they then invalidate solids. This is a direct invalidation of the solidity of anything including a mock-up. Thus it tends to say a thing is not there—thus that a creation has not been made.

This then has been used as a means of discounting creativeness or of discounting solids. For example, any child being x-rayed has been baffled as to how “he wasn’t there” when the picture was made. The rays went straight through. This made him feel he wasn’t solid—was not real.

When a body is over x-rayed it ceases to create sexually and creates on a cellular level in a highly irresponsible way. This is cancer.

Radiation ills stem from the not-thereness of creations. Mental Image Pictures, mock-ups, are apparently vanished.

“Making things solid” remedies all such Radiation ills easily. Show Me objective and subjective does as well.

Radiation, then, is the proof that a solid thing is not solid. This is an invalidation that one has created. Thus Radiation is seen to hit at all creativeness. Its irresponsibility factor is also this—one cannot be responsible for things which are proven not to exist.

This also tells us that time began on an invalidation of solids.

In actual proof Procedure CCH, run with this understanding and Problems of Incomparable or Comparable Magnitude to Radiation, resolves Radiation.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: md.rd
6-4-57

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JUNE 1957

AUDITING A 10-YEAR OLD CHILD

Herbie Parkhouse over in London sent me the following report on his session with a 10-year old child.

“I knew her mother had been messing her up by telling her how much she was like Mama, and how weak Mama was. So I ran a Present Time Problem on Solid Terminals, then Give Me Your Hand—Thank You. The PTP was ok. GMYH produced immediate change by the girl using all the normal childish ways of trying to stop the Auditor. After about II/2 hours she went Anaten, but good, for 1 hour and then came out of it. I carried on for l/2 hour—everything seemed ok so we had lunch.

“After lunch I went back on to GMYH, but only just checked PTP (not very thoroughly). Within a very short period—10 minutes—pc was Anaten. This lasted for approximately I hour when pc rallied into present time, changed her body position to that of a ‘lady reclining in a chair’—just like Mama—and doped off. This also lasted about I hour, then pc came up to present time—then into enthusiasm which lasted well after I ended the session. After tea I gave her another I hour on GMYH with no apparent change at an enthusiasm. When I say Anaten on this case, I mean the pc was doing the process, not even mechanically most of the time, but eyes shut and doped.

“After this she felt good. I then sent her home to her father and step-mother-both of whom have had lots of auditing. They couldn’t believe the difference, especially after only six hours. The child is now in better conditon than she has ever been before.”

                                       				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH : md.nm
6-3-57

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JUNE 1957
REISSUED 12 MAY 1972

Remimeo

TRAINING AND CCH PROCESSES

(Originally issued as an HCO Training Bulletin
from Hubbard Communications Office, Washington, D.C.)

NOTE.. The variations and some of the most potent processes are not included in this Training Bulletin but will appear in the Student Manual when published in September 1957.

NUMBER: Training 0

NAME: Confronting Preclear.

COMMANDS: None.

POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart— about five feet.

PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing.

TRAINING STRESS: Have student and coach sit facing each other, neither making any conversation or effort to be interesting. Have them sit and look at each other and say and do nothing for some hours. Student must not speak, fidget, giggle or be embarrassed or anaten. Coach may speak only if student goes anaten (dope off). Student is confronting the body, thetan and bank of the preclear.

HlSTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957, to train students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be “interesting”.

NUMBER: Training 1

NAME: Dear Alice.

COMMANDS: A phrase (with the “he saids” omitted) is picked out of the book “Alice in Wonderland” and read to the coach. It is repeated until the coach is satisfied it arrived where he is.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart .

PURPOSE: To teach the student to send an intention from himself to a preclear in one unit of time without vias.

TRAINING STRESS: The command goes from the book to the student and, as his own, to the coach. It must not go from book to coach. It must sound natural, not artificial. Diction and elocution have no part in it. Loudness may have.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to teach the communication formula to new students.
NUMBER: Training 2

NAME: Acknowledgments.

COMMANDS: The coach reads lines from “Alice in Wonderland” omitting “he saids” and the student thoroughly acknowledges them. The coach repeats any line he feels was not truly acknowledged.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To teach student that an acknowledgment is a method of controlling preclear communication and that an acknowledgment is a full stop.

TRAINING STRESS: Teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so that preclear knows it was heard. Ask student from time to time what was said. Curb over and under acknowledgment. Let student do anything at first to get acknowledgments across, then even him out. Teach him that an acknowledgment is a stop, not beginning of a new cycle of communication or an encouragement to the preclear to go on.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to teach new students that an acknowledgment ends a communication cycle and a period of time, that a new command begins a new period of time.

NUMBER: Training 3

NAME: Duplicative Question.

COMMANDS: “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?” Communication bridge between.

POSITION: Student and coach seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To teach a student to duplicate without variation an auditing question, each time newly, in its own unit of time, not as a blur with other questions; and to teach him how to shift from one question to another with a communication bridge rather than an abrupt change.

TRAINING STRESS: One question and student acknowledgment of its answer in one unit of time which is then finished. To keep student from straying into variations of command. To insist on communication bridge when question is changed. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked as though it had never occurred to anyone before. To teach students that a communication bridge consists of getting three agreements—one agreement to end this question, second agreement to continue session in general and maintain ARC, third agreement to begin a new question. Teach student that preclear is part of these agreements. To teach student never to vary question or shift question or command without a bridge.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to overcome variations and sudden changes in session.

NUMBER: Training 4

NAME: Preclear Originations.

COMMANDS: The student runs “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?” on coach. Coach answers but now and then makes startling comments from a prepared list given by instructor. Student must handle originations to satisfaction of coach.

POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To teach a student not to be tongue-tied or startled or thrown off session by originations of preclear and to maintain ARC with preclear throughout an origination.

TRAINING STRESS: The student is taught to hear origination and do three things: ( I ) Understand it; (2) Acknowledge it; and (3) Return preclear to session. If the coach feels abruptness or too much time consumed or lack of comprehension, he corrects the student into better handling.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to teach auditors to stay in session when preclear dives out.

NUMBER: Training 5

NAME: Hand Mimicry.

COMMANDS: All commands are by motions of one or two hands. The auditor makes a simple hand motion, holding his hand or hands in the final position. The coach bobs his head as having received it. The coach then, mirror-wise, makes the same motion with his hand or hands. The student then acknowledges. If the motion was not correctly done by coach the student acknowledges doubtfully, then repeats the motion to the coach. If the coach does it well, student thanks coach by shaking own two hands together (prize fighter fashion). Keep motions simple. Student must always be able to duplicate own motions.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other at a short distance, coach’s knees inside student’s.

PURPOSE: To educate student that verbal commands are not entirely necessary. To make student physically telegraph an intention. To show student necessity of having preclear obey commands.

TRAINING STRESS: Accuracy of student repeating own commands. Teaching student to give preclear wins. Teaching student that an intention is different from words.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, from the principles of body mimicry developed by LRH in Camden, N.J., in 1954.

The following group of processes are usually taught in Upper Indoctrination Course:

NUMBER: Training 6

NAME: Plain 8-C.

COMMANDS: “Look at that wall.” “Walk over to that wall.” “With your right hand, touch that wall.” “Turn around.” All with acknowledgments. Not Tone 40. (Preclear is acknowledged when he originates, no physical contact.)

POSITION: Student and coach both ambulant in a room with no center obstacles. Student walks with coach who does process for student.

PURPOSE: To give preclear reality on environment, control in following directions and havingness. Not all effects fully explored.

TRAINING STRESS: Precision in repetition of commands by student and experience on a gradient scale in directing another body than own. Handling of originations. Acknowledging execution of commands by preclear. When this process develops somatics on a preclear it must be continued until flat.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Camden, 1953. Originally called “Opening Procedure of 8-C”, 8-C being a full auditing procedure aimed at negative thought. The only surviving part of this is now called 8-C and means the above process. Original intention was to place preclear within the control of the auditor so auditing could occur. Proved so successful became an end-all in itself. Nominated in Summary Research Project 1956 as responsible all by itself for approximately 50% of results achieved by auditors across the world.

NUMBER: Training 7

NAME: Hi-School Indoc.

COMMANDS: Same as 8-C but with student in physical contact with coach, student enforcing commands by manual guiding. Coach has only three valid statements to which student must listen: these are “Start” to begin process, “Flunk” to call attention to student error, and “That’s it” to end session. No other remark by coach is valid on student. Coach tries in all possible ways, verbal, covert and physical, to stop student from running 8-C on him. If the student falters, comm lags, fumbles a command or fails to get an execution on coach, coach says “Flunk” and they start at beginning of command cycle in which error occurred. Coach falling down is not allowed.

POSITION: Student and coach ambulant. Student handling coach physically.

PURPOSE: To train a student never to be stopped by a preclear. To train him to run fine 8-C in any circumstances. To teach him to handle rebellious people.

TRAINING STRESS: Stress is on accuracy of student performance and persistence by student. Start gradually to toughen up resistance to student. Don’t kill him off at once.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, 1956.

NUMBER: Training 8

NAME: Tone 40 on an Object.

COMMANDS: “Stand up.” “Thank you.” “Sit down on the table.” “Thank you.” These are the only commands used. (If student has trouble with Training 9, have him do Tone 40 on an Object with 8-C commands.)

POSITION: Student standing beside table holding ashtray which he manually makes execute the commands he gives.

PURPOSE: To make student clearly achieve Tone 40 command. To clarify intentions as different than words. To start student on road to handling objects and preclears with postulates. To obtain obedience not wholly based on spoken commands.

TRAINING STRESS: have student give orders for a while alone. Then begin to nag him to get them up to Tone 40 commands. Have student silently permeate object with command and an expectancy that it will do it. When student can “see” his intentions going in accurately, when he wonders why object doesn’t instantly obey, when he is not stumbling through energy or depending on his voice, the training process is flat. This process usually takes the most time in training of any process and time on it is well spent. Objects can be ashtrays or rag dolls.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., 1957, for the 17th ACC.

NUMBER: Training 9

NAME: Tone 40 on a Person.

COMMANDS: Same as 8-C. This is not Tone 40 8-C (CCH 12). Student runs fine, clearcut intentions and verbal orders on a coach. Coach tries to break down Tone 40 of the student. Coach commands that are valid are “Start” (to begin), “Flunk” to tell student he has erred and must return to beginning of cycle, and “That’s it” to take a break or stop session for the day. No other statement by coach in session is valid on student and is only an effort to make student come off Tone 40 or in general be stopped.

POSITION: Student and coach ambulant. Student in manual contact with coach as needed.

PURPOSE: To make student able to maintain Tone 40 under any stress of auditing.

TRAINING STRESS: The exact amount of physical effort must be used by student plus a compelling unspoken intention. No jerky struggles are allowed since each jerk is 3 stop. Student must learn to smoothly increase effort quickly to amount needed to make coach execute. Stress is on exact intention, exact strength needed, exact force necessary, exact Tone 40. Even a slight smile by student can be a flunk. Too much force can be a flunk. Too little definitely is a flunk. Anything not Tone 40 is a flunk.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., for the 17th ACC.

The following processes are taught in the Communication-Control-Havingness Course:

NUMBER: CCH 0

NAME: Rudiments, Goals and Present Time Problem.

COMMANDS: Establishing session beginning by calling attention to room, auditor and the session to begin. Discussing the preclear’s goals for the session. Auditor asks for present time problem and settles it with problems of comparable magnitude or incomparable magnitude or by Locational Processing. In general, remarks and commands enough to bring about ARC at session’s beginning but not enough to run down havingness of the preclear.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated at a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To make known the beginning of a session to a preclear and the auditor so that no error as to its beginning is made. To put the preclear into a condition to be audited.

TRAINING STRESS: To begin sessions, not just let them happen. To educate the student into the actual elements of a session and condition of preclears. To stress the inability to audit something else when present time problem is not flat. To demonstrate what happens when preclear doesn’t know session has begun or has no goals for it or what happens when present time problem only half flat when other things are engaged upon. Stress that it is done each session. Explain closure mechanism of problem with preclear, the solution of “the liability of solutions”.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Elizabeth, N.J., 1950; Goals in Wichita, Kansas in 1951; Present Time Problem, London, 1952; Rudiments, Phoenix, 1955.

NUMBER: CCH 1.

NAME: * Give Me Your Hand, Tone 40.

COMMANDS: “Give me your hand.” Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in preclear’s lap. And “Thank you” ending cycle. All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way verbally or physically. May be run on right hand, left hand, both hands, each one flattened in turn.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated, in chairs without arms, close together. Auditor’s knees both to auditor’s left of preclear’s knees, outside of auditor’s right thigh against outside of preclear’s right thigh. This position reversed for left hand. In both hands preclear’s knees are between auditor’s knees.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate to preclear that control of preclear’s body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting preclear to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over toward absolute control of his own body by preclear.

TRAINING STRESS: Never stop process until a flat place is reached. To process with good Tone 40. Auditor taught to pick up preclear’s hand by wrist with auditor’s thumb nearest auditor’s body, to have an exact and invariable place to carry preclear’s hand to before clasping, clasping hand with exactly correct pressure, replacing hand (with auditor’s left hand still holding preclear’s wrist) in preclear’s lap. Making every command(l and cycle separate. Maintaining Tone 40. Stress on intention from auditor to preclear with each command. To leave an instant for preclear to do it by own will before auditor does it. Stress Tone 40 precision. To keep epicenters balanced. CCH I (b) should also be flattened.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC, Washington, D.C., 1957.

* The name and command for CCH 1 has since been revised to, “Give me that hand.”

NUMBER: CCH2

NAME: * Tone 40 8-C.

COMMANDS: “Look at that wall.” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that wall.” “Thank you.” “With the right hand, touch that wall.” “Thank you.” “Turn around.” “Thank you.” Run without acknowledging in any way any origin by preclear, acknowledging only preclear’s execution of the command. Commands smoothly enforced physically. Tone 40, full intention.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant, auditor in physical contact with preclear as needed.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate to preclear that his body can be directly controlled and thus inviting him to control it. Finding present time. Havingness. Other effects not fully explained.

TRAINING STRESS: Absolute auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present-time auditing. Auditor turns preclear counterclockwise then steps always on preclear’s right side. Auditor’s body acts as block to forward motion when preclear turns. Auditor gives command, gives preclear a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Auditor does not check preclear from executing commands.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., 1957, for the 17th ACC.

* The name and command for CCH 2 has since been revised to, “You look at that wall.”

NUMBER: CCH 3

NAME: Book Mimicry.

COMMANDS: Auditor makes a simple or complex motion with a book. Hands book to preclear. Preclear makes motion, duplicating auditor’s mirror image-wise. Auditor asks preclear if he is satisfied that the preclear duplicated the motion. If preclear is and auditor is also fairly satisfied, auditor takes book and goes to next command. If preclear says he is and auditor fairly sure preclear isn’t, auditor takes back book and repeats command and gives book to preclear again for another try. If preclear is not sure he duplicated any command auditor repeats it for him and gives him back the book. Tone 40 only in motions. Verbal two-way quite free.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To bring up preclear’s communication with control and duplication. (Control + duplication = communication.)

TRAINING STRESS: Stress giving preclear wins. Stress auditor’s necessity to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard for the 16th ACC in Washington, D.C., 1957. Based on duplication developed by LRH in London, 1952.

NUMBER: CCH 4

NAME: Hand Space Mimicry.

COMMANDS: Auditor raises two hands, palms facing preclear’s and says, “Put your hands against mine, follow them and contribute to their motion.” He then makes a simple motion with right hand, then left. “Did you contribute to the motion?” “Good.” “Put your hands in your lap.” When this is flat the auditor does this same thing with a half inch of space between his and preclear’s palms. When this is flat auditor does it with a wider space and so on until preclear is able to follow motions a yard away.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated, close together facing each other, preclear’s knees between auditor’s.

PURPOSE: To develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid comm line). To get preclear into comm by control + duplication.

TRAINING STRESS: That auditor be gentle and accurate in his motions, giving preclear wins. To be free in two-way comm.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, 1956, as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant “Look at me. Who am l?” and “Find the Auditor” part of rudiments.

NUMBER: Training 10

NAME: Locational Processing.

COMMANDS: “You notice that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” Auditor enforces command when needed by turning preclear’s head toward object. Run inside an auditing room or outside. Auditor indicates obvious objects, naming them and pointing to them.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated side by side or facing each other or seated or walking outside.

PURPOSE: To control attention. Since attention is being controlled by facsimiles, an unknown control, supplanting with a known control brings preclear up to present time. See also Pre-Logics. A highly therapeutic process. Can be substituted for Present Time Problem to some degree in cases that cannot run a Present Time Problem as a process.

TRAINING STRESS: That coach (or preclear) always looks in direction of object.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Elizabeth, N.J., in June 1950, to bring preclears into auditing room after they had been “brought up to present time”.

NUMBER: CCH 5

NAME: Location by Contact.

COMMANDS: “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear may be seated where the preclear is very unable, in which case they are seated at a table which has a number of objects scattered on its surface. Or auditor and preclear may be ambulant, with the auditor in manual contact with the preclear as is necessary to face him toward and guide him to the indicated object.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the process is to give the preclear orientation and havingness and to improve his perception.

TRAINING STRESS: Training stress is upon gentleness, ARC and the raising of the preclear’s certainty that he has touched the indicated object. It should be noticed that this can be run on blind people.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard from Locational Processing in 1957.

NUMBER: CCH 6

NAME: Body-Room Contact.

COMMANDS: “Touch your (body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated room object).” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear move about together as needed, the auditor enforcing the commands by manual contact using the preclear’s hands to touch objects and touch body parts.

PURPOSE: To establish the orientation and increase the havingness of the preclear and to give him in particular a reality on his own body.

TRAINING STRESS: Training Stress is upon using only those body parts which are not embarrassing to the preclear as it will be found that the preclear ordinarily has very little reality on various parts of his body. Impossible commands should not be given to the preclear in any case.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1957 in Washington, D.C., as a lower step than Body-Room Show Me.

NUMBER: CCH 7

NAME: Contact by Duplication.

COMMANDS: “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (same body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (same body part).” “Thank you,” etc., in that order.

POSITION: Auditor may be seated. Preclear should be walking. Usually auditor standing by to manually enforce the commands.

PURPOSE: Process is used to heighten perception, orient the preclear and raise the preclear’s havingness. Control of attention as in all these “contact” processes naturally takes the attention units out of the bank which itself has been controlling the preclear’s attention.

TRAINING STRESS: Training stress is on precision of command and motion, with each command in its unit of time, all commands perfectly duplicated. Preclear to continue to run process even though he dopes off. Good ARC with the preclear, not picking one body part which is aberrated at first but flattening some non-aberrated body part before aberrated body part is tackled.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1957 in Washington, D.C., as a lower level process than Opening Procedure by Duplication, or Show Me by Duplication. All contact processes have been developed out of the Pre-Logics.

NUMBER: CCH 8

NAME: Trio.

COMMANDS: “Look around the room (environment) and tell me something you could have.” Run until flat. “Look around the room and tell me something the body (body part) can’t have.” Valence form: “Look around the room and tell me something mother (or other valence) can’t have.” Long form: “Look around the room and tell me what you could have.” Run flat. “Look around the room and tell me something you would permit to remain.” Run flat. “Look around the room and tell me what you could dispense with.” Dispense in long form is sometimes run first when preclear is set on wasting.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated at a comfortable distance both facing toward majority of the room.

PURPOSE: To remedy havingness objectively.

TRAINING STRESS: Run it smoothly without invalidative questions. One of the most effective processes known when thinkingness can be controlled somewhat. Run when havingness drops or for a full intensive.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in 1955. Name derived from the three questions of the long form. Originally called the “Terrible Trio”.

NUMBER: CCH 9

NAME: Tone 40 “Keep it from going away.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Keep it from going away.” “Thank you.” “Did you keep it from going away?” “Thank you,” and so forth.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant. Auditor assisting by manual contact.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the process is to increase havingness of the preclear and bring about his ability to keep things from going away, which ability lost, accounts for the possession of psychosomatic illnesses.

TRAINING STRESS: The training stress is on precision and accuracy and finding out that this is actually Tone 40 8-C with a thinkingness addition. This is the first step on to the route of making things solid.

HlSTORY: Developed in 1956 in London, England, by L. Ron Hubbard.
NUMBER: CCH 10

NAME: Tone 40 “Hold it still.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Hold it still.” “Thank you.” “Did you hold it still’?” “Thank you,” etc., in that order.

PURPOSE: To improve an individual’s ability to make things more solid and to assert his ability to control his environment.

TRAINING STRESS: Same as CCH 9.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, England, in 1956.

NUMBER: CCH 11

NAME: Tone 40 “Make it a little more solid.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” “Did you make it a little more solid’?” ‘‘Thank you,” etc., in that order.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant.

PURPOSE: To assert control over the preclear and increase the preclear’s havingness. To increase the preclear’s reality on the Pre-Logics. To reverse the flow of solids.

TRAINING STRESS: Complete precision of performance, a stress 011 all the CCH 9, CCH 10 and CCH 11, that they include a control of thinkingness of the preclear and therefore should not be run with a tremendous amount of auditor trust of the preclear and should not be run until the lower levels of CCH are to some degree flat as they will give the preclear losses.

HISTORY: Developed in 1956 in London, England, by L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: Training 11

NAME: ARC Straight Wire.

COMMANDS: “Recall something that was really real to you.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you were in good communication with someone.”’ “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you really liked someone.” “Thank you.” The three commands are given in that order and repeated in that order consistently.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance.

PURPOSE: To give the student reality on the existence of a bank. This is audited on another and is audited until the other student is in present time. It will be found that the process discloses the cycling action of the preclear going deeper and deeper into the past and then more and more shallowly into the past until he is recalling something again close to present time. This cyclic action should be studied and understood and the reality on the pictures the preclear gets should be thoroughly understood by the student. The fact that another has pictures should be totally real to the student under training.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1951 in Wichita, Kansas. This was once a very important process. It has been known to bring people from a neurotic to a sane level after only a short period of application. It has been run on a group basis with success but it should be noted that the thinkingness of the individuals in the group would have to be well under the control of the auditor in order to have this process broadly beneficial. When it was discovered that this process occasionally reduced people’s havingness, the process itself was not generally run thereafter. It is still, however, an excellent process with that proviso, a reduction of havingness in some cases.

NUMBER: CCH 12

NAME: Limited Subjective Havingness.

COMMANDS: “What can you mock up?” “O.K. (to preclear’s answer).” “Mock up (what preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Shove it in to yourself.” “O.K.” When this is relatively flat, “Mock up (whatever preclear said he could).” “O.K.” “Let it remain where it is.” “O.K.” When this is relatively flat enter on the third part. “Mock up (whatever the preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Throw it away.” “O.K.” If the preclear cannot throw the object away at once, have him duplicate it many times and move one of them slightly further away from him until he has at last thrown one away. If the preclear cannot mock anything up, remedy his havingness with blackness. If the preclear’s “field” is invisibility, have him put glass objects of many sorts and sizes on a table and one after the other “keep them from going away”. If mock-up disappears have preclear keep on trying at it because he will eventually be able to get it back.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other.

PURPOSE: To Remedy the Havingness of the preclear’s bank.

TRAINING STRESS: Not to give the preclear any losses. He must successfully complete each step and the auditor must do things on a gradient scale until the preclear has successfully completed each command given.

HISTORY: These and other creative processes were developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in the fall of 1952.

NUMBER: CCH 13

NAME: Subjective Solids.

COMMANDS: “What can you mock up?” “O.K. (to preclear’s answer).” (This is asked once every time one changes the type of mock-up.) “Mock up (whatever the preclear said).” “O.K.” “Now make it a little more solid.” “O.K.” “Did you do that?” “Thank you.” Various objects are mocked up and made a little more solid. The preclear can be told to do what he pleases with these. This is not a Tone 40 process.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated.

PURPOSE: To make it possible for the preclear to mock up subjective objects and make them a little more solid, preparatory to running “Then and Now Solids”.

TRAINING STRESS: On knowing what the preclear is doing, how he is doing it, where he is putting the mock-ups, so that the preclear is certainly policed and is certainly doing the process. If the preclear neglects to do the process, even though he receives the command and nods his assent, he is, of course, going out of control of the auditor.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1956 in London.

NUMBER: CCH 14
NAME: Then and Now Solids.

COMMANDS: “Get a picture—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” “Look at that (auditor indicates object)—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” These commands are given with a tiny pause between the first and second phrase as it will be found that the glance of the preclear at the object tends to give him the impression that he has already made it a little more solid before the auditor gives the command if this auditing command is broken into two commands.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To straighten out the time track of the preclear. To clear up his bank. To disclose his life computation. To show up the whole track. To give preclear practice in handling time. To get rid of unwanted facsimiles. And in general to handle in its totality the reactive mind.

TRAINING STRESS: On leading up with gradients toward any failure that the preclear may have in making something a little more solid. In keeping the auditor from chasing all over the bank every time the preclear has a second picture show up or a third or a fourth or a fifth on the same command. The auditor wants one picture and wants one thing or the picture itself to be made a little more solid. We do not do two or three pictures and then a room object. The preclear can get easily lost on the track unless this is obeyed. Furthermore, it will be noted that the preclear goes out of present time further and further and then less and less and then further and further and then less and less and this cycle of further into the past and then less into the past finally winds up with bringing the preclear wholly into present time.

HISTORY: Developed from Over and Under Solids, which was developed by L. Ron Hubbard in late 1955 and improved by him in 1956. The process more or less completes the work begun on the reactive mind in 1947. It will be noted that many earlier processes and effects are woven into Then and Now Solids.

NUMBER: Training 12

NAME: Think a Thought.

COMMANDS: “Think a thought.” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To give the student some reality on the thinkingness of other people and demonstrate that the control of thinkingness is possible.

TRAINING STRESS: Should be on the fact that after the control of the body has been asserted and control of attention flattened, control of thinkingness can take place. There is really nothing wrong with the preclear except that he cannot control his thinkingness, thus he cannot change considerations at will because he is stopped by the bank. This is the most permissive of such processes since the preclear cannot really help to think a thought and we do not much care whether he thought it or the bank thought it.

HISTORY: Developed in 1955 in Phoenix, Arizona, by L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: CCH 15

NAME: Rising Scale Processing.

COMMANDS: The Chart of Attitudes is employed, the top and bottom buttons of which are: DEAD-SURVIVE, NOBODY-EVERYBODY, DISTRUST-FAITH, LOSE-WIN, WRONG-RIGHT, NEVER-ALWAYS, I KNOW NOT-I KNOW, STOP-CHANGE-START, NO RESPONSIBILITY-FULLY RESPONSIBLE, STOPPED-CAUSES MOTION, FULL EFFECT-CAUSE, IDENTIFICATION-DIFFERENTIATION, OWNS NOTHING-OWNS ALL, HALLUCINATION-TRUTH, I AM NOT-I AM, NO-GAME-UNLIMITED GAMES. The auditing commands in this process are “Get the idea of (bottom button).” “Do you have that idea?” “All right.” “Now change that idea as nearly as you can to (top button).” “O.K.” “How close did you come?” “Thank you.” This is run many times on the one set of buttons until the preclear has a certainty that he can maintain the upper scale idea.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To give the preclear drills in changing his mind and to demonstrate that he can maintain higher levels of certainty and that he can alter his considerations. And incidentally to probably change his glandular structure to the better until they have a better performance which is of no great importance to the process and has little to do with Scientology.

TRAINING STRESS: The training stress is on maintaining ARC with the preclear, yet being definite about what idea the preclear is supposed to get. The prerequisites demand that the thinkingness of the preclear be to some degree under the control of the auditor. The auditor must not be impatient with the preclear, but let the preclear try again and again to get these two ideas, one a low-scale idea and change that idea into an upper-scale idea. The preclear must be in fairly good condition with regard to havingness or the process can fail.

HISTORY: This process was developed in the fall of 1951 by L. Ron Hubbard in Wichita, Kansas, and is taken from Scientology 8-8008 as published in England and as given in The Creation of Human Ability, page 129, as R2—51. This is probably the oldest purely Scientology process in existence. It was not entirely workable in the past because it was not understood that the body has to be brought under the auditor’s control and that the attention has to be brought under the auditor’s control before the thinkingness of the preclear can be brought under the auditor’s control. The process, however, run on preclears who were not in too bad condition, has been continually successful both in changing their physical beingness and abilities, the latter being in the sphere of interest of Scientology. The first preclear on which this and Opening Procedure by Duplication were run was Mary Sue Hubbard.

NUMBER: GP I

NAME: Bank Processes (Engrams, Secondaries, Locks, Perceptics and Whole Track).

NUMBER: GP 2

NAME: Subjective Havingness in Full, Repair and Remedy of Havingness, Avalanches, Black and White, Flows.

NUMBER: GP 3

NAME: Connectedness, Association, Identification, A = A = A = A.

NUMBER: GP 4

NAME: Time Processes.

NUMBER: GP 5

NAME: Creative Processes.

NUMBER: GP6
NAME: Full Rising Scale Processes.

NUMBER: GP7

NAME: Not-Know Processes, Waterloo Station, Something you wouldn’t mind Forgetting.

NUMBER: GP8

NAME: Think a Thought, Future Mock-ups.

NUMBER: GP9

NAME: CDEI, Problems, Find Something that is Not Thinking.

NUMBER: GP10

NAME: Thought Placement, Invent a Lie, Assign an Intention, Place a Command.

NUMBER: GP11

NAME: Exteriorization, Pre-Logics, Keep Head from Going Away, Try not to Exteriorize.

NUMBER: GP12

NAME: Route 1.

NUMBER: GP13

NAME: Anchor Points, Structure of Body.

NUMBER: GP14

NAME: Body Lifting.

NUMBER: GP15

NAME: World Reality, Get the Idea that (object) is Thinking about Itself, Perception of Environment, Reality Scale Processes.

NUMBER: Training13

NAME: Fishing a Cognition.

COMMANDS: This is a general ARC, answering the preclear’s origin process. When the preclear experiences a somatic, when he sighs, when he gives a reaction to a Tone 40 process, the auditor repeats the process two or three more times (random number) and then pausing the process asks the preclear, “How are you doing now?” or “What is going on?” and finds out what happened to the preclear just as though the auditor has not noticed that the preclear had a reaction. The auditor does not point out the reaction but merely wants a discussion in general. During this discussion he brings the preclear up to at least a cognition that the preclear has had a somatic or a reaction and then merely continues the process without further bridge. This is done randomly. It is not always done every time the preclear experiences a reaction.

POSITION: Whatever position the preclear and auditor are in as directed by the process they are running. But usually with the auditor touching the preclear. For example, in “Give Me Your Hand” the auditor continues to hold the preclear’s hand after he has said “Thank you” and asks the preclear how he is doing.

TRAINING STRESS: Is that the fishing of a cognition is an art and it cannot be taught by general command, that the auditor must not as-is the preclear’s havingness by asking him, “How are you feeling now?”, that the preclear must not be placed in possession of the knowledge that he can stop the auditor from auditing by having a reaction or experiencing a reaction to the processing, otherwise he will begin to experience them simply to stop the auditor. Thus the use of Training 13 is not routine and regular but is random. It should be stressed that this can be used while running any and all Tone 40 processes. It should be stressed that the Tone 40 is run as itself and that fishing a cognition is run into the process between cycles of command and acknowledgment and command and acknowledgment. After a thorough acknowledgment one can fish for a cognition thus pausing momentarily in the process, get things straightened out, maintain ARC with the preclear and then go on with the Tone 40 process. One does not enter fishing a cognition between the command and the acknowledgment. One never reacts to what the preclear is doing the instant that the preclear does it, otherwise one educates the preclear to stop one. Training stress here is that a Tone 40 process is not run on an automaton basis.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1957 while developing CCH on the following notes from LRH’s notebook: “I use processes to restimulate thought or action and when this happens I fish out a cognition and either continue the process or bridge to the next process.” It was developed basically to keep auditors in communication with the preclear since Tone 40 processes give some auditors, when they are studying them, the idea that they are supposed to go out of communication with the preclear.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD
                                        				Founder

LRH: ne.rd 
Copyright © 1957, 1972 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 JUNE 1957
ALL STAFF—
Washington and London

PEOPLE’S QUESTIONS

A Congress MUST

An Organization MUST

Answer people’s questions.

This is the primary public complaint—that Scientologists in the Organization or out won’t answer directly questions asked about this or that.

Understand it, answer it, make friends.

                                        				Best,

LRH:md.jh						L. RON HUBBARD

[Some copies of the above HCO B were dated 16 June 1957.]

P.A.B. No. 115
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 July 1957

THE REHABILITATION OF ABILITIES

In this PAB I want to discuss a question which many field auditors have confronted me with—i.e. that of increasing the preclear’s willingness in practicing a musical instrument, or to keep writing, or just to regain a lost ability.

If you take an individual and make him play a musical instrument (as parents and schools do), his ability to play that instrument will not improve. We would first have to consult with him as to what his ambitions are. He would eventually at least have to agree with the fact that it is a good thing to play an instrument.

Once in a while we find a bad boy. He cannot be put in school and has to be sent to a military school. They are going to force him in order to change him. Occasionally this bad boy is sent to a school which simply thinks the best way to handle such cases is to find something in which he is interested and to allow him to do it. Such a school once existed in California and consecutively produced geniuses. The roster of World War II’s scientists practically marched from that particular school. They figured that it must have been the example set by the professor, his purity in not smoking cigars or something like that.

What actually happened was this. They took a boy with whom nobody got any results and said, “Isn’t there anything you would like to do?” The boy said “No,” and they answered, “Well, fuss around in the lab or grounds or something and someday you may make up your mind.” The boy thought this over and decided that he wanted to be a chemist. Nobody ever sent him to a class and told him to crack a book, and nobody ever complained very much when he blew up something in the laboratory, and the next thing you knew the boy was an excellent chemist. Nobody interrupted his desire to be a chemist. It existed then, and from that point on he was not himself interrupting his willingness to be a chemist. Educationally this is a very interesting point.

Supposing we had only a few minutes as a coach on a football team and we wanted to pick out the number of men who were going to be the first squad and quickly put them in good shape so that they could win a special game; we would only have to ask this question: “Now I want any one of you people whose desire to be a football player stems from the age of ten to step forward.” Maybe half of the squad would step forward. Here would be your first team.

What about the little runt that has only been the water boy? He is the best quarterback in the world because he wanted to be a football player. But the man who was merely qualified and who thought it was a good way to get through school, get a scholarship, some coaching or make a couple of dollars, or perhaps only really wanted lots of women because he knew that women gyrated around football players, will utterly pulverize the team because he is an unsupportable person. He is doing this on a via, and he isn’t really willing to be a member of a football team. His willingness is missing.

Now let’s have this ordinary team play against a team of all-stars and they will make the all-stars look like a bunch of punks. It is too simple a method of selection for anybody ever to have used.

You could by a series of almost straightwire questions ask a fellow who has difficulty in playing a trumpet, “Can you recall a time when somebody told you it was a bad thing to play a trumpet?” This limited process might stand up for two or three questions and you might be able to key out the lock he has against being a person who plays a trumpet and his ability to play a trumpet goes up. Then somebody else walks up to him and tells him something about how bad it is to be a trumpeter and he goes right back to where he was. It is not a permanent improvement at all.

It is possible that a person who was very good on the piano in his last life is born into a family who didn’t have a piano. Why? Because he cannot confront one. There isn’t one now because he cannot have one. Now he starts to learn something about this and he goes along fine until he thinks that he ought to have an upright piano to practice on. This has been restimulated a little and his parents say to him, “Oh, I don’t know. That’s much too expensive. You’ll have to pick something else.” Somebody has raised an objection to it.

Well, his willingness at that time is exerted in the direction of trying to be a part of this new team called the family and this is being subordinate, and so is his idea of playing the piano. He doesn’t force the matter but that confirms to him the scarcity of pianos. He is liable from then on not to be able to play a note or even learn how to read music. He is just as liable to be stopped again.

The willingness to write is systematically killed in American universities. I have lectured on writing to Harvard university students many times, and they have asked me how one develops style. Personally, as far as style was concerned, all one had to do was express what he wanted to say and that was style. It is no more complicated than this and sometimes, just for gags, why, write in the valence of Shakespeare or other literary figure. I have said to these students, “Style—well, I can tell you how you would find out whether you had a style or not, or how to develop one. Just sit down and write a hundred thousand words.”

The class fainted. One hundred thousand words. Nobody could write one hundred thousand words. From there on out that killed it. What was this all about? We obviously had a class of writers that had been carefully trained to be very good in every line they wrote. That isn’t how you write at all. You write! That is all you do, write for lots of people about lots of things. These students were looking for some magic sesame and the professor there is carefully monitoring them of quality, quality, quality, correcting their ideas, punctuation marks, their schematics and so on, correct, correct, correct, chop, chop, chop, for there isn’t going to be a writer in this class, you dogs. The final result of this is a complete unwillingness to write.

It is true that a person can be quantitatively coaxed into doing something that he apparently couldn’t do before. But it is only when you carelessly or accidentally tripped over this having, confronting, contribute to, mechanism. Writing lies in the band of “contribute to.” If you have to write in order to have, you rather suffer for it because an art is almost totally in Create, Contribute To, and it goes between those two lines. And when those are fallen away from, you get fouled up.

If a person keeps writing or talking pointlessly, like making out government forms to be sent to the State Department or Internal Revenue, you know nobody is ever going to read any part of them. And you could make these forever and your willingness to do so would go by the boards eventually because there is no communication formula involved. There is no havingness, no confrontingness, no contributing-to-ness. People get so bad about this that they cannot fill out reports. The Revenue down here deprives itself of billions of dollars of revenue every year, not because people are unwilling to pay their income tax, but because they are no longer capable of confronting a form. Then after that the effort is not to fill out the form.

People will permit you to take things away from them if you do it gracefully and don’t upset their willingness too much. The way you make a greedy or a selfish child is to make him, against his will, give up things to other children. You will eventually drive him into the only-one category. Parents usually never consult the child’s willingness. They consult his havingness, handle it and they have a spoilt child.

It is interesting to watch a child that has been around somebody who always consulted him but didn’t take very good care of him as opposed to a child who had the best of care but who never was consulted.

A little boy is sitting on the floor playing with blocks and balls and is having a good time. Along comes the nurse and picks him up and takes him into the other room and changes his diapers and he screams bloody murder the whole way. He doesn’t like it. She keeps on doing this to him, placing him around, never consulting his power of choice and he will eventually grow up obsessed with the power of choice. He has to have his way. He becomes very didactic. He is trying to hold down the last rungs of it, and his ability will be correspondingly poor, particularly in the handling of people.

Now this is quite different. You know the child is hungry or this or that, and you know he ought to eat. The child will eat if he is kept on some sort of routine. Supper IS at 6:00 and he will get used to eating at 6:00, the willingness never quite overwhelmed him. He finds out the food is there at 6:00 and so he makes up his mind to eat at 6:00. You provide the havingness and he provides the willingness. If you don’t override that he will never have any trouble about food.

Then somebody comes along and talks to him and says, “Hey, wouldn’t you like to go into the other room and change your clothes?” and the answer is “No.” I am afraid that you are making a horrible mistake if you proceed from that point on the basis of “Well, I’ll give you a piece of candy,” persuade, seduce, coax, etc. That is psychology, the way psychologists handle situations, and it doesn’t really work.

You take one of two courses. Either you run expert 8-C with lots of two-way communication and so on, or you just let him grow. There is no other choice. Kids don’t like to be mauled and pulled around and not consulted. You can talk to a child and if your ARC is good with him, you can make him do all sorts of things. He will touch the floor, his head, point you out and find the table. He will fool around for a while and after that you can just say do so and so and “Let’s go and eat” and he will do it. He has found out that your commands are not necessarily going to override the totality of his willingness. So your commands are therefore not dangerous. You have confronted him and he can confront you. Therefore you and he can do something.

Suzie always gets a kick out of this because I am always having my children bring me slippers, and caps and other things and they sometimes bring me some of the most outrageous errors and I always thank them very much, take it, and as a brand-new thought say, “Go and put these in the closet now,” and they do, very happy about it. They never get the idea it is wrong just because they have made a mistake. It is quite amazing because when I say to one of them, “Well, how about going to bed, huh?” the answer is “Okay.”

A child sometimes says “I want to stay up with you” and they insist on doing so, exerting their power of choice. Just letting a child do what he is doing and not interfering with him and not running any 8-C on him is psychology. You might as well shoot a child as to let his circuits run away with him. They are never going to be in communication with anybody; they won’t grow or get experience in life for they didn’t change their havingness. They didn’t have to change their mind, work, exercise or do anything. But they respond very readily to good 8-C and communication, but it certainly takes good communication to override this—not persuasion but good communication.

People think that persuasion works with children. It doesn’t. It’s communication that does the trick. You say, “Well, it’s time for you to go to bed now,” and he says, “No.” Don’t stay on the subject. Leave it alone and just talk about something else, “What did you do today?” “Where?” “How?” “Oh, did you? Is that a fact?” “Well, how about going to bed?” and the answer will be “Okay.”

One doesn’t have to use force. Go into communication with the child, and control follows this as an inevitability. Omit control from the beginning when bringing up a child and he who looks to you for a lot of his direction and control is gypped. He thinks you don’t care about him.

However, as in the case with the playing of musical instruments, learning of languages or the arts and abilities, consult the preclear’s or child’s willingness.

To restore an ability run this technique from SLP 8:

Rehabilitation of abilities. For any ability the preclear always wanted to have, lost and couldn’t do. For example, for the speaking of Arabic: “Mock up (Arabic objects).” “Keep it from going away.” Then, “Mock up (Arab men, women, children).” “Stop (him, her) from talking.” “Start (him, her) talking.”

Should it be a particular musical instrument the preclear wants to play, have him mock up the instrument, make it solid, keep it from going away, stop and start it playing, and this will rehabilitate his ability—if Procedure CCH has been run before.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 JULY 1957

ADDITION TO THE AUDITOR’S CODE

17. Never use Scientology to obtain personal and unusual favors or unusual compliance from the preclear for the auditor’s own personal profit.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

5707C15 18ACC-1 What is Scientology

Scientology is aimed at a total know.  Since no other “know” is total, it  is hard to describe scientology, since there is no other datum of comparable  magnitude.  Only one other organization of knowledge on earth has had a  similar goal: Buddhism.  It squirreled when it went into Tibet as Lamaism.  But there was no faith in Buddhism.  It was analytical.  The best refuge to  take, when asked what scientology is, would be a refuge into  incomprehensibility, by saying that it is epistemology.  Buddhism and  scientology both try to select out the importance’s of life and fill Man’s void  of knowledge with accurate observation.  Buddha could be called the first  scientist.  “Authority has nothing to do with knowledge.  Those things I tell  you are true, are not true because I tell you they are true.  And if anything  I tell you, or have ever told you, is discovered to differ from the individual  observation, be it a good observation, then it isn’t true.”

We have certain positive procedures.  As valuable as they are, if they  incline us to lock at them, not at what they help us to look at; if they lead  us to believe that they are a thing, not a means to doing another thing, we  will be in the same blind condition as present-day religions and social  sciences, and we will have to rediscover our blindness on the way up.  Wherever we develop an area of special knowledge, such as TR’s and processes,  we must understand that they are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.  Someone who forgot what TR’s were could, in theory, do them all beautifully  but be unable to use them in session, because he had forgotten what they were  for: to create the proper communication atmosphere for the session.

There is an enormous wonderland below blindness.  This keeps people from  seeing their blindness.  Using Alice in Wonderland in TR’s is a joke based on  this imagined knowledge.  The wonderland is the dispersal that results from  the individual’s reaction to being kicked in the teeth when he looks at  something.  He won’t look again.  Eventually he decides not to look at  anything.  But if he catches sight of something, he will go on a via and look  at something else instead.  This is how the wonderland of the social sciences  was created.  Someone couldn’t confront Man, so he turned around and created a  myth about Man.  He must have been blind never to have noticed exteriorization  or to have recorded the existence of the phenomenon somewhere.  A thetan has  the ability to create form, to create universes.  When the ability dims out,  when he is not doing it very intelligently, he begins to see things in the  universe that he doesn’t want to look at.  Then he disperses and combines his  ability to create and to not-is.  The universe he then builds is below the  level of the universe he is in.  You have to bring him up North for him to  discover that he is in a trap.

P.A.B. No. 116
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 July 1957

SOLIDS AND CHRONIC SOMATICS

I am giving you in this PAB my latest findings in the handling of chronic somatics. However, I would like to point out that before this technique can be run on a given preclear, you must have him thoroughly under control—i.e. the person, his attention and thoughts. It is a way of running Problems of Comparable Magnitude to a chronic somatic.

Not all people can do this immediately if they cannot make things solid. It may even be very dangerous to run, but it does handle the chronic somatic, providing you have already run the preclear on CCH (Communication, Control, Havingness). When you have done this you can come back again, substituting this process for Problems of Comparable Magnitude to the chronic somatic.

The preclear must be able to make things solid. He has got to have his attention under your control and have his body under control. He must also be able to make things solid objectively (i.e. “Look at the wall and make it a little more solid”) and subjectively (i.e. having the preclear make “the mock-ups a little more solid”), which is to say that you would have to take the preclear through Procedure CCH before this would work, but on the next time through you could kill his chronic somatic deader than a mackerel. You would simply omit running Problem of Comparable Magnitude to the chronic somatic and run the intensive in this manner:

1. 	Present time problem.

2. 	Control in all its facets.

3. 	8-C: “Keep it from going away.”

4. 	8-C: “Hold it still.”

5. 	8-C: “Make it a little more solid.”

6. 	Subjective Havingness: “Make the mock-ups a little more solid.”

7. 	Then and Now Solids.

Then go right back to wondering if he had any problems about auditing, which is now the present time problem—if people are very low on havingness the auditing always becomes a present time problem. Go up again into control and make sure that you have the preclear thoroughly under control. Run through the 7 steps again. Only then would it be safe to run this technique.
This process joins up a phenomenon which has been around for years and which was never known to be turned on at will. This phenomenon is: “He knew about it all the time.”

All auditors know this phenomenon. The preclear has sinusitis—it is from Johnny punching him in the nose when he was five—and he says: “Yes, but I knew it all the time.” Well, he never knew it all the time, because he had sinusitis. It is only after he realizes that he knew it all the time that he gets well. That is the recovery of the game which underlies the game he has been playing. That is the hidden game.

The most disturbing thing in the world is to have a preclear that you have been working on cognite. He says, “Well, yes, my mother was actually a prostitute.” He never realized that before. And you say, “What do you know about that!” and he says, “I knew it all the time.” He knew it all the time, but he couldn’t identify what it was that he knew all the time.

When we talk about cognitions, we are actually looking for the master cognition, which is “I knew it all the time.” Only he didn’t know it all the time; in other words, he recovered the hidden game. It is the other game that we have suddenly got sight of. Football made him sick, but all of a sudden we spotted Lacrosse, or vice versa. He knew all the time that it was Lacrosse that made him this sick, or football that made him this sick. He knew it all the time, but only now is he well.

How do we trigger this at will?

The postulate of change is “ought to be—should be.” Limited, just as change is on any other level, but awfully effective.

The postulate which underlies havingness is “enough.” Havingness is quantitative. So you cannot run this without running the whole works evidently. He would have to be able to mock up, hence the first pass at this in CCH. He would have to be able to make things a little more solid, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to risk this one. But it evidently turns on rather at will this “I knew it all the time,” in other words, the hidden game.

You run the process this way: Tell the preclear to “Mock up enough _ (whatever the chronic somatic is)” and “Make it a little more solid.”

For example, take a case of obnosis—if you are not good at observing, you will miss on this every time. This is one of the reasons why we have more or less unconsciously been stressing obnosis. The auditor has to be able to look at somebody—and it is not the fellow’s belief that all women are bad. He is sitting there with a chronic sore throat, complete glandular arrest, with a club in his hands and you are trying to read his thoughts. Out of all these things, take the one thing he is complaining about—a sore throat.

The first thing you do is run the bad condition. Then just run the condition, after that the terminal, and you will shift his attention and turn off this “I knew it all the time. I knew my mother used to choke me.” Only he didn’t because before that he told you, “Well, mother’s a very sweet girl, very nice to me. I don’t know why I never turned out all right.”

Have him “Mock up enough sore throats” and “Make it a little more solid.” Then “Mock up enough sore throat (singular)” and “Make it a little more solid” and “Good.  Mock up enough sore throat” and by this time he will say, “Well, yes, so and so and so, probably.” His attention shifted and this is a method of doing it. It has shifted his attention from the badness of the condition to the condition. “Mock up enough throat.” He has a condition known as a throat, and this oddly enough in this particular instance becomes the solid for the terminal—enough throat. Only it will mean two different things to the preclear and you want the preclear to duplicate your commands exactly, which he will only do if he is thoroughly under your control.

Let us take “bad eyesight” for an example, although this is not necessarily the process you would use. The preclear came to you to be audited because he had shooting pains in his right kneecap. He has never been able to work because of it, draws compensation. As a result of the compensation he has an easy life and this is a control mechanism. If you take this away from him against his better “judgments” the difficulty you will have in keeping him in session thereafter is absolutely zero.

He has bad eyesight and you have him “Mock up enough bad eyesight” and “Make it a little more solid”—a few times “Enough eyesight,” a condition or circumstance, “Make it a little more solid.” “Enough eyes,” and “Make them a little more solid.” There is his chronic somatic.

I have no guarantee whatsoever that this will work in all cases at all times, because I cannot guarantee that you will have him in condition whereby he can execute the commands when given. He must be in a condition whereby he can execute the auditing commands, and if the auditing commands are “mock it up,” which means he has got to be able to get mock-ups—which you can turn on with CCH—he has to be in a condition where you have some guarantee that you can control his thoughts. You can say, “Put an emotion in the wall.” He will feel the wall mentally but he didn’t do what you said, therefore you don’t have his thoughts under control.

In other words, the person’s attention and thoughts must be under your control before this works, but when you have accomplished this, this process works with a thud.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

5707C17 18ACC-3  Theory and Definitions of Auditing

The PC is less than or equal to the bank and the auditor is less than or  equal to the bank, but the PC + auditor is greater than the bank.  A person  cannot audit himself because the basic ingredient of all auditing is  communication, and a person cannot really talk to himself, especially in P.T.,  because talking to oneself puts half the cycle out of PT.  Someone could mock  up a circuit that talks back or assume a valence that feeds the past back to  him, where he thinks something is feeding him an effect from the past or  talking to him.  When a person self-audits, he uses these circuits to feed  stuff back to him; it gets him nowhere.  The best he could do would be to  handle a mental image picture which was seeking to handle him, or to handle  the environment.

The only things in the bank that give the PC trouble are the moments he  didn’t handle, the worst moments.  When he gets pictures of these moments, he  tends to go out of control and backs off or boils off.  An auditor would  acknowledge; get him to confront it.  Only communication got him into his  mess; only communication can get him out.  Therefore, there has to be another  terminal for him to communicate to.

In 1952, we got scientology, a different approach to the problem of the  bank.  Instead of erasing the bank, we put the person himself in good enough  condition, so that he can handle anything.  That’s a real clear, not someone  with a blank bank.  The things that are right with a person are the things  that are wrong with the person.  What is wrong with a being is what the being  can do, and what the being is.  Any scale in scientology could be drawn as a  “V”-actually as a flare [exponential, perhaps?]:

Distance tolerance is the key to the affinity scales.  Distance narrows as a  person gets into worse condition.  He has to be closer and closer to things to  know they are real.  High on the scale, tremendous distances can be tolerated;  here there is also lots of trust.  At the bottom, no distance is tolerable.  A  person’s ability to handle things depends on his ability to handle distance;  he interiorizes into those things that he can’t trust, until he is the thing  he distrusts.  A person can control at a distance with comm; as control  diminishes, he loses reach, can’t project intention, can’t trust, etc.  Tone  goes down with competence going down.  Auditing is an expansion of distance.  A PC starts with inverted distance (trying to escape), or with close distance  (solid comm line, as in CCH-1).  However, running away from things tends to  make them stay with them.  A body of soldiers running away from the enemy goes  to pieces.  They don’t reform, regroup; can’t sustain discipline.  When you  run away, part of you stays there.  Also, when running away, or being unable  to tolerate proximity, a being has no concept of distance: there’s “no place  to hide.  “Anyhow, the part that stay there is the M.I.P.  If one can’t occupy some part of the universe, the only recourse is dispersal,  which closes actual distance.  [The thetan never gives up.] Running, “What  part of that incident could you confront?” loosens it up; unsticks the person  from it.  People never have trouble with situations they have confronted, only  with those from which they ran away.  This is an example of “That which you  resist, you become.” The sub-zero tone scale shows the distance going inverted  as one tries to run.

One thing establishes distance: communication.  But it has to be real  communication, not inval and eval.  It has to be to the person.  Space is a  viewpoint of dimension, i.e. lookingness, i.e.  communication.  Communication  can have a closure factor if it is just looking; but two thetans in real two  way communication can hold their distance and go upscale.  If you find that  when two people talk, the longer they talk, the closer they get smashed  together, then one of them isn’t communicating.

When people don’t know what something is, they have trouble communicating  with it.

When someone tries to communicate with the bank, it kicks back and thus  gives the thetan the idea that he is punished for communicating.  But his  facsimiles aren’t real.  In dianetics, we thought a person somehow took and  stored all these pictures.  But there is not really a mechanism, like the file  clerk, of taking and storing these pictures.  No.  The object is still there,  grown thin.  That’s a picture!  Every consecutive moment of the universe from  its beginning until now is potentially as solid as it was then.  The only  reason it isn’t as solid is that you don’t to confront it, so you thinned it  down.  The only serious reactive pictures are the “thinnies” one made before  or as one way from something unconfrontable.  This sounds complex, but it’s  only a problem in change of space.  You don’t carry the pictures.  You left a  viewpoint there when you didn’t totally confront something, and it is still  looking.  All you need to do is to get someone to be willing to confront old  universes he wouldn’t confront before, and you will have a clear.

Summary: Auditing is to raise the ability of another person so that he  can handle the bank, the body, others, etc.  It is a communication process. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Washington, D.C.
All Staff
All ACC Students	HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 17 JULY 1957
4—London (to
their training
personnel,
Assoc Secty)
LRH ACC file	CHANGES IN TRAINING DRILLS
CO file

The 18th ACC, which is being conducted with a goal of refining training, is furnishing some vital data. This will be published from time to time and finally summarized in Training Bulletins.

Training 5, Hand Mimicry, becomes Training 5(b) Hand Mimicry.

The new Training 5 is “Sit in that Chair”. It is used on Saturdays in Washington supervised and London unsupervised.

NUMBER: Training 5.

NAME: Sit in that Chair.

COMMANDS: Sit in that Chair, comm bridged occasionally to Touch that Chair and back to Sit in that Chair.

POSITION: Auditor and pc seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To give student an actual process that integrates all earlier steps in the Communication Course (TR 0 to TR 4) as an actual process so that he will not be faced with doing this integration on 8c while in motion. Summates the things learned in Comm Course.

TRAINING STRESS: Process is not coached save by instructor. It is actually run on a fellow student. The student pc is not manually forced to do process. Only the earlier TR skills are used. Student’s confidence in being able to audit should be raised.

HISTORY: Developed by LRH for the 18th Advanced Clinical Course in Washington, D.C., July 1957.

Training 6, 8c, remains itself but is changed as follows:

NUMBER: Training 6.

NAME: 8c.

COMMANDS: First half of session period student silently steers coach’s body around room, not even to walls, quietly starting, turning and stopping coach’s body. Second part of session commands are “Look at that wall.” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that wall.” “Thank you.” “With your right hand touch that wall.” “Thank you.” “Turn around.” “Thank you.” Student may touch coach’s body.

POSITION: Student and coach walking side by side. Student always on coach’s right except when turning coach.

PURPOSE: First part: To accustom student to moving another body than his own without verbal communication. Second part: To accustom student to move another body by and while giving auditing commands and to accustom student to proper commands of 8c.
TRAINING STRESS: Complete, crisp precision of movement and commands. Student as in any other TR except TR 5 is flunked only for current and preceding TRs. Thus in this case the coach flunks student for every hesitation or nervousness in moving body, for every flub of command, for poor confronting, for bad communication of command, for poor acknowledgment, for poor repetition of command, and for failing to handle origins by coach.

HISTORY: Developed by LRH in Camden, New Jersey, for the 2nd ACC, in October 1953 and modified for the 18th ACC, July 1957, in Washington, D.C.

LRH:md,jh 
Copyright © 1957                              	L. RON HUBBARD 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Issue 51		[1957, ca. late July]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

The Adventure of Communication

L. Ron Hubbard

The success level of a person is his communication level.

One can have only those things with which he can communicate. To have it is necessary to communicate.

One can do only those things with which he can exchange communication.

One can be whatever he feels will assist him to carry out his ideas of communication itself.

It has been three years since we first isolated communication as the dominant corner of the Affinity-Reality-Communication triangle.

Now when one realizes that have and the Reality corner of the triangle are the same and when one understands that control is possible only in the presence of maximal Affinity, one sees in Control-Communication-Havingness theory the working aspects of the Affinity-Reality-Communication theory.

We have always known A-R-C was true. We now know its best-working aspects in the Control-Communication-Havingness theories of processing.

Communication continues its dominance. Affinity gives us the only working mood of Control. Reality gives us the reward of Communication.

Thus one can BE—one can DO, one can HAVE only as well as one can communicate.

At the intensely successful Freedom Congress, just held, a number of Training drills were presented which have as their goal communication betterment.

Doing these drills betters one’s communication ability.

Thus these drills can be seen as an opening door to better beingness, better doingness, better havingness.

While, as everyone recognized at the Congress, there is no substitute for Academy training in these drills, doing them yourself at home can result in enormous improvement.

We have found the level from which to live successfully—Tone 40.
We have found the drills and processes by which to get us there.

High Adventure requires high communication.

Could there be anything so brash as to stop us now?

Copyright ©1957 						L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard 
All Rights Reserved.	        

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JULY 1957

STAFF AUDITORS WASHINGTON ONLY

WITHHOLDS AND COMMUNICATION

A Preview of a book to be called “The Handling of Human Problems. A Scientology Text by L. Ron Hubbard,” a paperbacked booklet.

The book explains the parts of man, ARC, and states that the ability to communicate on 8 dynamics must be regained in order to lead a successful Spiritual life.

The book will then give a process to rehabilitate Communication. It is based on our old “Recall a Secret”. The version is entirely straight wire.

The reason secrets cannot be dredged up in people is because they will not tell them. This process by-passes divulgence of data and works well without informing on oneself.

The Process.

The auditor explains to the pc that he is not looking for hidden data to evaluate it. He is only asking the pc to look at the data.

The auditor then makes a list of valences, paying great attention to those the pc considers “unimportant” or is very slow to divulge.

Then the auditor takes this list and runs repetitive straight wire ( 1951 ) as follows:

“Think of something you might withhold from (valence).”

He repeats this question over and over until no comm lag is present. He never says “Something else you might withhold” because auditor wants pc to think of some of these many times.

Before selecting another valence, auditor runs a little Locational or Trio.

He then takes next valence the same way.

The list is covered once, then the same list is covered again.

The object is speed . Cover many people.

Given time the auditor can do the same thing on all dynamics.

VARIATION

Instead of a valence, body parts may be used.

“Think of something you might withhold about your (body part).”

Leave sexual parts or obvious psychosomatic difficulties until last. Don’t begin on a withered arm. Pc can’t cut it.

SUMMARY

It is amusing to realize that this process overlords all early psychotherapies. But they, using this effort to locate secrets, thought that divulgence and confession were the therapeutic agents. These have no bearing on the workability.

Further, early efforts naively thought there was one secret per case. Actually there are billions.

It is easy to get into past lives on this. A basic secret is that one lived before.

This can be E-Metered with great success if the auditor realizes that the meter is only useful to find out if a valence or a dynamic is hot or flat. Locating actual data for the auditor to know about is useless to the process itself.

Eight or eight thousand or eight billion secrets later will discover the pc in better communication. This is our only goal.

WARNING

The invasion of privacy-horror of-can stop the process cold if the auditor is too nosey.

The auditor will strike a data gusher sooner or later in the pc. It is unimportant.

The process may run down havingness. The “secret mechanism” is also used by pc to keep body from going away. (Some address to this last with “Keep [body part] from going away” may be needed.)

PURPOSE OF THIS RELEASE

To put HGC pcs into high communication.

To gain know-how for the above book—therefore report any changes needed or problems met while running this.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: md. nm
7-29-57

P.A.B. No. 117
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 August 1957

CONFRONTING PRESENT TIME

We all know about the unreality of processes too high for a preclear. You ask him to do something too high for him and he, oddly enough, can do it. He can get the idea of doing it, and he will even tell you he is doing it. Some preclears can actually walk around and touch the walls for as long as you want them to and it doesn’t affect them. It means that a particular preclear who is doing this has no responsibility whatsoever for walking around and touching the walls. It doesn’t affect him except that irresponsibility is running out all the time. I don’t know if there is such a thing as a technique that is thoroughly above the preclear’s ability to run. It is only a much longer reach.

I have taken a very bad-off case and told him to mock up a scene which everybody could see. I told him to do this over and over and over and I turned his mock-ups on brilliantly.

I have said in a Congress “Create that wall,” etc. The funny part is that it almost killed the audience, and they didn’t even spot what it was during the congress that almost mowed them down. They thought something else was responsible for it. They complained about two or three other processes which, if run on individuals, would hardly affect them at all. But they didn’t complain about this one. We were making them confront the wall, create the wall, take ownership of the wall, take ownership of the universe, and it was so far from them that they were unaware that they couldn’t do it.

When you can imagine people walking up and down the street out here being unaware of the fact that they are unable to confront the street, you have got aberration really nailed. Their irresponsibility has grown to the point of not even knowing they cannot, to the point of doing it all the time. You process them for a while and they will just become aghast at confronting the street. It feels all right to them for a while, and all of a sudden they will get a somatic and flinch here, and they are not sure that they want to touch that tree. They are actually coming upscale toward this action. People evidently get interiorized into a universe, and then don’t ever exteriorize. It is because they find more and more in it that they are unwilling to confront. So their awareness of its existence drops. All blindness is an extreme unawareness.

For instance, if one were all wound up with some other person and that other person died or disappeared, there was too much absent in present time. But this is not factual. As a writer in the New York area, I used to go down to the Village with some of the boys and used to have some knock-down-drag-out arguments, discussions, personal feuds, brawlings, etc. We were always doing something wild or weird. A crowd of us went up to Sing Sing one time just to see how it felt to sit in an electric chair. We were always having criminals and things electrocuted in stories. In order to know how they felt we walked through the green door. We were always doing something like this and life looked very alive and full, and it seemed impossible to reach through it or to it or to exhaust it in any way. Looking back after a long time and at a long distance it seems to me very much like New York and the Village—dull, and it is all tame and a long time ago. But that is merely because I am not in contact with it. The same dramas still go on.

To give you an idea of short circuits, an artist, Hannes Bok’s next-door neighbor, was walking past a thrift shop and bought a painting because she wanted the frame. When she got home she wiped off some of the dust and found out that the painting was a submission to the New York World’s Fair in 1939. It had the artist’s name on it. So Hannes Bok took a look at it and said, “That’s Ron,” wrote to me to find out about this, and that was right. She wants to give the painting to me and is sending it here.

In other words, there are all kinds of wild little actions, randomities, short circuits and so forth going on in the world. This one was intimately enough connected with me that I would be alerted to it. But if I were in the scene, there would be all kinds of actions that would only vaguely come close to this in which I would be vitally interested. Why? They also concern ME now, because I am part of the scene. So at this distance I am aware of New York because something intimately concerned me, but in New York everything would concern me, so I would be intimately interested in it.

People become rather easily convinced there isn’t much in present time. I have seen race drivers talking about their humdrum lives. It is wild. You talk to these T.W.A. and American airline pilots. They think their life is a little bit humdrum.

I was down at the airport the other evening to meet a couple coming in from Ireland, and the snow was coming down thickly. A quarter of a century ago, any wooden propellor trying to chew through that much snow would have just been torn into splinters at once. Well, evidently a steel propellor isn’t affected. The leading edges don’t gather ice any more, and a lot of other things don’t occur. I know that airplanes have been made totally proof.

But pilots were flying through this snow on schedule and landing and taking off and continuing airline schedules, and I could hardly see the length of the administration building. And I imagine that if I’d gone into the pilot’s shack where they were checking in, they would have been saying, “Aw, it’s just another darned night,” and they would wish they could do something interesting.

In such a case man has disconnected himself to some degree from present time, and therefore not much in present time affects him. (Connectedness as a process will help to remedy this condition: “Look around here and find something you wouldn’t mind making connect with you,” and see that he makes it connect with him, and not him with the object.) You might say that there is so much danger in present time that he must disconnect most of the present time from himself.

As I was saying, the personal interest factor extends from New York to Washington, D.C. when something personal occurs. Well, if you were in New York, there would be a lot of personal things occurring—what a cab driver said to another cab driver would become a personal matter—on a higher dynamic. This is, by the way, the dwindling scale of the dynamics you are looking at when you look at a distance from.

Time itself seems to strip away from us our adventures and objects and havingness. But havingness is only an awareness of existence. Why we so readily consent to have present time stripped away at this mad rate is quite interesting because we are to a marked degree in control of it.

For instance, I had time shift on me the other day rather inexplicably and startlingly and it upset me for a little while. As I was traveling through time at the usual routine rate of speed which would be my rate of passage through time, and I had a lot of things to get done, I accidentally extended time on some kind of an automaticity I hadn’t been aware of. I got a lot of things done and came back and found that five minutes had passed, and it upset me because about two-and-a-half hours should have passed.
So concept of time is something which is quite variable, it sometimes changes on us when we skid or take our fingers off it. Our machinery which is carefully saying “one second, one second, one second” slips over into the old machine which we had which said “one—second—one—second—” without at the same time impeding our motion.

Motion is not necessarily related to the abstract time, it only appears to be. But why are people so anxious, why do people have so little time as they go downscale? It is quite interesting, but they do have less and less time the further downscale they go. Well, they are just that anxious to have present time stripped away, and they are counting on this mechanism of the universe which will take this present time away and dispose of the walls, space, and in just a little time they hope not to be there any longer.

Some part of them is very frantic although they appear to be very calm. Therefore they avidly consent to this thing, and then one day they complain (second postulate) that they haven’t enough time to do anything. Therefore they cannot do anything. Quite a fascinating enigma.

If you said “total responsibility” you would be saying to admit the authorship of, be willing to admit the authorship of, any created thing anywhere whether yours or another’s, and “mis-responsibility” would be the miscalling of authorship. In other words, those things which you, yourself, had done or made, you would say, “I did or made these things.” And those things which other people had made, you would say you had made them. You thus get this mis-responsibility.

Now total responsibility would come out of not just the assignment of the correct authorship to everything and would be the fact, act or final consequence of being willing to do so. Only willingness is necessary. One has to be willing to do that and that is the state of mind you should bring your preclear into—only willing to do that.

As far as anchor points are concerned, if a person made them and said that he made them, all will be well, but if he said he didn’t make them when he actually made them, that would be horrible. That is a mis-responsibility.

For instance, if you have a preclear mock up an anchor point and actually fit it into some point in his skull, in contradistinction to the others, he will get a headache. Why should he get a headache since the anchor point belongs there? Because he didn’t make those anchor points. Now he makes one and he puts one in and he is assuming ownership of the others. He didn’t find the anchor point that belonged there and put it there, and then say, “Well, I put it there but I didn’t make it.” If he had done that he wouldn’t have had a headache and the anchor point would be there.

A mishandling of life, however, is not as serious as the desire to mishandle it. An anxiety to mishandle life, a willingness to mishandle it, or an unawareness that one is unwilling to handle it properly are the aberrative factors, not the actual mishandling of it.

Any thetan can play the game of saying, “Well, I made these body anchor points.” He did it consciously and he can play that game. But to have to admit that from some exterior compulsion would be something else.

Take for an example you having to take charge of the mimeograph machine which is running badly. It is not your department. You don’t desire to take it over but you have to, and the next thing you know is that you have busted the mimeograph machine. What happened here? One sees people do this in offices all the time. One thinks one is being forced to take a responsibility and one is unwilling to take that responsibility, thinking it belongs to someone else. So that correction under duress— that is to say misownership and misresponsibility under duress—always has grave consequences.

This works in many fields. For example, a traffic cop stops you for speeding and comes up alongside of the wheel and says that you were speeding, and you say, “Yes, I was speeding.” He says you have been doing 65 miles an hour, and you correct him and say, “68, Officer,’’ and he says, “Well, it is pretty slippery today,” and you say, “I know it.” It unnerves him. He may or may not give you a ticket, but the chances of his giving you one are much cut down. You are not buttering him up or telling him that you have learned better now or anything of the sort, but saying the exact facts of the case tends to as-is them. You have knocked out his first postulate.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

ACC BULLETIN
10 August 1957

CCH 18

This is CCH 18, named after the 18th ACC.

The following process is to be run by students on students in the evening sessions of the coming week:

Commands: 	“Look around here and find something you would be unwilling for that body (or psychosomatic body part) to have.”

	“Look around here and find something you would be willing to have.”

Interspersed with Locational—”Notice that (indicated object).”

Formal auditing.

Process may be run inside seated, or outside ambulatory.

Auditor-pc teams are to be assigned by their instructor of next week.

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD

Issue 52	[1957, ca. early August]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

Confronting

L. Ron Hubbard

This begins a series of training processes aimed at raising the communication level.

In subsequent issues I’ll give you others, so don’t fail to do this one in the next two weeks.

This is taken from the new Student Manual.

Training 0.

Name: Confronting Preclear.

Commands. None.

Position: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart—about five feet.

Purpose: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing.

Training Stress: Have student and coach sit facing each other, neither making any conversation or effort to be interesting. Have them sit and look at each other and say and do nothing for some hours. Student must not speak, fidget, giggle or be embarrassed or anaten. Coach may speak only if student goes anaten (dope off). Student is confronting the body, thetan and bank of preclear.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957 to train students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be “interesting.”
________________

We used to say, the way out is the way through.

Now we say,

If you can’t stand it, Confront it.

And that, I think you’ll find, is much more satisfactory.
Definition of a Scientology Clear

A Scientology Clear would be able to confront the physical universe, other bodies, his own body, other minds, his own mind and other beings—without trimmings.

The first step on this road is the drill called Training 0—Confronting.

Do it for at least 25 hours and you’ll never have trouble with a preclear.

No systems allowed. Both feet flat on the floor. No twitches, no squirms, no talk.

If you have difficulty, feel the floor and your chair back as you sit. That adds confronting the universe.

Confronting isn’t just looking—so don’t try to confront with your eyeballs only.

Do it and may you never be the same again.

Nothing like Training 0 to raise Communication level.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 118
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 August 1957

VALIDATION COMMITTEE

The following statement and recommendations concerning U.S. Validation of Certificates were made by the Validation Committee of the Freedom Congress, held July 4 through 7 at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., and accepted by the Congress and myself for the U.S.

“Scientologists play the game of life. They put life into living. Homo sapiens lets life live him and this planet has a large lack of people who knowingly play the game of life. The reality of the game of life can only be communicated by those who play it. Scientologists do play the game. Our ability as players determines how well and how swiftly we win at making life a game for all men, and this is one of the goals of Scientology. Our direct ability to control, to communicate and to have men, women, groups and governments determines the degree to which we can create a game of life and a knowledge of livingness to all men. Your ability as a Scientologist to play and to communicate playingness and livingness will determine how soon and how well we can win. The Validation Program can better enable you to play and live on all dynamics, no matter how well you are doing now. Truthfully, can you be more able? Yes! No man will ordinarily light a fire by rubbing dry sticks together when he can use a match; the match is obviously a better tool. The Validation Program will sharpen your old tools and provide you with better ones. We have today in Scientology better communication, control and havingness on ability than ever before. The Validation Program is intended to give every professional Scientologist the basic tools of livingness and the ability to use them. These are his by right of his own very existence, by right of the fact that he helped build the better bridge that Ron Hubbard asked him to help build, and by right of the fact that he cannot help but want to play the game better once he realizes that there really is a better level of game now in existence through his participation in this program. Toward this end, we, the Validation Committee, propose and recommend the following procedures dedicating them to mankind and the creation of human ability:

“1. 	That there be two classifications of validation:

(a) 	The professional auditor of any grade coached in training drills and CCH processes and passed by the HCO Board of Review; and

(b) 	Doctors of Scientology coached and trained in the use and coaching of these skills and validated by the HCO Board of Review, to both use CCH processes and coach others in their use subject to approval by the HCO Board of Review.

“2. 	We further recommend that a travelling HCO Board of Review be organized to sit in major cities for the purpose of validating for the use of CCH processes those professional auditors coached by Doctors of Scientology in the field.

“3. 	That Notification be sent to every professional auditor in the field that his professional certificate of whatever grade is as valid today and as honored as it was upon the day it was issued.

“4. 	That Doctors of Scientology authorized to coach other professional auditors in training drills and CCH processes take responsibility for their areas in seeing to it that all professional auditors (those holding professional certificates) in their respective areas are personally contacted and the purposes of the 1957 Validation Program are thoroughly and carefully communicated and received.

“We of this Committee deem ourselves highly honored at having been selected for this recommending committee. We pledge our cooperation in this 1957 Validation Program and urge the fullest cooperation by all auditors everywhere that we may have for the first time in earth’s recorded history true sanity and civilization for all mankind.”

                              	Wing Angel, Chairman
                              	Kenneth D. Barrett, Technical Adviser
                              	Burke Belknap
                              	J. Burton Farber
                              	Rosina Mann
                              	Ralph Swanson

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 119
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________
		
1 September 1957

THE BIG AUDITING PROBLEM

If you were to take a mediumly good race driver and you wanted to make out of him a championship race driver, I’m afraid you would have to train him from scratch. And you would have to train him with a great deal more ardor than you would have to train just a kid that just walked in from Kokomo with an interest in motors.

Nevertheless, if you were successful in training a mediumly good race driver with a lot of races behind him, straight from scratch and all the way through, you would have a championship race driver—there would be no doubt about this whatever. Whereas the kid from Kokomo might or might not.

I will tell you at once the first and foremost factor, and that is, auditing does require a certain amount of stamina. It takes a certain amount of what it takes just to stay around Scientology—there is that, you see. It takes a certain amount of—to use a technical term—”guts.” You know that. In the first place, the problem of living is complicated by the fact that you know what the other fellow is doing, and he doesn’t. You go down to the bank and your communication is disturbed by the degree that you know the fellow behind the teller’s window is a 1.5, the like of which you’ve never seen before, and he thinks he’s just a good average human being doing a job, and you count your change more carefully than you would on some other bank teller.

Now there is a tremendous advantage in this. You don’t walk around all the time in a figure-figure wondering what’s wrong with you because you don’t always get along invariably with other people uniformly well. Now you realize that the bulk of the human race is walking around with the belief that there is something wrong somewhere, but they don’t quite know what it is and it worries them. Now when you get up to a degree where you have some idea of this worry, you are aware of the factors which exist, the fact that your awareness has increased is all in your favor.

One of the great truths of Scientology is that INCREASED AWARENESS IS THE ONLY FACTOR WHICH OFFERS ANY ROAD OUT. That is an awfully simple truth, but you’ll find out that people don’t know that. They think that LESS awareness is the road out—and that is the road down into the basement.

All right—you live in a world that is trying right now to commit suicide on the grandest scale it has ever attempted, although I will say that when they dug up that last cave down in the Middle East and found seven civilizations, they did find under the shreds of the seventh civilization green glass, which looked awfully like the green glass from an atomic explosion out in the middle of the New Mexican desert. In other words, tens of thousands of years ago there was evidently another atomic blast, and perhaps everybody has been coming forward through barbarism and so on up the line.

It is quite amusing to notice that atomic radiation DOES reverse the genetic line. It gives a throwback. It produces the more original forms.

So you would expect the human race at this time to be walking toward greater and greater individual survival and less and less group survival. And here you are with some kind of a notion of the fact that the third dynamic exists and you are able to march out a bit on the third dynamic and the rest of the world is retreating back to the first dynamic—probably an inverted first.

I just had a report from our Public Relations Unit concerning the amount of attention being paid to injured persons alongside the road and on the street, and the report summed up that practically no attention was being paid now to anybody who was injured. That is quite interesting, because it has suffered, according to Public Relations, a considerable shift in attitude during the last two months. You are quite well aware of the fact that there might be just a tiny amount of radiation in the air which would never really damage anybody physically at all, yet which would restimulate people into a heavy unknowing games condition. So they would begin to act more and more hectic and on the first dynamic. This would be one of the first symptoms that you would discover in a society—everybody takes out on the Only One classification. Now that is the road to death. It doesn’t matter whether or not the society at large ever is atom-bombed, that point is not of any great interest to us. It IS of great interest to us, however, that the effects of radiation and its presence in the society drives people down the dynamics.

All right. So although it is pretty hard to live around Scientology very often— somebody tells me, “You know, that is awfully restimulative material which is in these lectures” (I’ve heard this said two or three times), “Oh, I don’t know, I’ve sat through a lot of lectures and it just restimulated me and I’m in terrible shape now.” And I’ve also heard somebody in the organization look at a remark like this and laugh. They say, “Well, the only real difference is that you’re in terrible shape, that’s sure, but now you know it.” And if you’re in bad shape, it’s better to know it than not know it, that’s for sure.

What happens to Scientology and Scientologists in a world of this character? What happens to us? Why should we know what we know and know it well, and so on? That’s because your basic attitude toward the world at large will have to be more and more an auditor’s attitude toward a preclear if you are going to accomplish any survival at all. To get anybody to do anything will probably require an auditor here in the near future. I will give you an idea of this.

In North Africa they had the Arab with the gun and whip. He could force people to do things with a gun and a whip and he accomplished a tremendous amount of extermination, but he certainly didn’t advance that civilization very much. In South Africa they had a bit of the whip but everybody just gave up. The South African native is probably the one impossible person to train in the entire world—he is probably impossible by any human standard. I’ll give you an example. A South African native is being shown how to sow crops and he has a basket, and he’s got some seed, and he’s walking along back of the harrow disc—and he is supposed to throw seed out this way: seed out this way, seed out that way, seed out this way. A white man is riding a little tractor that’s pulling the disc and scraping the soil for the seed. And this scene was enacted and was witnessed and was told to me with considerable hilarity as some kind of an idea of learning rate. The white man was sitting on the little tractor pulling the harrow, the native along behind him, sowing the seed straight down in handfuls on the ground. The white man got off the tractor, came back to the native, took the basket away from him, put his hand in the basket, threw it to the right, put his hand in the basket, threw it to the left, and gave it back to the native. And the native waited, the white man got on the tractor, drove along, and the native took a handful out of the basket and threw it straight on the ground. So the white man got off the tractor, came back, took the basket away from the native, showed the native, throw it to the right, throw it to the left, gave it back to the native, took his seat again on the tractor, the native followed along behind, took handfuls and threw it straight on the ground! And this went on for a very long time. The native never did throw any handfuls of seed to the right and left. Never did. That is farming in South Africa.

Now did anything ever come along and change that? Yes. Man had to cease to be Homo Sapiens and had to become Homo Scientologicus in order to accomplish any action that was anywhere near efficient in South Africa. And we have had some auditors in South Africa who have actually succeeded in training natives easily and well and have successfully managed large organizations there. That’s certainly something. Now with these people it was still possible to get something done. But what had this native done? Was this native what we think of as primitive stock? No, we make a great many mistakes. We say a child is in a “native state.” A native is in a “native state.” People are in a barbaric condition and then they grow up and become civilized. How do we know that this barbaric condition isn’t a retrogression from a highly civilized condition back to an Only One category? How do we know that isn’t true? How do we know that that native didn’t at one time achieve a great civilization of culture which then collapsed on him and he went back into a state of being a barbarian?

But the point is, is this true that a native is in a clearer state, and is it true that it requires Livingness to advance somebody in that crude state up to a condition of ability? No, that is not true. The child, the primitive, the native, are in retrograded states. They are worse off than somebody who is at a civilized or thinking or analytical level.

I will give you an interesting example of this. If you can tell the difference between a lot of little kids you run into, and psychos, I’ll give you a medal. Now the funny part of it is that little kids have something to hope for. They have the future to grow up into. And that’s their only asset. Almost everything else is on the debit side of the column. Here is this poor devil who has been slugged, he’s just lost a body, he’s been put into a state of anxiety, here he’s got another body, is it going to get along right or isn’t it? He’s got the hope that it will grow and that alone can carry him forward and color the world brightly for him, but at the same time he is suffering from death shock. And because he is suffering from death shock, he is coming along very timidly with his learning. Now that is the condition a little kid is in, and when you KNOW that a little kid is in that condition, boy! can you handle him! You don’t label him with this omnipresent overused term “insane,” or “psychotic,” you don’t do that. This person is having a terrible time trying to adjust himself to his environment and control a body which is suffering from many responses he does not understand, and he is at his wit’s end. The delusions of children and death delusions are quite similar. When a person dies and starts to pull out of that body, he generally snaps in on himself a torrent of facsimiles of one kind or another. He has all sorts of weird things that go “boomp in the night” present themselves at that moment.

And very often you get a preclear who is suffering merely from the death shock. And he is psychotic, he’s crazy, he doesn’t know whether he is coming or going. Why? Because he’s surrounded by things he cannot understand—and that is the common denominator of all lack of orientation, of all aberration. It’s being surrounded by things you cannot understand. And a child, surrounded by these things he cannot understand, therefore can produce what we call childhood delusions. But I can’t find any real difference between these childhood delusions and the delusions being suffered by a person about to die or a person in an asylum.

When the kid gets worried, he’s worried. Now who can handle him? Mamas and papas across the face of Earth today, particularly in America, have just about given up.

We have a whole philosophy—we hardly dignify it with the name of Science or even really dignify it with the name of Philosophy—which tells us that the child must be permitted to express himself, that you let the child do anything he pleases in any direction that he pleases and he will be all right—now that is modern psychology at work with children, and it is not true.

A child requires understanding and a child requires assistance in controlling the environment around him which is already too big, too strong, and is moving much too fast on him. He has to be set a good example of 8-C. I am not now talking about heavy discipline. I’ll show you the shortness of discipline. How many people have told you to be a good boy or a good girl, and when you were a good boy and a good girl, they never came to you and said, “Thank you for being a good boy or a good girl.” I almost startled little Quentin out of his wits a couple of evenings ago. I told him to be a good boy now and go to sleep. He was feeling upset. “Stay in bed, now, get some rest.” He was very quiet for half an hour. I went downstairs again and noticed he was still awake, and I said, “Thank you very much for being a good boy.” He smiled, looked sort of dazed—it really shook him. And ever since then he’s been saying—he always says it with enthusiasm, but with this he just about bursts the walls—”HELLO, DADDY!” He is really in communication. Probably the first time it’s happened to him in seventy-six trillion years. You get the idea! Somebody did give him an order and then did finally acknowledge that he had executed it. But there is a common lag on the executing of such an order as “Be good,” or “Go to sleep,” and there is never an auditor there to say “Thank you,” never an auditor there to say “You did it.” So life is furnished with these tremendous numbers of unfinished cycles.

If one is bad, it gets acknowledged, confirmed and pushed around, but if he’s good, it’s sort of neglected. That is an interesting factor right there. But all I am telling you is that children, South African natives, and now the entirety of this world in which we are living, present to us an auditing problem. We are rich in being able to understand what is happening in our environment and we are rich also in knowing exactly how to handle such a circumstance or condition. Nobody knew before. That is factually true here on Earth.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

Issue 54	[1957, ca. early September]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

More Confronting

L. Ron Hubbard

That which a person can confront, he can handle.

The first step of handling anything is gaining an ability to face it.

It could be said that war continues as a threat to Man because Man cannot confront war. The idea of making war so terrible that no one will be able to fight it is the exact reverse of fact—if one wishes to end war. The invention of the longbow, gunpowder, heavy naval cannon, machine guns, liquid fire, and the hydrogen bomb add only more and more certainty that war will continue. As each new element which Man cannot confront is added to elements he has not been able to confront so far, Man engages himself upon a decreasing ability to handle war.

We are looking here at the basic anatomy of all problems. Problems start with an inability to confront anything. Whether we apply this to domestic quarrels or to insects, to garbage dumps or Picasso, one can always trace the beginning of any existing problem to an unwillingness to confront.

Let us take a domestic scene. The husband or the wife cannot confront the other, cannot confront second dynamic consequences, cannot confront the economic burdens, and so we have domestic strife. The less any of these actually are confronted the more problem they will become.

It is a truism that one never solves anything by running away from it. Of course, one might also say that one never solves cannonballs by baring his breast to them. But I assure you that if nobody cared whether cannonballs were fired or not, control of people by threat of cannonballs would cease.

Down on skid row where flotsam and jetsam exist to keep the police busy, we could not find one man whose basic difficulties, whose downfall could not be traced at once to an inability to confront. A criminal once came to me whose entire right side was paralyzed. Yet, this man made his living by walking up to people in alleys, striking them and robbing them. Why he struck people he could not connect with his paralyzed side and arm. From his infancy he had been educated not to confront men. The nearest he could come to confronting men was to strike them, and so his criminal career.

The more the horribleness of crime is deified by television and public press, the less the society will be able to handle crime. The more formidable is made the juvenile delinquent, the less the society will be able to handle the juvenile delinquent.

In education, the more esoteric and difficult a subject is made, the less the student will be able to handle the subject. When a subject is made too formidable by an instructor, the more the student retreats from it. There were, for instance, some early European mental studies which were so complicated and so incomprehensible and which were sown with such lack of understanding of Man that no student could possibly confront them. In Scientology when we have a student who has been educated basically in the idea that the mind is so formidable and so complicated that none could confront it, or perhaps so bestial and degraded that no one would want to, we have a student who cannot learn Scientology. He has confused Scientology with his earlier training, and his difficulty is that he cannot be made to confront the subject of the mind.

Man at large today is in this state with regard to the human spirit. For centuries Man was educated to believe in demons, ghouls, and things that went boomp in the night. There was an organization in southern Europe which capitalized upon this terror and made demons and devils so formidable that at length Man could not even face the fact that any of his fellows had souls. And thus we entered an entirely materialistic age. With the background teaching that no one can confront the “invisible,” vengeful religions sought to move forward into a foremost place of control. Naturally, it failed to achieve its goal and irreligion became the order of the day, thus opening the door for Communism and other idiocies. Although it might seem true that one cannot confront the invisible, who said that a spirit was always invisible? Rather let us say that it is impossible for Man or anything else to confront the nonexistent and thus when nonexistent gods are invented and are given more roles in the society, we discover Man becomes so degraded that he cannot even confront the spirit in his fellows, much less become moral.

Confronting as a subject in itself is intensely interesting. Indeed, there is some evidence that mental image pictures occur only when the individual is unable to confront the circumstances of the picture. When this compounds and Man is unable to confront anything anywhere, he might be considered to have pictures of everything everywhere. This is proven by a rather interesting test made in 1947 by myself when it was discovered that if an individual could be made to “run a lock” of something he had just seen, run another lock on something he had just heard, and run an additional lock on something he had just felt, he would at length be able to handle much more serious pictures in his mind. I discovered, although I did not entirely interpret it at the time, that an individual has no further pictures when he can confront all pictures; thus being able to confront everything he has done, he is no longer troubled with the things he has done. Supporting this, it will be discovered that individuals who progress in an ability to handle pictures eventually have no pictures at all. This we call a Clear.

A Clear in an absolute sense would be someone who could confront anything and everything in the past, present and future.

Unfortunately for the world of action, it will be discovered that one who can confront everything does not have to handle anything. In support of this is offered that Scientology process, Problems of Comparable Magnitude. In this particular process the individual being processed is asked to select a terminal with which he has had difficulty. In that the definition of a terminal is a “live mass” or something that is capable of causing, receiving or relaying communication, it will be seen that terminals are quite ordinarily people in the problem category of anyone’s bank. The person is then asked to invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that person. He is asked to do this many, many times. It will be found midway in the process that he is willing to do something now about the problems he is having with that person. But at the end of the process a new and strange thing is found to occur. The individual no longer feels that he must do something about the problem. Indeed, he can simply confront or regard or view the problem with complete equanimity. Now an almost mystic quality enters this when it is discovered that the problem in the physical universe about which he has been worried often ceases to exist out there. In other words, the handling of a problem seems to be simply the increase of ability to confront the problem and when the problem can be totally confronted it no longer exists. This is strange and miraculous.

It is hard to believe that an individual who has a drunken husband could cure that individual of drink simply by processing out the problem of having a drunken husband, and yet this has occurred. I am not saying here that all the problems of the world could be vanquished simply by running Problems of Comparable Magnitude on a few people, but neither am I saying that all the problems of the world could not be handled by Problems of Comparable Magnitude on a few people, and indeed I am at this time undertaking an experiment in this direction on the subject of the atomic bomb. It is an oddity that the longer this experiment is continued, the less responsive these bombs are to test firing.

Perhaps it could be said, however, that if there existed one person in the entire universe who could confront all of the universe, the problems of the universe for all would deintensify enormously.

Man’s difficulties are a compound of his cowardices. To have difficulties in life, all it is necessary to do is to start running away from the business of livingness. After that, problems of unsolvable magnitude are assured. When individuals are restrained from confronting life they accrue a vast ability to have difficulties with it.

There are many other things about confronting which are intensely interesting but these we will take up in a later issue.

An earlier issue of Ability carried in it a full resume of Training 0, the name of which is Confronting. This drill, done for a great many hours, will be found intensely efficacious in the handling of life. A wife and a husband whose way has not been too smooth would find it extremely interesting in terms of resolution of domestic difficulties to co-audit with this training drill alone, each one running it upon the other for at least 25 hours. This would have to be done, of course, on a turnabout basis of not more than 2 hours on one and then a switch from “coach” to “auditor.”

To run Confronting in this fashion and with considerable gain, it would be necessary to have some understanding of what a “coach” is and, in one of these co-auditing teams, what an “auditor” is. A much fuller understanding of this will be contained in the Student Manual The team sits in straightbacked—preferably uncomfortably upright—chairs. The coach and auditor sit facing each other a short distance apart. It is the task of the coach to keep the auditor “on the ball.” The “auditor’s” feet must be flat on the floor, his hands must be in his lap. His head must be erect and he must not use any system or method but must simply confront. A twitching muscle, a jittering finger alike would be reproached by the coach. The coach has several terms he uses. The first of these is “Start,” at which moment the “session” begins. Every time the auditor falls from grace, does not hold his position, slumps, goes anaten (unconscious), twitches, starts his eyes wandering, or in any way demonstrates an incorrect position, the coach says “Flunk” and corrects the difficulty. He then says “Start” again and the session goes on. When the person in the role of “auditor” has been extremely successful over a period of time the coach can say “Win” and then again “Start.” When the coach wishes to make some comments or give some advice the coach says “That’s it,” straightens up this point and then again says “Start.”

In the coaching itself only these terms are employed: “Start,” “Flunk,” “Win,” “That’s it.” Anything else the coach does or says is disregarded by the “auditor” unless the coach has said “That’s it” and has then advised on a point and then has started again. The coach would be at liberty to do anything he wished, short of physical violence, to make the auditor nervous or upset him. The coach could say anything he wished between a “start” and another command as above, and the auditor would flunk if he paid any attention or did otherwise than simply confronted.

Ordinarily all the coach does is make sure that the auditor goes on confronting. However, it should be understood that the drill can be toughened up considerably. The coach can do anything to throw the auditor off the simple business of confronting. If the auditor so much as twitches a smile, looks embarrassed, clears his throat or in any other way falls off from plain and ordinary confronting, it is, of course, always a “flunk.”

It should be understood that drill sessions are not auditing sessions. In a drill session the entire session is in the hands of the coach, who is only in a vague way the “preclear” of the session. In an auditing session the entire session is in the hands of the auditor.

There is a basic rule here. Anything which the “auditor” or “student,” as he is called in the drills, is holding tense, is the thing with which he is confronting. If the “auditor’s” eyes begin to smart, he is confronting with them. If his stomach begins to protrude and becomes tense he is confronting with his stomach. If his shoulders or even the back of his head become tense, then he is confronting with the shoulders or the back of his head. A coach who becomes very expert in this can spot these things at once and would in this case give a “That’s it,” straighten the auditor out on it and would then start the session anew.

It is interesting that the drill does not consist of confronting with something. The drill consists only of confronting; therefore, confronting with is a “flunk.”

Various nervous traits can be traced at once to trying to confront with something which insists on running away. A nervous hand, for instance, would be a hand with which the individual is trying to confront something. The forward motion of the nervousness would be the effort to make it confront, the backward motion of it would be its refusal to confront. Of course, the basic error is confronting with the hand.

The world is never bright to those who cannot confront it. Everything is a dull gray to a defeated army. The whole trick of somebody telling you “It’s all bad over there,” is contained in the fact that he is trying to keep you from confronting something and thus make you retreat from life. Eyeglasses, nervous twitches, tensions, all of these things stem from an unwillingness to confront. When that willingness is repaired, these disabilities tend to disappear.

Of course, tumultuously married couples may encounter some knock-down and drag-out moments in doing this confronting drill. However, it should be kept in mind that it is the coach in these training drills who is bound by the Instructor’s Code and that the only harm that can result would come about if the “auditor” were permitted to “blow” (leave) the session without the coach, even with manhandling, getting the auditor back into the drill. It will be found that these “blows” occur most frequently when the person being coached, in other words the “auditor,” is being given too few wins and is being discouraged by the coach. Of course, things he does wrong should be flunked, but it will be found that the way is paved to success with wins; therefore, when he does it well for a period of time, the “auditor” should be told so. Go into this drill expecting explosions and upsets and simply refuse to give up if they occur and you will have it whipped in short order. Go into it expecting that all will be sweetness and light and everyone should be a little gentleman and a little lady and disaster will loom.

Neither I nor the management are responsible for cuts, contusions, violent words, or divorces resulting from attempts to run confrontingness drills by husbands and wives on each other.

May you never be the same.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 SEPTEMBER 1957

PROCESSES TO BE RUN ON HGC PRECLEARS FROM THIS DATE

The following processes are to be run on HGC preclears from this date until otherwise notified.

ON PRECLEARS WHO HAVE POINTS BELOW THE ZERO LINE OF APAs: Very brief rudiments. Then CCH 1, CCH 2, CCH 3 and CCH 4. These processes are not run on a basis where each is killed dead before the auditor goes on. Each is run to a flat spot and then bridged to the next. It would be amazing to run one of them more than a couple of hours except perhaps CCH 4 Book Mimicry, but even this is only run to a mediumly flat spot. As soon as the auditor has gone through these four processes once he goes over each one again, possibly using now CCH I (b), Don’t give me that hand, instead of Give me that hand. It will be noted that each one of these tends to unflatten the other three. Further a pc may get no response at all on CCH I until he has run CCH 3 and CCH 4. Hence to grind on one only is folly of the first order.

The object of these processes CCH 1-4 is to get the person under control, by which is meant the body. Only when that is done can an auditor hope to go on with success.

Once the person is under control it is quite easy to put attention under control. This is best done by TRAINING 10 Locational Processing. It is to be noted on a low scale case that TR 10 can be enforced. Thus the pc does not fly out of control.

ON PRECLEARS WHO HAVE MOST POINTS ABOVE THE ZERO LINE OF AN APA: Here again we have to hit the CCH steps but in this case we first handle rudiments with the following thoroughness:

1. 	We clear help. Can the auditor help the pc. Can the pc help the auditor. Do people ever help people. Etc. On a two way comm basis break this down until the pc comes through any compulsive help or wasting help.

2. 	We clear pt problem making sure again that the pc can invent a problem of some sort about something. We run pt problem on a terminal only, never on a condition. Further, we run this until the pc is willing to let the pt problem ride. We don’t want him to be “willing to do something about it”. But we NEVER let this process occupy 15% of an intensive. Why? Because havingness is the clue to problems and a person obsessively has problems when he doesn’t have havingness. If a problem takes too long to clear, the auditor blundered by running pt problem and should come off of it at the first logical spot and return to it AFTER he has later run havingness.

3. 	Goals are then cleared in full. It doesn’t matter if this takes the rest of the intensive. The questions are formally audited as follows: “Tell me something that you’re absolutely certain will be there in --—,” “Tell me something you would really like to have in -.” The times are one minute, five minutes, one hour, one day, three days, one week, one month, three months, six months, one year, two years, three years, ten years. These times are not absolute, but may be changed by the auditor. But they are close to pat as given. The auditor does not figure out for the preclear the dates on which these times will occur. The pc’s figuring out the date is part of the process.

From here the auditor selectively shoots up APA by running old-time Trio with all three parts. In this he knocks out “remain” and “dispense with” as well as “have”. He runs this Trio as follows. He runs many haves, then bridges to many remains, then bridges to many, many, many dispense withs. Then he bridges to haves, then runs many, many, many remains, and bridges to many dispense withs. Then he bridges to many, many, many haves, runs many remains (into which he bridges), and then bridges to many dispense withs. He can keep this up in this order. Each one of the legs of Trio tends to unflatten the other two legs. All three have to wind up flat. This is run first inside and then, if being concentrated on, outside. Goals can be run again as above if desired for then will run differently.

If the auditor has any suspicion that he does not have the pc under control he runs the early CCH steps briefly and accomplishes it.

If the foregoing basic things are done, then many other things can be done. An analysis of a profile will tell us a few things about a preclear and while we do not yet have every point on an APA taped, we do have several.

Foremost is the point “nervous-depressed”. When this is low, the pc doesn’t have any reality on anything. No stable datum. The first stable datum the pc gets may well be achieved by the oldy ARC STRAIGHTWIRE gone through just a few times. That’s cracked plenty of people’s cases. The early CCH steps are all aimed squarely at that point. “Look at me who am l?” also hammers at that point. When I see a before and after with no change on nervous-depressed when it was low (always about -90) I think, “The pc never found the auditor”. Actually it’s lack on any stable datum of any kind. The auditor may be found only after the pc has gotten hold of some very minor stable datum, “Something that’s really real in the room.” “Recall a moment that is really real to you.”

The second point we have even better established through test is the CRITICAL. When this is low, the pc is on obsessive change and will LET NOTHING REMAIN. Getting him to let just one thing remain (and to be still) can shift this critical. Letting things remain is the key to a low critical.

IQ is another big win for us now since we know what IQ is all about. IQ is the ABILITY TO WlTHHOLD OR GIVE OUT A DATUM ON A SELF DETERMINED BASIS. Incidentally we also shoot valences with WITHHOLD. It is run the same way whether shooting valences or raising IQ. One finds the weak valence from which the pc could withhold nothing and finally gets the pc to be able to withhold things from that valence.

EXTERIORIZATION is accomplished by “Recall a moment of loss”. When a pc gets this flat he can then be run on old S-C-S routine (not Stop-C-S) and he will exteriorize easily.

Psychosomatic difficulties have been vanished rather easily on withhold. “Look around here and find something from which you could withhold that------” skin-rash, leg, whatever.

EYESIGHT can be shifted by CONTROL TRIO with emphasis on Disappear.

THE FAILED CASE is a case in which thought can always be overpowered by Mest. The pc’s ability to make his thinkingness prevail against Mest has failed too often and cannot change. Only Mest changes, therefore. This is usually the below zero on the APA pc. Making him think things and do things doesn’t much change him because he is too weak in thinking to prevail against Mest. “Look at it and tell me something about it you could handle” or “Think a thought that would be all right for you to think”, and other approaches, done by a clever auditor, can crack this sort of thing up on an even gone case. This is a point which occasionally needs attention, particularly when we have a pc who is not changing on APA or IQ. If an intensive didn’t change him, he can’t think against anything. The oldest workable remedy known is “Spot something around here that isn’t thinking”.

After being trained in the TRs it is necessary to run a student on the remain button of Control Trio or Trio and upon withhold processes to up his test.

I have turned out this bulletin rapidly for use in the HGC and on students in training. This bulletin will only be modified when necessity becomes apparent. Nothing in this bulletin will overcome sloppy, yakkeyety, wiggly or can’t-confront auditing.

I trust you will get good results with the above.

                                    				Best,

                                        					Ron

P.A.B. No. 120
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 September 1957

CONTROL TRIO

Now thinkingness in general should not be suspected of being under anybody’s control, much less the auditor’s, but it is probably more under the auditor’s control than it is under the preclear’s control. When I say to you “Do you think that thinkingness is under control?” you should be aware of the fact that it is less under the preclear’s control at any time than under the auditor’s control. That’s one the boys don’t get always. They think, “Well, can I get the preclear’s thinkingness under control?” Well, you can do it better than the preclear, but that is horribly bad, and when you get this clear you will see that you have to get the body under control and get attention under control before you aim at thinkingness.

Therefore, a condition to running Trio is this: Is the person of the preclear under control, is the attention of the preclear under control—those are two conditions necessary to run Trio. Now to assume the power of choice is also under the preclear’s control—much less thinkingness—is, of course, pretty grim. It moves Trio outrageously high. So you could say, then, that there are two versions of Trio, and I have been fishing around for one of them; I’ve been doing some work on this for the last several weeks and I finally got this thing taped—I do mean taped.

All right. Trio would just be Trio just the way it is. But there is an undercut in Trio; Trio could be a directive process, and it would be prefaced by “Get the idea of having that clock,” “Get the idea of having that picture” (indicating picture on wall), “Get the idea of having that sofa,” “Get the idea of having that chair,” “Get the idea of having that table”—do you see this? Now that is highly directive, isn’t it? Now that would keep thinkingness under control in the kind of a case who was having a rough time with it.

All right. Now let’s take the second version. “Get the idea that it would be all right for that clock to remain as it is.” “Get the idea that it would be all right for that wall to remain as it is.” Got that? Just an indicating process.

All right. Now here comes the clincher! Instead of dispense with, or not-know, we run into actually a brand-new process. Its rationale is much higher; it’s “Get the idea of making that clock disappear.” “Get the idea of making that chair disappear.” “Get the idea of making that ceiling disappear,” etc. Small objects are much easier for the preclear to make disappear than large ones, but you haven’t told him to make it disappear, have you? You have told him to get the idea of making it disappear. They usually interpret you literally and try like mad to make it disappear, and it usually does for a short time.

Now this process is restimulative, too. Anyway, we’ve got a point, and that is simply this: that this as a process all by itself is probably one of the killer processes of all time. I have solved this enigma: Why doesn’t a preclear exteriorize easily and stay exteriorized? And we ask this question and we ask this accompanying question: Why does a preclear get sick when you ask him to conceive a static? Now obviously we’d have to get somebody to conceive a static before he could himself stay comfortably outside. What keeps a preclear from conceiving a static? It’s because he associates a static with loss, and he says, “All right, if there is nothing there I’ve lost it.” Don’t you see? “I’ve lost something if there’s nothing there, therefore I’d better not conceive a static.” Conceiving a static is therefore painful. Well, the truth of the matter is, whenever he lost anything, something disappeared. All right.

The funny part of it is that he never noticed that he didn’t lose totally every time. He still had other objects. He lost his tie-pin—well, heavens, he’s still got his tie. He’s still got the floor, the room, this universe, space, but he never realizes this in these instances, and so that’s why we’ve been running this process here on “Recall a moment of loss,” just to see if we couldn’t accustom someone to conceiving a static very directly on loss, and whether or not the individual would exteriorize just as such, on the process.

Now that was a test that was made. The test process, “Recall a moment of loss,” sandwiched in with Havingness, then, has been run with the expected result that we would get this fellow concentrated on exteriorization and a little more able to conceive an exteriorization, certainly. Now final figures from this are probably not available from testing yet; they aren’t, but regardless of that, here is the rationale. An individual cannot conceive a static if he associates a static with loss, if loss is painful. So we have to cure him of the painfulness of loss, consideration of, before we can exteriorize him easily.

Now how do we do this? We have to go back to automaticity. The universe has been taking things away from him. It has become an automaticity and we find that the universe has an automaticity known as time, and time itself is a consecutive series of losses. All right. So we have to cure this fellow of losses before we can get him to appreciate time, otherwise he’s so afraid of losing it that he parks himself on the track, and this is “stuck on the track” phenomena. All right. The process which is aimed at this, the experimental process “Recall a moment of loss,” sandwiched in with Havingness (Trio now handles it on this—”Control Trio” it had better be called, and its third command is “Get the idea of making that (object) disappear”)—well, this gets him to take over the automaticity of all the losses which he has experienced unwillingly, you see that. It’s the universe that’s been taking the things away, and an individual, then, just by spotting objects and getting the idea that they are going to disappear or are disappearing, of course then does take over this automaticity of losses, and he becomes accustomed to it after a while and he should come out of the woods on it.

Now all of these invisible masses that preclears have around them are actually simply symptoms of mass - loss, mass- loss. Now when an individual has no visio, has never seen anything, couldn’t see anything, the only thing he’s looking at is a stuck loss. Got the idea? He’s looking at the nothingness of something that was there. All right, you take over that automaticity with this third command on Control Trio. Therefore, you have a highly directional, a highly workable set of processes, and each part of that Trio would be run relatively flat and go on to the next part, and I would say you’d probably run it something on the order of, oh, certainly not a hundred commands each—you’d try to stay in that order of magnitude, and you could just run it round and round. It’s “get the idea of.”

Well, what would be necessary before you got to that process? It would be necessary to get an individual’s body under control, which takes the early steps of CCH. And then put his attention under control; a great many processes can do this. Chief amongst them has always been locational processing, and if you were to just run the ordinary locational processes, you would eventually get his attention under control.

The auditor taking control of somebody’s attention actually puts the preclear into more control of attention than the preclear ordinarily is, which is one of the freak things. People look at this and they say, “Well, we must be running the fellow out the bottom,” and we wouldn’t be running the fellow out the bottom.

Well, we leave Trio in its time-honored style and so on just as it has always been, but we do have this low-cut Trio and it’s rather a killer. You take somebody with glasses, his eyesight will do more tricks in less time on this third process of Control Trio. Things will go black—well, why do things go black? Well, blackness makes things disappear, doesn’t it, and you take over the automaticity of using blackness to make things disappear. Night grabs, the way of the universe, once in every 24 hours on earth here. This is the one we’ve been looking for to turn on visio.

Now if you wanted to turn on sonic with this you’d have to go down to a noisy part of town and just run Trio on sound, but you wouldn’t dare do this—run Control Trio on sound—you would not dare do this, of course, if the preclear did not already have Trio on objects flat. Obviously, visio would turn on before sonic.

There are many things that you could do with this. People who have anaesthetized areas in their body—like they have no chest, no sensation in their chest, etc.—do weird things with this process, this Control Trio. Got it? I wanted to tell you particularly about this particular process because it is a specific, and it will be found to be very useful to you. We had to find out if one version of this would run without killing a preclear, and that’s “Recall a moment of loss.” Actually, “Recall a moment of loss” should act as a havingness process, because it as-ises all of the loss points on the track, and it should be a havingness process all by itself, but we didn’t want to be so bold as to run it with no Havingness.

(Until I find out differently, this Control Trio and “Recall a moment of loss” are making a bid for our chief exteriorization processes.)

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1957

CURRICULUM OF CCH

TO BE DONE WELL

CCH 0 
CCH 1 
CCH 2 
CCH 3 
CCH 4

A Subjective process (think) 
An Objective process (spot or find) 
A Straight Wire process

LRH:md.nm							L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 121
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 October 1957

RUDIMENTS AND GOALS

All you need to clear up if somebody is having too much trouble trying to locate or isolate a problem is to clear up the semantics of a problem—what does he mean by a problem? I got this rich one off a preclear one day doing this quite fascinating thing. What was a problem, I finally asked, and he told me a problem was something that could never be solved.

Whenever you run “withhold” on a valence you finish up with “can’t have” on the valence and that flattens it off better.

You will find it is quite often more advantageous to run Locational Processing than it is to run Problems of Comparable Magnitude. A Problem of Comparable Magnitude is all right, but it’s a thinkingness process, and on a case that is having an awful lot of trouble, it gives them hell to run Locational Processing, but nevertheless it does run out the present time problem, which is most fascinating.

Any one of the Rudiments are excellent processes—any one of them. Two-way communication is something that has never been stressed much on this side of the water—it has been taught very thoroughly on the other side. I took up a lot of the 4th London A.C.C. on the subject of two-way comm, how you handle two-way comm. You have to keep the reality of it very high and you have to be willing to interrupt obsessive outflows of the preclear, etc., and obsessive silences. Two-way comm is a very interesting way of going about things, and it isn’t just talking. It is establishing a high level of reality. It consists of the auditor feeding experimental data to the preclear, in order to have the preclear look it over and decide about it one way or the other. In two-way comm, you don’t let a preclear as-is everything he knows, thinks or wants to do.

All right. Now we look over this and we discover that the Rudiments consist, in part, of a present time problem. Now we already know that a present time problem can be run in this wise—Locational. It can also be run as a Problem of Comparable Magnitude. So we have a lot of processes connected with a present time problem.

Now let’s take another one of the Rudiments. Clearing the Auditor. Actually, the crudest way known of clearing the auditor is “Who do I remind you of?” “Tell me something you don’t like about me”—these are real crude ways of clearing the auditor. The best way of clearing the auditor we know of is in Training 13, which is “Could I help you—how?” “Could you help me—how?” “Could I help anybody else—how?” “Could you help anybody else—how?” “Do other people ever help other people?” “Do women ever help women?” “Do men ever help men?” “Do men ever help women?” “Do women ever help men?” And you just beat it to pieces on a big long bracket. Now this goes so far that it becomes a fantastic process in itself. You take father and mother valences—they are usually quite hot. You can run this on Help. This is usually quite necessary on a case that’s going to hang up, because the only reason the case is sitting there is to waste help. And you can run a case on any process, no matter how excellent, on a basis of wasting help until the case simply can’t find enough ways to waste it and he goes down tone scale. You have to understand the case is trying to waste help. It isn’t Find the Auditor in the Rudiments today, it is Clear the Auditor. The only point on which he’s cleared is Help—”Can I help you?” “Can you help me?”

All right. Now let’s take another facet of this. Goals. Actually, Handbook for Preclears has been helping us out just to the degree that it does do a little clarification on goals and gets the guy stirred up. The real reason the Handbook for Preclears is used at the HGC is quite an interesting one. It’s simply to stir the case up so it’ll run out.

All right, this guy’s sitting there in a sleep and he’s just gonna run Locational, you know, and he’s in a disoriented state anyhow: He isn’t here and he isn’t home and he isn’t anywhere—well, let’s get him worried, let’s get him chewed up a little bit, let’s get him restimulated somewhat, let’s get him interested in this. All right, these problems, then, do tend to swim to the top; you run some relatively non-directional process, and does it bite on? Now if you’re going to run non-directional processes—that is to say, “Give me that hand” and so on—you’re going to have to have something to run them against, and something like the Handbook for Preclears gives you something. The guy thinks while he’s going over this sort of thing, he thinks “Oh my, blah blah, the trouble with me is I have nothing to do and I don’t want to do anything and I never will have anything to do.”

But I got to thinking about goals from the usual standpoint of their high generality with most people—”I wonder if there is anybody around who could articulate with great conciseness what he would like to do”—and I found on all sides that a failure to articulate was the main difficulty. The person had a feeling he wanted to do something and this would be wonderful, and it was all in a sensory capacity. Now if he could be made to articulate this, why, we would really have something. And I experimented on ;t a little bit and we see that today in the Handbook for Preclears.

Now if you can get him to articulate in a session anything about the future, you have won on the subject of goals. But it must be in the alignment of this person’s frame of reference—it must be aligned with his life, not aligned with something we think he ought to live. So let’s take a look at clearance of goals. Goals would not be likely to run on a high generality. In other words they are specific, personal and intimate. It’s “What do you think?” “What do you want?” “What is aligned with your life?”—and we can’t beat around the bush with this one if we’re going to get any place with it.

All right, let’s take Goals as a process. You could run goals for 25 hours with the greatest of ease, and we just had a report of a terrific win here on a preclear who was run on Locational for 25 hours, so it looks like the Rudiments could be the session. So if somebody says, “Well, now, I ran the Rudiments and then we got into some processing”-fascinating, you see. Rudiments are dignified today with CCH 0 as an appellation. All right.

We discover this preclear in this terrible condition of not wanting any auditing, not going any place, all of his goals being somebody else’s goals. Two things we can do at once are Clear the Auditor and then run Goals. Now how would you really run Goals with two-way comm? Goals could be run with two-way comm in this way: You ask the preclear what he is absolutely sure would happen in the next two minutes-in the next day—three days from now—one week from now—one month from now-and one year from now. And we want something he’d be absolutely sure would happen.

Now we’re running right there the reverse process of atomic bombs, which say “no future”—”no future”—”no future.” Well, basically, what’s wrong with anybody— why does he jam on the track? It’s because of “no future.” He has been denied to a point where his loss is so great that he dare not own.

I knew a person at one time, a case that was, by the way, a psychology major— one of the roughest cases I have ever run into. The case put on the total appearance of being sane—it was a dramatized sanity, and yet the case would make odd remarks like “I really think people are crazy.” “Well, why do you think people are crazy?” I would say. “Well, because people say they can tell right from wrong, and you know there’s no difference.” Fascinating! The case would make odd remarks like this from time to time. One day the case made a remark on goals, like this: “Well, it’s really best to tell people that things can’t happen to them, because otherwise they might hope that they could, and then they’d be disappointed.” Now you disentangle that. This was all taught to this person, by the way, at the University of California at Berkeley. The person was also taught that the best way to preserve anybody’s status quo, etc., was to drug them and so on, I mean it was a gentle course. All right. This person was stark, staring mad and had no future of any kind, no slightest future, brought out by this. Five hours on just this one type of question, “Is there anything going to happen in the remainder of this afternoon?” “Will anything happen the rest of today?” “Is there anything going to occur any place in the world the rest of today?” And the confident answer, with great certainty, was “No.” “No.” Five hours. And finally we broke through it—”Well, you will probably sit there for the rest of the day wrangling with me and screaming at me the way you have been doing”—and it busted and I finally got the person to admit that there was some slight possibility that there would be a room here for the rest of the day. And it busted this case. It read from total no-future up. Well, this case was an isolated case, as we’ve occasionally had now and then, and this was an inspirational sort of process that cracked through.

Well now, we see this process of Goals on the basis of futures, and a person without futures cannot have a fancy future called a goal, and all a goal is is a fancy future determined by the person. And if he has no future at all determined by anybody, then he isn’t going to go anywhere from that point, and any goal he has is totally unreal.

So the best way I know of to clear up a goal is as follows: Two-way comm “Is there anything that’s going to happen in the next couple of minutes?” We finally get this totally thrashed out till he’s got some great big certainty that there will be something a couple of minutes from now. And then we move it up a day, and then we move it up a week—three days—and move it up a week; and move it up a month; and move it up a year. And we get certainties at each one of these stages and levels, regardless of on what. Now the person knows that that is going to occur. He knows there is going to be a future there.

Now let’s have him put something in this future that he now has had created. He’s created a future, he’s got certainty on it, it’s up there. All right. Now let’s put some desire in the future and we get a goal. “Now what would you like to have happen in the next couple of minutes?” or “What would you like to do in the next couple of minutes?”—”What would you like to do tomorrow?”—”What would you like to do in three days?”—”What would you like to do in a week?”—”What would you like to do in a month?”—”What would you like to do in a year?” And we will get these weird things which have no desire in them; they are all get-rid-ofs, and if you really plowed such a person down on it he would get down to the bottom of the ladder, which is “Knock this body off right now.” And when he says “I would like to get rid of my fear of darkness, I would like to get over feeling bad every time my mother screams at me”—well now, these aren’t desires. These are runaways, these are flinches—these are “let’s not confront it,” “let’s get out of the universe,” “let’s scram.” And the final result is the basic postulate “If I could just get rid of this body right this instant I would be all right.”

All right. So that thing doesn’t even vaguely get flat unless there is a real goal like “I’d like to have a stick of candy”—now that’s a goal, see, that’s a goal. “Tomorrow, I’d like to walk down the street and find a couple of bags of gold lying on the corner.” You see, it has to have desire in it. “Next week, why I’d like to go camping. I’d just love to go camping.” Then they’ll always modify these things in some way or other, “because of course I can’t because I have to work and I don’t have any money and” yak, yak, yak-you got the idea? They’ll modify these goals. As long as they’re modifying them they don’t have a goal, because they’re making a postulate and the MEST universe is kicking the postulate in on them.

So how do you solve this? If it’s this arduous how do you solve it? Well, run “Build a future—” two minutes (these times are only approximate), tomorrow, three days, a week, a month, a year just build the fact that there will be something there, that time is going to advance in those areas. Then we build a desire into it: “Well, what would you like to have happen?”—”What would you like to do in two minutes?”, a day, three days, a week, a month, a year? All right. Well, he didn’t give you anything he really wanted to have happen; he said, “I’d like to—if I were brave enough I’d tell you I’d like to get rid of you and me and everything, but I’m not brave enough so all I will say is I would like to get rid of the darkness, that would be fine.”

All right. Two-way comm consists in the main of keeping a preclear talking, busting through their silences, knocking them into line and manhandling them with pomp. You keep ‘em talking; and therefore it is a skill—a very high skill. But after you’ve built a future you build into it something they would like to have happen in that future. All right.

So here is a modus operandi now that makes this a process: Build a future on that span, then build something they’d like to have happen in that future. Now build a new future, go all over the same first process again on prediction, next couple of minutes, what he’s sure is going to happen, what he could be certain about. “What could you be certain about a year from now?” All right, we’ve built a future—then you’ll find out that’s a little stronger, and then we build something in that future that he’d like to have happen. And then we build a new future-same first process again—and then the second process of adding the desire to it, and we finally will come out into the clear.

Now there is a way to run Goals for twenty-five hours—slug, slug, slug. Now you can run Help for twenty-five hours, too, on just who helps who, when, where. “Has there ever been anybody in the whole universe who ever helped anybody in the whole universe?” is the most general form of question. But here we have these Rudiments, then, moved out into processes, and it’s possible to just handle intensives with Rudiments.

Now we find somebody wasting help—well, he’s hard to put into session. And if you are going to help him anyway, it isn’t goals that’s in trouble, it’s help, and if you try to help him too much and he’s wasting help, he will eventually waste help by blowing. So it’s help that has to be cleared if goals won’t. Got this? All right!

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 122
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 October 1957

THE FIVE LEVELS OF INDOCTRINATION AND
PROCEDURE CCH

The first thing that we should take up is the state of Scientology at this time, and to tell you that we are on a plateau. We are certainly on a plateau, and it is a plateau so very much higher than man has ever walked before that it is well worth saying it is a level that can be maintained. If people want more results than we can get today from CCH properly used, there will have to be a better auditor than we can make today.

The idea that “This is it” periodically has occurred in Scientology. Right now we are justified in saying that we are on a plateau which does not have to change.

When you can process a catatonic schiz, a five-day-old baby, you’ve got it made in the world of homo sapiens. The only further adventure we might adventure upon would be the processing of the thetan not connected with the body, and that would be an entire field about which we know practically nothing. But anybody who is having anything to do with bodies is well within the reach of Procedure CCH, providing it is used by an auditor who has been validated through the five levels of indoctrination. CCH used by an auditor who has not been validated would be the least guaranteed thing I can think of at the moment. I have already thrown up my hands in a few expressive horrors when I have seen auditors who have not been through the five levels fumble around with any Tone 40 process, and it is so grim that even now, to you, watching it, untrained, trying to do one of these things, it would not look like auditing.

Back in old Book One days, a fellow could sit down beside someone on a couch and say “Go back to that engram,” and it looked like auditing. It doesn’t look like auditing today. It is the difference of indoctrination which makes the difference. The person who applies it has been successfully checked through the five levels of Indoc. It is now the auditor plus the process. That is one of the reasons why we knew we were on a plateau. There wasn’t something you could tell out of CCH easily to your Aunt Mame’s little girl, to fix up her fear of cats. It is interesting that such employment does not reach any level that you yourself can consider a good result. Somebody untrained does not achieve any great result with it, and is liable to leave his preclear in a badly restimulated condition. We are dealing with a package of dynamite with Procedure CCH. We have to take into account the five levels of indoctrination successfully passed, which is necessary to apply CCH to a preclear.

CCH is a very sloppy title, for Procedure CCH is really C for Control, D for Duplication, C for Communication, Ct for Control of Thought = Havingness; and that is the real name of it.

First, we get the person under control, get him into the capability of duplicating, and then we move him up into communication more or less on a person level. Now we take the mind. The mind consists of mental image pictures, and if duplication is addressed to the mind we get communication. The third zone is the control of the Thetan, which brings us to Control of Thinkingness, Ct. I will show you more graphically what these three things are:
1. 	Notice that you are sitting in the chair. Notice that you have a body sitting in a chair.
2. 	Get a picture of a cat. Can you? Note that it is a picture. That is the mind. It’s pictures and the apparatus which handles pictures.
3. 	Get a picture of a cat again. Answer this question: “What is looking at the cat?” That is all you ever need to know about a thetan with CCH.

As we extend out from the thetan we get the physical universe, so actually there is a fourth thing there which undercuts the body, and that would be the physical universe. In other words, you are in immediate and direct contact with everything that you will be expected to study or ever process in Scientology. Every one of these things that I have mentioned, the physical universe, body, mind, thetan, may have a clearer appearance to you, or some other condition connected with it, but there isn’t anything outside of this. We omit the physical universe, because it is pretty hard to look totally at the physical universe right at this moment. But for sure you are looking at all the body you have got. As far as this picture is concerned, it may flop over and have many cross associations, and you could trace this endlessly as I have. As far as thetans are concerned, the most you will ever learn about one is your own beingness, or the observation that something is being moved, made alive, and motivated.

This is the entire target of CCH. There isn’t anything else to shoot at. All of these things intimately, then, relate to the thetan, and we have Control, Duplication, Communication, Control of Thinkingness, and Havingness, that relate to a thetan. We could process in any one of these zones. When you process any part of these four things, you really cater to some slight degree to the other three, but you can concentrate upon any one of these things.

CCH has in its concentration levels first the body, then the mind, and the thetan just happens—nowhere in CCH do we intimately address a thetan. But we can come close to addressing a thetan by addressing thinkingness.

Here is what CCH does. It makes the person more aware of a body, and he eventually recognizes to some degree that he can control the body. Next, it addresses the physical universe, in the locational processes of the next facet. Actually, it addresses intimately the thetan plus the physical universe.

How can you as an auditor overcome the obsessive mental changes which occur? You cannot see what he is thinking. You put his body under control, then you get him into communication, and then you can also clarify and control to some degree his thinkingness. At thinkingness we are standing at a borderline between the mind and the thetan.

By control and duplication we get communication. When we have communication we can straighten up the fellow’s time track and his habitat in the final process, Then and Now Solids.

Let me be much more positive about this. The make-or-break point of any case is this: Can he make things more solid or can’t he? A person who can make things a little more solid can also be processed on almost anything and get along fairly well. I knew there was one point above which cases process easily with almost any technique you use, and there was a point below which no process seemed to have anything to do with a person. As soon as this was isolated we had things made, for we could graduate somebody up to a toleration of solids.

We can cross this borderline in all cases today.

But how about the fellow that we cannot communicate with at all? He has another bug that we have to overcome, and that is the bug of obsessive change. When you tell him to think of a cat, he has to be able to think of a cat. When cases failed in the past, it was that the preclear never thought what we had told him to think. He said so, but didn’t do it. Here we have this thing. If we can get him to think the thought “keep it from going away” we can graduate him up to solids.
There are two things that you do with a person. You control his person and you make him duplicate and communicate; you control his thinkingness. So you use the early steps of control of a person, which are “Give me your hand,” Tone 40 8-C, Hand-Space Mimicry and Book Mimicry, over and over, until you are absolutely sure that the fellow can think when you tell him to. Then you go into the next stage, which is Tone 40 “Keep it from going away,” Tone 40 “Hold it still,” and Tone 40 “Make it a little more solid.”

What is the bank doing? He has some attention units which get stuck on the track that are only being fixed by the bank sticking him, so we do all these things on the body and then we do practically the same things on the attention. After that, we have got it made, because we can graduate him to making something a little more solid. Let’s take him aside and let him get the inside confidential story of the whole thing. Have him take a look at his mind, and there comes the trickiest step of CCH. It only condenses almost the entirety of what an auditor had to know that was developed in three years.

This is the rough process and I don’t make any bones about it. You can either subjectively remedy havingness or you can’t. So the way we run CCH is to graduate a person up to making things objectively (the outside world) or subjectively (mind) solid, and then have him straighten out the whole track. All sorts of odd and interesting thoughts occur when we use this thing Then and Now Solids. Above this we do have a couple more things. They are super-developed gee-whiz processes, completely unusable on homo sapiens. However, you start winding up, why, you go over into these processes. I’ll give you some idea of where this goes. You could turn on a person’s mental image pictures the size of that wall in three dimensions, with total perception, in half an hour’s processing. Abilities are not perishable. The only thing which is perishable is willingness. Processing is still a matter of choice. A person would never refuse processing or help if he knew what it was. That which refuses processing is not the person. After a while, it isn’t that he pulls up on you and surrenders. He finally takes an apathetic look and says, “What you are doing is not bad. I wouldn’t mind being a lot better. “

You give him a surfeit of control, until he finds out it doesn’t kill him. Maybe he can control something now. Now that is the background theory of CCH. What I want to punch up is that if you wish to handle body illnesses, they come under the heading of person. If you want to handle mental actions you would do it with control of attention, and if you wish to handle a thetan it would be through control of thinkingness.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

A BASIC CHART OF PROCESS TYPES

October 29, 1957

Prerequisite understanding to this chart: Definitions of body, bank and mind. Communication—Upper Indoc course. Text: Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought.

_____________________________________________________________________

	Type No.	1	2	3
____________________________________________________________________

a)	Name	Starting—	Control	Duplication
		Ending session 	Processes
_____________________________________________________________________

b)	Characteristic	2-way Comm	Control by	Mimicry by
			Action	Action
_____________________________________________________________________

c)	Purpose	To compose pc	To place pc’s	To establish
		into and release	body and actions	communication
		him from the	under auditor’s
		auditing session	control to invite
			control of them
			by pc
_____________________________________________________________________

d)	Action on Bank	To double	To better control	To go into comm
		control of it	of it	with it on pc
		Auditor +		determinism not
		Preclear		bank
				determinism
_____________________________________________________________________

e)	A Basic Example	Is it all right with	Sit in that chair	Pc makes motion;
		you to start an	Thank you	Auditor makes
		auditing session?		same motion.
				Auditor makes
				motion; pc makes
				same motion.
_____________________________________________________________________

f)	Stable Datum	Agreement	Never let the	Each command in
			pc get out of	its own unit of
			doing what he	time separate
			is told	from every other
				command
_____________________________________________________________________

g)	Phenomena	Auditing is a	Pc is controlled	Mis-duplication
		knowing and	by unknown	(only once)
		known activity	source, which	shows up and
			must be turned	runs out before
			into known	insistent
			sources	duplication
_____________________________________________________________________

	Type No.	     4	     5	     6
_____________________________________________________________________

a)	Name	Straight-wire	Objective	Subjective
		Processes	Processes	Processes
				(think)
_____________________________________________________________________

b)	Characteristic	Remembering	Spotting	Thinkingness
		& Forgetting	& Finding
_____________________________________________________________________

c)	Purpose	To recontrol	To orient pc in	To recover auto		forgetting and	present time,	maticities of
		remembering	drop out past and	thought and as-is
		and relate past	improve having-	unwanted
		to present	ness	thinkingness
_____________________________________________________________________

d)	Action on Bank	To as-is locks and	To drop out past	To mass as-is
		engrams and	havingness by	significance
		bring them into	substituting
		knowingness level	present
			havingness and to
			reorient
_____________________________________________________________________

e)	A Basic Example	Recall a moment	Notice that wall	Think a thought
_____________________________________________________________________

f)	Stable Datum	Specific things,	Attention of pc	Body control
		not generalities	must be under	comes before
			auditor’s control	control of
				thinking
_____________________________________________________________________

g)	Phenomena	Occlusions turn	Old locations	Thought has
		from generalities	(change of space)	become
		to specifics. Cycle	drop out	substitute for
		aspect of recall in		masses. Classes of
		time (earlier, late,		thought group
		etc.)		and source
				appears
_____________________________________________________________________

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:rd Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Issue 57			[1957, ca. late October]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

Escape

L. Ron Hubbard

Well, I’ve been working now for a lot of years to bring Dianetics and Scientology up to a point of supermagic.

It was easy to get them up to magic. In a world where no results, aside from accidentals, had been the order of things, it was simple to create magic. A cloying illness resolved, a fast heal of a broken limb, a recovery from fixations and obsessions, it was easy to repair these. That was simple magic.

And time and again I’ve told you “this is better” and it’s been true and auditing worked better.

But what were we really looking for?

We knew all of us that we were in a sort of trap called physical universe. And although it was all right to say we’d gotten in ourselves and that it was each man’s fault, it is nevertheless true that it was a trap complicated by innumerable traps.

It was all right to say that it was “natural” for man to kill deer. But that wasn’t making it any easier on the deer.

It was all right to recover enough data to know that dying wasn’t fatal but still men died and dying often hurts.

By no actual consent of our own we are torn from our friends and possessions and crushed into new lives. But just because we understood it made it no less arbitrary, no less painful. Just because we could better understand the trap made it no less a trap.

I’ve heard people say, “I don’t know what I ever would have done if you hadn’t come along, Ron.” A11 right, why should somebody like me have to come along if all the world is right and the universe an expression of deep love.

We curse at man-made hells. We spot cause in villainies uncountable. Yet, think now, what are we doing in a universe in which hells are possible.

Sure, maybe you even asked to come here. But deep in pain and shock, shadowed by your own forgetting, why puzzle now if this Universe is a good place.
You wouldn’t say a lion’s cage is a good place for a child. Nor would you jeer at and accuse a child who unwittingly stumbled into a lion’s cage. What is the cage doing there in the first place for a child to fall into?

Let’s be sane. We can rationalize this universe, we can explain complaints, we can blame the inmates but is it not true that we came unwitting into it?

What do we really want out of Dianetics and Scientology? What could I really give you that you want?

Escape.

Is there anything wrong with escape? Is a man mad who seeks to leave a fire that chars him, a mass that crushes him, a world that laughs at his dreams and scolds him for his stupidity?

Escape.

Why not escape?

Why not let a few others escape. After all, we’re not all only ones. We can feel and we can cry.

Tell me why Christianity won so well. Wasn’t it because of promised escape?

Tell me why Buddhism won so sweepingly. Because it promised escape.

Well, why not escape. If the great religions of all time became great on the promise of escape, we must assume that a lot of people want out and that there’s something wrong with in.

This universe is a breaker of bones, a defiler of deeds, a mocker of gallantry and peace. I can say this with equanimity. I don’t have to get emotional or even personal about it.

A spirit seeks to advance, to improve. Each way is blocked. This universe knows only how to decay.

Is there a way out?

Yes there is.

We have it in Scientology now. I have found it and charted it. I know exactly how to open the gate.

For whom. Ah yes, that’s the news. We used to say—”if your case is in good shape” or “if you really want to.” Of course you want to. But it didn’t require magic to open the gate. It required a supermagic to let our friends go free.

For seven years or less you have believed in me. You saw enough to know two things: (a) that I was sincere and would continue to work on it and (b) that a progress line existed which improved.

All right. What has been done? The auditing skills have been created which led an auditor up to this.

What has been done? In the lower steps of CCH we can rescue the people lowest down, even the unconscious people.

I told the 18th ACC—”I am through researching south. All further HGC researches will consist of going North.” I went North faster than I had thought I would. I have now taught the auditors in Washington and the Academy instructors how to go all the way north.

All the way.

I know why you’re here and the fast way out. I have taught auditing skill to Academy students and the 18th ACC. I’ve taught all the way north to the HGC auditors.

What is the way out? With no excuses, no byroads. Straight out. All the way.

Without belief or faith or “right conduct” you can go all the way. 

P.A.B. No. 123
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 November 1957

THE REALITY SCALE

Prepared from L. Ron Hubbard’s second lecture to the 17th American A.C.C.
in Washington, D.C. on 26 February 1957

I want to talk to you about the Reality Scale and the whys and wherefores of Hand Contact Mimicry.

For a very, very long time we had the ARC Triangle. We had Affinity and Reality, and afterwards had Communication. A lot of people thought that Reality was the most important corner, but evidently Communication was the most important corner because by processing with communication we could do some astonishing things.

Two-way communication: Pc has a problem, you make him talk about it. If you don’t go to a point where you excessively reduce his havingness, he will have a tendency to desensitize on the problem. This is one of the oldest therapies known: you go and tell a friend you’re in trouble and you feel better. However, in Scientology this thing took on a new burnished radiator cap. Nobody knew before what it was in communication that made things communicate and made it therapeutic and so forth. We isolated the various parts of communication, and we isolated, much more importantly, the Bill-Joe interchange of two-way communication.

Now what can you do with communication? Well, a lot of people go around and they don’t have any reality on Scientology because nothing has ever happened to them. Their idea of what it takes to get reality on something is—they can’t examine something—the reality must have a mass. It must have an impact, a very heavy effect.

Now remember that you can reduce havingness by communication, but within that framework let us take somebody who has no reality on anything happening to him. Of course he has no reality on anything happening to him! He’s in a high games condition, which means “no effect on self, total effect on others.” So you’re trying to plow through his consistent postulation that there must be no effect upon himself of any kind whatsoever, and if you get through that barrier, then he says, “I have some reality on this subject.” If you destroy his “no effect on self,” then he’ll believe you. This is totally idiotic, but that’s the way it works.

Now we get this fellow. He has no reality on Scientology, but he’s got a toothache. We have him say “Hello” to the tooth, have the tooth say “Okay” to that hello. Have the tooth say “Hello” to him, and have him say “Okay” to the tooth. Which makes a two-way comm. Have him do this a few times and the toothache goes—poof!

We take a heavier mass than this, like an arthritic leg. Arthritis is a ridge illness, and therefore you go up or down from the ridge and you’ve got it made. We can make him get rid of his arthritis even by simply putting him in apathy about it. You could hammer and pound him until he was sitting there very, very quietly and unable to wiggle in any way, and he wouldn’t feel his arthritis. Well, he wouldn’t feel anything else either.

You take slight little somatics, little conditions, or fears of things, and run two-way communication on them, and you get some fabulous results. Let’s say somebody’s afraid of a stove. Have him say “Hello” to the stove, and have the stove say “Okay.” Have the stove say “Hello” to him, and have him say “Okay” to the stove. After a while he won’t have any fear of touching the stove. Oddly enough, he will receive less effect from the stove even if hot. That is quite important. It tells you that the body does not naturally lend itself to injury, but injury takes place only in a highly aberrated condition. You should be able to take a body and throw it up against the wall hard enough to crush its skull in, have it drop to the floor, stand and walk away—providing you aren’t holding in suspension the image picture of its hitting the wall and being injured.

Now I’ll give you an example of that. I want you to look at this ashtray. Now I’m going to raise this ashtray and then I’m going to put it back on the desk. Is that action now in existence? Where? You’ve got some pictures of it, haven’t you? This universe doesn’t make things survive. Only you make things survive. And this is: you are holding the engram in restimulation, which permits it to have an effect. You’re so doggone hipped on the subject of survival that it’s just marvelous to behold. That is because a thetan cannot do anything else but survive. Naturally, anything that’s surviving he can go into good communication with.

People like to look at the Pyramids. Why? Well, the person is surviving and evidently the Pyramids are surviving, so there is a medium of interchange. A thetan looking at a solid is much happier if the solid is surviving. If this solid has duration, then the thetan can have a means of communication between himself and the solid, in spite of the fact that the thetan can’t be solid.

So people really don’t have much of a tendency to look at and study and examine very closely things of very finite survival periods—things that die right now, things that vanish right now. But they could say, “Look. It became nothing just like I am, and therefore I have another communication point with it.”

Sudden disappearances stay hung in the bank. That is different than something with a finite life. Things with a very finite small life are not very important, but solids which suddenly disappear are quite curious to a thetan. Hence we like magic shows and such things.

Now let’s add these factors up. This nothingness tends to survive only when arrived at under that circumstance: there was something there, now there’s nothing there. So that I give you a motion of MEST and you make a picture survive, but it’s not any longer moving in MEST. MEST has very, very finite duration, so we have to rig up all sorts of things so it’ll survive, so it’ll continue.

And people like to have things continue, but after a while, when things have not continued with them for a long time, then they get onto another kick: they only hold on to. It was something and suddenly became nothing, so therefore they hold on to losses. And the whole track, at length, becomes a concatenation of losses.

Communication, oddly enough, has always attended one of these losses. It is not true, basically, that communication as-ises or destroys or knocks out any mass. But communication has always accompanied the vanishment or destruction of mass, so the preclear gets these two things involved with each other, and then he goes through an automaticity of having mass vanish when he communicates. You must get this clearly. The only thing that as-ises mass is as-ising mass. But communication always accompanied this, and after a while the preclear gets one very solid conviction: that if he talks to something, something disappears. It’s not true.

Sound is another aspect of communication which is fabulous. You realize, the first sounds were evidently those which accompanied explosions or destructive actions. Electronic particles traveling through space will carry with them sound, even in the absence of air. Sound does not go through a vacuum. Unless you have some carrier for sound it doesn’t reach you at all. Therefore, a sudden electronic explosion was usually the first acquaintance with sound.

It’s true that he had to put sound there in order for sound to be there, but he has a number of experiences whereby something blew up (and therefore disappeared) and sound took place. So you’ll find any preclear willing to swear that sound is disintegrative. Not all communications contain sound, but sound is a disintegrating factor. So communications with sound combine the destructive aspect of sound (of which the preclear’s convinced) with the as-ising aspect of communication itself (of which he is again convinced), and between the two of them you get an awful loss of havingness if you’re not very careful. Communication, verbal, tends to as-is (or knock out) the masses in the bank of the preclear. So we just start right in auditing him. Now if he has a present time problem which is terribly pressing, well, you could do something with this if you didn’t talk about the problem too much. If you ran problems of comparable magnitude to it, you’d probably add to his havingness.

The way we got away with it with running engrams was quite peculiar. The person was having to put the engram there to some degree in order to run the thing. This made him capable of confronting the incident and so brought a discharge of the fixation he had for that incident, and yet did not rob him particularly of the incident, the mass. We were running the significance out of the mass. It’s interesting. But where a person couldn’t afford to lose anything, he couldn’t even afford to lose significance, and so we couldn’t run an engram. Well communication goes much further south, and we have a condition here whereby we see an individual drop through the bottom just by too much yackety-yak with the auditor on the subject of his particular phobia or bank.

This tells you, by the way, at once, one of the most condemning facts of psychoanalysis. I started digging up all the factors utilized in psychoanalysis, and I discovered this fantastic thing, that I couldn’t find any factor present which was therapeutic. Beyond the fact of telling a friend your troubles, there is no therapeutic rationale behind it, because you get the as-ising of mass. Where Freud achieved any result—let’s be generous, let’s say he did achieve some results—let’s find out how long it took him to achieve them. An old lady came in from Bavaria and talked to him for a few minutes and just ranted on and on, and all of a sudden said that she felt better and got up and left. Freud, as far as I can discover, never had any results from cases who went longer than a very few hours in psychoanalysis. In other words, Freud’s results were the magic results. A person came in and said, “This is wrong, and that is wrong” and felt better and went away. If you let the patient talk too long, he is going to go out the bottom, and that I guarantee. They talk themselves down the tone scale.

Just take a preclear who’s in bad shape and have him tell you about his problem or something, and he drops on out the bottom doing this. You can watch him go right on downscale. It’s possibly an experiment you ought to make to really understand this. Just make somebody tell you his trouble over and over and over. And you will understand at once why Freud got spectacular results in a very few hours, and why nobody’s gotten any results since in a great many hours.

Brainwashing—that’s the biggest joke of this half-century, brainwashing. A fellow will talk out enough havingness to throw himself into an introverted condition. You’ve got his mind concentrated upon his bank, and now you make him talk, and out goes the havingness. And he goes right on downscale with great speed.

Please understand this as auditors. Know what you are looking at. You’re just looking at the vanishment of mass. And a thetan believes that to be recognized and to be able to prove things and to be able to demonstrate to the world that he is there and that things have happened to him, he has to have mass.

And so we get the third corner here. Affinity is actually the consideration of distance. Communication is an interchange of ideas. But Reality is what it is about and what it is proved by.

Looking all around now, I would say that the weakest comer of the ARC Triangle is “A”—Affinity. This has the least monitoring effect upon a preclear but is the most strongly demonstrated. It is NOT a good entering point. C and R run out A, or re-establish A. And A is very easily monitored. C is less easily monitored by A and R. And you pull R and C apart and you’ve got nothing. You have no reaction. You have no universe. So C and R—Communication and Reality—are very, very closely associated.

And Reality has a scale. And because C is closely associated with Reality, Reality then again (after ‘54) started to take a certain prominence. Reality is a scale in its own right, and that scale begins at the top with a Postulate. Which postulate, continuing, can make a Consideration. You can acquire considerations by other means than postulating; all you have to do is agree with an existing postulate or an existing consideration, and you too can have the consideration—you didn’t have to postulate it in the first place.

It’s Postulates; Continuing Postulates/Considerations—and the next step down from there is Agreement. And here we see this vast panorama of “everybody agreed with everything,” which knits them all together in the same time continuum. It’s a postulate, a consideration, and then a couple of guys or more have this same consideration and, having it, then we have a specialized consideration—it is shared in common— and this we call an “agreement”: a shared consideration.

Having accomplished that, we get Solids. We get proof of the consideration, and that takes place in spaces and solids. But Reality, actually, is the solid aspect, whereas A is more closely associated to the spatial aspect. Because they wish to prove it and convince one another, they get something that can enter the phenomenon of sight, and the other phenomena of touch, smell. Here we have spatial relationships established and confirmed by mass.

What happens to somebody who is no longer convinced even though the mass is there? Where would he go? The one just below that is “a Line.” The mass called a “terminal” tends to vanish, and the line between a couple of terminals tends to take place and appear.

And then, below that we get “No Terminal, No Line.” And don’t mistake that for a postulate condition. You get this person selling you a beautiful bill of goods—because there’s nothing there—that he’s in a postulating condition. He has become the total effect of his postulates, total effect of his considerations, total effect of all masses, total effect of all lines—and now he can’t even see lines and masses. Such a person is liable to tell you, “My thoughts affect things thousands of miles away.” It’s true that an OT can affect something thousands of miles away. But he isn’t an OT, he’s got lumbago. OTs don’t have lumbago.

You start to process him, and what happens? The line shows up. You process him longer, and shadowy things show up at either end of the line, and the line starts to disappear and the terminals start to appear. And then you process him a little bit longer and boy, do those terminals become solid! And after he is able to make a terminal have an effect upon him so that his confidence in this is unassailable, he can only then enter into the world of agreement. Only then are his agreements binding and valid. Only then can he make them or break them. Up to that time he is obsessed by any agreement of the past track. He is the victim of all the upper scale at any point he is on the scale. And that is true of the Tone Scale, or is true of any other scale.

A person, you know, does not move up level by level of the Tone Scale. He broadens up the Tone Scale. He becomes the whole scale. There is a big difference. A person who is in good shape can postulate, consider (which is to say, continue a postulate), agree, make masses, or make masses disappear, or make lines between masses appear or disappear. At any point you find him on the scale, he can do the points from there down, and you win for him the ability again, you make him willing to have the ability again, to do the points from there up.

The Reality Scale is very important. It tells you that communication down below “No Line, No Terminal” is almost totally first dynamic communication. The person actually gets convinced that if he thinks it, it arrives in Chesapeake Bay, you see. He gets a telepathic idea of his own thinkingness. Naturally, all terminals there are are all there too, and all lines are there too.

Now what’s the state of a case at any one of these levels? Well, it matches up right there alongside the old Tone Scale—the Sub-Zero Scale and the original Tone Scale in their continuum, you see, from Serenity clear on down to Wait—Wait, not even Unconscious. This level is paralleled by this Reality Scale. And there’s also a series of communications which go down along the whole line.

Let’s take our preclear at the point where he doesn’t know you’re there and doesn’t know the room is there and doesn’t know he’s there and doesn’t know that he has a body sitting there, and he just DOESN’T KNOW, but he’s performing on some social machinery. Where is the entrance point? The first thing that you can do with this preclear, we believe now, that would recall to him an ability would be the recognition of the existence of a line. Hence, your hand against the preclear’s hand—that’s a line. By establishing a line he can come into cognizance of the terminal. Your arm is liable to get awful real to him. Unless his hand and arm get real, you’re not going to find anything else gettin’ real.

It doesn’t mean that a person responds to Hand Contact Mimicry only when he is in terrible shape. Anybody ought to respond to Hand Contact Mimicry. You do Hand Contact Mimicry with most anybody who hasn’t had his hands cleared, and you’re going to get some results, that’s for sure.

A solid communication line is very fine, but what if you break it? Well, you can break it so slowly that the person doesn’t notice that the hands have ceased to be lines and have become terminals. There is a little space, an inch, between your hand and the preclear’s hand, and he hasn’t noticed to any great degree. Affinity starts to take place, because we’ve got some distance, but the affinity, you’ll find, will be first worst and then best with the terminals close together. Hand Contact Mimicry is the point back to which I would drop at any time I became very suspicious that I was auditing over the head of the preclear. I’ve gone way over his head, therefore I’ve given him a loss, so therefore momentarily I would consider he was in bad communication with me—and his reality on me possibly could be graduated up to a line now.

Reality contains a level known as Havingness. In this little band of Mass there is a scale inside the Reality Scale—the Havingness Scale. And that has to do with the consideration of mass. It’s what you do with mass. That scale is quite an interesting scale in itself.

It starts out, probably, with Waste, or maybe with Substitute. It is so messed up at that point of Mass that it is very hard to get preclears to come up uniformly as to which one is the lowest one. It possibly goes this way: Waste, Substitute, Waste, Substitute, Waste, Substitute until you get up to the next one. Just as you find a great many false emotions jammed in at the level of Apathy on the Affinity Scale—and I’m sure you’ve seen this—so do you find this Waste and Substitute kicking around and kicking at each other on the Havingness Scale.

“Have” is the next one up. If a person can’t have something, you can have him waste it enough, and you’ll find out after a while he’ll say, “Well, I can have it.”

What is the next important way-stop on this Havingness Scale? The next one up the line is Confront—and that’s awfully important. A person who can’t confront something is liable to “have to have it” as his highest expression. And if he can’t confront it and can’t have it, it’s a cinch that he will waste it. And if he can’t even waste it, it’s a cinch he’ll substitute. And we get Freudian and other sublimations and all of that. Sublimation—they never knew what they talked about. This is not sublimation I’m talking about. This thing called “sublimation” is substitution. I mean, why get sublimative about something that is easily done? If a person hates women, it is a cinch that he probably hates “a woman” and substitutes for her all other women. But this is not a clean statement of it for this reason: you get identification, which is substitution, of one woman for another—and then you get disassociation; he can’t even identify any more. Hence your lower Waste level. He’s wasting now a substitute.

You’ll find a preclear after a while will, on some subject, disassociate. He says that ashtray isn’t that ashtray. You get the idea? He says, “This ashtray is a camel.” Well, now, that’s disassociation. He can’t recognize a thing for itself, but it must be something else, so we must understand that as an action of Mass to lie on the lower end of the Havingness Scale. It’s just as simple as that.

Now, as we go upscale further from Confront, we run into something which is pretty doggone high, and that’s Contribute To. People, if they are prevented from contributing to something, go downscale. Now if contributing to something is getting rid of mass, it’s somebody else is going to have something besides yourself—and you take a person who is sitting down at Have, or below, and you make him contribute a little bit, and he gets to be a sick puppy. He’ll just go on down into Waste and Substitute. It is a very high manifestation. It holds true all up and down this Havingness Scale that if an individual is prevented from helping, from contributing in some fashion, he gets very ill. Not in auditing, but in real life.

Let’s go on even higher than this, and what do we get to? We get to Create.

So the Havingness Scale, which fits at that innocuous word “Mass” on the Reality Scale, consists of the doingnesses with regard to Mass. And they begin at the top with Create, go down at once into Contribute To, into Confront, into Have, into Waste, and on down into Substitute. That all belongs at Mass; these are all the things you do with mass.

Now probably there are a bunch of doingnesses with Agreement. Ask an attorney. There are probably doingnesses with Postulates, and doingnesses with Lines—ask the telephone company. And these things probably, too, form up other scales quite similar to the Havingness Scale. And when you had all these doingness scales paralleling the

Reality Scale, you would have this difference: the thing, which is the Reality Scale and its aspects, which would be the doingness scale (considerations with regard to these things in actuality would be over here on this other scale). We mustn’t confuse the thing with what you do with it. You can have without doing. It’s pretty hard, however, to do without having, which is why Reality is so important in running on the preclear.

Now I hope you understand these two scales, and I hope you will take them around with you on auditing and look them over a little bit and understand what they are all about. Because we’re still talking about ARC, and as a matter of fact we’ll be talking a lot about Survive, which is OLD HAT, but it has certainly been polished up, and it certainly has a nice new band, and it certainly fits on a lot more heads than it used to.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 NOVEMBER 1957

PROJECT CLEAR CHECK SHEET

___________________	__________________	_______________________
NAME OF PRECLEAR 	NAME OF AUDITOR 	DATE PROJECT STARTED

HOURS RUN PER SESSION ____________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

USE A CHECK IF PROCESS IS RUN, USE AN X IF PROCESS IS CONSIDERED FLAT.

CCH 0 	CCH 1	CCH 2

CCH 3                    	CCH 4

Tr. 10

MOCK UP AN UNWANTED FUTURE	TRIO

ARC STRAIGHTWIRE

RECALL AN UNWANTED OBJECT
RECALL A MOMENT OF LOSS

RECALL AN EXPECTED COMMUNICATION
RECALL A COMPLETED COMMUNICATION

PSYCHOSOMATIC ADDRESS. Condition _________________________________
RECALL AN UNWANTED (AFFECTED BODY PART)
RECALL A LOST (AFFECTED BODY PART)

SHORT SPOTTING

MOCK UP A CONDITION WORSE THAN (AFFECTED BODY PART)

VALENCE SPLITTERS:
Person located by E-Meter	Split________
Person located by E-Meter	Split________
Person located by E-Meter	Split________

RISING SCALE PROCESSING

BODY ANCHOR POINTS

Note: This sheet does not replace regular report sheets in HGC but must be included.

INFORMATION SHEET ON PROJECT CLEAR

It is expected that the processes scheduled for project clear be run more or less in the following order.

CCH 0 at the beginning of each session. If pc falters on one or another point, stress that point until cleared up.

CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 to be run as follows. If 1 produces no reaction go to 2, if 2 produces no reaction go to 3, if 3 produces an action flatten it a bit and go to 4. If 4 produces an action or no action either flatten or go quickly to 1, etc, until these steps have each one been unflattened and flattened again.

Tr. 10 is used liberally as a bridge process and to start and end sessions. If it develops a somatic, auditor should treat it as a process and flatten it and then go right on using it. Main use is at session end.

RECALL SOMETHING REALLY REAL TO YOU is run to test recalls. It is a very effective process in itself. In fact all the three questions of ARC Straight Wire can be run if pc is found pretty bad on this. But it is intended to be used simply to groove the pc and to keep a cataclysm from occurring if the pc can’t run recall processes. If he has a hard time, flatten ARC Straight Wire. Otherwise, run for minutes only.

RECALL AN UNWANTED OBJECT and RECALL A MOMENT OF LOSS are a pair. If one is used, then the other must be used exactly the same length of time in the same session. They are alternate processes where one is run a half hour then the other is run a half hour. These two are the chief processes of Operation Clear so give them lots of concentration and time.

TRIO is run as a step between recall processes. If one session is run on recall processes the next is run on TRIO. There is Control Trio and Trio. It is up to the auditor which is used. But use all three commands of either in any proportion that seems right to the auditor. Run lots of Trio even though both recall processes are havingness processes.

RECALL AN EXPECTED COMMUNICATION and RECALL A COMPLETED COMMUNICATION are interesting processes. Communication as-ises havingness. Thus this is a reverse process which, by dropping the pc’s level of concentration on past persons and activities thus gives him the havingness of those areas of the track. These processes may or may not be vital to Project Clear as they are released ahead of long experiment and use.

RISING SCALE PROCESSING is run when the pc can change ideas. He must be up to lots of cognitions before this is run. It is run from the Chart of Attitudes as given in Creation of Human Ability.

ADJUSTING ANCHOR POINTS is done almost at project end. This is a delicate auditing job and additional material will be released upon it.

SHORT SPOTTING and VALENCE SPLITTING are fitted in at the auditor’s discretion. SHORT spotting is done by indicating objects close up to pc and making him repeatedly notice his psychosomatic area. Valence splitting may not even be necessary if the above auditing steps are well done. Also, it may be that psychosomatic difficulties will not need further attention than earlier processes on this sheet.

PROBLEMS OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE are here done with MOCK UP SOMETHING WORSE THAN PSYCHOSOMATIC CONDITION. UNWANTED FUTURES may also be fitted in anywhere.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

Issue 58		[1957, ca. early November]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

We Are the Free People

L. Ron Hubbard

We are the Free People. We have grown up—grown up to Freedom, not senility.

We are the Free People. The Scientologist has left behind the claws and barriers of miscontrol.

We are the Free People. Grown from out the mud and jungle rot of fear, our unchained minds can reach afar and grasp the idea of ultimate Freedom.

We are the Free People in whom the whims of “I’m supposed to” have no rule, on whom the scientist can blunt his weighty arguments to prove we are not Free.

Be glad, they said before we came, that you are mad, insane, for there is genius, so they said. You cannot change. Our brand on you is fixed. Your brain is all you are and fixed like clockwork in a robot head. So think, they said, as we have said, to think, for thought is our own chain and your ideas nil.

Die, they said, and live no more and become dispossessed so we can own. Fall down, they said, and worship clay or maybe space, but of course wrath. And sing lugubrious songs to fear or maybe international cults that specialize in slaves.

Believe, they said, that Man is just a shiny thing well meant to die beneath the pounding of their bombs—the mightiest God they knew.

The flesh, they said, is All and you are but a decay of yourself.

And so they barriered All men.

The witch and the pot; the test tube and the scope; the cell and the club; the textbook and the lies-Control! Control them or we die! Beat them or they win! Starve them or we shrink. We are afraid, afraid, afraid!—they said in that old age we killed.

Freedom becks and we now laughing at their lies, went free.

Scientology—The Road Sign Out.

We are the Free People. We LIVE! We’re Free !

P.A.B. No. 124
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 November 1957

COMMUNICATION AND IS-NESS

A man is as well off as he can consider himself dangerous to his environment.

I will tell you a little short anecdote, which is quite amusing. Well, sometime early in 1945 I flunked my overseas examination. Well, I crawled around and felt sorry for myself, and the fact of it was that the Judo instructor there at the hospital brought up the idea that there was a shortage of people in the war—there was. So he kept up my training for me. I think it was July 25th that I went down to Hollywood and three sailors with Petty Officers’ ratings accosted me on the street. They were drunk. They were out to kill officers. And the three of them tied into me. An unbelievable thing happened. One of them turned me around facing him while the second one took a heavy beer bottle to bring it down on my skull. I took the fellow who brought the beer bottle down, threw him over my head into this fellow, who went down and hit the side of a bumper. The beer bottle hit the pavement, broke the end off, and the other fellow reared up where he had been sitting on the running board of a car, and I put it in his face. That’s what you are trained to do.

Overnight, the wound in my side healed—overnight. They wouldn’t let me out at all, but I could get extended leave from the hospital. I went down to Hollywood and messed around at the studios. In the middle of all that I managed to complete all the researches which I’d stacked up and which had been interrupted by the war.

Steam. . . where had it come from? You get your teeth shoved in this way and that, and you develop a tremendous amount of inflow. And then one day you just outflow! The Chief Petty Officer in charge of the Shore Patrol had been sitting at his desk, telling me, “Under no circumstances should you have taken any action. You were trifling with your life.” Telling me what a good boy I ought to be. And then through the door he saw the Shore Patrol bring these people in. Of course, they were all saturated with blood, and they were all messed up. And he just shut up right then!

He was running the usual social dramatization—”You must protect yourself.” The society teaches you to hold in. All you have to do to somebody is to prevent him from outflowing to make him ill. And someday he decides to outflow. Not only the social world but the world of yourself can act to cause you to prevent outflow. Outflow is prevented by regret, it is prevented by all sorts of things. If one has something terrifically valuable he protects it—which is what? Prevent an inflow! Well, when you say prevent an inflow you might as well say prevent an outflow. If you hold flows from coming in toward you you might as well flow them in, because sooner or later that dike that you put up is going to burst. So you get these confounded actions in this universe composing a picture of tremendous inflow, not balanced at all by outflow.

What does this all add up to? Any time that you protect and defend, you are aiding and abetting all the structures which make up this universe. The child who is taught to defend himself against these big, vicious automobiles some day turns out to be one of the lousiest drivers you ever saw, because he is taught to defend and protect. All you have to assume is that safety is desirable to have all of the ills of Pandora’s box swarm around your head.

Just what boxing glove can hit a thetan I wouldn’t know. A thetan has to mock himself up to be reachable. You are dealing with the idea of what a person is supposed to feel as a result of, when it comes to inflows. And that’s just an idea. If a person over-defends himself through some exaggerated idea of pain, he will suffer the full consequences of that over-defense, just to the degree that anybody else over-defends himself to that degree.

So the reason for the defense or the reason for safety is variable, but the consequences of it aren’t. As long as you deal with masses, and agreements and ideas directly concerning masses, you are all right. But when you go back into an opinion of what it ought to be as far as the preclear is concerned, you are of course immediately in trouble. Any auditor who is having a rough time with preclears, not snapping them out of the hop immediately, is paying attention to this factor, which is a variable, which is opinion. Figure-figure, ideas, ideas, ideas.

Suppose we had no cops in the society but there was the idea around that there were cops. We would get some of the nuttiest ideas you have ever heard of! We would have a set of ideas about cops, different for each person in the entire community. Why? Because there is no way to experience cops. Cops are an idea which one cannot get into communication with; therefore we get this great oddity—abundance and scarcity. Only it isn’t actually the possession of quantity; it is only apparently quantitative. It is having something to go into communication with.

I’m very sure that the whole world of disease is built entirely on this mechanism. I seriously doubt the existence of any given germ—I seriously doubt it. It is very embarrassing to men in sailing ships and so on, very embarrassing to these fellows, to have venereal diseases happen when they have had no contact with women at all. And I have seen that often enough in young boys that were as pure as the driven lily to understand completely that we didn’t have here a germ at work. We had a series of ideas at work. Fascinating subject in view of the fact that it has ruined as many lives down the decades and centuries as it has. When you socially enter a great many prohibitions against communication on the second dynamic, you will get all sorts of interesting ideas.

Aberration is caused by cut communication with the mass, and is remedied by re-established communication with the mass. Look what they are doing with the A-bomb. This is one of the silliest things you ever saw in your life. They make everything about it confidential, secret, and nobody must be let in on it.

And there is possibly no more illness to radiation than that.

The formula for creating an illness is to establish a terminal, get everybody convinced that this terminal is there, and refuse to let them communicate with it.

Now one of the dangerous things to do with Scientology would be to put it under the counter. In the first place it isn’t a terminal. A terminal, however, must be maintained, and access to that terminal must be preserved. And it mustn’t be put on confidential, any part of it. Why? Because it’s already dynamite. We do anything with it that can be done with anything. Let’s not cut a line to it and let’s not put it beyond reach. There would be a certain fatality in doing that. And yet every group that has ever learned a series of great truths has inevitably gone into secret priesthoods concerning them, which was of course a destructive action.

It isn’t jumping into ten thousand volts of current that electrocutes a man. It’s having so many times in the past disconnected from electricity when confronted with it. Every time you disconnect you to that degree lower your own tolerance.

Obviously the electricity flying through these poles is more real to the individual being the line than the actual terminal of the pole. Why is it more real to him and his body? Because it has the greatest effect on him and his body. He can touch the pole, but he can’t touch the juice. That tells you there must be some terrific reality about the dangerousness of this juice, and the pole is either in apathy or non-existent. Therefore you can only teach one thing to a preclear, horribly enough, and that is—”You can communicate with it.” The communication with a mass is the only thing we can do for him, but we have to have a mass.

We can get him to conceive of an is-ness, and we can get him to communicate with it, and by this he will change his mind concerning its existence. He will change his mind concerning its conditions, but most particularly and more important to you, he will change his mind with regard to its abundance or scarcity, and therefore its importance. It is the scarcity or abundance of things which denotes their value or importance. A man who has lived too long without women will consider women dangerous.

So scarcities and abundances do declare the final state of one’s reactions to anything. When something becomes very scarce it is because one has cut communication, and that action of cutting communication is the same action of defending or protecting self. Now as I say, you can break out of this. You can have this tremendous resurgence. You can outflow. You can act. And that’s all there is behind one of these resurgences, by the way, there are no other factors. Or you, as an auditor, can bring him gently and quietly up on a gradient scale until he can again communicate with the objects in his environment, and he again will experience the same thing he experienced when he did this tremendous outflow. We are reaching towards the same goals but we’re saying that by communication we establish the is-ness of existence, and by doing that, why, we make people well.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 125
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 December 1957

THE PARTS OF MAN

I am going to go over with you the parts of man. The first thing we’re going to take up is exteriorization, as the most important part of man. It’s the causation. That’s the thetan. Now, the fact that you can’t weigh one is because this is the author of weighing. There is, however, a way of experiencing this. It is a personal attitude, it is a personal view. An individual can exteriorize and experience this phenomenon. It is very easy to experience being a thetan, but it’s not easy to experience seeing one.

So therefore people tend quite markedly to become Only Ones. Here is a phenomenon which a person can experience himself but cannot observe in others. There are many ways to experience the idea of somebody else exteriorizing.

Exteriorization is the phenomenon of being in a position of space dependent on only one’s consideration, able to view from that space, bodies and the room, as it is. That is exteriorization. Well, people who have difficulty controlling the body from close up, I can assure you, won’t get out of their heads, because they can’t control anything at a distance. If you can’t control a body from a distance you will find yourself very, very reluctant to get out of your head. It is as simple as that. Any phenomenon which occurs beyond the point of willingness to be out of the head or control the body from a distance is regulated by the scarcity and abundance of bodies and universes. And if you can’t see your body, then there is a scarcity of them. If you can’t see the universe, there is a scarcity of that. That’s all there is to that.

Now, here is exteriorization: Keep your head from going away. “Take your hands and hold on to your head and keep it from going away.” I don’t know how many hours it would take with some preclears. Probably a Black 5 would have to sweat along at this for fifteen or twenty hours before he was really there, but he would get there on that one technique. That is quite amazing, isn’t it? There are probably about five thousand other techniques. This is the only shotgun one that I know, the one that doesn’t ever fail. It is only contingent upon one thing—being able to take hold of your head. That is a necessary prerequisite to that technique.

All right. Now let’s take the next fact about this, and we find that vision depends upon scarcity and abundance. The ability to exteriorize depends on the willingness to exteriorize, but the willingness to experience is totally monitored by the amount of things available to experience. A thetan gets quantitatively minded.

What good is a human being? The fact is, there are too many of them to be seen. Now, how about too few? Well, on a frontier, the fewness of people is one of the fabulous things. Man dramatizes. When he gets into an area of too few people, he then kills the people who exist. And when he gets into an area where there are too many people, he then overlooks the people who exist. Somewhere in between this, you will have a progressive society. And such a society was the United States—anywhere between twenty-five and a hundred million people the United States was in there pitching. But now that it has begun to exceed that, people have started to disappear. They aren’t. That sounds to you like a cynical statement. If we were to have an atomic war, and cut the population down to fifty million, you’d get another view. It is simply a statement of scarcity and abundance.

All right. We take somebody and we can get him out of his head, but would he just go out of his head without being gotten out of his head? Well, yes. Scarcity and abundance will actually kick him out of his head. Scarcity and abundance of what? Let’s say that the preclear’s idea of the scarcity or abundance of rooms depends then upon his willingness to view them. You have to put him into direct contact with the is-ness of rooms. Now let’s go a little bit further than that and look at the body. If he has too few bodies he is certainly going to be unwilling to get out of the body he is in. And if he has too many right where he is, he’ll be trapped there too. He won’t know where he is. So remedying his havingness on the subject of his own body is very necessary to an accurate and stable exteriorization.

So much for exteriorization. Let’s go off now into the second part, which is the mind. By mind today we mean that structure of mental image pictures and machinery on which the preclear is depending for his opinions and ideas. The structure of the mind is totally composed of mental image pictures. I’m afraid the mind doesn’t produce any thoughts. The mind may be considered to have certain phonograph records. The phonograph record, as you know, doesn’t play unless you put a needle on the platter. Well, the thetan is the needle on the platter, and unless the record is played directly it doesn’t activate it. Any livingness, even a thetan exteriorized, tends to utilize some sort of mental image pictures. But when he reads all of the records in the mind as the absolute truth and fact and conviction, when he is obeying concatenations of “I am supposed to,” we have behavior patterns; we have mental reactions; we have all of these various things that were never studied, by the way, in psychology. I don’t know where a psychologist lives, but it’s certainly not in this universe.

Now the exact workings of this mechanism depend on association and differentiation, or identification and differentiation. Now when that part of the mind which we call a reactive mind begins to identify everything with everything in order to get certain pattern responses, and is able to exert its influence upon a person far better than the thetan himself can, we say that this person is suffering from reactive conduct. A=A=A=A.

Now Association—Differentiation are the two principles of the mind. It is supposed to tell the difference between two or more things, and it is supposed to tell the similarity between two or more things. Now, a mind in good shape doesn’t identify. What causes association to become identification? Lack of objects. Lack of incidents. Lack of experience. When you have too few things happen to you, you’re liable to have all sorts of things happen to you. In other words, if you are busy and there are lots of incidents, there is a high probability that you will not suffer the consequences thereof. But if you are not busy and you are idle, then you are liable to long for those times when you were very busy. And if you are ever worried about a mental image picture, it’s because you haven’t enough to worry about.

Where all drama is tailor-made for you, you are in grave jeopardy. In a TV screen world you are apt to be in trouble, because the TV is only a pattern of lights and shadows which is a restimulative mechanism to shuffle your bank around, and give you again some segment of that which you have already experienced. It’s a funny thing that people will not read about certain periods. If you are talking to somebody who is very upset on the subject of past lives, you should realize that he was probably just executed up at Sing Sing in 1932 or 1933, and he just can’t stand the idea. It is only people who are borderline insanity cases who got up and screamed about past lives. This I have kept a very careful tally on. They were people who were terrified; people who were incapable ever of holding their own on the subject. They couldn’t have talked about it very long before a past life would have snapped in and snapped their heads off. Those incidents which are most scarce tend to stick hardest.

Let’s look at this thing called the mind, and let’s find that the mind is a mechanism for overcoming the lack of incidents, lack of experience in present time by storing pictures and knowingnesses of the past, which could be made available to the present. A preclear is always losing incidents. One of the methods of not losing them would be to simply suspend them as a picture. Now, if you restore his ability to make these pictures solid, you’ve really done something. He can have the picture then any time he wants, in its full form. You have to change the idea of how much picture and incident is actually necessary in order to alter the preclear’s viewpoint, and you change that with scarcity and abundance. Scarcity and abundance naturally comes up, and is handled by Havingness.

Now, let’s take up the final and remaining part of man, which is the body.

Now, the body is a solid appendage which makes a person recognizable. The body is a game of considerable magnitude, and very popular at this time. It is quite old, but still very popular. The body can be monitored and handled by mental image pictures, and it can also be monitored and handled by thetans, fortunately. But a body is subject to these two other things. It is actually not possible to change a body without changing the other two things. The body is modified by the mind and the thetan, and is actually a very low order of MEST.

Now the anchor points of the body are quite interesting, in that the body exists as solid only within these spaces, and in the absence of some of these anchor points the body will aberrate its shape. We know the fastest way to change body shape is to put the thetan into a condition of willingness to handle anchor points, and then remedy the scarcity and abundance of anchor points, and put the actual anchor points back there and have him put them back there. You will see the body change its shape, health and general characteristics.

Now, mental image pictures also influence the body, and they influence the body basically by influencing these anchor points. A facsimile evidently imposes itself by magnetic fields and currents and other things upon the anchor point system. It is quite interesting.

So therefore the body is handled and controlled on a mental level through these anchor points. If you were sailing along seventy-five feet back of your head some day, and you see some preclear come along, just shift your range of vision enough to find that preclear’s wing anchor points; if you were to get hold of one of these wing anchor points and just bend it off line—the person will walk in a circle. As long as you hold the anchor point out of line the person will walk out of line.

Joints operate because of anchor point structure. The body is then held together by electronic structure which is easily influenceable, and that electronic structure has much more command upon the body than the MEST around it. And the thetan goes through these very many vias of mental image pictures and these anchor points, and thus influences the structure of the body.

Now, to influence the mind by influencing the body is only possible by doing something to the havingness of the thetan. Now you can influence a thetan by influencing the body. Let’s not overlook this point. But that influence only takes place to a degree that it influences abundance and scarcity.

In other words, as you influence his ideas of havingness of bodies, so you influence his condition with regard to bodies, and we re-influence the body. We find out that a body can be moved, thus influencing the thetan, or two or three bodies can be put back, thus influencing the thetan, and we have simply run the back flow of mass reaction on the person. And we do that in auditing all the time. We adjust the person’s havingness, his ability to communicate with an is-ness, his ability to conceive an is-ness, to communicate with it. This is Havingness; this is the way you run Havingness.

There in essence we have the body.

But with the three subdivisions of a human being we have to include the fact that he lives in the universe.
All right. These, then, are the three parts of beingness, with the condition that one lives in the universe. And these are inter-influencing. These parts of man, each one of them, are insistent upon experience, incident. Man grows old, minds become complicated, thetans become wise. But at no time does their capability, or ability in general, lessen. Only their willingness to live increases and decreases, and that increases and decreases in direct ratio that there is a scarcity or abundance of the various things in which they are interested. And these scarcities and abundances influence them and monitor their conduct, or any culture. The cure for this is to put the person into communication with actual is-ness, or the is-ness of any given object, and to permit him to reacquaint himself with that. And so by auditing his life can be righted.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

Issue 60		[1957, ca. early December]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

Scientology:
The Philosophy of a New Age

L. Ron Hubbard

It takes Truth to live with a swiftly changing world. Nothing less than Truth can Survive. You cannot Survive with anything less than Truth.

We are the heralds of a New Age. Man, stuck for millennia in the rut of status quo can at first balk and even ridicule, but, Can He Survive?

Always the old has hooted at the new. But the new grows strong and each day’s dawning sees us closer to a new World.

What will this world be? Atomic reactors giving unlimited power. Automatic machines providing for the most of Man’s animal wants. Space flight to the Solar System. New politics, new leisure, new hates, new loves.

But before any new era begins there is always a period of instability and change, a period of violence, a period soiled with the death of the old and the failed experiments of the new.

Such periods of change are violent. Many things, many men may not Survive them.

What will it take to Survive this change? Who can Survive it and sail onward to live in new times?

The lucky and the clear.

But who are the lucky but the clear.

Scientology for the individual is a passport to this new time. Scientology for the group is the Survival of the State.

No old shaky basis of thought could last out the fire of the period of change. No quivering, unstable person could Survive the duress of the times just now to come.

One’s first duty to all is to be himself clear, able to Survive, able to lead his own destiny by the hand.

One’s next duty is to his fellows to be sure their ability can compare to the tasks imposed by the new State of things.

The answer to these trials is contained in Scientology. And Scientology is the answer to you.

Only a clear could think and act fast enough to live in a disaster and to make others live. Only a clear could Survive in Space. Only a clear could enjoy the fast pace of the game to come.

Others may die or worse, become slaves in the inevitable advance of technology which holds in question the abilities of a man.

Hence, Project Clear. That’s our goal now. We can do it. We can teach you to get it done.

It’s taken seven years to iron out the kinks. Seven years isn’t long against 73 trillion.

Today can be ours. Tomorrow can come. Let us be ready for it.

We are the prime movers in this, the new age. Forget the old. Face up to what will come. And let the dead yesterdays bury the philosophy of Authority and Capital Gains and Communist psychology cults. We’re no longer tied.

The eons march on. Space Opera has again come to a planet on which we live. Always before it meant destruction.

Perhaps, this time, due to our efforts, a humanitarian world can exist. We, the Prophets of the Morrow, know the way. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN # 1 OF 3 DECEMBER 1957

CLEAR PROCEDURE

DEFINITIONS, GOALS

There are three possible goals in processing a preclear. The first of these is Mest Clear. The second is Theta Clear. The third is Operating Thetan.

By Mest Clear is meant a BOOK ONE CLEAR. Here we defined clear in terms of facsimiles. This is a rather simple mechanical definition. It said in effect that so far as human beings were concerned our preclear finally arrived at a point where he had full color-visio-sonic, had no psychoses or neuroses and could recall what had happened to him in this lifetime. This is almost a baby-talk sort of clear. It pays no heed at all to identification with a body and it has nothing to do with ability. Today, by running Creative Processes (four years old!) we can turn on visible facsimiles and weed out the bottom spots of operations and what not. This is actually a rather easy goal. Somehow I’ve never given a real tight procedure for achieving it even though the essence of the processes have been around for a very long time. COMPLETING STEP SIX OF CLEAR PROCEDURE IN FULL GIVES US A MEST CLEAR.

By Theta Clear is meant a Clear obtained by Clear Procedure as is being delineated in this regimen. The main trouble is, amusingly, trying to reach Mest Clear without running into Theta Clear. I personally don’t believe now that it can be done without actually shoving the pc back in his head every time he pops out. Thus the goal of this procedure is actually THETA CLEAR. This is what we mean then when we say “clear”. We mean a Theta Clear.

By Operating Thetan we mean Theta Clear PLUS ability to operate functionally against or with Mest and other life forms. For the first time we have here the matter of ABILITY. An Operating Thetan is not an absolute term. Theta Clear is a more absolute term than Operating Thetan. An Operating Thetan is a Theta Clear (Not a mystical mystic out on an inversion) who can also do something.

Thus we have two goals which contain no ambition to accomplish anything and one goal which contains much ambition. Now here is another puzzle in definitions. Which is highest, the Theta Clear or the Operating Thetan? Well, the answer to that is not what we used to think. As DOINGNESS is not really at the top we find that we will probably make an Operating Thetan before we achieve Theta Clear for a Theta Clear would probably not be much interested in operating. Therefore we see that the actual goal we are trying to reach, no matter in which limited sense, is Operating Thetan.

Operating Thetan is then a highly variable goal. A thetan who can move in and out of a body is actually operating somewhat but he is not really a Theta Clear since a Theta Clear, in its highest sense, means no further dependency upon bodies.

The goals of the auditor, therefore, do not rack up one, two, three, Mest Clear, Theta Clear, Operating Thetan. They actually stack up on a very gradient scale between thetan inoperative and a thetan who can operate. The auditor is therefore seeking to reach with the pc a state wherein the pc can function. At no time does the auditor suddenly arrive with a pc in a startling new shiny state all of a sudden that can be called a certain thing. In that pcs often expect this suddenly bursting “into the light” the auditor is subjected to disappointment when he has actually achieved an enormous gain for the pc. In other words, pcs gain on a smooth gradient scale and do not suddenly become something.

There is only one point on the road up where something does happen and that is exteriorization. When the pc exteriorizes for the first time he feels there must be a cause for rejoicing and has the idea he has gotten somewhere. Well, in fact you could achieve the same result by hitting him over the head with a club. He would exteriorize. The point is not exteriorizing the pc but cutting down his dependency upon a body. A pc who exteriorizes and is not carried right on with the same process that sprang him out of his head until it is flat will go back into his head in an hour or a week and will be harder to dig out the next time.

In other words this point of exteriorization does happen and does mean to the pc that he is himself. But it shouldn’t mean very much to an auditor beyond his noticing that this phase has been entered in the case. For in truth thetans don’t stay out of their bodies very long if they are not in good shape. Thus exteriorization means less than ability to act, to live, to be and do. The attention of the auditor should be upon the increasing ability of the pc to handle life, not upon the distance the pc gets from his body. Is that clear? Well, it tells us that arriving at a state of Clear is easy if that means stable outside and that any state of betterment on the road to Operating Thetan is an honest achievement.

Thus an auditor should at all times go toward the state of Operating Thetan and should not be mixed up in the oddities of exteriorization for a day.

HGC Clear Procedure goes straight toward exteriorization and achieves it. But it also goes straight toward increasing ability to handle life. The latter is the auditor’s best goal. The auditing goal should go in the same direction as this new definition for Operating Thetan.

An Operating Thetan can be at cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.

This Action Definition of Operating Thetan is the true goal of the auditor and if followed with complete understanding will achieve the best possible results.

In this discussion of goals and definitions, I am telling you cleanly that the goals of Mest Clear and Theta Clear are not worth following from the auditor’s standpoint. You can let pcs think what they will about them. The only goal worthy of the auditor’s time WHATEVER THE STATE OF CASE OF THE PC is Operating Thetan. To achieve one on any subject it is only necessary to place the pc to some degree at willing and knowing cause point with regard to that subject. All the steps of HGC Clear Procedure are leveled at Operating Thetan. But you need not tell your pc that. You can use the words RELEASE, MEST CLEAR, THETA CLEAR or any other if you like. Just remember there is only one payoff goal and that is Operating Thetan.

MEST CLEAR: Can see facsimiles with sonic present lifetime, has no psychoses or neuroses. Upper part of APA (in UK OCA) graph. Above 135 IQ.

THETA CLEAR: Can exist knowingly independent of bodies.

RELEASE: Average a third of a graph higher than first test, above 115 IQ.

OPERATING THETAN: Can be at Cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 DECEMBER 1957

Clear Procedure as of Dec 3, 1957, is supplemented by a tape made at Auditors’ Conference of Nov 30, 1957.

This current bulletin supplements HCO Bulletin of Dec 3, 1957, which is the Introduction. There will be a series of these, giving a bulletin to each step. The entire series will be published in a photolitho booklet called CLEAR PROCEDURE which will be ready for the December Congress and which will cost $2.00 in the U.S. and 10 shillings in Great Britain. Both booklets will be published by the HCO and will be copyrighted internationally. The booklet published in Great Britain will be a photolitho of the U.S. photolitho copy. The booklet may not be published in whole or in part by anyone but the HCO.

CLEAR PROCEDURE CONTINUED
STEP ONE: PARTICIPATION IN SESSION BY THE PC.

We have long known that ARC was important. Just how important it is was established by some tests I made in London in 1956 wherein every time the pc showed any restlessness or other signs of loss of havingness, instead of remedying havingness I carefully searched out any fancied break of ARC and patched it up. The “loss of havingness” vanished. In other words loss of ARC is even more important than loss of havingness since a repair of ARC restores havingness. Lack of havingness is only one symptom of a lack of communication.

There are two ways an auditor, according to long practice, can err. One of these is to permit two-way communication to a point where the pc’s havingness is injured. The other is to chop communication to such a degree that havingness is injured. There is a point past which communication is bad and short of which lack of communication is bad. Here we have auditor judgment at play. Because the pc will fidget or go downscale in tone when his havingness drops an auditor can SEE when the pc’s havingness is being lowered. Because a pc will go anaten or start to grind into the process an auditor can tell whether or not the pc feels his communication has been chopped. When either happens the auditor should take action—in the first instance by shutting off the pc’s outflow and getting to work and in the second instance by making the pc talk out any fancied communication severance.

Participation in session by the pc is not something the auditor sees to at the beginning of the session and then forgets for the rest of the intensive. This step is continued throughout the intensive and is given as much attention as any process being run at the time. The auditor’s attention is always therefore upon two things—first the continued participation in session and second the action of the process.

Grouped under this head we would also have ways and means of getting the pc into session in the first place. An unconscious pc used to be an apparent road block. A downtone, antagonistic, you-can’t-help-me pc was also a rough one. These two things are countered by always carefully starting a session and following through on standard CCH 0.

It is as important to open a session with a baby or an unconscious person as it is with any other preclear. It doesn’t matter whether the pc is answering up or not. It is only necessary to assume that the pc would answer if he could answer and that the mechanics of voice and gesture are simply absent from the answer. Therefore one always carefully starts every session, paying attention to what is happening, where it is happening, who is there, help, goals and problems. Obviously anaten or inability to control the body are the present time problem of the unconscious person or the child. One can actually audit this with a plain question and simply assume after a bit it has been answered, then give the acknowledgement and ask another question just as though the pc were in full vocal action. Auditors still fall for the belief, very current, that “unconscious” people are unable to think or be aware in any way. A thetan is seldom unconscious regardless of what the body is doing or not doing.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM is a highly vital point of PRECLEAR PARTICIPATION. If a preclear is being nagged too thoroughly by a PT Problem auditing can actually send him downhill if done without addressing the problem. A whole intensive, even seventy-five hours can be wasted if the auditor does not clear the PT PROBLEM.

The preclear generally doesn’t know he has one which is nagging him, for the rough PT Problems go into the apathy band and below into forgetfulness rather rapidly. Therefore the auditor should ferret out the PT Problem with an E-Meter. Adroit use of an E-Meter does not include evaluating for the preclear but it certainly does include ferreting out PT Problems. The E-Meter is also used for valences and sometimes psychophysical difficulties. (Auditor: Use the word “psychophysical” rather than psychosomatic and stay out of a medical field.)

THE RUNNING OF A PT PROBLEM today is the most. PT Problem, valences, psychophysical ailments, all run beautifully with “Mock up something worse than (terminal)” or “Invent something worse than (terminal)”. To run this it is necessary to isolate the TERMINAL most intimately connected with the PT Problem (or the valence or psychophysical difficulty). One then CLEARS THE COMMAND (and you always better do that with any command) and lets go.

The whole idea of WORSE THAN is the whole of the dwindling spiral. People who are “trying to get better” and “be more perfect” and “think the right thought” lose all control of “getting worse”, “being imperfect”, and “thinking the wrong thought”. All these WORSE THANs are then left on automatic and we arrive at something less than optimum. In fact we arrive with the dwindling spiral. We also arrive with the “point of no return”. We also arrive with the declining ability to heal or get well. And we also arrive with old age.

After running “worse than” on the PT Problem, we proceed with other parts of CCH 0. Clearing help will be found quite beneficial. But to get a pc to participate who is downright ugly about it, running help is usually only a partial solution. When these only ones get going they really snarl on the subject of getting audited. Here CCH 1 is of benefit. No questions asked. But this of course defeats the purpose of STEP ONE.

PARTICIPATION OF THE PC in the session is necessary in order to place the pc somewhat at the cause point in the actual fact of auditing. This fits the definition. You can always change a body or recover it from some illness by auditing without much helping the pc himself. Therefore the pc, while under auditor control, is still somewhat at cause what with comm bridges and clearing commands, etc. But he is made to feel no bad effects from being AT EFFECT if ample ARC is used. In other words, the pc can’t be entirely at cause in a session or he would be self-auditing, which isn’t good, but he can be salvaged from being a total effect by good ARC. When the ARC drops out that DOES leave the pc at more or less total effect, a thing you have probably noticed.

The things to be done in CCH 0 should be done thoroughly at intensive’s beginning and should be glanced at whenever a new session starts and should get a bow when a new command is used. But all CCH 0 is is a collection of mechanical aids to assist the pc’s participation in the session and to assist the auditor in ARC. Although CCH 0 must be used always, it is not a total substitute for ARC.

The sum of CCH 0 is find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc, knock out any existing PT Problem, establish goals, clear help, get agreement on session length and get up to the first real auditing command. CCH 0 isn’t necessarily run in that order and this isn’t necessarily all of CCH 0, but if any of these are seriously scamped, the session will somewhere get into trouble.
When the participation of the pc ceases in a session, he must be gotten back into session by any means and then participation is re-established. A pc is never permitted to end a session on his own choice. He seeks to end them when his participation drops out of sight.

The trick question “What did I do wrong?” re-establishes ARC.

The problem of handling a pc who is not co-operative, who does not wish to participate, is a highly special problem. In the first place it is the pc’s engrams that do not want to continue, in the second place it is the engrams which are doing the talking. One ordinarily tackles this case with a formal opening of session, brief but positive, and then sails in with CCH 0, just as though the person were unconscious, which, of course, the person is.

Participation by an unconscious person, while covered above, requires the additional refinement of technique. ONE MUST ALWAYS FIND SOMETHING THE PRECLEAR CAN DO AND THEN BETTER THAT ABILITY. An unconscious person is usually lying in bed. If not, the command must be varied to fit the environment. But the best command is something like “You make that body lie in that bed.” A slightly upper grade process to a person sitting in a chair is “You seat that body in that chair.” In such cases a grip on the pc’s hand and the use of a slight squeeze each time the auditor acknowledges considerably speeds the process.

There is another special case—or maybe it isn’t so special. There are many people who cannot tackle a present time problem with a process. If the auditor sought out a PT Problem and then ran “something worse than a related terminal” or a “problem of comparable or incomparable magnitude” he would find the pc digging in hard, unable to handle the process. Thus some judgment must be used in such cases. Don’t run a PT Problem on somebody in very bad shape casewise.

There is an awful lot to know about starting sessions. The bad off case and the case in very good condition alike require special handling. For the case just mentioned who cannot handle a PT Problem with a process, there is always locational (TR TEN). TR TEN will run a PT Problem or anything else if slowly. Thus many a person with a PT Problem can only participate in a session to the extent of TR TEN, “YOU notice that (object—wall, floor, chair, etc).” By introducing in the auditor’s and pc’s bodies as a couple of the items being spotted along with everything else we eventually wind up with “find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc”. And we get there without a PT Problem being in full bloom.

In running “You notice that object” there are some things that MUST be observed. Most important of these is this one: ANY PROCESS WHICH TURNS ON A SOMATIC MUST BE CONTINUED UNTIL IT NO LONGER TURNS ON SOMATICS. This is true particularly of TR TEN, 8-C and TRIO. The case hangs right there until the process is flat, whether in one day, one year or six. Another thing which must be stressed is the inclusion of the auditor’s and pc’s bodies. Because some pcs WHEN EXTERIORIZED snap back in when they see the body is no reason to avoid it in TR TEN. Another thing is to make the pc use his eyes to view the objects and if he doesn’t turn his eyes toward them, then it is up to the auditor to use manual direction of the head and even pry the eyes open. No balks are ever permitted in auditing. If TR TEN is being run at a problem, every now and then the auditor pauses and discusses the problem again with the pc in order to keep it in restimulation until TR TEN can run it out.

The high case is a worse problem than auditors commonly believe. In the first place a high case can “blow” a situation out of the bank with considerable ease and if the auditor insists on sledge-hammering it out with a process, then pc participation blows rather than a facsimile.

High case participation can also be misunderstood in that there are a lot of cases that think they are high which aren’t. Here’s how you tell a real high case from a bogus (“I can do everything”) case. A thetan in good shape can be cause. When he looks at something in the bank it becomes the effect. A bogus high case can think anything he wants without anything having an effect on the bank. You want to watch this point because here is the definition of OT thoroughly at work. Pc at Cause. A case that has pictures and everything and is impatient to get on with it BUT DOES NOT MARKEDLY ALTER THE BANK WITH THINKING ALONE is not a high case but an old “wide open case” of Dianetic days.

Two-way communication AS A PROCESS is the key to all this. If you put a pc on an E-Meter and locate a present time charge, you can, if the pc can somewhat handle his bank, get him to two-way comm the incident flat very quickly—in five or ten minutes at the most. This is all the process used. It would take an actual E-Meter run to give you a full reality on this.

Here we are looking at the basic difference amongst cases. That difference lies in the ability to knowingly CAUSE. Bodies are the same, they all react alike. Banks differ only vaguely and only in content and significance. Engrams are engrams and they all behave alike. There is only ONE DIFFERENCE amongst pcs. We called this BASIC PERSONALITY in BOOK ONE. We can be a lot more simple about it now that I have my teeth into the subject a few more feet. The difference is DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY. What do we mean by CAUSE? The basic, old Scientology definition is still at work. CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT. Joe knowingly shoots Bill. Joe is at Cause, Bill is at Effect. Mary gives John a present. Mary is at Cause, John is at Effect. Bill says Boo to Joe. Bill is at Cause, Joe is at Effect. But when we introduce KNOWING CAUSE and CAUSE AT WILL into this CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT idea we see we have something else added. The person at Cause is there because he knows he is there and because he is willingly there. The person at Cause is not at Cause because he does not dare be at Effect. He must be able to be at Effect. If he is afraid to be at Effect, then he is Unwilling Cause and is at Cause only because he is very afraid of being at Effect. Education can show a person he can be at Effect without liability. Then he can be at Cause without HAVING TO BE BECAUSE HE DOESN’T DARE BE AT EFFECT. Auditing in its whole operation is teaching the pc this. Pc slides from terrified effect to tolerated effect to knowing cause with regard to any incident he contacts IF HE IS AUDITED PROPERLY. The pc who has to get rid of all his engrams because he has to get rid of them because it’s all too horrible winds up, with good auditing, into a tolerance of the pictures since he has learned he can tolerate them and so can swing around to Cause.

So we have this great difference in pcs. DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY is the extent that he is willing to be at Cause and the extent he is willing to know he is at Cause plus the ability to cause things.

You will see this on an E-Meter in PT Problem handling. Bill has a PT Problem. It drops a dial when first contacted. The auditor, using his UNDERSTANDING of Scientology, two-way comms on it. The incident discharges and no longer registers after a few minutes. Mary has a PT Problem. It drops steeply on the E-Meter. The auditor tries to two-way comm on it. The charge remains the same or Mary begins to disperse. She doesn’t hold to the subject. The auditor at length finds that two-way comm only serves to run down her havingness. The charge remains on the meter dial. What is the difference between Bill and Mary? Bill can be at knowing cause, Mary is either obsessive cause or heavy effect. Bill can blow facsimiles. Mary cannot. On Mary the auditor is very wise to enter upon TR TEN.

One version of TR TEN is called Short Spotting. “You notice that (nearby object).” So long as the pc can see with his eyes the object or feel the auditor’s hand on it the process works. It is spotting right up close. If run with mediumly near and far objects (such as the room wall) it is very effective in getting a case going. It has given some cases their first reality on auditing. BUT the rule still holds here about somatics. When a somatic is turned on with a process, turn it off with that process. See Auditor’s Code 13. This is entirely true of Short Spotting. In that it almost always turns on somatics, when you start it, you have to flatten it and that’s often lengthy.

Remember this about pc participation. A low case can’t handle the bank, therefore you keep high ARC and kid-glove him through a session. A very high case doesn’t need dynamite, therefore you retain his participation by going as rapidly as you can. A medium, average case needs ARC, something of dynamite, something of kid-gloves, something of two-way comm.

And IN ALL GOOD AUDITING CASES IMPROVE. Just because you start a pc low doesn’t mean he’ll always stay low. Check the case often. See if his CAUSABILITY is rising. If it isn’t, he isn’t improving and you better go easier or heavier. PROBABLY when a case doesn’t improve you didn’t handle a PT Problem. THAT IS THE ONLY THING WHICH CAN KEEP A CASE FROM GAINING. So check every session for one.

There are probably thousands of ways to gain the participation of the pc, there are probably thousands of ways to open a session. There are probably an infinite number of tricky things you can do. However, this breadth of choice should not obscure the following.

1. A pc who is not participating in the session is not at Cause.

2. An auditor who isn’t able to maintain ARC, who isn’t able to “Freeze” a process for a short time, even a tone 40.0 process, and re-establish ARC, will not get results.

3. The end-all of processing is the attainment of a goal, the goal of OT. One always processes the problems and difficulties of the pc, he does not process the process. Processes only assist in processing the pc. They will not do anything by themselves. Processes are a road map to the goal of OT, they are nothing in themselves. The target is the condition, the disabilities of the pc. How one achieves the eradication of these difficulties is secondary to the fact of their eradication. Scientology is a route attained after several thousand years of no attainment by Man and the route is important and valuable and must be travelled correctly, but the concern is the pc, not the route.

4. A new auditor can be adrift with his tools. He is uncertain as to what he is attacking. He should have reality on engrams, locks, key-ins, secondaries, the time track, the key buttons of Scientology such as Communication, Control and Havingness. Given an understanding of all these and the theory of Scientology itself he can almost pilot his way through a case with two-way comm. But two-way comm will not work if one doesn’t understand all the above. So two-way comm is not conversation. The pc has had a few trillion years of that and it hasn’t made him well, so two-way comm is a highly specialized thing, done with full understanding of the thetan, bank and body. Good two-way comm means participation by the pc.

5. Scientology is a precise commodity, something like engineering. A pc is a precise thing, part animal, part pictures and part God. We want the ability to handle things and the God, and the less unthinking responses in the pc, the better off he will be. Therefore a PC WHO ISN’T COGNITING regularly is being processed beyond his ability to do and it is necessary to drop back downscale to find something he CAN DO.

6. The golden rule of processing is to find something the preclear CAN do and then to improve his ability to do it. At once you will have participation. The highest ability one pc had was to get drunk: a resolution of his case was entered upon by having him invent ways to get drunk.

7. The attention span of children and psychos is not necessarily a factor since it is only the phenomena of dispersal against mental blocks, keying in of incidents. The auditor can pay attention to it or not as he likes. Short, regular sessions on people with limited attention span get more gain per week than a steady grind since the participation is maintained.

8. The auditor remains at Cause in all sessions without forbidding the pc to be at Cause. See the rules in DIANETICS: THE ORIGINAL THESIS.

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street N.W., Washington D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 DECEMBER 1957

HGC PROCEDURE

The following is laid down as an entirety of processing to be done in the HGC in London. No other processes or variations are allowed.

GOAL: Operating Thetan.
DEFINITION: An Operating Thetan is one who can be knowingly at Cause over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time.

CCH 0 in brief, find auditor, find pc, find auditing room, clear help and goals. BUT IN THE MAIN HANDLE THE PT PROBLEM IF IT EXISTS. IF IT DOESN’T EXIST do CCH 0 briefly and quickly and get on with the session.

It will be noted that giving pc’s attention to auditing room or environment can turn on a somatic after three or four commands. After one command of “Have you got an auditing room,” this becomes a process called LOCATIONAL. If Locational turns on a somatic it must be run until somatic is flat. Therefore the auditor has no business attempting Locational or getting the pc involved unless he intends to do something about it.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM

The pc is put on an E-Meter before PT Problem is discussed. When the E-Meter has been adjusted (one third of a dial surge when pc squeezes cans) the auditor asks if the pc has a present time problem. After a little discussion of this, the needle may surge. If it does the auditor locates the PT Problem’s most intimate terminal and runs (with the pc still holding the cans) “Invent something worse than (indicated terminal)” until the problem flattens out on the dial. The auditor can ask for and run another PT Problem or even three or four but always flattening down the surge of the needle. IF THE PC IS 50% below the center line of the APA it is not safe to run “Invent”. Instead, without scouting around Invent but knowing the graph in the first place, simply two way comms the problem and runs Locational until the problem flattens out on the needle. The auditor does not begin with Invent and then change his mind and run Locational. It is an either or. The auditor starts with “Invent” or he starts with Locational and whichever he does he does not change. IF LOCATIONAL TURNS ON A SOMATIC IT MUST BE RUN UNTIL LOCATIONAL NO LONGER TURNS ON SOMATICS .

Once the PT Problem is flat the auditor puts away the E-Meter.

S-C-S STEPS

S-C-S begins with 8c of any kind. If 8c turns on a somatic it runs until it no longer turns on somatics. 8c is run formal or tone 40.

Start is then run as per 1956.

Change is then run as per 1956.

Stop is then run as per 1956.

If each of these is flattened in turn it does not mean that S-C-S is flat. It means only that Start is probably unflattened. Thus one again runs Start after Stop, runs Change after Start, Stop after Change until none of the three unflatten the others.

More 8c can be run. There is no error in liberally running 8c which is, after all, a more complicated Locational of a Short Spotting sort.

SPOTTING STEPS

Spotting itself is a broad process. Locational is only one of many spotting processes. Spotting spots in the past, in space, in the present, Short Spotting (Locational done up close) are all effective.

SPOTTING DEPENDS FOR ITS WORKABILITY ON THE DISLIKE OF A THETAN OF BEING LOCATED. IT RUNS BEST, of course, WITH THE THETAN AT CAUSE DOING THE SPOTTING.

Connectedness is the basic process on ASSOCIATION of Theta with Mest. All forms and kinds of association including being caught in traps are prone to become identifications as in Dianetics. Connectedness puts the thetan at cause in making the Mest (or people when run outside) connect with him. The command is “Get the idea of making (indicated object) connect with you.” The auditor points. The worse off a person is the less reality they have on far objects.

Havingness is a complicated Connectedness. Also a permissive one. Thus Trio is above Connectedness and may be used when Connectedness is flat.

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd 
Copyright © 1957 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 126
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 December 1957

PROBLEMS: HANDLING AND RUNNING

Easily the most important process in Scientology is Problems of Comparable Magnitude. It has no peers. We don’t care how low a process runs, or how high it runs. But nowhere in Scientology do we have a process which runs as high and low as Problems of Comparable Magnitude.

Now that idea of span should be clearly understood by you. There are processes which undoubtedly run lower or higher—of this we are certain. But no other process runs both so low and so high. The only thing necessary in a “problem of comparable magnitude” is for the terminal selected to be real to the preclear. Now that is a necessary condition for the running of it. “Problems of comparable magnitude” become real only if the terminal or terminals selected become real. That is the first condition. Where this process breaks down, it is actually not being run, since Problems of Comparable Magnitude by definition is a process which brings the preclear to invent situations of similar importance to a given situation, and the given situation must be composed of one or more terminals.

Now what do we mean by “terminal”? It would be any fixed mass utilized in a communication system. Thus, you see, a man would be a terminal, but a post could also be a terminal. Thus, a head could be a terminal, but so could a hat. But between the two, we get a hat as questionable. It is questionable to the degree that it has less mass, and is easily shed. Somewhere along the line there is a border between a terminal and a condition. Now, we have to know what a condition is.

A condition is a circumstance regarding a mass or terminal. When you are asking for “problems of comparable magnitude,” if you run them on conditions you are calling for a circumstance or a problem comparable to a circumstance, which doesn’t have any fixed position and never did have any fixed position and never did operate in any communication system, so you are describing a description—and there is nothing into which the preclear can get his teeth.

First we must conceive, then, a difference between a condition and a terminal. That is quite important for you to conceive. If you can’t conceive the difference between a condition and terminal, why, you’re in for it; this technique will forever be beyond your grasp—and that is a very easy thing to conceive, however.

The light is on. Now, “on” is a circumstance regarding the light. So you wouldn’t run a “problem of comparable magnitude to ‘on,’ “ but you would run a “problem of comparable magnitude to the light.” Do you see that? It sounds idiotic, but a lot of people miss this one. Let’s take this now, and see that there are masses, and all masses are only relatively fixed. Masses are masses, and they are not, by the way, particles.

Masses are something that are shed from a thetan by mock-up, and particles are something that are shed from masses. You don’t run particles. So what we mean as a terminal has a relatively fixed, identifiable, isolatable location in space.

Now just why you don’t run particles, just why you don’t run “problems of comparable magnitude” to words, just why you don’t run “problems of comparable magnitude” to conditions of one kind or another, that is best demonstrated by your running it some time—and that’s a happy adventure for the auditor, not the preclear. To make a real, sure-fire test, why, you should run something like this: a problem of comparable magnitude to fancy words. Now that is indefinite enough and up in the air enough .... You would shoot the bottom out from your preclear fast enough.

The auditor to run this successfully must choose first and foremost a terminal as his target—not a condition. The next thing is to choose the right terminal.

Now you must understand the procedure of running this technique. Now you wonder why I’m stressing this. The most fabulous thing—this technique can go off the rails faster in auditing than any other technique I know anything about. Now one of the things that is most remarkable about it is that auditors do not accept from the preclear—problems. In other words, an auditor who is obsessively solving problems would have an awful time running this technique, because he has to accept from the preclear a problem every time the preclear answers the question. The way to run it is this: it actually requires about three answers. You said, “Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to your mother,” and the preclear said, “The Atlantic Ocean.” Now if the auditor said, “Well, how could that be a problem to you?” you would get this oddity. The preclear would say, “Well, the Atlantic Ocean overflowing its banks.” Now, an auditor who can’t stand problems would accept this one as a problem—but it is a condition. The first thing the preclear gave was what he conceived to be a comparable terminal, then he gave a condition. And only on another repetition of “How could that be a problem to you?” would it come home to him. But there was a problem involved with it—”How could that be a problem to you?” So the auditing commands are: “Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to (a terminal),” “How could that be a problem to you?” and if necessary “How could that be a problem to you?” and as many times as necessary to get the preclear to finally dredge out the problem.

Unless the preclear can get that idea of a problem, the technique is unworkable. The semantics of the thing may throw him. Therefore the command could be cleared with some profit. The word that is liable to throw the command is “problem,” not “comparable magnitude,” and because those are polysyllabic you are liable to believe that on some preclears “comparable magnitude” is where they will hang up, and this is not where they hang up.

The auditing of it must include another thing, and that is a feeling on the part of the preclear himself figuring on it. This is evidently a necessary part of the running. We say, “A problem of comparable magnitude to your mother.” The preclear says, “The Atlantic Ocean.” We say, “How could that be a problem to you?” The preclear says, “Oh, its overflowing its banks.” And you say, “All right, how could that be a problem to you?” He says, “Oh, I could figure out some way to keep it from going over its banks.” If you’re not sure yet, because you wouldn’t be sure with that one, you say, “But how could that be a problem to you?” or—alternative command here— “Can you get yourself figuring how to do that?” He’ll get that—that’s what you want. He’s got to get an idea of himself figuring it out. You want that included in the anatomy of the running of it.

Now, an alternative command to all this is “incomparable magnitude,” as I have just mentioned. When you tackle something so huge, so formidable that it would mean a couple of hours’ comm lag on the part of your preclear—you see, he’s just this moment been informed that he is going to be electrocuted at dawn—you want to desensitize him and blow him out of his head and leave them a dead body, which would be a good joke—something on this order, you see. You realize that this problem could be huge. His fixation is unbelievably great. It goes from horizon to horizon, down to the very center of the earth, and fills the entire universe on the other side. And that’s how big this problem is. Now this technique of incomparable magnitude enters in at the bottom on problems. If a person can’t get a datum of comparable magnitude, why, what do you suppose that you should do? Get a problem of incomparable magnitude. You cannot evaluate on a single datum except by postulate. Of course, you yourself should be in a condition whereby you simply say “That is important” or “That isn’t important” and that could then be the evaluation of any single datum. But you would no longer be human. You are aware of the fact, by the way, that you cannot be human and be right—that is not possible. I have mentioned that before.

Now here we have, then, a necessity to have evaluation by others. Evaluation from other people. Now get this idea of the only-oneness of problems or situations. When a person is no longer pronouncing the evaluation of things in some grand and kingly style, when he has surrendered this in order to have a more intricate and involved game, he then needs two data. It requires a certain amount of experience of evil to experience good. And we get some people who are around telling us how bad it all is, who have experienced a great deal of kindness. This is a great oddity. You should look it over. All you have to do is to restimulate the early goodness to slip into the consequences of the later evil. Supposing somebody was just being filthy mean, and we compliment him on his good heart, his love of his fellow men—and we’ll watch him chuck his cookies. He’s liable to fold right up in front of you. You could restimulate such a thing into being until it collapsed and was no longer a button.

We understand things when we are no longer evaluating by postulate, but when we are being polite and evaluating by proof, by demonstration, we no longer are able to accept an “only-one” thing. This is a bad thing because a thetan is to a marked degree an “only-one” creature, and it restimulates his own beingness. When he falls into the lower harmonics of his own beingness, he comes to grief. All you’ve got to do is exaggerate being a thetan in any one of its facets and you’re in trouble. But now it doesn’t say that you cannot attain these things. I said the lower harmonics. How does he get to the lower harmonics? By fixation. By fixations on various incidents, and certainly on things which exist as “only-one.” There is nothing else like it, so you can never look away if you want to look at such a thing, you have to look at it. And this becomes very bad . . . very, very bad.

As a matter of fact it becomes very amusing when you have problems of comparable magnitude, because a person is using when he runs this his desire for evaluation, but he’s putting evaluation on a cause basis, and you are running off the highest logics in logic straight out of the bank. So a person doesn’t have to have beautiful sunshine in the streets in order to have a beautiful day. Do you understand that? A person to a marked degree ceases to be dependent upon his environment to give him pleasure or pain.

If you stand around and wait for something else to decide it is something or other, you are in bad trouble. Now children do this—do this to such a marked degree that they don’t even know how much pain is painful until they ask Momma or ask Poppa. A child is dependent on exterior evaluation, and I’ve seen a child go so far as not to eat ice cream. Why? “Ice cream’s bad. I don’t like ice cream.” I said, “What?” I was pretty fast on my feet as an auditor and I said, “Who told you that?” “Oh ....” “Well, who told you that?” I said. “Ice cream’s good.” A horrible thing to do. I ran out the other person’s magic spell and ran my own in. Kids straightwire rather fast. You can straighten out almost anything with a child if you straightwire them.

Thus we look over the situation and find out that an individual is made to suffer by life to a degree that he is made to by life. Thus his evaluation of life from himself as cause point, as an ability, is necessary to his recovery. We find this under Problems of Comparable Magnitude. We could go off and discuss the whole subject of logic, you realize, the second we say comparable magnitude. I’m going to point your attention to the Prelogics, by the way. I’m going to ask you to read those.

The only reason Problems of Comparable Magnitude works so well and easily is that the individual puts certain things on automatic, which is to say he will not take certain responsibilities for one side of a dichotomy. He abandons all responsibility for evil. It’s an interesting state of affairs, because he becomes incapable of handling evil, and then goes on this one-two basis of stimulus-response, and in his next life he’s going to be totally evil. He didn’t take any responsibility for it, and it’s going to eat him up. You take enough responsibility for a lion, you’ll dine on him—every time.

There is an interesting experiment that you can perform yourself—I advise that you should perform this to have an understanding of responsibility and automaticity, because automaticity and responsibility are nowhere more necessary to understand than in Problems of Comparable Magnitude—and that is this: “Get the idea of the effort it took to make that wall.” Get the idea of anything in the line of effort and feel almost at once the overwhelming irresponsibility concerning it. It could be an irresponsibility so great it could make you practically ill.

If you wanted to be real mean to a preclear, not improve him particularly, you could just ask him, “Give me an idea of the effort necessary to make your case.” He would be sitting right there in a total irresponsibility for his case. His case is there, he’s not responsible for it. Now how do you recover his responsibility for anything? He has to be able to handle it. Now you could put something on automatic, but usually when you do you will sooner or later get into an irresponsibility for it, because that’s what automatic is. So we put something on automatic. Well, if we put problems on automatic, then we ourselves become a problem eventually without our consent. In other words we put problems on automatic, then we ourselves become solution. And when we ourselves are in nothing but solution, the whole world around us is nothing but problem and we’re obsessively solution and all the problems are automatic, we wind down faster than any other method I know. We’ll wind up being a problem, that’s all. The whole Service Facsimile can be summed up by just this one word—solution. A Service Facsimile is a solution. That’s all. If you took over this automaticity of problems the individual then could recover from his Service Facsimile. But remember that you had better run terminals, not conditions.

What I have just been talking to you about solves in toto all of that which we were going over in 1952 concerning Service Facsimiles—and that is quite a mouthful. If you do it this way, if you know how to do it, if you can look over this whole thing and see quickly how it is done and why it is done, and get it set and settled so you know what’s going on with the preclear, then you’ll be able to handle chronic somatics directly. You will be able to handle any dynamic directly.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 DECEMBER 1957

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM

The handling of a present time problem is relatively simple but requires a certain deftness on an E-Meter.

DEFINITION: A present time problem is one which has its elements in the material universe in present time, which is going on NOW, and which would demand the preclear’s attention to such an extent that he would feel he had better be doing something about it rather than be audited.

EXAMPLE: Auditor locates girl friend as pt problem of pc. He runs problem with “invent something worse”, considers it flat, never looks at it again in intensive. Girl friend calls up pc every night, invalidates him, finally makes him so sick she carts him off in triumph to a hospital. BLUNDER: Auditor tried to clear pt problem for the whole intensive, not at the beginning of each session. BLUNDER: Auditor in this case went backtrack to a dead wife to clean up charge.

A pt problem is cleaned up as itself only. One doesn’t backtrack to get why the pc has such a problem when doing CCH 0.

A pt problem is checked at the beginning of every session—and if there is a break at noon, is cleaned up also at the beginning of the afternoon session.

A pt problem doesn’t always bop on the meter at the first question. The auditor has to spend a little time asking around and making sure. Then he audits it on if it falls under above definition of pt problem.

THINGS TO AUDIT PT PROBLEM WITH: A very bad off case: TR Ten and if it turns on a somatic, flatten TR TEN “YOU notice that object.” An average case: Isolate the terminal most closely associated with the problem and run “Invent something worse than (terminal)” and then flatten it off with “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to (terminal).” Also can be run “Spot where (terminal) is now. Okay. Spot where you are now. Okay.” A very easy case: Two way comm about the problem and terminals, getting pc to cognite, until the charge is gone.

Where the PT PROBLEM is pain in some member of the body, the auditor can run “Recall an unwanted (member that hurts).” And when that has been run for a few cycles from present to past, “Recall a lost (member that hurts).” (Always run lost and unwanted in the same session and for the same length of time.) Short spotting will also relieve a pain but is rough on the pc unless wholly flattened and run along with medium and long spotting.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
23 Hancock Street, Joubert Park, Johannesburg

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 DECEMBER 1957

PSYCHOSIS, NEUROSIS AND PSYCHIATRISTS

An auditor who does not understand the true character of neurosis and psychosis is likely to find himself trying to understand neurotics and psychotics and psychiatrists and to the degree of that un-understanding could become the effect of these.

If we examine the definition for operating thetan we find his highest capability is knowing and willing cause. This should tell us at once that the definition of neurosis and psychosis would be unknowing and unwilling effect, and this is the actual definition of either.

Neurosis and psychosis are different only in degree of singleness of effect. A neurotic is the subject of one or more unknown causes to which he is the unwilling effect—but he can still function to some degree, which is to say he can still be cause in other lines. A psychotic is the complete subject of one or more unknown causes to which he is the unwilling effect and any effort on his part to be cause is interfered with by the things to which he is the effect; in other words, a psychotic’s outflow is cut to zero by the inflow.

Now let us examine the potential number of neuroses and psychoses in the light of the above definitions. How many aspects are there to a life unit, which is to say, a thetan? Perhaps the number is infinite but at least we can say the number of aspects is very large. There are no additional aspects in this or any other universe. In other words when you examine the aspects or abilities of a basic life unit you have examined all the aspects or abilities there are in a universe. There aren’t any left over. Even if you include gods in every universe you will see that you have not escaped the potentialities of life units.

All the aspects and abilities there are are the aspects and abilities of a thetan. The only thing that can be done with these aspects or abilities is included, at least in this universe, in the formula of cause and effect. Take one ability and add to it the idea of cause and effect of the more simple variety CAUSE, DISTANCE, EFFECT, fix it so it can never be flowed against by anything else and we have a source of neuroses. Now take a being at the effect point of this flow. If this being is the effect point of a flow he can never flow back against, we have here what we could carelessly call a neurosis. But there is no other qualification for this neurosis than that it be unwillingly received and unknown. Therefore a known “stuck flow” at a person which he is not unwilling to receive does not cause a neurosis. Now as we make this “stuck flow” unwillingly received, then unknown, and make it so that it bars out all back flows of whatever kind on any subject then we have psychosis.

As there are no other aspects than those of a thetan, we see at once that all neuroses and psychoses are EXAGGERATED, CONCENTRATED ABILITIES. The recipient, still trying to be cause, transfers himself to a false cause point. We call this dramatization. He seeks to do only the ability and no other. We have then a psychosis. As he can do no other thing, because he is really unwilling and unknowing EFFECT seeking to be CAUSE by DRAMATIZING the EFFECT, he loses all the abilities but this one ability. This makes a peculiar and lopsided personality. People object to it partially because it is false cause and partially because it denies society all the other social abilities of the person. The psychotic himself is insufficiently willing or knowing about it to object to it.

Thus we have the standard Scientology method of eradicating one of those psychoses or neuroses. Actually we don’t even use these words or admit them as any kind of irreparable state. We are not in such a business. We say we must find something the preclear can do and then improve it. Let us say that we find something the preclear can do knowingly and willingly and have the preclear do it to improve it. All you have to do is get him to reach toward the source of the CAUSE of his condition. The lowest level cause of any difficulty is MEST, therefore the objective processes of Trio, locational, 8c, etc, work uniformly well since anybody here is to some degree the unwilling and unknowing effect of this universe.

Now where does the psychiatrist come into this? And why is he a bad fellow to have around in the society? Well in the first place, he is cognizant only of insanities. As every insanity is only an exaggerated and concentrated ability the psychiatrist can see in every ability an insanity.

There are no other aspects or abilities than those of a thetan. Any one of these can pressure, as detailed above, into an insanity. A psychiatrist or any other person totally associated with insanity then sees all abilities as a parade of insanities. Only where abilities are several and performed socially, not anti-socially, do we have sanity. The psychiatrist never, or rarely, inspects the sphere of sanity. To him, all things then, add up to madness, since every madness is compounded of abilities (disarranged as above).

Let us see a good example of this. “A” is a fine statesman. He plays polo, has a satisfied wife, collects old cars, can do a good job of work as a carpenter, a fisherman and an ice skater. He reads detective stories and plays good poker. He is working on a plan privately to disentangle the Middle East and assist France. One day he is at his club and he is joined by “B”. “B” is a political dilettante. He spends most of his money on maps and treatises about the Middle East. He cannot ride, sing or work and his family life is in ruins. He is obviously a neurotic at best. His ideas are disassociated, impractical but loud. Everyone at the club except “B” knows “B” is a poor risk.

“A”, the sane, versatile man, hears “B”, the neurotic, sounding off about the Middle East and saving France and how only “B” could accomplish this. “A”, knowing “B’s” character, BEGINS TO WONDER IF HE IS CRAZY BECAUSE HE IS INTERESTED IN THE MIDDLE EAST. In such a way, and in any line, the psychotic or neurotic is a sort of mockery of the sane ability.

Now, as an authority on man and insanity (but not an authority on sanity as is a Scientologist) the psychiatrist, studying insane people runs across “B”. He classifies “B” as a save-the-world type and notes that “B” is fixated on France and the Middle East. Shortly thereafter the psychiatrist is called upon to render a decision about “A”. He looks in his book, finds “A” is trying to do something about France and the Middle East and, of course classifies “A” as insane.

Another case. George loves Norma. Norma is at first very impressed. George works hard, likes to hike, has some property he is fixing up at week-ends. Now along comes Oswald. Oswald says he loves Norma. Oswald says he is mad about Norma. This is, of course, the case. Oswald has big ideas but no job, wouldn’t walk out of the building if it was on fire, gets rid of every piece of real or personal property that comes his way. George knows Oswald is “nutty”. Oswald loves Norma. George begins to think he, George, must be crazy to love Norma because Oswald does.

As an authority on twisted and insane love, but not an authority on love, the psychiatrist examining Oswald finds he loves Norma’s type of girl. Later, examining George, the psychiatrist finds that George is crazy because he loves the type of girl Norma is. Well, that’s an exaggeration but you see where it goes. The psychiatrist, having noted that love was pretty well flung about in the insane wards, leaps to the conclusion that all love is insane because it is so common in the wards and founds in a flash of inspiration psychoanalysis which says all insanity derives from love.

We are held to mockery in all our loves and dreams by the neurotic and psychotic who specialize in mishandling these dreams and loves. And so the world goes mad.

It is not safe to have experts on insanity who are not also experts on sanity. Such persons as those who know only the insane eventually judge that everything man can do is insane and that all men are mad and then we get a society devoted entirely to the support of asylums until it is at last only an asylum itself.

The auditor should understand the mechanism behind neurosis and psychosis. He should draw it out for himself on a graph, showing cause and effect. He should understand that mechanism because it is the ONLY THING THERE IS TO UNDERSTAND about neurotics and psychotics, for all else they do is gibberish and un-understandable.

If he truly understands this mechanism in all its phases then neurosis and psychosis can never make him an effect point and he can audit them with ease when he has to step out of character that far.

If the Scientologist thoroughly understands that the downfall of psychiatry which is now occurring came about because the psychiatrist never understood sanity then we won’t have any future specialists in insanity beyond these data.

Society has long suspected versatility and the man of many skills. We should have realized there was something right with him.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd 
Copyright © 1957 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Scientology: Clear Procedure
Issue One

December 1957

L. Ron Hubbard

GOAL:

To obtain the state of clear in individuals.

DEFINITION OF A CLEAR:

A thetan who can knowingly be at cause over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjective and objective.

This is a working definition. Self-determinism and knowledge that he himself can be at cause point are then primary targets.

Minimum Requisite for Auditor in Using These Techniques:

A Validated Hubbard Professional Auditor Certificate.

INTRODUCTION

I have been at work for seven years to produce a series of techniques which any well trained auditor can use to clear people. We now have them.

I am truly sorry that this took seven years. Actually, it took more than twenty-five.

Under other “systems of research” it could not have been done. It was financed at first by my writings and expeditions. Some 15,000,000 words of fact and fiction articles ranging from political articles to westerns were consumed in a large part by this research-but it was free to act if not free from sweat.

No bullying dictator wanted it for his mass slaveries as happened to poor misguided Pavlov. No big corporation wanted it for a better Madison Avenue approach to advertising—another kind of slavery. No big RESEARCH FOUNDATION like Ford was there to interject their “America First” philosophy. These had not paid for it; therefore they didn’t own it. The work stayed free. Thus it prospered. It did not wither in support of some aberrated “cause.” It bloomed.

But the violence of protecting this work while continuing it took a toll nevertheless. Special interests believed it must be evil if they did not own it. Between 1950 and 1956, 2,000,000 traceable dollars were spent to halt this work. Newspaper articles, radio ads (as in Seattle from the University of Washington), bribed “patrons,” financed “patients” all cost money. You hear the repercussions of this campaign even today.

Money could not stop this work by then. It was too late. If anything had been wrong with our organizations, my character, our intentions or abilities the whole advance would have crumbled. But we had no Achilles’ heels. We carried on. All that has survived of this attack by the two APAs, the AMA and several universities is a clutter of rumors concerning your sanity and mine—and rumors no longer financed will some day die.

And so the work has emerged free of taint and misguided slants. It is itself. It does what it says it does. It contains no adroit curves to make one open to better believing some “ism.” That makes it singular today in a world gone mad with nationalism. Buddhism, when it came to the millions, was no longer free of slant and prejudice. Taoism itself became a national jingoism far from any work of Lao-Tze. Even Christianity had its “pitch.” And if these great works became curved, with all the personal force of their creators, how is it that our little triumph here can still be found in a clear state?

Well, no diamonds and palaces have been accepted from rajahs, no gratuitous printing of results has been the gift of warlords, no testament had to be written 300 years after the fact.

For this we can thank Johann Gutenberg, and the invention of magnetic tape.

Therefore, although we have no such stature as the Great Philosophies, I charge you with this—look to source writings, not to interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots.

If I have fought for a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of Man, to keep it free from some destructive “pitch” or slant, then you certainly can carry that motif a little further.

I’ll not always be here on guard. The stars twinkle in the Milky Way and the wind sighs for songs across the empty fields of a planet a Galaxy away.

You won’t always be here.

But before you go, whisper this to your sons and their sons—”The work was free. Keep it so.”

SUMMARY

STEP ONE: Establish participation in session of pc. Do not here or anywhere else neglect this factor. Maintain always ARC. Pc must to some degree be at cause with regard to session if only by wanting it or some result of it, or to escape some elsewhere consequence. This step is CCH 0 but it is run only to establish the thetan to some degree at cause with regard to the whole session. This must be improved throughout the intensive. Applies even to dead pcs.

STEP TWO: Establish obedience of some part of the auditing room to the pc. Here he must begin at some level of knowingness. He must KNOW that he himself, when ordered to do so, can gain some compliance on the part of the auditing room. This includes his own body. Thus we get “You seat that body in that chair. Thank you.” “You make that body continue to lie in that bed. Thank you.” We also get CCH 1. And we get a very important but neglected process run with two objects wherein the pc himself is ordered to keep one then the other from going away (alternately), hold it still, make it more solid, all with two objects. Stress is on YOU do it.

STEP THREE: Establish control of pc’s body by pc. Here we have CCH 2, but we also have an even more important series of processes, S-C-S in all their ramifications on the body. Here is pc at cause with regard to body. It is expected that lots of S-C-S will be run on pcs.

STEP FOUR: Make pc even more conscious of auditor and place him somewhat at cause with ARC. The mechanical steps of this are CCH 3 and CCH 4 but these steps are only valid if they heighten ARC and make the pc decide HE did it.

STEP FIVE: Establish pc as cause over Mest by establishing pc’s ideas as cause over Mest. Here, running these, we again emphasize YOU DO IT. The basic process of this is CONNECTEDNESS with the PC doing the connecting. Control Trio, Trio, Look around here and tell me what part of the environment you would be willing to be responsible for. You look, You connect, You make ....... Alter the old commands to put pc at cause point in doing these.

STEP SIX: Establish pc’s control over Mest subjective. Creative Processes, Recall Unwanted and Lost Objects. Then and Now Solids. First step on this in some cases is conquering black ‘‘field’’ and invisible “field.” This is done by a repair of havingness over black masses and then invisible masses, run even if pc goes unconscious. When field is cleared up, start on a gradient scale of mock-ups and get pc able to mock things up. Then run “Keep it from going away” until flat on mock-ups. Then run “Hold it still” on mock-ups. Then run “Make it more solid” on mock-ups. All this until pc really has fine, solid mock-ups. Typical command, “Mock up a      and keep it from going away. Thank you.” RULE: A PC’S FACSIMILES ARE NOT STORED, THEY ARE MADE IN THE INSTANT AND UNMADE BY THE PC, therefore remedy of mock-ups AND THEIR PERSISTENCE is actually a direct route to clear and winds up with no obsessive mock-up making (which we call a bank). A valuable side process here: “Decide to make a mock-up. Decide that will ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” Also this one, “Decide to make a mock-up everyone can see. Decide that would ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” A TOTAL REMEDY OF MOCK-UPS WOULD MAKE A BOOK ONE CLEAR.

STEP SEVEN: Establish pc’s control over his “bank.” “Mock up a facsimile and (keep it from going away, and when that is flat, hold it still, and when that is flat, make it a little more solid).” Run this alternately with “Mock up that wall (keep it from going away, hold it still, make it a little more solid).” Run the “Keep it from going away” on a facsimile one command, then the wall one command, until flat, then shift to “Hold it still” same way, then shift to “Make it more solid,” same way.

STEP EIGHT: Make some Time.

AUDITING TRUTHS:

ARC breaks must all be repaired thoroughly. ARC Must Be Maintained.

There is no real liability to a pc in this universe except one: becoming total subject of Mest.

Life versus Life, no liability. Life via Mest versus Life, some liability. Life versus Mest, total liability.

A pc must be kept at Cause as much as possible.

An Intensive in Brief for Practical Use

Begin by carefully easing the pc into session with CCH 0 but don’t talk too much or permit him to talk too much as you will as-is his havingness.

Establish control of a room object with “You make that chair sit on the floor.”

Get wheeling with S-C-S and run it up to Stop-C-S.

Run Connectedness inside the auditing room and then outside with “You make that      connect with you.” or “You look around here and tell me something you could have.” Or, “You look around here and tell me something you could be responsible for.”

Run an engram or do Then and Now Solids and put pc at cause with regard to facsimiles.

If you have any time left, do it all over again.

DEFINITIONS, GOALS

There are three possible goals in processing a preclear. The first of these is Mest Clear. The second is Theta Clear. The third is Operating Thetan.

By Mest Clear is meant a BOOK ONE CLEAR. Here we defined clear in terms of facsimiles. This is a rather simple mechanical definition. It said in effect that so far as human beings were concerned our preclear finally arrived at a point where he had full color-visio-sonic, had no psychoses or neuroses and could recall what had happened to him in this lifetime. This is almost a baby-talk sort of clear. It pays no heed at all to identification with a body and it has nothing to do with ability. Today, by running Creative Processes (four years old!) we can turn on visible facsimiles and weed out the bottom spots of operations and what not. This is actually a rather easy goal. Somehow I’ve never given a real tight procedure for achieving it even though the essence of the processes has been around for a very long time. COMPLETING STEP SIX OF CLEAR PROCEDURE IN FULL GIVES US A MEST CLEAR.

By Theta Clear is meant a Clear obtained by Clear Procedure as is being delineated in this regimen. The main trouble is, amusingly, trying to reach Mest Clear without running into Theta Clear. I personally don’t believe now that it can be done without actually shoving the pc back in his head every time he pops out. Thus the goal of this procedure is actually THETA CLEAR. This is what we mean then when we say “clear.” We mean a Theta Clear.

By Operating Thetan we mean Theta Clear PLUS ability to operate functionally against or with Mest and other life forms. For the first time we have here the matter of ABILITY. An Operating Thetan is not an absolute term. Theta Clear is a more absolute term than Operating Thetan. An Operating Thetan is a Theta Clear (not a mystical mystic out on an inversion) who can also do something.

Thus we have two goals which contain no ambition to accomplish anything and one goal which contains much ambition. Now here is another puzzle in definitions. Which is highest, the Theta Clear or the Operating Thetan? Well, the answer to that is not what we used to think. As DOINGNESS is not really at the top we find that we will probably make an Operating Thetan before we achieve Theta Clear for a Theta Clear would probably not be much interested in operating. Therefore, we see the actual goal we are trying to reach, no matter in which limited sense, is Operating Thetan.

Operating Thetan is then a highly variable goal. A thetan who can move in and out of a body is actually operating somewhat but he is not really a Theta Clear since a Theta Clear, in its highest sense, means no further dependency upon bodies.

The goals of the auditor, therefore, do not rack up one, two, three, Mest Clear, Theta Clear, Operating Thetan. They actually stack up on a very gradient scale between thetan inoperative and a thetan who can operate. The auditor is therefore seeking to reach with the pc a state wherein the pc can function. At no time does the auditor suddenly arrive with a pc in a startling new shiny state all of a sudden that can be called a certain thing. In that pcs often expect this suddenly bursting “into the light” the auditor is subject to disappointment when he has actually achieved an enormous gain for the pc. In other words, pcs gain on a smooth gradient scale and do not suddenly become something.

There is only one point on the road up where something does happen and that is exteriorization. When the pc exteriorizes for the first time he feels there must be a cause for rejoicing and has the idea he has gotten somewhere. Well, in fact you could achieve the same result by hitting him over the head with a club. He would exteriorize. The point is not exteriorizing the pc but cutting down his dependency upon a body. A pc who exteriorizes and is not carried right on with the same process that sprang him out of his head until it is flat will go back into his head in an hour or a week and will be harder to dig out the next time.
In other words, this point of exteriorization does happen and does mean to the pc that he is himself. But it shouldn’t mean very much to an auditor beyond his noticing that this phase has been entered in the case. For in truth thetans don’t stay out of their bodies very long if they are not in good shape. Thus exteriorization means less than ability to act, to live, to be and do. The attention of the auditor should be upon the increasing ability of the pc to handle life, not upon the distance the pc gets from his body. Is that clear? Well, it tells us that arriving at a state of Clear is easy if that means stable outside and that any state of betterment on the road to Operating Thetan is an honest achievement.

Thus an auditor should at all times go toward the state of Operating Thetan and should not be mixed up in the oddities of exteriorization for a day.

HGC Clear Procedure goes straight toward exteriorization and achieves it. But it also goes straight toward increasing ability to handle life. The latter is the auditor’s best goal. The auditing goal should go in the same direction as this new definition for Operating Thetan.

An Operating Thetan can be at cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.

This Action Definition of Operating Thetan is the true goal of the auditor and if followed with complete understanding will achieve the best possible results.

In this discussion of goals and definitions, I am telling you cleanly that the goals of Mest Clear and Theta Clear are not worth following from the auditor’s standpoint. You can let pcs think what they will about them. The only goal worthy of the auditor’s time WHATEVER THE STATE OF CASE OF THE PC is Operating Thetan. To achieve one on any subject it is only necessary to place the pc to some degree at willing and knowing cause point with regard to that subject. All the steps of HGC Clear Procedure are leveled at Operating Thetan. But you need not tell your pc that. You can use the words RELEASE, MEST CLEAR, THETA CLEAR or any other if you like. Just remember there is only one payoff goal and that is Operating Thetan.

MEST CLEAR: Can see facsimiles with sonic present lifetime, has no psychoses or neuroses. Upper part of APA (in UK OCA) graph. Above 13 5 IQ.

THETA CLEAR: Can exist knowingly independent of bodies.

RELEASE: Average a third of a graph higher than first test, above 115 IQ.

OPERATING THETAN: Can be at Cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.

STEP ONE

Participation in Session by the Pc

We have long known that ARC was important. Just how important it is was established by some tests I made in London in 1956 wherein every time the pc showed any restlessness or other signs of loss of havingness, instead of remedying havingness I carefully searched out any fancied break of ARC and patched it up. The “loss of havingness” vanished. In other words, loss of ARC is even more important than loss of havingness since a repair of ARC restores havingness. Lack of havingness is only one symptom of a lack of communication.

There are two ways an auditor, according to long practice, can err. One of these is to permit two-way communication to a point where the pc’s havingness is injured. The other is to chop communication to such a degree that havingness is injured. There is a point past which communication is bad and short of which lack of communication is bad. Here we have auditor judgment at play. Because the pc will fidget or go downscale in tone when his havingness drops, an auditor can SEE when the pc’s havingness is being lowered. Because a pc will go anaten or start to grind into the process an auditor can tell whether or not the pc feels his communication has been chopped. When either happens the auditor should take action—in the first instance by shutting off the pc’s outflow and getting to work and in the second instance by making the pc talk out any fancied communication severance.

Participation in session by the pc is not something the auditor sees to at the beginning of the session and then forgets for the rest of the intensive. This step is continued throughout the intensive and is given as much attention as any process being run at the time. The auditor’s attention is always therefore upon two things—first the continued participation in session and second the action of the process.

Grouped under this head we would also have ways and means of getting the pc into session in the first place. An unconscious pc used to be an apparent roadblock. A downtone, antagonistic, you-can’t-help-me pc was also a rough one. These two things are countered by always carefully starting a session and following through on standard CCH 0.

It is as important to open a session with a baby or an unconscious person as it is with any other preclear. It doesn’t matter whether the pc is answering up or not. It is only necessary to assume that the pc would answer if he could answer and that the mechanics of voice and gesture are simply absent from the answer. Therefore one always carefully starts every session, paying attention to what is happening, where it is happening, who is there, help, goals and problems. Obviously anaten or inability to control the body are the present time problem of the unconscious person or the child. One can actually audit this with a plain question and simply assume after a bit it has been answered, then give the acknowledgment and ask another question just as though the pc were in full vocal action. Auditors still fall for the belief, very current, that “unconscious” people are unable to think or be aware in any way. A thetan is seldom unconscious regardless of what the body is doing or not doing.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM is a highly vital point of PRECLEAR PARTICIPATION. If a preclear is being nagged too thoroughly by a PT problem auditing can actually send him downhill if done without addressing the problem. A whole intensive, even seventy-five hours can be wasted if the auditor does not clear the PT PROBLEM.

The preclear generally doesn’t know he has one which is nagging him, for the rough PT problems go into the apathy band and below into forgetfulness rather rapidly. Therefore the auditor should ferret out the PT problem with an E-Meter. Adroit use of an E-Meter does not include evaluating for the preclear but it certainly does include ferreting out PT problems. The E-Meter is also used for valences and sometimes psychophysical difficulties. (Auditor: Use the word “psychophysical” rather than psychosomatic and stay out of a medical field.)

THE RUNNING OF A PT PROBLEM today is the most. PT problem, valences, psychophysical ailments, all run beautifully with “Mock up something worse than (terminal)” or “Invent something worse than (terminal).” To run this it is necessary to isolate the TERMINAL most intimately connected with the PT problem (or the valence or psychophysical difficulty). One then CLEARS THE COMMAND (and you always better do that with any command) and lets go.

The whole idea of WORSE THAN is the whole of the dwindling spiral. People who are “trying to get better” and “be more perfect” and “think the right thought” lose all control of “getting worse,” “being imperfect” and “thinking the wrong thought.” All these WORSE THANS are then left on automatic and we arrive at something less than optimum. In fact we arrive with the dwindling spiral. We also arrive with the “point of no return.” We also arrive with the declining ability to heal or get well. And we also arrive with old age.

After running “worse than” on the PT problem, we proceed with other parts of CCH 0. Clearing help will be found quite beneficial. But to get a pc to participate who is downright ugly about it, running help is usually only a partial solution. When these only ones get going they really snarl on the subject of getting audited. Here CCH 1 is of benefit. No questions asked. But this, of course, defeats the purpose of STEP ONE.

PARTICIPATION OF THE PC in the session is necessary in order to place the pc somewhat at the cause point in the actual fact of auditing. This fits the definition. You can always change a body or recover it from some illness by auditing without much helping the pc himself. Therefore, the pc, while under auditor control, is still somewhat at cause, what with comm bridges and clearing commands, etc., but he is made to feel no bad effects from being AT EFFECT if ample ARC is used. In other words, the pc can’t be entirely at cause in a session or he would be self-auditing, which isn’t good, but he can be salvaged from being a total effect by good ARC. When the ARC drops out that DOES leave the pc at more or less total effect, a thing you have probably noticed.

The things to be done in CCH 0 should be done thoroughly at intensive’s beginning and should be glanced at whenever a new session starts and should get a bow when a new command is used. But all CCH 0 is is a collection of mechanical aids to assist the pc’s participation in the session and to assist the auditor in ARC. Although CCH 0 must be used always, it is not a total substitute for ARC.

The sum of CCH 0 is find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc, knock out any existing PT problem, establish goals, clear help, get agreement on session length and get up to the first real auditing command. CCH 0 isn’t necessarily run in that order and this isn’t necessarily all of CCH 0, but if any of these are seriously scamped, the session will somewhere get into trouble.

When the participation of the pc ceases in a session, he must be gotten back into session by any means and then participation is re-established. A pc is never permitted to end a session on his own choice. He seeks to end them when his participation drops out of sight.

The trick question “What did I do wrong?” re-establishes ARC.

The problem of handling a pc who is not cooperative, who does not wish to participate, is a highly special problem. In the first place it is the pc’s engrams that do not want to continue, in the second place it is the engrams which are doing the talking. One ordinarily tackles this case with a formal opening of session, brief but positive, and then sails in with CCH 0, just as though the person were unconscious, which, of course, the person is.

Participation by an unconscious person, while covered above, requires the additional refinement of technique. ONE MUST ALWAYS FIND SOMETHING THE PRECLEAR CAN DO AND THEN BETTER THAT ABILITY. An unconscious person is usually lying in bed. If not the command must be varied to fit the environment. But the best command is something like “You make that body lie in that bed.” A slightly upper grade process to a person sitting in a chair is “You seat that body in that chair.” In such cases a grip on the pc’s hand and the use of a slight squeeze each time the auditor acknowledges considerably speeds the process.

There is another special case—or maybe it isn’t so special. There are many people who cannot tackle a present time problem with a process. If the auditor sought out a PT problem and then ran “something worse than a related terminal” or a “problem of comparable or incomparable magnitude” he would find the pc digging in hard, unable to handle the process. Thus some judgment must be used in such cases. Don’t run a PT problem on somebody in very bad shape casewise.

There is an awful lot to know about starting sessions. The bad-off case and the case in very good condition alike require special handling. For the case just mentioned who cannot handle a PT problem with a process, there is always locational (TR TEN). TR TEN will run a PT problem or anything else if slowly. Thus many a person with a PT problem can only participate in a session to the extent of TR TEN, “YOU notice that object (wall, floor, chair, etc.).” By introducing in the auditor’s and pc’s bodies as a couple of the items being spotted along with everything else we eventually wind up with “find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc.” And we get there without a PT problem being in full bloom.

In running “You notice that object” there are some things that MUST be observed. Most important of these is this one: ANY PROCESS WHICH TURNS ON A SOMATIC MUST BE CONTINUED UNTIL IT NO LONGER TURNS ON SOMATICS. This is true particularly of TR TEN, 8-C and TRIO. The case hangs right there until the process is flat, whether in one day, one year or six. Another thing which must be stressed is the inclusion of the auditor’s and pc’s bodies. Because some pcs WHEN EXTERIORIZED snap back in when they see the body is no reason to avoid it in TR TEN. Another thing is to make the pc use his eyes to view the objects and if he doesn’t turn his eyes toward them, then it is up to the auditor to use manual direction of the head and even pry the eyes open. No balks are ever permitted in auditing. If TR TEN is being run at a problem, every now and then the auditor pauses and discusses the problem again with the pc in order to keep it in restimulation until TR TEN can run it out.

The high case is a worse problem than auditors commonly believe. In the first place a high case can “blow” a situation out of the bank with considerable ease and if the auditor insists on sledge-hammering it out with a process, then pc participation blows rather than a facsimile.

High case participation can also be misunderstood in that there are a lot of cases that think they are high which aren’t. Here’s how you tell a real high case from a bogus (“I can do everything”) case. A thetan in good shape can be cause. When he looks at something in the bank it becomes the effect. A bogus high case can think anything he wants without anything having an effect on the bank. You want to watch this point because here is the definition of OT thoroughly at work. Pc at Cause. A case that has pictures and everything and is impatient to get on with it BUT DOES NOT MARKEDLY ALTER THE BANK WITH THINKING ALONE is not a high case but an old “wide open case” of Dianetic days.

Two-way communication AS A PROCESS is the key to all this. If you put a pc on an E-Meter and locate a present time charge, you can, if the pc can somewhat handle his bank, get him to two-way comm the incident flat very quickly—in five or ten minutes at the most. This is all the process used. It would take an actual E-Meter run to give you a full reality on this.

Here we are looking at the basic differences amongst cases. That difference lies in the ability to knowingly CAUSE. Bodies are the same, they all react alike. Banks differ only vaguely and only in content and significance. Engrams are engrams and they all behave alike. There is only ONE DIFFERENCE amongst pcs. We called this BASIC PERSONALITY in BOOK ONE. We can be a lot more simple about it now that I have my teeth into the subject a few more feet. The difference is DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY. What do we mean by CAUSE? The basic, old Scientology definition is still at work. CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT. Joe knowingly shoots Bill. Joe is at Cause. Bill is at Effect. Mary gives John a present. Mary is at Cause, John is at Effect. Bill says Boo to Joe. Bill is at Cause, Joe is at Effect. But when we introduce KNOWING CAUSE and CAUSE AT WILL into this CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT idea we see we have something else added. The person at Cause is there because he knows he is there and because he is willingly there. The person at Cause is not at Cause because he does not dare be at Effect. He must be able to be at Effect. If he is afraid to be at Effect, then he is Unwilling Cause and is at Cause only because he is very afraid of being at Effect. Education can show a person he can be at effect without liability. Then he can be at Cause without HAVING TO BE BECAUSE HE DOESN’T DARE BE AT EFFECT. Auditing in its whole operation is teaching the pc this. Pc slides from terrified effect to tolerated effect to knowing cause with regard to any incident he contacts IF HE IS AUDITED PROPERLY. The pc who has to get rid of all his engrams because he has to get rid of them because it’s all too horrible winds up, with good auditing, into a tolerance of the pictures since he has learned he can tolerate them and so can swing around to Cause.

So we have this great difference in pcs. DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY is the extent that he is willing to be at Cause and the extent he is willing to know he is at Cause plus the ability to cause things.
You will see this on an E-Meter in PT problem handling. Bill has a PT problem. It drops a dial when first contacted. The auditor, using his UNDERSTANDING of Scientology, two-way comms on it. The incident discharges and no longer registers after a few minutes. Mary has a PT problem. It drops steeply on the E-Meter. The auditor tries to two-way comm on it. The charge remains the same or Mary begins to disperse. She doesn’t hold to the subject. The auditor at length finds that two-way comm only serves to run down her havingness. The charge remains on the meter dial. What is the difference between Bill and Mary? Bill can be at knowing cause, Mary is either obsessive cause or heavy effect. Bill can blow facsimiles. Mary cannot. On Mary the auditor is very wise to enter upon TR TEN.

One version of TR TEN is called Short Spotting. “You notice that (nearby object).” So long as the pc can see with his eyes the object or feel the auditor’s hand on it, the process works. It is spotting right up close. If run with mediumly near and far objects (such as the room wall) it is very effective in getting a case going. It has given some cases their first reality on auditing. BUT the rule still holds here about somatics. When a somatic is turned on with a process, turn it off with that process. See Auditor’s Code 13. This is entirely true of Short Spotting. In that it almost always turns on somatics, when you start it, you have to flatten it and that’s often lengthy.

Remember this about pc participation. A low case can’t handle the bank, therefore you keep high ARC and kid-glove him through a session. A very high case doesn’t need dynamite, therefore you retain his participation by going as rapidly as you can. A medium, average case needs ARC, something of dynamite, something of kid gloves, something of two-way comm.

And IN ALL GOOD AUDITING, CASES IMPROVE. Just because you start a pc low doesn’t mean he’ll always stay low. Check the case often. See if his CAUSABILITY is rising. If it isn’t, he isn’t improving and you better go easier or heavier. PROBABLY when a case doesn’t improve you didn’t handle a PT problem. THAT IS THE ONLY THING WHICH CAN KEEP A CASE FROM GAINING. So check every session for one.

There are probably thousands of ways to gain the participation of the pc, there are probably thousands of ways to open a session. There are probably an infinite number of tricky things you can do. However, this breadth of choice should not obscure the following:

1. 	A pc who is not participating in the session is not at Cause.

2. 	An auditor who isn’t able to maintain ARC, who isn’t able to “freeze” a process for a short time, even a Tone 40.0 process, and re-establish ARC, will not get results.

3. 	The end-all of processing is the attainment of a goal, the goal of OT. One always processes the problems and difficulties of the pc, he does not process the process. Processes only assist in processing the pc. They will not do anything by themselves. Processes are a road map to the goal of OT, they are nothing in themselves. The target is the condition, the disabilities of the pc. How one achieves the eradication of these difficulties is secondary to the fact of their eradication. Scientology is a route attained after several thousand years of no attainment by Man and the route is important and valuable and must be traveled correctly, but the concern is the pc, not the route.

4. 	A new auditor can be adrift with his tools. He is uncertain as to what he is attacking. He should have reality on engrams, locks, key-ins, secondaries, the time track, the key buttons of Scientology such as Communication, Control and Havingness. Given an understanding of all these and the theory of Scientology itself he can almost pilot his way through a case with two-way comm. But two-way comm will not work if one doesn’t understand all the above. So two-way comm is not conversation. The pc has had a few trillion years of that and it hasn’t made him well, so two-way comm is a highly specialized thing, done with full understanding of the thetan, bank and body. Good two-way comm means participation by the pc.

5. 	Scientology is a precise commodity, something like engineering. A pc is a precise thing, part animal, part pictures and part God. We want the ability to handle things and the God, and the less unthinking responses in the pc the better off he will be. Therefore a PC WHO ISN’T COGNITING regularly is being processed beyond his ability to do and it is necessary to drop back downscale to find something he CAN DO.

6. 	The golden rule of processing is to find something the preclear CAN do and then to improve his ability to do it. At once you will have participation. The highest ability one pc had was to get drunk: a resolution of his case was entered upon by having him invent ways to get drunk.

7. 	The attention span of children and psychos is not necessarily a factor since it is only the phenomena of dispersal against mental blocks, keying in of incidents. The auditor can pay attention to it or not as he likes. Short, regular sessions on people with limited attention span get more gain per week than a steady grind since the participation is maintained.

8. 	The auditor remains at Cause in all sessions without forbidding the pc to be at Cause. See the rules in Dianetics: The Original Thesis.

STEP TWO

Placing the Preclear at Cause

Establish obedience of some part of the auditing room to the pc. Here he must begin at some level of knowingness. He must know that he himself, when ordered to do so, can gain some compliance on the part of the auditing room. This includes his own body.

The basic rule of auditing is to start with something the preclear can do and then get him to do it better. This is the basic difference between a high level and a low level process. This is also the difference between a process which is real to the preclear and a process which is unreal to the preclear. A preclear “can do” a process without doing it at all. Actually the body and bank are obeying the auditor. Now here we had in Dianetics one of the more interesting phenomena of an auditor being able to make a preclear physically well without the preclear once finding out about it. This was a source of great grief and upset to auditors. They could not see how this could possibly be. The man priorly could not walk, apparently, and after auditing he could walk, and yet he did not attribute to Dianetics or to the auditor any of this renewed ability.

The auditor could monitor the preclear’s bank and body, shift around the engrams, as-is them and do various things with them without the preclear finding out about it. All of this was so far above the preclear’s ability to do that it was totally unreal to him.

We also get the phenomenon of an individual doing a great many spotting processes and feeling better but not being able to understand what this has to do with sanity or insanity. In the first place, the individual could not himself spot. The auditor more or less did the spotting for him. The preclear then never connected it in any way with his own capabilities.

A test an auditor should make to ascertain the sense of this is as follows: “Look around here and tell me something you could do.” The preclear will get many odd and peculiar sensations as he fishes around and finally decides that he could do some minor thing. This is not really a good process but it is a good test process for an auditor. This preclear who has been walking and talking and working and going around the world and apparently behaving in a fairly sane and rational fashion actually could do none of these things. He was supported entirely by his “machinery,” by the social responsibilities which were demonstrated toward him, by his education, by the basic agreement of what goes on in the world. He was walking around in a dream and life felt to him much like a dream. Now the auditor starts to audit him on the basis that this individual is capable. Well now the individual himself is the thetan and whereas the bank might have been capable (and would have broken down some day), the thetan himself was not. He was going along for the ride.

We often see this phenomenon in the third dynamic. It could be said that a government is the aggregate irresponsibility of a people. They are not taking responsibility for the course of justice or protection of the state from foreign aggression, and they shove all this responsibility over on to a government and they themselves are quite irresponsible for it. After a while the government doesn’t look to the people at all to furnish any responsibility. The government takes all the initiative, and we eventually wind up with some sort of a dictatorship. The people then no longer count; they are slaves; they are totally irresponsible.

In a similar wise, a thetan can be totally irresponsible for everything that goes on in relationship to his workaday world, and we see people dramatizing this on every hand. Wherever a thetan refuses to take responsibility and is participating in action, he is being “unreal.” This is the unreality of a situation. Let us say you were part of a crowd which was surging downtown to Third Street and you yourself wanted to go uptown to Tenth Street. The crowd swept you along toward Third Street and after a while things would become pretty unreal. That is because you were being carried in a direction opposite to your basic intent. Thus your own intention is overwhelmed. This intention overwhelmed becomes what we know as unreality.

It is very easy for an auditor to overwhelm the preclear’s intention. The preclear is actually going to Tenth Street, the auditor is trying to push him to Third Street. We get the most remarkable subdivision of this in Survive and Succumb. The auditor is going on the basis that the preclear wants to Survive and the preclear is going on the basis that he wants to Succumb. The auditor is then thrusting him in an opposite direction. Hence it is really necessary to clear Goals in an auditing session. There must be some goal which the preclear considers obtainable. The goal of just being able to sit there for the next two or three hours is a goal. You would be surprised to find that in some preclears this is a tremendously high goal. But even a preclear’s goals can be unreal to him. They are the social goals. Actually, the preclear privately thinks he’d like to get rid of every man, woman and child on Earth and the goal he gives you is to save everyone.

Now the question actually confronts us—what can the preclear really do? Of course, in a case of tremendous doubt, you could run the above process—”Look around here and find something you could do.” But there are certain things that an auditor can take for granted which undercut any other thing. The body is sitting in the chair. The preclear can be brought up to a realization that he can make the body sit in the chair. And thus we get the first really worthwhile process on a preclear who is conscious, and that process is “You seat that body in that chair. Thank you.” And in the case of somebody who is Lying in bed, even unconscious, we get this basic process: “You make that body continue to lie in that bed. Thank you.”

All we are asking anybody to do when we ask for these two processes is to take responsibility for what is actually occurring in the first place. We raise his responsibility level in other words, and thus raise his doingness level. A preclear who does not come through eventually with a cognition that he can make the body sit in the chair of course isn’t worth bothering with, in that his doingness level is even below this. This preclear ought to be lying in a bed. He must consider himself completely helpless and completely ill. Thus if we ran “You seat that body in that chair. Thank you,” for several hours without any realization on the part of the preclear that he could do this and without turning on any somatics or without getting any effect at all, we would consider that we had overshot this. Actually it shouldn’t take several hours to find this out. We would go back to the basic position of Dianetic auditing. This preclear probably thinks of himself as being dead or probably thinks of himself as being very ill or thinks of himself as being totally unconscious. Thus we would run him as an unconscious person. Putting him down on a couch we would run “You make that body continue to lie in that bed. Thank you.”

Also, on a much higher level we get CCH 1.
“You give me that hand” is actually the old cat process where we got the cat to reach for the auditor, plus an obedience process. The preclear after a while should decide that he can do this. Sometimes we run CCH 1, then CCH 2, CCH 3, and then CCH 4 and going back discover that CCH 1 is now unflat and the preclear is unable to perform this action which he previously could perform. Now what has happened here is we have broadened the scope of the preclear’s responsibility. His bank at first was perfectly capable of giving that hand but once we have invited further responsibility and gotten him to find the auditor as in CCH 3 and CCH 4, we discover that the preclear himself is now trying to do it and in trying to do it is having difficulties but he wins through with this difficulty and eventually comes out much better.

Unless these particular goals and theories behind these processes are understood they very often do not work at all in the CCH bands. Thus CCH 1 to 4, while tremendously successful when run by a very excellent auditor understanding his job, may not be successful in the hands of somebody who is simply going through some mechanical motions.

Basically we are trying to get the preclear to do something and know that he himself can do it. Thus we are improving his ability. On this fundamental we can go forward and establish many processes, all of which are fundamental doingness or obedience processes. We can do such a process as “You make that chair sit on the floor.” This process at first seems a little incredible to the preclear, but after a while he gets the idea that he can do it, then this unflattens and he gets the idea that it’s gravity that’s doing it and therefore he can’t do it, and he goes through various cognitions of one sort or another simply about having a chair, which is already sitting there, sit there. Unless we can cross this particular stage of a case and get the preclear up to an idea that he does have some sort of an ability of some kind, we might as well do nothing else about the case at all. Therefore this Step Two is quite important and actually is the basic entrance into auditing.

STEP THREE

Establish Control of Pc’s Body by Pc

Although we could continue onward with the CCHs simply rotating them from CCH 1 through to 4 and back to 1 and to 4, and back to 1 and to 4 again and again and again and win, there is a faster way of going about this which has been known to us for a very long time. This way starts really with 8-C.

It does not matter particularly which brand of 8-C is run. We have had now three or four varieties of 8-C. The first one was rather permissive and indirect and did not demand very much compliance and possibly had its own place in the firmament since use of it has resolved a very, very great many cases. The first command of this is “Do you see that wall?” Then “Walk over to it.” Then “Touch it.” And that was all there was to the process. Later 8-Cs, particularly Tone 40 8-Cs, were highly precise, very directive and had a great deal of control stress to them. It does not matter particularly which 8-C is used so long as the auditor feels that it is biting. If the particular 8-C he is using isn’t biting, maybe he needs a more permissive one, maybe he needs a more exacting control one.

There are a great many factors surrounding the control of the pc’s body by a pc. Most pcs feel their body if tampered with in any way would fly out of control and flip-flop all over the floor, would suddenly freeze or would get ill, and they have anxieties about their bodies and the control of their bodies which must be solved, otherwise we don’t get very far. Control of bodies can actually be assisted by old-time flip-flopping.

Flip-flopping was a process by which the preclear’s excess motion was taken off. The creative processes of earlier times did not require of the preclear any great cognition of what was going on. Thus flip-flopping could be used at a very early stage of case. We would say, “Mock up a man and make him flip-flop” and then make him insist that the body flip-flop even further and even more wildly until he himself knew that he was making the body flip-flop. We would do this with a woman’s body and would eventually take the motion off the case that was inhibiting the preclear from controlling the body. This is actually a motionectomy. It is really a case of the auditor controlling the bank and body of the preclear. When we did not do this we found that in running 8-C and in doing some other processes the preclear all of a sudden would convulse and start to fly apart. These fly-aparts were simply the flip-flop manifestation of bodies.

It is extremely interesting that a preclear exteriorizing from his own body which is out of control, flip-flopping, writhing, convulsing and going into epileptiform seizures was at a distance from a flip-flopping body. One day while in his own body he causes some other body to go out of control, he shoots somebody or hits somebody, and has this person go into a flip-flop. He himself gets restimulated and he feels that his body in the future is liable to go out of control at any time. If you draw a little picture of this you will see that a thetan exteriorized from his own body and a thetan in his body knocking about some other body is, to the thetan, the same point of view. In other words, if you make somebody’s body flip-flop, your own body may flip-flop. It looks the same to a thetan.

Some guarantee or security of body control is therefore necessary.

There is a very fine set of processes which have been used for more than a year at this writing and which produced excellent results. These we call the S-C-S processes.

After running 8-C (and if it turned on somatics remember to flatten the process entirely, even though it takes 50 hours, before going on to another process), we go into these control processes grouped under S-C-S. There have been several varieties of process, all entirely in the control bracket but with different severities of control. The commands of S-C-S processes are almost all the same except that some are made more severe than others.

The first of these processes is the Start process. This is very simple. We have a preclear out in the middle of the room standing up while we stand up alongside of him touching him, and we explain to him (and we explain this every command) that when we say “Start” we want him to start his body in that direction, and we point out some direction.

Then we take our hands off of him and we say “Start.” We do not say Stop, Halt, or anything else, but after he has moved forward we then say, “Did you start your body?” And he says he guesses he did or he did, and we then—and only then— acknowledge. We do this many times until the process apparently has no charge on it or is flat. We then go into the next of this series, which is Change.

To run Change the auditor marks four points out on the floor. These points can be imaginary or they can be actually chalk-marked on the floor. One of these points we label “A,” one “B,” one “C,” and one “D.” We explain the meanings of these symbols to the preclear and we give him this auditing command: “Now when I ask you to change the body, I want you to change the body’s position from A to B. Do you understand that?” The preclear says he does, and the auditor, stepping back from the preclear, says “Change.” The preclear then changes the body’s position. Similarly in using the various points and combinations of the points A, B, C and D, the auditor drills the preclear on Change until that particular process seems to be flat.

The auditor then goes to Stop. The auditor takes the preclear by the arm and explains (explains every time) that when he says “Stop,” he wants the preclear to stop the body. The actual wording of the auditor is “Now I want you to get the body moving in that direction and when I say Stop, I want you to stop the body. Do you understand?” When the preclear says that he does, the auditor lets go of him, lets him move down the room a distance (never the same distance twice) and says “Stop.” When the preclear has stopped the auditor says “Did you stop the body?” And the preclear says “yes,” or “maybe” and the auditor then acknowledges. The auditor does this many times until the preclear understands that he himself can stop the body or he has regained an ability, or the process appears to be flat and has no charge on it.

These three steps done in that order are then repeated. And it will be discovered that once Stop has been flattened, Start is now unflattened and can be flattened all over again by running it anew. Similarly, Change will be found to be unflat and again Stop will be found to be unflat. Thus, one runs Start and one runs Change and then one runs Stop, in that order, over and over and over again until all three appear to be flat.

A variation of this particular process has been called Stop Supreme. Stop Supreme is a heavy emphasis on Stop and it will be found that after the three processes of Start, Change and Stop are flat, one can move rather easily into Stop Supreme and concentrate heavily upon it. In other words, one runs Start, Change and Stop, Start, Change and Stop, Start, Change and Stop until they are relatively flat. He should not then suppose that the whole of S-C-S is flat since he still has Stop Supreme in all of its variations.

The idea behind Stop Supreme is that Stop, or motionlessness, is probably the most thetan ability a thetan has. Thus the rehabilitation of this particular ability is worth while and does produce considerable results. But don’t be surprised if the preclear falls apart in the process of doing it.

The commands of Stop Supreme are roughly these. Every time one runs one of these S-C-S processes he, of course, explains the thing in full at the beginning of every command. He does not let any explanation hang over from the last time the command was executed. It will be found that the preclear cannot hold in his mind these explanations. Therefore, it has to be all explained anew every time. Thus we say to the preclear in Stop Supreme, “Now I want you to get your body moving down the room when I so indicate and when I say Stop, I want you to stop your body absolutely still.” Then the auditor gives the preclear a slight shove and the preclear moves the body down the room, and the auditor says “Stop,” and the preclear tries to stop his body absolutely still in that instant. It will be found that faster and faster responses are achieved by the preclear and he can actually stop the body in more and more peculiar positions. The auditor then says, “Did you stop your body absolutely still?” The preclear answers this and then the auditor acknowledges. There are even more severe versions of this, but they are left to the imagination of the auditor.

These S-C-S processes produced the greatest control changes that have been produced with any control process. They were consistently used with great success by a great many auditors. This is not really true of CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4. CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 depend in a very large measure not only upon the excellence of the auditor but upon how the auditor himself is feeling while he is running them. And we can get an auditor who is not feeling up to par that day not doing well with CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4. This difficulty was never encountered with the S-C-S processes and therefore the S-C-S processes are to be recommended.

An apparent drop of havingness is occasionally experienced by the preclear as he does these processes. This is because of compulsive exteriorization. If a preclear is about to fly out of his head he’ll fly out of his head on S-C-S. If he does fly out of his head on S-C-S, or any other process, you, of course, continue the process. You do not suddenly change and do some other process. Once upon a time we felt at liberty to change because of the severity of the change, but we have learned in long experience that one never changes the process just because somebody compulsively exteriorizes. S-C-S is probably more susceptible to compulsive exteriorization than any other single process, and as it is run preclears fly into their heads and out of them at a great rate and eventually get to a state quite ordinarily where they can move into the head or out of the head at will.

The reason the preclear is holding on to the body is (1) fear of loss of control and (2) havingness. If the havingness of the preclear is low, he is apt to close in tight to the body because this gives him more havingness and if the preclear fears that the body is going to go out of control he will also move in closer to the body. Thus we get interiorization as no more complicated than fear of loss of control and drops in havingness.

When a loss of havingness is experienced, a preclear will agitate or go anaten and tend to be upset in general. Actually, any loss of havingness in an auditing session can be repaired by an excellent auditor by repair of the ARC of the session. One uses the trick “What did I do wrong?” and two-way comm in general to patch up state of affairs. Loss of havingness is first manifested on loss of havingness of the session or loss of goals rather than on actual loss of mass.

In running S-C-S, however, the preclear flying in and out of his head will experience various changes of havingness which are quite upsetting. The very best handling of this situation is to restore the ARC of the session in every way possible. It is actually not allowed to stop S-C-S and go into Trio.

Concentration upon the body is one of the frailties of S-C-S and we have long since discovered that those preclears who had difficulty in exteriorization would very often re-interiorize the moment they glanced at the body. Well, keeping a body there and looking at it are apparently two different things entirely. Thus if a preclear can’t put his attention upon the body without bad things happening, we should run a process which prevents the preclear from being upset simply because he is concentrating upon his body, and S-C-S certainly does this and does it well.

Don’t be surprised in running S-C-S if the preclear suddenly flies to pieces, goes into flip-flopping, has to be picked up off the floor and put over on the couch and left aghast, but do be very surprised at yourself if you fail to get the preclear back up on his feet and into session again at once. This is no time for you to be changing processes simply because a preclear collapses. Now if this did happen, that the preclear went entirely out of session while running S-C-S and you could not get him in any way to do any more of the S-C-S and get it flat, then you had better start the entire intensive all over again and go right back to the beginning and carry on from the beginning and bring him right straight on through to S-C-S. You would do this rapidly, of course, but you would nevertheless have no other choice. It would not be good enough to change processes simply because the preclear found himself incapable of running this body control process of S-C-S.

It has been noticed that S-C-S can be run very sloppily by some auditors who do not have very much experience with it. The only way to err is in the direction of imprecision and bad ARC. It is perfectly easy to be very precise with high ARC. ARC does not mean non-confronting.

One of the elementary processes which can be used after S-C-S and which is a very fine process and will have to be done at some time, is the Keep it from going away— Hold it still—Make it more solid series on two objects.

To do this particular process one takes two disrelated objects, that is to say he doesn’t take two ashtrays or two bottles. He could take one object made out of wood, one made out of glass, both of them with different purposes. But these are usually picked up as non-significant objects and the auditor asks the preclear to place the two of them to the right and to the left of the preclear and asks the preclear to pick up one of them and keep it from going away and put it back in exactly the same place, pick up the other one and keep it from going away, put it back in exactly the same place, and keeps up this drill between these two objects. Actually, preclears who are having a very hard time require more than two objects, even as many as six or seven. In this event the auditor places the preclear at a table and scatters several objects around and picks them up at random. The duplicative feature of the process can be toughened up as the process is continued, but on some preclears it will be found to be very arduous to start out basically with two. When the preclear can successfully keep the two objects from going away, knowing very well that he kept them from going away—which the auditor asks him every time, “Did you keep it from going away?”—the hold-it-still phase is run in exactly the same way, and when this seems to be flat on the two objects we get into “Make it more solid.” One of the principal dividing lines between a psychotic state and a sane state is the ability to make things solid. It will be found that people who are having a very bad time indeed have the whole world in a very thin look-straight through-it state. Only when they themselves can be at Cause in keeping things from going away and making things hold still and making things more solid will it be found that they have a solidity in the environment.

There would be another process which we could run at this particular stage and that is old-time Book and Bottle, which is also one of the deadlier exteriorization processes.

Old-time Book and Bottle was run in this wise. The auditor placed a book on one table or chair and a bottle on the other table or chair and he directed the individual to first one and then the other, always with a very duplicative command. Probably the first version of Book and Bottle was the best. It should be understood that Book and Bottle is an absolute necessity and must be run at some time or another upon a Scientology auditor, but it is not necessarily something which must be run on somebody who is simply trying to attain a state of Clear. Thus a mention of it is introduced at this time.

STEP FOUR

Find the Auditor

Make pc even more conscious of auditor and place him somewhat at Cause with ARC.

There are probably a thousand inventive ways that this could be done but it is time when one has been butchering the pc this long for the pc to regain some of his self-respect with regard to the auditing session. One could do this with almost any auditing command which made the pc look at the auditor. Such a question as “Is there anything I am doing that you could do?” carried forward to its logical conclusion would find the pc regaining some of his Cause with regard to the session. Simple locational spotting, however, is probably the best process here. One directs the pc’s attention with “You notice that (object)” all about the room and at first only occasionally includes the pc’s body and the auditor’s body in the spotting. Then the auditor, using the same process, concentrates less and less upon the room and more and more upon the auditor and the pc. It will be found that the pc will eventually find the auditor with his attention so directed.

It will be seen then that S-C-S directed the pc’s attention very strongly to the auditing of his own body and it will be seen that we have not yet started to get the pc’s attention out into the environment.

But here we have two very pat processes which are CCH 3 and CCH 4. These are extremely simple processes but require a considerable amount of care in their use. Any validated auditor knows how to run these two processes. CCH 3 is Hand Space Mimicry and CCH 4 is Book Mimicry. Both of these processes simply invite the pc to find the auditor more thoroughly.

The earliest process along the line was “Look at me, Who am I?”, and it has very far from been disallowed, so that in lack of anything else simply this process could be picked up and used at this stage. Now here we get the preclear to identify or to say who the auditor is and you will find that many preclears go through a considerable number of convulsions in trying to establish who the auditor is.

There is no particularly recommended step for this. It depends in a large measure on what state the pc is in when he arrives at this point. But it is necessary for the pc to become somewhat causative with regard to the session at this stage, whether by spotting, CCH 3 and CCH 4, or by old-time “Look at me, Who am I?” They all more or less accomplish the same thing. CCH 3 and 4 accomplish the location of the auditor very mechanically according to the Reality Scale. Spotting has the additional advantage of taking a pc’s attention very thoroughly under control, and “Look at me, Who am I?” invites the pc to use his identification and thinking capacities. If an auditor wanted to be totally sure, he would use all of them.
STEP FIVE

Pc Versus Mest

Establish pc as cause over Mest by establishing pc’s ideas as cause over Mest.

There are several varieties of spotting processes. The most basic of these is the most basic process to association and this is Connectedness. This process is run directively with the following command: “You get the idea of making that (object) connect with you. Did you? Thank you.”

The reason Connectedness works is because it is the basic process on association. The most aberrative thing on any case is association with Mest. This does not mean that the individual is not creating the Mest, it does not mean that he has no relationship with Mest, but it does mean that Theta and Mest interconnected too strongly are the components of a trap. Theta is mixed up with Mest, Mest is mixed up with Theta. They are two different things actually, and it is not true that all thought derives from Mest, nor is it true that all Mest derives from thought. A thetan can create Mest by simply creating Mest, not by telling it to be created, but simply by putting it there. This is the isness of Mest. Now when he connects his thoughts with the actual mass he gets into trouble and we get association, we get compulsive thinking, we get identification and the old A = A = A of Dianetic days.

Thus you will see at once that Connectedness in any form is a very excellent process to run. But note carefully that we have him get the idea of making the object connect with him. We never command the preclear to get the other idea of connecting with the object. This is a no-games condition. This is what is wrong with the preclear.

Now there are a large variety of processes which stem out of this process of basic association. These are Control Trio, Trio and Responsibility. But all of these things are basically connectedness processes.

The only thing that ever went wrong with connectedness processes was the unreality factor. The auditor would tell the preclear to get the idea of making that wall connect with him, when as a matter of fact the preclear couldn’t have gotten much of any kind of an idea of making anything connect with him.

Thus it is mandatory for an auditor to start out a preclear on some level of reality and some two-way comm should precede this connectedness process, such as “Do you think there is anything anywhere that you could get to connect with you?” Once this is cleared up, it will be found that only those things very close in could be real to the preclear on this line of connectedness. Thus the auditor is given no great power of choice in this matter in the first runnings of the process. He will have to run things which are relatively close in to the preclear, then proceed to things which are middle distance and then things which are further from the preclear.

A great deal of good common sense is needed here, and a great deal of two-way comm is necessary to get some idea of whether or not the preclear thought it was real.

Thus the earliest commands of Connectedness should probably be the preclear’s nose and the auditor’s hand; the arm of the preclear’s chair and the button on the auditor’s shirt; the button on the preclear’s shirt and his own left hand, et cetera. Further, the auditor is only asking him to get the idea of making the thing connect with him, not to make the thing connect with him, otherwise he will have the preclear being yanked all over the room.

Control Trio, Trio and Responsibility are actually only complications on top of Connectedness, but they themselves have their own particular peculiar virtues, and a preclear who can actually run straight, old-time Trio, “Look around here and find something you could have,” can get a very long way on that process all by itself.
Control Trio is actually a three-stage process on a heavy spotting control. It runs in this fashion. “Get the idea that you can have that (object).” And when this is relatively flat, “Get the idea of making that (object) remain where it is,” (or continue where it is) and “Get the idea of making that (object) disappear.” This is actually a very fine process and undercuts (runs on a lower case than) Trio itself.

Old-time Trio is extremely good, however, and is not to be underrated in any way. You can run a whole three-week intensive on this if the preclear can do it. The commands are: “Look around here and find something you could have.” And when that is somewhat flat, “Look around here and find something you would permit to remain,” and then “Look around here and find something you would permit to disappear.” These are run in relationship to each other. In other words, all three of them are run in the same session. Sometimes a preclear will run the third command two hundred and fifty times before he can get either of the other two commands with any reality at all.

Responsibility is another process just like Trio and actually has its three commands, too. “Look around here and find something you could be responsible for.” “Look around here and find something you don’t have to be responsible for.” “Look around here and find something you would permit somebody else to be responsible for.”

The emphasis here is “You look,” “You connect,” “You make” in any of these processes, and the “You” should be entered into the old commands to make the thing as causative as possible.

Although we cover this rather briefly, this is probably the most effective section of Clear Procedure. The whole trick is to get the preclear to actually do it. It does no good for a preclear to run these processes with no reality. It does no good for a preclear to run these processes with no ARC between himself and the auditor. But it does a lot of good to get these processes run.

Basically TR TEN, “You notice that (object),” is a fundamental process on connectedness. It will be discovered that unless the preclear is actually able to look at a few things he will not be able to get an idea about them, too. Furthermore, it will be discovered that there is a process called Short Spotting, wherein the auditor has the preclear spot things that are very close to him. The only thing wrong with Short Spotting is that the auditor must give the preclear things to spot which the preclear can actually see with his eyes. If the preclear cannot see these things with his eyes there is not much use in having him spot them as it will run down his havingness and add to an uncertainty.

Havingness of an objective variety, namely Trio, is one of the greatest processes ever invented. Do not lose sight of this fact. The process can do things that no other process can do. There may be some factors kicking around in Havingness which are not entirely understood and which are not entirely connected with Connectedness. However, it has been found that Connectedness will put a preclear in a condition where he can eventually run Havingness. Therefore, Connectedness undercuts and possibly even overpasses Havingness in general.

This process of Connectedness can also be run outside. It can be run on people. It can be run on a certain type of object. It can be used to familiarize a pilot with his airplane and a driver with his car. It can be used to increase ARC between the preclear and the world around him by letting him run it in a heavily populated area or upon a busy street and using bodies. Here we have one of the more interesting processes to run in terms of cognition, because it undoes so much basic association. If your preclear is not cogniting while running Connectedness you can be very sure of the fact that somewhere along the line you have not given him a reality and you should flatten it off gracefully and start the intensive all over again.

STEP SIX
Creative Processing

Read and understand Scientology 8-8008 and “Electropsychometric Auditing,” and use an E-Meter throughout the auditing.

The first step on this in some cases is conquering black “field” and invisible “field.” This is done by a repair of havingness over black masses and then invisible masses, run even if the pc goes unconscious. This means that you continue to audit him even if he goes unconscious and you use the same command and pay no attention to his unconsciousness. You continue just as though he were wide awake. When field is cleared up, start on a gradient scale of mock-ups and get pc able to mock things up. Then run “Keep it from going away” until flat on mock-ups. Then run “Hold it still” on mock-ups. Then run “Make it more solid” on mock-ups. All this until pc really has fine, solid mock-ups. Typical command, “Mock up a      and keep it from going away. Thank you.” RULE: A PC’S FACSIMILES ARE NOT STORED, THEY ARE MADE IN THE INSTANT AND UNMADE BY THE PC, therefore remedy of mock-ups AND THEIR PERSISTENCE, is actually a direct route to clear and winds up with no obsessive mock-up making (which we call a bank). A valuable side process here: “Decide to make a mock-up. Decide that will ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” Also this one: “Decide to make a mock-up everyone can see. Decide that would ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” A TOTAL REMEDY OF MOCK-UPS WOULD MAKE A BOOK ONE CLEAR.

STEP SEVEN

(Optional)

Establish the preclear’s control over his “bank.” “Mock up a facsimile and (keep it from going away, and when that is flat, hold it still, and when that is flat, make it a little more solid).” Run this alternately with “Mock up that wall (keep it from going away, hold it still, make it a little more solid).” Run the “Keep it from going away” on a facsimile one command, then the wall one command, until flat, then shift to “Hold it still” same way, then shift to “Make it more solid,” same way.

STEP EIGHT

Make Some Time

See Dianetics ‘55!, Chapter XV.

AN INTENSIVE IN BRIEF FOR PRACTICAL USE

GOAL: Operating Thetan.

DEFINITION: An Operating Thetan is one who can be knowingly at cause over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time.

CCH 0 in brief, find the auditor, find pc, find auditing room, clear help and goals. BUT IN THE MAIN HANDLE THE PT PROBLEM IF IT EXISTS. IF IT DOESN’T EXIST do CCH 0 briefly and quickly and get on with the session.

It will be noted that giving pc’s attention to auditing room or environment can turn on a somatic after three or four commands. After one command of “Have you got an auditing room?” this becomes a process called LOCATIONAL. If Locational turns on a somatic it must be run until somatic is flat. Therefore, the auditor has no business attempting Locational or getting the pc involved unless he intends to do something about it.

Present Time Problem

The preclear is put on an E-Meter before PT problem is discussed. When the E-Meter has been adjusted (one-third of a dial surge when pc squeezes cans), the auditor asks if the pc has a present time problem. After a little discussion of this, the needle may surge. If it does, the auditor locates the PT problem’s most intimate terminal and runs (with the pc still holding the cans) “Invent something worse than (indicated terminal)” until the problem flattens out on the dial. The auditor can ask for and run another PT problem or even three or four, but always flattening down the surge of the needle. IF THE PC IS 50% below the center line of the APA, it is not safe to run “Invent.” Instead, without scouting around “Invent,” but knowing the graph in the first place, simply two-way comm the problem and run Locational until the problem flattens out on the needle. The auditor does not begin with “Invent” and then change his mind and run Locational. It is an “either-or.” The auditor starts with “Invent” or he starts with Locational and whichever he does he does not change. IF LOCATIONAL TURNS ON A SOMATIC IT MUST BE RUN UNTIL LOCATIONAL NO LONGER TURNS ON SOMATICS.

Once the PT problem is flat the auditor puts away the E-Meter.

S-C-S Steps

S-C-S begins with 8-C of any kind. If 8-C turns on a somatic, the auditor runs it until it no longer turns on somatics. 8-C is run formal or Tone 40.

Start is then run as per 1956.

Change is then run as per 1956.

Stop is then run as per 1956.

If each of these is flattened in turn, it does not mean that S-C-S is flat. It means only that Start is probably unflattened. Thus one again runs Start after Stop, runs Change after Start, Stop after Change until none of the three unflatten the others.

More 8-C can be run. There is no error in liberally running 8-C, which is, after all, a more complicated Locational of a Short Spotting sort.

Spotting Steps

Spotting itself is a broad process. Locational is only one of many spotting processes. Spotting spots in the past, in space, in the present, Short Spotting (Locational done up close) are all effective.

SPOTTING DEPENDS FOR ITS WORKABILITY ON THE DISLIKE OF A THETAN OF BEING LOCATED. IT RUNS BEST, of course, WITH THE THETAN AT CAUSE DOING THE SPOTTING.

Connectedness is the basic process on ASSOCIATION of Theta with Mest. All forms and kinds of association, including being caught in traps, are prone to become identifications as in Dianetics. Connectedness puts the thetan at cause in making the Mest (or people when run outside) connect with him. The command is “Get the idea of making (indicated object) connect with you.” The auditor points. The worse off a person is, the less reality he has on far objects.

Havingness is a complicated Connectedness. Also a permissive one. Thus Trio is above Connectedness and may be used when Connectedness is flat. 

SCIENTOLOGY

Control 
&
The Mechanics Of 
Start-Change-Stop

Edited from the tape lectures of
L. RON HUBBARD

CONTROL AND THE MECHANICS OF S.C.S.
(Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s 18th ACC lecture No.6, dated July 22, 1957)

The word control has a nasty connotation due to the bad 8-C parents and society administers upon its individuals. That is because the word control evokes moments when we were beaten down into apathy or given such conflicting commands to obey that we henceforth shudder away from any mention of the word. But in Scientology we have given it a new meaning by adding Tone 40, which makes this control exact and allows the completion of a cycle of action which bad control never considered. Also it does not dramatize the lower emotions of the tone scale.
An individual who has been made to resist control winds up allergic to control and if he is allergic to it he dies because there isn’t anything one can do with anything except in one way or another to view or control it.
If a flow flows too long in one direction it has a tendency to dam up and fix itself. It is only necessary to reverse that to unfix the situation.  We go back into “Scientology: 8-80” on two-way flows and we understand what is happening. When you get a person to get the idea of flowing something out away from him, he will suddenly go anaten. But it is only necessary for him to make something flow the other way toward him for a short while (just a mental idea of flowing in) for him to wake up immediately. If you have somebody who is putting mockups out in front of him and he starts to go unconscious you only need to have him put them in back of him and the unconsciousness disappears.
A thetan who is totally devoted to controlling things and who is not himself in any way controlled, runs into this phenomena. If this is the case one can immediately see why control of a preclear is necessary. If he has fought outgoing control it is only because it has gone out too long.  A thetan cannot be upset by a mis-control or bad 8-C. It is just an objection. I think he could take it rather easily providing he himself didn’t have a stuck flow on it. If he himself had not done so much controlling of mental image pictures, which is to say the mind, the body and objects in the environment, there would not be a stuck outward flow.  When somebody comes along and controls him well, he objects. He objects more when it is bad control. But bad control, that is, bad placement and handling, naturally gets more on his nerves if he already has worn route which starts to come back to knock him out. He doesn’t like it and starts to fight a flow with flows.
A flow which flows a certain time in one direction tends to continue to flow until it is totally jammed or stopped. A flow flowing long enough in one direction in the mind, eventually flows harder and harder and not easier as one might presume. This is only true when energy is being employed. The more an individual outflows energy the more vacuum he creates on this side of the flow. The more he flows out the more hole he leaves in the bank and eventually something is trying to pull the flow back in. He has created a “missingness” in the energy masses immediately surrounding him and this vacuum caused by the missingness tends to fill itself by pulling back on the same line. It’s like taking a rubber band and stretching it further and further. The analogy isn’t very good because the flow eventually just sticks. His effort to hold it out there is so great that he can only hold it motionlessly out there. He has got it stuck.
Somebody comes along and threatens to disturb this stuck flow just a little bit and the vacuum behind it tends to fill up too rapidly. He resists this and he sticks it out there with more effort.
The solution to this lies in these two data; one, you cannot hurt a thetan and, two, the worst that could happen on the snap back is that the bank would disarrange in some fashion and would leave him without some of his pretty pictures. That flow is usually undertaken by non-created energy. He himself did not create the energy. He collected it one way or the other, from sources on a mis-ownership basis. He packed it around him and used that energy.
There is an actual series of electrical phenomena which occur in the field of thinkingness connected with this. These things have been observed to have sufficient violence that a person holding the electrodes of an E-meter has had an explosion occur somewhere in the vicinity of his hands big enough to knock a hole in his hands and the can.
An individual once in a while gets a tremendous explosion in front of his face or above his head and he thinks he is being attacked by something. He just got too much potential and had a stuck flow out there which somebody came along and disturbed and it resulted in a complete electronic display. Any group of people playing around with such things as electric shocks on people to “help” them, is just being incredibly stupid because they are using the wrong wavelength in the first place -- a very gross wave called “action”.
We look at this tremendous electrical phenomena which surrounds the being and we find that mental image pictures are themselves built of energy. They are not some imaginary thing. Imaginary means “non-energy, non- real, not existent, couldn’t possibly be handled”. It is a bad control operation, the use of that word imaginary. If that is the case then everything we can see is imaginary -- the walls, floors, ceilings and all the bodies one sees walking down the streets.
You can practically produce the same phenomena as a ridge exploding with any electrical current or various electrical gimmicks of one kind or another. The electronic engineer can produce this reaction very easily with condensers and resistors, but his ideas of condensers are rather strange as well. He thinks if you keep pumping electricity into a condenser until it fills up it will eventually discharge in some fashion or another. Well, we don’t know if it has this capacity or not, but we know that a thetan does have some strange electrical phenomena which are not any different than the electrical phenomena of life. This is not unusual to a thetan because he is after all part and parcel to the mest universe and the electrical phenomena we see around us were probably some time or another generated by life. The current running in this tape recorder at this moment is converted or generated by some life form or another in the past. It is probably running on coal and coal is energy stored by, converted by or generated by life forms -- trees.
The moment a thetan starts to handle energy he runs into all the phenomena of electricity or else he wouldn’t have any need of eating or sleeping. That this applies to the mind then should not come as a shock to anybody. That it wouldn’t apply to the mind then should be a tremendous piece of balderdash. If it has anything to do with energy then there are certain laws that energy obeys and flows are no exception.
Other electrical phenomena contain engrams. Each experience in life is represented by a mental image picture of one kind or another, which contains real energy, which has real potential and which is measurable in terms of current. Meters which measure current, measure the potential in these facsimiles.
Furthermore they have mass. You can remedy somebody’s havingness with these pictures. By having an individual mockup things and shoving them in, you can increase the body’s weight. There are many experiences which in themselves -- and this is what is confusing -- contain electrical catastrophes. One can have pictures of catastrophes which, when run, give you a repeat of a catastrophe.
One can produce all sorts of electrical phenomena which affect beings.

People haven’t begun to dream of the number of ways by which a being could be influenced by electrical phenomena. One could say that is about the closest thing there is to infinity. They are numberless and all obey the same laws. If they are so operating and if these laws hold good, then you, in processing, can command the obedience of this phenomena. One of the phenomena is the stuck flow of control. People usually control other things by energy and do not control by postulate which is the optimum thing to do. They obsessively control and then one day they control just a little more by energy and they decide they cannot control things any more. There is no other reason to it than electrical phenomena.  There isn’t, “Well, I failed too many times to control it so I guess I cannot control it any longer”. They just had to try too hard and had to outflow too much, worked too hard by pushing in one direction too long and they created a stuck flow. Practically all flows are aimed in the direction of control and the anatomy of control is start, change and stop.  Starting, changing and stopping things then became stuck flows.
One of the things we do is to back up this stuck flow of control. The thetan has been going all the time in the universe controlling things and very few things have ever controlled him. He has a tendency to snap in on himself those times when he has been controlled whether it was good or bad control. Hence you get the various phenomena such as the Service Facsimile which finds its basic residence in just that fact.
The idea of training people until they develop automatic responses as in the forces, has practically saturated the universe. They don’t ever train the person since they don’t even know who the man was. The whole idea of training is completely erroneous because they think that if they get some kind of automaticity going in the bank then this person, like a wound up doll, can thereafter drive a car and tanks. Everybody thinks that it works, so that is the target of education, “Don’t apply it.  Just memorize the data presented to you even though you don’t precisely know where to fit it into your frame of reference.”
Now an auditor comes along and starts to control him with Tone 40 auditing, such as “Give me that hand”. After a while the preclear says, “I wonder if any of that is addressed to me? Could it be that some of it is addressed to me? In the first place they are not asking me to store up any of this in the bank. Quite the contrary. I am supposed to do this every time. Me?  Does the fellow mean me because I don’t see anything else around here that will give him my hand. Well, maybe if he does this often enough he is going to install a machine which will give him my hand.” Then it becomes sheer duplication and duplication can utterly ruin any machine. The one thing that mental machinery cannot do is to exactly duplicate. Only a thetan can duplicate. He is the only being that can stand the stress and strain of is. So duplication enters into this with heavy control and he finds that he must be the one who is being controlled. Thus he works it out and one gets a back flow of control which is all there is to it. He finds nut that there is no great consequence to this and so becomes willing to control something and that is more or less a crude explanation of how control works when used in auditing.
We examine this very carefully and find that control is senior to energy. Energy is the servant of control and not the end goal of control although it could be made so. Energy is energy and if it was just floating about doing nothing there would be chaos, that is if there was no direction to it.
If we take this idea of energy flows as the only method by which anything can be controlled we are in trouble. That is the make-break point of a lifetime. That is the reason why electronic engineers have a rough time.  The using of too much and using it too long to control things with energy which they themselves cannot even see, causes this stuck flow which eventually deteriorates into the inability to control and forces them further down to cruder methods yes.
We have a stratum above energy. There is such a thing as controlling by postulate. There is also such a thing as mass without energy, or mass without fields. There can be a mass with no energy and it is not true that that wall is composed of little things that wiggle. It is not composed of space with an idea of little particles. Let’s not make the mistake of saying that a mass has no mass. That is what physics got itself into and is in it so deep that it will never dig itself out. When it advanced into higher physics they said that mass has no mass and it made mystics out of the lot of them.
That is a reverse postulate. It is all right to say that there is nothing there, there is something there and behold is. But now there is something there and we say that there is nothing there without vanishing it and we are in trouble because we are telling a lie. Let’s get the isness straight.  The universe is real. If you run around saying that it is real it would become less offensive to you, but if you go around on the second postulate and while holding firmly in mind that it is and you say it isn’t, you not-is it and become a “what wall” case which is lower than south.
That which makes something is not the thing it made and because you can make energy is no reason that you are energy. Because the wall next to you can make electrical fields when treated properly is no reason that it is an electrical field. In other words, that wall over there is and don’t ever think it isn’t. If your body runs into it, it will go thump. We then, as a result of this, have to admit two isnesses. The isness of your body and the isness of the wall and some person with more feeling than others would admit a third -- the thump.
One an vary, alter and do all sorts of things such as changing mest and electricity but when you say that it isn’t you run into trouble and start going blind. This is actually the total reason 8-C and other processes are so good. You just make the preclear go around and say, “It is. It is. It is,” and everything brightens up and is liable to become more solid, stronger and more massive. That is the basic control of this universe. It is. One controls something by holding it in existence. Just by holding something in existence one is controlling it.
Control then even enters into creation. Create and control are next door to each other. If an individual cannot suffer control himself his ability to create is doomed. He may be frantically creating but it doesn’t mean that he is going to keep doing this for very long. He is going to hit that stuck flow. If he is creating with postulates and not with energy flows he can go on forever.
The number one trick of control used in this universe on a thetan is to make the thetan postulate that he himself can be damaged. One has to make him conceive that he is energy and that energy can be damaged by which he then has it proven to him that he can be damaged. One can only damage a person thoroughly and enormously by making this identification between a spirit and energy or mass.
Any psychotherapy or practice of religion and philosophy or activity concerning the mind is doomed to failure and will not and cannot work if it is based on the premise that man is mass. The only reason Scientology works is because it disabuses him of this fact. It addresses the being and if we were going around fixing up bodies thinking that man is a body made up of neurons, automaticities, etc., we have said at once that it cannot work, because it is using and confirming this identification.
That is the basic mis-identification necessary to damage a thetan or put him downscale. One just has to convince him that he is mass, energy and can be damaged and you have a foundation for a slave society.
The thetan who is convinced that he is a chair can provenly be damaged. But a thetan cannot be damaged. All you really have to do is disassociate the idea that a thetan was energy and you have 99 per cent of his case right there. People control so much energy that they eventually come to believe that they had better obey the laws of energy and so get stuck in energy. He then thinks he is energy and if he produces something he is the thing.
This situation eventually gets into a stuck flow and the moment you process him, not an energy mass, he starts to disconnect from all this energy without really wrecking his havingness. One cannot hurt his havingness. It is just another idea he found. Havingness works because it exercises his connection with energy. It makes him responsible until he wears out a whole flock of postulates and then feels better.
This, then, is a direct ratio. One would have to convince a thetan that he was energy before one could damage him. He often sets up a postulate that he could be damaged so as to damage another thetan by example. Somebody said, “Hell was paved with good intentions,” but it is actually paved with setting an example. You say, “Look what you have done to me, you brute. You have slaughtered me,” and he says, “WHAT! A living being can be slaughtered? That’s a new thought!” and he goes off worrying about this. You pick yourself up and say, “Guess I got that guy.” Then one day you do it so often that you forget to get the guy or you run into too many others that convinced you. That is just the method of going into agreement.
Hence, down scale cases, difficulty in processing, all these things actually stem from these rather stratospheric postulates and activities which may or may not be reached directly by an auditor. They certainly can be attacked on a gradient scale. If they could be reached just like that one would have a one instant clear.
The whole matter of “I am energy, energy can be damaged, I can be damaged” is actually a necessary channel to create a good solid slave society. A fellow who is energy cannot get out of a skull and must to some degree be conceiving himself to be the content of the skull when you tell him to exteriorize. He is trying to push his brains outside the skull or something of the sort when you say, “Be three feet back of your head.” It is painful and it gives him headaches.
A thetan couldn’t be damaged. His abilities couldn’t be less. We have already demonstrated that it is impossible to reduce an ability. About the only thing you can do is reduce its exercise or the willingness to exercise it.
The answer to all this is to remember and be cognizant all the time that one is processing the thetan and NOT an energy mass or something solid. Only then can change occur.
A thetan has plotted out orders of seniority and top amongst them is surprise. I can make anybody go out of control and actually make his body just start flip flopping madly just by making him run a process that isn’t a process but which is addressed to surprise. “Mock up somebody and have him be surprised.” Just have him do that for a few times and he says, “I am feeling nervous now,” and the next thing you as an auditor see is that he has got all of his clamps about surprise off and all of the surprise which was more or less on automatic goes into full restimulation and he will just flip flop all over the place.
Surprise is one of the methods by which energy could be damaged because a thetan gets that associated with a blow and he has all sorts of interesting mechanisms figured out. But we have to have these basic mechanisms first -one, that one can be damaged and two, that he is energy.
Christianity, for instance, had this failure. Although they were addressing the spirit very broadly they actually brought in this mechanism called hell. There were seven hells originally and these various hells were all places where thetans could be damaged. They did this very interestingly. They said, “your soul,” which, of course, made the operation, “you are energy.”
Punishment and damage were entered in. That wasn’t anywhere near as bad an operation as this dialectic materialism psychology mess that we have inherited in our modern times. Science is going straight ahead on the rocks of “man is energy -- man is mass.” At least Christian practices gave a via on it. They still have some spirit present in their conception of man.
I am more or less prone to believe some of the miracles which occurred in the early days of Christianity in spite of the several Christian churches which now offer large prizes to anyone who can prove that any miracle ever occurred. If you were just to convince somebody that he is a spirit, that he did not “have” a soul but “is” a soul and nothing else, you are liable to get a miracle. He would slip all the way out of being energy and being damaged into being himself.
We thus have control of the spirit as being the highest button of control or processing. Control of spirit would be rather direct without mumbo jumbo and lots of vias such as witch doctoring.
We have come to a point where we can do this quite directly. We can control a spirit. The moment that the preclear himself sees that he is control and that he is not energy, sees that he can receive control, communicate and respond to it, he certainly will pull out of the morass.
Tone 40 works well for some people and rather poorly for others. It has a lot to do with the goals of the auditor and his understanding of what he is trying to do with that process. But we are probably the first -- and this doesn’t even include Buddhism -- to overtly address this problem very directly and without superstition and mumbo jumbo.
Direct control of the spirit is our direct goal and when a person can be controlled then he can control and when he sees that there is a two way flow involved he has the situation well in hand.
--------------------

THE ARC TRIANGLE AND CCH

(Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s Lecture No. 2 of the 18th ACC, Washington, D.C.)

The ARC triangle is our next to the oldest property in Scientology.  The oldest is the bank, the engram and the mental image picture. Quite recently this almost forgotten triangle did a terrific resurrection only this time we have it as control, havingness and communication.
Affinity, Reality and Communication are an excellent description of the three basic things on which the universe is built, without which, in balance, life could not exist.
AFFINITY, that is some emotional or felt consideration of proximity, is basically a consideration of distance, but it is that consideration which says that one likes or doesn’t like it. In other words, without some liking or disliking, having some things to avoid or to go close to, there would be no game at all.
REALITY, is that sequence which begins with postulates and ends with mass, which we originally defined as an agreed upon thing. Reality is the agreed upon apparency of existence as per the axioms.
COMMUNICATION, is an interchange of ideas between two beings who are aware that the other person is present. We had to introduce with this new simplicity the radical idea that one being could talk to another being and that an interchange of ideas could take place as defined in Axiom 28 and described in “Dianetics 1955” -- the manual of communication.
If you notice an interchange of ideas it is not very feasible unless there is an agreement of some sort or another. The agreement can take the form of having a mass to talk to and we thus get a communication via.  At least we know what we are talking to if there is something there -- and that is reality. Of course, we can simply postulate that something is there and talk to it.
Talking to something is better than talking to nothing. When two beings are talking to each other here on Earth, one normally sees the oddity of two beings standing there, not confronting each other and not talking, but a lot of words go back and forth. The reality part of that interchange would be the mass, the platform whether it be Earth or a sidewalk that the two bodies are standing on. The space so far as location is concerned enters into this. Those are located somewhere and therefore we know where the communication goes to and whoever receives it knows where to send the answer back to -- a very necessary part of communication.
Then we get the affinity factor. How far away does a fellow have to be to talk to you? There is more than that to affinity. Affinity is liking and disliking. Understanding requires affinity, reality and communication and if any corner of the ARC triangle is lowered the other two corners lower accordingly.
We know that reality is basically an agreement and we have today the Reality Scale. We have always known that all we had to do was introduce some agreement into the situation. One had to agree at least on what one was talking about in order to talk. There is no communication in progress if there is no agreement on anything. One should have had to establish the existence of one of the other people before communication could have occurred.
Communication occurs simply by R and a little A when two people are together.
Affinity necessitates a control of attention. We have had a lot of processes founded on ARC and they have not in themselves produced tremendous results. They have produced good results but we haven’t seen anybody step out of the graveyard and dust his hat.
There must be some counterparts to ARC which are more workable than ARC since if we know ARC is true then how do we (and those are basic considerations) make it work in this universe, on this planet at this time? We know that the three things add up to understanding. How do we get this into a processing level?
In the first place one has to realize blindness when one sees it. One has to realize that South is an awful long way South and the basic entrance of the ARC triangle breaks down to control for A, to which bodies and the G.E. beautifully respond. Any preclear, therefore, would respond to it regardless of his tone level if you were processing him via a body, because this is the body’s understanding. It is solid. Therefore A is control.
Somebody comes along and says, “Stand up straighter. Got your heels together. Suck in your guts” and he will say, “The guy loves me.” You might phrase it in some other way. You might say, “Damn the sergeant, I could kill him” which means at the G.E. level, “I love him dearly.”
Thus we have havingness or solid mass in the place of reality and verbalization in place of communication. So understanding takes place in terms of control, mass and communication.
Understanding mest-wise always takes place in the framework of mass and location thereof, verbalized or electrical or vibratory interchanges, and for affinity, control. If one disliked somebody on a mass level one would simply refuse to control him. The choice I am talking about is to control or not to control.
Unfortunately where there are people firmly connected with mass this then is the level of interchange. If people are going around in bodies, then this is the level to which cases respond.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not trying to rephrase or re-do the ARC triangle. I am simply telling you the action level of the ARC triangle when it is in action or you are going to work on a mest level. A becomes control or lack of it. The R becomes mass and its location or lack of it since the complaint is about no mass, and C is some sort of vibratory electrical particle interchange, symbols flying back and so forth -- solid.
If you start adding too much directness at this very low level you are liable to blow the mass up. A thetan learns that. Every once in a while he loses a favorite piece of bank or service facsimile. He said exactly what he meant to the fellow directly with no vias and got himself fired.  He was trying to communicate directly on a mest level and threw some particles straight out without the slightest via on them and caused an explosion. One has to have intention with it. There has to be some livingness connected with it. In other words, one has to go upscale in order to make it function optimumly.
People who are at the lower end of control don’t want mass, can’t have communication which becomes “it will be said for me”. At this level, when coaxed to put out a control, a communication which is absolutely direct and straight, people discover something fantastic. In order to accomplish this they have to go upscale or shatter themselves in the process of doing so. After they have been shattered a few times they hit a higher tone range. They say, “I belong up here. What am I doing grubbing around here in the mest?” That is basically what an individual understands when he starts doing recent training drills.
ARC, to become extremely workable, has to be coached where you are dealing with masses in terms of control, havingness and communication.
We have said CCH, by which we mean control, communication, havingness or communication, control and havingness, and we have lined them up so that it is instantly discernible that this is the other side to the ARC coin.
Follow ARC down scale as per the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation in “Science of Survival” and as you go down you will find an area below the bottom line of the chart That has to do with mass. In other words, to wrap up this whole subject the only responses still extant at the bottom of the Chart can still be phrased in terms of control, havingness and communication. Those responses do not entirely disappear as mentioned on the Chart but become very coarse and massive and don’t entirely disappear.
If life can be awakened into a present it will be awakened into a presence or a location by control, havingness and communication, handled in one way or another. The first CCH process is very old and hardly anybody has recognized its antecedent. I processed a cat until he ate an editor. I processed this cat up to a point where he would strike at my fingers. He was a very timid cat and I got him to reach for my fingers and then each time he would reach I would withdraw my fingers slightly.  He would reach further and he got more and more ferocious. So I invited an editor and he ate the editor up. That’s an exaggeration but he really ate the editor’s thetan by scaring the man with his ferocity.
Just by inviting the cat to reach out, no matter how timidly, and strike out at our fingers, gradually so as not to startle or surprise the cat we make our fingers retreat, we get the cat to put out a communication line.  Lines are solid at the bottom of the Reality Scale so we are right there at the cat’s reality. The cat can’t have mass, is below mass and is actually trying to connect antagonistically with a solid communication line. So the cat does reach.
“Give me that hand” is just processing the cat. You say, “Give me that hand.” The preclear doesn’t and you reach over and take hold of his wrist, take his hand and thank him for having given it to you. After a while of this he says, “You know, there is some dim, vague possibility that I might have had something to do with that. I wonder if I could possibly reach that far over to your lap.” When he finds out that he can do it, you have achieved a goal for you have got him reaching for the environment, in an 8-C style. When this is done, you as an auditor better have him reach for the mest environment in terms of barriers. You have just got lines recognized and he has to be moved up and out of barriers.  So we have 8-C on walls. When we get him above that the auditor puts him back on lines again and we have Hand Space Mimicry. We get him to locate the mass of the auditor.
The preclear cannot disobey these commands. There is no thinkingness involved in it because there isn’t any thinkingness at that level and if you are processing any it is a figure-figure.
That is what ARC becomes after a long time. An individual becomes a body. He agrees that he isn’t anything but a body. People are never anything but bodies and bodies are dead too.
A body is a mass and therefore the realest thing there could be to a body is outright control. If a person had a body then control would be affinity. If he could control something he would like it. An individual who finds out control isn’t killing him turns out to like his auditor. That is an establishment of a reality level and the affinity level at that reality level is control. It goes up and not down the scale. We use good Tone 40 control on him and he will come upscale to having mass.
Let’s look at what this does to communication. The individual, of course, is willing to talk. He is also willing to receive objects and give objects away and so interchanges can occur. We are looking at the ARC where understanding takes place only in the presence of control, havingness and communication on a mest level.
This is the level at which machines of a mest nature, automobiles and so forth, have to be run. An individual cannot adequately control his car and he doesn’t like his car. What does he mean by “like”? Does he mean an emotion? No, he means an ability to control it. It is as solid and mesty as that.
One wonders why some married couples don’t get along although she apparently does everything he says. When an auditor decides that he will get her out from under her husband (or vice versa) or bush up this closure of terminals, he will find out that there seems to be some feeling for each other. It is just control going on all the time. One is looking here at where control is affinity. They express their affinity for each other by kicking each other, trying to gain control over each other by fighting. Below that level is love making.
One can understand a lot by just looking at what understanding is at the level of mass. It is control, controlling and being controlled. That is understanding.
Psychosis is something mocked up so that it cannot be handled.  Psychos try to make nothing out of their mass all the time. They have mocked up a non-handlability.
People who are below 2.0 on the Tone Scale mock up things that cannot be handled and individuals above 2.0 mock up things, when they do, that can be handled or they simply try to handle anything. There is thus a dividing line on this control. People below 2.0 mock up things routinely which cannot be handled and then brag about it.
Those people are much further down scale than one thinks they are. We say it is above or below 2.0 which seems to be a precise line. It is almost as if we are talking about two different universes. When individuals go around mocking up things that cannot be handled and bragging about it all the time, they give an auditor a pretty bad time. They are just daring the auditor to handle them. You start sawing through with “Give me that hand” and they say, “This can’t be handled.” They keep offering things that can’t be handled. These people are never really successful at anything. They are terribly destructive. They Q and A with mest and they have become mest. They do what mest does.
Here we enter our understanding of life in realizing that there are people around who haven’t the slightest desire to handle anything.  Everybody’s got something in his life that he doesn’t think can be handled or thinks that he cannot handle, but these people just mock it up all the time.  People or preclears that have given you a hard time have done only that. You cure them of one thing and they mock up something else that you cannot handle. Their whole game is the avoidance of control. But they know how to control other people. That is the Service Facsimile, which is unhandlable and you handle these people by not permitting them to handle the Service Facsimile which is reactive enough for any reactive bank.
One can thus roughly divide mankind above or below 2.0 on the tone scale. Some of them mock up things which can be handled and try to handle other things. These are the people that keep the world running.  They don’t build clocks that cannot be fixed. The rest of the people simply keep on mocking up things that cannot be handled and every doctor, every practitioner of any kind is confronted by these people all the time because this is the dare.
ARC becomes control, havingness and communication. You recognize that control, havingness and communication are not the bottom because they invert and become no control possible of any kind. This is the “can’t handle” it. No mass is admissible or viewable and no communication of any kind acceptable. Therefore no understanding is possible.
We have discovered that rung which solves the inversion. Just as we can raise any person’s communication by raising his affinity and reality, as we can raise affinity by raising their reality and communication so we can do these things at the bottom We can remedy control, inability to handle and so forth in his life and vicinity simply by remedying his havingness. We can do this by talking to him or by using straight control and we can raise his lack of mass by control and communication. We will find that his havingness will increase. Some odd and very complicated consideration about havingness are in the way of all this but it will blow in cognitions which he probably will never mention, but he will come up to CCH.
If a person has got to be identified and connected with mass, he is in terribly good condition when he is at CCH. Therefore CCH is pretty high, but it handles all the inversions of CCH and this whole mysterious stratum, the bottom sub-stratum of the ARC triangle, is revealed to view and becomes workable in the hands of the auditor.
Control all by itself will level out all lower inversions of the subject of control, havingness and communication. The right kind of communication all by itself will do something for havingness and control. Hand Space Mimicry is a solid line. They will eventually have an auditor.
“Can’t have” on others and “have” on self or the three steps of trio or control trio run one way or another on somebody is also a communication process. If you run “Tell me something your mother can’t have” and get a straight answer, the preclear’s havingness comes up. So does his ability to control and his ability to communicate. You can hit CCH at one of its corners and get the other two to some degree because it permits the auditor to directly address the body and have something happen to the person.
CCH then, should be viewed simply as the workable factors at the lower end of the mass scale. CCH is a pretty high level procedure, but it is a description also of all lower levels, the harmonics of which are processed by straight CCH.
---------------------

START-CHANGE-STOP

(Refer to “Clear Procedure” by L. Ron Hubbard)

Start, change and stop is the anatomy of control. This is a cycle of action -- create, survive, destroy. There is continue (persist) on the middle of the curve and other cycles within cycles of action, but the important factors are Start, Change and Stop.
Running Start, Change and Stop on an individual brings about greater self-determinism.
Self-determinism in the field of motion consists of, by own power of choice, permitting the object or body to be still or not to be still; permitting a thing to be changed or not to be changed; permitting a thing to be started or not to be started, and it must be rehabilitated in the preclear. In other words, self-determinism consists here of returning the preclear’s power of choice over controlling or not controlling at will. The preclear who is obsessively controlling will sooner or later fail to control and then will be controlled by something. The obsession to control, to start, to change, to stop, will be found to enter into the ARC triangle and is what depresses the preclear down scale on the Tone Scale.
These three parts of control are run flat individually, in this order:  we run Change flat, and then run Start again very flat and then we run Stop flat. It would be a mistake at this point to say that this process is finished for the excellent reason that if you run Change again you would find further considerations shifting in the preclear and then if you run Start you would find it unflattened. So you would run it again and then run and flatten Stop.
It would not be possible to say how long you would have to run the process altogether. On somebody who was total machinery and who never had been in session, this would be a rough process. On a case that is in good condition, this would run easier. The preclear would consider it interesting and would exteriorize quite easily. The end result of this process is exteriorization. For someone who is compulsively exteriorized, this would be excellent as he would slide into his head and eventually come out of it again, but not on a compulsive basis.
One meets with three conditions in auditing. The preclear who is compulsively interiorized, the preclear who is compulsively exteriorized and the preclear who is buttered all over the universe. The latter case, run on C-S-C would greatly accumulate the ability to collect himself. This might not occur until you have run him for five or more hours on it.
If this process is continued long enough the preclear will be moving his body by postulate -- i.e., from the outside, not by beams, stimulus response, etc.
This process does not go all the way up because of the preclear’s attention span. Most preclear’s cannot stay on a process for more than a few moments, so you would vary the process a little to keep him interested. His actual response, however, is not important as long as he does it.
There is no such thing as bad control, only non-positive control. Good control is positive control and positive control is not bad control.
We get a lower level there than moving the body. This would be S-C-S on Objects. It is always safest to run this on someone you are trying out or a person who cannot move about a lot such as an invalid. To somebody who has no reality on his body one would run S-C-S using an object instead of his body.
When running this process, the auditor and the preclear should both stand up. This gives reality and the auditor duplicating the preclear (mimicry) will bring about greater ARC. The session always fails when the auditor sits down while running S-C-S.
It runs this way:
The auditor points out a spot on the floor to the preclear and says:  “Do you see that spot? Good. We will call that Spot A. Now you stand here. O.K.” The auditor now indicates another spot and says: “Now do you see that other spot? Good. We’ll call that Spot B. All right, now when I tell you to change the body’s position I want YOU to move it from Spot A to Spot B. All right? Good. Change the body’s position.” “Fine.” Then the auditor says: “Do you see that spot? Well, we’ll call that Spot C.” (We use three spots so that we don’t run a duplication process on him.) “Now when I tell you to change the body’s position I want YOU to move the body from Spot B to Spot C. Do you understand that? Fine, change the body’s position.”
You can ask him: “Did YOU change the body’s position?” if his case is not too low, for it is not advisable on a low case at first.
Then go back to Spot A. It does not have to be the same spot A each time as it makes the process too much like duplication, brings the preclear to predict the process too easily and he will do it machine-wise.
Each time you make contact with the preclear you give the command in a new interval of time. You don’t depend on any former understanding of the command. You clear it each time and give the whole command every time you use it. We make each move in time a new move. He doesn’t have to depend on his memory, so the auditor repeats the whole wording as given. This is a most important aspect of running any part of S-C-S. 
On Start we emphasize START. The auditor says: “Do you see that wall over there? Good. Now when I give you this command, I want you to move the body in the direction towards that wall. When I say ‘start’ I want YOU to start the body. All right. Start. Fine.”
The preclear may protest that he had to stop the body and change it as well. What is happening here is that the word “Control” is beginning to ungroup and as you get start, change and stop apart and distinct from each other, the individual’s ability to control the body increases and he gains more confidence in being able to control it from a greater and greater distance.
The next command would be: “All right, when I tell you to ‘start’ the body YOU start the body, O.K.? Start the body.”
The third command is for STOP, and the auditor says: “I am going to ask you to get the body moving towards that (indicated) wall and somewhere along the line I am going to tell YOU to stop the body. Is that all right?” He agrees and you say, “Get the body moving.” You don’t say start. He does so and you say “Stop” and “Did YOU stop the body?”
You don’t say “your body” but “the body”, indicating the body. You emphasize him as a thetan doing it for it increases the preclear’s selfdeterminism. You give the commands for each process newly each time.
From S-C-S, which is the three processes given above, there are two other processes called START-C-S and STOP-C-S.
START-C-S has the exact commands as for Start in S-C-S. We emphasize Start here and use Change and Stop only to unflatten Start. The purpose here is to rehabilitate the preclear’s ability to get things starting since he has been immobilized a lot in his life when the opposing valences or conditions exercised bad control over him and prevented him from starting.
After a preclear has been run on Start-C-S, which would flatten to some degree each one of the points of control, we run STOP-C-S.
This is a distinctly different process. The commands are the same as used for Stop in S-C-S, but here one specializes in stopping the body.
One has the preclear stop the body over and over and as the preclear becomes more accustomed to doing this one then changes the process on him to this extent -- the auditor asks the preclear in running Stop-C-S to “stop the body absolutely still.”
This imposes a new discipline on the preclear and makes the process extremely difficult for him. It is only done when S-C-S and ordinary Stop-C-S have to some degree been flattened.
Following up this “Stop the body absolutely still” one can introduce Change into the process for a few commands in order to unflatten the Stop-C-S that has flattened. In other words, when the Stop of Stop-C-S on an object or the body seems to be flat, one can run a few Change the body or Change the object and unflatten Stop once more with a resultant alteration in the preclear’s ability to perform. When Stop-C-S seems flat then it should be unflattened at first by running Change-S-S with the emphasis on Change. When Change no longer upsets his ability to stop it, Starting it should be run as an alternate to Stop-C-S in order to unflatten it again.
Stop is the most important part of S-C-S. The preclear has been told all along the line to stop. He was made effect all the time. How you bring him to just this under his own control and self-determinism and he takes over the automaticity.
The same is true for Change. A psychotic is compulsively changing all the time and CHANGE-S-S will take over the automaticity of “compulsive changing” and make the person more sane.
--------------------

P.A.B. No. 127
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 January 1958

THE THREAT TO HAVINGNESS

Prepared from the research material of L. Ron Hubbard

The first step to processing a preclear is to find out if he has a present time problem and to handle it adequately enough to proceed with auditing. Often we have a preclear who comes to us basically just to get more able and as we process him we find that we are making no particular progress with this case. He seems to be doing everything just as we expect it to be done with no apparent gain.

The reason for this occurrence is the fact that the preclear is not doing the process in present time and has a present time problem that is interfering, of which he did not tell us. The fact about the matter is that the preclear himself does not really know, is not cognizant of the fact that he has a present time problem and is consequently a very “south” case.

I have found that a preclear who isn’t processing real fast on Procedure CCH isn’t doing the process because he has something which “threatens his havingness.” Since processing and havingness go hand in hand it isn’t surprising that the preclear will make sure that he doesn’t change since he cannot afford to expend more havingness in cognitions.

So this threat to his havingness is his present time problem of which he may or may not be aware and if you as an auditor didn’t handle it at the beginning of the session, it is certain that the preclear is not consciously aware that he has such a problem or is deliberately Lying to you for reason of shame, embarrassment—or that ARC is not fully present.

This threat to havingness is that which most prevents the preclear from having things. It is that which stands in his way to having and is thus a problem to him which he hasn’t under control.

What the auditor has to do is to find this problem for the preclear and then to handle it properly. This case is so low on problems that he doesn’t even recognize that he has one and his level of problems has to be increased otherwise he will create a problem out of auditing which is what happens when he doesn’t change. Auditing itself then becomes a problem to the preclear.

One handles this matter simply by going into good two-way communication with the preclear. (One-way communication as-ises havingness, two-way doesn’t and actually raises the tone of the preclear.)

One asks him if there is something that “worries him,” “presents a difficulty which he would like to handle or which is making life a bit troublesome,” or if he is about to “lose” anything (a pending court case, wife, business deal, etc.) or “if there is anything that he would like to change as it produces some pressure on him” and so forth. But the important question here is: “What most prevents you from having things?”

The moment anything arises, go straight ahead and ask him pointed but not evaluating questions about it so that he can define it into a more definite form. Ask him to tell you about it again, how it worries him, exactly what it is that has this effect until he can articulate it clearly and precisely. One can even play stupid so as to make him more lucid until one actually finds the terminal if it is a condition that is worrying him—for we handle terminals and masses only, and not conditions or effects.

After this one can state the problem to the preclear in practically his own words, asking him to listen carefully and correct one if one hasn’t repeated it accurately and then ask him to tell one if “it is a problem to him” and if he recognizes it as such. It is surprising that the preclear will look quite pleased to have this problem and will naturally want to hold on to it in spite of his protestations that he wouldn’t if you questioned him further about it. It would thus be wrong to suggest to him that it should be “solved” or taken away from him, for a problem is a game and a threat to havingness does and can reveal the hidden game the preclear is compulsively playing. Taking that problem would be robbing him of a game and the preclear would react violently or by not changing, since he thinks you are going to keep on taking all his games from him.

One thus tells the preclear that since he now has a problem it would be better if he had more problems which would be directly under his own control. One then handles this threat to his havingness by taking the terminal to the problem and running “Invent a problem of comparable/incomparable magnitude to (the terminal).”

The new problems he invents (if it is done with reality, and it is the auditor’s job to see that he does so) will not be aberrative since he has created both the intention and counter-intention that constitutes the problem and is therefore pan-determined in relation to these problems which he then can control. These problems will serve to move his fixed attention from the problem which he doesn’t have under control and the auditor can then proceed with Procedure CCH.

There is, however, a note of warning here. The two-way communication must remain “two-way” and also, this process can come dangerously near evaluation which must not occur. It therefore needs clever auditing to have the preclear discover this problem without breaking the Auditor’s Code. The auditor can ask “pointed” questions which will reveal it more easily, and even re-state the problem in clearer and concise language, but he must not evaluate under any circumstance.

This type of case, by the way, is a low toned case and needs a great amount of good control, and the first four steps of CCH must be thoroughly flattened before any attention and thinkingness processes are used.

It can be seen from the above that it is important at all times to look out for the things that threaten the preclear’s havingness and to handle them with problems of comparable/incomparable magnitude so that auditing doesn’t have to become a present time problem to you and the preclear. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

11 JANUARY 1958

HGC PROCEDURE

1. 	CCH 0 with PT Problem on E-Meter.

2. 	S-C-S and Connectedness to get pc under control only.

		1 and 2 not “therapeutic” steps.

3. 	Step 6 Clear Procedure Connectedness used to extrovert pc now and then.

3 is the therapeutic step.

Run Intensive with 1 and 2 occupying no more than 1/5 of 25 hrs.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:bt.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 JANUARY 1958

HGC RUNNING OF PCS

Use CCH 0 with PT Problem, S-C-S and Connectedness to get pc under auditor control and no longer.

Then use Step 6 of Clear Procedure as soon as possible and until end of intensive. Some Objective Havingness can be run if necessary.

Repair havingness on invisible and black objects in fields which are invisible or black. The test is “Shut your eyes—what are you looking at?” They’ll tell you and you establish whether field is invisible or black. Then use the above. Otherwise (if mock-ups are clear) don’t use it.

What can you mock up easily? Pc says, “An apple.” Do so. (Note meter.) (If reaction on meter choose something else.)

The command then is “In front of that body, you mock up an apple (pause) and keep it from going away. Did you keep it from going away?” Pc says he did. “Thank you.” The next command is “Behind that body, etc.” The next is “Above that body, etc.” The next is “Below that body, etc.” The next is “To the right of that body, etc.” The next is “To the left of that body, etc.” Then one begins the series again with “In front of that body, etc.” This is continued until E-Meter no longer registers a surge when pc does it. Now pick a larger object. Test it for surge on the meter. If meter surges, don’t use it, pick another, etc. Now go through same series. One runs this on at least 6 objects each one larger until he goes on to next, Hold it still.

Keep it from going away, when flat on many objects, is followed by the same command substituting “Hold it still.” This is done before, behind, above, below, to the right, to the left, the same way around and around. When Hold it still is flat one goes to “Make it a little more solid,” same command otherwise as before.

If this all flattens, start all over again now with more significant objects. Read Step 6 Clear Procedure.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:bt.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 128
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 January 1958

THE FACTORS BEHIND THE HANDLING OF IQ

Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s 16th lecture to the 18th American ACC
in Washington, D.C., on S August 1957

This past week has been an eventful one in research. It has culminated a four-year search for the factors which lay behind what is called IQ, or Intelligence Quotient. We have been taking tests here for many years and these tests were mainly used to establish change in preclears. We care nothing about the significance of the test. We do care, however, that these tests mirror change.

Someone may say that a test taken twice will, of course, get a better answer than one taken once. This is not true, since everybody in the MEST universe is on a “mustn’t happen again” and we automatically figure that a test taken twice would get a worse grade the second time. We have two different tests marked A and B which are supposed to give identical results. I have been waiting for the people who devised this test originally to say, “Well, you can throw the results in any direction you want to with these tests.” But we have given a considerable amount of testing to many, many people and we do find that a test will hold constant on a given person in the absence of processing. If a person is not processed the variability in the profile and IQ is very slight. Somebody who is not getting any results from any treatment or processing will register the same, test after test which is quite unusual.

Testing is a very old subject. It is not newly developed in modern times. One of the first examples of testing that we find is in the early Chaldean times. Testing of all kinds, sorts and descriptions as to honesty, intent, reliability, ability and so forth, have been with Man almost as long as he has been on Earth. In modern times these tests have been more standardized and reduced to writing.

Here, for example, is a test I heard about, from the 18th Century down in Georgia. It was a guilt test. Somebody had stolen something, so they would have all the negroes on the plantation line up and put a rooster underneath a big black kettle. This was a witch rooster or something of the sort. And they would say, “The man who stole it, when he touches the black kettle will make the rooster crow.” All the negroes on the plantation would go by the kettle and then the overseer merely had to go by and look at their hands. The negro who didn’t have any soot on his hands was, of course, guilty.

All tests, however, have had an end goal, and they of modern times are more or less as covert as this rooster under the black kettle.

Modern tests were originally devised in the total belief that Man could not be changed. From year to year people would get changes of one kind or another from childhood on, which would demonstrate the year’s IQ which might be higher or lower than another year’s IQ. They maintained that people advanced in IQ because of age, yet at the same time said that IQ could not change, would never change and could not be influenced by any particular factor.

I am rather astounded to discover that when a person is happy and takes the test, and when this same person is unhappy and takes the test, he practically gets the same curve on his personality profile with the same IQ. It does have a constancy. It was this constancy and an inability to understand the mind prior to 1950 which made people say that it was not possible to change Man or his IQ. A stupid man was stupid and a bright man bright and that was it.

People knew, however, that personality and IQ were not the same thing and were distinct from one another. So there are tests to measure personality and tests to measure intelligence. One of the ways one would observe this would be to take three or four men who had more or less an equal personality. The result of testing would show that they had more or less similar personalities but that their IQs differed. Or one could take men of the same IQ and test them, only to find that their personalities were completely different from each other.

I have known this ever since 1950 when the first testing was done. We either changed their personality or changed their IQ. Very often with a very successful case we changed and improved both. This created a mystery and we wondered why it was that when we ran an intensive on Joe his IQ changed and when we ran the same intensive on Bill his personality changed but not his IQ. In view of the fact that all of our processes were mixed to a large degree, including such things as havingness, 8-C, thinkingness and significance processes, and in view of the fact that auditors were different from one another, we had a sufficient number of factors in each one of these test representations to make it impossible to sort out. I could not sort it out.

Then I started on a project with the HGC auditors last week and wound up with the answer to this problem when I had no intention of doing so at all. It was just accidental that I found the answer.

Here is what happened. We wanted a process that we could write up in a book and send to ministers so that they could counsel easily and well, since the minister is doing a tremendous amount of personal counseling. If he could just sit down, according to these rules as he read them and get some sort of a result we would have been very happy. We called this project “Process July.”

We knew one thing about Process July: It was slanted in the direction of getting people to unburden their souls. We wanted to get the overt act-motivator sequence off the case. So we would have the minister write down the names of everybody the person knew and then pick out the most likely candidates and ask just one question about each one of those until we got this person straightened out. It would have been a straight wire question on a present time basis, such as “Tell me something you could do or say to valence.”

We do know that an overt act-motivator sequence is a reach-withdraw situation, therefore we had to test “withhold” since we obviously had this withhold situation to consider. (Now earlier processes already indicated this, and particularly “Recall a secret.” Don’t confuse this with withhold because they are not the same process at all. We merely wanted the person to open up and talk to the auditor when we were recalling secrets and if we did anything with it, it was totally accidental. But we did learn here about withhold.)

So the first question the minister would ask would be, “Think of something you could withhold from	.” Now one of the discoveries that led to this question is that divulgence and confessions had nothing to do with raising anybody’s IQ or improving his case. It wasn’t the fact that he confessed it or divulged it but the fact that he erased it.

We started running this “withhold” command for a couple of days and then went over to “What could you say or do to ____,” varied that question around for a couple of days and returned to “Think of something you could withhold from (valence),” and found that the latter was the question that was producing the results.

Withhold is a games condition on communication and is a partner to the process, “Mock up somebody denying communication.” People are in an obsessive games condition which they have to play, although they are not aware of it, and on the subject of communication they are naturally going to be withholding obsessively.

We tested this process carefully and found minimal personality changes, but found that the IQs of the preclears changed remarkably. An old lady’s IQ went up from 84 to 105 and everybody knew that her brains were atrophied. It was an “impossible” jump for a person of her age. Another person quite advanced in years, between 70 and 80 years old, got an IQ raise from 109 to 133. An invalid’s IQ went up from 98 to 121 and a student’s from 101 to 126. There was an IQ change on every case on which this process was run.

The theory behind it seems to be this: The individual gets his mind so involved with the problems of some game with some valence or person that his computers are all tied up on that particular subject. When you restore self-determinism on this level you free the individual’s ability to think. An obsessive games condition is to withhold communication from somebody. When we take that off automatic and put it under the control of the preclear so that he is doing it, all of the involved mechanisms start working out.

That is why psychotherapy never worked. You have never seen before and after tests, whether IQ or personality, on a Freudian analysis. It is the ability to withhold communication which advances IQ and makes a person feel better, not the ability to divulge it. We’ve been told all our lives that all we had to do was go to somebody and confess. If we were to confess to our mothers and fathers that we did those dirty, nasty little things we would feel so much better. It isn’t true. You probably only felt better to the end of getting your pants spanked. This is an enforced communication and as an enforced communication would break through a games condition, in which a person found himself. It would demand that one communicate with the enemy and would depress one accordingly. Obviously, then, it is not true that divulging or confessing did anything for anybody, because the only improvement he got would be if he regained the ability to withhold that information without being upset about withholding it. The only disturbing element in secrets is the guilt which accompanies them.

For example: You took your old man’s car and it got a wobbly wheel. You put it back in the garage and he came out the next day and looked at it and said, “I wonder how that happened?” You stood there innocently, saying nothing. But you felt guilt. At length you felt as though you were going out of communication with him when these incidents piled up too high. Psychotherapy’s whole answer to this is that you had to throw yourself at your father’s chest and confess all whereupon all would be well. It wouldn’t have done a thing for you. What the bent wheel did was to overcome your ability to withhold communication by making you feel you ought to communicate. It interrupted your self-determinism on the subject of communication.

This is the reach and withdraw mechanism, of must reach, can’t reach, must withdraw, can’t withdraw and these are the two pairs which create the sensation of insanity. As an example, you must run away from the bogey man that’s chasing you through the treacle. He is coming like a mad express train and there you are stuck. That is a nightmare. You must withdraw and cannot withdraw. The glee of insanity is only composed of this. People in asylums are stuck in this so they must withdraw and can’t withdraw, must reach and cannot reach.

All of the past psychotherapies are aimed at getting a person to outflow, and what do we find here? We find that intelligence increases and neurotic personality traits get better when we run withhold communication from valences. It is a fantastic reversal. We found this to be the case: that people from whom one felt that one could not withhold anything were the most aberrative valences on the case. We thus have a new definition for aberrative valences, namely the “cannot withhold from” valence, who is the most aberrative valence on the case. As you run it the preclear will say, “Well,” unreality, unreality, “I don’t seem to be able to withhold anything from Aunt Grace at all.” Ask a criminal what he could withhold from jail and he will find that he cannot withhold anything from jail. He will see facsimiles and other electronic phenomena sweeping towards some spot he considers jail since he is unable to withhold anything from jail.

We are looking at the basic anatomy of the track and the basic process by which one would run a track. You could be sitting in the middle of the trap and just dream it up for a while and say, “How did I get in here? I don’t know.” The only way anybody could keep you in a trap would be to give you the idea that you had to surrender to the trap and the way to undo this would simply be to think of something you could withhold from the trap—or track.

The other side takes care of itself. I don’t know how a thetan can keep from communicating with everything unless he feels he should withhold everything from everything. Remember, you are not trying to erase a lot of things. It is the regaining of the ability to withhold that you are working toward. It is a certainty process, the preclear selectively withholding things from canvas, typewriter or aberrative valence with certainty, because an individual has been in a games condition with the canvas, typewriter, drill press or the valence. It has absorbed all of his ideas and thinkingness and everything else, and they are all stuck and bunched up on the track. He is trying to think, “How can I communicate?” since communication is composed of selective withholding.

One thus gets this kind of activity. One has individuals in a games condition with their highest common denominator of a games condition, and that action is communicate, and they are trying to withhold communication from their opponents. Wherever they have considered an opponent to exist they have withheld communication from the opponent. Having decided to withhold communication from the opponent they now decide to communicate with the opponent because they have to, and you get a denial of self which is, of course, the basic aberrative pattern. We take this circumstance, look it over and discover that the individual has been made to break his own postulate—”I am withholding it”—because he considered this person an opponent and then he said, “I have to talk.”

When you can no longer withhold from a valence you become it, and we have the basic mechanism of valence closure, because what is the one thing that you don’t withhold from something you have become? Yourself. So here is a gradient scale of withholding.

One would run “withhold” this way: You would take an inventory of valences, their professions and habitats. A habitat is a place where the preclear has lived and couldn’t pay rent. In other words, the old homestead, his childhood home. There are a number of tricks by which one can isolate these valences without asking the direct question on the basis of comm lag or the fact that he didn’t mention at all in five people the two most aberrative people or valences on the case.
 
One would then establish a session with thoroughness and with questioning find out if there was a present time valence with which the person was very deeply involved and run that out with Problems of Comparable Magnitude. One would then move into the session and sandwich valences with Locational Processing. The command here is: “Think of something you could withhold from (valence),” not “Recall something.” The preclear would say, “Oh, yes, I can think of lots of things.” Now beware of an automaticity. He might strike a games condition on an automaticity that says, “I can withhold something from (valence).” That has to be flattened. Get to the point where he can withhold rather ordinary and routine things at his own discretion one at a time and that would be the ability to withhold regained, the only thing you are interested in.

When the preclear finally decides that he can withhold things from the valence, go into Locational Processing to orient your preclear in present time, and to command his attention. Then run the next aberrative valence. This one should be a little more difficult than the last one and so on to the next valence which should be stiffer than the last.

One should then pick up the preclear’s professional tools and run these on a similar gradient scale—the easier ones first and gradiently to the difficult ones—until he can withhold anything from his childhood home.

Flatten CCH 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 fairly well before you embark on this and then use ample Locational Processing for the remainder of the intensive and Lord knows what his IQ will be if you went for broke to this degree.

But remember that the process will not do anything unless you have some goals as to where the process is going, and the goal is to restore the preclear’s ability to withhold. This will bring the preclear out of all traps and is quite evidently IQ, and it changes valences only to the degree that it totally snaps the preclear out of that valence.

I hope this information is as valuable to you as it has proven itself to me and the HGC auditors who assisted me with this project.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 JANUARY 1958

CONTROL

The reason the auditor is having trouble getting off Control and onto Step 6 is that the auditor expects a technique to take control of pc. Auditing depends on the auditor taking control of the pc. When this is learned we’ll not have 20 hrs devoted to Control processes and 5 to Step 6. We will have 5 hrs to Control and 20 hrs to Step 6.

Control consists of the pc being aware of who and what is controlling him. So Find the Auditor is therefore part of Control.

L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:bt.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY AD 8

For use of 19th ACC, Staff Clearing & HGC

MEST CLEAR PROCEDURE

1. 	CCH 0:    Get PC into communication on the following points:
1) presence of auditor; 2) presence of auditing room; 3) presence of PC; 4) starting of session and when it will end; 5) PC’s goals; 6) possibility of help; 7) present time problem—if no blip, or only slight blip on meter, skip it. If needle action severe, use “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?” Run to nul on meter. Use no other process for PTP.

NOTE: Use no Locational Processing at all during intensive.

2. 	S-C-S:    (See Clear Procedure for commands [page 185] .)

NOTES:	In all commands, use “that body” or “the body”, not “your”.
	Run until no step unflattens the other steps.
	Be certain to duplicate the full command exactly each time.
	Acknowledgement is a Tone 40 “Thank you”.

3. 	Control Connectedness:   Command: “You get the idea of making that (object selected at random by auditor with auditor indicating the object) connect with you.”

4. 	Clean-up of field: Command: “You mock up a (terminal in the same condition as PC’s field) and shove it into the body,” i.e., black field—black mass, invisible field—invisible mass, speckled field—speckled mass.

NOTES: 	ABSOLUTELY NO HECKLING ABOUT CERTAINTY THAT HE MOCKED IT UP.
	Use patience, persistence, understanding, and kid gloves.

5. 	Creative Processing: Command: “In front of that body you mock up a (nul object, located on meter) and keep it from going away. Did you? Thank you.” (Tone 40 ack.)

NOTES: The “Did you?” refers only to whether he kept it from going away, not to whether he mocked it up.

Change the location of the mock-up on each successive command by commanding, “Behind that body ... ,” “Above that body ... ,” “Below that body ... ,” “To that body’s right ... ,” “To that body’s left ...”

When the first object has been run from nul to nul, locate a somewhat larger nul object with the meter. Run it nul to nul on the same command. You will then go on to a 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th object, each larger than the last, and each run nul to nul on “Keep it from going away”.

When all 6 objects have been flattened on “Keep it from going away”, run each one again in the original order on “Hold it still”. When this is flat, run the same 6 objects with “Make it a little more solid”.

NOTES: If a mock-up disappears or flies out of control, don’t red herring after it. Just have him mock up the same item again.

If PC becomes extremely introverted during session of Creative Processing, Connectedness may be used to end session. If PC should remain introverted for entire day, go back to Connectedness.

If needle consistently out of pace with supposed command execution, PC has lost auditor, is out of control. Re-establish auditor, or go to bottom again.

If auditor can locate invisible nul object or particle, running it will reduce body’s susceptibility to germs.

6. 	Creative Processing:   repeat 5 with 6 different objects.

7. 	Creative Processing:   ditto

LRH:-.rd	                      					L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN #2 OF 25 JANUARY AD 8

REVIEWING WEEK’S PROFILES

In clearing pcs it is necessary for the auditor to cause something.

Abandon any idea of running significant objects ever. Always run non-significant objects.

Free the needle before you run Step 6 when needle is stuck. Two-way Comm and Str Wire will do it.

Totally clear up a field before running Step 6. A field is cleared by running repair of havingness on a terminal like the field. Don’t go running pcs on 6 who “think they see a mock-up” or who “have an ‘idea’ one is there”.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :-.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 JANUARY AD 8

FUTURE PLANS

Well, here we begin!

A well schooled auditor can take any volunteering PC and get him under control and run Step 6 of Clear Procedure and we have a Book One Clear.

Future of Research is Operating Thetan and the situation on Earth.

To consolidate this I am doing the following:

1. 	I am completing the 19th ACC.

2. 	I will groom up the DC operation until mid-February.

3. 	In mid-February I am going to London for 3 weeks to get London going on Clearing (because it communicates easily to rest of world). This for sure consolidates SA, NZ and Aust, which Man may need.

4. 	Returning to DC end of 1st week in March.

5. 	I will write our next “Book One” bringing us up to date and giving us a book for the book stores that advertises as the solution to Bohdi, the clear everybody’s wanted for 2500 years.

6. 	That done I’ll be in DC in late April.

7. 	The book will be published in June by Vantage Press. It will also be published in UK and France through Vantage contacts.

A pamphlet about Bodhi will be written at once for reply to ads in mystic magazines which announces the goal of 2500 years has been reached. It will be printed like a $1 or 5s book.

Here’s what Scientology Organizations should do:

1. 	Put announcements at once in all mystic magazines announcing state attainable. Steves has the ad copy.

2. 	Get pamphlet on clears published as soon as I complete it.

3. 	Get whole staff cleared by Co-audit and HGC where necessary. (I want all staff everywhere clear by June: easy to do and the results are startling.)

4. 	Get groomed up for the summer rush and see to it that it is a rush.

Well, in AD 8 we’ve got a kick-off for a much more rapid game. The scope of that game will be apparent to everyone when you start getting clear and making clears.

My game in research is not at end by a long way. For instance in research for OT actions I wrote 15 things the US Govt should do five weeks ago. It has now done 6 of them. When they’ve done all 15 I know we’re sailing (for the 6 may have been my telepathy or coincidence).

And organization know-how and expansion is a long way from ended. Map a comm center for the nearest ten stars for instance. We’ll be on deck to welcome the space ships when they get them!

Here’s our program then. REACH ‘EM. CLEAR ‘EM.

And my actions are all geared to making that adequately possible.

I think we’ll all get the notion shortly that we’re making it!

                                    				Best,

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 FEBRUARY 1958

CLEARING OF FIELDS

Definition:

A field is any thing interposing between pc (thetan) and something he wishes to see, whether Mest or mock-up.

Fields are black, grey, purple, any substance, or invisible.

To run Step 6 of Clear Procedure it is necessary to clear up “field”.

RULES OF FIELDS

We take a Thetan’s ability to see for granted.

His willingness to see may be poor but we increase it by increasing his confidence, decreasing his fear of objects.

Fear of seeing is fear of mass.

A pc can keep himself from seeing by destroying all mass. This is one way mock-ups fail to appear. He has an automaticity which destroys them before they visibly appear. Short duration mock-ups are similarly caused.

A pc that can’t see is reacting from a failure (or failures) of having tried to destroy something. He then tries to destroy mock-ups. Failing this he tries to destroy self. This is a scale of survival.

Persistence of mock-ups is therefore dependent upon a pc’s willingness to let one survive.

One of the phenomena most in the road of clearing is called a ‘‘field’’. It is a self-protective or destructive device.

For our purposes, however, the question of a field is simple. Common example, pc was held in a dark room. The room kept him from going away. It is an incident. The blackness he always sees is the blackness of the room which kept him from going away. This incident or many like it piled up is a “field”. It is only necessary to have him mock up black rooms, shove them into his body and keep them from going away (pc is cause here where the room was cause before) and the field will change. This is a rule: In any field, a PC was effect in an incident where he was being kept from going away. To clear that field, it is only necessary to have him create the incident, shove it into the body and have pc keep it from going away.

The main rule of fields is that pc must be made to reverse cause on the field from field at cause to pc at cause. As all fields are incidents, and as a pc is the one who mocks up these incidents, all fields can be cleared by attaining knowing cause.

Another rule is that a pc will confront anything to the degree that he is made familiar with it. Merely making him find and recognize fields will rid him of them. Merely making him confront objects will rid him of fields.
TESTING FOR FIELDS

Basic Method of Testing for a Field.

Aud: 	“Close your eyes.” “What do you see?” 
PC: 	“Nothing.” 
Aud: 	“Look at the room.” (Pc eyes still closed) “What do you see?” 
PC: 	“Nothing.” 
Aud: 	“Then something must be between you and room. What is it?”

etc. until pc sees field or eyelids or room.

Now repeat the same with a simple mock-up shape. (Egg, ball-bearing, or sugar cube.) Have him mock it up, look at it. If he can’t see it, ask what’s between him and it. Keep this up until he sees field.

You can also test for partial fields in areas.

CLEARING FIELDS

Basic Methods of Clearing a Field:

A. 	A “field” is one or more incidents.

	Identify and Locate the incident making a field.

	Have pc mock up the incident, shove it into the body and keep it from going away.

B. 	Mock up a terminal same shade as the field and keep it from going away.

C. 	Mock up a terminal same shade as field and shove it into body.

D. 	Run “Destroy a mock-up in front of that body. Did you? Thanks.”
     	“ 	“ 	“ 	“ 	behind 	“ 	“ 	“ 	“ 	“	“
          	“ 	“ 	“ 	“	below    “ 	“ 	“	“	“	“
     	“ 	“ 	“ 	“ 	to the right of	“ 	“ 	“ 	“ 	“
     	“ 	“ 	“ 	“ 	to the left of 	“ 	“ 	“ 	“ 	“
     	“ 	“ 	“ 	“ 	above    	“ 	“ 	“ 	“ 	“
     	“ 	“ 	“ 	“ 	below    	“ 	“	“	“	“

E. 	Take pc outside as in Waterloo Station and have him “Get the idea of destroying that (indicated body or object).”

F. 	Move pc on time track.

AUTOMATICITY OF FORM SOLUTION

A pc must know he is creating what he is creating. He is creating any mental pictures he sees. But he must know that he is creating.

Automaticity of form keeps him from believing he is making facsimiles. He has buried the ability to form complex objects. He “mocks up a man”. The mock-up is his. The form is an automaticity. Therefore he feels the mock-up isn’t his.

Simplicity of form will conquer this and regain a knowingness of mocking up. An entire clearing, including the handling of fields could be accomplished on a pc by having him do a gradient scale of forms in mock-ups, always using only mock-ups he is confident are his own and recovering his ability to destroy these mock-ups.

What is clearing but regaining awareness that one is himself mocking up all his facsimiles and regaining confidence he can destroy them as well as create them.

								L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 129
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1
_____________________________________________________________________
1 February 1958

CONFRONTING

I want to speak to you about a phenomenon having to do with “enough” and “not enough.” This adds up to meaning “insatiable.” The thetan is insatiable as far as “enough” is concerned.

Just what is enough? That limit has never been agreed upon. For instance, the governments of populations have long since exceeded “enough” with internal revenues. But the fact of the matter is that if you object to taxes it is probably because there are not enough taxes.

I was fascinated to study (and I examined several hundred governments to discover what made them persevere) what people considered a good government to be. There are certain requisites to a good government. People seem to buy governments of tremendous duress; and govemments which are very sweet and polite and constructive are all lost. But governments which call in leading citizens, incarcerate them and tear off their toenails with pincers seem to be very well liked on the track. They persevere, not because the police and governments do a good job, but probably only because they can’t be confronted.

Justinian, the first great Christian emperor, used to call in the foremost citizens or members of government that had happened to make his wife a little mad and throw them into the nearest dungeon, torture them to death and sell their wives off to the Arabs for slaves. The leading general of this emperor was actually one of the great generals of all time. But every time he won a victory, Justinian would issue some kind of cross mandate depriving the victory of all significance. At the end Belisarius was rewarded by having his eyes put out.

The more people Justinian illegally taxed, burned and tortured, the happier everybody seemed about the whole thing. There was no smell of revolt. But the same people, just a few years before Justinian and just a short while afterwards, had perfectly good emperors with equitable taxes, just courts, and these emperors lasted only a short period before the populace was in revolt all over the place.

Well, what causes this? The answer is: enough government. The populace had an

idea of how much government there ought to be and if you didn’t give them that much government, they exploded. But they would have exploded to a much higher level if somebody could have caught them. But nobody ever did and as they came up on the upbound they just got a new tyrant who pushed them down harder.

The only reason I am talking about government is that I want you to see a preclear. Take somebody’s wife. He is mean to her and as long as he continues to be mean she doesn’t explode. One day he decides to be kinder and she explodes. Here is a husband. He hardly puts his foot in the door and she jerks his pay envelope out of his hand, counts it very rapidly, tells him his supper is on the table—and it is cold mutton ! We get a tremendous amount of duress and then one day she is feeling poorly and doesn’t furnish this much duress and he explodes. What does this prove? Unless one applies a tremendous duress and bad 8-C people explode.
A preclear explodes under a mediumly mild 8-C which has regularity rather than a tremendous number of surprises. He has never been given orders he can follow before and all his effort to be orderly goes into restimulation. His efforts to be orderly were manifest at those times when disorder was in his vicinity. You start to handle him well and the disorder to his view goes into automatic and he blows up. This restimulates his efforts to keep a chaotic duress which he first used a long time ago to have an orderly duress against such chaos. You actually start running out the tremendous duress which he has had to apply to keep chaos from exploding. When that runs out you get an explosion of the chaos he has been holding down. You run out, by command, the duress which he has applied to chaotic times of his lives. As a consequence you get an explosion. It looks as though this individual thrives on nothing but chaos, but that is not true. He doesn’t want it and he doesn’t want anything to do with it. A short period of application of very good 8-C that is positive and won’t let him get away with a thing, will run this out.

An individual will apparently sit around in a sort of mucky apathy and be abused for years without anything happening because the abuse he is getting is sort of running out former chaotic periods of his life. It is in restimulation. It convinces him that he cannot handle the wife and that there is nothing one can do about government.

A person who is subjected to a chaotic duress year after year is not getting any place, but, and this seems to be the criteria by which this is judged, he did not revolt.

There is nothing confused about the auditor in a Tone 40 session. If you want a fast blow that will run this all out, you must be very didactic, positive and totally unconfused. He will pull out tricks like origins, then sly tricks and then somatics. None of them interrupt positive control. You just continue to run out all the times when he has tried to control things and has had them blow up in his face.

It is very interesting to watch a child move up into his teens. His parents have been giving him 8-C, family style—did you wash your face, why don’t you get a glass of milk, no there isn’t any milk, go to bed, no don’t go to bed, no get up, go to bed, no don’t stand up. When he gets into the teens all of a sudden his parents aren’t applying very much duress on him and he revolts. It is not really a feeling, sentient, knowing revolt at all. It is a restimulation of his own effort to take care of the chaos which happened to him years ago. So actually bad control breeds periods of chaos which will someday explode.

The actual appearances that come out of this are quite fascinating. One of them is that the individual needs a lot of dramas. You might say, “Well if the thetan can stand up to that much drama he must like it.” He does not like it but it is at least something to do. And that is his misconception of what is worth confronting.

For example, a man had a nice art collection, lived an orderly existence, was an interesting conversationalist and lived in his Maryland village. He never had a caller. One day he died and the whole environment went to his funeral. Obviously a funeral is worth confronting but a live being isn’t. Just add this up to what we used to have to say about Acceptance Level. Now we have Confronting Level.

Another man hardly had anybody to talk to him in the office. He did a good job, and there wasn’t anybody who ever talked to him particularly. One day he got sick and everybody in the office came to see him clear down at the hospital. If he had got sick from leprosy they all would have come in the first five minutes.

An individual has a concept of what is worth confronting, and all of the chaos which he has been handed has got him so confused that he doesn’t understand that things don’t have to be horrible, terrible, miserable or dramatic in order to be confronted. He falls this way straight away from confronting the universe around him, and he confronts only the horribleness and nastiness and so on.
Lately the Book Review tells us that a book called Andersonville by McKinley Cantor is supposed to be and is advertised as the greatest Civil War novel ever written. I took a look at it. It isn’t about the Civil War at all. It is about a prison camp erected in Georgia by Southerners in which they incarcerated damn Yankees. Every nasty foul condition of humanity is delineated, painfully and unartfully at exceeding length. This low tone level is something that is worth confronting.

Have you watched TV lately, some of the 1.5ing and high toned TV actors acting at 1.5? That is evidently worth confronting. If you could just figure out what a lot of people consider to be worth confronting and then give it to them you would probably come up with much greater popularity than anything else. The same thing goes for the circus and screen. Hollywood got the idea and I imagine laid a tremendous multibillion dollar egg with their Vista Vision and Wide Screen. They are getting actors bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger screens, and finally you sit down and begin to feel like an ant crawling on one of the actor’s knees.

There is another side of the manifestation. We have the anxiety to be confronted. We get these two things in conflict with each other, and those two things in their adjustment make the drama of life.

Where do we find preclears stuck? They are stuck in drama, and one gets the idea that that is something worth confronting. They go off on a gradient scale to things nobody could possibly confront and which they never did confront and then go anaten.

First he starts facing these things which are, he considers, worth confronting, and if he considers enormous drama the only thing worth confronting then he easily falls into enormous chaos. When he goes over into enormous chaos he gets caught up in the fact that nobody could possibly confront the thing, but he is already stuck on an earlier postulate that there was nothing worth confronting and so he gets no havingness in the physical universe.

People run such tricks on other people’s havingness. They tell him nothing around here is worth looking at. “This is a dull town.” (I think America invented the small town just to convince people there was nothing worth confronting.) These small communities, with their small minds, work one way or the other on making nothing out of things that a child was willing to confront. So they bred, as the child grew older, a contempt for anything in his vicinity, and he started looking for things that were worth confronting.

Here is a sample process which could go: “Mock up something that isn’t worth confronting. Make it a little more solid. Thank you.” The person gets streets in his immediate vicinity. He gets havingness and the only things that he could ever get havingness from. Yet his total idea is that none of this is worth confronting and he never sees it. Thus you get your standard homo sapiens, vacant eyed, walking down the street.

As an example: On a lovely cool day people were riding and walking down the street. One lady pushed a little boy in a cart and they were all going along vacant eyed.

All of a sudden the woman pulled the tongue of the little cart up and catapulted the little boy out onto the pavement with a crash. Instantly traffic jammed up. The kid wasn’t even hurt, he just cried a little, but all the cars stopped and their passengers popeyed onto this terrifying scene. People stopped walking and crowded around the spectacle. That was worth confronting. The ingredients of blood-curdling drama were added. But when the little boy wasn’t hurt and he shut up, looks of disappointment were on all faces and the crowd dispersed quietly to the vacancy of other blocks.

Another process on this line: “Mock up something that nobody can confront,” and we discover the favorite games of psychos. Not a productive process at all. By the way, when you get something that nobody could confront you get black minds with ridges, shooting stars and space opera flying around them that they could not make head or tail of.
If you said, “Invent something to confront. Mock it up and make it a little more solid,” you would probably get the best process that can be worked out of this morass. The individual would gradually change his mind concerning things there were to be confronted. There are no such things as can’t be confronted at all. There are only things which are difficult to confront.

“Mock up something you’ve got to confront” and you get the standard run of the mill, homo sapiens nonsense such as alarm fires, funerals, etc. We also get work. Work is considered to be about the last thing that anybody should ever be expected to confront. The Anglo-American view is to put a tremendous amount of kick in the pants on this thing called work. The way you work out work as something that is impossible for anybody to confront is to discourage a child when you see him perform any work. You say, “Oh, get out of my way. It’s too much trouble to show you. You’re in my road.” And by the time he is six or seven he’s thoroughly educated that he will not be permitted to work. And then the laws of state keep him from getting jobs and earning money so that he can escape from the tremendous dependency of family. Further up in his teens they realize the police have a vested interest in crime and they have here a good quality juvenile delinquent. Then he is not permitted to work either. We get him in his early twenties and insist he get married and then we show him that he’s got to work. Here you’ve got one of these super duress got-to-confronts. No wonder people get tired, because every time you put them into a “got to confront” you run them into all the emergencies.

What is an emergency? It is something that requires a necessity level. What is a necessity level? It is a heightened willingness—a sudden heightened willingness which untaps a tremendous amount of ability and you get these tremendous feats. Now this cycle of super energy and application winding up with super tiredness gets applied to the work-a-day world of turning a lathe or driving a truck or keeping a set of books. He’s got to get the work done and he finally goes into total exhaustion. This is because he has no orientation on what’s worth while confronting. This adds up to the fact that Man goes into an emergency level of activity when he has got to confront and his whole lifetime is one long activity at an emergency height. This tells us the reason for the hectic anxiety to get the work done. The human body has its limitations and cannot stand that since it is built on a number of “now I am supposed to’s” and every time you have the problem handled you go out in the middle of the Sahara Desert and “now I am supposed to have a drink of water” keys in and you haven’t got it licked at all.

“Mock up something you have got to confront” brings to the guy the tools of his trade. Run it a bit further and you’ll get women if it is a man, and vice versa. It is a “got to confront.”

You can ask what the solution of confrontingness in the preclear would mean in terms of exteriorization. Things that are impossible to confront, that are not worth confronting, each play their role in exteriorization. A person who is dead in the head knows that he couldn’t possibly confront a skull of a body, but he has got to confront one.

I would say that it would take a lot of preparation with the early steps of CCH before one started soaring into those rarefied realms of confrontingness. There is one process called Locational Processing which works out a tremendous amount of confrontingness and controls attention at the same time. It is run Tone 40, with great accuracy and precision by the auditor, who then controls the preclear’s attention which was previously controlled by facsimiles. And a steady control like that runs out the preclear’s attempts to control. Locational Processing happens to make the thetan make the body confront the wall. This is an objective confrontingness process. As a subjective one, “Invent something to confront. Mock it up and make it a little more solid,” is very good, and they are at present the two standard confrontingness processes in Scientology.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY AD 8

FREE CLEARING PROJECT

It is vital to have cleared auditors.

The Hubbard Association of Scientologists, International shall offer to its professional membership only, the facilities, technique, quarters and schedules adequate to effect clearing.

Anyone reporting to Washington who is an HDA or HCA in good standing with the HASI will be assigned co-auditing facilities. The auditing quarters, technique tapes, scheduling and supervision will be made available without cost. The only expense incurred by the participant would be transportation to, food and living quarters in, Washington.

Clearing on this project would be done on a co-auditing basis with staff supervision. Estimated time is from 3 to 5 weeks. No guarantee of result is made since it is conditional upon participation.

This project is open until the end of April 1958 only.

Charters and franchises will hereafter be given to clears only according to recent board resolution.

This is not an ACC and in no way parallels an ACC.

Only professional auditors—Hubbard Dianetic Auditors and Hubbard Certified Auditors—in good standing are eligible. Reinstatement is attainable on payment of one year’s dues of $15 for those whose membership is not current.

The HASI reserves the right to refuse to enroll persons in the project or to terminate participation of any person with or without cause.

We need thousands of cleared auditors for current projects.

Report to the Registrar FC any Monday.

Copyright © 1958						L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 FEBRUARY 1958

HGC CLEAR PROCEDURE OUTLINE

CCH Ob—HELP IN FULL

STARTING SESSION

After clearing any pt problem with “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?” run CCH 0 for help. If any difficulty whatever is experienced or if pc has field, run CCH Ob in full.

This is formally audited. Each command is cleared with pc word for word. And a bridge is used for every change. Run until E-Meter is flat or field vanishes or both. This is a 9-way bracket.

How could you help yourself? How could you help me? How could I help you? How could I help myself? How could you help another person? How could I help another person? How could another person help you? How could another person help me? How could another person help another person?

This, I think pretty well does away with any difficulty with fields. Note: There went the only randomity in clearing. I nailed this in the 19th ACC where only 7 cases in 36 were not progressing. All these had fields. All these had difficulty with help. Incidentally, a black field is in reality a betrayal. A betrayal is help turned to destruction. The dichotomy of destroy is destroy-help. When help fails destruction occurs, or so goes the most basic consideration behind living. There are many ramifications of this.

LRH:-.rd
Copyright © 1958					L RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 FEBRUARY 1958
(corrected)

RULES GOVERNING THE RUNNING

OF CCH Ob “HELP”

When pc has a pt problem, run pt problem as prescribed in HGC Proc of Feb 6. Then use the following.

Thoroughly clear command word for word and every time auditor uses a bridge.

Always bridge no matter how brief number of commands is.

Run on E-Meter on help until needle is loose, not nul.

Help follows laws of flows not terminals. See Scientology 8-80 for flows. Anaten ensues when one direction of command is run too long.

E-Meter needle that is stuck will run to loose if proper flow direction is selected. If a command is run too long needle will go past a loose state and into a new stick. Reversing command frees needle.

Help also frees valences.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 130
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 February 19 5 8

“DEATH”

Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s 12th lecture to the 18th American
Advanced Clinical Course in Washington, D.C., on 30 July 1957

The whole subject of death has been one of the more mysterious subjects to Man and it has only been in Scientology itself, and not in Dianetics, that the mechanisms of death have been thoroughly understood. When I say thoroughly understood I mean, of course, only the mechanisms.

We know a great deal about death and we are actually the first people on this planet that do. This is one of the larger wins of Scientology.

It is very easy to forget about death because that is what death is, a forgettingness. However, we do have a considerable amount of information on this subject and you are entitled to that information.

Man is composed of a body, a mind and what we refer to as the thetan. Exteriorization processes give a person a considerable subjective reality on the idea that he himself is a being that is independent of a mind or a body and that there actually is a separateness between them. One doesn’t even have to be carried along to a point of where one exteriorizes in processing in order to get a reality on this.

This subject has been fully covered by me since 1952, when I defined the thetan as in Axiom 1 and devised techniques to separate any preclear from his body. This was the first scientific evidence that Man has had on the subject of the human spirit. Man thought he had a human spirit. That is totally incorrect. Man is a human spirit which is enwrapped, more or less, in a mind, which is in a body—and that is Man, Homo sapiens. He is a spirit and his usual residence is in his head and he looks at pictures and his body carries him around.

When we look at the fact that Man is a spirit which has a mind and a body, and when we describe Man in that fashion, then it becomes extremely simple to understand what his difficulties would be. His difficulties would be basically with his body or with his mind and we can understand that there obviously would be difficulties with him as a spiritual being. He has to think that he can get into a trap, has to get the idea that he can be in danger before he can get into danger. In other words, the thetan has to give permission to be trapped before he can be trapped, and is therefore easily untrapped. The moment he is untrapped he gives birth to all sorts of interesting phenomena which we know as the exteriorization phenomena, all of which are quite easily demonstrated. I actually constructed a meter once that could measure and prove a thetan to have an electrical field around him—independent of energy ridges, bodies and such combinations as that.

What happens to Man when he dies? Basically all that happens is that a separation occurs between the thetan and the body. However, he takes old facsimiles, energy phenomena and bric-a-brac that he feels he cannot do without, with him, and attaches this to the next body he picks up. He does not build a body in this lazy time of manufactured items and Frigidaires and so on. He picks one up off the genetic line, and the genetic line is a series of mocked-up automaticities which produce according to a certain blueprint from the earliest times of life on this planet through until now. Everybody—people even in biology know that there is a definite succession of steps that life takes today, as they announce in their theory of natural selection and evolution. We understand it rather thoroughly that something goes through these steps.

There is the cycle of action in Scientology which is Create, Survive (persist), Destroy. At the shoulder of the curve an individual is mostly interested in surviving, early on the curve he is interested in creating, and at the end of the curve he is interested in the disposition of the remains.

When we apply this cycle of action to the various parts I described, we get a death of the body, a partial death of the mind and a forgettingness on the part of the spiritual being, which is in itself, again, a type of death. Actually bodies stay around for quite a while after death since it takes some time for them to decompose—certain parts before other parts—and the cells in the cuticle and hair evidently live longest.

The first thing one learns about death is that it is not anything of which to be very frightened. If you are frightened of losing your pocketbook, your money, your memory, boy or girl friend, well, that’s how frightened you ought to be of dying because it’s all the same order of magnitude.

Here we strike the first observable phenomenon when we find out that the mind, in spite of mechanisms which seek to decay and wipe it out, does maintain and preserve mental-image pictures of earlier experiences. With the proper technology and an understanding of this, one can be again in possession of the mental-image pictures of earlier existences in order to understand what was going on. In view of the fact that we have not restored remembrance to the being, the mental-image pictures usually just continue to be pictures. We send somebody into a past life and he looks at a mental image picture and you might as well have sent him to the art gallery. He himself has no connection with this because the mental-image picture may be the mind’s or the body’s. (The body carries around mental-image pictures and the thetan does the same and these two combine to form the mind.)

The mind, then, is a bridge between the spirit and the body, and the mental-image pictures formed by a thetan added to and confused with the mental-image pictures formed by the body is usually how a thetan stays in a head. He confuses the two and therefore demonstration of past existences by running somebody “back down on the time track” and having him look at a picture is not very convincing. He has always had some unreality about it, has no recognition of having ever been anything else before.

The restoration of memory to one of these beings is of great interest to us, since all that is really wrong with him is that things have happened to him which he knows all about but won’t let himself in on. Therefore the restoration of memory is done as a matter of course in almost any processing, and in view of the fact that it is part of any processing, it is impossible today to process somebody, well and expertly, without having him sooner or later get some sort of a recall on a past existence with some small reality.

An individual’s own will has a great deal to do with this. One should not look for outside sources as to why his memory is shut off. Just as he must grant permission to be trapped, so must he grant permission to be made to remember. He is more or less convinced that a memory would cause him to re-experience the pain he already feels has been too much for him. He is very reluctant to face up again to this mechanism, and facing death, he almost always goes into a bit of amnesia.

The fact that one has lived before is so restrained that it itself is the reason why it is forgotten. The unpopularity of it in other ages and this one brought about a forgetter mechanism which causes an occlusion on the subject of death. The fact that one cannot talk about it is enough, all by itself, to continue to cause the forgetter mechanism.

A way to plot this would be to ask somebody, as an auditing question: “To whom can you tell the fact that you have been dead?” It works something like this: “Tell me the one person in the world who does not believe that you are insane.” It has a fantastically cataclysmic effect upon a person. He sort of believes he is going wog and spinning and so forth, and when you ask him that question you have broken the agreement chain.

You could ask a similar question, “Tell me one person in the world who believes you live more than once,” and you would get a similar reaction.

I have plumbed into this subject very deeply with lie detectors and E-Meters, checking up with grown-ups and children from all walks of life. You can, with the aid of one of these meters, put a person in such an incident. There is a peculiar behavior of the needle. It is a little hunt of the needle, and it just hunts back and forth over a small area quite frantically. It indicates that a person is still sitting in one of these exteriorization incidents.

We know a great deal about havingness and that if a person suddenly ran out of havingness he would die and we would expect so much loss of his possessions and so forth to wipe him out. It doesn’t wipe him out. This is what ordinarily occurs. He backs out at the moment of death with full memory. At that moment he knows who he is, where he has been, and so forth. You’d expect a total occlusion but it does not occur at this point. It is not true that a thetan in excellent condition gets some distance from the body and then doesn’t care about it any more. That is simply a phenomenon of havingness. When we first found that, we thought this was always the case, but we were striking at thetans ordinarily low on the tone scale. Those who forget about it immediately and do not care have actually gone into the sub-zero tone scale. In support of this you can pick up on the track times when a fellow backed out of his head and was mad and just kicked the stuffing out of the person who killed him.

At a certain level a person who had to “have” tremendously would get just so far from a body and say, “Well, I don’t care. I’ve had a very unhappy time during that life and I’m awfully glad, I don’t care.” But that person was so little alive when he was alive that his aliveness after he has died is also negligible. A person a little higher up when somebody knocks off his body, would have an interesting reaction to this. “I’ll show them they can’t put me out of the game,” and he’ll dive halfway across the country, see a maternity hospital and grab the body of a baby. Somebody higher than this would not have been in contact with bodies in the first place.

We get a very fascinating exteriorization here because it is totally cognizant. The person knows who he is and usually has very good perception. He knows where his friends are and for somebody to come around and point out this fantastic spiritual phenomena that somebody has appeared to them after he had died several thousand miles away is something like being terribly surprised because a waitress came to the table in a restaurant. If a person is killed with sudden violence and he is very surprised about the whole thing, he is sufficiently upset and unphilosophical about it that he is liable to go around and see his next of kin and the rest of his friends in an awful frenzied hurry, trying to reassure himself that he hasn’t gone to purgatory. (“Purgatory and hell” is a total myth, an invention just to make people very unhappy, and is a vicious lie.)

He has suffered the loss of mass. That is just about the frame of mind the thetan is usually in when he finds his body dead. If he is below 2.0 on the tone scale his major thought is to get another body. This he can do by finding a young child that he could bring back to life. Thetans are very good at this. But the ordinary entrance is some time around what we call the “assumption,” and the assumption occurs within a few minutes after birth in most cases. That is the usual procedure, but the thetan can hang around for some time.
They’ll hang around people. They’ll see somebody who is pregnant and they will follow them down the street. They’ll hang around the entrance to an accident ward and find somebody—some body—that is all banged up and pick up this body and pretend to be somebody else’s husband or something of the sort.

It isn’t necessarily true that all of this is taped, measured. I am telling you what is standard about this behavior and what is not. It is a case of how fast you can pick up a body before somebody else gets it. So there is a certain anxiety connected with this. Thetans often say very interesting prayers at the moment they pick up a body. They dedicate themselves to its continued growing and they are so pleased with the whole thing that they dedicate themselves to the family and go through all kinds of odd rituals of one kind or another. The odd part of it is, they don’t shut their memory off until they pick up another, a new body, and the shut-off of memory actually occurs with the pick-up of the new body.

There is a phenomena series known as the “between-lives” series, and people have some sort of a thing mocked up whereby somebody goes back through a between-lives area. This can be plotted, it is not unusual, but it is certainly not a constant. Until thirteen or fourteen hundred the between-lives area operations weren’t thriving at all. Then they started to pick it up more and more. They had to knock witchcraft totally out of Europe before the between-lives area clubs started thriving. They had to knock out any idea about demons and spirits. In other words, they had to make one feel guilty for hanging around and admiring the trees with no body to look through.

They succeeded in doing this. You can make a little child sick by just talking to him about this sort of thing, by mentioning ghosts and spirits and how bad they are and how fearful they are. He gets upset because (1) you are restimulating times when he exteriorized and (2) you are invalidating him and throwing him down tone like mad. He is a ghost, a spirit, a demon. He is all these bad things they have mocked up.

In view of the fact that two exteriorizations take place, it could get very complicated as one looked at it because the GE exteriorizes. I don’t know much about that except that there is something that mocks up bodies that we call the genetic entity and it skips from life to life. In other words, even a body doesn’t live only once. It is so obvious once you look at it that if a body lived only once it would never have learned how. The intricacy of a body, itself, is something that is developed over a long period of time.

When you realize that you have the capability of endowing things with life then we don’t even know that the genetic entity is alive. It might just be machinery or computation of one kind or another that goes on and that you continue to endow with life to some degree until you separate from it.

Another interesting phenomenon about death is that a thetan will stay around a body until it is disposed of properly. You can take an E-Meter and any preclear, and you can find times when he has been left out on a cliff and nobody even put a lid on the coffin, and there it was exposed to the wind and rain and he will stay around there until that body is totally dust. Bodies left out in the open decompose. Bodies buried in the ground go to pieces in a hurry. The rate of decay of a body is not really a point in question except that a thetan will try to accelerate it if the body isn’t cared for. A thetan doesn’t much care concerning the actual disposition of the body as long as it isn’t given any more indignity than it suffered in the lifetime. He is apt to be very upset about indignities rendered to a dead body. Even while he is “in a body, alive,” when the body is apparently alive and he is taking one around, he gets upset, if he is in any shape at all, about bodies being abused and mistreated. Much lower on the scale he is still upset about indignities to dead bodies and dead things.

He associates the body with his own identity to the degree that every time an indignity is rendered to the body he thinks it is to some degree being rendered to him; therefore he hangs around a body until it is properly disposed of. When people make wills in which they declare a certain disposition of the body, it is a very wise thing to do, if you want him to live a happy life elsewhere, to carry out those wishes, because that is his idea of what proper care is.

The Egyptians had the idea of living forever and so they wanted their bodies to live forever, but don’t think that a thetan hung around just because his body had been mummified. As far as he was concerned he was on some other genetic line and he would not particularly be upset about his body if it had been hauled out of a tomb and been put up in the Metropolitan Museum. He already would have been too far away from it to worry about it. One very worrisome case was that of a thetan whose skull was used by a carnival who put a motor in the jaws to make them keep on opening, and the thetan just couldn’t take it. I actually had to unwrap a preclear from that particular skull. He still had a finger on it even though he had another body. People actually become curators of museums just to keep a finger on a body they might have once had.

Mary Sue is the sweetest tempered girl you ever saw. We went into the British Museum, saw a whole bunch of jewels lying there and she went completely 1.5. She just got so mad that even I couldn’t talk her out of it. Finally I took her home, put her on an E-Meter and her total conviction was they were still safe in a tomb someplace.

Every once in a while some fellow will go into some area and go completely berserk and not know quite what is wrong with him. Well, he probably got killed there or something of that nature.

The subject of death is never a very serious one to a Scientologist beyond the fact that he feels kind of sorry for himself sometimes. There was somebody of such terrific elan, who made him real happy and this person was thoughtless enough to dispose of the mock-up and go out of communication and the Scientologist feels unhappy about it, for it is a thoughtless thing for a friend to do. This, by the way, is a very early concept of death. You now more or less progress back to death as it was regarded very early on this particular track in this universe. People didn’t regard it very seriously.

Death is in itself a technical subject. You can, with considerable confidence, reassure some husband whose wife is dying or has just died that she got out all right and she is going someplace else to pick up a mock-up. If you got there while the person could still talk, still communicate with you MEST-wise, in the last moments they usually have something spotted, something planned.

Now, sometimes a thetan gets so furious that he gets hallucinatory. He goes around killing all his enemies in all directions and they don’t even exist. Motto: Have your reality in good condition before you die. There are many processes which exteriorize people and give them high reality on this. Amongst those processes the key process that produces the phenomena without any great shock is old Stop, Change and Start—it produces exteriorization rather easily.

Thetans do not become body cells, walls and can get out of any trap they are in, but sometimes it is better to be in a trap than nowhere, and that is true of most people.

A thetan very often carries with him a theta body, which he mocked up on the past track and which is a number of facsimiles of old bodies he has misowned and is carrying along with him as control mechanisms which he uses to control the body he is using. He eventually develops quite a heavy, thick, automatic-control theta body. They are quite interesting. Many have electronic claws and all sorts of things. Usually the theta body structure has an electronic beam that goes down each of the fingers and he opens and closes his hand with beams. This is going off into structure, but he sometimes pulls out this theta body complete and simply takes it along.

Losing your pocketbook, some treasured possession or your body are all alike, and because of the forgetter mechanism a great mystery is made out of this. But that is death—phenomena of. And I hope sometime or another you may have no use for this whatsoever.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 MARCH 1958

Distribution:
All Staff
Bulletin Board
Field Offices
HCO London

PROCESSES

When running Problems of Comparable (or incomparable) Magnitude, use the following three parts. Do not omit any part:

1. 	“Invent a problem of comparable (or incomparable) magnitude to (terminal).”

2. 	“How could that be a problem to you?”

3. 	“Can you conceive yourself figuring on that?”

Note: Question 2 may be omitted only if the preclear tells you how it could be a problem to him while answering the first part.

------------------

CONNECTEDNESS:     Insertion of the word “You” in the command:

“Get the idea of you making that (indicated object) connect with you.”

                                        			Best,

                                        			L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:md.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 131
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. Ron Hubbard
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 March 1958

THE SCALE OF WITHHOLD

Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s 17th lecture to the 18th American
Advanced Clinical Course in Washington, D.C., on 6 August 1957

CCH 9, Tone 40 “Keep it from going away” is a withhold process. We know it to have a considerable workability. The road to solids, toleration of solids, lies through withhold. Only we never had a straight wire version on this before or anything that clipped it directly and immediately, but we have it here with Tone 40 “Keep it from going away.”

CCH 9 proves that we are dealing with the automaticity which goes as follows: everything that comes along is used by a thetan to keep things from going away. He gets a cannonball in the stomach and says, “Ah, that moment of impact kept the body from going away. So I’ll make a picture of the impact”—hence the necessity for pictures—”and have it keep the body from going away from here on out.”

That is why people hang on to impact engrams. It is fear of loss—fear that they will lose a body. They do other things. They fill the atmosphere around the body with machinery so that other thetans will be afraid to come into it and take it over, take it away.

“Keeping things from going away” is a basic mechanism which guards against loss. As you know the mind runs on a gradient scale from thought through effort to solids. Actually the mind is already graphed on the tone scale. That is the gradient scale of approach between something that is nothing and total solids at the other end. It isn’t that the person himself becomes a total solid, but his approach to solids is on a gradient scale through less solids and misemotions and plain emotions and energies, like aesthetics, to just thought.

When an individual gets hold of something like a cannonball in the stomach, he says, “That certainly got there in a hurry. That I can directly handle because it handled me so well.” He keeps things from going away. He guards against loss with impacts. He also does other things with impacts. He uses them as control mechanisms. It would not be put beyond a thetan to take a cannonball engram on the right to move his body to the left and vice versa. It is handy and requires no effort. He just puts a slight thought into the line and says, “Move to the right.” The cannonball goes into restimulation and he moves over to the right. This could be a good system.

He uses these “keep-it-from-going-aways” as control. In other words, he lets the body be shoved around by things and he keeps those things there and thus he can control the body rather easily—but he deteriorates at the same time.

An individual can also very easily take a cannonball engram and hang it on somebody else’s head to make him bow. Very often you start to audit a preclear and you find out that you are auditing a stomach out of his right arm or a head off his left foot. This is the interchange of facsimiles, and thetans do use facsimiles on others.

Way back on the track there is a thing called the Engram Police. It is quite amusing to get a thetan into some kind of condition where he can be policed—to be confined for thirty days in the space opera trap.

Facsimiles have a use and then they have the lovely attraction of also being mass. A fellow who keeps money for its own sake is the type of person who would keep facsimiles for their own sake.

You, as an auditor, start to look for the significance of why this preclear has this thing stuck in front of his face and you may find that he is merely keeping it for its own sake.

Facsimiles either keep you where you are or the body where it is. They are control mechanisms. Sometimes a thetan will get a series of engrams all hooked together—shoulder with an arrow, stomach with a crossbow through it, leg with a spear in it and a few slinging stones that are back of the left eye. That is a nice combination and moves the body rapidly. You start to shift the engram a little and the body jumps, and you move this at somebody else and he jumps as well.

The service facsimile is a series of facsimiles which you call a facsimile, which can be applied to the control of others very nicely. But after the individual has been on the track for a few billion years using one of these combinations, he sooner or later flops.

If an individual is to have anything to do with facsimiles, he is going to be somewhere between solids and thought. By gradient scales of concatenation and by lots of postulates about association, which gets into identification, finally this scale can become relatively solid. He can think a thought and turn on the solid at the other end of the scale.

We look this over and we see that the movement and the motionlessness of people can easily be handled by facsimile patterns.

Throwing things away or dispensing with them is much inferior to holding on to them. I near killed some preclears trying to find this out. Which side of the reach-and withdraw mechanism is the one which can be audited? I have found that the “reach” one is good and high toned—not games condition activity. That is communication. Unless you have an opponent situation you would certainly run “reach.”

In view of the fact that everybody has some games condition on almost everything we can run withdraw, and withdraw is the side we can run rather endlessly. (By withdraw we mean “withdraw something from” because this builds up and increases havingness.) “Withdraw it from” or “Hold to yourself” the object holds good anywhere up to a couple of hundred hours of processing. Man will communicate outward to the degree that he can hold inward and the monitoring thing is the “hold inward.”

Every time a psycho comes into the foundation we find that they cannot separate anything from them. I used to try to process them on getting them to throw away a single scrap of paper and with very good results. That is an extreme case of hold, hold in to self and withdraw it from others. You will find out that as a person heads on down the scale it gets that bad—but what complicates it is that it has inversions, and right above this “clutch it to the chest this tight” would be an inversion of “throw it away.”

Which one solved it—the “throw it away” or the “clutch”? People cannot throw away ad infinitum. They run out of havingness. We are really only concerned with a person’s holdingness to himself. That gives us an engram bank, puts the bank in restimulation and upsets things endlessly.

Now, “hold it in” solves both “hold it in” and “throw it away.” An individual’s communication is raised by holding things in. Here is a nothing that couldn’t duplicate any mass busy holding mass in to himself. He comes to harm because of it. His abilities go to pieces and his penalties and that sort of thing all accumulate on him. Everything a thetan has done wrong he carries around in little pictures to remind himself how guilty he is. It is probably the result of a number of considerations peculiar only to this universe.

We have to increase a thetan’s ability to hold. When this ability to hold is emphatically good and he himself can do it, he will abandon all these cannonballs in the stomach. In other words, he abandons all this lower scale automaticity of having things held for him.

Holding on to, when it becomes automatic, goes out and beyond one’s power of choice, which automatically can start by power of choice, but after that it has to violate it all the way to be automatic. One doesn’t stop an automaticity. An automaticity, when and if it stops, wears out.

If we have everything holding on to things for us, such as gravity, body holding on to you, and all kinds of things holding on for us, we eventually get to a frame of mind where we feel we are being totally cared for. But at the same time we don’t dare reject anything because it might be some of our hold-on-to mechanism and a thetan doesn’t reject.

For a thetan to re-acquire the ability to hold on to things, is not necessarily the same as a thetan having to destroy all automaticities. Automaticities, quite incidentally, fold up when the thetan starts to re-acquire the powers and abilities contained in an automaticity. We do not take over automaticities to destroy automaticities. We take over automaticities only to rehabilitate the ability of a thetan. We just take them over because they are robbing the thetan of his ability to perform. (The inflow principle of the universe is being used to hold on to things rather than the thetan’s ability to hold on to them.)

Power is contained in the ability to maintain a position in space.* If you can’t maintain a position in space you will never have any power. If everything is holding things in to you, they will eventually start moving you around and the moment this happens you no longer have power. An individual’s ability to withhold, his ability to hold and his ability to keep something from going away, are part and parcel of his ability to maintain his own position, situation or location.

Some people start confronting and immediately fly out of their heads. Eventually they get so that they can sit there and confront and hold their position. This is a necessary point in confronting. You have to be able to hold the position in the face of something. Higher than this, or lower down since it goes either way, we realize that to keep something from going away is a sort of confrontingness. Keeping things from going away is an ability which gradually cultivates the ability of the thetan to remain where he is.

If you can keep a wall from going away, the ability to hold still in general is regained. One then is able to confront things and can then recognize solids. First you have to acquire this ability to keep things from going away, then finally discover that you yourself can be stationary—which gives you the idea of confronting—and as soon as you are willing to confront then you can make things more solid. And that is why these three processes, CCH 9, 10 and 11, are run in this manner.

The solids and the solidity that you are willing to confront have an awful lot to do with your ability to hold still or hold things still, and your ability to hold things still has a lot to do with your ability to keep things from going away.

But here is a basic ability in the keeping of a secret—being able to withhold things from others. We have a whole span of keeping things from going away, all of which simply begin with the withheld thought, which is what a secret is, and it scales on further to a withheld object.
When an individual has regained his ability to keep certain things from going away, he could then start in on the basis of holding things still, but he will never hold himself still for the excellent reason that he isn’t there to be held still. He can only suppose he is in a place. And this depends upon his ability to hold other things still.

Now, “Keep it from going away” solves both outflow and inflow. “Hold it still” solves motion and no motion. We have motion and no motion and you really don’t solve motion with motion. You solve motion with “hold stillness. “ And the ability to confront and confound solids solves alike something and nothing. To be able to confront a solid, then, makes a person capable of confronting no-thing.

Here we have six items and their gradient scale. The first two of these items are a pair called “reach” and “withdraw,” or “throw it away” and “hold it to you.” And that bracket is solved only by running “Keep it from going away.” The next one up is “motion” and “no motion”—action and stillness—and those are solved by running “Hold it still.” The last bracket, we have somebody who is terribly fascinated with vaporous “nothingness.” To solve nothingness we run solids. The person will graduate rather rapidly up to being able to confront nothing if we run solids. But we don’t run nothings—conceiving statics. We run solids and what we do is pick him out of those places where he is totally convinced of solids and you walk him back to the world of thought. The gradient scale goes from nothing through emotions, through effort and facsimiles into solids, and you get him back up to where he can handle it on the effort band and up above into thought.

These processes can be run by formal auditing and are not necessarily Tone 40. If you have a very figure-figure case you better run it formal. It will run more easily for you. But first flatten CCH 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 and then run this combination of processes and win like mad.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 132
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 March 1958

REPORT ON TWO CASES THAT HAVE RECEIVED

PSYCHIATRIC AND EURO-RUSSIAN THERAPY

FROM THE GOVERNMENT

Recently two cases came to the attention of the HGC which had received former mental “therapy” of the Euro-Russian variety.

One of these, a 32-year-old shipworker, had been four years in prison for having committed a crime of violence.

The other was a 46-year-old man who had received a dishonorable discharge from the Army.

Both cases were picked up at random from the general run of workers.

It was found that both had received mental “treatment.” The first had been given considerable attention in prison from “clinical psychologists.” The second had had “psychiatric interviews” in the Army.

Neither case had been in any way improved. Both had been antagonized. The first committed a “grand theft” after release from prison and was in no sense a safe factor in society. The other case, even though court-martialed and discharged for drunkenness, was still getting drunk and losing jobs.

These two cases had one thing in common—they had been made contemptuous of mental treatments. They had to be forced into session due to their former experiences.

Both were improved by processing and could have been completed as cases. As soon as this was established they were let go as this was all that we cared to discover.

We can assume that Euro-Russian mental treatment is a liability in that it destroys any faintest hope of recovery. We can also notice that money spent by the prison and the Army was wasted.

It is noticeable that neither the prison nor the Army paid any attention to public safety in these cases. Two men were released in a worsened state and permitted to victimize the public. Thus all measures taken were apparently detrimental to public well-being.

We can further notice that our task in Scientology is being made harder by the presence and practice of Euro-Russian psychotherapy and the handling of criminals in government areas.

A time has come for a reform of these matters.

The correction of prison and Army systems of punishment and the introduction of mental methods which do not make cases less approachable are both needful.

In a national disaster the presence of a large number of criminals and insane in our midst, unreformed and loosed upon us, could well mean the fact that gives us defeat.

The time to start is now, not when a man brings chaos to the whole public.

                                       				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MARCH 1958
(revised)

CLEARING REALITY

A new rule.

In the absence or unreality of a terminal the significance in a process will not function.

In other words, the significance of help will not function on a tooth unless the pc is given a reality on the terminal of a tooth.

On a nervous-dispersed case, there is no real gain in running significance until hellos and okays are run on something.

Command “You say hello to that body.” “Have the body say okay to that hello.” “Have the body say hello to you.” “You say okay to that hello.”

When pc has misemotion off the interchange, then run help in brackets on the same terminal.

Establish the reality of a terminal before you try to clear it with significance.

A pc in extreme pain can be audited if one clears reality on the hurting terminal and then runs brackets in help on that terminal. Note: Extreme control must be used in attempting this.

The above applies to objective terminals. Subjective might or might not work.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH :-.cden 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

	
Issue 70		[1958, ca. late March]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

Does Clearing Cancel the Need for Training?

L. Ron Hubbard

To answer the important question “Does Clearing cancel training?” all you need to do as an auditor is clear someone without training him and then say to him, “All right. Go out and clear people.”

You’ll get a blank stare.

Why?

Because Auditing skill is a discipline in living and a know-how of the parts of life which is in itself something new in the universe. Even OTs don’t have auditing skill since there have never been any auditors behind them.

There is such a thing as learning. There are such things as data.

The fact is, that a cleared Zulu is a cleared Zulu. A cleared advertising man is a cleared advertising man. A cleared Zulu is not a cleared advertising man.

Now a Zulu uncleared has scant chance of becoming an advertising man. But a cleared Zulu would probably be able to become one rapidly. And there’s the difference.

Being clear gives one the potential of being and makes the being rather easy, and fun. Further, being cleared makes it possible to continue to be something. There’s nothing wrong with being clear. A person ought to be. The state is so valuable several hundreds of millions of people in the past 2,500 years have concentrated on nothing else.

But how about getting clear and staying clear forever? The auditor alone with his data well learned could manage that.

Remember, you were clear once—trillions of years ago. Why didn’t you stay that way? Because the traps were well designed and you had no anatomy of traps.

Well, Scientology does have the anatomy of the traps, the Axioms, the discipline and know-how necessary to handle and control the laws of the universe. Scientology is the data necessary to live.
If everyone were now to concentrate only on how to get clear and forget all about how to stay clear, we’d be back in the soup in a century.

Oddly enough, the best time to study auditing is when you’re aberrated—when the thing looks impossible, when you can achieve subjective reality on the grimness of it.

The best things a person can do are to (1) get trained and (2) get cleared. Auditors will always be senior to clears. Always. That became very obvious in the 19th ACC. People who weren’t clear created clears.

If a person gets cleared first, he can, of course, learn very rapidly how to be a good Scientologist. If he is to be a very good being he will be both a good auditor and a clear. That combination cannot be beaten.

If we had only clears and no auditors we’d have another slump ahead. Scientology is not in the experience of anyone’s back track. It is itself. It is the one thing senior to life because it handles all factors of life. Scientology could not have happened earlier because there was not enough livingness to study. We have arrived near bottom.

There are people getting cleared now all over the world. Just remember that you share the agreement of the society in which you live. You’ll have to be able to audit to skillfully handle aberrated persons. And it will take a lot of auditors to have a cleared society.

Right now it’s all right to keep your eye on that first dynamic and get clear. You should. But when, suddenly, you find you’ve achieved clear, remember when I tell you this one thing:

There are eight dynamics.

You cannot stay clear unless you solve things by the equation of the optimum solution: The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. Failing to so solve things dug you in to where you were in the first place.

Scientology got you out.

Stay out by knowing Scientology well.

I look forward to seeing your bright, smiling face, clear or not, in the Academy or an ACC, or both, in D.C., or London, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa. A Clear world to be, needs you as a good and skilled Scientologist.

And that’s how you’re going to help me.

Okay?

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

P.S. When I solve a case I always ask the pc for one unnamed favor. I’ve never called these favors in. The favor I tell you now for the first time: Whatever else you are, be a good Scientologist and help me clear these Earth people.

P.A.B. No. 133
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 April 1958

PROCEDURE CCH

Compiled from the Research Writings and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard

(The following series of PABs are devoted to an elucidation of Procedure CCH and should by no means be taken as a complete exposition of that procedure. This course of information will be fully covered in the newly completed but as yet unpublished basic handbook for all auditors: “The Student Manual” by L. Ron Hubbard, which is the most comprehensive book ever issued from the pen of LRH on auditing procedure and all that a Scientologist should know about how to audit and practice.

Further, the numbers of the CCHs don’t necessarily agree with “The Student Manual” except from CCH0 to 5, since these PABs are based on a workable procedure called Procedure CCH [Long Form], given by LRH to the HGC staff auditors here in Washington, D.C., in 1957.)

CCH ZERO:

CCH 0 is firstly establishing the Rudiments of the session, discussing the goals of the preclear for the intensive—also established at the beginning of each separate session—handling the present time problem and clearing the auditor for the preclear. The latter has become very important in modern auditing.

One establishes the session by calling the preclear’s attention to the room, the auditing environment, to let him know that he has arrived for a session. This can be done by light “Locational Processing.” At this point one doesn’t have to belabor the Rudiments.

Following this there is a discussion of the preclear’s goals for the session and intensive and making sure that these goals are not wild or completely outside the preclear’s reality. He may, for instance, want to be an Operating Thetan while hiding in mystery and he will thus not achieve that goal unless he has full reality on it. In other words, the auditor makes sure that the goals which the preclear has set for himself are goals which the preclear can work towards and attain without much difficulty.

The auditor then defines for himself—but does not inform the preclear of—his own goals and intentions for this session so that he does not grope blindly with techniques without knowing which way and why he is guiding the preclear. Often auditors work in the dark without setting goals for themselves toward which to guide the preclear. Best of all is when the auditor can align the preclear’s and his own goals for the intensive.

After this the auditor must inquire if the preclear has any pressing present time problem which needs immediate attention. It is fairly safe to say that every preclear on earth today has a present time problem. The more the preclear has the easier they can be handled. If the problem is not pressing and will not interfere with the processing, then the auditor can continue further. Should there be a scarcity of problems the preclear will hold on to and dramatize that problem and the situation has to be remedied either with Problems of Comparable or Incomparable Magnitude or by Locational Processing.

A lot here depends upon auditor judgment of the case (and it is, of course, best to have preclears tested at the London or Washington Academies to aid the auditor), but should the preclear be too low to handle the present time problem, the auditor should only run Locational Processing to bring the preclear up to present time. Preclears who are very low toned do not even vaguely have their thinkingness under control, and to run “problems” would be a waste of time.

Since many preclears do not know much about their condition or what they are working towards, LRH has found a very good way to clear this matter. This process is a Rudiment called “Clear the Auditor” and known as “Help.” It is surprising, after running this process for an hour or so, to find that many preclears do not believe that they can be helped by anybody and are unclear as to what the auditor can do for them.

This is the best way of clearing the auditor and making the fact that they can be helped to help themselves clear to them.

The commands for this process are as follows:

“Could I help you?” “How?” 
“Could you help me?” “How?” 
“Can I help anybody else?” “Who?” “How?” 
“Could you help anybody else?” “Who?” “How?” 
“Do other people ever help other people?” “How?” 
“Do men ever help women?” “How?”

and the auditor just does this on a big, long bracket.

Of course, it is necessary to see that the preclear does not give machine answers and that he is fairly sure that this can be done. Two-way communication here is important and a lot of it could be used.

This process becomes a fantastic way of dealing with the preclear and is valuable in many ways. For example, you can take Father and Mother valences which are usually aberrative and run them on Help in brackets.

Running Help is necessary on a case that is hung up, because the only reason he is sitting there is to “waste” help. You can run such a case on any process, no matter how excellent, on a basis of “wasting help” until the case simply cannot find enough ways to waste help and he goes down the tone scale.

One has to understand that the case which isn’t changing is trying to waste help. It isn’t a case of “finding the auditor” in the Rudiments nowadays, but of “clearing the auditor.” The only point on which he can be cleared is “Help”—”Can I help you?” or “Can you help me?” and asking “How?” each time to keep the command real to the preclear and applicable. No conditional answers are accepted and the preclear has to find real answers.

The whole purpose of CCH 0 to quote from “The Student Manual,” is “to make known the beginning of a session to a preclear and the auditor so that no error as to its beginning is made; to put the preclear in a condition to be audited. “

CCH 1:

CCH 1 is known as “Give Me That Hand,” and is one of the most effective entrances to cases yet devised. Apart from having great beneficial effects it is also used as a Rudiment. For example, soon the preclear finds that there is a mass sitting in front of him (the body of the auditor) and that he is occupying a mass in the chair—and thus the environment takes on a more real shape.

To illustrate this better, here is a brief description from an LRH lecture to the Washington, D.C., HGC staff auditors: “Most preclears are completely unaware of their own body or that of the auditor. GMTH brings the preclear back onto the Scale of Reality, which runs this way (from the top of scale down):

Postulates, Agreements, Solids (masses, terminals), Communication Lines But No Terminals, which dwindles into Confused And Complex Communication Lines, and eventually into No Lines—and you’ve got mystery.

“Applying the Scale of Reality to GMTH, you have a preclear who is in mystery. You take his hand often enough with an acknowledgment (‘Thank you’) at the execution of the command and he slowly, through some dope-off, becomes aware of a solid line of communication—your arm grasping his hand to his arm—and that becomes more solid until he goes through the complexities and confusions of communication lines and gets them straight enough to recognize a solid terminal sitting in front of him (the auditor’s body sitting there, a mass, a terminal). He thus gets into communication with a solid terminal. As he comes upscale he does not have to use solid comm lines to communicate but can do so by agreements (symbols, words) and higher upscale just by postulate.

“As Opening Procedure by Duplication demonstrated the accuracy of the Know to Mystery Scale, so Give Me That Hand proves the accuracy of the Sub-Zero Tone Scale and the Reality Scale. Preclears will go into dope-off and a state of confusion, engrams will fly off as the complexities and confusions of comm lines fade into where his and your hands will become real to him. He will most likely recognize you as the first real terminal he has ever had.”

This is a Tone 40 process.

Tone 40 has been defined as “Giving a command and just knowing that it will be executed despite any contrary appearances. “ (This is not the 18th ACC definition.) In other words, Tone 40 is positive postulating.

“The Student Manual” has the following to say about the procedure and the running of this unique process: “Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in the preclear’s lap and ‘Thank you’ ending the cycle. It is Tone 40, with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way, verbally or physically.” However, one can freeze the process after a cycle of action has been completed if one is sure that something is occurring which needs further “fishing” for a cognition.

This is the first step to the control of the preclear’s body, which is the basic element of Control-C-H (CCH). We first have to bring the preclear’s body under your and then his control before we can attempt to bring his attention or thinkingness under control. And processing follows that basic pattern all the time—control of body, attention and thinkingness.

This is a very precise process, being Tone 40, and Tone 40 demands accurate precision into which one has to be trained to be efficient. Further information will be found in “The Student Manual,” which will be published shortly, or in the Validation Courses run in Washington, London or by Gold Seal Certificate holders. As a last note on this process, there is a negative side to this if your preclear is “withholding” communication from you and it simply runs in smooth Tone 40 as follows: “Don’t give me that hand.” “Thank you.”

The preclear will get frantic after a while and want to give you his hand. By telling him to withhold his hand, and acknowledging it so that he receives the acknowledgment, you are telling him to do what he has been doing all his life and consequently ruin that mechanism which has been “withholding” all the while, when you take over the automaticity. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 APRIL 1958

ARC IN COMM COURSE

There are two types of Auditing. Both include control. They are called “Formal Auditing” and “Tone 40 Auditing”.

The first is control by ARC. The second is control by direct Tone 40 command.

The first, Control by ARC, is taught in Comm Course. The second, Control by Tone 40, is taught in Upper Indoc.

The two are never mixed in teaching. Tone 40 is never taught in a Comm Course and is not even permitted. ARC is not taught in Upper Indoc.

The most widespread weakness in auditors prior to this date is an inability to use step one of Clear Procedure (Participation by the pc). This is only good ARC in the Training Drills of Comm Course. Auditors are now too prone to let CCH Ob Help do the work. Auditors fail to make the pc feel they are interested in the pc when they handle him with poor ARC.

We care nothing about ARC in Upper Indoc. We want command, we want Tone 40. We do not even handle pc origins in Upper Indoc.

Students must understand that there are two types of auditing. They should realize that Tone 40 is for the unconscious, the psycho, the non-communicative, the electric shock case pc. The student should realize that ARC formal auditing is not chatty or yap-yap, but it is itself. It has warmth, humanity, understanding and interest in it.

Academy Dir of Tr, Comm Course and Upper Indoc Instructors should keep this in their hats as needful technical data, since we must turn out auditors capable of handling pcs with ARC.

LRH

LRH:bt.cden 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 APRIL 1958

AUDITING THE PC ON CLEAR PROCEDURE

We must not lose sight of the fact that only TWO processes clear a pc. All others only support these TWO and make it possible to run these two.

These processes are:

1. 	Help, CCH Ob

2. 	Step 6, Mock-ups. Keep it from going away, Hold it still, Make it more solid.

First in auditing we have to get pc to sit there and be willing to be audited. We have for this many processes. Best is TR 5 “You make that body sit in that chair” “Thank you”.

Next we are continually confronted with keeping pc in session. This is done with good ARC. No process can supplant good auditor ARC. Pc must know auditor is interested in him. This does not mean auditor does not control pc or let him gabble but it does mean that pc and auditor have ARC.

The next condition which must be met is the eradication of present time problems. This is done by “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?”

Psychosomatics may come under head of a p.t. problem. One runs hellos and okays on the terminal to improve reality on it. “Say hello to that (body part)—have it say okay to you. Have it say hello to you. You say okay to it.” One can also run “What part of that (body part) can you be responsible for?” One can also have pc mock up “unknown (body part)”. One can also clear help on that body part. As a psychosomatic is a concentration of attention it fulfills the condition of a p.t. problem which is “any worry that keeps a pc out of session, which worry must exist in present time in the real universe”. One can run all of these on a resistant psychosomatic.

One should clear help on objects and terminals connected with the pc’s job.

One should clear help on the terminals of the various dynamics.

With an E-Meter needle nul and free on help, one can go to Step 6. This doesn’t mean that one should not later return to help. It may be Step 6 must be approached with S-C-S and Connectedness. The needle will tell. A heavily stuck needle is worse than a wildly surging one. Connectedness clears stuck needles.

Step 6 can be run just as in the book “Clear Procedure.” [See page 172.] If it is too tough for pc, run help and responsibility on pictures.

Then complete Step 6 with great thoroughness.

Rising Scale Processing Modern Version is very good. However, even though it works low scale, it is in reality an OT process, not a clear process. Rising Scale can be run on any consideration. The basic is “Get the idea it is impossible to reach anything”. “Now Postulate that you can reach everything.” There is no fancier version. There are other buttons besides reach. The basic command is get the idea negative. Postulate the positive.
This is clearing. It works as well as one directly approaches the task of clearing with the above.

But clearing cannot happen in the presence of

1. 	A present time problem not flat.

2. 	Poor auditor-pc ARC.

3. 	Putting the pc at the effect end of life in or out of session during an intensive.

4. 	Detouring into contributory processes in the belief they will clear rather than set up a case. And

5. 	Leaving untouched zones of irresponsibility and zones of refused help.

I wish you good luck in clearing.

                                        			Best,

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :bt.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 APRIL AD 8
Issue II

A PAIR OF PROCESSES

Now and then I overhaul some old process once in use and see what can be done to make it work.

Op Pro by Dup and Forgetting are a pair that recently showed up as having a possible specific value—i.e. to create a specific effect upon a specific difficulty.

Evidently Admiration and Critical are a dichotomy. Maxine Kozak suggests that Duplication is Admiration. From this I looked over Critical on the APA (OCA) profile and saw that the low critical might be influenced by Op Pro by Dup. A test should be made of this.

The other process is less nebulous in action. The specific for a bad memory is Forgetting run in Brackets. You will ordinarily find an automaticity of forgetting when you ask “Recall something you wouldn’t mind other people forgetting.” This is a “bad memory”. Nothing like a good conscience to retain a good memory.

The commands of Forgetting would be a 6-way bracket.

Recall (or think of) something you wouldn’t mind

1. 	Forgetting yourself
2. 	Another person forgetting
3. 	Forgetting about another
4. 	Another forgetting about you
5. 	Other people forgetting
6. 	Another person forgetting about another person.

Each command is cleared. The commands are run in sequence rather than repetition.

This is a low scale process. Goes lower than “Not know” but graduates into it.

This is a basic on unknowns and fields of whatever kind.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:bt.cden 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 APRIL 1958

CCH 88—ENFORCED NOTHINGNESS

When the following command is relatively flat on an auditor or instructor he may run it on HGC pcs and teach it as part of curriculum to students. But it must be somewhat flat on auditors and instructors before use or taught publicly.

The command is a repetitive command. It is used with some 2-way comm to punch cognitions.

The name of the process is Enforced Nothingness. Number CCH 88.

The command is: “Mock up some people who made you want to make nothing of things.”

This increases havingness all the way.

The person the auditor wants mocked up will be invisible to the pc and pc should keep on trying to mock the person up, eyes open, until he can do so.

I developed this process to vanquish fields and thus speed clearing. It belongs anywhere prior to Step 6 of Clear Procedure.

In Creative Processing we knew good results were achieved when we used a gradient scale to get the pc to improve an ability to mock up someone. The above command gives the reason this was necessary.

Considerable relief and calmness follows a run on this process.

High critical is cured by this process.

Failure to help is the basis of the collapse of a desire to make nothing of things and the process therefore ranks in importance near to help.

A subjective reality on the process is necessary for skilled use.

The process can in a pinch be self-audited by reading the command off sheet. The process is unlimited.

I think I have discovered in Enforced Nothingness a direct route to bringing any pc who is under some control up to the ability to conceive a static. And therefore the key to all exteriorization, havingness and perception.

The process cures colds, tiredness and psychosomatics.

LRH:-.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 134
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 April 1958

PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED

Compiled from the Research Writings and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard

CCH 2:

CCH 2 is Tone 40 8-C, which has the following commands: “With that body’s eyes look at that wall.” “Thank you.” “Walk that body over to that wall.” “Thank you.” “With that right hand touch that wall.” “Thank you.” “Turn that body around.” “Thank you.”

One doesn’t acknowledge any of the preclear’s originations and can only “freeze” the command after a cycle of action has been completed. As with all Tone 40 processes this is a precision process and needs validation training for execution on an optimum level.

The intention or goal of this process is to bring the preclear’s body further under control and to insure that he does “precisely” what you tell him to do, and it is a basic step for getting his thinkingness under your command as well. By showing the preclear you can control his body, you are actually inviting him to control it and to take some responsibility for it.

Don’t be surprised if the preclear exteriorizes quickly on this technique. By taking control of the body, he will go in and out of it and eventually feel that the best way to handle it is from a few feet behind his head. As an auditor one must beware of not-ising this phenomenon and should communicate about it when one “freezes” the session and make sure that the preclear understands this and that it is to be expected.

This is an ambulatory process and the auditor should be next to or with his preclear at all times during the running of this technique.

Don’t avoid this process or not administer enough, since 8-C, Tone 40 or otherwise, has been a stable processing datum for over three years and will continue to remain as such for a considerable period of time.

CCH 3:

This is the process that produces some of those fantastic IQ changes, for it deals directly with the preclear’s learning rate and his ability to duplicate communications. Bringing up his non-language factor in the IQ has the effect of bringing the preclear into a better control of his environment and into handling the people and objects in his immediate surroundings.

Its purpose, according to “The Student Manual,” is “to bring up preclear’s communication with control and duplication. (Control + Duplication = Communication.)”

Book Mimicry, as this process is called, is run in the following manner: Auditor tells the preclear that he is going to make a motion with the book and that he wants the preclear to duplicate the auditor’s motion mirror-image-wise. He hands the book to the preclear and then waits for the preclear to execute that motion. He acknowledges the execution of that command and then asks the preclear if he “is satisfied that he duplicated that command.” If the preclear says he is satisfied, and the auditor is sure he did not do it satisfactorily, the auditor does the same command until the preclear and the auditor are both satisfied.

There is a gradient scale of simplicities and complexities here. One first starts with fairly simple commands, graduating into complexities. LRH found that straight lines and angles are simplicities, whereas circles and arcs are complexities. Preclears who like complexities will be able to do the difficult ones with great ease while finding the simple motions burdensome. One keeps on doing both until the preclear can do each with relative ease.

In order to do this process properly the preclear has to be in present time, and that will unstick him from the rest points on the track, and it has been noted by many auditors that engrams and valences turn on, also a lot of dope-off and anaten which must naturally be run flat.

For the preclear who is in manic motion, small, very slow movements will cause a panic and should be done until he can tolerate the no-motion with ease and vice versa.

One must be sure, however, to remember the commands one has given in case the preclear cannot execute them and one has to do it again. Also, we are interested in giving our preclears only wins and one should work closely within that framework. Give the preclear only the commands, on a gradient scale towards difficulties, that he can execute. It does not mean that one cannot make it complex, but one mustn’t give impossible commands and so confuse and invalidate the certainty that he can duplicate a communication between himself and another terminal.

This is not a Tone 40 process, but the auditor does not talk until the motion he has made is executed unless the preclear has as-ised the command before he started the motion or finds himself unable to complete it.

Since engrams do appear and odd sensations and somatics turn on, communicate with the preclear about them, but remember the intention of the process and do not go chasing after facsimiles.

CCH 4:

CCH 4 is “Hand Space Mimicry” and the purpose of this process as per “The Student Manual” is “to develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid comm line) and to get the preclear into communication by control + duplication. “

It is run as follows: Auditor and preclear sit straight opposite each other. The auditor then raises his two hands with his palms facing the preclear and says, “Put those hands against mine, follow them and contribute to their motion.” He then makes a simple motion with his right and then left hand and asks the preclear, “Did you contribute to the motion?” “Good.” “Put those hands in your lap.” After this has been run flat, increase the space between the palms of the auditor’s and preclear’s hands by half an inch. When this is flat gradiently increase the space between the auditor’s and preclear’s palms until the preclear can follow the motion yards away.

There is a lot of two-way communication during the running of this process, and the auditor must allow the communication which is born from the duplication and control to come forth without restraining the preclear’s desires to do so.

The distance factor here (affinity in the communication formula) will affect various preclears in different ways, and it is of interest that the preclear will communicate a lot about love and the second dynamic to the auditor which can then be viewed. There seems to be a certain distance factor here for each preclear, and once the auditor moves out of it suddenly without that gradient increase in space the preclear will go out of communication with the auditor, and the process should therefore be kept to small increases only.

The strained feeling in the preclear’s (and sometimes auditor’s) wrists is not a tiredness as one may suppose, but will disappear as he gets into communication with the auditor. He will go through a lot of anaten and dope-off, but should come out very bright and in present time and in much better shape than when the session started. HE will be able to communicate and recognize your body as a solid terminal opposite his and will really find the auditor during the process if he has not done so already. His reality level will increase to the point where he can communicate by agreement only and know that he is doing so (see the last PAB on the Scale of Reality).

This is not a Tone 40 process and should not be run as such.

CCH 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the essential basics to the running of every case, and where these are neglected (where control in these facets has been neglected) there will only be failure. It is therefore remunerative in the long run to really flatten each process.

The workability of these processes is astonishing and is a delight in the hands of a Validated Auditor who has been coached on them himself. If ever processes demanded that one knows HOW to run them, these do, for the untrained auditor might just confuse both himself and the preclear if he doesn’t know what to expect and how to handle that which is sure to arise from such processes as CCH.

One can run these processes over and over again. Run 0, 1, 2 and either 3 or 4, then back to CCH I—right hand, through the other steps, left hand, through the other steps, both hands, and up again, or instead of using “Give me that hand” the auditor can run “Don’t give me that hand”—right, left and “those hands,” and so forth.

Somewhere along the line one of these processes is going to bite and then each and every one of them will do the same. If nothing happens it means that there is a threat to the preclear’s havingness and that the present time problem should be cleared while “help” is run again, after which one of the four CCHs should open up the preclear’s bank.

As an example, here is a case history from one of the Washington HGC staff auditors: Preclear, a business man, age 48, who had numerous pressing present time problems in the home environment. His profile proved that he was totally unable to handle his numerous present time problems as his ability to communicate was on the very low minus side. What’s more, his profile showed that he should really be a three-week preclear but was accepted on the understanding that since he couldn’t possibly afford more time, he would be given this week as an exception to the rule since he came a very long way (the HGC doesn’t accept for processing a 25-hour case who really needs 75 hours).

LRH looked at this profile and suggested quite calmly to the auditor that CCH steps 0 to 5 should do it.

The preclear was out of communication. He did not volunteer any information and seemed to get nothing out of the first 71/2 hours when the first 5 steps were covered. (His present time problems were handled by Locational Processing.) Since this preclear was withholding information the auditor ran him on “Don’t give me that hand,” which started biting slightly, a few minor somatics shot through various areas of his body and facsimiles darted in and out of his field, but the preclear still felt that this meant nothing. (His critical level was high and he was making nothing out of the auditing.) But when the auditor arrived at Hand Space Mimicry, the preclear burst open for he couldn’t tolerate the close contact with the auditor and volunteered information about a second dynamic restimulation which blew the aberration out of the way and opened the Case.

After that the preclear exteriorized with full visio and sonic when run on Tone 40 8-C, felt that he could control both his body and his environment much more ably and with greater certainty as to what he was doing.

Further up the line on Control Trio and Trio, the preclear ran each one of the six commands flat in approximately half an hour, with cognitions ranging from the first to eighth dynamic, each intimately related to his own life and livingness, and the preclear is a clear.

This preclear still has his present time problems at home, but feels much more confident about handling them and the auditor reports that he is moving heaven and earth to return for the outstanding two weeks.

This might not have been possible on older technologies since the factor of control wasn’t so neatly and exactly organized by LRH as it is now, but the fact remains, much against some people’s better wishes, that one has to be coached into knowing through experience to fully comprehend the power of Procedure CCH. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 APRIL 1958

To: All Training Activities

    VITAL TRAINING DATA FOR TRAINING HATS AND REGISTRAR

Students in the Academy are auditors. They are not preclears. Emphasis is on auditors, not pcs.

The goal of the Academy is to produce auditors of such quality that we would be willing to hire them in the HGC. We don’t graduate those we wouldn’t.

Training staff can refuse a student at any time on grounds of inadequate financial arrangements. In which event the student applicant is returned to Registrar.

The Academy is not a clinic and concerns about cases belong to the HGC and are so referred.

LRH
LRH :bt.rd
Copyright © 1958	
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Issue 72			[1958, ca. late April]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

How We Work on the Third Dynamic

L. Ron Hubbard

It is obvious that a barbarian society, leaving all to chance, believing in luck and irresponsibility, needs direction.

If it cannot receive that direction from its elected leaders, it is soon drowned in confusion.

This is particularly true of barbarian societies. By barbarian, we mean, of course, “lacking in social graces.” A nation may have huge machines, projectiles of great violence and stoves that do all the cooking and yet be a complete barbarism socially.

The activities of a barbarism one against another are punishment, revilement, contest for first dynamic supremacy with no thought of the rights of others.

The barbarism solves political problems with brutality, crime with punishment and social ills with degradation.

It is fairly obvious then that the United States of America—and the Western world-is a barbarism, wearing nylon shirts instead of bearskins, lip rouge rather than tattoo tabu marks, but subscribing to the Code of Hammurabi just the same.

The social code used identifies the barbarism and an “eye for an eye” is little better than law for the sake of sadism, mere animalism.

You can know a barbarism by its witch doctors, its concept of the other man’s mind. In this society the mental witch doctor, comfortably enfranchised by the A.P.A., believes sincerely Man is an animal without soul or hope and, following Pavlov and other Russian teachings, that Man works only for reward like “any other dog.”

These are the brands of barbarism. Hate is deified above love, a deterrent to an action is better than a communication, the delusion is more palatable than the truth.

If we place the govemment on our chart of human evaluation, we find a craven psychotic. What would you think of the sanity of a man who sits in his house all day every day loading guns for fear of some mythical enemy? What would you think of a person who used violence against the weak, the helpless, women and children? What would you think of someone who solved all his problems with threats of violence? You’d be right. Such a person would be insane. Just add up the characteristics of a government today, apply them as if done by an individual and make up your mind. Governments are insane. It is a big thought and one necessary to digest if you are not going to go around all your life snarling impotently against “government stupidity.” The insane aren’t always stupid but they are certainly insane.

Of course you could define government as “that body created by the aggregate irresponsibility of a people.” The insane are irresponsible. That is why they are insane. If you lump all the irresponsibility in a nation into one body you would then have an insane body. Thus the government temper.

Now it is a fact that help and destroy are opposite ends of the same string. When a person can no longer help he seeks to destroy. Destroy is the same as help to a psychiatrist. Total identification. But more of this elsewhere. It is enough here to demonstrate that if you try to help an insane body it responds by seeking to destroy you. This is nothing to be afraid of since the ability to direct in an insane body is very poor. Thus the blows usually go awry. One sees it in government when the police arrest and question the man who was attacked by a thug. The police forget the thug and arrest the innocent.

Now all this comes about only when you have a barbarism, where the social training of each person is so poor as to amount to a collective insanity.

To cure a barbarism one must make men socially grow up. And that is done with individuals. One works with individual people, not with groups.

We in Scientology have done a “power of growing up,” me and you both. We are strong in that we have the ability to make other people “grow up.” Our target is the individual if we wish to increase the group level of responsibility.

To properly hit the target each of us needs to be (1) a good example in our own case and (2) well trained and secure in our Scientology skills.

All we really have to do to win is to get clear and clear others, the while keeping on with the routine demands of life.

As startling as clearing is today, as impressive as it is to learn Scientology well at the Academy, yet these things can be done rather easily.

Clear is now no esoteric goal. It can be reached in a few weeks of highly skilled auditing.

Getting to be an excellent auditor is a must if one merely wishes to live. But one dynamic isn’t enough. It takes all the dynamics to make a freedom. Therefore to be clear is not enough. To be a cleared auditor and to handle and audit people is a must if we wish to be totally free.

Face it. We live in a barbarism. The shiny cars are driven by degraded men. You won’t be free unless they are.

It has taken me ten hard years to make clearing everyone an accomplished fact. That I could do it was not enough. That you could do it was part of the major plan.

My purpose is to bring a barbarism out of the mud it thinks conceived it and to form here on Earth a civilization based on human understanding, not violence.

That’s a big purpose. A broad field. A star-high goal.

But I think it’s your purpose, too.

                                    				Best,

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 MAY 1958

Post: HASI London
     	Admin Board, D.C.

SIGNS OF SUCCESS

Whenever we’re really winning the squirrels start to scream. You can tell if somebody is a squirrel. They howl or make trouble only when we’re winning.

Spectacular success can quadruple the number of complaints. Tell the complainees: “Come in, get clear.” Otherwise skip it.

To understand a squirrel, consider the reaction of somebody who could not run the fifth leg of help “How could another person help another person”. The thought of this drives some people spinny. That’s a squirrel. They can’t view other people helping others without going berserk.

There’s nothing personal in having squirrels. Even heroes can have lice.

                                    					Best,

                                        					LRH

LRH:bt.rd

P.A.B. No. 135
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 May 1958

PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED

Compiled from the Research Writings and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard

CCH 5:

This is Tone 40 Locational Processing, and the purpose of this process is to bring the preclear’s attention under control and unfix it from the facsimiles which usually control his attention. It is also a most valuable process to run when the preclear’s communication is too poor to run the present time problems with Problems of Comparable/Incomparable Magnitude.

It brings the preclear from the problem in which he is interiorized into a recognition of the environment, which gives him havingness, and he can consequently unfix his attention from the problem. It brings him into present time—the 6th dynamic—and he can have mass again.

Since this is a Tone 40 process the auditor does not acknowledge idle chatter from the preclear, but should HE say something, the process may be frozen after a few more commands have been executed and the auditor can discuss or “fish” the cognition. The auditor must point to and clearly indicate the object which he wants the preclear to see and must make sure that his “thank you” stops the preclear from getting stuck on the object at which he looks.

The commands are “With that body’s eyes notice that (indicated object, wall, etc.).” When the preclear has done so the auditor says “Thank you” with such intention as to stop the cycle of action completely and to start a new command in present time. If the acknowledgment really reached the preclear he will immediately look away from the object at which he was looking and look at you, smile and seem pleased. Incidentally, the auditor points to both that body and that object.

While using this process in CCH 0, the handling of the present time problem, it can be used as either ordinary or Tone 40 Locational.

CCH 6:

To bring the preclear’s attention further and fully under control of the auditor, Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957, with the following commands, is used: (Auditor takes a book and bottle, placing them some distance apart on tables so that the preclear doesn’t have to bend.) “With that body’s eyes look at that book.” “Thank you.” “Walk that body over to that book.” “Thank you.” (Auditor each time with the commands points to “that body” and “that book.”) “With that hand pick up that book.” “Thank you.” “Put that book down in exactly the same place.” “Thank you.” “Turn that body round.” “Thank you.” “With that body’s eyes look at that bottle,” etc.

It is a Tone 40 process and should be run precisely, making sure that the preclear does not anticipate or distort the command. Duplication + Control = Communication is a formula which is well worth remembering during the running of all Tone 40 processes. This does not mean that if the preclear seems to be communicating, he is, for a lot of his machinery will go into restimulation during this process and one must be able to differentiate between the preclear’s originations and those of his bank.

This, being one of the most arduous processes in Scientology, should be run in one session until flat; otherwise the preclear will be hung up at the point where the process was ended and it will unnecessarily retard the progress which Procedure CCH brings about.

These two processes, when well run, will bring the preclear’s attention under the direction of the auditor. Since duplication will straighten out all the vias and twists the preclear might have in receiving the exact intention of the command which originated from the auditor, the auditor may then proceed to bring the preclear’s thinkingness under his control with

CCH 7: Tone 40 8-C—”Keep it from going away,”
CCH 8: Tone 40 8-C—”Hold it still,” and
CCH 9: Tone 40 8-C—”Make it a little more solid,”

which should be run as a combo [combination of processes] one after the other until each one is flat.

As with most processes, make sure that the command is cleared before embarked upon, and then after a while, if the preclear doesn’t cognite or have any facsimiles, find out “how” and “what” he is doing, for there might still be a possibility that due to semantic difficulties he misunderstood the command and is really running another.

“Keep it from going away” and “Hold it still,” apart from the fundamental value in cognitions, are to exercise the preclear’s ability to control facsimiles—to keep them from going away and to hold them still when he later is going to run Then and Now Solids, which demands just that. Preclears who have been involved in Eastern teachings will cognite during running “Hold it still” and find out a lot about “serenity” and the eighth dynamic. All the things which the preclear has been keeping from going away will come to view. These are good exteriorizing processes. Refer to earlier PABs for further information regarding these processes.

“Make it a little more solid” is the first exercise in making MEST and facsimiles a little more solid and must be done before the preclear can progress to Then and Now Solids. His abilities to keep things from going away, hold them still and make them a little more solid must be thoroughly checked and rechecked, and the auditor must be sure in his own mind that the preclear has acquired these abilities.

Making things a little more solid is just what it says. The preclear does not have to make things very massive, but he should be aware of an increase in the mass, weight and density of the structure of that which he is making more solid. This process will increase his reality on the Prelogics and reverse the flow of solids. It will remedy the preclear’s havingness and push him further up the Scale of Reality.

The commands for the three Tone 40 8-Cs are: “With that body’s eyes look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk that body over to that (indicated object).” “With those hands touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Keep it from going away.” “Hold it still.” “Make it a little more solid.” Run each one flat individually.

Since these are Tone 40 processes, precision of execution of commands is closely observed by the auditor.
“These processes include a control of thinkingness of the preclear and therefore should be run with a tremendous amount of auditor trust of the preclear and should not be run until the lower levels of CCH are to some degree flat, as they will give the preclear losses. “—LRH from “The Student Manual.”

CCH 12 and CCH 13:

CCH 12 is known as “Limited Subjective Havingness.” The commands for this set of processes are: “What can you mock up?” Preclear answers and the auditor says, “O.K.” to the preclear’s answer and then tells him: “Mock up (whatever the preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Shove it into yourself.” Run this flat then proceed in the same way except for then having the preclear “Let it remain where it is.” When this is flat enter on the third part, which is “Throw it away.”

Have the preclear shove the mock-ups into “himself” and not the body. Remember it is “have” for the thetan and “can’t have” for the body. It is important here to remedy the havingness of the preclear’s bank before going on to Then and Now Solids.

Should the preclear’s field be black, then run the following process until it clears up: Remedy the field with blackness. Have him mock it up, let it remain and throw it away. This preclear is holding on to blackness since he does not have enough blackness. This is remedying the havingness with blackness of which he has a scarcity.

If the preclear’s field is invisibility, put glass objects of all sorts and sizes on a table next to him and one after another have him “Keep it from going away” until his field returns.

As with all other processes in Scientology we are only interested in giving our preclears wins, and it is therefore necessary to see that he completes each step successfully before continuing with the next process.

Should none of these processes do what is required, CCH has not been properly applied and steps 0 to 5 should be run once more and the auditor can then run Control Trio, which is being spoken about in a later PAB.

CCH 13 is “Subjective Solids” and the first exercise to make things solid subjectively. The commands for this process are: “What can you mock up?” (which is asked every time one changes the type of mock-ups). “O.K.” “Mock up (whatever the preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Now make it a little more solid.” When this is done the auditor checks with “Did you do it?” for preclears often say they have when they didn’t execute the command.

Start this on a gradient scale. As long as he makes only a few atoms of the mock-up a little more solid the auditor should be satisfied. The preclear here will break through Effort on the Know to Mystery Scale and as he proceeds use less and less effort until he just postulates the solidity.

It is most important to ask the preclear what he is doing, how he is doing it to insure that he IS doing it properly.

Smoothness of auditing is essential. One does not desire to break ARC with the preclear, but a certain amount of policing is necessary and this is a “certainty” process. It is important that the preclear find the process “real,” otherwise he is not under control and will not be able to do Then and Now Solids, to which all these other processes lead. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MAY 1958

BEINGNESS AGAIN

The best solution to valences is beingness processing.

Help on valences is excellent, even phenomenal and should not be ignored.

Problems of Comparable Magnitude to a selected person cannot be ignored.

But an understanding of valences gives us a new look at processes.

In the first place a valence is a beingness. Bad, crazy or superb, a valence is still a beingness.

A thetan has a basic personality. But if this is too thoroughly invalidated, a thetan assumes some invented valence. And if this is invalidated he then eventually completes the DEI Scale on Beingness.

The things wrong with a thetan are the lower harmonics of the characteristics of a thetan. You could say carelessly that the only thing wrong with a person is himself. Let us say more accurately that the only thing wrong with a person is his abandonment of self and the assumption of other selves. Because there is a self, the assumption of selves is possible.

We find that the APA or OCA is a picture of a self What self is another matter. All selves other than true self are less honest and ethical since the thetan has a poorer opinion of others than he does of himself in the basic state.

To change an APA or OCA it is necessary to shift selves.

It is fascinating that theft of objects is really an effort to steal a self. Objects represent selves to others. Thieves and what they steal cannot be understood by the logic of their material needs. They steal tokens of selves and hope to assume thereby another self. It is sometimes not amusing to me to be missing my lecture notes or a book from my shelf. This is covert theft of beingness. People sometimes get anxious to be me—I know not why. They wind up stealing my things. The theft is irrational. The articles were not later cherished and all were put away or thrown away when the beingness did not materialize. Perhaps it is bad taste to mention this from my personal viewpoint but from where else should I look? And it has all happened to you, too. The senselessness of the items selected probably puzzled you when they were stolen. But they were identified with you. You couldn’t be stolen, so you lost your wife, your husband or your little trinket, “meaningless” perhaps to anyone but you.

A person has to discover he can’t be you before he steals your things without credit. When he discovers he still isn’t you, he damns you to all. He finally cannot be you, so he wastes you. And thus the DEI Scale of beingness is completed.

One answer to this is never be a desirable you. And never get famous. A far better answer is to understand it, for by understanding alone you can prevent it.

Thus, the major tears of the world are based on beingness. Insanity, heartbreak, bitter lives all stem from the same source.

There is also an acceptance level of beingness, based on a viewpoint of an already alloyed beingness. Some people can only have the beingness of the criminal or the insane. Thus there is yet another door to cracking cases, another latchstring to the problem of Man.

There is also the problem of acceptable beingness, probably more important than acceptance level. What Beingness is acceptable to various people in the pc’s life?

There is also such a thing as taking on another’s unwanted beingness to help him or her. Such as taking a psychosomatic.

We have had many beingness processes. Like we did at first with help, we missed a point. The preclear does not know what “help” means. And he does not know what beingness means. He is below cognition level on them. All help or beingness actions he undertakes are reactive, not analytical.

To overcome this, one enters the case of the pc at the Inhibit end of the DEI Scale. He has the pc waste the item in brackets. He asks the pc to waste help, to waste the help of another, to have another waste help for himself and so on.

Thus it is with beingness. Have the pc waste it.

Man tears his idols apart trying to get a bit of desirable beingness. Every thetan wants to heal at sight; so they crucified Christ. And sold pieces of the cross.

A pc who assumes the aches of another wishes to be that other. He is short on beingness. He accepts it obsessively.

Wearing Empress Eugenie’s hats is understandable. What woman wouldn’t be an empress? But wearing the crooked back of the Hunchback of Notre Dame isn’t quite so comprehensible—if you don’t know Scientology.

One follows knowing assumptions of beingness with unknowing assumptions. The thief knows not why he steals. The bishop knows little of why he cherishes the bit of the True Cross.

And none of them know, so invalidated has it become, that each has a basic beingness, complete. And that beingness is important to you. It is the best beingness there is. And it is important to me, how important can only be viewed through these eyes that see the magnitude of the job. Why should anyone steal when he can have the best there is for the asking? And why steal from me and thee for we alone in all Man’s history can give him the priceless gift of himself.

Just as the thief knows not why he steals, so does the archbishop fail to know why he dons a robe.

To abandon life is to waste all beingness. There is the preclear who sits at succumb.

Try it on a pc. You’ll be surprised.

This is one of the OT steps on which I am working for the 20th ACC.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:md.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Issue 73			[1958, ca. early May]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

Assists in Scientology

L. Ron Hubbard

DEFINITION: AN ASSIST: An action undertaken by a minister to assist the spirit to confront physical, difficulties which can then be cared for with medical methodology by a medical doctor as needful.

An assist is not normally done in a formal auditing session. The way the term has been used is a very simple processing activity to relieve an immediate troublesome difficulty.

An assist is much more specifically and definitely anything which is done to alleviate a present-time discomfort. It is differentiated from auditing at large by defining auditing as an activity directed toward the rehabilitation of the entire individual.

The first moments of every formal session are an assist. Before you undertake further auditing you usually perform an assist. If you are a very clever auditor you do it by scouting what has happened between sessions, or if the person has a present time problem, for the handling of a present time problem in an auditing session is really not auditing because it is addressed to a surface difficulty.

You handle the difficulty which is uppermost and foremost in the preclear’s mind. A preclear may say, “Well, my wife and I had a fight last night. She threatened to commit suicide, and now she has a violent headache.”

The wrong way to look at what he is saying is to think that it is her headache that is causing the trouble in the session and that you cannot cure her headache as she isn’t present. The actual trouble in the session is his concern about her headache. So you run Problems of Comparable Magnitude to relieve his mind to a point where he is quite comfortable and you can get on with the auditing. And that is actually what an assist is.

Since you really do not have the preclear under good control, nor well orientated in the environment, you have to answer this technical question: When does an auditing session begin?

The answer to that question is: An auditing session begins when you have a preclear, and when he knows he has an auditing environment and an auditor. There is auditing which is done on a relatively loose basis, which might be out in the street, in the kitchen, or anywhere. An assist could happen almost anywhere. But at the beginning of the session, no matter how formally this session is constituted, you are running an assist.

You have an auditing room. You have a preclear, and you are the auditor. You know all these things, but the preclear doesn’t. As far as he is concerned, there isn’t a formal session taking place. Don’t call it a formal session. Call it an assist. Tell the preclear that it is an assist and that you are not intending anything very strenuous. In rendering an assist you should tell the preclear that “this is just an assist” to try and ease the pain in his hand a little, after which you are going to stop.

The handling of an assist as an auditor is different than the handling of a formal session since the factor of control is notably slackened, sometimes almost completely missing.

One of the factors in assists is that an assist has as a large part of its anatomy, “trying to help.” Just remember that you are only trying to help and don’t get your heart broken by the fact that the fellow’s broken spine doesn’t heal instantly.

Another factor is that an assist is differentiated and defined as addressing the game someone knows he is playing.

What techniques would comprise an assist? Anything that would help. And what are these? One of the easiest ones to render is Locational Processing. You tell the person, “Look at that chair. Look at that ceiling. Look at that floor. Look at that hand” (the auditor pointing to the objects), when he has an injured hand and the pain will diminish. This is a very easy assist.

For example, a person has a bad shoulder. You touch his hand of the same arm and say, “Close your eyes and look at my fingers.’’ Make sure that he keeps his eyes closed. You then touch him on the elbow and say, “Look at my fingers.” Do this anywhere on his body. Just touch him and say, “Look at my fingers.’’ This is a communication process which eases his attention over from a concentration upon the injury to something else which is quite near the injury and thus doesn’t result in too much of a shock. It reduces havingness but it is positive and gets positive results. It can be done by an untrained person.

You can teach this assist to anybody. You say, “If somebody has a bruise, injury, a burn, a cut, the way to handle this is to tell the person to close his eyes, and then you touch the area near and distant from the vicinity of the injured area, asking them, with their eyes closed, to look at your fingers. You contact them this way many times. They will experience sudden pains in the area, and you will discover that the ‘psychic trauma’ has been discharged.”

You will find that people do not have any upset about physical contact. Most people think that this is the thing to do.

Say you wanted to render an assist on somebody who had a very indefinite difficulty. That is the hardest one to render an assist on. The person has a pain but he cannot say where. He doesn’t know what has happened to him. He just feels bad. Use Locational Processing as such. You will find out that this process will work when other processes fail.

An assist carries with it a certain responsibility. If you give an assist casually to somebody out in the public and do not shove a professional calling card in his pocket, you are making an error. The reason for this is that he will not know from whom and where help came. Therefore, an auditor walking around without a pack of cards is doing a foolish thing. An auditor goes through life and he casts his shadow upon many people and they have really no cognizance of what has happened at all if he is rendering an assist. He says, “Do this, do that”—maybe he wins, or maybe he loses because this is the type of session least calculated to procure orderly results. But in the main these people have been helped. They don’t know really by what, except some word that the auditor kept saying. They don’t even know that he is an auditor. They don’t know anything about it at all. Show a person where he can obtain further assistance, and by whom the assistance was given.

Be yourself. Be positive. Be professional and definite. Have a card and make sure the card is easily enough understood. Don’t ask them for permission. Just do it. No reason to wander around and give them funny notions. If you are going to help some stranger out, help him out. Don’t explain to him or any bystander, otherwise you are likely to stand there explaining, waiting for somebody’s permission. Don’t bother with that. You act as though you are the one in charge and you will be in charge. And this is part and parcel of the knowledge of how to do an assist. You have got to be the person in charge. This has to be so good, as far as you are concerned, that you overcome the informality of the session to a very marked degree. If you do it extremely well, the assist will amount to auditing.

Say, for example, there is a big accident and a crowd of people are pressing around. The police are trying to push the people back. Well, push the people back and then push the policeman back. Say, “Officer, keep these people at a distance.” Then you lean over the victim and snap him back to rights. If you are enough THERE, everybody else will realize that you are the ONE that is THERE. Therefore, such things as panic, worry, wonder, upset, looking dreamily into the far distance, wondering what is wrong or what should be done, are no part of your make-up if you are rendering an assist. Cool, calm and collected should be the keynote of your attitude. Realize that to take control of any given situation it is only necessary to be there more than anybody else. There is no necromancy involved. Just BE there. The others aren’t. And if you are there enough, then somebody else will pull himself out of it and go on living.

Understand that an auditor when rendering an assist must make up with presence what he lacks in surroundings and agreements. It all comes under the heading of willingness to be there and willingness to control people.

One of the ways of convincing people of beingness and of being there is to exercise control—positive, undeniable Tone 40 exercise of control. Start to control the situation with high enough ARC, enough presence and factuality—there won’t be anybody present that won’t step back and let you control the situation. You are entitled to it in the first place because of senior “know-how.” The control of body attention or thought comprises the majority of your knowledge. The majority in Scientology simply points in this direction. The observable thing is control of attention, objects and thoughts. When you have good confidence of being able to handle these, and when you positively know how to do these, then you can make sure that everybody else knows you can do this, and you make them realize this by doing it. You have all of these things available in rendering an assist.

You might never think of a riot as being a situation which necessitated an assist, or an assist as applicable to a riot, but a riot is simply a psychosomatic momentary injury or traumatic condition on the third dynamic. Could you settle a riot? Well, if you can settle a riot, you can certainly settle one person who is in a riot. The antithesis of any pain, disturbance or tumult is order. The thing which controls tumult is order; and, conversely, the thing which controls order is tumult. You need only bring order into a confused situation and bring confusion into an orderly situation to control everything in the field of motion, action and objects.

This is a fantastic simplicity and one which takes some grasping. Conceive as order, merely a fixed position, idea and attitude. A policeman knows what he is supposed to do. Maybe he will put on a tourniquet or maybe he won’t. Keep the people away and stop everything is his idea of how it should be. Now you can aid or abet the order he is creating, or cancel the order by creating a confusion which he cannot handle. Of the two, the first is the best in that situation. You aid and abet and cap the order he is creating. If you were to accuse him of having a confused accident scene, which is by now not at all confused, and ask him to straighten it out, you would channel his attention in the direction it is already gone, and so you control his attention.

Remember, those people are still moving a little bit; they are still breathing. There is still a tiny bit of motion going on. If you were to ask him something on the order of “Can’t we have it a little quieter and more orderly here?” he would at once perceive that there was far too much confusion and motion, and he would simply come under your direction because you have simply channeled his attention in the direction it was already going. Therefore, you have taken control.
If you ever want to overset a fixed order, create a confusion. If you want to overset a confusion, create a fixed order. Pick out of the scene those beings in the scene whose attention is channeled in the direction you want attention to go, and you aid and abet that attention which already exists. Or, where you have too many fixed positions and fixed ideas to overcome, you simply take those turbulent individuals in the scene who are creating the confusion against those fixed ideas and channels and you make their confusion much more confused, at the same time yourself imposing another order in another direction.

The mechanics of taking over any confused scene are simply the mechanics of trying to get a preclear to see through the morass of cross-purposes, commands, ideas and environments in which he has lived. And whether that applies to the third dynamic or otherwise, the laws are still there and it tells you then that the imposition of order on a preclear comes foremost in an assist.

In an assist you always count on the fact that the thetan himself would, if he could, do the right thing. If you work on that postulate you will never be wrong. Get the idea that it is something else trying to do the wrong thing. The keynote of a thetan is order.

Where you are giving an assist to one person, you put things in the environment into an orderly state as the first step, unless you are trying to stop a pumping artery— but here you would use First Aid. You should understand that First Aid always precedes an assist. You should look the situation over from the standpoint of how much First Aid is required. Maybe you will find somebody with a temperature of 106 degrees. It may very well be that he needs to lie down and be covered up, and though antibiotics are much overrated, he might be better off with a shot of one of these than with an assist at that time.

Auditing will not shut off a pumping artery, but a tourniquet will. If you are going into the zone of accidents, you are going to be in the vicinity of a great deal of destruction and chaos, and you are very foolish not to have your Red Cross First Aid Certificate. You may often have to find some method of controlling, handling and directing personnel who get in your way before you can render an assist. You might just as well realize that an assist requires that you control the entire environment and personnel associated with the assist if necessary.

An assist is auditing on several dynamics. It is, therefore, much harder to do than auditing in a formal room as it requires presence. You must bring yourself to face the fact that you have to give enough presence and enough control to enough dynamics to bring the environment into a compliance with your postulate. If you postulate that somebody is going to pick up his bed and walk, then you have to be willing to move and be capable of moving around the people who are going to watch him pick up his bed and walk.

A good example of an assist would be when somebody is washing dishes in the kitchen. There is a horrendous crash and the person comes down all over the sink, hits the floor and as she is going down, she grabs the butcher knife as it falls. You go in and say, “Well, let me fix that up.” One of the first things you would have to do is to wind some bandage around the hand to stop the bleeding. Part of the First Aid would be to pick up the dishes and put them back on the sink, sweep the pieces together into a more orderly semblance. This is the first symptom of control. She becomes introverted into the cut to the point that she wouldn’t particularly notice what you were doing. But you relieve the anxiety that all her blood is pouring out; your first attention to the case is attention to the environment.

Next you would make her sit down. To remove her from the scene of the accident is not as desirable as auditing her there. That is directly contrary, perhaps, to what you believe, but it is true. That is why you bring a little order into the environment. You position her and then you are ready for techniques. It is quite remarkable for you have manifested order in a much wider sphere than a cut hand in order to bring about a healing of the cut hand. If you understand that your responsibility always extends much wider than the immediate zone of commotion, you never miss. If you bring order to the wider environment you also bring it to the narrower environment. If you bring it into the narrow environment, you also bring it to the wider environment. It is a gradient scale of how much order you can bring.

In processing, you have to control or direct attention, objects, person, or thoughts of the injured person. If you are really good on the subject of assists, you will direct an additional thing: his knowingness. You can control a man’s knowingness rather easily, but it is hard to see it. About the first thing that you can observe about somebody is his person. You are trying to straighten it out. Don’t think that, even though you have this person sitting down, you have straightened it out, because it is still messed up. But there is something that you can straighten out easily—and that is his attention. If you could heighten his attention and his knowingness at the same time, you would really be in wonderful circumstances. You always shift and direct his attention, hence Locational Processing. If he was a Scientologist, with his case in pretty good shape, you could run Trio with considerable success by directing his attention. But you wouldn’t run Trio with the command “Look around the room and find something you could have, “ You should say, “ You look at that chair.” “Now decide you can have it. “ That is a very low order of the Terrible Trio.

You could run the injury out in this fashion: “Look at that chair. “ “Decide the injury cannot have it.” This is directed attention, positively controlled. There is no permissiveness connected with this in any way whatsoever.

Because he is injured you are not going to move his person around. You have got his attention. Don’t try to shift his thoughts around at first because they are dispersed and chaotic. This leaves you his attention only.

The above assist is quite satisfactory, but a later development in the line of assists which included the significance of “Keep it from going away, “ is much more powerful. In one case a bruise, turned utterly black, and covering this person’s entire hip, passed away in 45 minutes of good auditing by “Keeping the right hip from going away, “ and then “Keeping the left hip from going away. “

If you run the right eye, you run the left eye as well. If you run one thing, you run another. If you run his head, run his knees as well. The master of all these is the direction of attention. “Keep it from going away” is tremendously workable.

You don’t run “Keep it from going away” first, because you are partially controlling his thoughts and this is not possible in the early stages of an assist. If someone is in terrible condition and he is really writhing around, and you want to render an assist, you don’t wait until he stops writhing. He is liable to stop writhing dead. What you do with him is to direct his attention. You tell him, “Shut your eyes and look at my fingers. “ You press your fingers hard enough so that he can’t help but put his attention on them.

If you want it to come out with no bruise, then you would get him to a point where you can control his thoughts, which are chaotic enough. Have him “keep the left ankle from going away, the right ankle from going away,” etc. If the process doesn’t seem to be flattening, direct his attention somewhere else because he is not keeping it from going away. In this wise you can always have a successful assist, because assists all come under the heading of control. The beingness of the person and his presence makes the control possible. So part of control is always presence, identity, person, the one who takes charge and has things under control. When you are able to control his attention, his body and thoughts, then he will be in session and you are no longer doing an assist.

Assists dominantly require that you direct the attention of the preclear and dispose his person one way or the other and eventually take over control of his thoughts on the subject. But by the time you have all these three in line, you are no longer doing an assist.

So what you really do is do an assist up to the time the person can handle the incident or pain, put him in a more favorable environment and give him auditing. So the assist is what you do on the street, and auditing is what you do in the auditing room when he comes to you after your assist has been successful.

AN ASSIST IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL ATTENTION AND DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO CURE INJURIES REQUIRING MEDICAL AID. FIRST, CALL THE DOCTOR. THEN ASSIST THE PERSON AS YOU CAN.

								L RON HUBBARD 

P.A.B. No. 136
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 May 1958

PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED

Compiled from the Research Writings and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard

THEN AND NOW SOLIDS:

CCHs 0 to 13 are steps in exercising the preclear’s ability to be able to do CCH 14 which is Then and Now Solids. They are a gradient scale of exercises to eliminate all his wrong conceptions and to clear out of the way those considerations which aberrated him into having that unknown, hidden and compulsive game of which he was at the mercy.

The preclear must be in control of his body and environment. He must be able to keep things from going away (especially mock-ups and facsimiles), hold them still and, most important of all, make them a little more solid. We say “more solid” for it invalidates the present solidity of whatever the preclear mocked up or touched if we say “make it solid.”

The process is run in the following manner with these commands: “Get a picture—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” “Look at that (auditor indicates object)—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.”

“The commands are given with a tiny pause between the first and second phrase, as it will be found that the glance of the preclear at the object tends to give him the impression that he has already made it a little more solid before the auditor gives the command if this auditing command is broken into two commands.”  (“The Student Manual” by L. Ron Hubbard.)

The command says get a “picture” and the auditor must explain to the preclear, if he doesn’t already know, the difference between facsimiles, dub-ins and mock-ups. We must make sure that he gets a picture (facsimile).

This process combines subjectivity and objectivity (introversion and extroversion) in the preclear’s universe and the MEST universe. It handles time. He will have to go into the past in order to get the picture and then come up into the present by making a specific indicated object a little more solid. Its whole goal is to straighten out the preclear’s time track, to clear up his reactive bank and disclose his Service Facsimile and Life Computation (and even whole track computations which make him act in a certain manner life after life). It will enable the preclear to handle time and get rid of all the unwanted facsimiles, for by viewing them and making these a little more solid he will get the restimulative facsimiles under his control. He will then be able to handle in its totality the whole reactive mind.

To impress its importance, here is a direct quotation from “The Student Manual”: “HISTORY: Developed from Over and Under Solids, which was developed by L. Ron Hubbard in late 1955 and improved by him in 1956. The process more or less completes the work begun on the reactive mind in 1947. It will be noted that many earlier processes and effects are woven into Then and Now Solids. “

The auditor running this process must be capable of handling any emotional situation, however startling and unexpected it might be, with great smoothness and ease. Facsimiles will stand out unexpectedly; the preclear will get sudden somatics and past life enemies will be there in front of his body in metrocolor and three dimensions. He will run up and down that tone scale, dramatize anger or pain to such a degree that the auditor who has not been run on High School Indoc or Hi Hi Indoc might get the scare of his life and take off, leaving the preclear in a spin.

Then and Now Solids demonstrates in its application all that is written in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and A History of Man. It takes into account the basic theory and elements of both Scientology and Dianetics, and only the expert can handle this process well.

Nowhere along the line is the auditor allowed to move from the commands of the process, since it is Tone 40. It does not mean that the auditor must not communicate with the preclear. Indeed, it is most necessary at times, but he must keep the original intention of the process in mind at all times and gently but firmly steer the preclear back on to the route he is leading. The process MUST be run EXACTLY as given.

It is not advised that any book auditor or beginner use this process, for the session will most certainly go out of control if Tone 40 and the TRAININGS (see “The Student Manual”)* are not clearly understood and applied.

This process acts quickly if it is real to the preclear. If these facsimiles do not sometimes stand out with alarming clarity he is not running the process. It should not be run for hours and hours without a break. One can always run it to a flat point and then return to the beginning of Procedure CCH and flatten each command, which by now will take a comparatively short period.

It is not necessary for the preclear to tell the auditor each time what the facsimile was that he found, but it is advisable that the auditor check now and again to see that the preclear is doing it properly. It should be run non-specifically.

The auditor will notice that the preclear will go further and further into the past and then come up nearer and nearer to present time and eventually, after many of the cycles are completed, come wholly into present time.

There are a few developments from Then and Now Solids which can be used on valences, for example. If the preclear has trouble with mother, have him “Get a picture of mother—and make it a little more solid.” Then have him “Notice (an indicated object or wall)—and make it a little more solid.” (It must remain THEN and NOW solids alternately throughout the whole session.)

Should the auditor suspect that the preclear is stuck in a past life or has recurring facsimiles of past lives during processing, have him get the pictures, make them a little more solid and then make something in present time a little more solid. It will blow. The same procedure applies for any troubles the preclear has regarding men, women, children or other parts of the dynamics.

LRH told an HGC auditor to clear the valences with Then and Now Solids, then the preclear’s own body, and after that to return to general non-specific Then and Now.

CCH 14 is the fastest and most effective process in Scientology if the earlier steps are well accomplished, but it stirs up so much motion and emotion that the auditor better be fully trained before he attempts to run it on an innocent preclear.
PROCEDURE CCH (LONG FORM)

The CCH numbers in the preceding PABs and on this chart do not necessarily coincide with that of “The Student Manual” by L. Ron Hubbard, but is a procedure which LRH gave HGC staff auditors. The numbers by which they are known will be published in “The Student Manual” or may be obtained from the central organizations.

		CCH 	0a. Rudiments.
			0b. Goals.
			0c. Present Time Problems.
			0d. Help.

	CONTROL OF	 	1. “Give me that hand”
	PERSON (Body)	   	     (right, left and both hands).

			1a. “Don’t give me that hand” 
			      (right, left and both hands).

			2. Tone 40 8-C.

			3. Book Mimicry.

			4. Hand Space Mimicry.

	CONTROL OF MIND 		5. Tone 40 Locational Processing.
         	         (Attention)
			6. Opening Procedure by Duplication 			     	    1957.

	CONTROL OF		7. Tone 40 8-C—”Keep it from
	THINKINGNESS	   	     going away.”

			8. Tone 40 8-C—”Hold it still.”

			9. Tone 40 8-C—”Make it a little 			     	     more solid.”

	CONTROL OF		10. S-C-S on an object. (Covered
	PERSON	   	      in previous PABs.)

			11. S-C-S on a person. (Ditto.)

	CONTROL OF		12. Control Trio.
	MIND	
			13. Trio

	CONTROL OF		14. Limited Subjective Havingness.
	THINKINGNESS
			15. THEN and NOW Solids.
		   	       Creative Processing (as in
		   	      Scientology 8-8008).
		   	       Route One (as in The Creation
		   	      of Human Ability).

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MAY 1958

ENEMIES OF THE PC

List the enemies of the pc. Then run help on them.

Entrance, run things pc doesn’t have to do to them.

A PT Prob doesn’t free on help is under-pinned by a similar earlier problem.

                                        					LRH

LRH :bt.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1
(Issued at Washington)

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MAY 1958
All Staff
Field Offices

A COMMENT ON BEINGNESS PROCESSING

I recently received the following from an HGC auditor:

“Dear Ron,

“I am writing to congratulate you on the development of the Beingness processes outlined in HCO Bulletin of May 2, AD 8. ***

“These are wonderful processes and I thank you for them.

“Not as a report, but purely as clinical data I want you to know what happened in seven and a half hours of using them.

“Nine major valences came off the case, including the weak one and the strong one. All the important ones stripped off clean. Plus the fact that the service facsimile keyed out. This person is not a clear, yet, but is a brand new person.”

*** HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MAY 1958

Beingness Again

The best solution to valences is beingness processing.

Help on valences is excellent, even phenomenal and should not be ignored.

Problems of Comparable Magnitude to a selected person cannot be ignored.

But an understanding of valences gives us a new look at processes.

In the first place a valence is a beingness. Bad, crazy or superb, a valence is still a beingness.

A thetan has a basic personality. But if this is too thoroughly invalidated, a thetan assumes some invented valence. And if this is invalidated he then eventually completes the DEI Scale on Beingness.

The things wrong with a thetan are the lower harmonics of the characteristics of a thetan. You could say carelessly that the only thing wrong with a person is himself. Let us say more accurately that the only thing wrong with a person is his abandonment of self and the assumption of other selves. Because there is a self, the assumption of selves is possible.

We find that the APA or OCA is a picture of a self What self is another matter. All selves other than true self are less honest and ethical since the thetan has a poorer opinion of others than he does of himself in the basic state.

To change an APA or OCA it is necessary to shift selves.

It is fascinating that theft of objects  is really an effort to steal a self. Objects represent selves to others. Thieves and what they steal cannot be understood by the logic of their material needs. They steal tokens of selves and hope to assume thereby another self. It is sometimes not amusing to me to be missing my lecture notes or a book from my shelf. This is covert theft of beingness. People sometimes get anxious to be me—I know not why. They wind up stealing my things. The theft is irrational. The articles were not later cherished and all were put away or thrown away when the beingness did not materialize. Perhaps it is bad taste to mention this from my personal viewpoint but from where else should I look? And it has all happened to you, too. The senselessness of the items selected probably puzzled you when they were stolen. But they were identified with you. You couldn’t be stolen, so you lost your wife, your husband or your little trinket, “meaningless” perhaps to anyone but you.

A person has to discover he can’t be you before he steals your things without credit. When he discovers he still isn’t you, he damns you to all. He finally cannot be you, so he wastes you. And thus the DEI Scale of beingness is completed.

One answer to this is never be a desirable you. And never get famous. A far better answer is to understand it, for by understanding alone you can prevent it.

Thus, the major tears of the world are based on beingness. Insanity, heartbreak, bitter lives all stem from the same source.

There is also an acceptance level of beingness, based on a viewpoint of an already alloyed beingness. Some people can only have the beingness of the criminal or the insane. Thus there is yet another door to cracking cases, another latchstring to the problem of Man.

There is also the problem of acceptable beingness, probably more important than acceptance level. What Beingness is acceptable to various people in the pc’s life?

There is also such a thing as taking on another’s unwanted beingness to help him or her. Such as taking a psychosomatic.

We have had many beingness processes. Like we did at first with help, we missed a point. The preclear does not know what “help” means. And he does not know what beingness means. He is below cognition level on them. All help or beingness actions he undertakes are reactive, not analytical.

To overcome this, one enters the case of the pc at the Inhibit end of the DEI Scale. He has the pc waste the item in brackets. He asks the pc to waste help, to waste the help of another, to have another waste help for himself and so on.

Thus it is with beingness. Have the pc waste it.

Man tears his idols apart trying to get a bit of desirable beingness. Every thetan wants to heal at sight; so they crucified Christ. And sold pieces of the cross.

A pc who assumes the aches of another wishes to be that other. He is short on beingness. He accepts it obsessively.

Wearing Empress Eugenie’s hats is understandable. What woman wouldn’t be an empress? But wearing the crooked back of the Hunchback of Notre Dame isn’t quite so comprehensible—if you don’t know Scientology.

One follows knowing assumptions of beingness with unknowing assumptions. The thief knows not why he steals. The bishop knows little of why he cherishes the bit of the True Cross.

And none of them know, so invalidated has it become, that each has a basic beingness, complete. And that beingness is important to you. It is the best beingness there is. And it is important to me, how important can only be viewed through these eyes that see the magnitude of the job. Why should anyone steal when he can have the best there is for the asking? And why steal from me and thee for we alone in all Man’s history can give him the priceless gift of himself.

Just as the thief knows not why he steals, so does the archbishop fail to know why he dons a robe.

To abandon life is to waste all beingness. There is the preclear who sits at succumb.

Try it on a pc. You’ll be surprised.

This is one of the OT steps on which I am working for the 20th ACC.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:rs.ms rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MAY 1958

SPECIAL BULLETIN

STANDARD CLEAR PROCEDURE
AND
AN EXPERIMENTAL ROAD:
CLEARING BY VALENCES

There have been many roads to clear.

The first was the most simple in description but the most difficult to audit. I never succeeded in teaching it to anyone. All one did was renew the pc’s confidence in being able to face sonic, visio, tactile, etc, in the bank by gradient scale and at long last he would be able to confront a bank wholly. When that happened he didn’t have a reactive bank. He was clear. It required a very gentle touch. That was the way I made all the early clears in 1947 to 1949. Then I had to explain it all to the “scientists” and the fact of clear was lost in the mire of the roadway for some years. I’ve been accused of wanting it that way to tell the sheep from the goats. The point remains that this route was the first successful route. We did not know how much there was to a bank or its anatomy. We had to know the worst before the sun came up again. It came up in December of 1957 with my development of “help” and Step 6. Suddenly we were making clears. Making them out of both high and low profile cases, out of occluded cases and wide open cases.

Clearing is now an accomplished fact for any well-trained validated auditor using a central organization E-Meter.

The further in miles from the central organization the attempt to clear is tried, the more difficulty is being experienced. First the word goes out that clearing is being done, then the how-to-do-it. By the time it gets to Alaska or the Bronx or some distant place, the auditor is uncertain as to the right way and even the fact of clearing. He tries it (or thinks he does) (his version anyway) and laying an egg or two, gives up or thinks it isn’t real.

For such an auditor an HAA clearing course is indicated. (1) He’ll learn right and (2) he’ll see some clears around and begin to understand what one is. And he’ll know there is at least one valid road to clear that he can take and do.

Therefore we do not really need right now more roads to clear and certainly we need no roads to OT while the path to clear is still a thin blazed trail. Good Heavens, what’s happened is wonderful enough—and nobody far away has any reality on that yet. However I am still on the job looking for (1) Alternate clear roads and (2) Roads to OT.

Standard Clearing Procedure, the procedure that is making clears in skilled hands, is a very set SCP indeed. It alone has made all clears to date by persons other than myself.

SCP is aided here and there by other techniques used to cross a block or two faster. But all older techniques only assist the steps of SCP (and sometimes impede SCP). Of course there are some people who would rather walk in the swamp alongside the causeway just built—that’s up to them. If they know there’s a causeway and still walk in a swamp it’s power of choice. If they haven’t seen the big causeway beside them and walk in the swamp, that’s stupidity.

Standard Clearing Procedure works as follows:

Requisite for auditor—Validated certificate.

Tools: A quiet room and clearing E-Meter from D.C. or London (not some tin quivering together on the hopes of some tinker nor yet an old Model T E-Meter made in California).

Publications: Clear Procedure available from the HCO. 

First Action: Start session CCH 0.

Second Action: Search out by meter a p.t. problem and run it by finding “What part of it pc can be responsible for” as a repetitive command, formal auditing.

Third Action: CCH 0 b. Clear help in brackets with a meter, running meter toward a freer needle. Don’t over-run a leg of the bracket and get the pc stuck or anaten.

Fourth Action: Run Step 6 of the book Clear Procedure and run it flat.

Fifth Action: Reclear help.

Sixth Action: Step 6 until flat, flat, flat and needle free.

That’s SCP. It is assisted by SCS and Connectedness on some pcs.

SCP is an accomplished fact only if the auditor has good training and validation. He doesn’t have to be clear. But he has to be accurate. The HAA-BScn course teaches Validation and Clearing. HCA-HPA teach the basics of Scientology—you have to know those first.

Thus an experimental road to Clear is today a luxury. But you know me—I’m always cutting corners.

So here is an alternate, still in theoretical stage, which promises to be the 3rd successful road. However it requires even greater auditing skill and understanding than SCP but may be faster for lower cases.

It is called “Clearing By Valences”.

Its theory is simple. One can assume that a thetan has all the attributes of clear in his basic personality (see Book I, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health for a discussion of Basic Personality). The action of clearing gives a person back to himself. Therefore the bulldozing of rubble from the basic personality would give us a clear.

I have known for some time that an APA or OCA profile was a picture of a valence or of valences—artificial overlays. I have also known that there is a basic personality. When you clear someone you don’t get a ghost or a god—you get a distinct personality. Men are not equal even if the highest courts in the U.S. so insist. And neither are clears. It is Commie-psychiatric thinking that each is equal to the next like grains of mush. You can generalize by saying clears are good and able. But some are gooder than others and some are distinctly differently able. So people are different.

But valences (borrowed, artificial personalities) overlay the real self and weaken it. Valences are the sum of overwhelmings of the pc. Whenever he lost he got one.

His basic personality was invalidated so he sought new ones. These were invalidated so he sought even newer ones. Like standing between two mirrors facing each other we achieve the multiple pc. But where is the clear? We find him when we scoop away the thousands of others he is being.

The first straight wire run at Elizabeth, N.J., in 1950 succeeded when it knocked off a sick valence. Well we can knock them off wholesale today—with skilled auditing.

The clue is the Curiosity-Desire-Enforce-Inhibit Scale run on valences.

That which the pc erases with difficulty is misowned by him. Therefore it is a valence. In the presence of valences he cannot change his mind easily when he misowns the consideration. Therefore all fixed, harmful ideas or aberrations stem from valences.

The process on this would be “Tell me how you could waste a (male) (female) (other) valence.” This would have to be cleared as a command thoroughly and often. That’s the skill.

An auditor can ask a pc about an aberration and spot a valence possibility. And then run it by waste, etc.

People usually have to waste before they can have. A person who can have a valence isn’t subject to it.

This type of command is rounded off with “What part of that valence could you be responsible for?”

The general rules of auditing must be observed. The basics of Scientology must be understood. And great skill and understanding are required of the auditor.

“Tell me how you could waste father’s valence” “. . . a fat valence” “. . . a defeated valence” etc. The list is enormous.

Well there it is in the rough. When it’s made some clears it will be an alternate probably and have a highly polished form like SCP. Right now it is used as an assist to SCP on a difficult case as per the next HCO B.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :-jh 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MAY 1958

SPECIAL BULLETIN No. 2

AN EXAMPLE OF CLEARING BY VALENCES

An Experimental Process
Experimental Case C by V No. 2.

Auditor: 	LRH 	Pc—Experimental Case. Nervous, restless, heavy somatics.

I started session by attempting to clear a p.t. problem. First he had to clear the command. The pc, very restless, defined a problem as “Something that can’t be solved.” “You can keep trying but of course you can’t solve it.”

I tried in vain to get pc to as-is that computation. It would not change.

I was faced by this: One cannot audit successfully up against a p.t. problem. If one tries to do so without clearing the problem the whole case hangs fire. Every unchanged profile or case after auditing is unchanged because the auditor left a present time problem partly or wholly unflat and in restimulation. A pc whose definition of a problem is “something that can’t be solved” and who yet has a p.t. problem could not be audited successfully unless the computation altered.

Trying “What is a problem?” as a repetitive question for half an hour only made the pc nervous, restless and tearful. Obviously the consideration would not change. Therefore, obviously, the consideration was mis-owned. It was a valence, another person the pc was being with complete tenacity and total error. Process abandoned. Decided to strip the valence off.

A discussion of what was a valence finally bore fruit. Pc understood term as meaning a mental package of ideas and considerations really belonging to another person and unknowingly borrowed by pc.

Started in to run a process to at once give greater reality on valences and to hit at the computation.

If pc would fight help so hard then the valence had four considerations that were known to me. (1) It couldn’t be assisted; (2) It considered a problem as “something that could not be solved”; (3) It was steeped in defeatism; and (4) The pc thought of the valence as self.

Just to ease into valences I ran a process as follows “Can you get an idea of somebody that cannot be helped?” Pc could. “Describe the person.” Pc did, thus getting a detached idea of a personality in the mind. “Now what would you say that person’s definition of a problem would be?”

The first dozen people so imagined all had definitions of problems identical with pc’s own. But then there began to be a change in the definition.

Possibly this process would have gotten further but pc was looking brighter and a flat place was reached and I was really trying to clear by valences.

Therefore I bridged, started in on valences directly. I called the valence in which pc was stuck “that valence” (pc thought of it as self). I used the repetitive command “Tell me how you could waste that valence”. Now and then I asked where it was. Pc didn’t know sometimes, sometimes did. (At first it was just back of pc’s eyes and was pc’s thinkingness.)

Terrible somatics cut in after fifteen minutes, all chronic with pc.

I went right on with process for some time (over one hour) when pc suddenly began to cognite on problems. The somatics had ceased entirely fifteen minutes before.

As a process can be left when (a) an ability is regained, or (b) three responses are given with equal comm lag or (c) pc truly cognites in line with process, I could then leave it and bridge.

I bridged over to “What part of that valence could you be responsible for?” for twelve minutes to round process off and keep pc from making “that valence” an enemy if any bit of it remained and to check out somatics. Pc felt very dazed for a moment or two (typical of a separating somatic) but came out of it very bright. Process flat.

Bridged into earlier commands for a few commands each to flatten them and bridged out to begin clearing of session.

Pc could not now consider any of the five initial problems listed as problems now . . . they all seemed simple and routine parts of life.

Ended session.

Time of auditing 2 1/2 hours approximately including one short break.

Goal of session was to clear up problems on the subject of problems. Goal was attained.

Added bonuses—Loss of main thinkingness circuit, loss of chronic somatic and service facsimile, increase of potential, new zest to continue on to clear.

Pc heretofore desiring little auditing, hard to control in session, reactive toward help offered by others. All changed.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:bt.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 137
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 June 1958

SOME MORE CCH PROCESSES

Compiled from L. Ron Hubbard’s Research Writings and Taped Lectures to the
18th American Advanced Clinical Course

CONTROL TRIO:

After one has run CCH 0 to 5 and has brought the preclear’s body and attention under control, there are various ways of handling the case from there on. Here is a series of processes which undercuts Trio and is called “Control Trio.”

The commands for Control Trio are:

1. 	“Notice that (auditor indicates object) and get me idea of having it.”

2. 	“Notice mat (auditor indicates object) and get the idea of permitting it to continue.”

3. 	“Notice that (auditor indicates object) and get me idea of making it disappear.”

The processes should be run in that order and each one must be run flat before the next one is attempted. It is very necessary to clear the command before embarking upon the process. Preclears simply understand that “having” means that they must possess something, carry it with them wherever they go—without just leaving the mountain, chair or whatever it is, in its own space-time continuum. He gets it confused with ownership and so forth.

In Fundamentals of Thought there is an excellent definition of havingness: “The essential definition of having is to be able to touch or permeate or to direct the disposition of:”

During the running of the first command the preclear will come up with cognitions regarding the necessity of having or not having things, its goodness or badness, and will in general run out his earlier training regarding this point. It will change his conceptions which earlier religions may have implanted, such as it is “bad to have,” and run out the compulsions of “must, must not, got to, can’t have,” etc.

Find out what the preclear is doing and how he is doing this, for he should get havingness from this process and his tone should rise considerably. A change should take place within a very short period, otherwise (a) his body and attention are not under control or (b) he doesn’t understand the command and is running a different process than that which you intended.

There should be no qualifications or conditions such as “If I had the money I could buy that object and then have it,” or “I don’t like it and thus don’t want it,” or “What shall I do with it once I have got it?” It is just the ability to have without other considerations of goodness, badness, ownership or beauty going with it, and the auditor and preclear should clear such conceptions through good but non-evaluating two-way communication.

The second part of this trio brings the preclear’s sense of active participation of creativity and responsibility out, for he must grant that particular object sufficient life and beingness to allow it to “continue within its own space and time.” Preclears come up with the considerations that they have either tried to not-is objects and/or people or “withheld” something from them or tried to push them out of their environments because they didn’t like them or agree with them. This is an interesting process to put their ideas about what they should have around them back into proper perspective. They will find that there is no harm in permitting the sixth dynamic to continue in present time right where it is.

The third part of the trio is the most effective and more will be said about it in a following PAB. It is a very good exteriorizing process and the preclear will come up with many cognitions on his own and the rest of the dynamics. Here the idea is just to “get the idea of making the object disappear” instead of to dispense with it or not-know or not-is it.

This cycle can be run over and over again until it is flat, within a few minutes after the command has again given the preclear some gains.

After this, Trio (old-time Terrible Trio) can then be run with great advantage on a case who couldn’t do it before. Control Trio, which undercuts Trio, will bring out its reality level.

GOALS:

With every preclear it is most necessary to establish goals that are REAL for the PRECLEAR. You want him to have some goals which are HIS and not what grandma, father or schoolteacher desires for him. Preclears who have no real goals are working on other people’s determinism and we have to (a) establish the certainty of a future for the preclear, and (b) get him to put things in that future that he WANTS, so that he can have a future.

There is a gradient scale of processes which will establish goals which are REAL to the preclear by casual two-way communication, using the following questions:

1. 	“What are you absolutely sure will happen in the next two minutes?” one hour, three days, one week, three months, one year, etc.

Complete certainty on each time span is necessary before the auditor continues to the next time span. This is done by two-way communication, and the auditor must all the time be sure that the preclear is certain that these things are going to happen in the next two minutes (or whatever the time span is) to ensure that the process really bites.

2. 	“Tell me something that you would like to do in the next two minutes,” one hour, etc., is the next process that would put doingness and more time into that future.

On some preclears the following questions may be realer and bite faster. This is putting the accent on have instead of do, since we work from the bottom up on the Be, Do, Have triangle. They are:

3. 	“Tell me something you are sure will be there in two minutes, etc.,” and

4. 	“Tell me something you would like to have in two minutes, etc.”

The last two processes really undercut the above and are thus lower level processes and it is advisable to run them on preclears whose ability to communicate and reality level are low.

Watch out for the preclear attaching all sorts of conditions to his answers. Also work towards positive goals of “things” and not conditions such as “I want to get rid of my fears and somatics.” The latter type of preclear is working towards nothing rather than towards something. (A more positive goal of something would be “I want a stick of candy or a glass of water.”) Check for certainty at all times, for certainty strengthens reality and the reality of a future for the preclear is most essential if auditing is to succeed all the way.

LOSSES:

Why doesn’t a preclear exteriorize easily and stay exteriorized? And “Why does he get sick when one asks him to conceive a static?” is the accompanying question. The answer to this is “Losses.” The preclear associates a static with loss, and he says, “All right, if there is nothing there I’ve lost it.”

Conceiving a static is therefore painful, and whenever he lost anything something disappeared. An individual cannot conceive a static if he associates static with a loss-if it is painful. So we have to cure him of the painfulness of loss, consideration of, before we can exteriorize him easily.

We do this by going back to automaticity. The universe has been taking things away from the preclear. It has become an automaticity known as “time.” Time itself is a consecutive series of losses. So we have to cure this preclear of losses before we can get him to appreciate time, otherwise he would be so afraid of losing it that he’d park himself on the track, and this is the “stuck on the track” phenomenon.

This is done with the process “Recall a moment of loss,” sandwiched with havingness (Control Trio, Trio or Locational Processing). This gets the preclear to take over the automaticity of all of the losses which he has experienced unwillingly.

When an individual has no visio, has never seen anything, couldn’t see anything, the only thing that he is looking at is a “stuck” loss.

Recall a Moment of Loss and Goals are a lower harmonic of running Then and Now Solids and are at the moment making a bid for our chief exteriorization processes. Recall a Moment of Loss should be run with two-way communication, but not too much outflow of the preclear. Communication must at all times remain two-way. Ask the preclear “when” this happened now and again, unless, of course, he told you when he recalled the loss.

Control Trio, Goals and Recall a Moment of Loss are a combination of processes and should be run as a combination to secure the best gain for the preclear. 

A Scientologist is one who controls persons, environments and situations.

Scientology means knowing in the fullest sense of the word.

Scientology is used on Life and its forms and products.

A Scientologist operates within the boundaries of the Auditor’s Code and the Code of a Scientologist.

The chief uses of Scientology are in the fields of education, organization, mental disability and religion. Scientology is the first to give scientific meaning to these.

A Scientologist is considered a professional if he uses Scientology in any of these fields and has been thoroughly trained in Scientology.

A Scientologist is a first cousin of the Buddhist, a distant relative to the Taoist, a feudal enemy to the enslaving priest and a bitter foe of the German, Viennese and Russian defamers of Man.

The religion of the Scientologist is freedom for all things spiritual on all dynamics which means adequate discipline and knowledge to keep that freedom guaranteed.

We are the people who are ending the cycle of homo sapiens and starting the cycle of a good earth.

There is no barrier on our path except those we make ourselves.

Our ability belongs to all worlds everywhere.

Issue 76			[1958, ca. early June]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

“Offbeat” Processing

L. Ron Hubbard

Experimental auditing has its place. Indeed, we got where we are because of experimental processes. Every process was once experimental.

BUT when you want results you had better use standard techniques and procedures. After all, I have sweated through their testing for years and we now KNOW what will ease or clear a preclear.

Most clearing “failures” are caused by use of non-standard techniques and procedures. Also, such failures can be caused by ignorance. An auditor thinks he is using standard material. He isn’t sufficiently trained to know.

Such an auditor who has had failure, should take a leaf from New Zealand. Frank Turnbull wasn’t getting the results he wanted way “down under.” So he grabbed a plane and came halfway around the world for a two-day briefing. Frank was right. They weren’t using techniques properly—and their old-style E-Meters weren’t even working and they didn’t know it.

Now if a smart, clever auditor like Turnbull can doubt his command of the subject, I am sure other auditors would experience no disgrace in following through and getting squared around. For clearing is easy if you know how.

Such stories as an auditor who “clears his pcs each week” are more tragic than funny. And rather costly to luckless pcs.

Some auditors don’t understand “What is a Clear” and get confused with their own cases—but that doesn’t mean a Clear doesn’t have a precise definition, an exact and distinct beingness—and very worthwhile, as any clear can assure you.

Perhaps the saddest case of experimental auditing to come to my attention was the case of a young man whose wife was depressed. She was making such difficulty in the family that he could not work. He had had training as an auditor but felt he could not help her. He had no money for auditing from a professional.

I reviewed the case and asked him why he did not at least try to help her, and recommended he use standard auditing and procedures. This he did with adequate results and his efforts succeeded very well so that he was able to resume his work, his wife sharing his responsibilities.

And then it seemed to him that he might go a bit further faster. That is the usual stumbling block—anxiety to do it all at once.

But preclears cannot do it all at once and the thoroughly experimental approach he used, born out of his own basic lack of reality, was not successful. He “audited” his wife downward into a condition almost as low as she had been in before, thus canceling over two-thirds of his gain.

Now none denies his right to undo what he had done to help her, but his intention was to help her swiftly and spectacularly. Had he read his PABs he would have found as of three years ago a mention of his “discovery” as an unworkable approach, in defiance of the principles which make Scientology function.

Once more he had to quit his job and his wife has lost confidence in his willingness to assist her.

Fortunately, another auditor has now volunteered to assist—and he will use standard, proven, tested techniques and procedures.

You see, there is a thing called Scientology. It has axioms. It has principles. It has the goal of empowering a thetan to overcome his own problems. This standard Scientology we don’t change every day. The uninformed, not knowing that a standard exists see in each new release a new subject. So they say, “Why don’t I experiment on my pcs?” And they experiment with the standard background, not with a further reach of old, tried, principles.

Without a guiding central organization Scientology would fall into an anarchy of opinions in a week for there are too many who can go through the motions of auditing who do not know their basics. They think a new thing, Scientology, is an experimental thing. It is not. The basics are inflexible and have been for years.

We know now just exactly what clears people. And we know exactly what a clear is. And we know exactly how to train and process. These are hard won riches. Don’t waste them and your time, too.

This is the way out! Are some people so fond of the trap they avoid the flaming beacons which show the entrance? Or are they afraid to set Man free?

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 JUNE 1958

RUNNING VALENCES

1. 	Never leave one half flat. Stupidity is then in restimulation.

2. 	Always run a specific valence.

3. 	Past track valences are preferable to run over present life valences.

4. 	Thetan valences are preferable over body valences.

5. 	“Invent a (valence)” is a milder form, less effective but often more real to PC than “Waste a (valence).” Commands for Invented valences: “Invent a (specific valence).” “Think of a problem that valence could have.” “Thank you.”

Commands for Wasting Valence: “Tell me (Think of) a way to waste a (specific valence).”

“Does that really waste it?” (occasional use) “Thank you.”

Types of valences that can be run: Formula—Invent and/or Waste valences on eight dynamics from 8 to 1.

Goals for Clearing by Valences: Uncover basic personality. BP is, of course capable of all attributes of clear. OT is an educated BP.

Wind up all valences you have run with “What part of that could you be responsible for?” which puts him back at cause (since he elected as cause any valence you ran).

Clearing by Valences is probably the 3rd step (with Help and Step 6) of Clearing. C by V doesn’t neglect or supplant Help or Step 6.

Always pick bad or contra-survival valences. Never run pro-survival. Differentiation is on this basic:

A contra-survival valence physically injured pc. 
A pro-survival valence never did.

Pcs pick out for their randomity stuck flows on help.

E-Meters don’t register well on valences. They stick and several valences mentioned will only stick more. A valence sticks. It must be freed up on meter.

8th and 7th Dynamic area of valences produce wildest results.

Chief characteristic of formula 8 to 1 is to produce judgement.

LRH :-.cden 	LRH
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JUNE 1958

STANDARDIZATION OF CLEAR PROCEDURE

FOR GUIDANCE AND USE OF THE HGCs

(a) 	Stress 4 pts of error. 
(b) 	Run Help, Step VI. 
(c) 	Standardize Valences. 
(d) 	Eliminate Wasting Help.

(a) 4 pts of Error

1. 	Profile, IQ unchanged = PT Problem left in restim, or not located at all. Cure = Understand, Locate and Flatten PT Probs.

2. 	Profile dropped = Auditor code break, real or imagined, unrepaired by auditor. Cure = Repair any code breaks with 2-way comm & Help.

3. 	Unstable Gain = Too many processes or processes not flattened. Cure = Increase confidence on auditor’s part. Get him off of a total effect need.

4. 	Auditors unable to produce good results = Introduction of new processes which auditors then use without sufficient reality. Cure = Use only processes on which auditor personally has a reality.

(b) Clear Procedure

Clear Procedure consists of Help in Brackets on any terminals and Step VI. There are no other certain processes at this time.

(c) Standardize Valences

Valence splitting is most reliably done by running Help in Brackets on the valence.

There are two valence processes now under test which seem to be better than others. They are still experimental.

Experimental (a) 
Invent a being who could not be helped. 
What problem could that being have? Ack.

Experimental (b) 
Invent an unconscious being (person). 
What problem could that being (person) pose? Ack.

All other tested valence processes have so far failed.

(d) Waste Help

This process violates rule of terminals, “Run terminals, not conditions”.

LRH:bt.rd                                  			L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JULY 1958

CONTENTS AND COVERAGE OF HCA/HPA COURSE

Training Activities Please Comply

Required knowledge of an auditor:
Knowledge gives Results.

The Auditor’s Code
Code of a Scientologist
The TRs
The Axioms

The following Scales must be well known:

ARC Triangle (Emotional Scale)
      	Know to Mystery
      	Effect Scale

Processes he must know before he runs clear processes:

      	ARC Straight Wire
      	Havingness    Subjective
                                Trio
      8-C
      Thinkingness Processes
      Assists
      Running Engrams & Secondaries
      Handling of PT Problems
          	Problems of Comparable Magnitude
      Opening Procedure by Duplication, earliest style

LRH:bt.jh							L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JULY 1958

STANDARDIZATION OF CLEAR PROCESSES

FOR GUIDANCE AND USE OF THE HGCs

(a) 	Stress 4 pts of error. 
(b) 	Run Help, Step VI. 
(c) 	Standardize Valences. 
(d) 	Eliminate Wasting Help.

(a) 4 pts of Error

1. 	Profile, IQ unchanged = PT Problem left in restim, or not located at all. Cure = Understand, Locate and Flatten PT Probs.

2. 	Profile dropped = Auditor code break, real or imagined, unrepaired by auditor. Cure = Repair any code breaks with 2-way comm & Help.

3. 	Unstable Gain = Too many processes or processes not flattened. Cure = Increase confidence on auditor’s part. Get him off of a total effect need.

4. 	Auditors unable to produce good results = Introduction of new processes which auditors then use without sufficient reality. Cure = Use only processes on which auditor personally has a reality.

(b) Clear Procedure

Clear Procedure consists of Help in Brackets on any terminals and Step VI. There are no other certain processes at this time.

Supplemental Processes: CCH 0-1-2-34, S-C-S, Connectedness.

(c) Standardize Valences

Valence splitting is most reliably done by running Help in Brackets on the valence.

There are two valence processes now under test which seem to be better than others. They are still experimental.

All other tested valence processes have so far failed.

(d) Waste Help

This process violates rule of terminals, “Run terminals, not conditions”.

LRH: -.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JULY 1958
Not for general use.
HGC Auditors may find
of interest.
20TH ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE

The first day on auditing the student checks out as many other students for clear as possible with Clear Check Out Sheets and E-Meter. Text: Ability and HCO Bulletins. Purpose: To learn to check out clears. The way to learn clear check-out is to check out many non-clears.

How to clear a command. Clear each word once only so that the word means something to pc. Only repeat if the pc says he doesn’t understand. Never ask twice “What does Help mean to you?” Clearing a command is not a repetitive process. There is no other right way to clear a command in any case. Clear the command for all sides of a bracket before running one.

All auditing and check-outs are actual. There is no student coaching except on TRs.

1. 	CCH 0 with emphasis on goals and PT Problem. Done thoroughly at start of every session.

2. 	ARC Straight Wire using following type command only—”Recall a time when you communicated with something.” Run as a complete 9 way bracket one command each side. Use communicate only. Run until needle of meter is relatively free. Pay attention to cyclic aspect of answers. Purpose: To loosen up bank and screens and to teach student use of a bracket and give him practice. This permits student to ease into a rather strict and exacting auditing activity without an instruction to him from an instructor upsetting preclear as it would if Help were being used instead. Avoid beefy processes where correction, supervision and general instruction are involved. Auditor requires no verbal answer from pc, only a head nod, but checks now and then as to when the communication being recalled took place.

3. 	Start-C-S oldest version. Emphasis on start and stop. Run change when the start or stop seem flat and only to unflatten them. Purpose: Smoothness of auditor control; accomplishment by pc of really controlling body. You start that body, etc is emphasized.

4. 	Connectedness, control version. Sole command: “You get the idea of making that (object) connect with you.” No other side of bracket. Purpose: Havingness, unsticking needle, directing pc’s attention.

4b. 	Student should scout pc’s track looking for the “rock”, spot it or something like it in minimal time, stick it good and free with Connectedness. Purpose: Giving student and pc confidence that some sticky business can be plowed into and gotten out of readily by use of Connectedness.

5.	Help. 5 or 9 way bracket in general to groove pc in. “How could .... help  you?” On a sticky item run one side of bracket after another, never repeat any one side twice.

	Use whole track type commands, never localized this lifetime.

5a.	Run “auditors” and “preclears” as subjects for Help. 5 way bracket. First run auditors, then pcs, then auditors, then pcs, etc. Purpose: Clean up all past auditing.

5b.	Isolate whole track “rock” and run 5 or 9 way bracket on it. This is an adroit matter. It requires that one know the pc and audit this particular pc. It doesn’t mean forcing one’s own “rock” on the pc. It requires judgment and a knowledge of valences. It may be necessary to unburden the “rock” with several items before it appears. Free the needle on the “rock”. Command must be phrased to include whole track version of pc’s rock. Purpose: To locate largest reality of pc and to hit squarely on what he is always mocking up obsessively.

5c. 	Scout Help with a general bracket to see if it is freer.

6. 	Step 6 as in Clear Procedure. Use simple forms.

Repeat 5, 5a, 5b, 5c and Step 6 alternately until clear.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:bt.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JULY 1958
All Staff
ACC Instructors
and students
Field Offices
COMMAND SHEET FOR HGC

CLEAR PROCEDURE

ON ALL COMMANDS: BEFORE AUDITOR GIVES THEM, HE MAKES CERTAIN HE HAS PC’S ATTENTION ON HIM AGAIN AND OFF LAST QUESTION.

CCH 0—Starting Session:

“Is it all right with you if we begin the session now?” “The session is started.”

GOALS: “What goal might you have for this session?”

(Be certain to end session with “Have we gained anything of your goal at the session’s beginning?”)

PT PROBLEM: (Caution: Problem itself, not just its terminals, must exist in pt.) “Do you have anything worrying you so much that you will have a difficult time keeping your attention on auditing?”

(If pc has)

“Describe the problem to me.”

(Pc does.)

“Does that problem exist in present time now?”

(If pc thinks it does): “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?”—or, “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem.” (Repetitive questions.) (No further descriptive name is allowed auditor in this command.)

Auditor frequently asks, “Describe that problem to me now.”—”Does that problem now exist in present time?”
--------------

ARC Break: “Have I done something you feel is wrong in this session?” “Describe it to me.”

Plenty of acknowledgement to pc, no further apology and certainly no explanation. Object is to get pc’s attention on auditor in present time, not earlier in session. Goal of TR 2, of goals, PT Problem and auditing is to get pc’s attention into present time, so don’t stack commands on the track or park pc somewhere in session or leave him in an out-of-session problem.

--------------

S-C-S: (Note: All formal auditing, except for final acknowledgement of cycle, which is Tone 40.) Commands:
START: “I am going to tell you to start. And when I tell you to start, you start the body in that direction. Do you understand that?” “Good.” “Start.” “Did you start that body?” “Thank you.”

STOP: “I am going to tell you to get the body moving in that direction. Somewhere along the line I will tell you to stop. Then you stop the body. Do you understand that?” “Good.” “Get the body moving.” “Stop.” “Did you stop the body?” “Thank you.”

CHANGE: “Do you see that spot?” “Good. We will call that Spot A. Now you stand here. O.K.” (Auditor indicates another spot.) “Now do you see that other spot?” “Good. We’ll call that Spot B. All right, now when I tell you to change the body’s position, YOU move it from Spot A to Spot B. All right?” “Good. Change the body’s position.” “Did you change the body’s position?” “Thank you.” “Do you see that spot?” “Well, we’ll call that Spot C. Now when I tell you to change the body’s position, YOU move the body from Spot B to Spot C. Do you understand that?” “Fine.” “Change the body’s position.” “Did you change the body’s position?” “Thank you, “

(NOTE: Change is run only to unflatten START and STOP, when both are flat.)

CONNECTEDNESS: Use: Only to unstick pc on meter when meter can’t be read well or when auditor desires to clear an object wrongly chosen as rock in order to look for another.

(a) 	“You get the idea of making that (object) connect with you.” (Auditor points.)
(b) 	(If pc isn’t looking at object with Mest body’s eyes, use following:) “Look at that (object).” “You get the idea of making that object connect with you.”
(c) 	(On blind humans:) “Feel that (object).” “You get the idea of making that object connect with you.”

--------------

HELP:

1. 	SCOUTING. This is a 2-way comm activity.

(a) 	“How do you feel about ..	?” Vary any object that sticks by asking
         about specialized form. If a specialized form frees, go back to object that
         stuck. Gradually sort object that consistently sticks from objects that stick
         by association with it only.

(b) 	If pc reads high on Tone Arm, gets inconsistent lie reaction, use following: “What have you had to be responsible for?”

To be sure pc is reacting, turn Sensitivity knob very high.

Guide him carefully around his life until he gets on a sticky point. Then sort it out, attempting to get parts of it to clear up. Do not let pc linger on matters which do not stick.

Responsibility sorts the matter out. His realization (cognition) of various zones is what does him good.

This is not necessarily a repetitive command. It can be varied with “What part of that (discovered area or item) have you had to be responsible for?”

Large area of current lifetime can be freed up and with clues from what he has stuck on repeatedly and using what would not free, return to a standard scout as above.

By using part (b) a pc can be brought down on the Tone Arm and can be made to react more normally on meter.
2. 	Running Help in general: USE generalized items, not specific people or objects (don’t pin pc in current life).

General Help bracket: 9-way:

“How could you help yourself?” 
“How could you help me?” 
“How could I help you?” 
“How could I help myself?” 
“How could you help another person?” 
“How could I help another person?”
“How could another person help you?” 
“How could another person help me?” 
“How could another person help another person?”

Running Help on an item:

“How could you help a .........?”
“How could a ...........help you?”
“How could another person help a .........?”
“How could a ...........help another person?”
“How could a ...........help itself?”
“How could you help yourself?”
“How could I help you?”
“How could you help me?”

Run in sequence as above. Do not give same command twice.

--------------

CLEARING COMMANDS: Clear each word and the full phrase once each with the following:

“What is the usual definition of the English (or other language) word .........?”

Do not ask for definitions over and over as a repetitive command. If pc’s definition is poor, clear command every few commands.

Clear only each different word in a bracket. Don’t clear each line in a bracket.

--------------

STEP SIX:

Select simple non-significant objects. Run:

“In front of that body you mock up a .............and keep it from going away.” “Did you?” “Thank you.”

Then use all directions from the body—”Behind that body...,” “To the left of that body . . . ,” “To the right of that body . . . ,” “Above that body . . . ,” “Below that body ....”

Run 6 objects each on six sides of the body on “Keep it from going away,” then proceed to “In front of that body you mock up a .....and hold it still.” Same procedure, then “In front of that body you mock up a........and make it a little more solid.” (There is no acknowledgement by auditor after pc mocks it up and keeps it from going away, etc, or the “Did you?”—there is acknowledgement only after full command is executed. Otherwise acks will thin pc’s mock-ups.)
Note: The objects should be simple at first, leading on up to complexity. But at first, keep them simple and non-significant.

LRH:md.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JULY 1958
Distribution
All staff
Field Offices

THE ROCK

The Rock is a Reach-Withdraw mechanism and the phenomenon of a stuck needle is the ridge so created.
--------------

The Rock is: That which a person has used to reach people or things with and is determined in value by its creativeness or destructiveness. It is simply the reach and withdraw mechanism which makes a ridge and this causes the stuck of the needle.

The Rock is AN OBJECT—it is NOT a significance. And you determine a scout by what the pc shies away from as well as what he sticks on—and a theta bop always winds up in a stuck needle if pursued in a scout.

CYCLE OF THE ROCK (object) A person (I) failed to communicate himself; (2) started using something to communicate with; (3) put the last item on automatic and it created for him; (4) it failed.

The Rock itself, when first located, will be a solution to many earlier cycles as described above. And so, a Rock is peeled off cycle by cycle as above.

The rule is to find the last cycle that is real enough to the pc to stick a needle and this is true of locating and running any lock of the Rock.

Be careful during a scout not to choose an object which makes the needle rise slowly, as this is an addition to the Rock which is being done gratuitously by the pc. (This factor is an indicator but it must not be run.) The Rock stick does not rise—it just sticks.

LRH:-.rd		                    				L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 AUGUST AD 8
Issue 2 Revised

The basic locating question of the Rock (primary aberrative object) is:

“What is a People Pleaser?”

It can also be run just like this: “How could you help a People Pleaser?” as an item bracket.

Do not “kid around with” or invalidate this Rock.

The new item bracket is as follows. It has been designed to preserve A-R-C and to be used in this exact order one command at a time:

	The Rock Bracket:

	   How could a ................help itself?
	   How could you help a ................?
	   How could a .................help you?
	   How could I help a ..................?
	   How could a ..................help me?
	   How could another person help a .................?
      How could a .................... help another person?
      How could others help a .....................?
	   How could a ...................help others?
      How could you help yourself?
      How could I help myself?
      How could you help me?
      How could I help you?

Command words but not as a whole phrase are cleared often (every three brackets) and the pc is asked for his opinion only of the word “help” and the item. His answer is not challenged.

Only ARC breaks can hide Rock again after found—clear them well. CLEAR ALSO environmental ARC breaks on the Rock between sessions.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:b.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST AD 8

ACC AUXILIARY PROCEDURE

For Optional Use

THIS IS A ROUGH DRAFT

1. 	Start Session.

2. 	Clear auditor with pc—”Who should I be to audit you?”

	“What is it all right for me to do?”

	“Look at me. Who am I?”

3. 	Get pc into session.

Establish goals for session.

“What question shouldn’t I ask you?” Handle resultant answers with Straightwire as indicated.

“Do you have anything worrying you so much that you will have a difficult time keeping your attention on auditing?”

Handle pt problem by Responsibility or Problems of Comparable Magnitude. “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem.” “Describe that problem to me.” “Does that problem exist in present time now?”

Run two-way bracket on Help. “How could you help me?” “How could I help you?” Flatten for the session. (Every time you audit somebody this should be touched on and flattened so that it will stay flat at least for that session. To flatten it for all time or for all sessions would be impossible.)

Check for ARC breaks. If they exist, take them up two-way comm, and also re-flatten above two-way bracket on Help.

WHEN AUDITOR AND PC ARE CLEARED FOR SESSION, ONLY THEN BEGIN ON CASE. THIS IS TRUE OF ALL SESSIONS AND ALL CASES. KEEP PC IN SESSION WITH ABOVE STEPS, USED WHENEVER PC WANDERS OFF IN SESSION. OF COURSE, DO NOT INTERRUPT UNFLATTENED PROCESS TOO SUDDENLY TO GET PC BACK INTO SESSION. ALWAYS USE COMM BRIDGES WHENEVER YOU CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE SESSION.

CLEAR ALL COMMANDS. ASK FOR OPINION OF KEY WORDS BUT NOT IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE THIS ASKING A PROCESS. THE PC’S IDEA OF WHAT THE KEY WORDS ARE IS THE PC’S IDEA, AND A REPETITIVE ASKING FOR OPINION IS NOT A PROCESS BUT AN INVALIDATION.

4. 	Where pc’s idea of the following words is obviously impossible to make any process move, do the following on the words CHANGE, PROBLEM, HELP, CREATE, RESPONSIBILITY, PLEASED. A mis-definition on these words can keep a whole case from moving. It is not necessarily true that clearing these words clears a person. To reorient these words run the following process: “Invent a person” (and when pc has, do not acknowledge, but add:) “Tell me his idea of (key word).” This is a repetitive question.

5. 	Clear up psychosomatics as feasible with “What sort of a (limb, organ, body) would please people?” “Tell me a person that that would please.” This is actually one command with two questions which are used repetitively until psychosomatic or illness is markedly alleviated. This is done to give pc confidence in the auditor and certainty that something can happen in processing. It will only work if the first four steps are complete and in good working order.

6. 	Clear up desires about new or different states of mind with “What sort of a mind (personality as needful with those who cannot understand what a mind is) would please people?” “Tell me a person that that would please.” This is actually one auditing command with two questions. There is no acknowledgment after the first question, only after the second. This is used repetitively.

7. 	Isolate basic Rock by any method. Run Rock Help bracket on it.

Or, boost out with “What sort of a (Rock as found) would please people? Tell me a person that that would please.” See above for running directions.

8. 	Run general Help and Step 6 as given, first one then the other until case is clean, taking up any of above as needful to keep auditor and pc cleared and in session.

If you do these things with any case you should wind up with a clear. The length of time it takes depends upon the auditor’s skill in getting the auditing done and is much less modified by “severity of case”.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:md.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST 1958

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM—RUNNING OF

Auditors are occasionally unsuccessful in running present time problems, life computations and service facsimiles because they themselves are not alert to the definition of a problem.

A problem is two-terminaled. A single terminal cannot make a problem. The basic problem is Postulate-Counter Postulate. Therefore, when the preclear says his wife is a present time problem and the auditor runs “A problem of comparable magnitude to a wife”, he is not running a problem at all. He is running a condition. For this to be a problem the wife would have to include another terminal.

An auditor should make the preclear define the problem accurately as a problem, not as a condition or situation. The problem of “my wife’s desire for another man” is a problem. The problem of “my husband’s fooling around with machinery” is a problem.

Wherever a PT problem arises it is up to the auditor to locate an actual problem and get the preclear to describe it. He then runs “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem.” Thereafter frequently he says, “Describe that problem to me” and makes sure each time he does that the problem is described as a problem, not a single terminal or a condition. When running a PT problem he also asks, “Does that seem to be a problem to you now?”

Failure to get the preclear to define the problem as a problem will result in a failure to relieve the PT problem and the auditor and the preclear may proceed into the session believing implicitly that they have run the PT problem when, as a matter of fact, they have not even touched it but have in actuality run the conditions of a single terminal.

Probably the biggest holdup in all intensives is this fact of mis-definition of problems.

And in passing it may be remarked that given Clear Procedure the biggest delay on clearing is the failure of the auditor to run PT problems and ARC breaks. It might also be said that the preclear only protests violently about ARC breaks under one of the two following conditions: (I) the auditing is actually very bad and (2) the PT problem has not been run. As a rough rule of thumb it could be said that given well-intentioned auditing, a preclear only protests about ARC breaks when a PT problem has not been isolated and run. The problems connected with “being audited”, “being a preclear”, “the auditor”, have been rather uniformly overlooked by auditors, and cases which tend to hang up in processing are usually hung up on these.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: md.cden 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST 1958

OUT OF SESSIONNESS

The mechanisms used by the preclear in living to keep his attention off the Rock are: to get involved with many present time problems, and ARC Breaks.

We used to believe that a thetan had to have problems. This is not true. A thetan thinks he needs problems to keep his attention exteriorized from the Rock chain and when the Rock is not run out he will continue to dream up problems in present time to keep his attention enforcedly fixed elsewhere than the Rock chain. A thetan will also dream up ARC Breaks to exteriorize his attention from a present time problem.

The common denominator of all locks on the Rock is ARC Breaks. Therefore, in running the Rock, expert auditing is necessary since in this case as in no other, the preclear will dream up ARC Breaks. When his attention flicks back to the Rock when he is between sessions, he will get himself involved in present time problems and ARC Breaks obsessively to keep his attention from going back on to the Rock chain.

Thus, we have the answer to the fact that a session will not progress unless the present time problem is run and alleviated and we also have the answer to the ARC Break difficulties. If the preclear is unsuccessful in keeping his attention off the Rock by a present time problem, he will then dramatize the Rock chain, which is another combination of motives which explains preclear behavior.

The moral of this story is to run out pt problems and to patch up all ARC Breaks or you will not find and run any Rocks.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:md.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

AXIOMS & LOGICS

By
L. Ron Hubbard

THE AXIOMS OF DIANETICS

BY

L. RON HUBBARD

AXIOM 1. 	THE SOURCE OF LIFE IS A STATIC OF PECULIAR AND PARTICULAR PROPERTIES. 

AXIOM 2. 	AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE STATIC CALLED LIFE IS IMPINGED UPON THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

AXIOM 3. 	THAT PORTION OF THE: STATIC OF LIFE WHlCH IS IMPINGED UPON THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE HAS FOR ITS DYNAMIC GOAL, SURVIVAL AND ONLY SURVIVAL. 

AXIOM 4. 	THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS REDUCIBLE TO MOTION OF ENERGY OPERATING IN SPACE THROUGH TIME. 

AXIOM 5. 	THAT PORTION OF THE STATIC OF LIFE CONCERNED WITH THE LIFE ORGANISMS OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS CONCERNED WHOLLY WITH MOTION. 

AXIOM 6. 	THE LIFE STATIC HAS AS ONE OF ITS PROPERTIES THE ABILITY TO MOBILIZE AND ANIMATE MATTER INTO LIVING ORGANISMS. 

AXIOM 7. 	THE LIFE STATIC IS ENGAGED IN A CONQUEST OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. 

AXIOM 8. 	THE LIFE STATIC CONQUERS THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE BY LEARNING AND APPLYING THE PHYSICAL LAWS OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. 

SYMBOL: 	The symbol for the LIFE STATIC in use hereafter is the Greek letter THETA. 

AXIOM 9. 	A FUNDAMENTAL OPERATION OF THETA IN SURVIVING IS BRINGING ORDER INTO THE CHAOS OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE  

AXIOM 10. 	THETA BRINGS ORDER INTO CHAOS BY CONQUERING WHATEVER IN MEST MAY BE PRO-SURVIVAL AND DESTROYING WHATEVER IN MEST MAY BE CONTRA-SURVIVAL, AT LEAST THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF LIFE ORGANISMS. 
	
SYMBOL: 	The symbol for the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE in use here - after is MEST, from the first letters of the words, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, or the Greek letter Phi. 

AXIOM 11. 	A LIFE ORGANISM IS COMPOSED OF MATTER AND ENERGY IN SPACE AND TIME, ANIMATED BY THETA. 

SYMBOL:	 Living organism or organisms will hereafter be represented by the Greek letter LAMBDA. 
AXIOM 12. 	THE MEST PART OF THE ORGANISM FOLLOWS THE LAWS OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES. ALL LAMBDA IS CONCERNED WITH MOTION. 

AXIOM 13, 	THETA OPERATING THROUGH LAMBDA CONVERTS THE FORCES OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE INTO FORCES TO CONQUER THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. 

AXIOM 14. 	THETA WORKING UPON PHYSICAL UNIVERSE MOTION, MUST MAINTAIN A HARMONIOUS RATE OF MOTION. 

	The limits of LAMBDA are narrow, both as to thermal and mechanical motion. 

AXIOM 15, 	LAMBDA IS THE INTERMEDIATE STEP IN THE CONQUEST OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. 

AXIOM 16. 	THE BASIC FOOD OF ANY ORGANISM CONSISTS OF LIGHT AND CHEMICALS. 

	Organisms can exist only as higher levels of complexities because lower levels of converters exist. Theta evolves organisms from lower to higher forms and supports them by the existence of lower converter forms. 

AXOM 17. 	THETA, VIA LAMBDA EFFECTS AN EVOLUTION OF MEST. 

	In this we have the waste products of organisms on the one hand as those very complex chemicals which bacteria make, and, on the other hand, we have the physical face of the earth being changed by animals and men, such changes as grass holding mountains from eroding or roots causing borders to break, buildings being built and rivers being dammed. There is obviously an evolution in MEST in progress under the incursion of THETA. 

AXIOM 18. 	LAMDBA, EVEN WITHIN A SPECIES, VARIES IN ITS ENDOWMENT OF THETA. 

AXIOM 19. 	THE EFFORT OF LAMBDA IS TOWARD SURVIVAL. 
	
	The goal of Lambda is survival. The penalty of failure to advanlce toward that goal is to succumb. 

DEFINITION:	PERSISTENCE IS THE ABILITY TO EXERT CONTlNUANCE OF EFFORT TOWARD SURVlVAL GOALS. 

AXIOM 20. 	LAMBDA CREATES, CONSERVES, MAINTAINS, REQUIRES, DESTROYS, CHANGES, OCCUPIES, GROUPS AND DISPERSES MEST. LAMBDA SURVIVES BY ANIMATING AND MOBILIZING OR DESTROYING MATTER AND ENERGY IN SPACE AND TIME. 

AXIOM 21. 	LAMBDA IS DEPENDENT UPON OPTIMUM MOTION. MOTION WHICH IS TOO SWIFT AND MOTION WHICH IS TOO SLOW ARE EQUALLY CONTRA- SURVIVAL. 

AXIOM 22 	THETA AND THOUGHT ARE SIMILAR ORDERS OF STATIC. 

AXIOM 23. 	ALL THOUGHT IS CONCERNED WITH MOTION. 

AXIOM 24. 	THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OPTIMUM MOTION IS A BASIC GOAL OF REASON. 

DEFINITION:	LAMBDA IS A CHEMICAL HEAT ENGINE EXISTING IN SPACE AND TIME MOTIVATED BY THE LIFE STATIC AND DlRECTED BY THOUGHT. 

AXIOM 25. 	THE BASIC PURPOSE OF REASON IS THE CALCULATION OR ESTIMATION OF EFFORT. 

AXIOM 26. 	THOUGHT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THETA FACSIMILES OF PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, ENTITIES OR ACTIONS. 

AXIOM 27. 	THETA IS SATISFIED ONLY WITH HARMONIOUS ACTION OR OPTIMUM MOTION AND REJECTS OR DESTROYS ACTION OR MOTION ABOVE OR BELOW ITS TOLERANCE BAND. 

AXIOM Z8. 	THE MIND IS CONCERNED WHOLLY WITH THE ESTIMATION OF EFFORT. 

DEFINITION:	MIND IS THE THETA COMMAND POST OF ANY ORGAN- ISM OR ORGANISMS. 

AXIOM 29. 	THE BASIC ERRORS OF REASON ARE FAILURE TO DIFFERENTIATE AMONGST MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE AND TIME 

AXIOM 30. 	RIGHTNESS IS PROPER CALCULATION OF EFFORT. 

AXIOM 31. 	WRONGNESS IS ALWAYS MISCALCULATION OF EFFORT. 

AXIOM 32. 	THETA CAN EXERT ITSELF DIRECTLY OR EXTENSIONALLY.

	Theta can direct physical application of the organism to the environment or through tbe mind, can first calculate the action or extend as in language, ideas. 

AXIOM 33. 	CONCLUSIONS ARE DIRECTED TOWARD THE INHIBITION, MAINTENANCE OR ACCELERATIONS OF EFFORTS. 

AXIOM 34. 	THE COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ALL LIFE ORGANISMS IS MOTION. 

AXIOM 35. 	EFFORT OF AN ORGANISM TO SURVIVE OR SUCCUMB IS PHYSICAL MOTION OF A LIFE ORGANISM AT A GIVEN MOMENT IN TIME THROUGH SPACE. 
. 
DEFINITION:	MOTION IS ANY CHANGE IN ORIENTATION IN SPACE. 

DEFINITION:	FORCE IS RANDOM EFFORT. 

DEFINITION:	EFFORT IS DIRECTED FORCE. 

AXIOM 36. 	AN ORGANISM’S EFFORT CAN BE TO REMAIN AT REST OR PERSIST IN A GIVEN MOTION. 

	Static state has position in time, but an organism which is remaining positionally in a static state if alive is still continuing a highly complex pattern of motion, such as the heart beat. digestion, etc. 
	The efforts of organisms to survive or succumb are assisted, compelled or opposed by the efforts of other organisms, matter, energy, space and time. 

DEFINITION:	ATTENTION IS A MOTION WHICH MUST REMAIN AT AN OPTIMUM EFFORT. 

	Attention is aberrated by becoming unfixed and sweeping at randon or becoming too fixed without sweeping. 

	Unkown threats to survival when sensed cause attention to sweep without fixing. 

	Known threats to survival when sensed cause attention to fix.

AXIOM 37. 	THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF LAMBDA IS INFINITE SURVIVAL.

AXIOM 38. 	DEATH IS ABANDONMENT BY THETA OF A LIFE ORGANISM OR RACE OR SPECIES WHERE THESE CAN NO LONGER SERVE THETA IN ITS GOALS OF INFINITE SURVIVAL.

AXIOM 39. 	THE REWARD OF AN ORGANISM ENGAGING UPON SURVIVAL ACTIVITY IS PLEASURE. 

AXIOM 40. 	THE PENALTY OF AN ORGANISM FAILING TO ENGAGE UPON SURVIVAL ACTIVITY, OR ENGAGING ON NONSURVIVAL ACTIVITY IS PAIN. 

AXIOM 41. 	THE CELL AND VIRUS ARE THE PRIMARY BUILDING BLOCKS OF LIFE ORGANISMS. 

AXIOM 42. 	THE VIRUS AND CELL ARE MATTER AND ENERGY ANIMATED AND MOTIVATED IN SPACE AND TlME BY THETA. 

AXIOM 43. 	THETA MOBILIZES THE VIRUS AND CELL IN COLONIAL AGGREGATIONS TO INCREASE POTENTIAL MOTION AND ACCOMPLISH EFFORT. 

AXIOM 44. 	THE GOAL OF VIRUSES AND CELLS IS SURVIVAL IN SPACE THROUGH TIME. 

AXIOM 45. 	THE TOTAL MISSION OF HIGHER ORGANISMS, VIRUSES AND CELLS  THE SAME AS THAT 0F THE VIRUS AND CELL.

AXIOM 46. 	COLONIAL AGGREGATIONS OF VIRUSES AND CELLS BE IMBUED WITH MORE THETA THAN THEY INHERENTLY CONTAINED. 

	Life Energy joins any group whether a group of organisms or group of cells composing an organism. Here we have personal entity, individuation, etc. 

AXIOM 47. 	EFFORT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY LAMBDA ONLY THROUGH THE CO-ORDINATION OF ITS PARTS TOWARD GOALS. 

AXIOM 48. 	AN ORGANISM IS EQUIPPED TO BE GOVERNED AND CONTROLLED BY A MIND. 

AXIOM 49. 	THE PURPOSE OF THE MIND IS TO POSE AND RESOLVE PROBLEMS RELATING TO SURVIVAL AND TO DIRECT THE EFFORT OF THE ORGANISM ACCORDING TO THESE SOLUTIONS. 
AXIOM 50. 	ALL PROBLEMS ARE POSED AND RESOLVED THROUGH ESTIMATIONS OF EFFORT. 

AXIOM 51. 	THE MIND CAN CONFUSE POSITION IN SPACE WITH POSITION IN TIME (COUNTER- EFFORTS PRODUCING ACTION PHRASES.) 

AXIOM 52. 	AN ORGANISM PROCEEDING TOWARD SURYIVAL IS DIRECTED BY THE MIND OF THAT ORGANISM IN THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SURVIVAL EFFORT. 

AXIOM 53. 	AN ORGANISM PROCEEDING TOWARD SUCCUMB IS DIRECTED BY THE MIND OF THAT ORGANISM IN THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF DEATH.

AXIOM 54. 	SURVIVAL OF AN ORGANISM IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE OVERCOMMING OF EFFORTS OPPOSING ITS SURVIVAL. (NOTE COROLLARY:	 FOR OTHER DYNAMICS.) 

DEFINITION:	DYNAMIC IS THE ABILITY TO TRANSLATE SOLUTIONS INTO ACTION. 

AXIOM 55. 	SURVIVAL EFFORT FOR AN ORGANISM INCLUDES THE DYNAMIC THRUST BY THAT ORGANISM FOR THE SURVIVAL OF ITSELF, ITS PROCREATIONS, ITS GROUP, ITS SUB-SPECIES, ITS SPECIES, ALL LIFE ORGANISMS, MATERIAL UNIVERSE, THE LIFE STATIC AND, POSSIBLY A SUPREME BEING. (NOTE: LIST OF DYNAMICS.)  

AXIOM 56. 	THE CYCLE OF AN ORGANISM, A GROUP OF ORGANISMS OR A SPECIES IS INCEPTION, GROWTH, RE-CREATION, DECAY AND DEATH. 

AXIOM 57. 	THE EFFORT OF AN ORGANISM IS DIRECTED TOWARD THE CONTROL OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL THE DYNAMICS.

AXIOM 58. 	CONTROL OF AN ENVIRONMENT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE SUPPORT OF PRO - SURVIVAL FACTORS ALONG ANY DYNAMIC. 

AXIOM 59.	ANY TYPE OF HIGHER ORGANISM IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE EVOLUTION OF VIRUSES AND CELLS INTO FORMS CAPABLE OF BETTER EFFORTS TO CONTROL OR LIVE IN AN ENVIRONMENT.

AXIOM 60. 	THE USEFULNESS OF AN ORGANISM IS DETERMINED ITS ABILITY TO CONTROL THE ENVIRONMENT OR TO SUPPORT ORGANISMS WHICH CONTROL THE ENVIRONMENT. 

AXIOM 61.	AN ORGANISM IS REJECTED BY THETA TO THE DEGREE THAT IT FAILS IN ITS GOALS.

AXIOM 62. 	HIGHER ORGANISMS CAN EXIST ONLY IN THE DEGREE THAT THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY THE LOWER ORGANISMS.

AXIOM 63.	THE USEFULNESS OF AN ORGANISM IS DETERMINED THE ALIGNMENT OF ITS EFFORTS TOWARD SURVIVAL.

AXIOM 64.	THE MIND PERCEIVES AND STORES ALL DATA OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ALIGNS OR FAILS TO ALIGN THESE ACCORDINGLY TO THE TIME THEY WERE PERCEIVED.
AXIOM 65. 	THE PROCESS OF THOUGHT IS THE PERCEPTION OF THE 	PRESENT AND THE COMPARlSON OF IT TO THE PERCEPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE PAST IN ORDER TO DIRECT ACTION IN THE IMMEDIATE OR DISTANT FUTURE. 

COROLLARY:	 THE ATTEMPT OF THOUGHT IS TO PERCEIVE REALITIES OF THE PAST AND PRESENT IN ORDER TO PREDICT OR POSTULATE REALITIES OF THE FUTURE. 

AXIOM 66. 	THE PROCESS BY WHICH LIFE EFFECTS ITS CONQUEST OF THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE CONSISTS IN THE CONVERSION OF THE POTENTIAL EFFORT OF MATTER AND ENERGY IN SPACE AND THROUGH TIME TO EFFECT WITH IT THE CONVERSION OF FURTHER MATTER AND ENERGY IN SPACE AND THROUGH TIME. 

AXIOM 67. 	THETA CONTAINS ITS OWN THETA UNIVERSE EFFORT WHICH TRANSLATES INTO MEST EFFORT. 

AXIOM 68. 	THE SINGLE ARBITRARY IN ANY ORGANISM IS TIME. 

AXIOM 69. 	PHYSICAL UNIVERSE PERCEPTIONS AND EFFORTS ARE RECEIVED BY AN ORGANISM AS FORCE WAVES, CONVERTED BY FACSIMILE INTO THETA AND ARE THUS STORED. 

DEFINITION:	RANDOMITY IS THE MIS- ALIGNMENT THROUGH THE INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL EFFORTS BY OTHER FORMS OF LIFE OR THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE OF THE EFFORTS OF AN ORGANISM, AND IS IMPOSED ON THE PHYSICAL ORGANISM BY COUNTER EFFORTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT. 

AXIOM 70. 	ANY CYCLE OF ANY LIFE ORGANISM IS FROM STATIC TO MOTION TO STATIC. 

AXIOM 71. 	THE CYCLE OF RANDOMITY IS FROM STATIC, THROUGH OPTIMUM, THROUGH RANDOMITY SUFFICIENTLY REPETITlOUS OR SIMILAR TO CONSTITUTE ANOTHER STATIC. 

AXIOM 72. 	THERE ARE TWO SUB-DIVISIONS TO RANDOMITY: DATA RANDOMITY AND FORCE RANDOMITY. 

AXIOM 73. 	THE THREE DEGREES OF RANDOMITY CONSISTS OF MINUS RANDOMITY, OPTIMUM RANDOMITY AND PLUS RANDOMITY. 

AXIOM 74. 	OPTIMUM RANDOMITY IS NECESSARY TO LEARNING. 

AXIOM 75. 	THE IMPORTANT FACTORS IN ANY AREA OF RANDOMITY ARE EFFORT AND COUNTER- EFFORT. (NOTE: AS DISTINGUISHED FROM NEAR-PERCEPTIONS OF EFFORT. ) 

AXIOM 76. 	RANDOMITY AMONGST ORGANISMS IS VITAL TO CONTINUOUS SURVlVAL OF ALL ORGANISMS.

AXIOM 77.	THETA AFFECTS THE ORGANISM, OTHER ORGANISMS AND THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE BY TRANSLATING THETA FACSIMILIES INTO PHYSICAL EFFORTS OR RANDOMITY OF EFFORTS.

DEFINITION:	THE DEGREE OF RANDOMITY IS MEASURED BY THE RANDOMNESS OF EFFORT VECTORS WITHIN THE ORGANISMISMS OR BETWEEN ORGANISMS AND THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

AXIOM 78. 	RANDOMITY BECOMES INTENSE IN INDIRECT RATIO TO THE TIME IN WHICH IT TAKES PLACE, MODIFIED BY THE THE EFFORT IN THE AREA. 

AXIOM 79. 	INITIAL RANDOMITY CAN BE REINFORCED BY RANDOMITIES OF GREATER OR LESSER MAGNITUDE. 

AXIOM 80. 	AREAS OF RANDOMITY EXIST IN CHAINS OF SIMILARITY PLOTTED AGAINST TIME. THIS CAN BE TRUE OF WORDS AND ACTIONS CONTAINED IN RANDOMITIES. EACH MAY HAVE ITS OWN CHAIN PLOTTED AGAINST TIME. 

AXIOM 81. 	SANITY CONSISTS OF OPTIMUM RANDOMITY. 

AXIOM 82. 	ABERRATION EXISTS TO THE DEGREE THAT PLUS OF MINUS RANDOMITY EXISTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT OR PAST DATA OF AN ORGANISM, GROUP OR SPECIES MODIFIED BY THE ENDOWED SELF- DETERMINISM OF THAT ORGANISM, GROUP OR SPECIES. 

AXIOM 83. 	THE SELF- DETERMINISM OF AN ORGANISM IS DETERMINED BY ITS THETA ENDOWMENT, MODIFIED BY MINUS OR PLUS RANDOMITY IN ITS ENYIRONMENT OR ITS EXISTENCE. 

AXIOM 84. 	THE SELF-DETERMINISM OF AN ORGANISM IS INCREATED BY OPTIMUM RAND0MITYOF COUNTER- EFFORTS. 

AXIOM 85. 	THE SELF-DETERMINISM OF AN ORGANISM IS REDUCED BY PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY OF COUNTER- EFFORTS IN THE  ENVIRONMENT . 

AXIOM 86. 	RANDOMITY CONTAINS BOTH THE RANDOMNESS OF EFFORTS AND THE VOLUME OF EFFORTS. (NOTE: AN AREA OF RANDOMITY CAN HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION BUT WITHOUT VOLUME OF ENERGY, THE CONFUSION ITSELF IS NEGLIGIBLE. ) 

AXIOM 87. 	THAT COUNTER- EFFORT IS MOST ACCEPTABLE TO AN ORGANISM WHICH MOST CLOSELY APPEARS TO ASSIST lTS ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITS GOAL.

AXIIOM 88. 	AN AREA OF SEVERE PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY CAN OCCLUDE DATA ON ANY OF THE SUBJECTS OF THAT PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY WHICH TOOK PLACE IN A PRIOR TIME. (NOTE: SHUT-OFF MECHANISMS OF EARLIER LIVES, PERCEPTICS, SPECIFIC INCIDENTS, ETC.) 

AXIOM 89. 	RESTIMULATION OF PLUS, MlNUS OR OPTIMUM RANDOMITY CAN PRODUCE INCREASED PLUS, MINUS OR OPTIMUM RANDOMITY RESPECTIVELY IN THE ORGANISM. 

AXIOM 90. 	AN AREA OF RANDOMITY CAN ASSUME SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE SO AS TO APPEAR TO THE ORGANISM AS PAIN, ACCORDING TO ITS GOALS. 

AXIOM 91. 	PAST RANDOMITY CAN IMPOSE ITSELF UPON THE PRESENT ORGANISM AS THETA FACSIMILES.

AXIOM 92. 	THE ENGRAM IS A SEVERE AREA OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY OF SUFFICIENT VOLUME TO CAUSE UNCONSCIOUSNESS.
 
AXlOM 93. 	UNCONSCIOUSNESS IS AN EXCESS OF RANDOMlTY IMPOSED BY A COUNTER-EFFORT OF SUFFICIENT FORCE TO CLOUD THE AWARENESS AND DIRECT FUNCTION OF THE ORGANISM THROUGH THE MIND’S CONTROL CENTER. 

AXIOM 94. 	ANY COUNTER- EFFORT WHICH MIS-ALIGNS THE ORGANISM’S COMMAND OF ITSELF OR ITS ENVIRONMENT ESTABLISHES PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY OR, IF OF SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE, IS AN ENGRAM. 

AXIOM 95. 	PAST ENGRAMS ARE RESTIMULATED BY THE CONTROL CENTER’S PERCEPTION OF CIRCUMSTANCES SIMILAR TO THAT ENGRAM IN THE PRESENT ENVIRONMENT. 

AXIOM 96. 	AN ENGRAM IS A THETA FACSIMILE OF ATOMS AND MOLECULES IN MISALIGHMENT. 

AXIOM 97. 	ENGRAMS FIX EMOTIONAL RESPONSE AS THAT EMOTIONAL RESPONSE OF THE ORGANISM DURING THE RECEIPT OF THE COUNTER- EFFORT.

AXIOM 98. 	FREE EMOTIONAL RESPONSE DEPENDS ON OPTIMUM RANDOMITY. IT DEPENDS UPON ABSENCE OF OR NON- RESTIM- ULATION OF ENGRAMS. 

AXIOM 99. 	THETA FACSIMILIES CAN RECOMBINE INTO NEW SYMBOLS. 

AXIOM 100. 	LANGUAGE IS THE SYMBOLIZATION OF EFFORT. 

AXIOM 101. 	LANGUAGE DEPENDS FOR ITS FORCE UPON THE FORCE WHICH ACCOMPANIED ITS DEFINITION:	, (NOTE: COUNTER-EFFORT, NOT LANGUAGE, IS ABERRATIVE. ) 

AXIOM 102. 	THE ENVIRONMENT CAN OCCLUDE THE CENTRAL CONTROL OF ANY ORGANISM AND ASSUME CONTROL OF THE MOTOR CONTROLS OF THAT ORGANISM (ENGRAM, RESTIMULATION, LOCKS, HYPNOTISM). 

AXIOM 103. 	INTELLIGENCE DEPENDS ON THE ABILITY TO SELECT ALIGNED OR MISALIGNED DATA FROM AN AREA OF RANDOMITY AND SO DISCOVER A SOLUTION TO REDUCE ALL RANDOMITY IN THAT AREA. 

AXIOM 104. 	PERSISTENCE OBTAINS IN THE ABILITY OF THE MIND TO PUT SOLUTIONS INTO PHYSICAL ACTION TOWARD THE REALIZATION OF GOALS. 

AXIOM 105.	AN UNKNOWN DATUM CAN PRODUCE DATA OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY.

AXIOM 106. 	THE INTRODUCTION OF AN ARBITRARY FACTOR OR FORCE WITHOUT RECOURSE TO NATURAL LAWS OF THE BODY OR THE AREA INTO WHICH THE ARBITRARY IS INTRODUCED BRINGS ABOUT PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMlTY. 

AXIOM 107. 	DATA OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY DEPENDS FOR ITS CONFUSION ON FORMER PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY OR ABSENT DATA. 

AXIOM 108. 	EFFORTS WHICH ARE INHIBITED OR COMPELLED BY EXTERIOR EFFORTS EFFECT A PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY OF EFFORTS. 

AXIOM109. 	BEHAVIOR IS MODIFIED BY COUNTER- EFFORTS WHICH HAVE IMPINGED ON THE ORGANISM.

AXIOM 110. 	THE COMPONENT PARTS OF THETA ARE AFFINITY, REALITY AND COMMUNlCATION. 

AXIOM 111.	SELF-DETERMINISM CONSISTS OF MAXIMAL AFFINITY, REALITY AND COMMUNICATION.

AXIOM 112. 	AFFINITY IS THE COHESION OF THETA. 

	Affinity manifests itself as the recognition of similarity of efforts and goals amongst organisms by those organisms.

AXIOM 113. 	REALITY IS THE AGREEMENT UPON PERCEPTIONS AND DATA IN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. 

	All that we can be sure is real is that on which we have agreed is real. Agreement is the essence of reality. 

AXIOM 114. 	COMMUNICATION IS THE INTERCHANGE OF PERCEPTION THROUGH THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE BETWEEN ORGANISMS OR THE PERCEPTION OF THE MATERIAL UNVERSE BY SENSE CHANNELS.

AXIOM 115. 	SELF-DETERMINISM IS THE THETA CONTROL OF THE ORGANISM.  

AXIOM 116. 	A SELF DETERMINED EFFORT IS THAT COUNTER-EFFORT WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED INTO THE ORGANISM IN THE PAST AND INTEGRATED INTO THE ORGANISM FOR ITS CONSCIOUS USE.

AXIOM 117. 	THE COMPONENTS OF SELF-DETERMINISM ARE AFFINITY, COMMUNICATION AND REALITY. 

	Self-determinism is manifested along each dynamic.

AXIOM 118. 	AN ORGANISM CANNOT BECOME ABERRATED UNLES IT HAS AGREED UPON THAT ABERRATION, HAS BEEN IN COMUNICATION WITH A SOURCE OF ABERRATION AND HAS HAl~ AFFINITY FOR THE ABERRATOR. 

AXIOM 119. 	AGREEMENT WITH ANY SOURCE CONTRA- OR PRO-SURVIVAL POSTULATES A NEW REALITY FOR THE ORGANISM. 

AXIOM 120. 	NON-SURVIVAL COURSES, THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS REQUIRE NON-OPTIMUM EFFORT. 

AXIOM 121.	EVERY THOUGHT HAS BEEN PRECEDED BY PHYSICAL ACTION. 
	
AXIOM I22. 	THE MIND DOES WITH THOUGHT AS lT HAS DONE WITH ENTlTIES IN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. 

AXIOM 123. 	ALL EFFORT CONCERNED WlTH PAlN lS CONCERNED WITH LOSS. 

	Organisms hold pain and engrams to them as a latent effort to prevent loss of some portion of the organism. All loss is a loss of motion.

AXIOM 124. 	THE AMOUNT OF COUNTER- EFFORT THE ORGANISM CAN OVERCOME IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE THETA ENDOWMENT OF THE ORGANISM, MODIFIED BY THE PHYSIQUE OF THAT ORGANISM.

AXIOM 125. 	EXCESSIVE COUNTER-EFFORT TO THE EFFORT OF LIFE ORGANISM PRODUCES UNCONSCIOUSNESS.  

COROLLARY:	UNCONSCIOUSNESS GIVES THE SUPPRESSION OF AN ORGANISM’S CONTROL CENTER BY COUNTER-EFFORT. 

DEFINITION:	THE CONTROL CENTER OF THE ORGANISM CAN BE DEFINED AS THE CONTACT POINT BETWEEN THETA AND THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE AND IS THAT CENTER WHICH IS AWARE OF BEING AWARE AND WHICH HAS CHARGE OF AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ORGANISM ALONG ALL ITS DYNAMICS. 

AXIOM 126. 	PERCEPTIONS ARE ALWAYS RECEIVED IN THE CONTROL CENTER OF AN ORGANISM WHETHER THE CONTROL CENTER IS IN CONTROL OF THE ORGANISM AT THE TIME OR NOT. 

	This is an explanation for the assumption of valences. 

AXIOM 127. 	ALL PERCEPTIONS REACHING THE ORGANISM’S SENSE CHANNELS ARE RECORDED AND STORED BY THETA FACSIMILE. 

DEFINlTION	PERCEPTION IS THE PROCESS OF RECORDING DATA FROM THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE AND STORING IT AS A THETA FACSIMILE. 
DEFINITION:		RECALL IS THE PROCESS OF REGAINING PERCEPTIONS. 

AXIOM 128. 	ANY ORGANISM CAN RECALL EVERYTHING WHICH IT HAS PERCElVED. 

AXIOM 129. 	AN ORGANISM DISPLACED BY PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY IS THEREAFTER REMOTE FROM THE PERCEPTION RECORDING CENTER. 

	Increased remoteness brings about occlusions of perceptions. One can perceive things in present time and then, because they are being recorded after they passed THETA perception of the awareness unit, they are recorded but cannot be recalled. 
AXIOM 130. 	THETA FACSIMILES OF COUNTER- EFFORT ARE; ALL THAT INTERPOSE BETWEEN THE CONTROL CENTER AND ITS RECALLS. 

AXIOM 131. 	ANY COUNTER- EFFORT RECEIVED INTO A CONTROL CENTER IS ALWAYS ACCOMPANIED BY ALL PERCEPTICS.

AXIOM 132. 	THE RANDOM COUNTER- EFFORTS TO AN ORGANISM AND THE INTERMINGLED PERCEPTIONS IN THE RANDOMITY CAN RE-EXERT THAT FORCE UPON AN ORGANISM WHEN RESTIMULATED. 

DEFINITION:	RESTIMULATION IS THE REACTIVATION OF A PAST COUNTER-EFFORT BY APPEARANCE IN THE ORGANISM’S ENVIRONMENT OF A SIMILARITY TOWARD THE CONTENT OF TiIE PAST RANDOMITY AREA. 

AXIOM 133. 	SELF-DETERMINISM ALONE BRINGS ABOUT THE MECHANISM OF RESTIMULATION. 

AXIOM 134. 	A REACTIVATED AREA OF THE PAST RANDOMITY IMPINGES THE EFFORT AND THE PERCEPTIONS UPON THE ORGANlSM. 

AXIOM 135. 	ACTIVATION OF A RANDOMITY AREA IS ACCOMPLISHED FIRST BY THE PERCEPTIONS, THEN BY THE PAIN, FINALLY BY THE EFFORT. 

AXIOM 136. 	THE MIND IS PLASTICALLY CAPABLE OF RECORDING ALL EFFORTS AND COUNTER- EFFORTS.

AXIOM 137.	A COUNTER-EFFORT ACCOMPANIED BY SUFFICIENT (ENRANDOMED) FORCE IMPRESSES THE FACSIMILE OF THE COUNTER-EFFORT PERSONALITY INTO THE MIND OF AN ORGANISM.

AXIOM 138. 	ABERRATION IS THE DEGREE OF RESlDUAL PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY ACCUMULATED BY COMPELLING, INHIBITING, OR UNWARRENTED ASSISTING OF EFFORTS ON THE PART OF OTHER ORGANISMS OR THE PHYSICAL (MATERIAL) UNIVERSE.

	Aberration is caused by what is done to the individual, not what the individual does, plus his self-determinism about what has been done to him. 

AXIOM 139. 	ABERRATED BEHAVIOUR CONSISTS OF DESTRUCTIVE EFFORT TOWARD PRO-SURVIVAL DATA OR ENTITIES ON ANY DYNAMIC, OR EFFORT TOWARD THE SURVIVAL OF CONTRA SURVIVAL DATA OR ENTITIES FOR ANY DYNAMIC. 

AXIOM 140. 	A VALENCE IS A FACSIMILE PERSONALITY MADE CAPABLE OF FORCE BY THE COUNTER- EFFORT OF THE MOMENT OR RECEIPT INTO THE PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS. 

	Valences are assistive, compulsive or inhibitive to the organism.

	A CONTROL CENTER IS NOT A VALENCE. 

AXIOM 141. 	A CONTROL CENTER EFFORT IS ALIGNED TOWARD A GOAL THROUGH DEFINITE SPACE AS A RECOGNIZED INCIDENT IN TIME. 

AXIOM 142. 	AN ORGANISM IS AS HEALTHY AND SANE AS IT IS SELF DETERMINED. 

	The environmental control of the organism motorcontrol inhibits the organisms ability to change with the changing environment, since , the organism will attempt to carry forward with one set of responses when it needs by self-determinism to create another to survive in another environment.

AXIOM 143. 	ALL LEARNING IS ACCOMPLISHED BY RANDOM EFFECT. 

AXIOM 144. 	A COUNTER-EFFORT PRODUCING SUFFICIENT PLUS OR MlNUS RANDOMITY TO RECORD IS RECORDED WITH AN INDEX OF SPACE AND TIME AS HIDDEN AS THE REMAINDER OF lTS CONTENT.

AXIOM 145. 	A COUNTER- EFFORT PRODUCING SUFFICIENT PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY WHEN ACTIVATED BY RESTIMULATION EXERTS ITSELF AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENT OR THE ORGANISM WITHOUT REGARD TO SPACE AND TIME. EXCEPT REACTIVATED PERCEPTIONS. 

AXIOM 146. 	COUNTER-EFFORTS ARE DIRECTED OUT FROM THE ORGANISM UNTIL THEY ARE FURTHER ENRANDOMED BY THE ENVIRONMENT AT WHICH TIME THEY AGAIN ACTIVATE AGAINST THE CONTROL CENTER.

AXIOM 147. 	AN ORGANISM’S MIND EMPLOYS COUNTER- EFFORTS EFFECTIVELY ONLY SO LONG AS INSUFFIClENT PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY EXISTS TO HIDE DIFFERENTIATION OF THE FACSIMILES CREATED. 

AXIOM 148. 	PHYSICAL LAWS ARE LEARNED BY LIFE ENERGY OR BY IMPINGEMENT OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE PRODUCING RANDOMITY, AND A WITHDRAWAL FROM THAT IMPINGEMENT. 

AXIOM 149. 	LIFE DEPENDS UPON AN ALIGNMENT OF FORCE VECTORS IN THE DlRECTION OF SURVIVAL AND THE NULLIFICATION OF FORCE VECTORS IN THE DIRECTION OF SUCCUMB IN ORDER TO SURVIVE.

COROLLARY:	LIFE DEPENDS UPON AN ALIGNMENT OF FORCE VECTORS IN THE DIRECTION OF SUCCUMB AND THE NULLIFICATION OF FORCE VECTORS IN THE DIRECTION OF SURVIVE IN ORDER TO SUCCUMB. 

AXIOM 150. 	ANY AREA OF RANDOMITY GATHERS TO IT SITUATIONS SIMILAR TO IT WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN ACTUAL EFFORTS BUT ONLY PERCEPTION. 

AXIOM 151. 	WHETHER AN ORGANISM HAS THE GOAL OF SURVIVING OR SUCCUMBING DEPENDS UPON THE AMOUNT OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY IT HAS REACTIVATED. (NOT RESIDUAL) 

AXIOM 152. 	SURVIVAL IS ACCOMPLISHED ONLY BY MOTION. 

AXIOM 153. 	IN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE THE ABSENCE OF MOTION IS VANISHMENT. 

AXIOM 154. 	DEATH IS THE EQUIVALENT TO LIFE OF TOTAL LACK OF LIFE-MOTIVATED MOTION. 

AXIOM 155. 	ACQUISITION OF PRO-SURVIVAL MATTER AND ENERGY OR ORGANISMS IN SPACE AND TIME MEANS INCREASED MOTION. 

AXIOM 156. 	LOSS OF PRO-SURVIVAL MATTER AND ENERGY OR ORGANISMS IN SPACE AND TIME MEANS DECREASED MOTION. 

AXIOM 157. 	ACQUISITION OR PROXIMITY OF MATTER, ENERGY OR ORGANISMS WHICH ASSIST THE SURVIVAL OF AN ORGANISM INCREASE THE SURVIVAL POTENTIALS OF AN ORGANISM. 

AXIOM 158. 	ACQUISITION OR PROXIMITY OF MATTER, ENERGY OR ORGANISMS WHICH INHIBIT THE SURVIVAL OF AN ORGANISM DECREASE ITS SURVIVAL POTENTIAL. 

AXIOM 159. 	GAIN OF SURVIVAL ENERGY, MATTER OR ORGANISlMS INCREACE THE FREEDOM OF AN ORGANISM, 

AXIOM 160. 	RECEIPT OR PROXIMITY OF NON-SURVIVAL ENERGY, MATTER OR TIME DECREASE THE FREEDOM OF MOTION OF AN ORGANISM. 

AXIOM 161. 	THE CONTROL CENTER ATTEMPTS THE HALTING OR LENGTHENING OF TIME, THE EXPANSION OR CONTRACTION OF SPACE AND THE DECREASE OR INCREASE OF ENERGY AND MATTER. 

	This is a primary source of invalidation, and it is also a primary source of aberration. 

AXIOM 162. 	PAIN IS THE BALK OF EFFORT BY COUNTER-EFFORT IN GREAT INTENSITY, WHETHER THAT EFFORT IS TO REMAIN A REST OR IN MOTION. 

AXIOM 163. 	PERCEPTION, INCLUDING PAIN, CAN BE EXHAUSTED FROM AN AREA OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMlTY STILL LEAVING THE EFFORT AND COUNTER-EFFORT OF THAT PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY. 

AXIOM 164. 	THE RATIONALITY OF THE MIND DEPENDS UPON AN OPTIMUM REACTION TOWARD TIME. 

DEFINITION:	SANITY, THE COMPUTATlON OF FUTURES. 

DEFINITION:	NEURTIC, THE COMPUTATION OF PRESENT TlME ONLY.   

DEFINITION:	PSYCHOTIC COMPUTATION ONLY OF PAST SITUATIONS. 

AXIOM 165. 	SURVIVAL PERTAINS ONLY TO THE FUTURE. 

COROLLARY:	 SUCCUMB PERTAINS ONLY TO THE PRESENT AND PAST.
AXIOM 166. 	AN INDIVIDUAL IS AS HAPPY AS HE CAN PERCEIVE SURVIVAL POTENTIALS IN THE ,FUTURE. 

AXIOM 167. 	AS THE NEEDS OF ANY ORGANISM ARE MET IT RISES HIGHER AND HIGHER IN ITS EFFORTS ALONG THE DYNAMICS. 

	An organism which achieves ARC with itself can better achieve ARC with sex in the future; having achieved this it can achieve ARC with groups; having achieved this, it can achieve ARC with mankind etc.

AXIOM 168. 	AFFINITY, REALITY AND COMMUNICATION CO-EXIST IN AN INEXTRICABLE RELATIONSHIP.

	The co- existent relationship between affinity, reality and communication is such that none can be increased without increasing theother two ,and none can be decreased without decreasing the other two.    

AXIOM 169. 	ANY AESTHETIC PRODUCT IS A SYMBOLIC FACSIMILE OR COMB[NATION OF FACSIMILES OF THETA OR PHYSICAL UNIVERSES IN VARIED RANDOMITIES AND VOLUMES OF RANDOMITIES WITH THE INTERPLAY OF TONES. 

AXIOM 170. 	AN AESTHETIC PRODUCT IS AN INTERPRETATION OF UNIVERSES BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP MIND. 

AXIOM 171. 	DELUSION IS THE POSTULATION BY THE IMAGINATION OCCURANCES IN AREAS OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY. 

AXIOM 172. 	DREAMS ARE THE IMAGINATIVE RECONSTRUCTION OF AREAS OF RANDOMITY OR THE RE-SYMBOLIZATION OF THE EFFORTS OF THETA. 

AXIOM 173. 	A MOTION IS CREATED BY THE DEGREE OF OPTIMUM RANDOMITY INTRODUCED BY THE COUNTER-EFFORT TO AN ORGANISMS EFFORT. 

AXIOM 174.	MEST, WHICH HAS BEEN MOBILIZED BY LIFE FORMS, IS IN AFFINITY WITH LIFE FORMS THAN NON- MOBILIZED MEST.

AXlOM 175. 	ALL PAST PERCEPTION, CONCLUSION AND EXISTENCE MOMENTS INCLUDING THOSE OF PLUS,OR MINUS RANDOMITY ARE RECOVERABLE TO THE CONTROL CENTER OF THE ORGANISM. 

AXIOM 176.	THE ABILITY TO PRODUCE SURVIVAL EFFORT ON THE PART OF AN ORGANISM IS AFFECTED BY THE DEGREES OF RANDOMITY EXISTING IN ITS PAST. (THIS INCLUDES LEARNING)

AXIOM 177. 	AREAS OF PAST PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY CAN BE READDRESSED BY THE CONTROL CENTER OF AN ORGANISM AND THE PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY EXHAUSTED. 

AXIOM 178. 	THE EXHAUSTION OF PAST PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITIES PERMITS THE CONTROL CENTER OF AN ORGANISM TOEFFECT ITS OWN EFFORTS TOWARD SURVIVAL GOALS.

AXIOM 179. 	THE EXHAUSTION OF SELF- DETERMINED EFFORT FROM A PAST AREA OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY NULLIFIES THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THAT AREA. 

AXIOM 180. 	PAIN IS THE RANDOMITY PRODUCED BY SUDDEN OR STRONG COUNTER- EFFORTS.           

AXIOM 181. 	PAIN IS STORED AS PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY. 

AXIOM 182. 	PAIN, AS AN AREA OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY, CAN RE-INFLICT ITSELF UPON THE ORGANISM. 

AXIOM 183. 	PAST PAIN BECOMES INEFFECTIVE UPON THE ORGANISM WHEN THE RANDOMITY OF ITS AREA IS ADDRESSED AND ALIGNED. 

AXIOM 184. 	THE EARLIER THE AREA OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY THE GREATER SELF-PRODUCED EFFORT EXISTED TO REPEL IT. 

AXIOM 185.	LATER AREAS OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY CANNOT BE RE-ALIGNED EASILY UNTIL EARLIER AREAS ARE RE- ALIGNED. 

AXIOM 186. 	AREAS OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY BECOME INCREASED IN ACTIVITY WHEN PERCEPTIONS OF SIMILARITY ARE INTRODUCED INTO THEM. 

AXIOM 187. PAST AREAS OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY CAN BE REDUCED AND ALIGNED BY ADDRESS TO THEM IN PRESENT TIME. 

AXIOM 188. 	ABSOLUTE GOOD AND ABSOLUTE EVIL DO NOT EXIST IN THE MEST UNIVERSE. 

AXIOM 189. 	THAT WHICH IS GOOD FOR AN ORGANISM MAY BE DEFINED AS THAT WHICH PROMOTES THE SURVIVAL OF THAT ORGANISM. 

COROLLARY:	EVIL MAY BE DEFINED AS THAT WHICH INHIBITS OR BRINGS PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY INTO THE ORGANISM WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE SURVIVAL MOTIVES OF THE ORGANISM. 

AXIOM 190.	HAPPINESS CONSISTS OF THE ACT OF BRINGING ALIGNMENT INTO HITHER TO RESISTING PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY. NEITHER THE ACT OR ACTION OF ATTAINING SURVIVAL, NOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THIS ACT ITSELF, BRINGS ABOUT HAPPINESS.

AXIOM 191. 	CONSTRUCTION IS AN ALIGNMENT OF DATA. 

COROLLARY:	DESTRUCTION IS A PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY OF DATA. 

	The effort of construction is the alignrnent toward the survival of the aligning organism. 

	Destruction is the effort of bringing randomity into an area. 

AXIOM 192.	OPTIMUM SURVIVAL BEHAVIOUR CONSISTS OF EFFORT IN THE MAXIMUM SURVIVAL INTEREST IN EVERYTHING CONCERNED IN THE DYNAMICS.

AXIOM 193. 	THE OPTIMUM SURVIVAL SOLUTION OF ANY PROBLEM WOULD CONSIST OF THE HIGHEST ATTAINABLE SURVIVAL FOR. EVERY DYNAMIC CONCERNED.   

AXIOM 194. 	THE WORTH OF ANY ORGANISM CONSISTS OF ITS VALUE TO THE SURVIVAL OF ITS OWN THETA ALONG ANY DYNAMIC.

THE AXIOMS
OF SCIENTOLOGY

by

L. RON HUBBARD

AXIOM 1.	LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC. 

	Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive. 

AXIOM 2. 	THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS. 

AXIOM 3. 	SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM, AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT lT CAN PERCEIVE THEM. 

AXIOM 4. 	SPACE IS A VIEWPOINT OF DIMENSION. 

AXIOM 5. 	ENERGY CONSISTS OF POSTULATED PARTICLES IN SPACE.

AXIOM 6. 	OBJECTS CONSIST OF GROUPED PARTICLES. 

AXIOM 7. 	TIME IS BASICALLY A POSTULATE THAT SPACE AND PARTICLES WILL PERSIST. 

AXIOM 8. 	THE APPARENCY OF TIME IS THE CHANGE OF POSlTION OF PARTICLES IN SPACE. 

AXIOM 9. 	CHANGE IS THE PRIMARY MANIFESTATION OF TIME. 

AXIOM 10. 	THE HIGHEST PURPOSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS THE CRE - ATION OF AN EFFECT. 

AXIOM 11.	THE CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING IN CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE ARE FOUR FOLD.

a.  	AS-IS-NESS is the condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival.

b.  	ALTER-IS-NESS is the consideration which introduces change, and therefore time and persistence into an AS-IS-NESS to obtain persistency.

c.  	IS-NESS is an apparency of existence brought about by the continuous alteration of an AS-IS-NESS.  This is called, when agreed apon, Reality.

d.  	NOT-IS-NESS is the effort to handle IS-NESS by reducing its condition through the use of force.  It is an apparency and cannot entirely vanquish an IS-NESS.

AXIOM 12. 	THE PRIMARY CONDITION OF ANY UNIVERSE IS THAT TWO SPACES, ENERGIES, OR OBJECTS MUST NOT OCCUPY THE SAME SPACE.  WHEN THIS CONDITION IS VIOLATED (PERFECT DUPLICATE) THE APPARENCY OF ANY UNIVERSE OR ANY PART THEREOF IS NULLED. 

AXIOM 13. 	THE CYCLE OF ACTION OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS CREATE, SURVIVE (PERSIST), DESTROY. 

AXIOM 14. 	SURVIVAL IS ACCOMPLISHED BY ALTER-IS-NESS AND NOT-IS-NESS, BY WHICH IS GAINED THE PERSISTENCY KNOWN AS TIME. 

AXIOM 15. 	CREATION IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE POSTULATION OF AN AS-IS-NESS. 

AXIOM 16.	COMPLETE DESTRUCTION IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE POSTULATION OF THE AS-IS-NESS OF ANY EXISTENCE AND THE PARTS THEREOF.

AXIOM 17. 	THE STATIC, HAVING POSTULATED AS-IS-NESS, THEN PRACTICES ALTER-IS-NESS, AND SO ACHIEVES THE APPARENCY OF IS-NESS AND SO OBTAINS REALITY. 

AXIOM 18. 	THE STATIC, IN PRACTICING NOT-Is-NESS, BRINGS ABOUT THE PERSISTENCE OF UNWANTED EXISTENCES AND SO BRINGS ABOUT UNREALITY, WHICH INCLUDES FORGETFUL NESS, UNCONSCIOUSNESS, AND OTHER UNDESIRABLE STATES. 

AXIOM 19. 	BRINGING THE STATIC TO VIEW AS-IS ANY CONDITION DEVALUATES THAT CONDITION. 

AXIOM 20. 	BRINGING THE STATIC TO CREATE A PERFECT DUPLICATE CAUSES THE VANISHMENT OF ANY EXISTENCE OR PART THEREOF.
 
	A perfect duplicate is an additional creation of the object, its energy and space, in its own space, in its own time, using its own energy. This violates the condition that two objects must not occupy the space, and causes vanishment of the object.

AXIOM 21. 	UNDERSTANDING IS COMPOSED OF AFFINITY. REALITY AND COMMUNICATION.

AXIOM 22. 	THE PRACTICE OF NOT-IS-NESS REDUCES UNDERSTANDING. 

AXIOM 23. 	THE STATIC HAS THE CAPABILITY OF TOTAL KNOWINGNESS. TOTAL KNOWINGNESS WOULD CONSIST OF TOTAL ARC. 

AXIOM 24. 	TOTAL ARC WOULD BRING ABOUT THE VANISHMENT OF ALL MECHANICAL CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE. 

AXIOM 25. 	AFFINITY IS A SCALE OF ATTITUDES WHICH FALLS AWAY FROM THE CO-EXISTENCE OF STATIC, THROUGH THE INTERPOSITIONS OF DISTANCE AND ENERGY, TO CREATE IDENTITY, DOWN TO CLOSE PROXIMITY BUT MYSTERY.

	By the practice of IS-ness (Beingness) and Not-is-ness (refusal to be) individuation progresses from the Knowingness of complete identification down through the introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication, through Lookingness, Emotingness, Effortingness, Thinkingness, Symbolizingness, Eatingness, Sexingness, and so through to not-Knowingness (Mystery). Until the point of Mystery is reached, some commu- nication is possible, but even at Mystery an attempt to communicate continues. Here we have. in the case of an individual, a gradual falling away from the belief that one can assume a complete Affinity down to the conviction that all is a complete Mystery. Any individual is somewhere in this Know-to-Mystery scale. The original Chart of Human Evaluation was the Emotion section of this scale.

AXIOM 26. 	REALITY IS THE AGREED-UPON APPARENCY OF EXISTENCE. 

AXIOM 27. 	AN ACTUALITY CAN EXIST FOR ONE INDIVIDUALLY BUT WHEN IT IS AGREED WITH BY OTHERS IT CAN THEN BE SAID TO BE A REALITY. 

	The anatomy of Reality is contained in Is-ness, which is composed of As-is-ness and Alter-is-ness. Is-ness Is an apparency, it is not an Actuality. The Actuality is As-is-ness altered so as to obtain a persistency.

	Unreality is the consequence and apparency of the practice of Not-is-ness.  

AXIOM 28. 	COMMUNlCATION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF IMPELLING AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM SOURCE- POINT ACROSS A DISTANCE TO RECEIPT- POINT, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO BEING AT THE RECEIPT-POINT A DUPLICATION OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE SOURCE - POINT.

	The formula of Communication is: Cause, Distance, Effect, with Attention and Duplication. 

	The component parts of Communication are Consideration. Intention, Attention, Cause, Source-point, Distance, Effect, Receipt-point Duplication, the Velocity of the impulse or particle, Nothingness or Somethingness. A non-Communication consists of Barriers. 
	Barriers consist of Space, Interpositions (such as walls and screens of fast-moving particles), and Time. A communication, by definition does not need to be two-way. When a communication is returned, the formula is repeated, with the receipt-point now becoming a source-point and the former source-point now becoming a receipt point. 

AXIOM 29. 	IN ORDER TO CAUSE AN AS-IS-NESS TO PERSIST, 0NE MUST ASSIGN OTHER AUTHORSHLP TO THE CREATION THAN HIS OWN.  OTHERWISE, HIS VIEW OF IT WOULD CAUSE ITS VANISH- MENT. 

	Any space, energy, form, object, individual, or physical universe condition can exist only when an alteration has occurred of the original As-is-ness so as to prevent a casual view from vanishing it. 
	In other words, anything which is persisting must contain a “lie” so that the original consideration is not completely duplicated. 
AXIOM 30. 	THE GENERAL RULE OF AUDITING IS THAT ANYTHING WHICH IS UNWANTED AND YET PERSISTS MUST BE THOROUGHLY VIEWED, AT WHICH TIME IT WILL VANISH. 

	If only partially viewed, its intensity, at least, will decrease. 

AXIOM 31. 	GOODNESS AND BADNESS, BEAUTIFULNESS AND UGLINESS, ARE ALIKE CONSIDERATIONS AND HAYE NO OTHER BASIS THAN OPINION. 

AXIOM 32. 	ANYTHING WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY OBSERVED TENDS TO PERSIST. 

AXIOM 33. 	ANY AS-IS-NESS WHICH IS ALTERED BY NOT-IS-NESS ( BY FORCE ) TENDS TO PERSIST.

AXIOM 34. 	ANY IS-NESS, WHEN ALTERED BY FORCE, TENDS TO PERSIST. 

AXIOM 35. 	THE ULTIMATE TRUTH IS A STATIC. 

	A Static has no mass, meaning, mobility, no wave-length, no time, no location in space, no space. 

	This has the technical name of “Basic Truth.” 

AXIOM 36. 	A LIE IS A SECOND POSTULATE, STATEMENT OR CONDITION DESIGNED TO MASK A PRIMARY POSTULATE WHICH IS PERMITTED TO REMAIN. 

	Examples: 

	Neither truth nor a lie is a motion or alteration of a particle from one position to another. 

	A lie is a statement that a particle having moved did not move, or a statement that a particle, not having moved, did move. 

	The basic lie is that a consideration which was made was not made or that it was different. 

AXIOM 37. 	WHEN A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION IS ALTERED BUT STILL EXISTS, PERSISTENCE IS ACHIEVED FOR THE ALTERING CONSIDERATION. 

	All persistence depends on the Basic Truth, but the persistence is of the altering consideration, for the Basic Truth has neither persistence nor impersistence. 

AXIOM 38. 	1: 	STUPIDITY IS THE UNKNOWNESS OF CONSIDERATION.
2: 	MECHANICAL DEFINITION: STUPIDITY IS THE UN -   KNOWNESS OF TIME, PLACE, FORM AND EVENT. 

	Thus we see that failure to discover Truth brings about stupidity. 

	Thus we see that the discovery of Truth would bring about an As-is- ness by actual experiment. 
	Thus we see that an ultimate truth would have no time, place form or event. 

	Thus, then, we perceive that we can achieve a persistence only when we mask a truth. 

	Lying is an alteration of time, place, event, or form. 

	Lying becomes Alter-is-ness, becomes Stupidity.

	(The blackness of cases is an accumulation of the case’s own or another’s lies.) 

	Anything which persists must avoid As-is-ness. Thus anything, to persist, must contain a lie. 

AXIOM 39. 	LIFE POSES PROBLEMS FOR ITS OWN SOLUTION. 

AXIOM 40. 	ANY PROBLEM, TO BE A PROBLEM, MUST CONTAIN A LIE. IF IT WERE TRUTH, IT WOULD UNMOCK. 

	An “unsolvable problem” would have the greatest persistence. It would also contain the greatest number of altered facts. To make a problem, one must introduce Alter-is-ness.

AXIOM 41. 	THAT INTO WHICH ALTER-IS-NESS IS INTRODUCED BE- COMES A PROBLEM.

AXIOM 42. 	MEST (MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, TIME) PERSISTS BECAUSE IT IS A PROBLEM.

	It is a problem because it contains Alter-is-ness. 

AXIOM 43. 	TIME IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF UNTRUTH. 

	Time states the untruth of consecutive considerations. 

AXIOM 44. 	THETA (THE STATIC) HAS NO LOCATION IN MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE OR TIME. IT IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATlON.

AXIOM 45. 	THETA CAN CONSIDER ITSELF TO BE PLACED, AT WHICH MOMENT IT BECOMES PLACED, AND TO THAT DEGREE A PROBLEM.

AXIOM 46. 	THETA CAN BECOME A PROBLEM BY ITS CONSIDERATIONS, BUT THEN BECOMES MEST. 

	A problem is to some degree MEST. MEST is a problem. 

AXIOM 47. 	THETA CAN RESOLVE PROBLEMS . 

AXIOM 48. 	LIFE IS A GAME WHEREIN THETA AS THE STATIC SOLVES THE PROBLEMS OF THETA AS MEST. 

AXIOM 49. 	TO SOLVE ANY PROBLEM IT IS ONLY NECESSARY TO BECOME THETA, THE SOLVER, RATHER THAN THETA, THE PROBLEM.

AXIOM 50. 	THETA AS MEST MUST CONTAIN CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE LIES. 

AXIOM 51. 	POSTULATES AND LIVE COMMUNICATION NOT BEING MEST AND BEING SENIOR TO MEST CAN ACCOMPLISH CHANGE IN MEST WITHOUT BRINGING ABOUT A PERSISTENCE OF MEST. THUS AUDITING CAN OCCUR. 

AXIOM 52. 	MEST PERSISTS AND SOLIDIFIES TO THE DEGREE THAT IT IS NOT GRANTED LIFE.

THE PRELOGICS

Q. 1.	SELF DETERMINISM IS THE COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ALL LIFE IMPULSES.

Q. 2. 	DEFINITION OF SELF-DETERMINISM: THE ABILITY TO LOCATE IN SPACE AND TIME ENERGY AND MATTER, ALSO THE ABILITY TO CREATE AND LOCATE ENERGY AND MATTER.

Q. 3.	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. 

Q. 4. 	THETA CREATES SPACE, ENERGY AND OBJECTS BY POSTULATES. 

Q. 5.	UNIVERSES ARE CREATED BY THE APPLICATION OF SELF DETERMINISM ON 8 DYNAMICS. 

Q. 6. 	SELF-DETERMINISM, APPLIED, WILL CREATE, ALTER, CONSERVE AND POSSIBLY DESTROY UNIVERSES. 

Q. 7. 	THE ACTION CYCLE IS ONE OF THE ABILITIES OF A THETAN. AN ACTION CYCLE GOES FROM 40. 0 TO 0. 0 ON THE TONE SCALE. AN ACTION CYCLE ISTHE CREATION, GROWTH CONSERVATION, DECAY AND DEATH OR DESTRUCTION OF ENERGY AND MATTER IN A SPACE. ACTION CYCLES PRODUCE TIME.  

THE LOGICS

LOGlC 1. 	KNOWLEDGE IS A WHOLE GROUP OR SUB-DIVISION OF A GROUP OF DATA OR SPECULATIONS OR CONCLUSIONS ON DATA OR METHODS OF GAINING DATA. 

LOGIC 2. 	A BODY OF KNOWLEDGE IS A BODY OF DATA, ALIGNED OR UNALIGNED, OR METHODS OF GAINING DATA. 

LOGIC 3. 	ANY KNOWLEDGE WHICH CAN BE SENSED, MEASURED OR EXPERIENCED BY ANY ENTITY IS CAPABLE OF INFLUENCING THAT ENTITY. 

COROLLARY:  	THAT KNOWLEDGE WHICH CANNOT BE SENSED, MEASURED OR EXPERIENCED BY ANY ENTITY OR TYPE OF ENTITY CANNOT INFLUENCE THAT ENTITY OR TYPE OF ENTITY, 

LOGIC 4. 	A DATUM IS A FACSIMILE OF STATES OF BEING, STATES OF NOT BEING, ACTIONS OR INACTIONS, CONCLUSIONS, OR SUPPOSITIONS IN THE PHYSICAL OR ANY OTHER UNIVERSE. 

LOGIC 5. 	A DEFINITION OF TERMS IS NECESSARY TO THE ALIGNMENT, STATEMENT AND RESOLUTION OF SUPPOSITlONS, OBSERVATIONS, PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS AND THEIR COMMUNICATION. 

DEFINITION -  	DESCRIPTIVE DEFINITION: ONE WHICH CLASSIFIES BY CHARACTERISTICS, BY DESCRIBING EXISTING STATES OF BEING. 

DEFINITION - 	DIFFERENTIATIVE DEFINITION: ONE WHICH COMPARES UNLIKENESS TO EXISTING STATES OF BEING OR NOT BEING. 

DEFINITION - 	ASSOCIATIVE DEFINITION: ONE WHICH DECLARES LIKENESS TO EXISTING STATES OF BEING OR NOT BEING. 

DEFINITION - 	ACTION DEFINITION: ONE WHICH DELINEATES CAUSE AND POTENTIAL CHANGE OF STATE OF BEING BY CAUSE OF EXISTENCE, INEXISTENCE, ACTION, INACTION, PURPOSE OR LACK OF PURPOSE. 

LOGIC 6. 	ABSOLUTES ARE UNOBTAlNABLE.

LOGIC 7. 	GRADIENT SCALES ARE NECESSARY TO THE EVALUATION OF PROBLEMs AND THEIR DATA. 

	This is the tool of infinity valued logic: Absolutes are unobtainable. Terms such as good and bad, alive and dead, right and wrong are used only in conjunction with gradient scales. On the scale of right and wrong, everything above zero or center would be more and more right, approaching an infinite rightness, and every- thing below center would be more and more wrong approaching infinite wrongness.    All things assisting the survival of the survivor are considered to be right for the survivor. All things inhibiting survival from the viewpoint of the survivor can be considered to be wrong for the survivor. The more a thing assists survival, the more it can be considered right for the survivor. The more a thing or action inhibits survival, the more it is wrong from the viewpoint of the intended survivor. 

COROLLARY - 	ANY DATUM HAS ONLY RELATIVE TRUTH. 

COROLLARY - 	TRUTH IS RELATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTS EXPERIENCE AND                       TRUTH. 

LOGIC 8. 	A DATUM CAN BE EVALUATED ONLY BY A DATUM OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE. 

LOGIC 9. 	A DATUM IS AS VALUABLE AS IT HAS BEEN EVALUATED. 

LOGIC 10. 	THE VALUE OF A DATUM IS ESTABLISHED BY THE AMOUNT OF ALIGNMENT (RELATIONSHIP) IT IMPARTS TO OTHER DATA. 

LOGIC 11. 	THE VALUE OF A DATUM OR FIELD OF DATA CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY ITS DEGREE OF ASSISTANCE IN SURVIVAL OR ITS INHIBITION TO SURVIVAL. 

LOGIC 12. 	THE VALUE OF A DATUM OR A FIELD OF DATA IS MODIFIED BY THE VIEWPOINT OF THE OBSERVER. 

LOGIC 13. 	PROBLEMS ARE RESOLVED BY COMPARTMENTING THEM INTO AREAS OF SIMILAR MAGNITUDE AND DATA, COMPARING THEM TO DATA ALREADY KNOWN OR PARTIALLY KNOWN, AND RESOLVING EACH AREA, DATA WHICH CANNOT BE KNOWN IMMEDIATELY MAY BE RESOLVED BY ADDRESSING WHAT IS KNOWN AND USING ITS SOLUTION TO RESOLVE THE REMAINDER. 

LOGIC 14. 	FACTORS INTRODUCED INTO A PROBLEM OR SOLUTION WHICH DO NOT DERIVE FROM NATURAL LAW BUT ONLY AUTHORITARIAN COMMAND, ABERRATE THAT PROBLEM OR SOLUTION. 

LOGIC 15. 	THE INTRODUCTION OF AN ARBITRARY INTO A PROBLEM OR SOLUTION INVITES THE FURTHER INTRODUCTION OF ARBITRARIES INTO PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS. 

LOGIC 16. 	AN ABSTRACT POSTULATE MUST BE COMPARED TO THE UNIVERSE TO WHICH IT APPLIES AND BROUGHT INTO THE CATEGORY OF THINGS WHICH CAN BE SENSED, MEASURED OR EXPERIENCED IN THAT UNIVERSE BEFORE SUCH POSTULATE CAN BE CONSIDERED WORKABLE. 

LOGIC 17. 	THOSE FIELDS WHICH MOST DEPEND UPON AUTHORITATIVE OPINION FOR THEIR DATA LEAST CONTAIN KNOWN NATURAL LAW. 

LOGIC 18. 	A POSTULATE IS AS VALUABLE AS IT IS WORKABLE, 

LOGIC 19.	THE WORKABILITY OF A POSTULATE IS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEGREE TO WHICH IT EXPLAINS EXISTING PHENOMENA ALREADY KNOWN, BY THE DEGREE THAT IT PREDICTS NEW PHENOMENA WHICH WHEN LOOKED FOR WILL BE FOUND TO EXIST, AND BY THE DEGREE THAT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT PHENOMENA WHICH DO NOT EXIST IN FACT BE CALLED INTO EXlSTENCE FOR ITS EXPLANATION. 

LOGIC 20. 	A SCIENCE MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE A LARGE BODY OF ALIGNED DATA WHICH HAS SIMILARITY IN APPLICATION AND WHICH HAS BEEN DEDUCED OR INDUCED FROM BASIC POSTULATES. 

LOGIC 21. 	MATHEMATICS ARE METHODS OF POSTULATING OR RESOLVING REAL OR ABSTRACT DATA IN ANY UNIVERSE AND INTEGRATING BY SYMBOLIZATION OF DATA, POSTULATES AND RESOLUTIONS. 

LOGIC 22. 	THE HUMAN MIND* IS AN OBSERVER, POSTULATOR, CREATOR AND STORAGE PLACE OF KNOWLEDGE. 

LOGIC 23. 	THE HUMAN MIND IS A SERVOMECHANISM TO ANY MATHEMATICS EVOLVED OR EMPLOYED BY THE HUMAN MIND. 

	* The human mind by definition includes the awareness unit of the living organism, the observer, the computer of data, the spirit the memory storage, the life force and the individual motivator of the living organisms. It is used as distinct from the brain which can be considered to be motivated by the mind. 

NOTE: 	The primary step in resolving the broad activities of man could be considered to be the resolving of the activities of the mind itself. Hence, the logics carry to this point and then proceed as axioms concerning the human mind, such axioms being substantiated as relative truths by much newly discovered phenomena. The ensuing axioms, from Logic 24, apply no less to the various ‘‘ologies” than they do to de- aberrating or improving the operation of the mind. It should not be thought that the following axioms are devoted to the construction of anything as limited as a therapy, which is only incidental to the resolution of human aberration and such things as psychosomatic illnesses. These axioms are capable of such solution as has been demonstrated, but such a narrow application would indicate a very narrow scope of view. 

POSTULATE - 	THE HUMAN MIND AND INVENTIONS OF THE HUMAN MlND ARE CAPABLE OF RESOLVING ANY AND ALL PROBLEMS WHlCH CAN BE SENSED, MEASURED OR EXPERIENCED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. 

COROLLARY - 	THE HUMAN MIND IS CAPABLE OF RESOLVING THE PROBLEM OF THE HUMAN MIND. 

	The borderline of solution of this science lies between WHY life is surviving and HOW life is surviving. It is possible to resolve HOW life is surviving without resolving WHY life is surviving. 

LOGIC 24. 	THE RESOLUTION OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL, SCIENTIFIC AND HUMAN STUDIES (SUCH AS ECONOMICS, POLITICS, SOCIOLOGY, MEDICINE, CRIMINOLOGY, ETC. ) DEPENDS PRIMARILY UPON THE RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE HUMAN MIND. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 AUGUST 1958

CHANGE AUDITOR’S CODE

6. 	Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed or who has not received enough rest.

16. 	Maintain two-way communication with the preclear.

17. 	Never use Scientology to obtain personal and unusual favors or unusual compliance from the preclear for the auditor’s own personal profit.

18. 	Estimate the current case of your preclear with reality and do not process another imagined case.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:b.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 SEPTEMBER 1958 
Staff Auditor Hats

POST CASE ANALYSIS ROUTINE

When pc has been taken to the Director of Processing or case analyst (third party enters auditing picture in any way) the auditor must then

RE-ESTABLISH THE AUDITOR with

1. 	Two-way comm on analyst person.

2. 	“Who would I have to be to audit you successfully?”

3. 	“What am I doing?”

This is to avoid pc transferring to case analyst as auditor and then not coming back to session.

This is also done when pc has coffee shop auditing between sessions.

LRH:bjh							LRH
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 SEPTEMBER 1958
Issue II

HAVINGNESS—NEW COMMANDS

The value of havingness has not diminished. However, it needed new commands. I have now developed these. They are remarkably more effective than Trio.

FACTUAL HAVINGNESS

“Look around here and find something you have.”

When this can be left—

“Look around here and find something that you would continue.”

When this can be left—

“Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish.”

Then return to first again.

The order may be reversed. Some cases may run 250 of the third before finding one of the first or second.

LRH:b:jh							LRH
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1958

MORE ON TRAINING DRILL TWO

Avoidance of Double Acknowledgement is vital if you ever hope to keep pc in session.

Double Acknowledgement occurs when pc answers up, the auditor then acknowledges, and the pc then finishes his answer, leaving the auditor with another acknowledgement to do (and also leaving the auditor with no session).

Wrong:

Command: 	“What could you say to your father?” 
PC:      	“I could say, ‘Hello’.” 
Auditor: 	“FINE.” 
PC:      	“. . . ‘Father, how are you?’ I could say that.” 
Auditor: (weakly) “Good. What could you say to your father?” 
PC:      	“I could say, ‘Are you feeling well?’ “ 
Auditor: (desperate by now) “GOOD !” 
PC:      	“. . . ‘enough to go fishing?’” 
Auditor: 	“Well, okay all right. Now ....”

A pc is not always sure he has answered the question so he often changes his mind. If the auditor gives him Tone 40 or any ack at all in between a pc’s reply the auditor is wrong.

You just don’t “encourage” a pc with a lot of agreement okays and yes in the midst of answers. The pc answers, the pc is sure he has answered and the auditor then acknowledges. After all, it’s the pc that must be satisfied.

There are many ways to mis-acknowledge a pc. But any mis-acknowledgement is only and always a failure to end the cycle of a command—auditor asks, pc replies and knows he has answered, auditor acknowledges. Pc knows auditor has acknowledged. That is a full auditing command cycle. Don’t forget it and expect a process to work, it won’t. The roughest spot in most students is TR 2, not so much how to acknowledge but when.

An auditor running into this with a pc should handle it this way.

Auditor:	“What could you say to your father?”
PC:	“I could say, ‘Are you feeling well?’”
Auditor:	“Did that answer the question?”
PC:	“Well, no. I could say, ‘Are you feeling well enough to go fishing?’”
Auditor:	“Did that answer the question?”
PC:	“Yes, I guess it did. He always liked fishing and sympathy.”
Auditor: (sure pc is through) “Good! What could you say to your father?”

And there’s the way of it. If the pc is not sure he has answered and that the auditor has accepted the answer, the pc will get no benefit from the auditing. And that’s how important that is.

You can always spot a bad auditor. He does two things: he talks too much to the pc and he stops the pc from properly answering.

Add all the above to all training of students.

LRH: md.rd
copyright ©1958	                            			L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 OCTOBER AD 8

ACC CLEAR PROCEDURE

The Goal of the Auditor: to help the preclear re-establish confidence in his ability to confront Thetans, Thought, Time, Life, Energy, Matter and Space.

The theory of auditing: the preclear has lost confidence in his ability to face existence and its parts and has difficulty in participation. He is trapped in many of those things he has failed to confront or has been prevented from confronting or has prevented others from confronting or didn’t exist.

By gradient scales his confidence in confronting Thought, Time, Life, Energy, Matter and Space is improved. The rule is, “Find something the preclear can confront and improve that ability.” This normally begins with some part of an auditor. In less able cases, it begins with a thought of the auditor’s or the preclear’s.

Auditing is not erasure. Erasure dramatizes lost things to confront.

Where an auditor can be confronted and makes corny errors, the preclear stops being able to confront—hence the graph goes down on ARC breaks only. Therefore, the stress on smooth auditing.

A present time problem makes it hard for the preclear to confront the session. Therefore the stress on handling present time problems.

Auditing has as its sole liability confronting on a via—it may look to the auditor that he is using the pc (preclear) to confront things and this can be restimulative if the auditor doesn’t know what he is doing. If the auditor is actively preventing the pc from confronting anything or has as his goal never permitting the pc to confront, there’s trouble to hand.

-------------------

ARC, in auditing, is:

A = the ability to be in or at a distance from something.

R = the ability to co-exist with something.

C = the ability to transmit thought between two or more points.

Thus we see that the minimum of two anything is needed for the conditions of ARC to occur.

In actuality the thetan incurs no liability in confronting or not confronting, being in or not being in things and thus a total confronting or total non-confronting are attainable goals. The thetan believes things about confronting or necessities to confront or not to confront and so becomes aberrated (not straight-lined). To confront, knowing is necessary. Unknown confronting or not confronting, when uncovered, gives us the phenomenon of “cognition”—and that is the definition of it.

Auditing is that process which restores confidence in confronting and undoes necessity to confront Thought, Time, Life, Energy, Matter and Space.

Theory of Auditing

It should be realized that an optimum Clear Procedure should take a preclear from the lowest possible levels up to clear. Earlier procedures (1957-1958) did not attempt to address every case but were content to handle about 50% of the preclears. The remainder had to have special address just as cases. Therefore, auditors adopted the idea that on one hand there was Clear Procedure and on the other hand low level procedure—they did not place one above the other in a gradient scale to clear. This particular Clear Procedure does that.

In use it should be realized that different cases require different emphasis. An easy case would not demand a tedious command clearing, suspicious probing to break non-existent occlusions or emphasis on the lower steps. Indeed, these lower steps could be skipped up to CCH 0.

It is all a matter of judgment, how long and hard to run which. Two errors are potential: both rest on accurate case estimation. The commonest is to overestimate the level of the case. And not uncommon, to audit a high level case with very low level processes. The answer is to audit the case one is auditing, not some other case or one’s own case.

Since estimation and auditor-sensitivity are subject to variety and error one cannot cleanly estimate the length of time required to clear anyone. Only approximations are possible and these are varied by possible environmental difficulties of the preclear during auditing: i.e., daily present time problems of crushing magnitude.

We are not today in the area of thousands of hours, however. We are in the area of hundreds of hours in any case, sane or insane. I cite an example: a woman suffering from a postpartum psychosis was audited 600 hours on CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 before she turned sane long enough for the auditor to snap off the case the valence of her dying brother, at which moment she turned stably sane. Only then could she have been audited on less fundamental steps. However, auditors are not concerned with the insane but often address relatively unconscious people. This example is cited as the most extreme time in auditing we have on record with modern technique.

I would not be surprised that, with all variables introduced, some case required 800 hours to clear. On a jigsaw puzzle test such a case would have failed to have fitted a single piece in the first 30 seconds, by our present method of estimation.

There are several means of establishing an idea of length of time in processing from present state to clear. The minimum in any case would be three weeks (75 hours); the probable maximum would be 1,000 hours. Between these extremes, we have most people. The peak of the cure would probably be around 250 hours, as estimated by older clearing methods.

Anxieties to attain faster push-button clearing defeat most research. These speed methods violate the reality of the preclear and too thoroughly evaluate for him. In all cases of clearing it is only the reality of the preclear which milestones the gains. That reality requires a certain speed of advance. While being audited, also, a preclear is living, and his surroundings require his attention. Man is somewhat cautious. He must adjust himself within his own ideas of security. The auditor always knows what is wrong with the preclear long before the preclear finds out. One must permit the preclear to find out! That discovery is only assisted, never blackjacked into being (see Psychiatry: The Greatest Flub of the Russian Civilization, by Tom Esterbrook). The patient is part of the therapy—a lesson the Russ school never learned.

Therefore, Clear Procedure starts where it should, CCH 1.

In running the CCHs, a set procedure is followed not only with the single process but with the series. One will discover that only one of the series of CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 bites the first time through. It is useless to run very long on the ones that don’t bite. Example: An auditor does CCH 1 for an hour—no bite. He does CCH 2 for an hour or so-no bite. He does CCH 3 and it bites He does it for a few hours and CCH 3 levels off a bit. Now he returns to CCH 1 and finds it bites. He flattens it a bit, does CCH 2 for an hour, CCH 3 for a couple of hours and when he starts CCH 4, now this one bites! He flattens it in a few hours, goes back to CCH 1, etc.

The processes CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 are all of a piece. They are done in series fashion, not as individual items.

CCH 1, 2, 3, 4

Number: CCH 1

Name: Give me that hand, Tone 40.

Commands: “Give me that hand.” Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in preclear’s lap. And “Thank you,” ending cycle. All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way verbally or physically. May be run on right hand, left hand, both hands, each one flattened in turn.

Position: Auditor and preclear seated in chairs without arms, close together. Auditor’s knees both to auditor’s left of preclear’s knees, outside of auditor’s right thigh against outside of preclear’s right thigh. This position reversed for left hand. In both hands preclear’s knees are between auditor’s knees.

Purpose: To demonstrate to preclear that control of preclear’s body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting preclear to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over toward absolute control of his own body by preclear.

Training Stress: Never stop process until a flat place is reached. To process with good Tone 40. Auditor taught to pick up preclear’s hand by wrist with auditor’s thumb nearest auditor’s body, to have an exact and invariable place to carry preclear’s hand to before clasping, clasping hand with exactly correct pressure, replacing hand (with auditor’s left hand still holding preclear’s wrist) in preclear’s lap. Making every command and cycle separate. Maintaining Tone 40. Stress on intention from auditor to preclear with each command. To leave an instant for preclear to do it by own will before auditor does it. Stress Tone 40 precision. To keep epicenters balanced. CCH l(b) should also be flattened.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC, Washington, D.C., 1 957.

Number: CCH 2

Name: Tone 40 8-C.

Commands: 	“Look at that wall.” “Thank you.” 
	“Walk over to that wall.” “Thank you.” 
	“With the right hand, touch that wall.” “Thank you.” 
	“Turn around.” “Thank you.”
Run without acknowledging in any way any origination by preclear, acknowledging only preclear’s execution of the command. Commands smoothly enforced physically. Tone 40, full intention.

Position: Auditor and preclear ambulant, auditor in physical contact with preclear as needed.
Purpose: To demonstrate to preclear that his body can be directly controlled and thus inviting him to control it. Finding present time. Havingness. Other effects not fully explained.

Training Stress: Absolute auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present time auditing. Auditor turns preclear counterclockwise, then steps always on preclear’s right side. Auditor’s body acts as block to forward motion when preclear turns. Auditor gives command, gives preclear a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Auditor does not check preclear from executing commands.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1957 for the 17th ACC.

Number: CCH 3

Name: Hand Space Mimicry.

Commands: Auditor raises two hands, palms facing preclear, and says, “Put your hands against mine, follow them and contribute to their motion.” He then makes a simple motion with right hand, then left. “Did you contribute to the motion?” “Good.” “Put your hands in your lap.” When this is flat the auditor does this same thing with a half inch of space between his and the preclear’s palms. When this is flat auditor does it with a wider space and so on until preclear is able to follow motions a yard away.

Position: Auditor and preclear seated, close together facing each other, preclear’s knees between auditor’s.

Purpose: To develop reality on the auditor, using the reality scale (solid communication line). To get preclear into communication by control + duplication.

Training Stress: That auditor be gentle and accurate in his motions, giving preclear wins. To be free in two-way communication.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in Washington, D.C., in 1956, as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant “Look at me. Who am I?” and “Find the auditor” part of rudiments.

Number: CCH 4

Name: Book Mimicry.

Commands: Auditor makes a simple or complex motion with a book. Hands book to preclear. Preclear makes motion duplicating auditor’s mirror-image-wise. Auditor asks preclear if he is satisfied that the preclear duplicated the motion. If preclear is and auditor is also fairly satisfied, auditor takes back the book and goes to next command. If preclear says he is and auditor is fairly sure preclear isn’t, auditor takes back book and repeats command and gives book to preclear again for another try. If preclear is not sure he duplicated any command, auditor repeats it for him and gives him back the book. Tone 40 only in motions. Verbal two-way quite free.

Position: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.
Purpose. To bring up preclear’s communication with control and duplication. (Control + duplication = communication.)

Training Stress: Stress giving preclear wins. Stress auditor’s necessity to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard for the 16th ACC in Washington, D.C., 1957. Based on duplication developed by LRH in London, 1952.
CCH 0

(1) Start Session by saying “Start of Session”. Don’t discuss things and then start session and startle preclear, who thought he was in session all the time. To do this throws pc out of session. Also, you can’t end a session that was never started.

(2)(a) Establish Auditor. Clear auditor with pc. Discuss any successful auditing in the past, even successful doctoring. Shake pc loose from heavy ARC with past practitioners, not by running down practitioners, but getting pc to realize he has been helped. Develop this into process, “Who should I be to help you successfully?” Get it flat, then run “What am I doing?”

(2)(b) Establish Preclear. Put preclear more in session with goals—”What would you like to accomplish through Scientology?” “What would you like to accomplish in this session?” The foregoing two we care little about. We now hit this hard: “What are you willing to have happen in this session?” We get a final clear answer to this even if it takes an hour of two-way comm. Then we establish, “What are you absolutely certain will happen in (finite period of time such as ten minutes or one hour)?”

(2)(c) Establish problems, if any. Run “Is there any place you would like to be more than here?” When this is threshed out, “Is there any place you should be rather than here?” This may bring any present time problem to view. If it does, audit it with “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?” If pc is too agitated to run this or if two-way comm cuts his havingness badly, run Factual Havingness: “Look around here and find something you have.” When this can be left, “Look around here and find something that you would continue.” When this can be left, “Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish.” Then return to first again. (The order may be reversed. Some cases may run 250 of the third before finding one of the first or second.) Factual Havingness can resolve present time problems, which are always and only threats of loss.

If preclear seems hard to audit, is in propitiation, does obsessive agreement, has hypnotic eyelid flutter, or in general seems unnatural about talking or not talking, you can put pc into session and get present time problem most rapidly by spending real time on this: “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” and sort it out on a meter, with two-way comm, then ask question again, etc., until pc is really talking to the auditor. The goal of present time problems or problems is to get pc in session. The goal of this, “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” is not to learn the pc’s secrets but to get pc to talk freely to auditor. Accomplishing this one thing on a hitherto non-advancing pc is a great thing and will make the pc advance faster than anything else. Get the pc to talk to you honestly.

Then take up present time problems directly: “Do you have a present time problem?” Preclear says he does but needle on meter doesn’t move. Ask question a few more times—”Is there anything worrying you?” you can say for variation. If needle still doesn’t drop, forget it. IF NEEDLE DROPS pursue it and run only the problem that drops. Don’t run problems that don’t drop! Keep your eyes on the meter while handling pc with present time problems, expand what falls, not something else. Pc can’t confront his problems, therefore the drop vanishes easily, comes back and drops again. This can fool an auditor badly if he doesn’t watch his meter and take up to run and discuss only the drop. (Note: If the meter is “Stage Four” [idle swing, not clear but pc can’t affect meter, which only swings up, sticks, falls and so forth on same pattern—a Stage Four needle has a stick in the top of its oscillation, a clear needle doesn’t] or if it is too stuck to show a fall on a problem, play safe, run Factual Havingness or Connectedness.)

This exact way to run a present time problem can make a full intensive.

Command (when problem located): “Describe that problem to me now.” Make sure pc does. ACCEPT ANY VERSION PC GIVES YOU, BUT ONLY FOLLOW THROUGH ON A VERSION THAT DROPS ON METER. If the version drops, run the following for two or five commands, “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?” Then whether drop on meter vanishes or not, say, “Describe that problem to me now.” If the described problem did not drop, buy it but don’t run it, say again, “Describe that problem to me now.” If you can handle this type of problem-handling, if you got pc to really talk to you, you can practically clear a case on this since it gets out of case the succumb postulates that war against betterment. This is the scale of succumb problems from the bottom up: How to go unconscious; How to feel nothing; How to go insane; How to escape; How to die; How to get shed of responsibilities so one can die; How not to care; How to endure; How to get better; How to Live; How to live better. There are inner levels. The basic problem is a “whether” (all problems are “whether” or “how”): Whether to Survive or Succumb. Decisions to do either are, if obsessive, the stable data in the center of the major confusions. When a pc is sitting there in heavy succumb postulates his goals and the auditor’s goals are on opposite vectors. Therefore, preclears who don’t get better aren’t  trying to get better no matter how much they say they are. Hence a whole case can run on this provided some havingness is also run from time to time.

In brief, this is where running a present time problem well gets to.

Remember, a problem is not a condition or a terminal. It is a “how” or “whether”. It is a doingness, not a person. “My wife” is no answer to a present time problem question. “How to live with my wife” is a problem. “Whether or not to live with my wife” is a problem. “My wife’s illness” is not a problem. “How to cure my wife’s illness” is a problem.

Sometimes a pc will come right down on an old stable decision about the problem and say, “It isn’t a problem to me now.” The auditor must not buy this. He wants to know “Why?” until pc is off the old solution and can go on describing problems.

How to be audited. How to stay in session. Whether the auditor has pc’s interest at heart. Such present time problems are very much in order to ask about.

To completely flatten any problem it is necessary to run not “responsible for” but “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem.” This is run in the same way as above, but is given more commands for each version handed out by the pc. This is the problem command if you want it flat forever. Don’t lose this process or command from your repertoire.

(2)(d) Getting Auditor and Pc established. Take up any ARC breaks with pc or any breaks between pc and past auditors. Always clear away ARC breaks. Don’t dodge them as an auditor.

Explaining why the break occurred is an Auditor’s Code violation—Evaluation.

Saying that the ARC break didn’t occur or was the pc’s fault is an Auditor’s Code violation—Invalidation.

When an auditor fails to take responsibility for the ARC break he loses the responsibility of running the session—which, of course, causes a session to cease to exist.

The relative destructive value of an ARC break is greater than the failure.

ALWAYS HANDLE CCH 0 in every session well except when giving not a session but an Assist only.

TR 11

TR 11. ARC Straight Wire. That process best calculated to orient pc in his past is ARC Straight Wire.

Commands: “Recall something that was really real to you.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you were in good communication with someone.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you really liked someone.” “Thank you.” The three commands are given in that order and repeated in that order consistently.

Position: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance.

Purpose: To give the student reality on the existence of a bank. This is audited on another student and is audited until the other student is in present time. It will be found that the process discloses the cycling action of the preclear going deeper and deeper into the past and then more and more shallowly into the past until he is recalling something again close to present time. This cyclic action should be studied and understood and the reality on the pictures the preclear gets should be thoroughly understood by the student. The fact that another has pictures should be totally real to the student under training.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1951 in Wichita, Kansas. This was once a very important process. It has been known to bring people from a neurotic to a sane level after only a short period of application. It has been run on a group basis with success but it should be noted that the thinkingness of the individuals in the group would have to be well under the control of the auditor in order to have this process broadly beneficial. When it was discovered that this process occasionally reduces people’s havingness, the process itself was not generally run thereafter. It is still, however, an excellent process with that proviso, a reduction of havingness in some cases.

Many cases have achieved their first step upward with the process. It is a process which, known, gives the pc the comfortable feeling that he at least has stopped getting worse and that there is something that permits him to hold his own.

In the 20th ACC Lectures I described how all entheta receives its charge from theta. ARC in the bank makes ARC breaks possible. A re-orientation of ARC can be more important than one realizes. The way to blow ARC breaks can be more ARC. Even a psychotic may rise up to merely neurotic on ARC Straight Wire.

The cyclic aspect of ARC Straight Wire must receive attention.

You don’t want to know what when he recalls something, you want to know when. Ask, “When was that?” frequently and you will see pc slide into past and then return to present time as a regular cycle. Don’t end the process while pc is still in past. Don’t finish the process with a comm bridge that leaves him in the past. Just warn him that the process will soon end, and stop it when pc’s recall was of a near present time thing.

You get lots of past lives in view this way. Buy them.

-----------------------

Lasting and easily obtained results were gained in 1956 by using just two processes. With the 1958 Theory of Auditing (above) it is easy to see why. These are basically confrontingness processes. They were S-C-S and Connectedness.

I developed these two for use in combination for a standardization of processing for a whole firm that was having its employees processed in London in 1956. The results were so good that Mary Sue Hubbard, while Director of Processing London, used the same regimen on all preclears with uniformly astonishing results.

The exact regimen used in that period was as follows: simple S-C-S on objects with pc and auditor seated at a table. Then S-C-S on the body. Then “Keep it from going away” and “Hold it still” on two small objects with pc seated, using first one object then the other and always touching them with his hands at command. Finally, subjectively, on facsimiles, “Keep it from going away,” and “Hold it still.” Throughout, Connectedness was used to bolster havingness as needed with the command, “You make that (indicated object) connect with you.”
The regimen as given here was superseded because auditors, unsupervised, tended to complicate the processes and not until a short time ago did we learn that the best answer to an auditor’s desire for “more information” was a repetition of what he was told the first time. He didn’t understand the original and so wanted a new one. Further, in supervised processing, there has been a frailty in that the auditor sometimes reported, “I did what you said and it didn’t work.” An unwary supervisor then gives him a new process to do. A wary one says in reply to the above, “What didn’t work?” and usually discovers that the supervisor’s directions were neither remembered nor run. This set of factors has accounted for many abandonments of SOPs (standard operating procedures) which were in actuality working like mad, only the people they were given to never used them, only said they did, and fed bad data back. It is the role of a supervisor to get the process he gave out run, not another version of it.

CCH 3(c)

The rationale behind S-C-S was simple: it placed the pc in the auditor’s control. And it placed the pc’s body under his own control. But there is more to S-C-S than this since it is also a confrontingness process.

CCH 3(c)

Name: S-C-S on a person. (Start, change and stop on a person.)

Commands: There are three sets of commands, each one of which is run until it is relatively flat. The commands are as follows: “Now we are going to start the body.

When I say start, you start that body in this (indicated) direction. All right, Start.” The commands for “Change” are as follows (indicating four positions on the floor one after the other): “This we are going to call Spot A. This we are going to call Spot B. This we are going to call Spot C and this we are going to call Spot D. Do you have that? All right, when I say Change, I want you to change the position of that body from A to B. All right, Change.” (The same applies for the other positions.) The commands for “Stop” are as follows: “Now I want you to get that body moving in (indicated) direction, and when I say Stop, I want you to stop that body. All right, move that body. Stop.” Each one of the commands is followed with the question, “Did you start that body?” “Did you change the position of that body?” “Did you stop that body?”

Position: Auditor and preclear ambulant. Auditor accompanies preclear as he walks and occasionally touches him and turns him around manually as needed to assist the preclear.

Purpose: To give the preclear good control of his body and to exteriorize him.

Training Stress: Stress is on precision of the motion and command.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1955 as an exteriorization process. First discovered in 1952 was the fact that a person, which is to say a thetan, stays as close to an object as he has confidence in his controlling of it.

GP-3

Connectedness. The basic form of any havingness process is Connectedness. After one flattens S-C-S, one then runs Connectedness on the preclear.

Commands.

(a) “You get the idea of making that (object) connect with you.” (Auditor points. )

(b) If pc isn’t looking at object with Mest body’s eyes, use following: “Look at that (object).” “You get the idea of making that object connect with you.”
(c) On blind humans: “Feel that (object).” “You get the idea of making that object connect with you.”

------------------------

There is a new version of havingness called Factual Havingness. It is used in conjunction with any subjective process such as those subjective processes which follow.

Factual Havingness Commands.

“Look around here and find something you have.”

“Look around here and find something that you would continue.”

“Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish.”

--------------------------

Confrontingness

The earliest clearing process, made more workable by repetitive commands and a broad understanding achieved in the ensuing 11 years, is made part of the most modern (1958) procedure.

I was clearing people in 1947 by getting them to look at locks, secondaries, engrams, circuits and the physical universe. I cleared a lot of people in about 100 hours each. All I did was renew their confidence in being able to “look at” their pictures. I turned on sonic, tactile, the works, with renewing confidence, lessening fear.

Three years later, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was written. Its processes are slanted toward teaching people to audit and are the result of people not doing and saying they did. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health processes are good. They are the best training processes re banks there are. They train an auditor better than they clear a pc.

We now return to earliest clearing with what we now call Confrontingness. See “Theory of Auditing” above.

In general, we persuade the pc to confront things at his own gradient scale of willingness.

We find an ability to confront and we improve it.

Body Confrontingness

This is close to a specific for a chronic somatic.

Auditor: “What part of that body can you confront?”

Pc: “Elbow.”

Auditor: “What part of that elbow can you confront best?”

Pc: “The wrist.”

Auditor: “Thank you.”

This is the whole cycle of the command. The auditor does not correct the pc when “part of” becomes some other part of the body.

Subjective Confrontingness

General version:

“What mental view can you confront?” “What part of it can you confront best?” “Thank you.”

The above wording allows for dark fields and other phenomena and runs easily on an occluded case.

For a person who has pictures and sensations, a more specific form using “pictures”, as well as “emotions”, “feelings”, “sounds”, “thoughts”, etc., can be used.

There can be and will be many versions of confrontingness given. Suffice here that the above work well and can form an entirety of clearing. They are a refinement, a simplification of the first version of clearing and should work as well today.

Participation

We must not overlook the factor of participation in life. Participation in session is necessary for processing to work. It is achieved by bettering the factor “Confronting”.

Auditing toward the goal of total non-confront is eventually to achieve total non-participation. This is highly undesirable.

Destruction as an impulse has as its goal the removal of the need to confront. When one can confront he does not need to destroy. Unwillingness to confront is the source of most “have to be processed”. One is asking the auditor to destroy “all these horrible things”. Obsessive confronting is almost as bad. “Can’t confront it so I’ll prove I can by confronting it forever—and I’ll keep on creating it to prove I can confront it.” The mechanics of the bank can be worked out on such a basis.

Participation is only possible when one can also confront. Gradient scale of confronting can lead to participation without being overwhelmed.

Survival

All processes since the earliest endeavors in this search have aligned on “Survive”. Continuance in Factual Havingness expresses this factor. The postulate to Survive is invalidative of the fact that a thetan cannot do otherwise. The whole key to brainwashing and punishment is that they make a thetan postulate survival which is “continuous confronting”. This is handled by various versions of confronting.

Creating

A reactive bank comes from obsessive creating. A thetan’s answer to being threatened or struck is to create. His basic training is all aligned along creating something. This factor is used in various ways in processing, usually inherent in a process.

Help

Probably the first thing that will have to be taken up in some cases is the subject of Help. To this degree Help is part of CCH 0 in establishing an auditor-preclear relationship. People who do not volunteer to be audited at all will require help orientation as the first step. Five hours on Help with such a person, using a two-way bracket, is often well spent. But such a bracket must be exceptionally well audited, without ARC breaks, to begin an intensive or to repair ARC breaks.

Aside from the above, Help is of vast importance.

The first burning question, when we approach Help as a process, is, “What condition would you have to be in to get help?” This is usually the condition the pc is in. The repetitive command for this is, “Mock up (or invent) somebody in such a condition that they would receive help.”

HELP ON THE ROCK

The “Rock” is the thing the preclear uses to reach people. It is an object far back on the track. It is confrontingness on a via.

The E-Meter is used to locate a stuck object. This is a “lock on the rock”. (The stuck can be freed by using Connectedness on the room, always.)

Help Bracket on the Rock

Use in this exact order, one command at a time:

How could a _______ help itself? 
How could you help a _______ ? 
How could a _______     help you?
How could I help a	_______?
How could a help me?
How could another person help a _______?
How could a _______     help another person?
How could others help a _______?
How could a _______ help others?
How could you help yourself?
How could I help myself?
How could you help me?
How could I help you?

The command words, but not as a whole phrase, are cleared often (every 3 brackets) and the pc is asked for his opinion only of the word “help” and the item. His answer is not challenged.
General Help Bracket

How could you help yourself? 
How could you help me? 
How could I help you? 
How could I help myself? 
How could you help another person? 
How could I help another person? 
How could another person help you? 
How could another person help me? 
How could another person help another person?

-------------------------

Responsibility

The basic clearing process using responsibility is, “You make a picture for which you can be wholly responsible.”

This, flattened, can make a clear.

It uses the fact that a person is making his whole bank anyway and it persuades him to realize it.

Some version of responsibility is required to end all clearing.

Assignment of responsibility is at the bottom of the search for phenomena and magic to clear people.
--------------------------

Answers

Everyone who does not change in processing is being an answer. He “has it made”.

Therefore, there is an opposite side to problems. That is answers.

“Mock up a problem for which you are (or your condition is) the answer.”

Origins (Originations)

The original version was: “What origin of yours has been mishandled?” “Recall a time when you were pleased with that person.”

A shorter version is, “What origin of yours has been handled properly?”

Any creation is an origin in a communication line, for the purposes of auditing. Hence the importance of origins.
THE BUTTONS

There are certain buttons which depress clearing if the pc has erroneous definitions for them. These are:

CHANGE, PROBLEM, HELP, PLEASED, CREATE, RESPONSIBILITY, CONFRONT.

Various processes redefine them in action. This is such a process:

“Invent a person who likes (the button).”

STEP 6

A cleared person is no longer in confusion about Help or who makes the mock-ups. “Help and Step 6” were the early 1958 clues to clear. These are still used as tests and even when their running is brief, they must be run.

Caution: It is almost fatal to run Step 6 if the rock is not out.

How to Run Step 6:

Select simple nonsignificant objects. Run: “In front of that body you mock up a _______ and keep it from going away.” “Did you?” “Thank you.”

Then use all directions from the body—”Behind that body . . . ,” “To the left of that body . . . ,” “To the right of that body . . . ,” “Above that body . . . ,” “Below that body ....”

Run 6 objects each on 6 sides of the body on “Keep it from going away,” then proceed to “In front of that body you mock up a      and hold it still.” Same procedure, then “In front of that body you mock up a      and make it a little more solid.” (There is no acknowledgment by auditor after pc mocks it up and keeps it from going away, etc., or the “Did you?”—there is acknowledgment only after full command is executed. Otherwise acknowledgments will thin the pc’s mock-ups.)

Note: The objects should be simple at first, leading on up to complexity. But at first, keep them simple and nonsignificant.

Read and understand Scientology 8-8008, and use an E-Meter throughout.

A valuable side process here: “Decide to make a mock-up. Decide that will ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” Also this one: “Decide to make a mock-up everyone can see. Decide that would ruin the game. Decide not to do it.”

* * *

In the above there are several roads to Clear. But there are also several levels of case to be cleared. Experience tells one what to run. Auditing skill alone gets the experience across.

The original 1947 processes were defeated in the hands of others by lack of auditing drills and skill.

Help and Step 6 do not work on low level cases to make clears of everyone—hence the CCHs.

By doing all of the above on every case you would certainly have clears in all cases. As your experience increases you can begin to omit steps.

You will finally be able to adjust the processes to the exact cases you do.

Get the preclear in session, run something. You’ll win.

LRH:-.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 146
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 October 1958

PROCEDURE CCH

(This lecture is a final summing up of the previous CCH PABs [interrupted at PAB No. 138] and should be read after those have been digested. It was given by L. Ron Hubbard to the HGC staff auditors in Washington, D.C. on 23 August 1957.

Thinkingness in general should not be suspected to be under anybody’s control. It is probably more under the auditor’s control than it is under the preclear’s.

When I say or ask “Is the preclear’s thinkingness under control?” I want you to understand that it is less under the preclear’s control at any time than under the auditor’s. The auditor can certainly control the preclear’s thinkingness better than the preclear can. But before you can do this you must first get the preclear’s body and attention under control.

A condition to running Trio is: Is the person and attention under your control? To assume that the power of choice is also under the preclear’s control—much less his thinkingness—is, of course, completely wrong.

This condition then moves Trio way up on the present scale of processes. In order to give the preclear some havingness after CCH 0 to 5 has been flattened, I have developed an undercut to Trio.

Trio is a directive process and should be prefaced by “Get the idea of having that clock.” “Get the idea of having that picture (indicated picture on the wall),” etc. That’s highly directive and would keep thinkingness of a rough case under control.

The second version is: “Get the idea that it is all right to permit that (indicated object) to continue.” It is also just an indicating process.

The third section of this trio is the clincher: “Get the idea of making that (indicated object) disappear.” One runs “disappear” instead of “dispense with” or “not-know.”

Small objects are much easier for the preclear to make disappear than large ones. You have not told him to make it disappear but only to “get the idea of making it disappear.” Preclears usually literally interpret you and try like mad to make it disappear—and it usually does for a short time.

I have solved the enigma of exteriorization. Why doesn’t a preclear exteriorize easily and stay exteriorized? We ask the accompanying question: Why does a preclear get sick when one asks him to conceive a static? Obviously we would have to get somebody to conceive a static before he could himself stay comfortably outside his body’s head.
The answer to this problem is contained in the process “Recall a moment of loss.” Loss prevents the preclear from conceiving a static. He associates a static with loss. He says, “All right, if there is nothing there I’ve lost it,” or “I’ve lost something there, therefore I’d better not conceive a static.”

Conceiving a static is therefore painful. The truth of the matter is whenever he lost anything, something disappeared. All right. The funny part of it is that he never noticed that he didn’t lose totally every time. He still had other objects. He lost his tie pin, but he still has his tie. He’s still got the floor, the room, this universe, space, etc., but he never realizes this in these instances and that is why we run this process “Recall a moment of loss” to accustom somebody to conceiving a static very directly on loss and to get him to exteriorize.

An individual cannot conceive a static if he associates static with loss—if the loss is painful. So we have to cure him of the painfulness of loss, consideration of, before we can exteriorize him easily.

We do this by going back to automaticity. The universe has been taking things away from him. It has become an automaticity, and we find that the universe has an automaticity known as time and time itself is a consecutive series of losses. So we have to cure the preclear of losses before we can get him to appreciate time, otherwise he would be so afraid of losing it that he’d stick himself on the track and we get the “stuck on the track” phenomenon.

The process “Recall a moment of loss” aimed at this, but the third command of Control Trio (as this series of processes had better be called), “Get the idea of making that (indicated object) disappear,” handles it very well. This gets the preclear to take over the automaticity of all of the losses which he has unwillingly experienced.

The universe has been taking the things away from him, and just spotting objects and getting the idea that they are going to disappear or are disappearing takes over the automaticity of losses, and he becomes accustomed to it after a while.

All of the invisible masses that preclears have around them are actually simply symptoms of mass—loss, mass—loss. When an individual has no visio the only thing that he is looking at is a “stuck” loss. He is looking at the nothingness of something that was there.

So one takes over that automaticity with the third command of Control Trio and one therefore has a very highly directional, workable set of processes.

Each part of that Trio would be run relatively flat and go on to the next part, and I would say that one would run each part certainly not a hundred commands each and the auditor should endeavor to stay in that order of magnitude and just run it round and round.

Take somebody with glasses, for example. His eyesight will do more tricks in less time on this third command of Control Trio than one can imagine. Things will go black. Well, why do things go black? Blackness makes things disappear and one takes over the automaticity of blackness to make things disappear. Night grabs, the way of the universe, once in every 24 hours on earth here. This is the process we have been looking for to turn on visio.

If you want to turn on sonic with this you would have to go down to a noisy part of town and just run Trio on sound, but you wouldn’t dare run Control Trio on sound if the preclear did not already have it flat on objects. Visio turns on before sonic.

There are many things one could do with this process. People who have anaesthetized areas in their body—like they have no chest, etc.—do weird things during this process.

I wanted to tell you particularly about this particular process because it is a specific and will be found to be very useful to you. We had to find out if one version of this would run without killing a preclear and that is “Recall a moment of loss.” Actually “Recall a moment of loss” should act as a havingness process because it as-ises all of the lost points on the track and it should be a havingness process all by itself; but we didn’t want to be so bold as to run it with no havingness.

(Until I find out differently, this Control Trio and “Recall a moment of loss” are making a bid for our chief exteriorization processes.)

Now here is a process which is based on our old “Recall a secret.” The version is entirely straight wire. The auditor explains to the preclear that he is not looking for hidden data to evaluate it. He is only asking the preclear to look at the data. He then makes a list of valences, paying great attention to those the preclear considers “unimportant” or is very slow to divulge. Then the auditor takes this list and runs repetitive straight wire (1951) as follows: “Think of something you might withhold from (valence).”

The auditor repeats this question over and over until no communication lag is present. He never says “something else you might withhold from valence” because the auditor wants the preclear to think of some of these many times.

Before selecting another valence the auditor runs a little Locational or Trio. He then takes the next valence the same way. The list is covered once and then the same list is covered again. The object is speed. Cover many people. Given time the auditor can do the same thing on all dynamics.

There is a variation. Instead of a valence, body parts may be used. “Think of something you might withhold from that (body part).” Leave sexual parts or obvious psychosomatic difficulties until last. Don’t begin on a withered arm, for example.

It is amusing to realize that this process overlords all early psychotherapies, but they, using this effort to locate secrets, thought that divulgence and confession were the therapeutic agents. These have no bearing on workability. Further, early efforts naively thought there was one secret per case. Actually there are billions. It is easy to get into past lives on this. A basic secret is that one lived before.

Whenever you run “withhold” on a valence you finish up with “can’t have” on the valence and “have” for the preclear. It flattens off better that way.

You will often find that it is more advantageous to run Locational Processing than Problems of Comparable or Incomparable Magnitude at times. A Problem of Comparable Magnitude is all right, but it is a thinkingness process and on a case that is having an awful lot of trouble with it, it gives them hell to run Locational Processing, but nevertheless it does run out the present time problem, which is most fascinating.

Any one of the Rudiments is an excellent process. Two-Way Communication is great and does not as-is havingness. You have to keep the reality of two-way comm very high, though, and be willing to interrupt obsessive outflows and silences of the preclear. It is establishing a high level of reality. It consists of the auditor feeding experimental data to the preclear to have him look it over and decide about it one way or the other. You don’t let the preclear in Two-Way Comm as-is everything he knows, thinks, or wants to do.

The latest addition to the Rudiments is “Clearing the Auditor.” Actually the crudest way known of clearing the auditor is “Who do I remind you of?” “Tell me something you like about me.” The best way of clearing the auditor we know of is in Training 15, which is “Could I help you?” “How?” “Could you help me?” “How?” “Could I help anybody else?” “How?” “Could you help anybody else?” “How?” “Do other people ever help other people?” “Do women ever help women?” “Do men ever help men?” “Do men ever help women?” etc. You beat it to pieces on a big long bracket.

This goes so far that it becomes a fantastic process in itself. You take father and mother valences and they are usually quite hot. You can run this on “Help.” This is usually quite necessary on a case that is going to hang up because the only reason he is sitting there is to waste help.

One has to understand that this case is trying to waste help, and it isn’t a matter of “Find the Auditor” in the Rudiments today, but “Clear the Auditor” and the only point on which he is cleared is “Help”—”Can I help you? Can you help me?”

We use Handbook for Preclears to give the preclear some homework at the Hubbard Guidance Centers and it has been helping out just to the degree that it does some clarification on goals and gets the preclear stirred up. It simply stirs up the case so that it will run out.

I was running over a phrenological questionnaire, and it said people are never permitted to do anything they want to do and this is the best goal of discipline. I got this tangled out in one way or the other. I got thinking about it from the standpoint— this was about 20 years ago—of “I wonder if there is anybody around that could articulate with great conciseness what he would like to do?” And I have found on all hands a failure to articulate was the main difficulty. A person had the feeling that he wanted to do something and that it would be wonderful, but it was all in a sensory capacity. If he could have been made to articulate this it would really have been something. And I experimented on it a little bit and we see that today in the Handbook for Preclears.

If you can get a person to articulate in a session anything about the future you have won the subject of goals. But it must be in the alignment of this person’s frame of reference. It must be aligned with his life—not aligned with something we think he ought to live.

So let’s take a look at the clearance of goals. Goals would not be likely to run on a high generality. In other words, they are specific, personal and intimate. It is “What do you think? What do you want? What is aligned to your life?”

Let’s look at Goals as a process. One could run Goals for 25 hours with the greatest of ease. One could run the Present Time Problem for 25 hours, and we just had a report of a terrific win here on a preclear who was run on Locational for 25 hours. So it looks as though the Rudiments could be the session.

We discover a preclear in the terrible condition of not wanting any auditing, not going any place and all of his goals being somebody else’s goals. Two things can be done immediately: Clear the auditor and then run Goals.

Goals could be run with two-way comm in this manner. You ask the preclear what he is absolutely sure would happen in the next couple of minutes, the next hour, a day from now, a week from now, one month from now and one year from now. We want something that the preclear is absolutely sure would happen.

We are running right there the reverse process of atomic bombs which say “no future—no future—no future.” That is basically what is wrong with a person. Why does he get jammed on the track? It is because of “no future.” He had been denied to a point where his loss was so great that he dared not own.

I had a case, by the way, which was one of the roughest cases I have ever run into. He put on the total appearance of being sane—dramatized sanity—and yet the case would make odd remarks like “I really think people are crazy.” “Well, why do you think people are crazy?” I would say. “Well, because people say they can tell right from wrong and you know there’s no difference.” It was fascinating. He would make odd remarks like this from time to time.

One day he made a remark on goals: “Well, it’s really best to tell people that things cannot happen to them because otherwise they might hope they could and then they would be disappointed.”

This person was stark, staring mad and had no future of any kind. Five hours just this one question, “Is there anything going to happen in the remainder of this afternoon?” “Will anything happen the rest of today?” “Is there anything going to occur any place in the world the rest of today?” was run on him and his confident answer, with great certainty was, “No. No. No.”

Finally we broke through it and I finally got the person to admit that there was some slight possibility that there would be a room here for the rest of the day. That busted the case. It read from total no-future up.

This case was an isolated one as we have had occasionally. Now and then an inspirational sort of process cracked them through. Well, now we see this process of Goals on the basis of futures and a person without futures cannot have a fancy future called a goal and all a goal is is a fancy future determined by the person. If he has no future at all determined by anybody, then he isn’t going to go anywhere from that point and any goal he has is totally unreal.

The best way that I know of to clear up a goal is as follows (with two-way comm): “Is there anything that is going to happen in the next couple of minutes?” We get this thrashed out until he has got some great big certainty that there will be something a couple of minutes from now. Then we gradiently move it up and we get certainties at each one of these stages and levels—regardless of on what.

The person knows there is going to be a future there. Now let’s have him put something in this future he has now created. He has created a future and has certainty on it. Now let’s put some desire in the future and we get a goal.

“Now what would you like to have happen in the next couple of minutes?” or “What would you like to do in the next couple of minutes, tomorrow, next week, etc?” We will get weird things which have no desire in them; they will all be get-rid-of’s, and if you finally plowed him down on it he would get down to the bottom of the ladder, which is “Knock this body off right now.” And when he says, “I would like to get over my fear of darkness, I would like to get over feeling bad every time my mother screams at me,” these aren’t desires. These are run-aways, flinches. These are “Let’s not confront it,” “Let’s get out of the universe; let’s scram,” and the final result is the basic postulate, “If I could just get rid of this body right this instant I would be all right.”

So that process doesn’t even vaguely get flat unless there is a real goal like “I’d like to have a stick of candy.” That is a goal, a real goal.

Preclears will modify their goals in some way or another: “Of course, I can’t because I have to work and I don’t have any money,” and “yak, yak, yak.” They are modified goals, and as long as they modify them they don’t have a goal because they are making a postulate and the MEST universe is kicking the postulate in on them. So we do this on a gradient scale of time so that goals become real to them.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 OCTOBER 1958

1 ea. stf member 
Field Offices 
Washington 
HOW TO READ PROFILES ON OCA: COMPARING 
CURRENT WEEK PROFILE WITH WK BEFORE

Drop on Critical—havingness drop.

Whole line (or majority of points) drops—ARC breaks with auditor.

Line doesn’t change (same as before)—p.t. problem not touched by auditor.

Rough auditing—reduction of havingness.

Drop in Responsibility from former week—Auditor evaluation.

Drop in Composed—loss of auditor. Poor CCH 0 in Find the Auditor.

Drop in Comm Level—double acknowledgement by auditor, putting pc off before finished.

Drop in Appreciative—lowered reality level.

Nervous is toughest point to raise on a graph. It is done by finding the auditor. This is a primary point to watch in low profiles. Did preclear find auditor. CCH 3 and CCH 4 are the indicated processes for these low ones. They were designed to find the auditor.

LRH:rs.rd							L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 147
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

l November 1958

COMMUNICATION COURSE

I want to welcome you to the Communication Course. It seems that a Communication Course is necessary as the first step to an auditor. And if an auditor doesn’t successfully pass the Communication Course, then to the end of any curve he has as an auditor, there will be something wrong with his auditing.

It is very odd that one of the highest levels of indoctrination, Tone 40 on an Object, is most often unsuccessfully approached by a student at the HPA or HCA level when he has flunked the one I am going to talk about right now, which is a newcomer’s first look inside the Academy at communication. And that is Dear Alice, part A.

It would have amused you the other day to have found a former Director of Training of an organization being sent back by the HCO Board of Review coach in his coaching to Dear Alice so that he could get good enough to pass Tone 40 on an Object. But it was absolutely necessary that this happen, because he had for some reason or another, being an old-timer and having been in it for a long time, never hit Dear Alice. It had been omitted from his training. In spite of all the auditing he had done and all the experience he had had, at the end of this time we find him sitting up in the coaching room, good as gold, perfectly comprehensible, doing Dear Alice, part A—a man who has probably audited two or three thousand hours’ worth. But everywhere he had difficulty with a preclear, that difficulty stemmed from an inability to do Dear Alice, part A, which is in effect to deliver an auditing command in a unit of time as a completed cycle of action—he delivered an auditing command.

Well now you have to get up to step 2 and even step 3 before you can call it a full cycle of action. But as far as the auditor is concerned in Dear Alice, part A, only, his job is done when he has delivered an auditing command to a preclear. He didn’t deliver it over the hills and far away or to the window; he delivered it to a being and he delivered it from where he was to where the preclear was—and it’s so easy.

Anyone to whom this was described briefly, insufficiently, out in the street would, flunking it at the same time, tell you, “Of course I can communicate to people! Well, yes! There’s nothing to it. I’m a salesman, you know. I run the Atomic Energy Omission. I’m a big man! Of course I communicate to anyone.” We look in that man’s vicinity and nobody’s heard anything he’s said since the days of Noah’s Ark. He never said it to anybody in the first place. He sort of throws things out, you know, and he just hopes they land. Well, that’s what passes for communication, and it isn’t by a long ways-he throws out a statement of some sort or another and he thinks he’s communicating with somebody.

It’s a great oddity, but I must confess to you at this moment that the third dynamic is simply an agreement. It is an agreement which people have agreed to and therefore it has an existence and we certainly cannot live in this world without it, but it’s a violation of the communication formula. A violation of it. The only thing that you can talk to in the final analysis is a living being, and all third dynamics are composed of individual dynamics. And you can summate them and you can say this is a third dynamic, and that is the agreement on which we go, and it is quite factual and they are quite actual unless we stress them with the communication formula—so that you don’t talk to all preclears, you talk to a preclear.

There was a fellow by the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that never talked to the nation—he never talked to the nation—he talked to an individual citizen. And therefore he communicated.

There was another fellow who spoke the most beautiful English I have ever heard, almost incomprehensibly parsed. Perfect. Would have passed any Oxford English Professor’s most critical look, and that was Herbert Hoover. And I don’t think Herbert Hoover ever said hello to a dog. I don’t think in his whole life he ever said anything to anybody anywhere. And when this man uttered pronunciamentos they pronounced nothing to anybody anywhere. And therefore he couldn’t lead a nation out of a depression. He couldn’t lead anything for an excellent reason. He had no concept in the final analysis of talking to an individual, of getting his communication to land right there.

Now this is a touchy point that I open up. You say, “Well, how about you, Ron? You talk to an awful lot of people.” Well, that’s the whole secret of Scientology-I don’t talk to an awful lot of people—I talk to you. I haven’t any concept of a large multitude that reads my books or listens to my lectures. I can get a multiple concept of talking to a great many at the same time by talking to every one of them individually. Therefore I perhaps add a little conceit to the line, but I do communicate.

Therefore someone wanting to know how to speak to a crowd would first begin with Dear Alice, part A. So it is very, very far from an unimportant step. It is not just the entrance step that you have to get through to get your Communication Course over so you can really learn something. That is not what it is. It is the first door that opens and that door opens when it opens, and it opens when you can communicate a statement from you to a person. We won’t worry about a preclear, because really the person in dummy auditing who is sitting there as preclear is really a coach, you know. But you’ve got to get something across from you to that person. And it has to be from you to that person—it has to be a communication. And when you can do that, well, you’re all set.

I once told somebody that if he had a very difficult student—not you—but if he had a very very difficult student, the thing to do with this difficult student would be to put him through seven weeks of dummy auditing and then teach him in the last week to remedy havingness and turn him loose with a certificate and it would be a safe investment. We would be perfectly safe in doing that. But to give him one week when he needed two or three on dummy auditing and then try to cram him full of data and hope that the processes would carry him through somehow didn’t make an auditor, it made a liability—both to himself and to preclears.

So this first step is not just an easy one—it is the toughest step you’ll perform in Scientology and that’s why it’s right at the beginning. It’s to say something to somebody with the full confidence that they will receive it. And that’s quite a trick.

All right. How exactly is this done? We give a person a book. The book is Alice in Wonderland. Why Alice in Wonderland? Well, that’s just because it is. No further significance. We give him this book and he is supposed to find any sentence in that book that he cares to find. (These people who just want to read the book consecutively to the preclear are not doing dummy auditing. They again are not in communication with the preclear.) He is supposed to find a line. Now he doesn’t put “Alice said” or “The Queen said” or something like that on the line. He just puts the statement itself, you see. “Why do they run so fast?” Well the book says, “ ‘Why do they run so fast?’ the Queen asked.” Well we don’t use “the Queen asked.” We just say, “Why do they run so fast?”

All right, he picks that up out of the book. Why out of a book? Why not out of his head? Oh, remember. Remember something—in using the English language, you are not using your own ideas, you did not invent the words. You only helped invent the words that compose the English language. You are already using somebody else’s ideas. Now there is nothing wrong with your composing these into new ideas of your own, but remember you are already using somebody else’s ideas when you’re speaking English.

All right. Now let’s get it a little bit further. We are given a set pat process. Oh I know I dreamed it up, I found it one way or the other, but an awful lot of auditors worked with this. It’s had a lot of looking at, and it’s become phrased in a certain way, and that certain way might very well be taken by you out of the textbook and given to the preclear, and it won’t ever work if you do. “Do fishes swim?” is not a therapeutic procedure—it’s not. The repetition of it can be very good for an auditor, but it’s not a therapeutic procedure. But the statement “Do fishes swim?” is not yours really, at the beginning, is it? You got it from the instructor or off of a book, and then you used it. Well when does it become yours? Well, any idea is yours that you make yours. We won’t go along with dialectic materialism and say that no ideas are new, because that’s not true. There can be new ideas. But if you get an idea from someone else, it is not still their idea. It’s your idea. There is nothing wrong with mis-owning ideas, there’s no mass in them to get you confused.

You take an idea out of a book, it becomes your idea, and then as your idea you relay it to the preclear. And that is all there is to it. It is coached this way. It is not from the book to the preclear. It is from the book to the auditor, and then the auditor, making it his own idea, expresses that idea to the preclear in such a way that it arrives at the preclear. So it’s from the auditor to the preclear. But we give him the book as the third via because most of the material he is going to handle in communication is from a source outside himself. You’ve just got to get used to the idea that there is nothing wrong with using another person’s ideas.

I always know what someone’s state of learning is in Scientology when they speak of Scientology as “your” ideas. They say, “I’ve been reading your ideas.” I know at once this person can’t communicate. It’s a great oddity. It’s quite wonderful. Because they reveal at once that they cannot take this first basic step of taking an idea and then communicating it to someone else. They are standing back looking at the world in some large sense and they are not any part of it, because they can’t own any of the world’s ideas. If they can’t own any of the world’s ideas, then they won’t own any of the world, because the easiest thing to own is an idea. No mass to impede it.

So, we coach just exactly in this way. We want the person to find a phrase in Alice in Wonderland and then, taking that as his own idea, communicate it directly to the preclear and he can say it over and over, the same phrase if he wishes, in any way he wishes to say it, until the preclear (who is really a coach) tells him that he thinks it has arrived.

Now sometimes the preclear, the first day, feels just a little bit strange about these communication lines, too, and sometimes has his entire criticism based upon the erudition, the pronunciation, the way the auditor holds his little finger while he announces the phrase—this has nothing to do with it. It is the intention that communicates, not the words. And when you have the intention to communicate to the preclear, and that intention goes across, it will arrive. If you broadcast that intention, no matter if you’re saying it in Chinese, if you’re a Scientologist, it will arrive.

One of the steps of the much higher indoctrination level, Tone 40 8-C, consists entirely and completely of saying things in funny voice tones while one is communicating an intention—using very odd voice tones; well, this is not part of Dear Alice. The voice tones are unimportant; pronunciation is unimportant. It’s whether or not the person could take that idea out of that book, own it, and then communicate it. And the intention must communicate. And it must be communicated in one unit of time. That is to say, it isn’t repeated from the last time it was repeated. It is new, fresh, communicated in present time. The fifty-fifth command of “Do fishes swim?” is the fifty-fifth, not the first repeated. So we have one unit of time, one command, and the intention. And when we have those things relayed across, then he can find another phrase and communicate that. And that is the way we do that, and I hope you find it helps communication.

                                                                      		L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 NOVEMBER 1958 
1 each Staff Member 
Field Offices 
TRAINING INSTRUCTORS, HCO SEC

TR 9 (b) and TR 9 (c)

HCO was asked for a TR number for “Handling ARC Breaks and Opening and Closing a Session”.

TR 16 is assigned to “Handling ARC Breaks”. Below are TR 9 (b) and TR 9 (c) as contained in the unpublished Student Manual.

Number: Training 9 (b)

Name: 	Starting the Session

Command: No formalized command except that auditor must make sure that the pc is cognizant of the fact that a session has started.

Position: 	Auditor and pc seated a comfortable distance apart.

Purpose: 	To make known the beginning of a session so that no mistake as to its beginning is made. To differentiate between an assist (erasing a surface difficulty) and formalized auditing. To let both auditor and pc know that a session has started.

Training Stress: To bring about the purpose of this rudiment. To begin sessions, not just let them happen an-l when pc goes out of session to re-establish and start the session again. To demonstrate that if a pc doesn’t realize that a session has started, he doesn’t get audited and change consequently does not take place.

History: 	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, England, in 1955.

Number: 	Training 9 (c)

Name: 	Ending the Session

Commands: A gradient scale of two-way communication to “End of Session” first giving the pc adequate warning that the session is going to end shortly.

Position: 	Auditor and pc seated a comfortable distance apart.

Purpose: 	To make known the end of a session and prevent pc from being either stuck in a session or self-auditing. To end the cycle of action of being audited.

Training Stress: To teach the student the importance of ending the session, of completing the cycle of auditing to the degree that the pc is cognizant of this. To illustrate that pc will be left stuck on the time track if this isn’t done or done too abruptly. To do this gradiently, warning the pc beforehand that it is going to end. To teach auditor not to end session where pc has somatic, dope-off or any restimulation brought about by use of a technique.

History: 	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard as parts of the Rudiments of Auditing in London, England, in 1955.

 LRH:mp.rd                                       			L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 NOVEMBER 1958

Full Distribution

STEP 6

All persons who were run on Step 6 before they had help and engrams flat must be run in such a way as to knock out the auditing.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:rt.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO TECHNICAL POLICY LETTER OF 25 NOVEMBER 1958

ACADEMY TRAINING BULLETIN
All Area 
Offices
TECHNIQUES TO BE USED ON HGC PRECLEARS

Effective Dec. 1, 1958 in all Area Offices

The following techniques are the only techniques to be used on HGC preclears, effective Dec. 1, and continuing. These produce clears in the hands of most auditors.

Deviations by Director of Processing or staff auditors are violations of the Code of a Scientologist under No. 2 and Auditor’s Code under No. 3.

Where needed:

CCH 1

CCH 2

CCH 3

CCH 4

On all other Pcs:

1. 	Rudiments (not CCH 0) Establish: Auditor, pc, room, session to start.

2. 	Start-Change-Stop on a person or object.

3. 	Factual Havingness.

4. 	What can you confront? (Repetitive Command)

5. 	You make a mock-up for which you can be wholly responsible.

6. 	General Help. Help on the Rock.

7. 	Step 6 of Clear Procedure.

Exception: Only where staff auditor has been trained in an ACC given to running engrams only (1st such ACC was 5th London October-November 1958) may the staff auditor run engrams or use CCH 0. Early Dianetic auditors are not, repeat not, included in this exception. It is a matter of judgment here that in event of question about engram running the auditors not specially trained in 1958 or later to do so will make more clears by the above than by “running engrams”. The running of engrams by Scientology, rather than Dianetics, is splendid and speeds clearing but only where specially trained. There is too much new data about it for assimilation short of an engram running ACC. 20th ACC graduates are not qualified to run engrams.

LRH:-.rd							L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 149
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 December 1958

DUMMY AUDITING

Step Two: Acknowledgment

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard

Dummy Auditing, Step Two, Acknowledgment, is the second part of the communication cycle. Now the actual fact is when you have gotten a thought over to a preclear it is customary to prove it. The whole stress of acknowledgment is entirely and completely upon making sure that the preclear receives the auditor’s acknowledgment. That is the entire stress.

Now why all this stress on acknowledgment? Well, acknowledgment is a control factor—I’ll just let you in on a secret right here at the beginning. If you acknowledge a preclear well, you will have the preclear under much better control. Now, why? The formula of control is Start, Change and Stop. And that’s just it—an acknowledgment is Stop. If you said to him “Keep going” or “Keep talking,” you would not be acknowledging him. The perfect acknowledgment communicates only this: I have heard your communication. That’s all there is to it—I have heard what you said. It signalizes that the preclear’s (or person’s, since Scientology applies to life, not just to an auditing room) communication to you has been received. But when you use it as an auditor you use it also as a control factor. And it says this: Your communication has been received—and that is all there is to it, and that is the end of that cycle of action, thank you. That’s what it says, and you have to put that whole intention into a “Yes” or an “Okay” or anything else you use. It isn’t the word, it’s the intention that ends it. Your communication has been received and I have now decided to stop that cycle of communication and your communication is therefore under my control. Those things which you stop, very crudely, are things which you control. You have to be able to stop things if you control them. If you cannot control a preclear’s communication line you can’t control the preclear.

I’ll give you an example of this. Let’s say we’re auditing Mrs. Gotrocks, the wife of the executive manager of Fleabite Dustpowder or something, and she is bored (the only thing wrong with her), and she’s crazy (that’s the only other thing wrong with her), and she never had anything to do, and she’s just been Lying around, and she has ailments. She comes into the auditing room and she starts to talk to you. She says, “Oh, I’ve been to this specialist and that specialist and it cost this much money and that much money and I’ve been here and I’ve been there and what’s really wrong with me and what you really should take up is so and so rah rah rah ....” It’s none of your business. The longer you let such a person talk, the less havingness they have. You can watch them go straight down the ARC tone scale if you keep on letting them talk. Obsessive communication—obsessive outflow. And the first major use that you will make of this, the first time you really understand what this acknowledgment is all about, is when somebody starts this on you and starts talking, talking, talking, talking, and you want to get a session started, and you get the intention real good and you say to them, “Good.” And they stop talking. Your intention was such that they knew that you had received their communication. And if you can do this very well, if you can get that acknowledgment just right and if it does exactly what it is supposed to do, very often the person will look at you fixedly and say, “You know, I don’t think anybody has ever heard me before.”

Why is this person talking obsessively? They are trying to make up in quantity what they lack in audience. There’s nobody listening to them. They are not talking to anyone. And you all of a sudden come up with an acknowledgment and say, “Hey! I heard you. I heard that. You have communicated to me, and that’s it, now.” And they say, “Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever talked to anybody before.” It’s quite amazing. I have seen an auditor on an obsessive outflow case get down in front of the preclear, fix him with an eye, move his finger back and forth just in front of the preclear’s nose and say, “Good; I heard that,” and have the preclear all of a sudden say, “Ooooh. Geeeeee. You are there, aren’t you!” So a good acknowledgment can actually wind up the entire goal of the process and find the auditor—that’s how important it is.

Now, that is a specialized use, stopping a compulsive outflow. Its general use is putting a period to the communication cycle. It ends the moment of time in which you gave the command you learned how to give, we hope, in Dear Alice, part A. You said something, the preclear heard it, and we understood then that the preclear had heard it, and we said, “Good.” Now the exact way Dear Alice, part B (which is Dummy Auditing, Step Two), is done is this. The coach—or a person acting as a preclear—takes Alice in Wonderland and reads random phrases out of it. And, reading the phrase in any old way, we don’t care how (we’re not disciplining the preclear, you know; we never do that, we merely control them within an inch of their lives), in this particular case this person says something out of Alice in Wonderland and the auditor has to say, “Good,” “Fine,” “Okay,” “I heard that,” anything—in such a way as actually to convince the person who is sitting there acting as the preclear that he has heard it.

Now there is a specific way to do this. That is to intend that the communication cycle ends at that point and to end it there. Anything that you do to make that come about is, of course, legitimate, unless it utterly destroys ARC. But it finishes a cycle of communication. So what could the auditor in this case do? You see, there sits the auditor, no book; there sits the preclear with a book; and the preclear is reading, “And the Mad Hatter dipped his watch into the teapot,” and the auditor says, “Good.” But that ends that, you see. Now, in view of the fact that the preclear is reading a continued story which goes on sentence after sentence after sentence, the auditor will have a tendency to treat this as “in passing,” and that is not an acknowledgment. The auditor could say, “Well, read some more.” That’s not an acknowledgment—it didn’t stop it, did it? “Continue, go ahead”—no, that’s not an acknowledgment at all. An acknowledgment says, “Stop”—”Whoa”—”Air brakes”—”Period”—”End”—”Heard you”—”You’ve communicated”—”That’s the end of that moment of time”—”Final cycle”—”That’s it”—”You’ve had it.” You get that?

So the auditor has to say “Good,” “Fine,” “Okay,” in such a way as to receive the communication in the preclear’s eyes. The preclear has to know that the auditor has received the communication, and that’s the only point on which they are coached— at first.

Then we could start to bear down and say, as an instructor, “Well, did you acknowledge that preclear’s communication? Did you?” And the auditor says, “Well, uhh....” “Did you do a perfect acknowledgment?” “Well—certainly.” And the answer to that would be “No.” The preclear is still reading, still got the book in his hands, still going on with it, still sitting in the chair, and he’s still not in this universe.

What is this all about? What are we actually trying to do? Well, we’re not trying to reach the ultimate in an acknowledgment because that would be the end of the universe. If somebody could say “Yes,” “Good,” or “Okay” with enough intention behind it, all communications of this universe from the moment of its beginning would then be acknowledged, totally. (Except that this would violate the communication formula because they weren’t all addressed to him, although lots of people think they were.) But what does the auditor actually feel called upon to do? Well, he feels called upon to put a period to that cycle of communication. It actually started, you see, with the auditor’s phrase to the preclear, then the preclear signified with some kind of wince or grunt or something that it had been heard, and then the auditor says, “Well, that’s the end of that. Good. Fine. That finished that.” You see?

But an acknowledgment ends the cycle of the communication which you read about in Dianetics 1955, and that is the Bill-Joe cycle. “Good,” says the auditor. This is fantastic. If you got good enough at this, a traffic cop would drive up and say something to you and you would acknowledge the fact that he had spoken and he would simply get back on his bike or go back to the station house and turn in his badge and retire. You see, that would be the end of that. That would be it. As a matter of fact, it actually staggers people to have an acknowledgment come to them—it staggers them, really to get it through. People who are having a hard time, particularly. It’s a good thing, and it’s very therapeutic for a person to know that he has been acknowledged. I know that you will be around in the local stores, maybe stopping a pedestrian on the street and suddenly looking at him and saying, “Good”—acknowledging him. And you will have some fantastic things occur if you do. An acknowledgment is a very, very powerful sixteen-inch gun in the communication formula; and you shouldn’t use it sparingly, you should use it to end cycles of communication. I hope you learn to do that very, very well.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 DECEMBER 1958

HOW TO RUN AN ENGRAM

Brief Summary for HGC Use

First—only graduates of ACCs including the 5th London October 1958, and after are qualified to run engrams by Scientology processes. This does not include Dianetic processing of engrams which can be done by anyone but is not allowed in HGCs. Reason: Scientology processing of engrams is too strong for most untrained personnel and better results are obtained by HGC wholly repetitive processes. Stable Data: The HGC has the responsibility of using only the processes which obtain the highest results. A Director of Processing must bring about only the use of the best processes.

For wholly repetitive command clearing processes, see other bulletins. Engram running with Scientology processes in unschooled hands does not bring about bettered cases by actual test. This is evidently due to the roughness of the auditing and failures to handle ARC breaks. ACC trained personnel therefore, are the only ones qualified or permitted to run engrams in an HGC.

Locating the Engram

Finding the engram necessary to resolve the case is done by an E-Meter and finger snaps. The E-Meter is the final check. If an E-Meter is stuck on the pc or Stage Four (rises, sticks, falls in a repetitive cycle and reacts on nothing else) CCH processes may be used or preferably, the 3 commands of Factual Havingness (8 of vanish, 2 of continue, to one of have).

The experience necessary to resolve the case is the engram asked for. It is run back in time and located exactly in time. The falls of the needle are the equivalent of a “yes” answer to the auditor’s question. Only the time is isolated, not the content. The time may turn out to be a span of years. The incident may be even a century in length.

In a rough case some current lifetime “lock” may be the incident. In a very rough (unreality) case, the “engram” necessary to resolve the case may be the moment the pc walked into the room.

In a majority of cases however the “engram necessary to resolve the case” is a past death, complete with its accompanying overt act. Its place in time is the concern of the auditor. Questions such as “Greater than five hundred years?” “Less than five hundred years?” narrow the time down precisely. Several incidents may be located in passing.

Run that incident which has the steepest fall. Don’t run the earliest necessarily. In case of doubt as to which of two falls most pick a later incident (closer to p.t.) as it will actually be easier for the pc to confront it.

With this incident selected, don’t then change it or let the pc change it. Don’t start to run one incident and then change to another ever. What you pick, flatten. To change is to pretty well lose the whole case. We aren’t interested here in the significance of what running it does for the case.

LRH :gn.cden 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 DECEMBER 1958

TRAINING DRILL CHANGE

TR 5N will now replace TR 5 as a Comm Course drill and will occupy the 5th day of the Comm Course.

TR 5N is ARC Break handling.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:gn.rd

P.A.B. No. 150
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 December 1958

DUMMY AUDITING

Step Three: Duplication

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard

This interesting, interesting dummy auditing step has a villainous and vicious goal. It makes somebody duplicate. ‘Way back in 1950 we found out that auditors, in order to be interesting, would vary their pattern; and every time the pattern was varied, every time the auditing command changed, the preclear received a little jolt. There was an upset because of it. A long time ago we would have considered it fairly legitimate for an auditor, using the auditing command “Do fishes swim,” to say, “By the way, do finny creatures wiggle in the water?”—and next time to say, “Say! does the funny tribe bathe?”—and the next time to say, “What brands of fishes are there that progress from point A to point B in liquid habitats?” That possibly would have been legitimate then, but we don’t do that today. We do a horrible thing. The auditor says, “Do fishes swim?” And, just to vary it, he then says, “Do fishes swim?” And, just for good wild variation, he then says, “Do fishes swim?”

This is where we learn why we were so insistent on one command in one moment of time back in Dear Alice, part A, because we don’t repeat the first “Do fishes swim” another thousand times. No auditing command should ever depend for any of its meaning on any other auditing command ever uttered. Each one exists, theoretically and purely, in its own moment of time and is uttered itself in present time with its own intention.

Now this is quite important. Do you know that the basic auditing process of CCH does not work unless each command is in a separate unit of time? If you run it this way, “Give me your hand—thank you; give me your hand—thank you; give me your hand-thank you,” it’s not very therapeutic and nothing happens to the preclear. Why? Well, we’ve got a machine which is simply repeating the first “Give me your hand” over and over again. We’re not saying it—there’s no intention there. Do you know that if you told somebody to give you his hand with enough intention behind it his body would respond without any via through the thetan? The body doesn’t obey the words, the body obeys the intention to extend a hand. Therefore, when you are asked to express an auditing command with the same words over and over and over, each time you must express it in present time as itself with its intention. It isn’t just a long duplication of it. Just duplicating something over and over and over is sometimes so trying that people wonder how auditors ever arrive at all. Nobody could sit in a chair and say each time with a new intention, “Do fishes swim,” for seventy-five hours. It’s beyond human possibility, according to some people. But the trick is that if it’s always uttered in present time it could be said for a thousand and seventy-five hours. It’s only when it’s repeated—only when the first command is repeated over and over and when no new intention arrives—that it becomes very arduous. Only when it goes on to a machine does it become almost impossible to do.

Communication is reached by control plus duplication. At first you find that to make each utterance of the command different in its own unit of time you use different voice inflections. But as you come up the line on this you find out that you actually can pattern the same tone and each time have it entirely new. It would be very, very incorrect to teach this, to have the auditor each time duplicate his own voice tones as they were the last time, because that is making an auditing command depend on the last auditing command. We couldn’t care less; and, after a while, you couldn’t care less, either, what voice tone you’re uttering, but each intention is new and fresh. The intention is to ask and get an answer to this question, “Do fishes swim?” and, each time you utter it, it is uttered newly and in its own area of time. That’s really the only stress there is. One command per unit of time. Each command separate, and each command containing the words, quite incidentally, “Do fishes swim?”

Here we learn a great deal about the duplicative factors of communication. We find out that, in having to duplicate, we think we actually lose some of the communication at first. It’s utterly idiotic—how could you possibly maintain ARC and therefore, of course, interest, asking a person over and over again this silly question, “Do fishes swim?” Who could do this? Well, interest in communication has everything to do with the intention to be interesting and very little to do with text. Furthermore, it is not the auditor’s job to be interesting. Being interesting is a part of the communication formula, but to an auditor the least possible part, as far as the preclear is concerned. He’s not there to interest and intrigue the preclear. Right away, people think they are. Place two people in chairs facing each other and each one of these two people feels the compulsion to be interesting to the other. That’s not auditing, that’s being interesting, that’s being social and so on. So if a person had any difficulty doing Step Three, Do Fishes Swim, the instructor would be perfectly in order if he simply told the person to sit in that chair and told some other student who wasn’t doing too well, or just some other student, to sit in the other chair, and told them just to sit there and look at each other without saying a thing or being embarrassed or anything else. Interesting drill, if you think of it. We do have variation, and therefore interest, in the first and second dummy auditing steps; but now we reach this one and it is utterly devoid of interest. We’re saying the same thing over and over and over and over. And if a person can’t do this he probably has a compulsion to vary, to alter-is, to be interesting, and he wouldn’t find it easy just to sit in a chair and face another human being and not say a word and not do a thing but just sit there and look at the other human being. And if I were coaching someone that had difficulty in repetition of steps, I would do that for an hour or two that day.

All right. It is absolutely necessary that an auditor be able to duplicate. But answer me this: Is a person who is saying something in present time each time really duplicating the last moment of time? He really isn’t, is he? And so this duplication that we do in Scientology means only the ability apparently to duplicate while being in present time.

The greatest motto of experience and the life we have lived is this: I won ‘t ever do that again. This is the one thing your mama wanted you to promise. If you did nothing else, if you lived a completely sinful life, why, mama still wanted you to learn by experience; which is to say that when you did something wrong, or did something, you weren’t ever to do it again. She hoped perhaps you would eat enough candy to make you so sick that you wouldn’t “wolf’ candy again; that you would eat enough ice cream so that ice cream would make you so green that you wouldn’t make a pig of yourself over ice cream again; that you would become so embarrassed and lose so many friends that you would not do that evil thing again, whatever it was you did; and thus learn by experience never to do it again. And this is experience talking. One thing you must understand—that experience teaches you—is never to do anything the second time. This doesn’t necessarily mean that all experience is painful, but people who are having a hard time tend to believe that it is; and when they begin to depend upon experience and stand by this lesson of never doing it again, they can no longer duplicate. And what do you know—they can’t communicate. Also, their bank jams. All sorts of interesting things occur. All moments become one moment. One moment becomes all moments. Identification occurs all over the place. And just the action of repeating something like “Do fishes swim?” as an auditor, with a full intention, has a tendency to unjam the time track.

You should know that this is what this step is up against. It is violating all of that hard-won experience that you have accumulated in the last seventy-six trillion years-if you believe an E-Meter, you’re seventy-six trillion years old. And all that hard-won experience, all that wonderful, wonderful lot of mess that you got into, added up completely to Never do it again. And so you’ve been taught not to live, which is what happens when you get experience. And when you can duplicate an auditing command over and over again, you will find out that auditing does not become a painful experience. A person who can do this well, by the way, never gets restimulated. Why should he—he’s not in the moment of time in which the restimulation took place.

There is a more basic step to this particular one, by the way. This is to pat the wall five times and then distinguish one of the pats from the rest. An instructor can do that on a student with some profit. Pretty soon the student can tell all five pats apart, and when the student can tell them all apart, even though they sounded all the same, he can also duplicate an auditing command in present time all the way. I’ve broken cases with that one. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 DECEMBER 1958 
1 to each 
Staff Member 
Dollar Field Offices 
HCO London for stencilling and dist

BASIC POSTULATE OF OVERT ACT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE

The inability to restrain dramatization of past experience only occurs when one has decided he can do nothing about such an experience. Thereafter he is the effect of all similar pictures.

Test: Pick up a moment in the past when you decided you could do nothing about a certain thing—then examine later experience on same subject.

This is the make-break point of reactivity.

This is the bridge between cause point and effect point on any given subject.

“I have to do something about it—I can do nothing about it” are the basic postulates of the overt act-motivator sequence. Straight Wire against an E-Meter on times one felt one could do nothing about it works to resolve very difficult cases.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: md.cden 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 DECEMBER 1958
Issue II
1 to each
Staff Member
Dollar Field Offices
HCO London for release

AUDITING ARC BREAKS ON REGISTRAR 
AND ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

I have found it desirable to run TR 5N (ARC Breaks) fully on both Registrar and Assistant Registrar in new comm line.

A good auditor who can handle 2-way comm is needed.

The commands are, “What has anyone done wrong to you?” and “What have you done wrong to people?”, and other ARC Break questions.

Getting the overts of the pc is important.

It is necessary to remove, in this special case, ARC Breaks between Registrar and Assistant Registrar with—

       	1. 	Students
       	2. 	Instructors
       	3. 	Auditors
       	4. 	Preclears
       	5. 	Field Auditors
       	6. 	The Central Org
       	7. 	Groups
       	8. 	Customers
       	9. 	Salesmen
       	10. 	LRH

Get out what each of the above did to the Registrar or Assistant Registrar and what the Registrar and Assistant Registrar have done to or thought about doing to each of the above.

This will make it possible for them to (1) live in their operating climate and (2) write warmer, more forward “invasion of privacy” letters.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:md.cden 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 DECEMBER 1958

(An article for any Scientology Magazine authorized by a Central Organization)

PROCESSING A NEW MOTHER

The handling of a woman during and after pregnancy has a specific successful drill which should be generally known. This is not an attempt to give all the known data concerning pregnancy, delivery and child care. I will someday summarize all these. At this time I wish to give you only the processes and general use.

First, a woman should not be processed on engrams after the early months. Therefore a pregnant woman should be processed toward clear early and well. In other words she should be gotten into good shape soon in the pregnancy. Old Expanded Gita on babies, husbands, wives, bodies is definitely indicated.

After the sixth month only havingness and general Scientology processes can be run without injuring the baby—no engrams.

Next, the delivery itself should carry as little anaesthetic as possible, be as calm and no-talk as possible and the baby should not be bathed or chilled but should be wrapped somewhat tightly in a warm blanket, very soft, and then left alone for a day or so.

At once after delivery the woman should have simple havingness run—”Look around here and find something you have”—preferably by the husband. One hour of this at once, one more hour same day, two hours following day, all havingness and havingness only should be run.

After two days run the following:

“Invent something worse than—a delivery” (flatten it), “. . . a baby” (flatten it), “. . . a doctor” (flatten it), “. . . a nurse” (flatten it), “. . . a delivery room” (flatten it), “. . . a mother” (flatten it), “. . . a husband” (flatten it), “. . . an abdomen” (flatten it), “. . . a womb” (flatten it).

This should be done in next many days following the delivery. This and more factual havingness (all 3 commands) should straighten up the mother. It would be well if the six buttons and inventing were cleared away in early pregnancy so the post pregnancy processes will run easily. She shouldn’t face a new processing idea in the first few days after delivery, so if the processes are early prepared, all will be well.

On the baby, perhaps the best thing is no processing for three days. Then talk to the baby, tell the newcomer he or she is welcome, then make friends. Various things can be done—touch assist is best. Even the birth engram can be run but that’s a little adventurous in a lot of cases.

The most to know about the baby is not to tire him or her unduly for a week or two, feed a protein formula if mother not breast feeding. This formula is most like human milk. I picked it up in Roman days and have used it since—15 ounces of barley water, 10 ounces of homogenized milk, 3 ounces Karo syrup (this can be multiplied by any number according to the number of bottles desired but the ratio remains the same). Evaporated or condensed milk and heavy sugar make fat not bone. Protein is the thing that heals and makes strong growth. Modern hospital formulas and patent mixes for babies are not just bad, they are criminal.

Then the next important thing for a baby is to know he or she is winning. Don’t expect him or her to do more than a baby can do. Grant beingness to a baby.

“You make that body lie in that cradle” is wonderful on babies up to six months.

Let the child see Mama and Daddy both at least once a day. Never quarrel or argue in front of a baby or a child—it destroys security.

Always treat mama and baby with courtesy and respect and they’ll thrive. After all, they have done something. They’re keeping the human race going.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: gn.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 DECEMBER 1958 
To all staff 

NEW HGC PROCESS

A New Straight Wire

(This can be used in any official Scientology Magazine)

There is a new process allowed in HGC. It is—

ARC Break Straight Wire

This process belongs after S-C-S and Factual Havingness and before What Can You Confront.

ARC Break Straight Wire is a form of TR 5 ARC Break. Its processing number, however, is CCH-50.

Any and all rules governing Straight Wire apply, including—

(a) 	The pc cycles into past and back to pt. Therefore, ask and pin point when.

(b) 	Stop the process only with the pc near pt. Put in a bridge, therefore, without specified number of “more times”. Wrong: “I am going to ask this question three more times and end the process.” Right: “I am going to ask this question until your answers are close to present time and then end it if that’s all right with you.” Then check when on each reply, get pc into present time and say, “Are you near present time? All right, this is the end of the process.”

The Command to a Scientologist is, “Recall an ARC Break.” This is for an unlimited type process. “Recall an ARC Break between us”, or “. . . in an auditing session” or “. .. with your mother” to limit process to this life. The first form is preferred. The second form is used on a sticky valence that has been isolated.

The unlimited version rapidly dives for whole track and into engrams. This is all right. But don’t stop and change the process. Just continue to run “Recall an ARC Break” when the pc gets into heavy weather.

Be very careful with this process to keep the Auditor’s Code. Otherwise, 50% of the time is spent getting rid of ARC Breaks in the session itself—and with this process these are heavy. (However, two auditors co-auditing who are a bit clumsy can use this process better than other processes and it and Factual Havingness should be the total activity of an auditor who is having trouble with a pc who is having trouble with ARC Breaks.)

The pc, in diving for whole track, gets into and out of heavy incidents. So long as he answers the question, fine. Don’t let him fail to answer every question.

Reality on the whole track leaps up with this process. This is the first process that accomplishes this easily.

In running it, remember that the overt act is as important as the motivator (see A History of Man, Chap. 9). The reason A gets mad at B is as often because A has done something to B as it is because B has done something to A.

Here is a fine, smooth process that is a one-shot Clear, and can be used by auditors not ACC-trained to run engrams.

ARC Break Straight Wire is very useful in husband-wife co-auditing teams and, with Factual Havingness, is the only process that should be used in a co-auditing relationship that is already intimate to a point of easily gathering ARC Breaks.

From two standpoints the process is the best we have ever had—

(a) 	It handles touchy pcs well, and
(b) 	It is the first to open up whole track in general with as great a reality or greater than the R on present life.

From two other viewpoints the process is vulnerable:

(a) 	It requires strict observance of the Auditor’s Code if you don’t want to waste 50% to 75% of the auditing time.

(b) 	It runs the pc into heavy incidents and the process must be continued until pc is again in pt-making an uncertainty in session timing.

However, the shortcomings are far outweighed by the value of ARC Break Straight Wire.

There is one “bug” in the process. The non-Scientologist does not readily grasp the command-and there is no substitute for a quick question.

ARC Break means, “The assignment of responsibility for a sudden drop in Affinity, Reality or Communication.” Thee and me have a “feel” for this.

Substitute commands are many, none as good. “Recall something you have done to a person”—”Recall something that has been done to you” is fair but misses by a mile.

History: This process is, in genus, very old. I introduced its rudiments at the June 1952 first Congress in Phoenix, Arizona. ARC is even older and goes to July of 1950. The present version in a narrower form was first used by Mary Sue Hubbard in 1958.

The valuable lesson this gives us is that Mary or Joe or Pete may be mad at us because Mary or Joe or Pete did something to us. We may or may not have done anything to Mary or Joe or Pete to make them mad at us. In other words, the pc who comes back into session furious with the auditor, may have committed an overt act against the auditor out of session and not prompted by an action of the auditor. The wife may be mad at the husband because of something she did to the husband. She talked about him behind his back (prompted by some old engram about husbands) and, now having committed this overt act, she becomes furious with the husband. Etc. Etc. The person mad at Scientology may only be motivated by having done something to Scientology. Etc. Etc. A whole new view of human behaviour opens when you see this point. Therefore, caution the pc to “pick up his overt acts against things, too” while he’s running it, if he’s only getting overt acts against him.

The only reason the process won’t work is that the pc isn’t doing it, but only pretending to, or he doesn’t understand it.

But all in all, we’ve a wonderful weapon here to straighten out a lot of lives. Use it with wild abandon and get the results in. It’s good.

LRH :md.rd 							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 DECEMBER 1958

Full Distribution

THE FIRST FIRST DYNAMIC PROCESS

All processing to date has been in the main third dynamic processing.

For the first time I have worked out a purely first dynamic process. It is used by the Auditor on a pc with lots of attention to ARC Breaks, havingness and, of course, smooth skill.

The process is “Invent something worse than you.”

Theoretically this is a “one shot clear” process. It directly changes the being that is making the bank—the thetan.

It does not hope for a change of the person via a change of the bank.

The HGC and any validated Auditor can use this with great profit.

2 cautions: Do not permit a pc to escape “invent”. Do not let him do something else (such as see how he is to find if something is “worse than”).

The process does not work unless “Invent Something” is workable. Therefore, to run it, one makes sure first that the pc knows he can invent something.

The process does not work if the pc also does something else. Ask the pc “What are you doing exactly” now and then and make the pc do only the process.

Patch up any ARC Breaks with “What have I done wrong”. And follow that with “What have you done to me” to get both motivator and overts in the session.

This is a wonderful process—simple to run and do, with good results—if it is done right. It is easier to run than ARC Break Straight Wire.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:gn.cden 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 DECEMBER 1958

To all staff 
General Dist. 
For use in any official magazine 
For use in any HGC

SHORT SESSIONING

One of the simplest ways to get a case moving is a technique known as “Short Sessioning” which I developed for the 20th ACC.

The 20th was the last ACC to teach clearing without engram running and as such had several lagging cases. I studied one of these carefully against the basic auditing rule, “Find something the pc can do and then improve his ability to do it.”

The case under study defied all known processes. It was “unreality, unreality, unreality”, and “ARC Break, ARC Break, ARC Break”.

ARC Straight Wire old style was also unreal. Imagine that!

However, even when all else was lost, I still had the idea that this pc could be run on something and finally had a long blue spark—the pc would start and end sessions.

Probably this was the sole ability, Scientology-wise, of this pc. So I made the auditor start and end ten-minute sessions. And it worked. It worked even though the auditor never really cognited on the value of it! I had to heavy-8c the auditor a bit to keep the auditor from “running something”. Short sessioning was evidently not something to do. Only a process was something

Anyway, everybody won. The pc got brighter, the auditor got a win and we got a new technique. That’s the way with Scientology, everybody wins—even the people who claim I’m too enthusiastic for their point five.

The exact way to do “short sessioning” is as follows.

One uses old rudiments if he isn’t comfortable with CCH 0. Or he uses CCH 0 as given in ACC Clear Procedure.  It doesn’t matter much which since he is depending on starting and ending sessions rather than “running something”. Therefore, the auditor should use that with which he is the most comfortable.

The auditor gets the pc’s agreement to start a very short session and says, “Start.”

Then he clears up some small thing like an ARC Break in the session or a pt problem without really getting into anything hot. (Finds auditor and pc.)

The auditor then does something objective with the auditing room such as “How does this room differ from an ideal environment?”

Probably by this time the ten minutes are up, so the auditor tapers it off and bridges to session end. “Is it all right with you if we end this session shortly?” “Is there anything you’d like to say before we do?” “All right. End of session.”

The auditor makes the pc get up and take a break for a few minutes. Then he gets the pc back and does it all over again more or less as above.

The idea is not to try to get benefit from a process but to get the pc less and less nervous about doing something. The pc will begin and end sessions. Anything between is pure gravy if it works but the in-between may not work at all. It does not matter. Starting and ending sessions is what is wanted for the pc.

Short sessioning works for many reasons. It injects time into the picture, for one thing. It breaks up habits on the cycle of action. It gets the pc used to the auditor. You could think of many more reasons but basically whatever the reasons, it works.

Try it on that case that ARC Breaks on you all the time. Try it on the pc that has it all unreal-unreal-unreal. You’ll be amazed at what short sessioning, smoothly run and without crude auditor flubs, can do for almost any case, not just bad ones.

Several difficult cases have improved markedly with this alone. Simple, isn’t it? Well, most good things are.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mgjh 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 DECEMBER 1958

ACC CLEAR PROCEDURE CHANGE

Omit “What part of that can you confront best?” from ACC Clear Procedure commands. It attracts pc’s attention too deeply into engrams encountered.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:gn.rd

P.A.B. No. 151
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 January 1959

DUMMY AUDITING

Step Four: Handling Originations

Compiled from the Research Material and Tape Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard

The fourth thing an auditor has to do (in that order) is to handle an origin from the preclear. It is actually true that when you are handling Tone 40 processes, you do not handle the preclear’s originations. But if you will look on the HCA/HPA chart you will find that these Tone 40 processes are in the minority amongst processes, and in all processes not Tone 40 a preclear’s originations are handled—remember that. Don’t let anybody talk you out of it. If you are handling Tone 40, which is just pure, positive postulating, you, of course, are not worried about anybody’s opinion, origin, condition, or anything else—you simply want him to do certain things, and he finds out that his beingness can be controlled and therefore that he can control it.

What do we mean by an origin of the preclear? He volunteers something all on his own; and do you know that is a very good index of case—whether the person volunteers anything on his own? An old-time auditor used this as a case index. He said, “This fellow isn’t getting any better. He hasn’t offered up anything yet.” You see, he didn’t originate—he didn’t originate a communication. Do you know that that is the hardest thing to get an organization to do: to originate a communication?

You actually could- work in the direction of getting a preclear to originate a communication, in spite of the fact that you just previously were running him on Tone 40 processes. He originated the communication that his arms and legs felt like they were just going to fall off, and you said, “Give me your hand—thank you.” Preclear says, “My head’s coming off now! I know it’s going to fall on the floor!” Auditor: “Give me your hand—thank you.” Good Tone 40. But on control of person, the first two processes are Tone 40, but Book Mimicry and the next process up the line from it, Hand Space Mimicry, are not Tone 40, and originations by the preclear are not only handled but encouraged.

So remember that we have not lost out of the galaxy of processes the fact that the preclear is as well as he can originate a communication. That means he can stand at Cause on the communication formula. And that is a desirable point for him to reach. You see, in controlling people we are really only showing them that they can be controlled, that it is possible for their possessions to be controlled. And then they eventually decide that these are controllable and that people are controllable and that things are controllable and their bodies are controllable, and they say, “Wonderful! Look, I’ll try!” And before that they didn’t even try.

So we are controlling a person’s possessions or body only until this person then himself decides to take a hand in it, too. And then he finds out that control is possible. But most people don’t originate. Circuits originate, computers originate, compulsive outflows originate. And when you first start to use Tone 40 on a person you will apparently see originations—but they are not originations, they are restimulations being dramatized. There is a big difference between a restimulation being dramatized and an origination. It’s whether or not the thetan said it. Did he say it, or was it just a circuit starting up? Well, you can start up circuits and actually throw them into being and you will see that these are not originations.

But when an origination appears in anything but a Tone 40 process, you handle it. And you must handle it well and conclusively. There are preclears who have had astonishing things happen to them, who have tried to communicate them to the auditor, who have failed to do so and have then sunk into apathy and just gone right on out of session because their communication origination was not handled properly by the auditor. There are instances of this, and many of them. Tone 40 processes do not particularly violate this. An understanding of what they are takes place rather rapidly with the preclear and he doesn’t expect you to. But if he has graduated into being a human being and he’s getting up there and he originates something and you answer it, now he’s liable to say the most astonishing things to you. And if you don’t handle them he’s liable to drop into apathy about the whole thing.

So you must handle them well because they’re always unexpected. I would say that unexpectedness actually should be part of the definition of an origination, because they are quite often completely off the subject, they take you completely by surprise, they are apparently not at all what you expected him to say. The fellow says, “Huh! I’m eight feet back of my head!” Well, what do you do? In the old days, we might have gone right onto Route One, but we don’t today—we handle the origination. (By the way, this used to be an old technical phrase, “He Q-and-A’d.” In other words, he did what the preclear did. Any time the preclear changed, the auditor changed. That is the deadliest crime in auditing. The preclear changes because he is being processed and the auditor changes the process. Q-and-A—the preclear changed, the auditor changed. Well, that isn’t what you do.) He says, “You know, the whole back of my head feels like it’s on fire.” Once upon a time we might have handled this. We might have gone right in there and said, “Oh, that’s very good.” We had finally gotten a somatic on this fellow and we would have handled it in some fashion or other and questioned him about it and audited it, and so on. But we found out that this stuck people on the time track. Therefore, we do not do that any more. So what do we do when he says, “The back of my head is on fire!”—do we ignore it? Well, if we are running Tone 40 processes, we ignore it. But if we are auditing any other process, of which there are many in CCH, we handle the origin. And an auditor who has not been trained to do this will often find himself very embarrassed.

But how about in the walk-away world—the world that is ambulant and moving around and spinning quietly, or noisily, as the case may be? Do you ever have to handle an origin in it? Well, I dare say that every argument you have ever got into was because you did not handle an origin. Every time you have ever got into trouble with anybody, you can trace it back along the line you didn’t handle. If a person walks in and says, “Whee! I’ve just passed with the highest mark in the whole school,” and you say, “I’m awfully hungry, shouldn’t we go out and eat?”—you’ll find yourself in a fight. He feels ignored. He originated a communication to have you prove to him that he was there and he was solid. Most little kiddies get frantic about their parents when their parents don’t handle their originations properly. Handling an origination merely tells the person, “All right, I heard it, you’re there.” You might say it is a form of acknowledgment, but it’s not; it is the communication formula in reverse. But the auditor is still in control if he handles the origin—otherwise, the communication formula goes out of his control and he is at effect point, no longer at cause point. An auditor continues at cause point.

So let’s look this over. The handling of an origin has a great deal of use and, until recently, it was the least pat step in Scientology. How did you handle an origin? And we finally found out. I finally had a cognition myself. I tried for a long time to communicate this to people and they still blundered on it occasionally. And I finally found out something that did seem to communicate.

There are three steps in handling an origin. Here is the setup: The preclear is sitting in the chair and the auditor is sitting across from the preclear, and the auditor is saying, “Do fishes swim?” or “Do birds fly?” and the preclear says, “Yes.” Here is the factor, now, entering: “Do fishes swim?” The preclear doesn’t answer Do fishes swim, the preclear says, “You know—your dress is on fire,” or “I’m eight feet back of my head,” or “Is it true that all cats weigh 1.8 kilograms?” You see, wog, wog—where did this come from? Well, although it is usually circuitry or something like that at work when it’s that far off beam, it is, nevertheless, an origin. How do you handle it? Well, you don’t want the preclear to go out of session, and he would if you handled it wrongly, so (1) you answer it; (2) you maintain ARC (you don’t spend any time at it, but you just maintain ARC); and (3) you get the preclear back on the process. One, two, three. And if you spend too much time in (2), you’ll be doing wrong.

What is an origin? All right, he says, “I’m eight feet back of my head.” It’s an origin; what are you supposed to do with it? Well, you’re supposed to answer it. In this particular case, you would say to him something in the order of, “You are?” (You mean something like, “I’ve heard the communication—it’s made an effect on me.”) Now, in maintaining ARC you can skimp that second one if you handle the third one expertly enough. The least important one is the second one, but the most deadly thing you can do is utterly to neglect the second one of maintaining ARC. That’s deadly. But you can skip it if you really punch it into the third one, which is to say, get him back into session. So he says, “I’m eight feet back of my head,” and you say, “YOU ARE???” (What he said really hit, you know.) He’s kind of wog-wog about this—he’s not sure what this is all about. You say, “You are?” and the fellow says, “Yes.”

“Well!” you say. “What did I say that made that happen?”

“Oh, you said ‘Do birds fly,’ and I thought of myself as a bird and I guess that’s the way it is, but I am eight feet back of my head.”

“Well, that’s pretty routine,” you say—reassure him, maintain the ARC. “Now, what was that auditing question?”

“Oh, you asked me ‘Do birds fly?’ “

And you say, “That’s right. Do birds fly?”

Back in session, you see.

You can’t do this: You can’t put it into a can and put a label on it and say This is how you do it always, because it’s always something peculiar; but you can say these three steps are followed.

I will give you another example. You say, “Do birds fly?” and he says, “I have a blinding headache.”

“You do?” you say. “Is it bothering you (that’s the ARC) too much to carry on with the session (and you’ve reached number three at once)?”

“Oh no—it’s pretty bad though.”

“Well, let’s go on with this, shall we?” you say. “Maybe it’ll do something with it (maintaining ARC).”

He says, “Well, all right,” and you’re right back onto it again: “Do birds fly?”

One of the trickiest of these is “What in my question reminded you of that?” The fellow says, “Well, so and so,” and he explains it to you and you say, “Well, good. Do birds fly?” and you’re right back in session again.

Three parts, and—that is the important thing—you have to learn how to handle these things.

At the same time that we are doing this, we can get much more complicated, particularly toward the end of the session, by just trying out a communication bridge. A communication bridge from “Do birds fly” to “Do fishes swim” and from “Do fishes swim” back to “Do birds fly.” A communication bridge is a very easy thing. It simply closes off the process you were running, maintains ARC, and opens up the new process on which you are about to embark. If you could look at it as two V’s, the points facing each other, with a line between the bottoms of the two V’s, you would see that one process, which you have been running, is closed on down to nothing, easily, by gradients. You say, “How about running this just three or four more times, and then we’ll quit—okay?” We give him warning, you see, that we’re closing the process off, and we do run it three or four more times. Then we say, “How are you doing?” (We never ask people, by the way, “How do you feel?”—this as-ises havingness.) We say, “How are you doing?” and he says, “Oh, not too badly,” and so on. “Well, did anything happen there while we were running ‘Do fishes swim?’ “ And he says, “I don’t know. I got a little bit of reality—I felt like a fish for a couple of moments there.” Auditor says, “How do you feel about that?” and so on. “Is it okay? Are you doing all right now?” The preclear says, “Not too badly.” You say, “Well, let’s go over onto ‘Do birds fly?’ It’s an interesting process and it just goes like this—I ask you, ‘Do birds fly’ and you answer me. How about running that?” and he says, “Well all right, okay.” You establish agreement again and away we go. Actually, it is three contracts in a row. The first contract is: to stop the process we are running; the next contract is: we are in an auditing session, binding this as a continuing auditing session; and the third contract is simply: we have a new process we would like to run, and I want your signature on this dotted line that you will run it. That actually is a communication bridge. The reason we do this is so a preclear will not be startled by change, for if we change too rapidly in a session we stick the preclear in the session every time. We give him some warning; and that is what a communication bridge is for.

The handling of origins, however, is most important. Learn how to handle origins, and you’ll never be taken by surprise by a preclear. You’ll be right in there pitching, and the session will keep on. I have seen an auditor sit with his mouth open for twenty or thirty seconds after some preclear said something fantastic. He just didn’t know what to make of it. Well, you answer it, you maintain ARC, and you get him back in session. 

Issue 87			[1959, ca. early January]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

What Are Clears?

L. Ron Hubbard

There are three known grades of Clear.

The first is the Book One Clear. This is called Mest Clear. An adequate description of this is to be found in Book One.

The second is a Theta Clear. This has been known for years but has only recently been obtained through engram running as taught in the 5th London and 21st American ACCs and is done in the Processing Department of the Central Organization.

The third is called OT or Operating Thetan and is a rather esoteric level, hard to reach, hard to describe in full.

Any confusion about the state of clear is a confusion of these three terms: Mest Clear, Theta Clear and OT.

An uninformed public thinks a Mest Clear should act like an OT with magical attributes. It is not enough that the general auditor can now approximate a Book One Clear. The public, striving for unattainable attributes, wants an OT who eats buildings. The two states if on the same scale are not the same states.

A Mest Clear knows he has reached the bottom rung of the ladder on his way up. He also knows the rest of humanity uncleared is below this state but that they don’t know that they are.

A Mest Clear still thinks of himself more or less as a body and is more or less subject to one. All engrams are effectually keyed out without being examined. For practical purposes they are erased. He has excellent recalls. They may or may not be eidetic. Book One Clears are a bit below the Mest Clear standard of today.

If the person making the picture required in eidetic recall makes the picture, he has to know first what is in it. So why make a picture. A picture is memory on a via. So the argument about eidetic recall is a rather dull one at best.

It is not my purpose, thank God, to prove I was right. It is my purpose to blaze a trail into zones and heights Man has not known before. I can tell you only what is as I know it now. And I know that eidetic tests of recall do not prove a Mest Clear. Only freedom from keyed-in engrams proves a Mest Clear.

Theta Clear is another thing—much higher than a Book One or Mest Clear. This is a real triumph and I’m proud of it. The fact of a real Theta Clear is only a few months old.

A Theta Clear has no obsessive engrams whatever. They aren’t. But he can put back at will his reactive bank or any engram in it and blow it off again at a glance. Now that is news. A Theta Clear does not have to depend on the body line for his “survival.” He does not have engrams of any kind unless he creates them. He does not have to be in a head. And the state can be obtained in at least 80% of all cases in about 350 hours of auditing or more depending on the auditor’s skill. Only the Processing Department of the Central Organization or the graduates of the 5th London ACC or the 21st American ACC are doing this one.

Mest Clear, however, is a way station on the road to Theta Clear or OT so it doesn’t much matter what auditor starts you on the way—your HAS co-auditor, a professional HCA, an HCS or BScn or a new ACC graduate. You’ll win with them all toward the same goal. Lately I even developed a co-auditing formula that reaches near Mest Clear.

OT, of course, remains theoretical and is reached through lower clear states.

So here we go. We built a bridge. And built it better than we hoped. It’s time to start if you’ve been hanging back. The best way to see this elephant* is from inside!

Clearing is wonderful conversational material. It is a better experience.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 JANUARY 1959

FIELD ACTIVITIES

To: All Scientologists

For Scientology to go well in any area, it is only necessary for the trained auditor in that area to follow the following steps:

1. 	Get good results on every pc processed individually.

2. 	Operate a group and do PE and Group Processing.

3. 	Keep the group recruited.

It is not necessary that a field auditor has great sums of money to finance his activity. All successful Scientology activities have financed themselves. In extreme, an auditor with no pcs to keep him going can get a job and run a group evenings until the income of the group activity makes the job unnecessary.

The keynote of handling any area is to bring order. Every time you put some order into a pc or a group, or society, a little confusion blows off. Ignore the confusion. It is transitory. Order is not. It stays. Therefore the more order (not necessarily the more activity) you put into things the more continuance you have. This is new data, extremely important and should be carefully gone over again and again and applied. It is data that brings big wins in a society, a group or a pc. Bring a little order.

Get the pc to see that he can bring order into his affairs. Ask him bluntly, “What order could you bring into your life?” And his case will start resolving. The highest ability of a thetan is to Bring Order. Therefore, orderly processing brings results, disorderly processing does not. All an ARC break is is a disorder.

What order, then, can a trained auditor bring into his area? Into his own life? Into his pc’s? Into his group? That is the question worth answering.

The confusion that flies off when the order is entered in seems so important to many auditors that they Q and A with it. They stop pursuing order and start pursuing confusion. Never change from order to disorder just because confusion blows off. Let the confusion go. If you want it all gone, just put more order into it. That’s why CCH works when properly used.

An auditor who just starts a group blows some disorder out of a society. The disorder flies into view. Ignore it. Just put some more well-run, exactly scheduled group there. More disorder discharges. Order put in too suddenly always discharges disorder too fast. That’s an explosion. You don’t want that. Leave explosions to the government (its highest level of entering order is to blow everything up).

Here’s a program. Get hold of all the people you have processed in the area you are in. Give them an interview. In it, ask each one, “What order are you trying to bring into your life?” “What part of your life?” Tell them that’s what Scientology is trying to help them do. You’ll have more pcs. Weld them into a group. Give them some group processing Tone 40. Bring order into their lives.

Take responsibility for every pc’s whole life. Take responsibility for all the reactive banks in your area. Clear them up by bringing more order.

Money cannot flow back to you on disorderly lines.

AUDITOR CONFIDENCE

Every field auditor has had some loses. These cut down his confidence. He should rebuild his confidence. He should rebuild his confidence as his first step. He failed where he failed to bring order into lives. Therefore, he had better now discipline himself to use one simple process and use it right and without change until he has won with it. Don’t change the process because it blows off disorder. To the devil with the disorder—put the order in regardless of how much disorder it blows off.

KEY REHABILITATION PROCESS

1. 	Start session.

2. 	Find out if the pc has an auditor.

3. 	Find out if the pc has an auditing room.

4. 	Ask pc (goals), “What part of your life would you like to bring some order into?” Two-way comm on it for no more than five minutes. Get into session then.

5. 	For one hour at the beginning of each session every session run “Look around here and find something you have.” Only that command. If pc originates, understand and acknowledge. DON’T DO ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT IT.

6. 	For remainder of session run “Recall something you have done.” When he says he has, acknowledge only.

Session after session run nothing else but this. And you’ll bring order to a pc, believe me. And he’ll have great case changes and he’ll be moving forward toward clear.

This process will give you wins unless you do something else to vary it.

The only people it doesn’t work well on are nearly unconscious. On these only CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 work. If the process doesn’t bite at all, use CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4. But don’t worry, it will bite—if you keep your mouth shut and don’t flub.

Now you want some wins. Don’t talk to the pc much during a session. Use TR 4 whenever he talks. Keep him reassured, happy, comfortable and don’t let him out of session until you end it. And you’ll win. If you lose, it’s because you got fancy or chopped the pc up.

Factual Havingness will ease off p.t. problems and ARC breaks. That’s why you use it for an hour always.

If a process regimen comes along that’s simpler or better than the above I’ll let you know right away. Until then, this is the very best you can do.

GROUP RECRUITING

Groups fall apart on sloppy scheduling. They need one night a week at the minimum. Always the same night, same hours. That’s order. Always a one hour lecture and one hour group processing Tone 40. We have new phonograph records of lectures for you. They’re cheap. Buy them.

When you have a group processed a while get people into an HAS Course. Teach them TRs 0 to 9 and then let them co-audit on exactly the above regimen.

By permitting co-auditing, the trained auditor actually gets more pcs. Charge for co-auditing consultations. Keep them at it.

We’re taking the lid off. The country is full of people. They should be in groups and co-auditing. In that way we’ll bring enough order to the country to make even it survive.

By the way, HCO Washington, D.C., will issue a Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist certificate to anybody you guarantee has passed TRs 0 to 9 without charge to you. We trust you to make sure they’re good.

In recruiting a group, keep explaining Scientology as something that helps people bring order into their lives. You’d be amazed how little order they believe they can inject. Call on new people. Run an ad for your group: “Tired of Being Human?
Scientology Group Clears People,” or “Does Life Seem Disorderly? Join the       Scientology Group and begin to win for a change.”

We need action. In an all but leaderless world, somebody has to make some people. Let’s begin.

LRH:-jh							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JANUARY 1959

(Supersedes all Earlier Directives for HGC Processes)

HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

The Director of Processing of an HGC is the person who indicates the processes to be used by auditors on pcs.

The following plan is furnished for the information and guidance of the D of P and HGC auditors.

LOW PCS

All pcs who lie markedly below the center line of an APA/OCA graph should be run on CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Not all auditors, even when they know these, can get results with them. Therefore, use an auditor who does get results with the CCHs.

MEDIUM PCS

Pcs who lie on either side of the center line respond easily to Fac Havingness and benefit well from it.

Fac Hav with all three commands (as per ACC Clear Procedure) should be run solely and only with good case gain.

Flatten each command on such a case about an hour at a time in rotation.

If no comm lag develops, run 8 vanish, 2 continue, 1 have in that order until case changes for the better. Then run an hour each on each of the three in rotation.

These can also be run on “Recall something you have done”.

HIGH PCS

Pcs who lie mostly or entirely above the center line can be run on “Recall something you have done”.

However, if you have auditors trained to run engrams, by all means start this pc on engrams at once and run according to 5th London or 21st American procedure.

OTHER PROCESSES FOR ALL

Any help process runs on almost any pc except the very low pc. Therefore, particularly to get sessions started, “help on auditor and pc” is valuable.

ARC Break Straight Wire works well on medium level pcs, but only an auditor who is expert with an E-Meter and in locating in time incidents can be trusted with it.
GENERAL NOTES

HGC auditors have to be checked out on CCH 0 before being permitted to run it. The process is a great invitation to spend half an intensive talking. Fac Hav or TR 10 also run problems and should be used if auditor doesn’t check out on CCH 0.

Auditors must not be permitted to use TR 13, fishing a cognition. Use TR 4 instead or the ACC TR accepting pc’s answers. (TR 4 and the ACC TR are quite similar.)

Use TR 5N handling ARC Breaks only when auditor is checked out on it and handles it well.

The most trouble you get in an HGC is same as field. Auditors won’t use TR 4. They always have to do something about what pc volunteers. After a while pc gets afraid of volunteering data and goes out of session.

In general auditors talk too much. Cut it down unless auditor really knows when to talk. Auditors who are always dragging pc’s attention to auditor are a liability in an HGC. On a new auditor in HGC you can ask “What process has gotten you best results?” And whatever he says, you’ll win better, until he’s grooved in, by letting him run it. Otherwise, give him Fac Hav and no comments to pc and you will get a fair showing.

RESULT RETARDERS

ARC Breaks mostly retard results. The less talk, from auditor, the less breaks. Good TR 4 avoids them.

PT Problem stalls cases. Handle it with good CCH 0 as per ACC Clear Procedure, or, if auditor not checked out—with Fac Hav, or in extreme low cases TR 10.

CLEARING PROCEDURES

It is fruitless to embark on straight clearing until the case is up. So, all the above applies to clearing.

When case is well up, after using the above processes, use Confront and Help as per ACC Clear Procedure, or, better, run engrams.

SUMMARY

To get gains, use processes gauged to case, handle PT Problems and prevent ARC Breaks by checking auditor comments.

To clear, run engrams and make Theta Clears where you can.

If not all your auditors can run engrams, have lower cases set up by them and when in shape, pass to an engram running auditor to finish off.

If you have no engram running auditor, clear by this bulletin plus ACC Clear Procedure.

LRH :-.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street N.W., Washington, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JANUARY 1959

To all Staff
HCO London

An amusingly effective process.

“Invent a problem for which (pc’s worry or malady) is the answer.”

Examples—bad leg, old age, wrinkles, bad heart, obsession about sex, pt illness, inability to work, etc.

LRH:rd		   					L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
D of T
Acad Admin
ExtCourseDir	HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JANUARY 1959
Acad Insts
D of P
Processing Admin
HCO Bd of Renew
ACC World Wide Inst
HCO

TONE OF VOICE—ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Mood can be expressed by an acknowledgement. Evaluation can also be accomplished by acknowledgement, depending on the tone of voice with which it is uttered.

There is nothing bad about expressing mood by acknowledgement, except when the acknowledgement expresses criticalness, ridicule, or humor.

LRH:-jh							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 152
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 January 1959

THE FIVE LEVELS OF INDOCTRINATION

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard

I am now going to give you the five levels of Indoctrination very rapidly. We already have the five dummy processes which form the first level—the five dummy auditing processes.

The second one up the line is 8-C—plain 8-C. It is given without stress on control or anything of the sort. You don’t touch or handle the person. It is an old process done this way. The auditing commands of 8-C in this particular instance have suffered change recently because no auditing command must depend upon any other auditing command or it won’t be in present time. So each auditing command depends upon itself, and the commands of 8-C are: “Look at that wall. Thank you.” “Walk over to that wall. Thank you.” “With your right hand touch that wall. Thank you.” “Turn around. Thank you.” There is no “let go” there or other direction.

If we have not directed him to do something and he does it, if the way he does something is a little different from what we expected, we really have no basis for objection; and the training stress is only this: to get a person to walk another body than his own around the room. There is nothing to this. It is NOT High School Indoctrination. At this level he must be able to duplicate the command, and it is run to a point where a person does not make a mistake on the commands and stops feeling nervous about walking a person’s body around. That is the training stress.

Now we move up to the next level of Indoctrination, which might look like 8-C at the first glance, but is not. This is High School Indoctrination. The commands of High School Indoctrination are the same as those for plain 8-C, but this is entirely and completely a training process and it is only run for this reason: to keep an auditor from being stopped by a preclear by devious and diverse statements and actions. The “preclear” (we can’t really call him a preclear at all, for he is actually the coach) runs on this “auditor” anything he can think of to stop him, and the auditor must at no time permit himself even to be halted or falter in any way. He must be able to continue a clear, free-flowing 8-C on this person who is getting down on the floor and barking like a dog. He mustn’t be permitted to go down on the floor. You let a man get below the level of your shoulders and he is going to get down on the floor—that’s for sure. You have to catch him before that. He is going to try not to walk across the room. He is going to try and run across the room. He is going to try and do anything. You told him to walk: walking fast is allowable but running is definitely not allowable. The training stress is entirely upon getting an auditor to persevere against any trick mechanism anybody could think of or react to, or any circuitry or dramatization in 8-C. It is total uditor persistence. We don’t ask the auditor to do it smoothly—we only ask him to do it constantly and consistently.

That is High School Indoctrination, one of the great steps of Scientology. If we had had this a few years ago, it would have made the world of difference in several cases I can think of. A fellow would sit down in the middle of the floor and he wouldn’t do anything. We depended totally on our voices, and these people weren’t in communication.

The coach in this case has a role to play. He is the preclear. He has two signals, one “flunk” and the other “that’s it,” which are effective. Anything else he says does not count. Of course, he says “Start” and they go on with it, but when the coach (who is the final judge) considers that the auditor has blundered, has been stopped, and has waited too long, then the coach says “Flunk.”

What happens when the coach says “Flunk”? They go back to the beginning of the nearest cycle of action of 8-C. They do not take it from where they were, but go back to the beginning. They leave that cycle incomplete. The auditor in this case is not permitted to override a flunk. When the coach says “That’s it,” he means “We are through. We are going to take a breather. What I say now counts.” And that ends it. It doesn’t begin again until the coach says “Start.”

This is 8-C done on a very heavy body contact: the coach being lugged around and doing anything he can think of to stop this fellow. It is interesting what will stop some auditors. If you understand your business as a coach, you will understand that it is the soft ones and the unexpected ones that count. It isn’t the heavy ones, it isn’t the preclear just lying down on the floor and refusing to budge and exerting every muscle and having to be dragged from there on. This is perfectly allowable, but it isn’t the one that catches the auditor. It is the subtle unexpected actions that “flunk” an auditor.

High School Indoctrination is a marvelous training process. Several hours should be spent on this and one shouldn’t run it just with one coach but with two or three others as well, because everybody develops his own abreactive pattern. It is a wonderful opportunity to abreact your insanities. An auditor will very swiftly learn how to stop one preclear, but take two or three more, swapping teams around, and he eventually gets a smooth look at the whole thing. There isn’t such a thing as being too tiny to handle too big a preclear.

The next level of Indoctrination is Tone 40 on an Object. (Actually all these are groups and a number of techniques of indoctrination could be evolved from each one of these. I am simply giving you those that have to be passed.) In this Tone 40 on an Object you can have a number of commands and variations of one kind or another, but the one we use is this: You take an object—a small doll, ashtray, Coke bottle—and the auditor tells it to “Sit down in that chair” or “Sit on the table” and thanks it. Then he tells it to “Stand up,” and thanks it. “Sit down on the chair” or “Sit on the table”— then the auditor moves it with his own hands. He does all this while the coach is just standing there heckling him, and he has to do it so that his intention is so good that he gets perpetually surprised that the thing, the object, didn’t sit down in the chair or sit on the table, or didn’t stand up. The furthermost extremity of this would be that the object would do so without any further contact with the auditor than his intention. That point may be reachable—I must tell you that.

A person does this until his tone in giving the commands is Tone 40. There are many little drills that come into this. One is to make him put the intention into it and squeak and not say a word at the same time, but put the intention into it and alter his voice all over the place until he finds out that his intention doesn’t have anything to do with his voice or tone. He will eventually discover what Tone 40 is. Tone 40 is a positive postulate with no counter-thought—expected, anticipated, or anything else; that is, total control. Actually, today we use the word “control” very loosely. What we really mean is “positive postulation”; what the world means by control is, if he doesn’t do it, shoot him. Not Tone 40, but Tone .4.

In order to get Tone 40 on a Person going, you can continue Tone 40 on an Object; but whether this belongs to Tone 40 on a Person or belongs to the last end of Tone 40 on an Object doesn’t much matter. It is not a separate level, but it is a separate command. You give the 8-C commands to an object and lug it around for a little while—i.e., having the object move over and touch the wall, etc.—but that is only getting the person used to these commands in that tone. That is the only reason there is for it. We don’t use the 8-C commands to get his drill in because he is going to get heckled.

What does the coach do on Tone 40 on an Object? At first he is really helpful and tries to get the auditor to get the intention in there until he can put the intention in without speaking. When the fellow is getting too good the coach must remember that this Tone 40 on a Person is going to be up against somebody with counter-thought, counter-effort and counter-action of one kind or another and the coach furnishes it. He doesn’t do it loudly or obstreperously, but he does furnish it. “Is that Tone 40? Are you absolutely sure that was Tone 40? What do you mean by Tone 40?” etc.—this is when the coach isn’t being helpful. The coach is supposed to furnish randomity as a substitute for the randomity of the environment. The person can do this in spite of the fact that something or somebody is resisting him, heckling him and messing him up. You could go much further with this. As I say, one can go much further with each one of the five levels of Indoctrination, but I don’t advise it.

On Tone 40 on a Person, we do 8-C at Tone 40 and that is a total, accurate estimation of effort, with no halts or jagged motions—that is, smooth. Your estimation of effort must be absolutely perfect; your estimation of intention must also be perfect—which is sometimes rather hard on a coach because somebody can get so good that a coach’s body starts to walk around and obey the commands rather easily and you find almost all coaches on Tone 40 on a Person are much more docile than on High School Indoc. They really want to be rougher but the technique is rather overweighing this, is too strong.

Those are the five levels of Indoctrination and they are only doing this: placing an auditor into a frame of mind and an ability where his postulates can be positive and his command is no longer diffident, where he can control and handle somebody, where he can assume the attitude that is necessary to an auditor. And a person is all through with these when the instructor is sure that the auditor in training can do this.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 JANUARY 1959

ACC PREPARATORY PROCESS SCHEDULE FOR
RUNNING ENGRAMS

RECOMMENDED FOR NEW AUDITORS IN HGCs

SELECTED PERSONS OVERT ACTS

The student is started in the following fashion: “Find a person you feel you have failed to help.” By two-way comm, not repetitive. Several persons may be located. Select one that is real to the pc (not wholly unreal) and run the following process:

“Recall something you have done to (selected person).” This is a repetitive command. The auditing is done “muzzled”. The auditor is not permitted to say ANYTHING to pc except the command and to acknowledge that command’s answer, once the process is started. If the pc originates the auditor is permitted to nod only. If pc seems to have lost the command, or originates, the auditor nods and says, “I’ll repeat the auditing command” and does so. No discussions, or rudiments beyond START and END OF SESSION are employed.

When several persons so selected in the pc’s life are apparently flat, the process may be considered flat. Some reality should have been gained by both auditor and pc.

OVERT ACT STRAIGHT WIRE

When several selected persons pc “could not help” have been run with the above, the auditor broadens the process to the command, “Recall something you have done to somebody”. This is also run “muzzled”. When pc originates, the auditor does not speak, he only nods his reply. When the preclear seems to be without a command, the auditor repeats it as above. No further two-way comm is allowed.

ARC BREAK STRAIGHT WIRE

When the pc shows signs of being easy with the above process, the process used becomes ARC BREAK STRAIGHT WIRE run in the following fashion. For the first time, E-Meters are employed. The sole use of the E-Meter is to locate incident in time, BC-AD dates to be used only, “Is it greater than. . .?” “Is it less than. . .?” “Is it such and such a date?” A forbidden question is “How many years ago” as this is the sole criteria used in between-life implants where they say things are “Thousands of years ago. . .trillions of years ago. . .etc.”

The question “When?” is the only thing the auditor solves and only when needed, and he tells the pc about the drop he gets.

The command is “Recall an ARC break”. The pc does. The auditor says “When?” Any time statement by the pc is accepted except “I don’t know”. If pc says this, the auditor resolves it with the E-Meter to the best of his ability, tells the pc the date or character of drops, and then continues the process. Any other origin by pc is met with a nod only. The auditor may make no comments.

This process goes very easily into whole track. If a whole track incident is located in time it de-intensifies or goes back on the track. By locating the incident in time the pc is not made to plow through an engram with this command only, which is poor stuff. Therefore, no departure is allowed from the above regimen and no two-way comm is permitted beyond locating the incident in time. The process will be found to open up a track into greater and greater reality.

As ARC Break Straight Wire will give pc 3D spots on the track it can be followed by “What can you confront?” or regular engram running.

LRH:-.rd                                   	L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JANUARY 1959

Full distribution

NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE

Those persons on whom a process works once and those who have either dub-in or occlusion, process easily, if dramatically, on Not-Is Straight Wire. (See Axioms 11D, 18 and 22.)

Pcs divide into three general classes:

1. 	Those who have 3D pictures and good time sense.
2. 	Those who are occluded with black, colored or invisible fields and poor time sense.
3. 	Those who dub-in and have no time sense.

The scale of deterioration of a case is as above. First there are 3D copies of the real universe, then there is the action of not-ising these pictures (while they’re still there) and finally, while not-ising, substituting false pictures.

This process is aimed at case types 2 and 3 above. (ARC Break Straight Wire also handles type 2 but not so well as type 3.)

Types 2 and 3 press into invisibility pictures by making them “unimportant”. This is the clue word to unreality, stupidity, occlusion and dub-in. (See the Logics.)

The cycle which occurs is that the person gets overwhelmed with other people’s declared importance. They counter by not-ising the importance of others. The reverse cycle of others reducing the pc’s own importances is not run in Not-Is Straight Wire as it reduces havingness.

The commands of Not-Is Straight Wire are only these and no other:

“Recall a time you implied something was unimportant.” Pc does. “When?” Pc says or auditor assists him by pegging it on an E-Meter.

This is run for about an hour. Then a second command only is run.

“Recall a time when somebody else thought something was important’ Pc does. “When?” Pc says or auditor assists him by locating on E-Meter.

Acknowledgement is used. TR 4 is reduced to a nod.

An hour of one is followed by an hour of the other.

There’s dynamite in this process. It is good, clean and unlimited. But don’t chicken on it and pull out and don’t quit because the pc gets uncomfortable.

Here may be the QED for all occlusion and dub-in cases.

LRH:gn.rd							L. RON HUBBARD

5901C22 21ACC-1 How a Process Works

“[The auditor] has to find out what the PC did with the auditing command  and what he did when he executed the command.

In the absence of communication, nothing ever happens, which is why  people who are out the bottom don’t communicate, hoping to be safe.  This  doesn’t work if you are trying to do other things.  You must get the process  communicated across to the PC and you must get the PC to communicate.

The first thing to know about pictures is that anything the PC is looking  at is a picture.  A bank doesn’t do anything except be there, and whatever  strange thing is happening in the bank is a picture of whatever strange thing  is happening in the bank.  That’s all you have to know to unocclude an  occluded case.  Black fives look sane sometimes, because they haven’t got  anything to dramatize except looking at blackness -- not that they wouldn’t  dramatize if they were looking at something else.

When a PC is stuck in too heavy a picture, it is impossible to turn on  other pictures on the track.  The basic process for occlusion is, “Come up to  present time.” If that doesn’t work, there are seven other processes.

1. There are several things a person can do with pictures.  He may use  not-isness to make them disappear as soon as they show up.  Other obsessive  doingnesses can be used to get rid of one’s pictures (a “solution” to  pictures).  This case can be approached using O/W Selected people, because if  he’s not-ising pictures, he’s not-ising people too.  In so doing, he finds  himself surrounded by “ghosts”.  First run, “What have you done to [withheld  from?] _______ ?”, using the person you’ve selected.

2. Then run general O/W to catch some more of the automaticity of this  outflow.

3. ARC break straightwire is used to knock out the cause of not-isness.  “All locks on the Rock are ARC breaks.”

4. Next, we would use not-is straightwire (Recall a time you thought  something was unimportant; Recall a time someone else thought something was  important).  If you run it reverse-wise, it takes away the PC’s havingness and  spins him in.  This works on not-ising other’s importance’s.  [I.e. it as-ises  times he did this.]

5.  Factual havingness (also called “third rail”), the “vanish” command  of this.  This also handles not-isness.
6.  “What can you confront?”: This because at this stage, the person  doesn’t wipe something out before he looks at it.

7. “You make a mockup for which you can be totally responsible.” This is  a top of the line process.  Any of these processes turn on pictures.  These  processes, plus CCH’s handle all occluded cases.  

Issue 88 M          [1959, ca. late January]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

A Campaign for Ethical Auditing

L. Ron Hubbard

General ethical standards in America are at their low-low ebb.

When we see what the peers of “healing” do to make a dishonest dollar, when we see “mental healing” relegated to mental torture and destruction we find at the same time that the local and the national governments enforce the vicious practitioners, the antibiotic quack and the electric shock witch doctor.

If Scientology is to make any progress whatever its own ethical standards must be without reproach. Why Q and A with a caved-in society? One of my “hats” is ethical standards.

HCO is Hubbard Communications Office. It is the office that helps me wear my hats. Therefore one of the three principal hats of HCO is Ethical Standards, the keeping of the codes. The other two are Technology and Awards.

There are many HCO offices throughout the world. But nowhere do they have the problems of magnitude in the field of ethics that they have in America.

Succumbing to the general low tone of the society, there are persons about who:

1. 	Do not care to have the actual skill necessary to get results;
2. 	Do not scruple in their promises to pcs and
3. 	Work against the best interests of the Central Organization and other auditors.

Heretofore I have been relatively unaided in this problem. I have tried many ways to solve it. All failed in America. These solutions worked elsewhere but not in America. Fortunately HCO has come of age. I am getting help.

An HCO Secretary is a well-trained Scientologist. After that she is my own secretary in the area. She has a motto “Bring Order”—the motto of HCO. HCO staff are dedicated Scientologists, the best, carefully selected.

Today any unethical practitioner in Scientology is beginning to feel uneasy. And rightly. HCO (to say nothing of Central Organizations) is breathing down his neck.

Today ethical auditors, doing their jobs and well, are feeling easier. HCO is backing up their activity and making them secure in their gains by, for instance, keeping roving auditors out of ethical areas and the squirrels gasping their last.

An ethical auditor does the following:

1. 	He helps the good repute of Scientology.
2. 	He keeps dissemination up with a healthy part of his income.
3. 	He gets results when he processes somebody.
4. 	He charges standard fees, no cut-rate.
5. 	He stands in well with his fellow auditors.
6. 	He makes no wild promises to pcs he can’t back up.
7. 	He never tells a pc the pc is now clear.
8. 	He uses standard processes.
9. 	He keeps his own case improving toward clear on higher levels.

An unethical  auditor is earmarked by the following:

1. 	He lives on the good repute of Scientology but downgrades it.
2. 	He profits by the dissemination of others or the Central Organization and pockets what he should contribute as “profit.”
3. 	He processes people without caring about results, only profit.
4. 	He cut-rates his processing or grossly overcharges.
5. 	He is despised by other auditors.
6. 	He makes any promise he has to to get a pc to buy processing.
7. 	He tells pcs they are clear no matter what they think.
8. 	He uses any process that happens to occur to him and avoids standard proven processes.
9. 	He shuns personal auditing on himself.

And there you have what’s holding us back.

When the New Year of Year Nine came, I made a resolution. I had the administrative machinery set up, the needful comm lines. And I resolved to “Take steps to take full responsibility for field auditors in America.”

I don’t care whether this resolution is popular or unpopular. It’s got to be done. Here’s how it is: I tell people about recent results and about clears. Some creep, already in bad with me, yet finds ways of ‘‘profiting’’ by “cashing in.” Trouble is, these couldn’t audit out a sore finger on a clear. What do they know about my goals or ethics. Yet they use the name and rake in cash—and spoil areas with their stupid blundering. They fail to help cases. They are parasitic upon the dissemination done by others. They take money that should go into sound future and waste it.

HCO is vitally interested in this campaign. The HCO goal is “Get the field auditor to get results in America, and get the show on the road.” And HCO can spend thousands to do it.

Any area that is being victimized by an unethical auditor will soon feel the influence of HCO. We mean business. And America has been asking for it hard.

Scientology is the greatest movement on Earth today, the only honest movement with real hope for Man’s future. It must not be stalled by the prevailing low of American ethics.

It is shameful that I can only guarantee Scientology results in America where HCO or myself can directly supervise the processing. This must change. A professional auditor’s certificate must continue to mean honesty, results and adherence to the codes.

This is no sudden campaign that will be forgotten. There are HCO offices all over the world, more than in America. I’m winning. HCO is winning. It’s about time the field won too. For Scientology is winning a new life for Man the world around.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 153
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 February 1959

C. C. H.

(Continued from P.A.B. No. 152 of 15 January 1959
on “The Five Levels of Indoctrination”)

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard

WE GO NOW INTO CCH. CCH could not even vaguely be attempted without the five levels of Indoctrination having been run. Nevertheless, early in the HPA or HCA Course you will discover that an individual hasn’t yet had Tone 40, so, although CCH starts with Tone 40, the training continuity of CCH does not. Training starts with dummy auditing in the Communication Course and then goes to the second level of Indoctrination, which is simple 8-C, and they coincide at that point. The order of learning these processes is therefore different from the order in which they are given to a pc. You don’t have to remember the order of learning, but you do have to remember the order of giving them to a pc. However, I am going to give them to you in the order of training.

We have simple 8-C (which I have already given you) at the second level. The commands of simple 8-C are very simple and they do not depend on any other command. In simple 8-C the commands are: “Look at that wall. Thank you.” “Walk over to that wall. Thank you.” “With your right hand touch that wall. Thank you.” “Turn around. Thank you.”

The second process we deal with in training is Locational Processing, and this, as you can see at once, is a command of attention process. The commands are: “Notice that      . Thank you.” This is very simple Locational Processing and, by the way, an interestingly therapeutic process. The training stress is simply this: the direction of attention must not be disturbed by other mechanisms of attention direction. The auditor must do this smoothly. We are trying to get the auditor to get the preclear’s attention to go smoothly to the object indicated. What we have here is one person handling another person’s attention—this is quite unusual, and must be done very smoothly. We don’t care how well the commands are getting across, beyond, of course, that they should get across as well as a person learned to get across a command in dummy auditing. The auditor picks out objects and says, “Notice that      .” He normally points, and the preclear merely turns his head. There are no cautions to be used with this except that, if the preclear gets very restimulated, flatten it.

The third is called Locational, Body and Room, and here we have the first example of extraversion-introversion. The commands are: “Look at that____.Thank you. Look at your (foot, hand or knee). Thank you.” There is an alternative set of commands on this: “Notice the chair. Notice your hand Notice the wall. Notice the floor.” They actually have a difference. A person who is pretty dead in his head had better be told to “notice,” because the strain and stress which will come on him through trying to get out of his body and “look” at his head is so great he will start pulling ridges to pieces. So, of the two, the safest is “Notice.” The other will exteriorize somebody. They are two different sets of commands, two different objects. “Look at that wall, look at your hand,” etc., is liable to find a person out there five feet outside his head. But if a person would not normally exteriorize by his build, bank behavior, etc., you would use “Notice.” In training we use “Notice,” but we must remember that the process works fabulously well with “Look.”

That’s an extraversion-introversion process. We have the sequence of it as “Look in on yourself. Look at yourself. Look at the environment. Look at yourself. Look at the environment”—alternating it. This is what is known as an alternate command. It is necessary to call your attention to that bit of terminology because in “Give me your hand” Tone 40, we run it on the right hand and we run it on the left hand, but it is not an alternate. We don’t say, “Give me your right hand. Give me your left hand.”

The next one of these is Objective Show Me. Here the preclear does a little demonstrating. The reason this is put in here is because it is one of the more miraculous therapeutic processes. It is the reason why a person’s bank is invisible to other people. It is the reason why people have secrets, they pull banks in on themselves, and the reason why they don’t dare show it to anybody else. The commands are: “Show me that      . Thank you.” The auditor points to the object he wishes to be shown. Only when that is running fairly well will you run it on an extrovert-introvert basis, and the next series of commands on it could be “Show me that . Show me your      .” (I.e., “Show me that table. Show me your foot. Show me that ceiling. Show me your hand.”) This, by the way, opens the door to mock-ups and facsimiles anybody could see. If there is some method of achieving that, this is the process to do it. A person overcomes his unwillingness to show things, and he realizes that he is not still on Arcturus and you are not the space police from Saturn. He is being made unwilling by life to show anybody anything.

Actually, I would omit this process under training. I wouldn’t show a person how to do this early in his training. I would let him find this one up the track somewhere. That is why I have not given it out in training earlier. But you must know that it exists because it is a very important process and has to be handled very delicately—that is why at this level of training it isn’t used.

Instead, we use a mild one called Attention by Duplication 9, Number 4. This is a very old process, but we don’t run it in the old manner. We place a book in one location and a bottle in another location (never more than five feet apart), and we say, “Look at that book. Walk over to that book. Pick up that book. Put the book down in exactly the same place.” The same goes for the bottle. You could add a “Turn around” in there, but you have then graduated this to Tone 40 Book and Bottle.

Tone 40 Book and Bottle is not Opening Procedure by Duplication. You have to be ready to assume total control of the preclear to run Tone 40 Book and Bottle. The commands are the same, except that you never acknowledge anything but the execution of the auditing commands. Then we would only have to add the command “Turn around.” He is really not supposed to do anything else we have not told him to do. (In training we use Opening Procedure by Duplication and later on will have to show somebody what we mean by Tone 40 Book and Bottle.) The training stress on this is precision. The auditor must not make any mistakes or omissions on this command. It is one of the most arduous processes to run known to man. If an auditor adds into it the randomity of getting his commands mixed up, he can practically finish a preclear. It is one of the number one exteriorization processes. If Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957 will exteriorize somebody (and it will), Tone 40 Book and Bottle is likely to send him on his way. You have no latitude for mistakes here. The training stress is the exact duplication of the commands. One of the cautions that must be observed in running this is that it is not left unflattened and mustn’t be faltered if it begins to run. If the process is biting it must not be stopped simply because there is a class schedule involved. If you were unfortunate enough to begin Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957 at 3 p.m. and it was running on the preclear, you have no choice if it is still running at 2 a.m. in the morning—Auditor’s Code or not, you are still going to be there running it. I couldn’t possibly tell you that emphatically enough. We remember this from way back when. The most fatal thing that can happen is to be interrupted during this process, which may never bite again. And if it isn’t flattened, it is liable to leave somebody hung right there. It is a major auditing error to start Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957 and not flatten it. When you start that one, don’t have any other dates. Most of these processes under training sooner or later will be left unflattened on somebody, but that one must never be.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1959

HGC CURRENT PROCEDURE

SELECTED PERSONS OVERTS STRAIGHTWIRE

If you want an undercut on Selected Persons Overts Straightwire, run people close to present time and if you want to undercut it further, downscale its command to: “Think of something you have done to ....” The preclear does not have to talk to run this process. He can just think of something.

Additional note: ARC Break Straightwire cannot be run on a case that is motivator hungry. Overt acts must be owned up to thoroughly on the lower processes before you can get ARC Break Straightwire to run properly. Bad auditing is much easier to do with ARC Break Straightwire than the other two processes. Bad auditing is the limitation of ARC Break Straightwire. It gives the auditor much more chance to make mistakes than either Selected Persons Overts or Not-Is Straightwire.

The two biggest single auditor crimes are:

1. 	Rough and choppy auditing.

2. 	Overestimating the level of case.

When either of these two crimes is committed you get reduced profile readings. If a profile reduces, the answer is in either one or two above.

The remedy for rough auditing is muzzled auditing. This gives the auditor wins, thus improving his judgement and gives the preclear wins.

Muzzled auditing is best run on:

1. 	Selected Person Overts Straightwire

2. 	General Overts Straightwire

3. 	Not-Is Straightwire.

ARC Break Straightwire belongs between General Overts Straightwire and Not-Is Straightwire in the scale of things, but is generally omitted because it requires smooth auditing; however, it produces the best results if case reality is up to it.

GRADUAL SCALE OF PROCESSES

The lowest is:

1. 	Selected Person Overts Straightwire: “Recall a time you did something to

2. 	General Overts Straightwire: “Recall a time you did something to somebody.”

3. 	ARC Break Straightwire: “Recall an ARC Break.” “When?”

4. 	Not-Is Straightwire: “Recall a time you implied something was unimportant” alternated with “Recall a time somebody thought something was important. “

5. 	Factual Havingness:

	“Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish.”

	“Look around here and find something you would continue.”

	“Look around here and find something you have.”

The results to be achieved by the above scale compare favourably to the CCHs and are faster.

When part of the profile gain lags on the OCA or APA, the person is found to have a dropped havingness, thus Factual Havingness (Third Rail—run 8-2-1) can be combined with the above, using the third command, VANISH, first. In any event, the fifth process in the above order is “Third Rail” (run 8-2-1 ) of Factual Havingness.

I would like to see this run extensively by HGCs. I would like to see this gradient scale run in full after every engram is flat, and before starting a new engram.

This will keep auditors from being fooled by dub-in. Dub-in can occur in a different lifetime, even when it was not present in the lifetime just run. Dub-in is a continuous characteristic of a person in a single lifetime and may not be present in the ensuing lifetime.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1959

FLATTENING A PROCESS

A process is flat when:

1. 	There is the same lag from the moment the command is given until the time the preclear answers the command at least  3 times in a row.

2. 	A cognition occurs.

3. 	An ability is regained.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 FEBRUARY 1959
Originally issued from London

OP. PRO. BY DUP.

Use two objects—a book and a bottle.

Have the pc look them over and handle them to his satisfaction. Then have him place them at some walking distance apart in the room, on a couple of tables or similar locations.

The commands:

“Look at that book.” 
“Walk over to it.” 
“Pick it up.” 
“What is its colour?” 
“What is its temperature?” 
“What is its weight?” 
“Put it down in exactly the same place.”

Repeat with the bottle.

Do not vary the commands in any way. Use Tone 40. “Thank you” acknowledgment. The basic commands should never be departed from, and never, never trick the preclear by using the book again when you knew he was just about to start toward the bottle. The purpose of the process is duplication. Good control should be used.

Accept the pc’s answers whether they are logical, silly, imaginative, dull or unlawful. In starting the process you can discuss with him what you are about to do and make sure you have got the rudiments established. Run the process until the comm lags are flat.

This process is an HPA/HCA requisite.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:mc.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 154
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________
                                     
15 February 1959

C. C. H. (Concluded)

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard

The next process in training order is Subjective Havingness. One way to run this is to ask the preclear what he can mock up. Then have him mock up what he can, and shove it into his body. That is the most elementary way of running this. Remedy of Havingness and Havingness in general are the most therapeutic levels of processing when they work. You run CCH so the fellow can have, and here you are directly doing it. Quite important. You can always get a black case to mock things up and you can always get somebody to throw something away. This is not even a problem today.

The way you crack up a black case is to have him mock up something in the blackness and push it in until the blackness cracks up. He will go anaten; but because he goes unconscious is no reason to stop auditing him.

There is a way to crack up the “invisible” case, who cannot see mock-ups (they have no field and do not see anything when they close their eyes; everything is invisible, they have no facsimiles, no mock-ups). The most spectacular crack-up of an invisible case was occasioned by putting a number of glass objects on a table and, one after the other, just repetitively round and round, the preclear was asked to “Keep each one from going away”; and, when he succeeded in doing this for a few rounds, he no longer had an invisible field. That invisible field of his had been impervious to all other attacks by auditors for five years or longer.

The next one is Book Mimicry, its commands being totally motion. All the processes up to this moment (we have mentioned Book and Bottle Tone 40, but it is not taught or run at this level of training) are simply communicative. We could talk to the preclear. This is also true of Book Mimicry and Hand Space Mimicry. Don’t get this mixed up because your first process in CCH is Tone 40 “Give me your hand” and this is followed by Tone 40 8-C and then followed by Book Mimicry and then followed by Hand Space Mimicry; you are liable to believe that Book Mimicry and Hand Space Mimicry are Tone 40. They are not. They are just common, ordinary, run-of-the-mill routine—be a good fellow, pick up the ARC, remember your dummy auditing sort of processes. You can talk to the preclear. It is necessary that you do so.

Book Mimicry is run this way: You sit facing the preclear, rather close together, your knees a few inches from his knees. You take in your hands a book—not another object—and you make a motion with this book, preferably not the most complicated motion in the world and preferably not the simplest motion.

And remember, you, the auditor, have to be able to remember any motion that you make with that book so that you can do it again. So it is sometimes necessary for an instructor to make somebody take the book and wave it around in certain patterns and make him wave it around again before he lets him run this on anybody. Just check him out so that he can wave the book the same way twice, because, if he can’t, he can’t run this process.

You make the motion with the book and give the book to the preclear, and he, with a mirror image, takes the book and makes as near as he can the same motion with it. If you are not satisfied with it, you take the book back and make the same motion that you made before with the book newly and in present time and give him the book once more and he makes the same motion back. You do the motion until you and he, but particularly he, are satisfied that a duplication has occurred. The auditing commands of this process aren’t commands—they are patter. There is comment. There is talk. And one of the lines that undoubtedly should be part of your patter should be, “Well, did you do it?” “Are you satisfied?” If he isn’t, you do it again and ask him again. It is the preclear that has to be satisfied that a duplication took place, not the auditor. It is completely different from dummy auditing. Remember, we are not dummy auditing now, we are auditing for keeps. You can talk all you want to, acknowledge what he says, but don’t you dare let that looseness in conversation interfere with the tremendous precision of the motions of the process itself. In other words, the motions are the commands, and these must not be interfered with by the speech, but the speech can, and should, take place.

Number seven is Hand Space Mimicry, and again it is the motion that is the command. The training stress on Hand Space Mimicry is to do good, useful hand space mimicry. The auditor sits in the same position as in the last process, and puts one or two palms up against the preclear’s hands and he says, “I am going to make a motion with my hands and I want you to contribute to that motion”; and we make some simple little motion to which he contributes. We do this for a while until it is more or less flat or we can leave it for the moment. Then we bring the auditor’s and preclear’s hands half an inch apart, and we do the same thing, and we say the same thing. You may lead him out to four or five feet away by these tiny gradients, another inch at a time, without his ever becoming aware of the fact that you have left him, and he is definitely aware of his auditor. This is modern “Look at me, who am I?” It finds the auditor. The Scale of Reality is employed here, and this is why it is done. (Scale of Reality: At the bottom there is nothing; above that there is a communication line, the line becomes more solid, then above that terminals begin to materialize lightly and the line becomes less solid, then above that you have the terminals and you don’t have any lines, and above that the terminals are there mostly by agreement; above that there is agreement, and above agreement there is consideration, individual consideration, and above that there is postulate. That is the Scale of Reality.) You will see this Scale of Reality take place, for what are these hands against these hands but communication lines to the preclear? So we play it in this fashion. We begin to break it down and we become less a line and more a terminal.

Next one is Trio, a famous old process which is included here because it is too good to miss. The commands of Trio were originally “Look around the room and find something you could have.” A very non-control sort of process, but that’s the Trio. It has an opposite: “Look around the room and find something that your body cannot have.” It is “have” for the preclear, “have not” for any other object, person, being, valence, or anything else than the preclear. You do numbers of things with the Trio. You have to know the Trio because it is a fast patch-up for almost any process there is except Op. Pro. by Duplication 1957. (The only thing that patches up Op. Pro. by Duplication 1957 is Op. Pro. by Duplication 1957. Tone 40 Opening Procedure by Duplication will run out Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957, and any Tone 40 process will run itself out. There is no dead-end street there.)

Trio will run out almost anything in the entire bank if it is biting at all. If a person can have anything, or if he can get the idea of “something can’t have,” it will run anything out. It is slow and reliable, and an auditor must always have it. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 FEBRUARY 1959

HGC PROCESSES FOR THOSE TRAINED IN ENGRAM RUNNING
OR TRAINED IN THESE PROCESSES

STARTING A CASE: BEGIN EVERY SESSION AS FOLLOWS WITH THESE RUDIMENTS.
	USE RUDIMENTS. FIND THE AUDITOR, FIND THE PC, FIND THE AUDITING ROOM.
	ESTABLISH A GOAL FOR THE SESSION. ASK FOR PRESENT TIME PROBLEM.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM:

If PTP exists then run it as follows and in no other way. Do not yak around about it. Just ask if there is one, see if one registers on the meter. On the PT PROBLEM THAT REGISTERS ON THE METER (not some other one) do the following.

Ask for and write down all the persons connected with this problem. That problem includes the preclear. On each of these persons, one after the other, beginning with the one most real to the pc, run this:

“Think of something you have done to (selected person).” “Think of something you have withheld from (selected person).”

These commands are run one after the other until the selected person chosen is somewhat flat. (Pc begins to repeat things he has recalled before.)

Do this to each person involved in the problem.

PT PROBLEMS WERE CUT OUT OF HGC BECAUSE AUDITORS BURNED UP HALF AN INTENSIVE ON THEM. A PT PROBLEM NEVER REQUIRES MORE THAN A COUPLE OF HOURS TO FLATTEN. NO “WHEN” IS USED WITH PT PROBLEM BY SELECTED PERSONS.

USE RUDIMENTS AND CHECK PT PROBLEM EACH SESSION AND HANDLE AS ABOVE.

DYNAMIC STRAIGHT WIRE:

Do a survey, one time on the pc, not every session, to discover any errors in their dynamics. This is done with an E-Meter. On pcs not familiar with Sci. terms use the following words: Self, sex, family, children, groups, mankind, the animal kingdom, birds, beasts, fish, vegetables, trees, growing things, matter, energy, space, time, spirits, souls, gods, God. Assess with this question only, “Tell me something that would represent (each of the above, one after the other).” When one changes the pattern of the needle action or when it is definitely balmy, write it down. When list is completed, take those items written down and run:

“Think of something you have done to (selected terminal you wrote down).”
“Think of something you have withheld from (selected terminal, same one).”

Run these questions on each, one after the other, until pc seems flat.
IF NO DAFFY TERMINALS ARE FOUND ON SURVEY, SURVEY IT ALL AGAIN. IF NONE ARE FOUND THIS SECOND TIME, SKIP THIS PROCESS.

DO THIS ONLY ONCE PER AUDITOR PER PC.

PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE:

This process goes rapidly into engrams but can be continued even if engrams are contacted.

Run these two questions one after the other, one time per each.

“What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?” 
“What part of the future would you be willing to experience?”

KEEP AN ACCURATE RECORD OF ANY ENGRAMS CONTACTED. WHEN ENGRAMS PERSIST IN THE PC’S VIEW, CAREFULLY SPOT THEM IN TIME FOR HIM.

ENGRAM RUNNING:

Find the engram necessary to resolve the case. ONCE YOU HAVE CHOSEN IT AND HAVE BEGUN TO RUN IT, BE SURE YOU HAVE THE MOTIVATOR AND THE OVERT AND THEN DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DEPART FROM THAT INCIDENT TO RUN ANOTHER THAT “DROPS BETTER” OR COMES UP. IN OTHER WORDS ONCE YOU HAVE FOUND AN INCIDENT STAY ON IT UNTIL IT IS FLAT.

NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE:

When you have flattened an engram thoroughly with all five commands gone over twice, run Not-Is Straight Wire between incidents. In other words, flatten an engram, then run Not-Is Straight Wire, get that a bit flat and locate and run the next incident.

Selected Person Overt Withhold, and General Overt and Withhold can be run on a pc only if they are biting. This is also true of Not-Is Straight Wire.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:-.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

STAFF AUDITORS’ CONFERENCE OF FEBRUARY 16, 1959

REGARDING HCO BULLETIN OF FEBRUARY 16, 1959:

HGC PROCESSES FOR THOSE TRAINED IN ENGRAM RUNNING
OR TRAINED IN THESE PROCESSES

Nearly everyone here has been trained in these exact processes and, if anyone here hasn’t been trained in these processes, then everything on this Bulletin applies except Engram Running. The whole bulletin applies except Engram Running.

There will be a staff Theta Clearing Course, and those auditors who are on staff who have not been trained by an ACC in Engram Running will have an opportunity to get that training; and not too many months will go by before they are up to this, too. So this will apply at that time. Maybe it will have shifted slightly by that time, but I don’t think very much.

Now what you are looking at here is the aggregate know-how that was gained and assembled on the 21st American ACC.

UNDERCUTTING CASES:

Now the undercuts of cases became a vital necessity. This whole ACC was devoted to the R factor plus Engram Running. It was discovered that the thing that keeps individuals from running engrams adequately was their R factor, and when their R factor was very poor they could not run an engram adequately. Now the funny part of it is that an engram can be contacted and run and, if done persistently and well without ARC breaks, can run the following Scale of Confront. Here is the Scale of Confront, just to refresh your minds:

DUB-IN: 	Lowest scale. This scale could possibly invert, and down below that you might have a black dub-in. Once you had run blackness, you would find a dub-in case. But the scale we are mostly interested in, because that is the one we most commonly see, begins at the bottom with dub-in, runs up, turns
BLACK. 	Runs through blackness, turns
INVISIBLE. Runs from invisible to
ELSEWHERE—a desire to be elsewhere. The way they solve things is elsewhereness. Runs up from elsewhereness to
ABILITY TO CONFRONT. Runs from confront to
EXPERIENCE or PARTICIPATE. And only then are you up to
BEINGNESS.

Now this is the Confront Scale, and it is the scale of disintegrating Reality. It is how a person handles terminals or a situation. A person handles terminals and situations above all this by not having to participate, by not having to confront, finding no necessity to do anything about it unless he chooses so on his own determination; and if he did so, could do so with no personal liability. He could experience or not as the case may be. Now you’ll find a lower harmonic on this in some philosophic level of somebody saying, “Yap, yap, well, I could, or I couldn’t, and that’s my choice,” etc, well, he hasn’t got any power of choice. He’s just using this as the final escape mechanism—a philosophic escape mechanism.

If I said “bottom”—the bottom mechanism—it would be the one most commonly contacted. But you are apt to get a mechanism which is philosophic, which is simply a figure-figure mechanism about a situation, and the individual feels that if he could just figure it out he would be all right. In other words, this is a thought-thinkingness figure-figure, and he not-ises by figure-figure. Such a case, not-ising by figure-figure, will turn into a dub-in case as soon as you start curing his figure-figure; would turn into a black case; would turn into an invisible case; would turn into a confront case; would turn into an experience case. Which is quite interesting.

Now it is true that an engram could be found, started, and, if the auditor were good and held the individual right on the time period and had the time period well spotted, and had the overt and motivator, no matter how crazy they seemed or sounded, contacted, he could theoretically, just by running that engram, run a person through the totality of this Reality Scale. See? So there’s another approach here. You get a guy who is figure-figure, find the engram necessary to resolve the case. First he figure-figures about it, and he’ll run it, and run it just with the auditing commands—the five auditing commands to run an engram—he figure-figures about it, then after a while he dubs-in about it, then after a while it all goes black; and then after a while it eases into an invisibility—it’s just not there—somatics are, and discomfort and other things are, but it’s not there—and its not-thereness suddenly turns into little flicks—little flicks of confront. And boy, he goes elsewhere. It just starts to turn on and he gets it for the least little Flick and he goes elsewhere. And then pretty soon he can confront the thing; then pretty soon he can participate—he can run it in valence, squarely in valence, right in its moment of time, at which time it becomes pretty damn real. And then he goes to being able to put it there or not put it there, and its importance-unimportance factor flattens out so that it’s neither important nor unimportant. And that engram is licked.

Theoretically, this could happen. That is actually the way I run engrams. But you will find in auditing in the HGC that the public expects of you a different thing than is expected of you by students. And that’s why I wanted to talk to you for a few minutes. They expect a different thing. They expect you to be interested in their case. And that is quite amusing—because it’s your job to get them interested in their case. But they want you to be interested in their case. A11 right, any case is interesting, so that’s a pretty easy one. But you can get so interested in their case that you do a lot of talking to them and burn up an awful lot of auditing time. So there is some point where your interest becomes an indulgence, and on the happier side of that, where the pc is pleased you’re interested in his case, and that’s enough. Then you get him interested in his case.

All right. Now, we have for a long time not used PT problems. I’ll tell you why very bluntly. It was not unusual for an auditor to burn up twelve and a half hours on a PT problem. It was not unusual. He did this with two motives: one just yak, letting the pc go on and on, poor control, not controlling the pc’s comm outflow, letting the pc get into non-essentials. And the other side of it: he was trying to run the whole case with the PT problem. Well, wonderful—you can run a whole case with a PT problem—but why? Since it’s slow freight. That’s a very slow way to go about it. So we take a PT problem now and handle the session in this fashion:

We establish the rudiments every time we establish a session. Find the auditor, find the pc, find the auditing room, establish a goal for the session. Do that rapidly. We don’t care what goal it is, so long as he has some kind of a goal. And then we ask for a PT problem. And we take an E-Meter (up to that time we didn’t care whether the pc was handling the cans or not) but we take an E-Meter, and we have this PT problem appear on the E-Meter, or we don’t run it. Got it? And we run the PT problem that appears on the E-Meter. So we get him to state this problem, and we don’t care how he states the problem, because all we want to know is “Did it drop?” That tells you at once you won’t run a PT problem on a stage-4 needle. Didn’t drop-see, that’s all within the requirements—it didn’t drop, so skip it. It isn’t going to be real to the pc anyhow. You’ll have to do something else with this case. He’s probably got thousands of problems; probably all of life is a problem. Probably every time he walks in a room he installs an engram. You know, the furniture’s there—that’s an engram. Get the idea? So why worry about a problem?

But if you got a PT problem that drops, you should remove yourself at that moment from all temptation. As soon as the problem drops, and as soon as he states that it is a problem to him and is worrying him in present time, you take the cans away from him and put the thing aside. Just lay the E-Meter aside. You’re not interested in an E-Meter from there on. The reason why is because you’ll increase the drop, you’ll increase more drop and more drop as you ask him about it. You’re already running it. And the problem is going to change. You have seen this phenomenon. You’re not interested in a problem changing. The fact of your laying aside the E-Meter will rather convince him that you have found it and that’s it. And you only want to know this: the personnel associated with that problem. You don’t want to know more about the problem. You just want to know the personnel associated with that problem. His wife, his mother, and his wife’s boy friend, or something of that sort. And that’s the personnel associated with the problem. You just check that off.

Now, I’m going to ask you to take a notebook and a ball-point into the auditing room, because you’ve got two or three things to do here that require a list. I want you to get accustomed to establishing a list and then flattening it, not trying to run the case all over new again every time the case changes. That’s one of the ways to waste time. You run one terminal, and of course the case changes, the problems change, everything changes on the case. If you re-assessed it at this time to find a new terminal, you’d for sure find new terminals. Well, the devil with it. Let’s just flatten what we contact, and when we’re contacting and scouting and using cans and the E-Meter, just write down what we find. Then put the E-Meter aside and run what we’ve found until we get rid of all of that. Now you’re going to do something new—give him back the E-Meter cans. Got the idea?

Pcs don’t much like to hold onto these E-Meter cans forever. Furthermore, they become restive, and they want to scratch their heads, and they want to do this, and they want to rassle around, and most pcs you get are slightly nervous in this direction. Why should you worry about it? Because the E-Meter is only going to give you a certain amount of the information that is quite valid. Now, you’re going to write down the personnel connected with this PT problem. You’re going to take SELECTED PERSON OVERT-WITHHOLD on each one of these people. And the commands for this are right here:

“Think of something you have done to (	 ),” and 
“Think of something you have withheld from (	).”

And you are going to run one of those commands and the next command, and then the next command—first command again, then the second command, first command, second command. In that way, you’ll never lay an egg on an unbalanced flow. No flow will unbalance on you. They’ll always stay there more or less stable. The case won’t suddenly turn black when it’s not supposed to turn black, and so forth. You won’t ever over-run a flow and the pc will never get upset.

Now, let’s look at this again. You have written down “wife”, “his mother”, and “his wife’s boy friend”. Which one do you run first? You have to ask this question to establish that terminal: “Which one of these things do you think is the most real to you?” The individual says, “Oh, Mother, of course.” Who cares? That’s what he says. All right, so that’s the first one you take. Then you take the two remaining ones: “Which one is most real?” That’s the one you knock out. That leaves you one more person. Knock that one out.

Now, there is something that is not stated here. I just typed this up rapidly for you—I didn’t have a backing sheet, so there are typographicals because I couldn’t even see what I was typing. This has a criterion, and it is an old criterion of all PT problems—it is, they are PT problems. By definition, a PT problem must exist right now in the physical universe. By definition. So therefore, the personnel involved in a PT problem must exist right now in the physical universe. He will tell you halfway through the run, that “It was actually my mother who influenced me this way”—ah skip it. That’s not a PT personnel in that problem. His mother isn’t really part of, let us say—it was her mother that was part of the PT problem. In other words, the people have to be actually associated with the problem and existing at this time in this pc’s life influencing that problem, for this to be a PT problem. So therefore, we don’t dive in any direction to pick up any new personnel we don’t care about.
We get this problem flat. It is only flat if it answers this question: “Now, what do you have to do about that problem now?” And the pc says, “Nothing.” It’s flat. For our purposes, it’s flat. The only reason we’re running it is we’re trying to get rid of the obsession he has to jump out of the auditing room and go do something about this problem. If he doesn’t have to do anything about it, it’s flat. But if he says, “Oh, it’s flat, because I could go and talk to my wife’s boy friend now, and I could handle him.” No. Start right back over from the beginning—the first person you wrote down—and run that person again for a short time—next person for a short time—next person for a short time—on these exact auditing questions. “Now, what do you have to do about the problem?” He’ll tell you, “Well, I don’t have to do anything about it just now.” That’s enough. You consider that flat. Got it?

All right. This will keep you out of all kinds of trouble. And it will keep the pc from being all hung up in trying to go elsewhere in an auditing session. So much for that.

This is done at the beginning of every session. That first section there—it says, “STARTING A CASE: AND BEGIN EVERY SESSION”. Well, you not only start each intensive with this, but you start every session with this, and you do the same thing.

If it takes you two hours to flatten the PT problem, I will think something is hung up. This is a rapid one. This is not a slow one. If it takes a couple of hours, well, something’s really haywire here. He didn’t say the problem, or he didn’t do something, or he’s holding something back. But notice we have said, “Think of something you have done to” and “Think of something you have withheld from”. This will also get the pc talking to you, because it gets rid of the withhold. Got that? All right. So much for that.

Now, DYNAMIC STRAIGHT WIRE you were taught in the 21st American, but the commands for the general public were not given to you. And they are given to you here on this sheet, this HCO Bulletin. Now, the only thing you are looking for is a represented substitute. In other words, you’re looking for substitutes. You ask him for a substitute for himself, and you ask him for a substitute on the basis of “Tell me something that would represent yourself.” And he says, “Represent myself? Oh, that’s very, very easy—a tree.” Get your ball-point busy at that point and put down “tree”. Got it? Now, if he even says “toothbrush”, get your ball-point busy. The proper answer, of course, is “Myself”. It’s just as simple as that. But the more a case is daffy on this line, the more attention you’re going to pay to it. So you just run this whole assessment right straight on through: Self, sex, family, children, groups, mankind, the animal kingdom, birds, beasts, fish, vegetables, trees, growing things, matter, energy, space, time, spirits, souls, gods, God. Just one question. Each time you say this you just take one of those: “Tell me something that would represent, for instance, souls.” The individual says, “Running water.” Get the ball-point busy. Write it down. When you have got this whole list assessed, take the list you have written and run:

“Think of something you have done to (a toothbrush).” 
“Think of something you have withheld from (a toothbrush).”

You’ll be amazed, but they have actually done something to a toothbrush, and they have actually withheld something from a toothbrush. This is pretty terrific. Quite amazing. But you are only looking for daffiness on this, and a sensible answer you don’t pay much attention to. You say, “Tell me something that would represent trees.” And the fellow says, “Leaves.” Now, there’s a matter of judgment involved here. What if he said, “Shadows”? Well, I don’t know. That’s a matter of judgment. Try to run it or not try to run it, as the case may be. If it looks daffy to you, run it. You’re the judge. Got the idea?

Now don’t let it look daffy to you when you say, “Tell me something that would represent spirits,” and he says, “Souls.” When you say “souls”, he says “spirits”. That’s not daffy.

But how about this guy that gives you the perfect representation all the way down the line like a little wound-up doll? You already, in looking him over, find out he has a sticky needle, he’s registering at 6 on your E-Meter when you first put the cans in his hands, and he gives you all the answers perfectly. That case is giving you an intellectual response which has nothing to do with any reality under the sun, moon or stars. Something he read in a book and a machine is rattling it off. So you do the assessment again. The second time you go through you’re liable to trip him on something. Got the idea? So, if you get a perfect assessment, run it again. I actually don’t care how many times you run it, but you’re apt to be wasting time, because by two-way comm and definition alone you may not get anywhere with a very badly machined case. Nevertheless, a couple of times through, he should trip somewhere. Machine case generally does.

The rule governing Dynamic Straight Wire is: That which doesn’t fall out by two-way comm just on assessment. He says it, and then it looks funny to him, and he laughs, and he thinks this is for the birds, and he says, “Oh, no, that wouldn’t be one-actually, a substitute for a tree would be a leaf, or a small tree,” or something like this. That’s fine. Nothing wrong with letting him correct himself, because you are actually auditing him just by asking him the question. People, when they straighten out things in their own categories, very often recover very, very easily.

All right. Let’s take up this next one here. That’s an easy way to run Dynamic Straight Wire, isn’t it, huh? I would ask you to do this, however, in view of the fact that you are doing a professional job of auditing for the public mainly, and that is, I’d ask you to memorize that list—rather than hold a bulletin in your hand and read it.

Now, the next thing we’re going to run into here is PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE. This is a bid for two things: One, the lowest level case there is—because experience, to him, is a dub-in, usually. Or it’s a figure-figure, or it’s something, so it compares to the Reality Scale. His definition of experience compares with the Reality Scale.

His definition of experience is a direct index to the Reality Scale, by the way. What does experience mean? He’ll say, “Experience—that’s very easy. To consider.” There you’ve got your figure-figure level. “What does experience mean?” Well, “To write about it or make something out of it—experience is that thing which you use to manufacture the future.” He’s dub. “Now, what is an experience?” “Well, experience is that which you try not to have.” That’s probably black or invisible. Or, “It’s the thing you forget,” would be blackness. “Experience is something you try to forget”— invisibility level. “Experience is something you have to cope with.” Obsessive confront. “Experience is—ah—well, experience—that’s pretty hard to define—experience. I guess it’s to go through something.” You’re getting a fairly sane response—to go through something. To have an actual adventure, something of this sort. You’re getting a fairly sane reaction to experience.

So don’t think that Past and Future Experience is pegging up at the highest level of the Reality Scale. It isn’t. This process was found, in the 21st American, to be the undercut process. This was the lowest undercut process. And this is a killer, and it is very trying to an auditor. A very trying process, because it offers so many wonderful temptations. And that’s what’s wrong with this process.

Now, you run these two questions, one after the other, with no assessment, no E-Meter, nothing. You just put the E-Meter down after you’ve done the Dynamic Straight Wire thing, because on Dynamic Straight Wire, when you said, “Children,” the needle was going on a gradual shift over here, and a little theta bop now and then. You said, “Children,” and it fell a dial, or all of a sudden started doing a big theta bop in the middle. When you got off of children, it settled down to the other pattern. That told you that you had something to be run on the subject of children. That he will also, at the same time, give you a daffy reading, he will tell you some daffy terminal to represent—so you needed the E-Meter there. But you don’t need the E-Meter on Past and Future Experience, not even vaguely. You can just put the E-Meter aside and turn it off, and just run these two commands. Just clear them with the pc very bluntly. Say, “We’re going to run something about experience. Now, we’re going to see how you get along with this little process, and here are the commands of it: What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience? And the other command is: What part of the future would you be willing to experience? Now, here’s the first command: What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?”

The answer actually called for is a time, isn’t it? And this is a time process. But there are very few preclears that will find this out for a very long period. They won’t give you anything but super-significances and ball-up, and the pc who is real bad off will give you a type of experience. You accept all these things. You say, “What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?” He says, “Well, eating cake.” That’s an answer? That’s an answer. And that’s followed with this: “What part of the future would you be willing to experience?” He says, “Well, more cake.” That’s an answer. So you just accept any answer that he gives you on the line. It gradually will boil down to a time answer. And it will gradually go back-track. The longer you run it, the more track you’re going to cover, the more future you’re going to cover. And there will be periods when the individual is absolutely sure that he is totally predicting the future. He gets into implants, let us say, that tell him what the future is all about. He’s stuck 8000 years ago, but he’s telling you about the future. All kinds of odd phenomena show up. But engrams come up and slap you in the teeth, one right after the other.

You run this for a while, and the individual says, “OOOh, well, you know I really wouldn’t be willing—well, I would be willing—I don’t know—I would—oohh, well—I really don’t know—dental operation there, I was a young boy—I don’t know if I’d like to re-experience that—I guess I could re-experience sitting in the—no, no, no. I could re-experience—I could re-experience the next day after it.” You say, “That’s fine,” and just mark it down with the ball-point: “Dental experience as a child.” That one he can’t confront. Now, you’re never going to run it as an engram, but you’re going to have some tag of it as an engram. See, it may show you something.

As you go along and he runs into hot experiences, real, real hot experiences one right after the other, it is about time you put the E-Meter back in his paws. Get the idea? You don’t have to start it with the E-Meter, but if he starts running into hot experiences, or if he gets into an engram and he can’t seem to get out of the thing, the thing to do is not run the engram but give him an E-Meter and spot it in time for him. Get it spotted in time. If he’s running into them hot and heavy, one right after the other, just leave him with the E-Meter. But if there is only one you have to spot in time, and then in a little while he doesn’t seem to be running any more, take the cans away from him again and put the E-Meter aside. But if he starts running into one that obsessively sticks with him, don’t let him flounder in the thing for an hour. Don’t let him wallow in this one. Because he will just wallow in it, and this is no process-this is not a good process to run an engram with. So you let him out, OK? And the way you let him out is to locate it in time with an E-Meter. And you go on running the process. Now, as I say, it offers enormous temptations to the auditor—beautiful temptations to run the things contacted. As you sit this out, you actually are going to change the characteristic of the engram you will ultimately run on the case. But you keep listing engrams that he runs into. Keep listing engrams that he runs into, well knowing that he will favor motivators. For every one of those motivators there is an overt. Now an engram that he consistently and persistently keeps hitting and hitting and hitting, you are going to find in that engram probably the engram you will run, eventually. But not until he is in PT, out of the engram, it seems to have dropped out, and so forth, and he seems to be all smooth on this thing, are you going to reach for that one again. You are going to flatten the process and then go to the engram.

Here we go. ENGRAM RUNNING. Of course, that is run all the way through with an E-Meter. Give him the cans and start out on this engram that you more or less found with Past and Future Experience.

Now, this is going to undercut cases, and I don’t care how long you run it. I don’t care if you run it for two weeks, because this is a very productive process. But if you are going to run it over that period of time, it isn’t noted here, but some THIRD RAIL had better be brought in here some place. And he’d better be shifted up finally until havingness. And you put in PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE, right after that line, “COMBINE WITH THIRD RAIL IF RUN MORE THAN 8 HOURS”. If you run it eight hours, this guy’s havingness is going to start dropping on him, and you are going to run into difficulties. You could get into difficulties. All right.

ENGRAM RUNNING. Well, Engram Running, when the case has been prepared this way, becomes very simple. A case will start running like a little typewriter, if you have got this Past and Future Experience pretty flat.

Once you have picked an engram, make sure you get its motivator not only its overt. If you have got an overt, get the motivator. If you have got the motivator, get the overt. And only when you have got that have you got an incident. Now, an engram that is having one side of the overt or motivator run will get sticky. You have got to find the other side, and you have got to get both of these things in date. Normally, this will start showing up on Past and Future Experience. Well, we are going to run this engram with an E-Meter, we are going to consider that we have an incident when we have got both a motivator and an overt that fit together. And if the thing is just awful sticky, and dubby, and shockingly poor, and a lot of other things, you just started running it too fast, that is all.

We have got several things you can do at this state of the case, and so forth. Probably the best of them is go back to running Past and Future Experience. You didn’t flatten it.

Now, here is this Engram Running. If you notice here, it says you run all the commands that run an engram twice. Run them all twice. That’s because “Find something unimportant in that incident” is going to stir up stuff that newly has to be confronted.

Once you have chosen an engram and you have begun to run it, you have had it. That’s it. That’s the engram you are going to run. So it has to be chosen with considerable care. Listen to me now: If you re-assess the case after you have started an engram, you will get almost any other incident that is hot to drop more than the engram you started, because most of the charge is already dissipated. So if you keep re-assessing a case, thinking another engram would be better to run for the case, you are of course always going to find another engram. You will never find the one you started to run again dropping with as much velocity. You see? That’s something you have to keep in mind. If you are going to run an engram, that’s the engram you are going to run. It’s got to have its overt or motivator; suppose you are running the overt side of it, you have got to have the motivator side of it. So you really haven’t got an incident until you have got both of these things located. And once you have started to run that, you have had it. Because it will discharge its charge and won’t register on a meter any more the way some other incident will.

You can get a case just stirred all up and run all backwards and upside down, and that’s the biggest mistake an auditor can make. I have given you the reason for the mistake-because now almost anything will drop better than the one you partially flattened.

If in doubt, run the engram you were running. If you are not getting rapid recovery, go back to the first engram you ran and considered flat and run it again. Sometimes, it will only take you fifteen minutes to run all five commands. You do it very fast. But very often something happened that it re-charged in some fashion. Very peculiar.

If you leave about a third of an engram missing and unflat, the whole engram has a tendency to charge up again. It is kind of funny. But you have got to flatten the engram you contacted.

Now the rule of the Last Largest Object is the only one I want you to pay any attention to in questioning the pc. Pc apparently is getting out of it. Change your auditing command. You are running, “What part of that incident can you confront?” He says, “Well, I don’t know, it’s pretty unreal to me, I don’t know whether this happened or not.” What was the last largest object? If he said anything that was offbeat and showed an unwillingness to run any more of the engram, you want to find out at once what was the last largest object that you contacted in there. And he says, “A house.” You are going to shift your auditing command now to: “What part of that house can you confront?” And you are going to run that simply until he is back in the incident, and then you are going to go off on to “What part of that incident can you confront?” Doesn’t require any vast bridge. You just tell him you are going to shift.

In that way, using that rule, you can actually pick up an engram where he was running as Abraham Lincoln, and in the engram he was shot in Ford’s Theatre—you know—and the date is obviously correct. Dropped and everything. And then he runs John Wilkes Booth—no, he wasn’t Lincoln, he was John Wilkes Booth. And so help me God, you may find that he was the Secret Service Agent who had a couple of drinks that night and wasn’t watching. You don’t care whether he runs it dub or not. Don’t give up because he’s running it wrong, because it’ll come out right.

There was a joke on us in the 21st American. We had our paws on Bowie. He was Jim Bowie. And of course everybody doubted this, because it is a famous historical figure. And they tried to do everything under the sun to shake him out of this engram, and they finally went back to running it, and it was the one that flattened out. The trouble was, he had dub on it, which made Bowie die the wrong kind of a death under wrong circumstances. But as he ran it, the more he ran it, the more he ran it, the more right the circumstances got. And it finally all came out in the wash. He did run the death of Jim Bowie.

Historical figures, however, are usually the yo-yo point used. The guy went out of his own body at the death; there was some current historical figure; he said, “That is the identity necessary to resolve this incident. That identity could handle it. So I will just be Catherine the Great.” And he goes and runs Catherine the Great. The only mistake is to let him escape out of the time period. Maybe he did yo-yo right into the palace, maybe he did go right through her skull. But the right engram will shake out, because the Reality Scale is run by running an engram.

Theoretically, you could clear a person just by running one engram well enough. So never get off onto quantitative engrams. An engram is merely something for him to get used to confronting, and creating, and mocking up, and so forth. It’s just a playing field you are using. The significance, the amount of change he gets in his life, none of these things have anything to do with it at all. It is just how well he can handle a mental image picture, and you have chosen a honey for him to handle. That is about all it amounts to. And when he finds out he can handle this thing from A to Izzard and beginning to end, and he can do it well, then the next engram to resolve the case will run quite rapidly. And you will run on down and finally run his basic, earliest shift of identity, which is the rock. And formerly he said, “There is a beautiful, clear sphere—that’s the rock. And that’s all the rock.” Oh, heck. When you get several engrams run and get the rock as one of the engrams, you find out this beautiful, clear sphere was something he customarily clamped around thetans as a trap, and they sometimes clamped it around him, and there were raiding parties, and there was all kinds of personnel and there is drama and there is strain, and there is scenery and everything else. When you contacted the rock first and ran the rock first, he was insufficiently able to contact things. The date when he was mocking up this thing, he was so capable of mocking up that later on this poor, little, weak ole thetan, years and years and centuries and so forth afterwards going back to mock up this rock—uh-uh— it’s too beefy. That’s too much engram for him to confront first off.

So you choose the engrams—it doesn’t much matter what you choose. You will find that every sexual incident you contact is a bounce from a death. A little rule for you. So don’t let me catch anybody in the HGC running prenatals, birth, conception, because that is a bounce. Those are all tied in with the death, and the death is the engram which is necessary to resolve the case. So you keep running Past and Future Experience until you get them down to that—OK? Leave the second dynamic incidents severely alone.

Now it can be that he died, and he died is followed by a conception sequence, and he goes back to the old body to see if it is still decently buried—you know—and then he can’t find the person that he thought he was going to be, get the next body from, and he gets all confused. And mess-ups of this character can occur. But keep him on the incident. Is this part of the text? When you finish a death and go through the exteriorization sequence, right at the end of it there is a conception or a prenatal or a birth. They quite ordinarily bounce into it, and you don’t want it. You want nothing to do with it. So you stop him when you have got all of the exteriorization run.

There is a lot to know about engrams. You have been taught all this, but I am just showing you what you can do to win in the HGC with Engram Running. This would be a good, clean job then.

Every time you run an engram, now is the time to use some Not-Is Straight Wire, with its ordinary commands which you know. They are:

“Recall something that you implied was unimportant.” “Recall something somebody else thought was important.”

Don’t ever let a pc run it in reverse, because it discharges havingness in about five commands. That is real rough the other way, too.

All right. Now there we have a rundown that will get engrams run, that will get ordinary, run-of-the-mill cases squared around, and that will get a lot done. But what about people who were not through the American 21st? And during that period of time up until they start in with a Theta Clearing Course, to run actual engrams on pcs, how about these people? Well, you have Selected Person Overts, with the “withhold” command added, and you will have a new bulletin out on these things, and so forth. We want that auditing to be relatively muzzled. It will win and everything will go along just dandy. But if you have got some case (and this is more for D.O.P.s than anything else)—if you have got some case that was awfully hard to start, very low random profile, you’d better turn it over to a graduate of the 21st American. And if you have got some case that, after he ran along for a while and was getting up to a point where he’d just run engrams beautifully, and the whole track’s opening up, everything is going along just dandy, and it is certain that the engram necessary to resolve the case is just waiting, give him an auditor that can run it.

In other words, you can run an HGC this way: You can get some auditors that set pcs up to run engrams. You got the idea? And then you can have some auditors that run engrams. This is not any real violation of the Auditor’s Code, because that will still give him the best processes and the best treatment for the pc that can be given.

Now there is no reason why, particularly after a staff Theta Clearing Course, that everybody can’t run a regimen of this sort. But running it in the HGC, with all the profiles being submitted to me and all the Case Analysis Reports—the Case Analysis Reports now are more vital than profiles, because R changed on a case does not necessarily change the profile at all. You should know about that. You can change the R of the case without changing the profile. The person answered the same questions, only he answered them with Reality. This is quite remarkable. We need a brand new test. That test is in development right at this moment. It is a confront test, and that test will be coming up, but there is no reason to rush it, particularly. Let’s just do it by Case Analysis.

I will get out a Bulletin that will take care of auditors who were not trained to run engrams, what they will run. But you already have data and material on this, and it is just as before, what you have been running.

Now, to start a case out with NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE is adventurous. That’s an adventurous thing to do. That’s a rough thing to do. We learned a great many things in the 21st American ACC. Learned a great many things, and that was one of them. Selected Persons Overt-Withhold is very, very superior in undercutting cases to Selected Persons Overts. The only main change we have got is that we run Selected Person Overt-Withhold commands, just as it is given here in PT problem. That is a wonderful thing to do with a case, as long as the terminal is real to the pc. And there is no real reason that running a Scientologist, who knows what the command is, why ARC Break Straight Wire cannot be run on a person by an auditor who has not been through an Engram Running Course. That’s a beautiful process.

I want to tell you something else. Can I tell you something here? A lot of research was done in the 21st American ACC, and students didn’t see me as much as they thought they should, I suppose, but I was around. And I never saw so many flips and changes and vagaries in my life as I saw in that particular unit. The reports which I got were very—very helpful to me—very, very helpful to Scientology at large. There was a great deal done in that course. I spent about three weeks of the course—did very rapid research just in catching up with some of these undercuts. Because, let me assure you, the R factor in most of the cases you approach is so low that it poses a problem of running greater than we had ever imagined. Therefore, these are the processes that we are handing out.

Now, these are a Not-Is type of process. Dynamic Straight Wire runs a straight identification, but the rest of these things are Not-Is types of processes. To cure somebody from not-ising. When a person can confront something, he no longer has to not-is it.

But there was a funny command came up along the line, that I don’t fully understand yet, but it takes care of a theta body. Now this is part of the research that was never given to the 21st American. And this is a peculiar darned thing. You can write it down on the back of this Bulletin, if you want to.

It is:

“Recall a time when you thought something bad was unimportant.”

And that is just about the wildest thing you ever saw. Now that runs all by itself but can be combined with:

“Recall a time somebody else thought something bad was important.”

And you will run all the newspapers off the case. The second command there is really not essential, but you just run this first command repetitively, and if it seems to run down or something bad happens, flip over to the other command. But you will as-is a theta body.

This is the doggondest thing you ever saw. It is a perfectly wild pitch. I was just adding up all possible combinations and working in all possible directions, and this one fell out of the hamper, and it doesn’t integrate too well with the rest of your data. But this is the goofy one.

Now, something else came up in the 21st American that I should tell you in the HGC, and that is: After nine years, we have found out WHY. We had nine years of HOW, and now in the ninth year we find out why. Why people are aberrated. Why they are sick. Why they act the way they do. Why individuation takes place. And that is all wrapped up with WITHHOLD. I had withhold earlier, but didn’t shake it all out of the hamper, because I didn’t have the overts to go with it. We find out that an individual gets sick by having the overt impulse to make somebody else sick and then withholds it, because it is less social to give people illnesses. So he gets them himself. This is Freudian transference, it is a whole number of things. So when you run these overts, run the withhold with it and the case will start finding out why.

The theta body thing, and the masses and ridges, why, they run out when you ask a person to recall a time when he thought something bad was unimportant, or recall—well, that is the best command—recall a time when he thought something bad was unimportant. When you run this, you evidently run the center pin of the withhold. But you will get his tolerance. And this is the first straight ethical process, evidently, we have. It raises a person’s ethics. It as-ises a theta body. It takes demon bodies and things like that off cases. I tested it two or three times here, just monkeying around with this thing, and it is one of the wilder ones. This is a wild pitch, that particular process.

So you could say that when a field doesn’t immediately disintegrate, when you can’t get an individual easily in the engram, when the field stays persistently black or something like that, you have got another string to your bow, and I don’t care if you use it. But if you do use it, know this: It runs as an automaticity on such a demon case. He runs br-r-r-r-t—the last two thousand years he has been not-ising and saying it was unimportant that something was bad. And he will start coming up with, “Well, I should do something—no, I shouldn’t do something—well, what is this? I should do something about it. I shouldn’t do something about it. I have been very neglectful, but that really isn’t bad. Not really. Somebody dying from the bullet wound I gave ‘em—that really isn’t bad. But—” And he is stuck right with the consideration on all of his overts—consequences of overts. They all must be unimportant. And it reduces his ethical level. But I have now seen two demon bodies disintegrate just with that one command just disintegrate—and this is the first time we ever had something that would disintegrate the astral body. So we find out at once that the astral body was an aberration. It isn’t a necessary thing to make a thetan stick in the head at all.

All right. Now I wanted to give you this rundown, because today you were having a little bit of a rough time doing a transition from student to pro auditor, and I wanted to talk to you, even though it burned up some of your valuable time and mine. And ask you to sic semper transit, huh?

Now are there any questions? Yes, Jean.

Q. I have two questions. In running of the engram, do you ignore what they were running in the ACC, or do you just go back and run them? My preclear has had several engrams started.

A. Now, if we look over this carefully, we see in running an incident: Find the engram necessary to resolve the case. Once you have chosen it and have begun to run it, be sure you have the motivator and the overt and then do not, do not, do not, do not, depart from that incident to run another that “drops better” or comes up. Now look here. The engrams that were run on them in the course are no longer going to fall. And an engram is not going to show on an E-Meter. And if there were several engrams run on somebody in the course, and the first one wasn’t flattened, then whoever audited them ought to be hit in the head with a sledge-hammer. There’s only one or two cases that got by with this, that I have checked up on so far, and it is about the most serious blunder that could be made. Now, what you do in a case that’s had an engram already started is get a lie reaction check—that’s all you want—of some sort or another, concerning this particular thing. You can put him on the E-Meter and ask him if it was run, and so forth, and ask him which one was the first one run. You could possibly get an occlusion, but usually the pc will tell you. There’s no particular reason to doubt the pc. Get the first one, and get that one flat, and then you have no choice but to pick up the next one and flatten that one.

This applies without regard to how many auditors were on the case. This also, you will find out, will sometimes apply to somebody who had an engram audited in 1950. The only trouble with a 1950 engram is that it is probably an operation in the current lifetime, or a prenatal in the current lifetime, and it was the wrong engram necessary to resolve the case, and you won’t get very far running the thing. And we have no data at this time, whether it’s best to pick that one up and run it or not. But I would say for sure that an engram that should have been run to resolve the case, such as a past death, if that was ever entered in all of those years, including 1950—it may no longer drop on the E-Meter, because some of its charge is gone. That is the engram necessary to resolve the case.

Yes, got another one?
Q. Yes. The Dynamic Straight Wire—do you keep running this until you have picked up all the daffy terminals, then go through it several times and get the daffy ones each time?

A. If you get a daffy one, if you get several daffy ones, you take those you got on the first run and run them. Don’t bother to go through again, because it will have straightened out. Enough will have straightened out to admit progress of the case. But if you don’t get any daffy ones through once, then run it again. Any other questions? Dale.

Dale: I just had a comment on that. One 1950 engram, in which the auditor blew session because it was whole track, was the engram necessary to resolve the case and finally showed up. The guy had been black since 1950.

A. Good. Picked it up and flattened it. Well, that’s a good job. That tells you that a black case, then, doesn’t necessarily require five or six weeks of preparation before you run an engram. You pick up an engram as early as you can on a case and charge through. But it doesn’t get you around starting a case. You have always got to start a case or start a session. Yes?

Q. On this re-experience process, do I run it until I get 3-D pictures, and track?

A. Yes. Oh, 3-D pictures and back in PT. Back in PT. I’ll give you an example of one of these. Here’s the pc. He is sitting in a terror charge, in a total black freeze, at 1500 AD. One second later, everything went to hell. One second before, everything had gone to hell. And he’s sitting in this split second, at a rest point. Got it? Well, now, what do you think happens when you start asking him about future and past, alternately? He’ll move right off that rest point, won’t he? So this is an explosive, doggoned process. Now, I say you run it until he gets to PT. Some time or other you might find it impossible to get him to PT on the process. You just might. But the experience that has been had with it so far is that it does eventually move him to PT. Now is the time to take him back, at the auditor’s discretion, and have him run that incident in which he was stuck.

By the way, “What part of PT are you willing to experience?” has on several cases exposed the engram necessary to resolve the case. It is the engram he’s sitting in, and it is the one necessary to resolve the case. Yes?

Q. If you leave a process very unflat one afternoon, and come back in the morning and start questioning the guy, and you pick up first of all present time problems. Now supposing that process is the basic of his present time problem of the morning. Are he and you the terminals, the preclear and auditor the two terminals?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you run it that way?

A. Oh, well, if he got a lot of ARC breaks, it would be a good thing to run it this way. That would clean up all the ARC breaks, wouldn’t it?

Now I am going to give you that again on ARC breaks. This is the hottest one to run ARC breaks on. Just pick up the auditor and pick up the pc, as the two people involved in the present time problem. I am glad you brought that up, Joe.

This idea of throwing him back into session after you have ended a session the day before is another point of judgment. Just how do you smoothly get him into it? Usually he has piled up something on top of the engram. There is a process here, which is not really a very good process, but which kicks them out, and it was not given in this ACC. That is Problems of Comparable Magnitude to that Engram, or that Incident. It will actually de-intensify an engram. You should have that as a little panacea.
That is an interesting one to wind up an intensive on. About noon of the last day you all of a sudden realize, “Boy, this man isn’t going to make it.” And you could run a problem of comparable magnitude to that engram and get it keyed out. However, you are better than that, and you will have had it flat by the last day of the last intensive he has, that’s for sure. Any other questions? Don?

Q. Is “recall something” preferred over “recall a time”? I have heard “Recall a time you did something to somebody,” and also “Recall something you did to somebody,” which is slightly different.

A. “Recall a time” is always a superior process, unless the individual is consistently not recalling a time, at which time he is not obeying the auditing command. So you should say, “Recall something you have done to” to somebody who can’t spot something on a time track.

Q. What’s the difference there?

A. You are running really two processes with “Recall a time you did something,” and you are running only one process, “Recall something you have done.”

Q. Can he continue to do that without recalling a time?

A. Yeah. Definitely. Anything else?

“Recall a time,” all by itself—you just sit down and say to a pc, “Recall a time. Thank you. Recall a time. Thank you.” Some interesting things would happen to a case. Time, you see, is the single aberration. Joe?

Q. In running an engram, when you are tagging the engram for the first time, is it possible to peg, say, a 2-ton motivator and a one-pound overt, and that’s the incident?

A. Yes. Because until they get some of the overt flat, the motivator will come off. The right one to run there, by the way, is the overt. You get that overt damn real, and all of a sudden you’ll find the 20-tons have departed down to about 1 0-tons on the motivator. Now they’ll run on comparable lines. Yes.

Q. Couldn’t you have, say, a 20-ton motivator, as he was saying, and twenty one-ton overts tied to the same motivator, rather than one large overt?

A. You could. You could. Nevertheless, you’ll find somebody getting all loused up on this, and best remedy is just to play what overt you find against what motivator you find as the incident. And just keep playing them one against the other, back and forth, back and forth, and eventually the thing will come out right.

There are many remedies, and one is Selected Persons Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on the personnel of the incident. You could take any incident as a PT and run any PT process on the incident. That’s a little rule. I don’t advise you doing it, however, but you can do it. It’s very interesting: “Find something unimportant about that executioner,” is just about the same as, “Find something unimportant about this room.” If you want to get a reality soaring on a pc, just run “Find something unimportant about this room.” And he’ll start this not-is machinery going, you know, and he’ll run it out to some degree, and all of a sudden the room will brighten up. Very interesting.

“Think of something you did to an executioner” would be it, rather than, “Think of something you did to that executioner.” And he will come up with the overt, and he will find out he was the executioner in the same castle for about three lifetimes before he suddenly came back there and got executed. That usually is the way these things compare.

Any other questions? There is a burning question that you should ask, is: “Are we supposed to run these things muzzled?” Now, let me just say this, to do this for me: Let’s cut down the unnecessary yak. And if the pc seems to be ARC breaking at all, you voluntarily muzzle your auditing. You got it? Because what he’s got is an engram of being talked to or being interrogated in some fashion, and everything that he doesn’t consider exactly necessary to the auditing session he resents. So if you find a pc is ARC breaking, you muzzle your session. Any other questions before we break this up?

Thank you very much for your time, I appreciate very much your coming in. I know you had a hard day getting on to a new routine, and you have got auxiliary duties. Several people in the HGC have been split off of administration, and there are other things going on. Latch on to ‘em, get wheeling, but let’s start making theta clears in this HGC and just make nothing else but theta clears. I have given you a pattern here that was thoroughly tested out in the 21st American ACC, and you can make theta clears—there’s no great difficulty to it. Thank you very much.

	                  						L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:ng.rd.lh
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 FEBRUARY 1959

AUDITOR’S CODE #19

Do not explain, justify or make excuses for any auditor mistakes whether real or imagined.

LRH:-.rd                                   				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 FEBRUARY 1959

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

SELECTED PERSONS OVERT WITHHOLD STRAIGHTWIRE

It is not only unreasonable but impossible to run engrams or higher processes than Selected Persons Overt Withhold on people who have low reality and low responsibility. Selected Persons Overt Withhold raises both reality and responsibility and some of the cases around will only start to respond after four to five weeks of Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire. But the main point is that they do—repeat, do respond.

We have got it made in Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire. Let’s not lose it.

Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire

Select a person (terminal) that is real to the preclear.

Run	“Recall something you have done to	 (that terminal)” and

“Recall something you have withheld from ____(that terminal)” alternately.

(one question after the other)

Wherever the person has a misidentification or a fixated terminal on any dynamic, that terminal should be selected out and flattened by Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire. We will be rid of these unresponsible cases.

Do not graduate into General Overts until Selected Person Overt Withhold Straightwire is flat. When is Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire flat? It is flat when the preclear has come up tone through shame, blame, regret, and a recognition of his own failures and preferably 4.0 on the tone scale as per “Science of Survival”.

Minimize the two-way communication, clean up present time problems with the same process, using the terminals involved in the present time problem, and if in doubt MUZZLE the auditor.

LRH:mc.msp,rd							L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 FEBRUARY 1959

ENGRAM RUNNING ON OLD DIANETIC CASES 
OR RESTARTED CASES

It has been found that the abandonment of an unflattened engram to start another one can leave the case in an apparent jam. Starting a new engram without flattening the first one contacted may be, to the preclear, the same as a command not to confront the first engram.

Stable data: The incident entered by the auditor must be wholly flattened by Scientology commands before a second incident is approached.

The end goal of running incidents is the increasing of the ability to confront.

When incidents are started and not finished in favour of a new incident, the preclear may feel he is being forbidden to confront the first one.

An incident consists of an overt engram and a motivator engram on the same subject.

It is evidently necessary to scout the earlier auditing of any incident that was abandoned in order to get the incident run. Otherwise, a black detachment may result. The blackness and the detachment may exist in the earlier auditing of the same incident rather than in the incident.

The intention of a bad auditor is to prevent confronting. Therefore, bad auditing must be cleared away before a contacted engram can be completely entered again.

The process that most swiftly strips off bad auditing (to clean up engrams or otherwise) is:

“Recall something you have done to (auditor’s name).” 
“Recall something you have withheld from (auditor’s name).”

These questions are run alternately (one after the other) and are best run muzzled. (TR 0, 1, 2 and 3 only—auditor only nods when preclear originates.)

This mechanism is probably behind most black or invisible cases now extant in Scientology.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd

Issue 90 M         [1959, ca. late February]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

How to Study Scientology

L. Ron Hubbard

The first thing that a student has to find out for himself and then recognize, is that he is dealing with precision tools here in the courses. It isn’t up to someone else to force this piece of information on him. The whole subject of Scientology as far as the student is concerned is as good or bad in direct ratio to his knowledge of it. It is up to a student to find out how precise these tools are. He should, before he starts to discuss, criticize or attempt to improve on the data presented to him, find out for himself whether or not the mechanics of Scientology are as stated, and whether or not it does what has been proposed for it.

He should make up his mind about each thing that is taught in the school. The procedure, techniques, mechanics and theory. He should ask himself these questions: Does this piece of data exist? Is it true? Does it work? Will it produce the best possible results in the shortest time?

There are two ways to answer these questions to his own satisfaction: Find them in a preclear or find them in himself. These are fundamentals, and every auditor should undertake to discover them himself, thus raising Scientology above an authoritarian category. It is not sufficient that an instructor stand before him and declare the existence of these. Each and every student must determine for himself whether or not the instructor’s statements are true.

As an example of a science in an Authoritarian Category, in the field of medicine some instructors declare that multiple sclerosis is the decay of nervous fibers, and that it is incurable, and that people who contract the “disease” die in a relatively short period of time. It must be answered in just this way on the examination paper or the student will find himself with less than a passing grade. This is not instruction—this is obstruction. In the first place, no one in a medical school knows anything about multiple sclerosis. A good instructor would expect his students to question such a statement and to find for themselves what can be done about multiple sclerosis.

There are two ways Man ordinarily accepts things, neither of them very good. One is to accept a statement because Authority says it is true and must be accepted, and the other is by preponderance of agreement amongst other people.

Preponderance of agreement is all too often the general public test for sanity or insanity. Suppose someone were to walk into a crowded room and suddenly point to a ceiling saying, “Oh, look! There’s a huge, twelve-foot spider on the ceiling!” Everyone would look up, but no one else would see the spider. Finally someone would tell him so. “Oh, yes, there is,” he would declare, and become very angry when he found that no one would agree with him. If he continued to declare his belief in the existence of the spider he would very soon find himself institutionalized.

The basic definition of sanity in this somewhat nebulously learned society is whether or not a person agrees with everyone else. It is a very sloppy manner of accepting evidence, but all too often it is the primary measuring stick.

And then the Rule of Authority: “Does Dr. J. Doe agree with your proposition? No? Then, of course, it cannot be true. Dr. Doe is an eminent authority in the field.”

A man by the name of Galen at one time dominated the field of medicine. Another man by the name of Harvey upset Galen’s cozy position with a new theory of blood circulation. Galen had been agreeing with the people of his day concerning the “tides” of the blood. They knew nothing about heart action. They accepted everything they had been taught and did little observing of their own. Harvey worked at the Royal Medical Academy, and found by animal vivisection the actual function of the heart.

He had the good sense to keep his findings absolutely quiet for a while. Leonardo da Vinci had somehow discovered or postulated the same thing, but he was a “crazy artist” and no one would believe an artist. Harvey was a member of the audience of a play by Shakespeare in which the playwright made the same observation, but again the feeling that artists never contribute anything to society blocked anyone but Harvey from considering the statement as anything more than fiction.

Finally, Harvey made his announcement. Immediately dead cats, rotten fruit and pieces of wine jugs were hurled in his direction. He raised quite a commotion in medical and social circles until finally, in desperation, one doctor made the historical statement that, “I would rather err with Galen than be right with Harvey!”

Man would have made an advance of exactly zero if this had always been the only method of testing evidence. But every so often during Man’s progress there have been rebels who were not satisfied with preponderance of opinion, and who tested a fact for themselves, observing and accepting the data of their observation, and then testing again.

Possibly the first man who made a flint axe looked over a piece of flint and decided that the irregular stone could be chipped a certain way. When he found that flint would chip easily he must have rushed to his tribe and enthusiastically tried to teach his fellow tribesmen how to make axes in the shape they desired instead of spending months searching for accidental pieces of stone of just the right shape. The chances are he was stoned out of camp.

Indulging in a further flight of fancy, it is not difficult to imagine that he finally managed to convince another fellow that his technique worked, and that the two of them tied down a third with a piece of vine and forced him to watch them chip a flint axe from a rough stone. Finally, after convincing fifteen or twenty tribesmen by forceful demonstration, the followers of the new technique declared war on the rest of the tribe and, winning, forced the tribe to agree by decree.

EVALUATION OF DATA

Man has never known very much about that with which his mind is chiefly filled: Data. What is data? What is the evaluation of data? For instance, if you have been in Scientology very long the chances are that someone has glibly told you that he knew from psychoanalysis that if one could remember childhood experiences one could be relieved of certain psychosomatic pains. His conclusion from this tiny scrap of information was that Scientology is not new. In 1884 when Breuer first presented this tiny fact to Freud, he was unable to convince the eminent Doctor, but he managed to convince Freud in the next ten years. Then Freud convinced his friends. Medicine then fought Freud to a standstill, but eventually psychoanalysis emerged from the imbroglio.

All these years in which psychoanalysis has taught its tenets to each generation of doctors the authoritarian method was used, as can be verified by reading a few of the books on the subject. Within them is found, interminably, “Freud said ....” The truly important thing is not that “Freud said” a thing, but “Is the data valuable? If it is valuable, how valuable is it?” You might say that a datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated. A datum can be proved in ratio to whether it can be evaluated by other data and its magnitude is established by how many other data it clarifies. Thus, the biggest datum possible would be one which would clarify and identify all knowledge known to Man in the material universe.

Unfortunately, however, there is no such thing as a Prime Datum. There must be not one datum, but two data, since a datum is of no use unless it can be evaluated. Furthermore, there must be a datum of similar magnitude with which to evaluate any given datum.

Data is your data only so long as you have evaluated it. It is your data by authority or it is your data. If it is your data by authority, somebody has forced it upon you, and at best it is little more than a light aberration. Of course, if you asked a question of a man whom you thought knew his business and he gave you his answer, that datum was not forced upon you. But if you went away from him believing from then on that such a datum existed without taking the trouble to investigate the answer for yourself—without comparing it to the known universe—you were falling short of completing the cycle of learning.

Mechanically, the major thing wrong with the mind is, of course, the turbulence in it, but the overburden of information in this society is enforced education that the individual has never been permitted to test. Literally, when you are told not to take anyone’s word as an absolute datum you are being asked to break a habit pattern forced upon you when you were a child.

Your instructor in Scientology could have told you what he found to be true and invited you to test it for yourself, but unless you have tested it you very likely do not have the fundamentals of Scientology in mind well enough to be comfortable in the use of any or all of the techniques available to you. This is why theory is so heavily stressed in Scientology. The instructor can tell you what he has found to be true and what others have found to be true, but at no time should he ask you to accept it—please allow a plea otherwise.

Test it for yourself and convince yourself whether or not it exists as truth. And if you find that it does exist, you will be comfortable thereafter; otherwise, unrecognized even by yourself you are likely to find, down at the bottom of your information and education an unresolved question which will itself undermine your ability to assimilate or practice anything in the line of a technique. Your mind will not be as facile on the subject as it should be. It is not through courtesy that you are being asked to check your data—you are being asked to become much better auditors by resolving your basic and fundamental concepts.

Any quarrel you may have with theory is something that only you can resolve. Is the theory correct, or isn’t it correct? Only you can answer that; it cannot be answered for you. You can be told what other auditors have achieved in the way of results, and what other auditors have observed, but you cannot become truly educated until you have achieved the results for yourself. The moment a man opens his mouth and asks, “Where is validation?” you can be sure you are looking at a very stupid man. That man is saying, bluntly and abruptly, “I cannot think for myself. I have to have Authority.” Where could he possibly look for validation except into the physical universe, and into his own subjective and objective reality?

A LOOK AT THE SCIENCES

Unfortunately, Scientology is surrounded by a world that calls itself a world of science, but it is a world that is in actuality a world of Authority. True, that which is science today is far, far in advance of the Hindu concept of the world wherein a hemisphere rested on the backs of seven elephants which stood on seven pillars, that stood on the back of a mud turtle, below which was mud into infinity.

The reason engineering and physics have reached out so far in advance of other sciences is the fact that they pose problems which punish Man so violently if he doesn’t look carefully into the physical universe.

An engineer is faced with the problem of drilling a tunnel through a mountain for a railroad. Tracks are laid up to the mountain on either side. If he judges space wrongly the two tunnel entrances would fail to meet on the same level in the center. It would be so evident to one and all concerned that the engineer made a mistake that he takes great care not to make such a mistake. He observes the physical universe, not only to the extent that the tunnel must meet to a fraction of an inch, but to the extent that if he were to misjudge wrongly the character of the rock through which he drills, the tunnel would cave in—an incident which would be considered a very unlucky and unfortunate occurrence to railroading.

Biology comes closer to being a science than some others because, in the field of biology, if someone makes too big a mistake about a bug the immediate result can be dramatic and terrifying. Suppose a biologist is charged with the responsibility of injecting plankton into a water reservoir. Plankton are microscopic “germs” that are very useful to Man. But if through some mistake the biologist injects typhoid germs into the water supply, there would be an immediate and dramatic result.

Suppose a biologist is presented with the task of producing a culture of yeast which would, when placed in white bread dough, stain the bread brown. This man is up against the necessity of creating a yeast which not only behaves as yeast but makes a dye as well. He has to deal with the practical aspect of the problem, because after he announces his success, there is the “yeast test”: Is the bread edible? And the brown-bread test: Is the bread brown? Anyone could easily make the test, and everyone would know very quickly whether or not the biologist had succeeded or failed.

Politics is called a science. The punishment for a mistake in the “science” of politics is so tremendous that this whole culture is on the verge of being wiped out! There are natural laws about politics. They could be worked out if someone were to actually apply a scientific basis to political research.

For instance, it is a foregone conclusion that if all communications lines are cut between the United States and Russia, Russia and the United States are going to understand each other less and less. Then by demonstrating to everyone how the American way of life and the Russian way of life are different, and by demonstrating it day after day, year after year, there is no alternative but a break of affinity. By stating flatly that Russia and the United States are not in agreement on any slightest political theory or conduct of Man or nations the job is practically complete. Both nations will go into anger tone and suddenly there is war.

Russia is very, very low on the tone scale. She is a totalitarian slave state and about as safe to have in the family of nations as a mad dog at a cocktail party. We as a nation could be very, very clever—we could try to put Russia back together again.

We are a nation possessed of the greatest communications networks on the face of the Earth, with an undreamed of manufacturing potential. We have within our borders the best advertising men in the world. But instead of selling Europe an idea we give machine guns, planes and tanks for use in case Russia breaks out. The more threats imposed against a country in Russia’s tone level, the more dangerous that country will become. When people are asked what they would do about this grave question, they shrug and say something to the effect that “the politicians know best.” They hedge and rationalize by saying that after all, there is the American way of life, and it must be protected.
What is the American way of life? This is a question that will stop almost any American. What is the American way of life that is different from the human way of life? We have tried to gather together economic freedom for the individual, freedom of the press, and individual freedom, and define them as a strictly American way of life—why hasn’t it been called the Human Way of Life?

In the field of humanities Science has been thoroughly adrift. Unquestioned authoritarian principles have been followed. Any person who accepts knowledge without questioning it and evaluating it for himself is demonstrating himself to be in apathy toward that sphere of knowledge. It demonstrates that the people in the United States today must be in a low state of apathy with regard to politics in order to accept without question everything that happens.

FUNDAMENTALS

When a man tries to erect the plans of a lifetime or a profession on data which he himself has never evaluated, he cannot possibly succeed.

Fundamentals are very, very important, but first of all one must learn how to think in order to be absolutely sure of a fundamental. Thinking is not particularly hard to learn. It consists merely of comparing a particular datum with the physical universe as it is known and observed. How, for instance, would you find out for your own satisfaction that there exists such a thing as a mock-up. Find a preclear who is also interested in verifying such existence of mock-ups or have someone run you on them.

Your instructor has done this a sufficient number of times, and has seen it done to others a sufficient number of times to satisfy himself that mock-ups exist and can be run and bettered on a preclear. But just because they exist for him and he informs you of his knowledge does not mean that it exists for you. Unless you have made up your mind through comparison of the information with the known universe, you will not be able to handle mock-ups properly. When there is an authoritarian basis for your education you are not truly educated.

Authoritarianism is little more than a form of hypnotism. Learning is forced under threat of some form of punishment. A student is stuffed with data which has not been individually evaluated just as a taxidermist would stuff a snake. Such a student will be well-informed and well-educated according to present-day standards, but unfortunately he will not be very successful in his chosen profession.

Indecision underlies an authoritarian statement. Do not allow your Scientology education to lie on the quicksand of indecision.

Unless you have looked into the matter of engrams and unless you have actually run a preclear into an engram—the realization that (I) there is a time track, and (2) that physical pain can be stored and can be recovered, and (3) that all the perceptics are registered during these moments of unconsciousness, will not be yours. Your knowledge concerning the engram depends exclusively upon what you have observed about that engram.

There have been volumes of articles written about techniques of running engrams. There are many techniques in existence which run them. Make up your mind whether or not they work for you.

First of all, find out to your own satisfaction whether or not there is an engram in existence. Then determine whether or not the technique in question will discover the engram for you, and whether or not the technique really runs the engram. Having made certain that there is an engram, ask yourself what kind of technique you would evolve if you decided to do something about this object, the engram. How would you go about it? Unless you have asked yourself this question and tried to come to a definite conclusion about it, you will never come into agreement on the technique of running engrams! You will be performing an authoritarian rote. You can learn how to run an engram by rote, but unless you decide from your own observation that there is an engram to be run you will be simply performing some ritual in which a mistake is very easy to make.

An auditor who does not understand memory has no business attempting to improve a preclear’s memory. He could hardly know what the anatomy of memory is. It cannot be done well by rote. About the worst thing that could happen to a preclear is to drop into something and then feel that the auditor is thinking, “Now, let’s see—it was page 62 . . . or was it 63? . . . and the question was . . .” while the preclear sits there, suffering, and thinking, “Do something! Say something!” An auditor who is auditing by rote will make mistakes like that because he does not have the basic fundamentals as a part of his background of training.

A truly good auditor doesn’t have to think twice. He knows “instinctively” how the auditing session itself should be run. When the basic fundamentals are securely the auditor’s own there is no need for him to be told what must be done.

You are asked to examine the subject of Scientology on a critical basis—a very critical basis. It is not to be examined with the attitude that when you were in school you learned that such and such was true, and since you learned that first, the first learning takes precedence. A prime example of this is the literary critic who says, after reviewing a book, that the book is not a novel because it is not a cross section of life. His professor in literature gave him a passing grade because he answered the question “correctly” on his examination paper, and therefore a book is not a novel unless it is a cross section of life.

There is yet to appear a good definition for aesthetics and art, and yet they parrot a definition for a specific form of art!

Do not make the mistake of criticizing something on the basis of whether or not it concurs with the opinions of someone else. The point which is pertinent is whether or not it concurs with your opinion. Does it agree with what you think?

Nearly everyone has done some manner of observing of the material universe, and there is surely no one in Scientology who has not done some small amount of observation of organisms. No one has seen all there is to see about an organism, but there is certainly no dearth of organisms available for further study. There is no valid reason for accepting the opinion of Professor Blotz of the Blitz University who said in 1933 that schizophrenics were schizophrenics, and that made them schizophrenics for all the time.

If you are interested in the manifestation of insanity, there is any and every form of insanity that you could hope to see in a lifetime in almost any part of the world. Study the peculiarities of the people around you and wonder what they would be like if their little peculiarities were magnified a hundred fold. You may find that by listing all the observable peculiarities you would have a complete list of all the insanities in the world. This list might well be far more accurate than that which was advanced by Kraepelin and used in the United States today.

If sanity is rationality and insanity is irrationality, and you postulated how irrational people would be if certain of their obsessions were magnified a hundred fold, you might well have in your possession a far more accurate and complete list of insanities and their manifestations than is currently in existence.

If you will take the time and effort, then, of making a complete examination of your subject, introspectively and by observation, you will find that you have suddenly become an excellent auditor. The hard way is to sit down and memorize a third of a million words contained in Science of Survival—the method all too many educational systems employ in this age.

So then we ask you to look at Scientology, study it, question it, and use it as we present it and you will have discovered something for yourself. And in so doing you might well discover a lot more. What you will be doing in Scientology, the techniques and the theories are highly workable, but they are not highly workable just because we say so!

Since Scientology is a very precise science based on proven data, axioms, and precise procedures, it must be used exactly as stated in order to gain the results which have been obtained. By using it with understanding the student can observe for himself its workability. When you have applied it as it should be, and applied as it is taught at the school, and still find it unworkable, it is your privilege to question it and, if you like, reject it.

But it is a very funny thing, in the history of Scientology the only people who have shouted out against Scientology are those people who know little or nothing about it or they have been given some erroneous data about it and had used a very bad perversion of Scientology and said, “This is the way it is.”

So, the only advice we can give to the student is study Scientology for itself and use it exactly as stated, then form his own opinions. Study it with the purpose in mind of arriving at his own conclusions as to whether or not the tenets he has assimilated are correct and workable. Compare what you have learned with the known universe. Seek for the reasons behind a manifestation, and postulate the manner and in which direction the manifestation will likely proceed. Do not allow the Authority of any one person or school of thought to create a foregone conclusion within your sphere of knowledge. Only with these principles of education in mind can you become a truly educated individual and a good Scientologist.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 FEBRUARY 1959

For All Staff
All U.S. Official Offices
London for reissue

HOW TO SELECT SELECTED PERSONS

(Supplementing HCO Bulletin of February 16, 1959)

In Selected Persons Overt Straightwire, there is an element of diagnosis. How does one select the “selected person”?

Every time this process misses on a preclear, one of three things is at fault, either—

1. 	Pc has pt problem
2. 	Dynamic Straight Wire should have been run a week or two
3. 	The wrong person was selected for the process.

The whole thing is a matter of attention units (1950). If the preclear has his attention totally fixed on a terminal, little else is real to him. Look at one object only in a room. How real are the other objects? If a preclear’s attention is all bound up in some person, how can he find reality elsewhere.

Very well—how do we find, then, the “selected person”?

The most loaded two-way comm question is,

“Who in your life is to blame for the condition you’re in?”

Others of like ilk produce the “selected person” you then run on Selected Persons Overt Straight Wire.

“Who was the person who really had it in for you?”

“Who do you know or did you know that you’d really hate to be?”

If the pc to any of the above or all of them says, “myself”, that’s what you have to run.

Select a new person each time pc splits off the one you’re running. You’ll find some amazing valence shifts.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mg.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 FEBRUARY 1959

ANALYSIS OF CASES

A primary skill required of an accomplished auditor would be analysis of a case. The basic error is overestimating the case’s ability. All failures stem from a failure to undercut the reality of a case. If that reality level is reached, the case will improve. If not, the case remains stagnant.

RESULTS DEFINED: Case achieves a reality on change of case, somatic, behavior or appearance, for the better.

BETTER DEFINED: Negative gain. Things disappear that have been annoying or unwanted.

ABILITY GAIN DEFINED: Pc’s recognition that pc can now do things he could not do before.

INTELLIGENCE GAIN DEFINED: Loss of restimulation of stupidity by reason of attempts to confront or experience the problems of life. (Intelligence appears when stupidity is keyed out or erased.) Intelligence is a confronting ability.

FAMILIARITY: or familiarization permits intelligence to manifest. Reaching and withdrawing are more possible when stupidity is keyed out or erased. Increasing ability to reach and withdraw increases intelligence.

It can be seen that when attention is fixed, the ability to reach and withdraw decreases, therefore intelligence decreases, therefore the ability to change decreases, therefore no “case gain”.

Unfixing attention is done in various ways. As hypnotism is done by fixing attention, a parallel observation is that a person wakes up, receives less fixed effect, when attention becomes unfixed.

Unfixing attention must be done by increasing ability to reach and withdraw from the specific thing or person on which attention is fixed in the bank. The bank merely expresses a recording of past attention fixations.

Shocks of various kinds can unfix attention but always lead to a decrease in ability over a period. Unfixing attention by violence throws a case downscale. As the case goes upscale the attention refixes on things violence unfixed it from.

Clearing is a gradient process of finding places where attention is fixed and restoring the ability of the pc to place and remove attention under his own determinism.

Case Analysis consists then of the determination of where pc’s attention (at current state of case) is fixed on the track and restoring pc’s determinism over those places.

This is done by:

	1. 	PT Problem running.
	2. 	Dynamic survey and remedy of fixed points.
3. 	Selected items and persons survey and unfixing other-determined attention at those points.

The auditor’s skill in locating where attention is now fixed is even greater now than the auditor’s ability to remedy the fixation of the pc’s attention since this latter problem is fairly well in hand.

There are many ways of doing a survey to determine what the pc’s attention is fixed upon now. The E-Meter and interrogation of the pc are the main methods.

“What has your attention been fixed on lately (or ‘in this Life’)?” would elicit a reply that could then be used in the questions

“Recall a time when you did something to (item or person so located).”
     “Recall a time when you withheld something from (item or person so selected).”

If you find the exact item or person on which attention is fixed, you achieve immediate case gain, which is to say reality, which is to say interest, in-sessionness, success.

If any pc you are running has not manifested case gain, reality, interest, in-sessionness, then one of two things is true:

1. 	You haven’t found the item or person on which pc’s attention is other-determinedly fixed and haven’t run it yet, or

2. 	Pc is gone-man-gone.

I trust this may be of some small assistance in learning how to analyze a case.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 FEBRUARY 1959 BPI

TECHNICAL

ARC BREAKS WITH AUDITORS

When severe, ARC Breaks are repaired by running Selected Persons Overt Withhold on the auditor as a selected person.

Otherwise, TR 5N.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:iwh.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 FEBRUARY 1959

BPI

TECHNICAL

CLEARING COMMANDS

Excerpt from HCO Bulletin of July 28, 1958

CLEARING COMMANDS: 	Clear each word with the full phrase once each with the following:

	“What is the usual definition of the English (or other language) word	?”

Do not ask for definitions over and over as a repetitive command. If pc’s definition is poor, clear command every few commands.

Clear only each different word in a bracket. Don’t clear each line in a bracket.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:iwh.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 MARCH 1959
Issue 2

MAGAZINE MATERIAL

TWO RULES FOR HAPPY LIVING

1. 	Be able to experience anything.

2. 	Cause only those things which others are able to experience easily.

Man has had many golden rules. The Buddhist rule of “Do unto others as you would have these others do unto you”, has been repeated often in other religions. But such golden rules, while they served to advance Man above the animal, resulted in no sure sanity, success or happiness. Such a golden rule gives only the cause point, or at best the reflexive effect point. This is a self-done-to-self thing and tends to put all on obsessive cause. It gives no thought to what one does about the things done to one by others not so indoctrinated.

How does one handle the evil things done to him? It is not told in the Buddhist rule. Many random answers resulted. Amongst them are the answers of Christian Science (effects on self don’t exist), the answers of early Christians (become a martyr), the answers of Christian ministers (condemn all sin). Such answers to effects created on one bring about a somewhat less than sane state of mind—to say nothing of unhappiness.

After one’s house has burned down and the family cremated, it is no great consolation to (I) pretend it didn’t happen, (2) liken oneself to Job or (3) condemn all arsonists.

So long as one fears or suffers from the effect of violence, one will have violence against him. When one can experience exactly what is being done to one, ah magic, it does not happen!

The most basic proof of this is the earlier tests with problems of comparable magnitude and later tests of “selected overts”. When the problem or terminal is no longer restimulative, it ceases to have power to harm one.

How to be happy in this universe is a problem few prophets or sages have dared contemplate directly. We find them “handling” the problem of happiness by assuring us that man is doomed to suffering. They seek not to tell us how to be happy but how to endure being unhappy. Such casual assumption of the impossibility of happiness has led us to ignore any real examination of ways to be happy. Thus we have floundered forward toward a negative goal—get rid of all the unhappiness on Earth and one would have a liveable Earth. If one seeks to get rid of something continually, one admits continually he cannot confront it—and thus everyone went down hill. Life became a dwindling spiral of more things we could not confront. And thus we went towards blindness and unhappiness.

To be happy, one only must be able to confront, which is to say, experience, those things that are.

Unhappiness is only this: the inability to confront that which is.

Hence (1) Be able to experience anything.

The effect side of life deserves great consideration. The self-caused side also deserves examination.
To create only those effects which others could easily experience gives us a clean new rule of living. For if one does, then what might he do that he must withhold from others? There is no reason to withhold his own actions or regret them (same thing) if one’s own actions are easily experienced by others.

This is a sweeping test (and definition) of good conduct—to do only those things which others can experience.

If you examine your track you will find you are hung up only in those actions a person did which others were not able to receive. Hence a person’s track can become a hodge-podge of violence withheld which pulls in then the violence others caused.

The more actions a person emanated which could not be experienced by others, the worse a person’s track became. Recognizing that he was bad cause, or that there were too many bad causes already, a person ceased causing things—an unhappy state of being.

Pain, misemotion, unconsciousness, insanity all result from causing things others could not experience easily. The reach-withhold phenomena is the basis of all these things. When one sought to reach in such a way as to make it impossible for another to experience, one did not reach, then, did he? To “reach” with a gun against a person who is unwilling to be shot is not to reach the person but a protest. All bad reaches never reached. So there was no communication and the end result was a withhold by the person reaching. This reach-withhold became at last an inability to reach—therefore low communication, low reality, low affinity.

All bad acts then are those acts which cannot be easily experienced at the target end.

On this definition let us review our own “bad acts” (or overts). Which ones were bad. Only those that could not be easily experienced by another were bad. Thus which of society’s favorite bad acts are bad? Acts of real violence resulting in pain, unconsciousness, insanity and heavy loss could at this time be considered bad. Well what other acts of yours do you consider “bad”? The things which you have done which you could not easily yourself experience were bad. But the things which you have done which you yourself could have experienced had they been done to you were not bad. That certainly changes one’s view of things!

Only processing can bring a person to a point where he or she could experience anything without enduring consequence. So it is no wonder that philosophy of yesteryear was stopped on “happiness” as a subject.

But all processes from the beginning of Dianetics and Scientology until now which improved the ability to confront (or experience) were gaining toward the goal. All processes that eradicated experience only were poor processes. The early drop in gains in processing (1950) came about because people dramatized an eradication of all badness. The auditors were unwilling to let the pcs experience anything, the pcs sought to get rid of things without experiencing things.

There is no need to lead a violent life just to prove one can experience. The idea is not to prove one can experience but to regain the ability to experience which is only done in processing.

Thus today we have two golden rules for happiness:

l. 	Be able to experience anything; and

2. 	Cause only those things which others are able to experience easily.

Your reaction to these tells you how far you have yet to go in processing. And that is the first time we knew that.
And if we achieve these two golden rules, we Scientologists would be the happiest and most successful people in this universe for who could rule any of us with evil?

Of course these are the characteristics of gods—But who said we were trying to make anything else?

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd

P.A.B. No. 155
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 March 1959

PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard

I want to take up here with great rapidity the processes from bottom to top that we have so far found and that have been effective, and some additional data in running them.

And first is the process Dynamic Straightwire. The way to do a survey on Dynamic Straightwire is this: you ask the person to describe the dynamics from one to eight. We don’t care about them being sequitur—change them round if you wish.

Now, you ask a person to describe each one of these dynamics. You are watching an E-Meter for a change in pattern. Therefore you must carefully isolate the pattern, before you can tell whether or not the pattern has changed on the E-Meter needle reading. But, more important than that, you are looking for a dynamic the preclear makes mistakes about while he is trying to describe it, a dynamic he cannot describe, or a dynamic he won’t even approach and is very leary of, and his statement is confirmed by the E-Meter reading. In other words, you’ve got the statement of the preclear in this particular analysis being stacked up against the E-Meter reading all the way through in an analysis or diagnosis for Dynamic Straightwire.

All right. We go all the way through, asking for a terminal on these dynamics and we finally get a repeat. We will ask him for terminals on these dynamics, and we will get the same dynamic to read again. Now the basic rule which sorts this out is: Any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run. Simple as that. Any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run.

So, if you have two or three dynamics jammed up, you can hope that two of them will clear up, leaving you with the remaining dynamic.

But this is not the complete criteria of what you run. There is another stable datum. Don’t run a terminal that is totally unreal to the preclear. Another stable datum, which comes on top of it, is: never run a terminal that is sensible. Never. If a terminal belongs on the dynamic, you can almost say you’ll get nowhere running it. So you’re looking for terminals that the preclear gives you for a dynamic which don’t belong on the dynamic at all.

Now, if that terminal is real to the preclear, you will get a tremendous change in the case. If that terminal is totally unreal to the preclear and if it does belong on the dynamic, why, you’re not going to get any change on the case, so why run it? Might as well run some other process.

So, we have several conditions by which the diagnosis on Dynamic Straightwire works. I’ve done enough of these now and run enough of them, isolated enough of them and gotten conditions of change on enough of them, to realize that every time you changed a case you had (1) a person who couldn’t describe the dynamic accurately, or who made mistakes while trying to describe it, (2) a person who gave you a non sequitur or erroneous terminal for that dynamic—the terminal was fairly real to the preclear, although it didn’t belong there—and (3) you ran that, and it opened up track like mad.

What have you got here? You have a terrific identification. You are trying to undo identification that is lying right on the top. Well, this tells you, then, that it is neither a long process nor an invariable process. Given enough skill, you could undoubtedly find one of these on every case—given enough skill. But it is limited by auditor skill. Furthermore, it gives auditors a chance to “chop up” preclears and it gives auditors a chance to write some script, so this one has liability. And auditors have been writing script like mad. We had one particular case where the preclear couldn’t say any terminal on the seventh dynamic, so promptly the auditor jumps in and takes the nearest related thing to the seventh dynamic, the thetan, he could get. This was A Head, and he ran A Head, and the preclear had nothing to do with it, and they wondered why the case didn’t advance.

Now, you have auditors who are letting the preclear choose. In other words, there are auditors who actually believe that a preclear is permitted power of choice in an auditing session. And this is the biggest bug I have found existing at this instant on this ACC. That one’s a blinker. They are probably not telling you this, that they think a preclear has power of choice. They don’t know this: that it has to be nutty if you are going to run it—if it makes sense, why run it? They are looking for a wrongness in the preclear and they believe that the preclear knows all about his own case and could straighten it out all by himself. And that the auditor is an unnecessary adjunct. Now there are several people on this ACC who believe this and this is a great compliment to their faith in human nature, but it’s certainly of no value in an auditor. The preclear has no power of choice at all. The one the preclear would never choose is the one you run.

An example: We had a preclear here who gave three terminals on the fifth dynamic. One of these was a mountain. So the preclear was given the power of choice as to which one to run and, of course, came up with a cat. So they sat there running cats. Well, a cat happens to be right for the fifth dynamic, so why straighten it out? The process is aimed at straightening out something. Obviously, the mountain was wrong. The preclear was totally stuck on the idea that there was a mountain in on this.

We found a mountain on the eighth dynamic in another case that hasn’t been running. This case had been running metal on the sixth dynamic. So what? Metal belongs on the sixth dynamic—why run it? Get the idea? But this auditor had found a mountain on the eighth dynamic and ignored it. Of course, everybody knows God is a mountain—that’s obvious ....

Now, this was the one to hit. And where you find these people out of session it is because nobody has trailed down a nutty dynamic. When they’re out of session on Dynamic Straightwire, they’re not interested in it at all, they are just not running an identification. They’re running something reasonable, and at once the biggest liability of auditors is that they are reasonable and that they write script and write in reasonable reasons for it all. And they’re trying to audit unreasonability out of people-and these two things just don’t go together at all.

The next process up the line is Selected Person Overts. Select a terminal who is real to the preclear and, as you undercut the process, it comes closer and closer to present time. The person chosen has to be closer and closer to present time the more you try to go downscale on the process. But the person must be real, that’s a criteria in there. And the next thing about it is, you must flatten off several of these people. And the basic reason for this is to prepare an individual to own up to some responsibility for his own actions. Unless he can assume some responsibility for his own actions, he won’t do anything in an auditing session, so this is the one that cures.

The auditing command for Selected Person Overts is “Recall a time you did something to (the selected person’s name).” But that is undercut by the auditing command “Think of something you did to     “ or “Think of something you have done to     .” Now, the reason you say “Think” is because these people are very chary of owning up to anything or accepting any responsibility out in broad daylight in front of God and everybody, so you run “Think” and you’ve got a lot of people who are having a rougher time who won’t own up to their own lives and who can’t take responsibility for them on the third dynamic, but can take responsibility for them on the first dynamic. And this is the dynamic selection. So “Think” undercuts “Recall. “

The next one—General Overts—is much less effective when it has not already been undercut by Selected Person Overts. The individual just goes on and on with sweetness and light. The auditing command for General Overts is “Recall a time when you did something to somebody.” Now there are other phrases and so forth which could be used for this sort of process, but here we are interested mainly in people. We are not very interested in MEST and the remaining four dynamics. They’d splatter all over the place. That’s why it’s “to somebody.” If you said “something,” you would get the remaining four, so there is an alternate command in here if you wanted to run the other four dynamics. You would say, “Recall a time when you did something to something.”

Now, the next one up the line from this is Not-Is Straightwire: “Recall a time when you implied something was unimportant.” And this, we find, is best run on an alternate basis with the next auditing command, “Recall a time when somebody else thought something was important.” These two commands are alternated, one after the other, and you get these cases that are in a jam.

This is the direct cure of notisness; and where you have a case that is running a bad not-is, a process can evidently be invalidated or not-ised when the individual is out of session, or overnight. This is what Not-Is Straightwire cures. These are the people on whom a process works once, and never works again. These people are not-ising so badly that they can’t duplicate—and not-is, of course, is a mechanism to prevent duplication. So you cure, not duplicate. And the cure for it is Not-Is Straightwire.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MARCH 1959

HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

(Also for Instruction in HPA/HCA and ACC)

(Supersedes all earlier HGC allowed Processes 
except where these give data on the following)

Processes on gradient scale from unconscious pc to theta clear.

      	CCH l, 2, 3, 4
      	Rudiments (Not CCH 0)
      	PTP by Selected Person Overt-Withhold Straight Wire
      	Know to Mystery Straight Wire (See later bulletins)
      	Dynamic Straight Wire
      	ARC Straight Wire
      	Selected Person Overt-Withhold Straight Wire
      	General Overt-Withhold Straight Wire
      	Factual Havingness (and Third Rail)
      	ARC Break Straight Wire
      	Not-Is Straight Wire
      	Past and Future Experience
      	What Can You Confront
      	You make a mock-up for which you can be totally responsible
      	Track Scout
      	Engram Running
      	Route One

The target of these processes is theta clear as different from MEST clear. Therefore, the higher MEST clear processes, Help and Step 6, are omitted.

We are not trying to make MEST clears in the HGC; therefore, Help and Step 6 are disallowed.

On old Dianetic cases or where engrams have been run by other auditors, run Selected Person Overt-Withhold on “an auditor” and “a preclear” until track is free. This is a necessary early step to get some cases moving.

Engram running should not be used by those not trained in it.

Muzzled auditing should be used when:

1. 	Pc ARC Breaks easily; 
	and 
2. 	Auditor shows signs of over-communication.

Be prepared to run Selected Person Overt-Withhold Straight Wire for as long as 3 to 5 weeks if pc begins to have emotional changes on it.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: iwh .jh

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 MARCH 1959

TRAINING DRILLS

NAME: ARC Break

POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

COMMANDS: The coach makes up his mind there has been an actual specific ARC break. He doesn’t tell the student. He then says, “Start”. Then the student says:
“HAVE I DONE SOMETHING WRONG?”

The coach answers this appropriately and the student says:
	“WHAT WAS IT?”

The coach answers, and then the student says:
	“WHEN WAS IT?”

The student gets it described and then says:
	“HOW IS IT NOW?”

Then when he’s got it more or less stamped out here then he takes it on the other side of the picture and says:
	“HAVE YOU DONE SOMETHING WRONG IN THIS SESSION?”

The coach answers that appropriately and the student auditor asks:
	“WHAT WAS IT?” “WHEN WAS IT?” and “HOW IS IT NOW?”

When all have been handled satisfactorily the coach ends that cycle of action and then starts a new one.

PURPOSE: Is to train the student to handle ARC breaks in a session and to get them handled quickly and effectively on both the overt and motivator side, since there’s always an overt connected with an auditing ARC break of one kind or another.

TRAINING STRESS: The training stress is on the reality and actuality of ARC breaks and the necessity of handling them. It should be pointed out that on an E-Meter it is the ARC break that causes the rising needle and also it must be pointed out that in actual auditing he will be using an E-Meter since he’s not running this with a meter in his hand. In real auditing he flattens it until his meter shows no change on the subject. In running this TR he is simply going to flatten it by the seat of his pants and the satisfaction of the coach.

This is a 2-way comm formal auditing non-duplicative process and is only used to patch up ARC breaks when one occurs. It is not a repetitive command process which is supposed to do something terrific for the pc. It doesn’t. It is just supposed to keep the session on the road and is not in itself therapeutic.

The student never answers or explains to the coach about the ARC break. In other words, we must keep the Auditor’s Code while running an ARC break out. Probably more strongly than we would ordinarily keep an Auditor’s Code. No evaluating questions. No invalidating questions. No explanations.

It should be understood that an ARC break is the only thing that will depress a profile. Nothing else will depress a profile except an ARC break. Handling ARC breaks is the only thing which keeps the profile from being depressed so this is a pretty important TR and it’s really got to be smooth and free. It is the one thing that can submerge an engram or foul the session. It should be understood that in actual auditing if the pc gives the auditor the Break as soon as the auditor asks for it, the question “What is it?” is dropped.

LRH:-.rd							L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 MARCH 1959
BPI

HOW TO DO A
DIAGNOSIS ON DYNAMIC STRAIGHTWIRE

You ask the person to describe the dynamics from one to eight. We don’t care about them being sequitur; any way you want to break it up, we don’t care.

Now you ask a person to describe each one of these dynamics. You are watching an E-Meter for a change in pattern. Therefore, you have to carefully isolate the change of pattern before you can tell whether or not the pattern’s changed on the E-Meter needle reading. But more important than that, you are looking for a dynamic that he makes mistakes on while he is trying to describe it, a dynamic he cannot describe, a dynamic that he won’t even approach, that he is very leary of, and his statement is confirmed by the E-Meter reading. In other words, you have got the statement of the pc in this particular analysis or diagnosis for Dynamic Straightwire.

All right, then, we go all the way through asking for a terminal on these dynamics and we finally get a repeat. We will ask him for terminals on these dynamics; we’ll get the same dynamic to read again. Now the basic rule which sorts this out is—any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run. Simple as that. Any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run.

Don’t run a terminal that is totally unreal to the preclear. Another stable datum which comes on top of it is: Never run a terminal that’s sensible. Never. If a terminal belongs on the dynamic you can almost say you’ll get nowhere running it. So, you are looking for terminals that they give you for a dynamic which don’t belong on the dynamic at all.

Now, if that terminal is real to the pc you will get a tremendous change in the case. If that terminal is totally unreal to the pc and if it does belong on the dynamic, why you’re not going to get any change on the case, why run it? Might as well run some other process. It is neither a long process nor an invariable process. Given enough skill you could undoubtedly find one of these on every case. Given enough skill. But it is limited by auditor skill. Furthermore, it gives auditors a chance to chop up pcs and it gives auditors a chance to write some script.

You do not let the pc choose. You have auditors who actually believe that a pc is permitted power of choice in an auditing session. That one’s a blinker.

Where you find pcs out of session, it’s because nobody has trailed down a nutty dynamic.

                                       				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mg.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 MARCH 1959

Dist:
    All Staff
    All Offices

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA SHEET TO HCO BULLETIN OF FEB 16, 1959
AND STAFF AUDITORS’ CONFERENCE OF FEB 16, 1959

The Feb 16 Bulletins, done rapidly to inform staff auditors, omitted the full gradient processes.

Some of the omitted (and very important) processes are Overt-Withhold Straight Wire, General Overt-Withhold Straight Wire, ARC Break Straight Wire, Third Rail, What Can You Confront and Mock Up Responsibility.

The complete list in order of use on any case is:

ROUTE THETA CLEAR

 1. 	Rudiments and TR 5N
 2. 	Present Time Problem
 3. 	Dynamic Straight Wire
 4. 	Overt-Withhold Straight Wire
 5. 	General Overt-Withhold Straight Wire
 6. 	ARC Break Straight Wire
 7. 	Third Rail
 8. 	What Can You Confront
 9. 	Mock up a picture for which you could be totally responsible
10. 	Not-Is Straight Wire
11. 	Past and Future Experience
12. 	Engram Running
13. 	Route One (When theta clear is obtained)

This is a complete route to theta clear on all cases so far examined and audited (which contained some real “what walls”).

Steps 1 to 5 above inclusive, if flattened, constitute a RELEASE.

The HAS Co-Audit Processes are:

 3. 	Dynamic Straight Wire
 4. 	Overt-Withhold Straight Wire
 5. 	General Overt-Withhold Straight Wire

with the Instructor starting and stopping all sessions and doing all assessments. The auditing itself is severely muzzled.

HCA/HPA Professional Processes include 1 to 8 above inclusive.

HCS/BScn Processes include 1 to 11 inclusive.

HGS/DScn Processes include entire list.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mp.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 MARCH 1959
BPI

MUZZLED AUDITING

Following is a despatch received from Theory and Practice Instructor, Washington, D.C.

“Dear Ron,

“I thought you might be interested to know that the afternoon muzzled auditing in the HCA Course is really paying off. These people have, every one of them, attained a very hot reality on their tracks, pictures and Scientology. In terms of past students the results are absolutely phenomenal. It is very good. Best, John Galusha.”

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: mp.rd

P.A.B. No. 156
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 March 1959

PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC

(Continued from P.A.B. No. 155)

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures
of L. Ron Hubbard

All of these straightwire processes run best with an E-Meter, using the question “When?” About the only reason we came off time was because auditors were using time to harass. It is not that it isn’t best to run it with time—it is best to run it with time. The muzzled fashion of running here is “Recall a time ... when ....”

The guy says he did.

“When?”

All right, the next response on the preclear’s part is, “I don’t know.” Then the auditor goes into action.

Now, when you hound them and mix them up and twist them up and mess them up with time questions, all that’s happening is that the auditor is dramatizing his own confusion about time, and he probably wouldn’t accept the preclear’s answer if it was three o’clock, September 2nd, 1959.

Muzzled Auditing is very severely this: The auditor utters the auditing command, the preclear answers it, and the auditor says, “A11 right.” The preclear originates, the auditor nods. Let’s make this a very severe definition of what we call muzzled auditing. Now, when you let the auditor go a little bit and give him an E-Meter and “When?” my experience and observation here in the 21st ACC is, he just goes for broke. It’s rather as if you cut two strands of a three-strand rope and he quickly busts the other strand. In other words, it’s muzzled or nothing. And where you have somebody who is doing any chop-up or is stacking up ARC breaks in any way, you have as your best answer “muzzled,” and muzzled is muzzled. And they can’t say “When?” either, because evidently if you give them “When?” they can go for broke and they can use “When?” and the answers thereof to chop the preclear up.

We did try to install a muzzled “When?” For my money, it hasn’t been successful. We’ve had at least one of our people exceed this at once. Just letting him open his mouth starts the machine. “It’s all right for you to say ‘When?’” you can say to this auditor—”It’s all right for you to say ‘When?’ “ Right away, he says, “Well, I’ve got to do something else.” And so forth. We have even found that muzzled auditing wouldn’t go on this one: “I’ll repeat the auditing command.” You can’t even let them do that. You can’t let them say this, because it has been used to invalidate the preclear. We have an auditor (he’s not an auditor, he’s a case) who, every time the preclear answers the question, says, “I’ll repeat the auditing command.” The preclear tries to answer the question again, and the auditor just uses this as a non-acceptance. So this can’t go as part of muzzled auditing. That so far has been my observation.

This may be a very harsh look, but I feel from what I have observed that I am justified.

_____________________

As I have already mentioned, we’ve got another condition here—reasonability. People have been writing script on the preclear’s engrams to some degree. That is a great evil. And those people we have turned loose and those people who are running engrams and are saying this sort of thing are doing pretty well, and some of them are writing a bit of script. And the main thing they are not doing is picking up the overts. There are a couple of them stalled around here on overts.

There is a rule about this: When they cannot easily find or run the overts, take them right straight on down to Dynamic Straightwire. These people are not owning up to their own responsibilities and that means—perhaps because the case has changed over to an area of irresponsibility—that you have a situation here in which the individual has dropped out responsibility factors to such a degree that he cannot be trusted. When a person won’t own up to his overts, you have an irresponsibility of great magnitude. This goes hand-in-glove with failing to answer the exact auditing command, failing to execute an auditing command, and so forth. And that can happen while running engrams.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MARCH 1959

Magazine Article

AN INSANITY QUESTIONNAIRE

The World Health Organization has issued the following questionnaire to determine whether or not a person is insane, and infers that if one answers “yes” to any of the following, he is insane and needs help:

Are you always worrying? 
Are you unable to concentrate because of unrecognized reasons? 
Are you continually unhappy without justified cause? 
Do you lose your temper easily and often? 
Are you troubled by regular insomnia? 
Do you have wide fluctuations in your moods, from depression to elation, back to depression, which incapacitate you? 
Do you continually dislike to be with people? 
Are you upset if the routine of your life is disturbed? 
Do your children consistently get on your nerves? 
Are you “browned off” and constantly bitter? 
Are you afraid without real cause? 
Are you always right and the other person always wrong? 
Do you have numerous aches and pains for which no doctor can find a physical cause?

Scientology organizations as the leaders in the field of mental ability are doing the only successful work in correcting such disabilities.

The first sweeping, low cost attack on mental disability is now under way in Scientology organizations with HAS Co-Auditing courses, now beginning on all continents.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MARCH 1959
Issue 2
BPI
Magazine

DO IT YOURSELF THERAPY

At last we have a successful way for the untrained person or the financially embarrassed Scientologist to make it all the way to release and prepare himself for theta clear at low cost.

Heavily supervised co-auditing at HAS level has become possible with my development of two things,

1. 	Processes that undercut most reality levels, and

2. 	Muzzled auditing.

For as little as 2 gns (or $10) a week, one can have the major benefits of Scientology by giving a little and getting a lot.

HAS Co-auditing courses are run by all major Central Organizations and are being started in HCO enfranchised centres.

The applicant enrolls in the PE Course and receives a week of theory. He graduates to a Comm Course lasting two weeks of three nights each and costing 2 gns (or $10) per week. He receives his HAS certificate and graduates to co-auditing for three nights a week for 2 gns (or $10) per week and continues on until he reaches the state of release. This may take many months but he gains all the way in health, on his job, in his environment.

The co-auditing is done “muzzled” and under the heavy supervision of a trained professional who knows how to do it.

It is only successful if so done.

These new processes and muzzled auditing can be the beginning of a new civilization. For, cases are cracking on these units with such frequency and speed that even old timers instructing them are getting an eager new look.

A release is a person whose case “won’t get any worse”. He begins to gain by living rather than lose.

Release is a way point toward theta clear. A good release can be theta cleared by a professional running engrams in from 50 to 125 hours.

This is the new look. If you want to know more about it, write Hubbard Communications Office Worldwide in London or your nearest central organization.

We can put hundreds of thousands upstairs rapidly if we follow this well-blazed trail.

We are still winning.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mp.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London, W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MARCH 1959
Dist: WW

HAS CO-AUDIT

All offices should recognize that we have something new and startlingly successful in HAS Co-auditing done by and in the organization as an adjunct of the PE Foundation.

The complete gen on how to do this will be released in the very near future on these lines. This bulletin is to point out its importance.

It is expected that the following cities will begin in the central organization HAS Co-auditing courses immediately on receipt of the technical information:

London (already in progress), Los Angeles, New York, Melbourne, Johannesburg (where the information already exists), Paris, Washington (optional), Auckland (where the information already exists), Perth.

At once all names and addresses of all PE attendees should be gotten in order as mailing lists by the above organizations for their areas and they should stand by to make an immediate mailing.

Persons for night work should be appointed by the above organizations as follows:

PE Foundation Director 
PE Foundation Instructor 
HAS Comm Course Instructor 
HAS Co-audit Supervisor.

The PE Foundation basic course is one week long—5 nights. HAS Comm Course is three nights a week, Co-audit supervised is the same three nights. In case of crowded quarters the HAS Comm Course should be on a different three nights than the HAS Co-audit, i.e. Monday, Wednesday, Friday Comm Course; Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday Co-audit.

The charge to any applicant should be two or three guineas per week or $10.

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SINGLE PROMOTION EVENT OF THIS YEAR AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH.

MAGAZINE—MAJORS AND MINORS

It has been found in at least one organization that the purpose of major and minor issues of the continental magazine has not been understood. A major issue goes out once every month to the membership only; a minor issue goes out once every month to the entire mailing list, particularly book buyers. Certainty Issues Vol. 5 No. 23, Vol. 6 No. 3, Vol. 6 No. 2 are typical minor issues and with their ads adjusted and made more timely are now being sent to the entire mailing list.

Neglect in sending minor issues to the entire mailing list can result in the eclipse of an operation, otherwise there is no adequate method of contacting new book buyers. Minor issues are mainly slanted at new book buyers but go to the entire list.

If your mailing lists are not so arranged as to make this possible or if your address systems make it difficult you had better do something about it in a hurry as these are the most uneconomical omissions that can be made by an operation.

SCIENTOLOGY SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR

HCO offices requiring books, tapes, bulletins and other services should request them from HCO Administrator WW, 37 Fitzroy Street, London, which post is now occupied by Roddy Stock. The function of this post is to give service to other Scientology organizations and HCO offices.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: mp.rd

P.A.B. No. 157
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 April 1959

PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC (Concluded)

(Continued from P.A.B. No. 156)

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures
of L. Ron Hubbard

The engram commands we are using are as follows: “What part of that incident can you confront?”, “What part of that incident can you be responsible for?” and “What part of that incident can you confront?—for how long?” And when we have sorted these out, we run “Find an unimportant part of that incident.”

By incident, we mean both the overt and the motivator. An engram is some portion of an incident containing pain, unconsciousness and exteriorization. But the whole incident would consist of the overt-motivator which belong together; therefore we may find them running thousands of years apart, but, nevertheless, bundled up and identified with great thoroughness. We are running this simply with a kind of understood acknowledgment in most cases, and we are trying not to make this a sharp Tone 40 process, because that tends to drive the pictures away. (Some people are still doing this to a slight degree. Their acknowledgments are a bit too good and tend to make the engram vanish. This is a common thing.)

One thing we are faced with in this ACC is the inability of the student to accept the fact that a case changes. This must be stressed. Why are you auditing a case if you don’t expect it to change? These students go on auditing somebody day after day and

actually downgrade the case again by giving it the same careful treatment throughout. They are careful, as if the preclear is still crazy. They haven’t noticed that the preclear is now doing pretty well. This leads to ARC breaks.

One more process which I haven’t mentioned so far is ARC Break Straightwire. We are not using it on the ACC, not because it isn’t good, but merely because it is lengthy. Dynamic Straightwire, cleverly done, takes a case apart. It starts almost any case. Selected Person Straightwire on Overts will bring up the responsibility of a case to a point where he can be trusted to run engrams; and ARC Break Straightwire is the one which lays open the track. The only trouble is, I have seen it run for fifty hours. It’s a long process, but it is a valuable process.

We have one final process here. It is a central process which processes anybody, and it is the thinking process of SCS. Now, to have the thinking process of SCS would be very valuable, because the assertion of control is your biggest point out. The reason auditors can’t audit and the reason cases can’t run and the reason valences happen, and so forth, has to do with handling people. Taking an old, old process here and remodeling it, we find that we have a very fast, wound-up-doll, muzzled auditing process that can kick the living daylights out of a case; and we are including the process in the 21st ACC.
The process is simply this: “Think of an identity you could handle. Think of an identity you couldn’t handle.” Or: “Think of an identity that could be handled. Think of an identity that could not be handled.” This is the SCS Control process, Thinking version.

It is not yet decided which of the auditing commands is the best. You can run the preclear either at cause or generally. The general process is “Think of an identity that could not be handled. Think of an identity that could be handled.” Run alternately, one command after the other, it probably undercuts the other process, which is “Think of an identity you could handle. Think of an identity you couldn’t handle.”

It sounds very bad to say “you couldn’t handle”—it is a negative process. That is why it has to be sandwiched in with a positive process. Strangely enough, it doesn’t totally run on the positive process, because the preclear has a private ambition—not to be handled. He doesn’t want to be controlled in any way. So you must run the negative process in on the other side of the positive process.

I can’t tell you at this stage how many cases this process can be run on. But I do know that it is the anatomy of cases in group one, for all my study of them so far shows that their greatest unreality is the unreality of control. They demonstrate a hectic attitude toward the preclear because of an anxiety about controlling him, or an apathetic attitude towards the preclear because they know they can’t control him.

The whole subject of valences finally shook out here on the 21 Ts ACC. I hasten to tell you about it. The preclears have been through arduous control on the whole track. Arslycus, where everybody got worked to death (produce, produce, produce, work, work, work . . .)—Space Opera, where control was nothing if not deadly—in fact, at every place on the track where everybody went haywire, they had to make a total effect on people. So the preclear who is having a bad time has as his central goal an individuality that cannot be controlled; and this is why most of these lower scale people want to be clear. They do not want to be not-controlled; they just want to be absent.

This is also the reason why some people, although they say they are willing to clear people, are really unwilling to do so; because a clear is someone you cannot handle the way they think of handling people. So they become unwilling to make somebody clear, and they will chop it up somewhere along the line. So there is a reasonable reason underlying this obsessive chop-up that some students do to a preclear, and a reasonable reason behind an auditor’s coming up to you with great unhappiness the moment his preclear starts to make a gain. He himself wants to be clear so that he cannot be handled, but, if he knows he can’t be clear, he adopts an identity that cannot be handled.

Various societies in various times have various things that cannot be handled, and they get stuck with these solutions, and it is almost a rational solution. They adopt an identity that cannot be handled—and that is what is sitting in the preclear’s chair. And sitting in the auditor’s chair is somebody who knows only too well that the preclear can never be handled and so it doesn’t matter what he does; or somebody who is determined to handle the preclear even if it means knocking his block off. This results in misemotional responses to handling the preclear.

This is one of those horrible simplicities.

We had processes long ago on identity and inventing identities and various types of identities, and we also had processes on handling people (“What could you handle? What couldn’t you handle?” “What could you change? What couldn’t you change?” that sort of thing). Well, that all adds up to this process; and this process works much faster than SCS.

However, we shall know more about the Thinking version of SCS later on. I just wanted to give you a summary of the techniques and processes being used in the 21st ACC, for your information. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 APRIL 1959

EMOTIONAL TONE SCALE EXPANDED

(Cancels Bull. of April 8)

There are several misemotions hitherto not placed on the ARC Emotional Tone Scale.

These are:

	0.0 	— 	Failure (Death) 
	-0.2 	— 	Regret (Being other bodies) 
	-1.0 	— 	Blame (Punishing other bodies) 
	-1.3 	— 	Shame (Responsibility as blame)

In running Overt Withhold Straight Wire stubborn cases run these emotions for some weeks of auditing and go upwards more or less in that order. Only when they come to failure as an emotion do they then get into apathy.

No case run on Overt Withhold Straight Wire can be said to be making progress unless misemotions turn on below 2.0. If the right button is reached by correct assessment, emotional reaction occurs in the running of that button.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: rt.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 APRIL 1959

OLD AND NEW REALITY SCALE

“Old “ Reality Scale	“New “ Reality Scale

Tone 40 to 20 Postulates	Pan-determined creation

     20 to 4 	Consideration		Self-determined creation

       4 to 2 	Agreements		Experience

     	1.5 	Solid terminals		Confront

     	1.1 	Terminals too solid 	)	Elsewhereness
           	Lines solid	)

	1 to .5 	No terminal	)	Invisibility
		Solid line	)

      .5 to .1 	No terminal	)	Blackness
		Less solid line	)

	.1	No real terminal	)
		No solid line	)	Dub-in
		Substitute terminal	)

	.0	No terminal	)
		No line	)	Unconsciousness

LRH:mp.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MAY 1959

SOLUTION TO SOLUTIONS

It is interesting when some old well-worn Scientology phenomena such as problems and solutions resolves.

I noted in 1956 that problems tended to collapse upon one as he solved them, if you will recall. When you asked someone to invent a problem of comparable magnitude, his problem went further away in distance. When you asked someone for a solution to his problem the problem approached closer.

Well, I have now found the reason for this—the “penalty of solving”. It is, I might comment, not an unimportant discovery for we all become victims of problem-collapse when we solve things. This is why people won’t solve their problems, why they “have to have problems”.

Failure to make solutions (or postulates) stick elsewhere makes the thetan “believe” that solutions collapse problems on him.

A process to demonstrate the first observation is well known—problems of comparable magnitude—and getting the pc to then “solve the problem” (this last of course is not “therapeutic”).

A process to overcome this collapsing of problems upon one is “What solution could you make stick?”

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mp.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MAY 1959

AN AFFINITY PROCESS

We have a fundamental Reality process in Overt-Withhold Straight Wire and, at a higher level, “What can you confront?”

Variations suggest themselves but what with Administration, Congresses, HPA Courses, ACCs and heavy promotion, I have not had time to test them.

The above form, startlingly enough, does work. It apparently cracks lower cases than “What can you confront?” There is some evidence it raises havingness.

A basic communication process is “Recall a time you communicated.”

There have been few successful Affinity processes. However, as unlikely as it first appears, the following is nearly a pure Affinity process.

“What would you like to confront?”

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: mp .rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1959

NEW PROCESS

THEORY

It never snows but it avalanches!

Possessing now tremendous processes at lowest levels, we need a new understanding of processing and assessment.

The broad tone scale is divided into three general parts. Highest is Pan Determinism. Mid-range is Self-Determinism. Low range is Other-Determinism.

The fundamental difficulty is that something has so thoroughly overwhelmed the pc that he is it. This is Other-Determinism become the person. Mild locks use this route to further overwhelm him. A person doesn’t really find anything in this lifetime that would have overwhelmed him enough to aberrate him. It took great doing. Things like prenatals and operations and shocks just use the existing overwhelm channel.

The picture of aberration is this. The person causes an effect, time and time again. Usually this is not aberrative. But one day he causes an unintended effect. He didn’t mean to. It was wrong. This is the true overt act—an unintended bad effect. It is not deserved by the recipient. It is a wrong, unintended, undeserved effect. The person now tends to limit his effects or withhold his effects. Having been wrong once, he now becomes cautious. Next thing he knows he has assisted himself to be overwhelmed. He now has an inflow channel over which other things, all locks, can now overwhelm him.

Eventually he becomes an “other-determinism”. This, of course, can get nothing done, doesn’t outflow, etc., etc., which adds up to all the faults we find in an aberrated person. For example, if the pc has been overwhelmed by money, he, in money matters, is now money. If you took some money and threw it on the bed it wouldn’t do a thing. It wouldn’t stack itself up or add up accounts. Money doesn’t do anything. Therefore, the pc, as an other-determinism, does nothing really about money—and this we find annoying in him. It is his aberration.

Clearly all one need do as an auditor is to reverse this flow and put the pc at cause over the button, money, to have the other-determinism (and the overwhelmingness) fade away. Using Problems of Comparable Magnitude or Overt-Withhold Straight Wire or simple reaching, the effect is turned to cause and the pc comes out of it.

Assessment is only discovering what has overwhelmed the pc.

Auditing is the reversing of other-determined flows by gradient scales, putting the pc at cause again.

THE BASIC ERROR

The question was asked me, and a fine question it was, “Why does a thetan make his postulate fail to stick in the first place? Why would he say, ‘I can get my postulates all messed up and so cause an overt act’?”

Obviously all aberration is third dynamic. The entrance into self-determinism requires that a thetan conceive the idea of other beings. Also he must then conceive that there are zones of privacy from which he must not communicate.

This error leads to obsessive or fixed channels on which one can be overwhelmed, since he “may not” take the position of cause on this channel.

Avoidance of the places he must not communicate from leads into all manner of difficulties, since this is inhibited communication. A person, therefore, becomes as aberrated as he cannot communicate, as aberrated as he is overwhelmed by Other-Determinisms, as aberrated as he himself dare not assume cause points.

A NEW PROCESS

This leads to a new process, for use “in individual sessions”. The final phrasing is not established at this time.

“From where could you communicate?” or

“Find a place from which you could communicate,” or

“Recall a place from which you have communicated.”

My first tests show this to be very strong but workable. I have not established the depth this reaches nor the complete effectiveness up scale. But it does reverse Other-Determinism heavily.

(This, of course, does not supplant Selected Person Overt-Withhold Straight Wire as fundamental and is not for use in HAS Co-auditing, where Selected Persons Overt-Withhold Straight Wire is the tested allowed process.)

This new process may open a faster route to theta clear, even though that route is already very fast.

Note: Apparently this process, LOCATIONAL COMMUNICATION, relieves the face pressures and terror stomachs (after turning them on) which have proved reluctant. Terror stomachs we have a specific for. Face pressures, we do not have totally taped.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:m .rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 MAY 1959

AN UN-DOABLE COMMAND

There are a very few commands that cannot be done. One of these is “Find an unknown” ( 1954).

I have just found another one:

“Invent an other-determinism”.

Perhaps if it could be run, as Jan Halpern commented, it would be a one-shot clear.

LRH:mp.rd							L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 APRIL 1959

KNOW TO MYSTERY STRAIGHT WIRE FOR EXTREME CASES

(Cancels Bull. of March 31, 1959)

     The Know to Mystery Scale expanded

             	Not know
             	Know
             	Look
             	Emotion
             	Effort
             	Think
             	Symbols
             	Sex
             	Eat
             	Mystery
             	Wait
             	Unconsciousness

To assess a case on the lower rungs of processing, ask pc, against an E-Meter, what terminal could represent each of above, select that terminal (object or person, never a condition) which changes needle action most and run Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on it.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: mp. rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MAY 1959
Central Orgs
HCO Offices

CANCELS ALL EARLIER DIRECTIVES ON HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES AND ACC PROCESSES AS OF
MAY 21, 1959

The following processes are the only allowed processes for use in HGCs anywhere.

THETA CLEAR SCHEDULE

For use on unconscious and fixedly psychotic persons unwilling to be audited:

“You make that body sit on that chair” (or “lie on that bed”), and CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.

For use on persons unwilling to be audited at any time:

Two way help bracket 
“How could you help me?” 
“How could I help you?”

Get each question answered. Use lots of two way comm. Don’t Q and A with reasons.

For use on persons unwilling to be audited by reason of session errors:

TR 5N, which is: 
“What have I done wrong?” 
“What have you done wrong?” 
with two way comm.

For persons who are acutely ill:

Run old TR 5 if needed. 
Diagnose exact button and run Overt Withhold Straight Wire or 
Run Factual Havingness 
Or do an assist.

For use on persons who complain that auditing has no effect on them or who make very slow gains:

Have pc put the following thought in six sides of room, going around in different order each time (example, front wall, back wall, ceiling, floor, right wall, left wall). 
“Put the thought into that (designated room side), ‘Nothing can have any effect on (pc’s name)’.
“ There are variations of this phrasing: “Nothing must be done to (pc’s name),” “Nothing can be done about (pc’s name).” Depends on what makes the meter fall.

This process probably requires about 15 to 25 hours to flatten. Use the same wording throughout.
For use on persons in general. If this has been handled in an HAS Co-audit well, don’t handle it again:

Overt-Withhold Straight Wire after careful assessment and used on various buttons. Dynamic Straight Wire, Know to Mystery Straight Wire, are all more or less same process but are different ways of assessment. Always run terminals, never conditions.

For use on persons in general, always to some extent when they enter HGC:

S-C-S.

For use on auditors in for auditing. Run until fully flat:

Op Pro by Dup old (original) style.

For use on people going to theta clear. Use liberally and long:

“Find a spot from which you could communicate.”

For use on people going to theta clear:

Find engram necessary to resolve the case each time. Check out all terminals present in it. Make a list. Run Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on a (each terminal in incident by general name). Don’t run off from incident that is being run. Pc will go up and down the track but when one terminal is flat, choose next from same incident we started with. The commands for this are “Guess at something you have done to” “Guess at something you have withheld from”.

For finishing off cases to level of theta clear:

Run Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on minds, brains, bodies, mest.

For easing off any case into comfort or completion of an intensive:

“From where could you communicate?”

HAS CO-AUDIT

The only allowed process in HAS Co-audit is Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on present life terminals selected by instructor.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mp.vmm.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 MAY 1959

The following article appeared recently in the London City Press. It may be used by City Offices and Area Offices for information to papers.

“MAN WHO INVENTED SCIENTOLOGY”

One best-seller is often the real beginning in the story of a publishing house. But to come into existence because of another publisher’s best-seller is unusual. This is what happened in the case of the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International.

The HASI and all its concerns is founded on the work of one man, L. Ron Hubbard, engineer, explorer, nuclear physicist and writer. Holding in his mind a knowledge of Eastern thought gained in his travels, his instruction in psychology from a medical doctor who had studied personally under Sigmund Freud, and his training in mathematics and nuclear physics, L. Ron Hubbard found himself convalescing in hospital towards the end of the second world war, after a distinguished career in the United States Navy.

During the year he spent in hospital he reviewed earlier work he had done on the fundamentals of knowledge. He was also confronted with the deplorable nervous reactions of his friends who had been through the war. He concluded, after many experiments, that his ideas could help people towards greater ability and greater happiness.

He coined the word Scientology, to mean the science of knowing how to know.

EXPERIMENT

Then followed several years of experiment, which he supported by writing fiction. His ideas, like most new things, met with complete disbelief in official quarters in spite of the fact that they had by this time been practised, proved, tested and documented.

A thesis he wrote in 1948 was ignored. However, people began to hear of his work and to get hold of carbon copies of his thesis and make more copies of it and hand them to friends. Hubbard’s correspondence grew to embarrassing proportions as more and more people found out that Dianetics (the branch of Scientology he wrote about at that time, the branch which deals with mental anatomy) really worked in practice. They asked him for lengthy explanations.

In 1950 L. Ron Hubbard thought of writing a popular text book on Dianetics to relieve him of the task of writing dozens of long letters every day. A publisher offered to print the book, but demanded the manuscript within three weeks. The book was duly written and delivered—180,000 words of it—within three weeks.

This book, DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH, was expected to sell 6,000 copies and sold 100,000 almost immediately. It went to the top of the best-selling lists and stayed there during the summer of 1950.

The book tells the layman how to use Dianetics. Thousands of people began to use it. Hundreds of people wrote, spoke, and ranted for and against it. Interest in Dianetics reached hysteria level in the United States and various organizations were set up, with and without L. Ron Hubbard’s approval, to deal with the demand for treatment and training.

To combat this confusion of commercial exploitation, Hubbard went back to the broader subject of Scientology and founded the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International as the official organization which would treat people, train people and supervise research.

Books and more books were demanded. Hubbard duly wrote them and the HASI duly published them under its own name or under the name of one of its offices. Since 1950, more than thirty books by L. Ron Hubbard and many other Scientologists have been published by the HASI.

Perhaps the best-known titles are DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, SELF ANALYSIS IN SCIENTOLOGY, PROBLEMS OF WORK and THE CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY.

It is fitting that the main part of HASI’s publishing output should be written by the man who founded it, and that all the books it publishes should be about Scientology in its various aspects, whether applied to helping the individual and training professional practitioners, or to more topical subjects such as those dealt with in ALL ABOUT RADIATION and HOW TO LIVE THOUGH AN EXECUTIVE.

The ‘international’ at the end of the HASI’s title is well earned. Few publishers have offices in, and books printed in, Washington, London, Los Angeles, Melbourne, Auckland, Johannesburg, Paris and Berlin. And this within nine years.

TRANSLATIONS

Scientology books have been translated into many languages and the London office (which is now the central office of the organization) receives enquiries from all parts of the world and has on its staff people from Australia, Greece, New Zealand, Mauritius, Rhodesia, South Africa, Spain and the United States. Students come from far and near, east and west, for training to become professional practitioners in Scientology or ‘auditors’ as they are called (an auditor: one who listens and computes). When trained, they qualify to help other people improve their lives and their abilities by doing simple mental exercises under their skilled supervision; and many of them go back to their own countries and set up offices, groups, training centres and clinics of their own. A large part of their training consists of the study of texts published by the HASI.

The publication of DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH in 1950 started, not just a publishing house, but a world movement. The long-ignored work of one man now suddenly affects the lives of people from Malaya to Manchester. And the HASI becomes a very busy organization indeed.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:gh.rd
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard. 
All rights reserved

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JUNE 1959

FORMULA 10

This is the first practical approach I have developed toward reaching the state of OT.

Up to and including step 7 gives us a theta clear. Steps 8, 9, 10 and 11 give us the finishing touches for OT.

This formula gives two states, then, depending on where it is used.

The full data background of all this is given in the HPA/BScn Course tapes of Spring 1959 and the 6th London ACC tapes (which also give the way to do this very broadly).

FORMULA 10—AN APPROACH TO OT

1. 	Do case assessment. Selected Person Overt-Withhold Straight Wire (this life). (Flatten)

2. 	“Recall (or think of) something you have been responsible for.” (Flatten)

3. 	“Recall (or think of) something you have confronted.” (Flatten)

4. 	“Recall (or think of) something you have been responsible for.” (Flatten)

5. 	Do case assessment. Run “From where could you communicate to a (general terminal )” .
    	Note: Run any terminals that react.

6. 	“From where could you communicate to a body.”

7. 	Locate and run engrams by “From where could you communicate to (A) (generalized form of terminal found in engram)”; run all terminals found. (B) Run until Rock incident is run (run as general terminal).

8. 	Reassess case for ANY terminal that has ANY reaction and run “From where could you continue to communicate to a (generalized form of terminal)”. Run No. 8 until there are none that react.

9. 	“From where could you continue to communicate to a body.” (Flatten)

10. 	“From where could you communicate to a mind.”

11. 	“From where could you continue to communicate to a mind.”

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

NOTE: This may be used in HGCs when tapes have been studied by auditors.

LRH:gh.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1959

CO-AUDIT FORMULA

To be used by any Co-Audit Instructor

Find what the person thinks is wrong with him.

Find a terminal he believes represents it. Audit that terminal with Overt-Withhold Straight Wire.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: mp.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JUNE 1959
BPI

HOW TO “SELL SCIENTOLOGY”

See “What is Scientology?” article in MA Bulletin of near date to this.

Base your line of talk to strangers on the premise that the 19th Century brutalities and foolishness of psychology, psycho-analysis and psychiatry have made your listener doubtful of mental healing. Agree they are right about this. Enlarge on the faults of old 19th Century practices.

Then say they are not all bad since they gave us a basis on which to start Scientology.

Then show how Scientology learned that men weren’t animals, learned that shock and surgery on the brain was harmful, learned that sex was only a minor basis for neurosis and insanity. All this without saying what Scientology is or describing it.

Then, without really ever explaining what Scientology is, say it has hope for man in a kinder, better world and that we must outgrow our fear of mental healing and look ahead, not backward.

If you get real insistent, even oddly accusative of listener, even slightly angry on this point and stress it over and over, you should have some people willing to come to a PE Course. And if you also stress this in PE Courses, in the HAS Course, in the Co-audit, you will start a new concept of thought around the world.

You have started a new reason to get annoyed at people. They’ll use it!

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mp.vmm.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JUNE 1959
MA—BPI

WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY

Scientology is the science of human ability and intelligence. It was developed over a third of a century by Doctor Hubbard, American nuclear physicist and leading world authority on the subject of life sources and mental energies and structures. The Hubbard Association of Scientologists International assists and forwards his work and is a charitable non-profit organization with thousands of professionals who help people to help others. The HASI conducts free basic classes in Scientology and is authorized to train to higher levels for which, however, charges are made amounting to about five shillings an hour for personal coaching.

Professional processing in Scientology is available from the Association and many professional Scientologists in private practice.

Scientology is the only full study in the field of the mind developed in the Twentieth Century. Older Nineteenth Century studies such as psychology, developed by Wundt in 1879 in Leipzig, Germany, psycho-analysis, developed by Freud in 1894 in Vienna, Austria, and psychiatry, developed through the Nineteenth Century in Russia, did not necessarily fail, since they provided data which permitted Scientology to begin.

Modern, kinder methods largely have taken the place of old brutalities such as shock, brain surgery and years of pitiless self revelation. Man no longer is thought of as a brute animal, charged with unconscious and cunning force.

A brighter more modern day has shed greater understanding on the problems of the mind and the nature of life and one need no longer shun mental healing practised by modern, civilized people.

Scientology, in less than a decade, has become the world’s primary study of Man and the mind and has today more offices and practitioners than all other Nineteenth Century practices combined. Thus we must learn to bury the past of mental healing and look forward to our better day, the day of Scientology and new hope, the day of help without threat or harm, the day of a new and better civilization, born with the birth of a better understanding of Man.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:gh.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 2 JULY 1959
Issue IV

ADD FORMULA 10

These two processes are added to Formula 10 and just after running engrams:

Process S2— 
“From where could you communicate to a victim?”

Process S22— 
“Think of a place from which you could communicate to a victim.”

Optimum use on low cases is obtained running S22 fully muzzled.

(Note: 	This is the 1st one-shot OT process.)

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:gh.cden 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London, W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JULY 1959

GENERAL INFORMATION

PURPOSE OF THIS WORK:

To modify the data and material taught and demonstrated in the HCA/HPA Theory and Practice course and to bring uniformity of stable data to students and instructors.

There are six basic process types. One or more processes of each type is included in the Theory and Practice course. Listed here are the six basic types, the characteristic, purpose and stable datum of each. These are the general data for each basic type. Specific data are given with the processes themselves.

TYPE 1. 	STARTING AND ENDING SESSIONS.

Characteristic: 	Two-way communication. Two-way communication is how it is done.

Purpose:	To compose preclear into and release him from the auditing session.

Stable Datum: 	Agreement. Each thing done in starting and ending sessions is the establishment of an agreement.

TYPE 2. 	CONTROL PROCESSES.

Characteristic: 	Control by action. Preclear’s physical actions are controlled in order to do the processes.

Purpose:	To place preclear’s body and actions under the auditor’s control to
	invite control of them by the preclear.

Stable Datum:	Never let the preclear get out of doing what he is told.

TYPE 3. 	DUPLICATION.

Characteristic: 	Mimicry by action. Physical actions are duplicated.

Purpose:	To establish communication.

Stable Datum: 	Each command in its own unit of time separate from every other command.

TYPE 4. 	SUBJECTIVE.

Characteristic: 	Thinkingness. The preclear must think something to do the process.

Purpose:	To recover automaticities of thought and as-is unwanted thinkingness.

Stable Datum:	Body control comes before control of thinkingness.

TYPE 5. 	OBJECTIVE.

Characteristic: 	Spotting and finding. Preclear must spot or find something exterior to himself to carry out the auditing command.

Purpose:	To orient preclear in present time, drop out past and improve
	havingness.

Stable Datum:	Attention of preclear must be under auditor’s control.

TYPE 6.	 STRAIGHT WIRE.

Characteristic: 	Remembering and forgetting. Preclear must do these things to carry out auditing command or question.

Purpose:	To re-control remembering and forgetting and relate past to present.

Stable Datum: 	Specific things, not generalities.

DEFINITIONS OF THETAN, MIND AND BODY—the three parts of Man

THETAN:	The awareness of awareness unit which has all potentialities but no
	mass, no wavelength and no location.

MIND:	The accumulation of recorded knowns and unknowns and their
	interaction.

BODY:	An identifying form or non-identifiable form to facilitate the control
	of, the communication of and with and the havingness for the thetan
	in his existence in the MEST universe.

A thetan himself without the body is capable of performing all the functions he assigns to the body.

* * *

THE CCH PROCESSES—TONE 40 AUDITING

Definition of Tone 40 auditing: Positive, knowing, predictable control toward the preclear’s willingness to be at cause concerning his body and his attention.

CCH 1—A TYPE 2—CONTROL PROCESS

NAME:	Give me that hand, Tone 40.

COMMANDS: 	“Give me that hand.” Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in preclear’s lap. And “Thank you” ending cycle. All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way verbally or physically. May be run on right hand, left hand, both hands (“Give me those hands”) or “Don’t give me that hand”, each one flattened in turn, never switching to a different hand or command before flattening the one already started.
POSITION: 	Auditor and preclear seated in chairs without arms, close together. Outside of auditor’s right thigh against outside of preclear’s right thigh. This position reversed for left hand. In both hands preclear’s knees are between auditor’s knees.

PURPOSE:	To demonstrate to preclear that control of preclear’s body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting preclear to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over toward absolute control of his own body by preclear.

TRAINING	Never stop process until a flat place is reached. To process with good Tone 
STRESS:	40. Auditor taught to pick up preclear’s hand by wrist with auditor’s thumb nearest auditor’s body, to have an exact and invariable place to carry preclear’s hand to before clasping, clasping hand with exactly correct pressure (enough to be real to preclear, not enough to bruise his hand over a long run), replacing hand (with auditor’s left hand still holding preclear’s wrist) in preclear’s lap. Making every command and cycle separate. Maintaining Tone 40. Stress on intention from auditor to preclear with each command. To leave an instant for preclear to do it by his own will before auditor does it. Stress Tone 40 precision—this process puts order into preclear’s case, thus precision must be stressed.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC, Washington, D.C.; 1957.

CCH 2—A TYPE 2—CONTROL PROCESS

NAME:	Tone 40 8-C.

COMMANDS:	“With that body’s eyes look at that wall.” “Thank you.” “Walk that body over to that wall.” “Thank you.” “With that right hand touch that wall.” “Thank you.” “Turn that body around.” “Thank you.” Run without acknowledging in any way any origin by preclear, acknowledging only preclear’s execution of the command. Commands smoothly enforced physically. Tone 40, full intention.

POSITION:	Auditor and preclear ambulant, auditor in physical contact with preclear as needed.

PURPOSE:	To demonstrate to preclear that his body can be directly controlled and thus inviting him to control it. Finding present time. Havingness. Other effects not fully explained.

TRAINING	Absolute auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total
STRESS:	present time auditing. Auditor turns preclear counter-clockwise then steps always on preclear’s right side. Auditor’s body acts as block to forward motion when preclear turns. Auditor gives command, gives preclear a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Auditor does not check preclear from executing commands.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., 1957, for the 17th ACC.

CCH 3—A TYPE 3—DUPLICATION PROCESS

NAME:	Hand Space Mimicry.

COMMANDS: 	Auditor raises two hands, palms facing preclear and says, “Put your hands against mine, follow them and contribute to the motion.” He then makes a simple motion with right hand, then left. “Did you contribute to the motion?” “Thank you.” “Put your hands in your lap.” When this is flat the auditor does this same thing with a half inch of space between his and preclear’s palms. “Put your hands facing mine, about a half inch away, follow them and contribute to the motion.” “Did you contribute to the motion?” “Thank you.” “Put your hands in your lap.” When this is flat auditor does it with a wider space and so on until preclear is able to follow motions a yard away.

POSITION:	Auditor and preclear seated, close together facing each other, preclear’s knees between auditor’s knees.

PURPOSE:	To develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid comm line). To get preclear into communication by control + duplication.

TRAINING	That auditor be gentle and accurate in his motions, giving preclear Wins.
STRESS:	To be free in two-way comm. That the essential part of the auditing command is the motion, not the verbal patter. When it is necessary to physically assist preclear to do commands, use one-hand commands, putting preclear’s hand through the command with auditor’s free hand holding preclear’s hand by the wrist. Accept preclear’s answer to the question, “Did you contribute to the motion?”—his answers are accepted, whatever they may be. Auditor always places his hands up before telling preclear to do so. Auditor tells preclear to put his hands in his lap and keeps his own up until preclear does so, allowing preclear to break the solid comm line.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, 1956, as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant “Look at me. Who am I?” and “Find the Auditor” part of Rudiments.

CCH 4—A TYPE 3—DUPLICATION PROCESS

NAME:	Book Mimicry.

COMMANDS:	Auditor makes a simple or complex motion with a book. Hands book to preclear. Preclear makes motion, duplicating auditor’s mirror image-wise. Auditor asks preclear, “Are you satisfied that you duplicated my motion?” If preclear is and auditor is also fairly satisfied, auditor takes book back, acknowledges, “Thank you”, and goes to next command. If preclear says he is and auditor fairly sure he isn’t, auditor takes book back and repeats command and gives book to preclear again for another try. If preclear is not sure he duplicated any command, auditor repeats it for him and gives him back the book. Tone 40 only in motions. Verbal two-way comm quite free.

POSITION:	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE:	To bring up preclear’s communication with control and duplication. (Control + duplication = communication.)

TRAINING	Stress giving preclear wins. Stress auditor’s necessity to duplicate his own
STRESS:	motions. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines. The basic rule on complexity in duplication processes is: Make the motions as complex as is necessary to get the preclear’s interest and attention and no more.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard for the 16th ACC in Washington, D.C., 1957. Based on duplication developed by LRH in London, 1952.
METHOD OF RUNNING CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.

CCH 1 is run first and run to a flat spot. Then CCH 2 is run. If CCH 2 produces change, it is flattened and followed by CCH 1. Then CCH 2 and if it again produces change it is followed by CCH 1. This rule is followed throughout—when either CCH 2, CCH 3, CCH 4 produces change the process is flattened and followed by CCH 1. This series of four processes is left when they can be run, one after the other (1, 2, 3, 4) in the same session without producing change.

The four CCH processes are to be run on the following cases:

INSANE:	That is, a person who is extremely and obsessively unwilling to control his body, his attention and his thoughts.

UNCONSCIOUS:Any person who is unaware, to a great degree.

HOSTILE:	Person who has appeared for processing but who demonstrates a complete unwillingness to accept order and to carry out an auditing command.

CCH 1 “DON’T GIVE ME THAT HAND” version, is a specific process for a case who is dramatizing a heavy compulsive withhold condition.

* * *

ARC STRAIGHT WIRE—A TYPE 6—STRAIGHT WIRE PROCESS

COMMANDS: 	“Recall something that was really real to you.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you were in good communication with someone.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you really liked someone.” “Thank you.” The three commands are given in that order and repeated in that order consistently.

POSITION: 	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance.

PURPOSE:	To give the student reality on the existence of a bank. (When used as a training drill.) This is audited on another and is audited until the preclear is in present time. It will be found that the process discloses the cycling action of the preclear going deeper and deeper into the past and then more and more shallowly into the past until he is recalling something again close to present time. This cyclic action should be studied and understood and the reality on the pictures the preclear gets should be thoroughly understood by the student. The fact that another has pictures should be totally real to the student under training.

NOTE:	It should be thoroughly understood that this is a valuable process and an excellent step in preparation for running the heavier recall processes.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1951 in Wichita, Kansas. This was once a very important process. It has been known to bring people from a neurotic to a sane level after only a short period of application. It has been run on a group basis with success but it should be noted that the thinkingness of the individuals in the group would have to be well under the control of the auditor in order to have this process broadly beneficial. When it was discovered that this process occasionally reduces people’s havingness, the process itself was not generally run thereafter. It is still, however, an excellent process with that proviso, a reduction of havingness in some cases.

 	If this process is “policed” the auditor asks the preclear “when” before giving the acknowledgement, as often as is necessary to maintain control of the preclear—or as often as is necessary for the auditor to maintain his own confidence that the preclear is under control and doing the process. This process can be run “muzzled” and should be, where muzzling is indicated.

ASSESSMENT An inventory and evaluation of a preclear, his body and his case to DEFINITION: 	establish processing level and procedure.
	
1. 	Determine processing level.

2. 	Determine process to be used.

3. 	Always undercut reality level of the case when assessing processing level.

4. 	Establish reality level of case by two-way communication using understanding and affinity as guides. Understanding: What can the preclear say and talk about that is easily understandable to the auditor? What can the auditor say and talk about that is easily understandable by the preclear? Affinity: What does the preclear like or dislike? What does he detest or ignore? What is he anxious or otherwise mis-emotional about?

5. 	Never overlook an obvious physical defect or communication difficulty when making an assessment of any kind.

6. 	Be alert to preclear’s comm lags and what produces them.

7. 	Observe the preclear’s response to control.

8. 	Find out what the preclear assigns cause to—what he blames what he feels he can do nothing about.

TERMINAL ASSESSMENT—for OVERT-WITHHOLD PROCESS

In the HCA/HPA course this is done by two-way communication. The student should learn it by observance of the instructor. Terminal Assessment is made to locate the terminals in the case which, when run, will produce an increase in the responsibility and reality level of the preclear.

A VERY BRIEF COVERAGE OF DYNAMIC AND KNOW TO MYSTERY SCOUTING

1. 	Discover the terminals the preclear states to represent each part of the expanded Know to Mystery Scale. Any terminal which is obviously aberrated and won’t clear by two-way comm should be run.

2. 	Discover what terminals the preclear has identified with the wrong Dynamic. Any terminal wrongly placed that won’t blow by two-way comm should be run.

NOTE: Two-way comm here does not mean invalidative or evaluative questions or comments by auditor.

SELECTED PERSONS SCOUT

This is the assessment most used. It is applied to the persons in the preclear’s present life. There are several loaded questions which can be used and there are several observations to be made by the auditor.

QUESTIONS: 	“Who is to blame for the condition you are in?”
	“Who do you know or have known that you’d really hate to be?”
	“Who really had it in for you?”
           	“Who do you know or have known that you dislike thinking about?”

To be observed by auditor:

Comm lag: Willingness or unwillingness to communicate about a specific person. Physical and emotional effect produced by discussion of specific person: agitation, voice change, blushing, dopiness, etc.

NOTE: Auditor must realize that preclear has no power of choice in the selection of terminals. The terminal is chosen by the auditor.

In a case where the preclear does not answer up to questions or shows no useful (to the assessment) effects from questions, simply select the person who is realest to the preclear and proceed with the process. Continue running the persons in preclear’s present life on basis of who is realest until preclear is able to answer up to assessment questions. Realest person at start may turn out to be the auditor. If so, run it.

OVERT-WITHHOLD SELECTED PERSONS STRAIGHT WIRE

- A TYPE 6—STRAIGHT WIRE PROCESS

COMMANDS:	“Think of something you have done to	.” “Thank you.”
	“Think of something you have withheld from	.” “Thank you.” Or “Recall something you have done to	          .” “Thank you.” 
	“Recall something you have withheld from           .” “Thank you.”

The use of the “think of’ command rather than the “recall” allows the preclear to plow through where his track is jammed and incidents are not easily separated, to the point where he can recall. In either case commands are run alternately, one for one.

POSITION: 	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance.

PURPOSE:	To put the preclear at knowing cause toward the people in his current life so that those people can no longer restimulate the preclear in livingness.

TRAINING	Any terminal run with this process is flat when that terminal can no
STRESS:	longer restimulate the preclear’s reactive bank. When the preclear can find no new incidents to recall and must repeat old incidents to continue process, a given terminal can be considered flat. Make sure he is repeating incidents and not recalling similar incidents before ending the run on that terminal. Also, the first few repeats may be just the preclear’s way of filling in a comm lag. Student should observe and understand phenomena occurring with this process. Where assessment has been properly made, the preclear will manifest various mis-emotions ranging from below 0.0 on the tone scale up to 2.0 and emotions up to 4.0. The NOT-ISNESS on the case will show up as attempts to not-is the auditor, process or anything preclear’s attention touches. The preclear, at first, will not correctly assign the reasons for his mis-emotions and discomforts and will blame them on the auditor, etc. This is an example of COROLLARY No. 3 of AXIOM 58 in action. This process is run “muzzled” by the student in training. Muzzled auditing is done as follows: At the beginning of session, instructor makes an assessment of the preclear’s case and chooses the terminal to be run. He gets the preclear’s agreement to run the process and does a very brief clearing of the command with the preclear. Then, the student auditor says, “Start of session,” and gives the first command. When preclear has answered the auditor acknowledges and goes on to the next command. If the preclear originates anything, either as a statement, comment or question the auditor nods his head as an acknowledgement. If the preclear asks to have the command repeated, the auditor nods his head and repeats it. This is continued until end of session or until process is flat on that terminal. If student has any question or thinks terminal is flat, he puts his hand behind his chair and wig-wags to get instructor’s attention. He does not leave his chair. Near end of session instructor gives the team notice that the session will end in two minutes. At the end of that time, when preclear has answered the last command and has been acknowledged, the student auditor says, “End of session.” This is all there is to muzzled auditing done by students. The student auditor uses only TR 0, TR2, TR3 (duplicative command) and handles originations with a nod of his head, only. No rudiments or two-way comm beyond “Start of session” and “End of session”. Student should understand that when he runs this process (and some others) on preclears in the field, he should use muzzled auditing whenever he finds himself with any tendency to over-communicate or with any preclear who ARC breaks easily. Student should also understand that Overt-Withhold Selected Persons, Third Rail, ARC Break Straight Wire and Not-is Straight Wire can all restimulate so much automatic NOT-ISNESS that the preclear will at times apparently lose his bank, his memory, and even the auditing command and its meaning. The only action indicated when this occurs is to persist with the process.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 21st ACC, in Washington, D.C., in 1959, as a means of ensuring wider and more predictable case gains by more auditors, even unskilled ones.

FACTUAL HAVINGNESS—A TYPE 5—OBJECTIVE PROCESS

COMMANDS: 	“Look around here and find something you have.” “Thank you.” “ Look around here and find something you would continue. “ “Thank you.” “Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish.” “Thank you.” Commands are each flattened in turn before going on to next command. Process can be begun on any of the three commands, but the above order should be followed. If process is begun on “vanish” the next command to be run is “have”.

POSITION: 	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance and with preclear facing majority of auditing room.

PURPOSE:	To remedy havingness objectively. To bring about the preclear’s ability to have, or not have, his present time environment and to permit him to alter his considerations of what he has, what he would continue and what he would permit to vanish.

TRAINING	To be run smoothly without invalidative questions. One of the most
 STRESS:	effective processes known when thinkingness can be controlled somewhat. The student should thoroughly understand that when a preclear is set on wasting, the vanish command will at first occupy the majority of auditing time spent on this process. Student should understand that the three commands can be each flattened in order any number of times and that running one of the commands is quite apt to unflatten the other two. Process should be continued until this no longer occurs.

THIRD RAIL is a special form of FACTUAL HAVINGNESS

COMMANDS 	are the same as in Factual Havingness. However the commands are & POSITION: 	run in a special ratio of:
           	8 commands of “vanish”
	2 commands of “continue” and 1 command of “have”.

PURPOSE:	To remedy extreme conditions of NOT-ISNESS. To remedy obsessive waste. To permit use of the process without bogging preclear in any one of the commands.

TRAINING	Student should realize that there is very seldom any reason for altering this
STRESS:	ratio and should never Q and A with the preclear’s complaints about doing the “continue” or “vanish” commands. Student should understand that Third Rail should be run where auditor is uncertain where to begin with Factual Havingness.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1958, as the best form of objective havingness. Originally developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in 1955 as “Terrible Trio”. Third Rail developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London for the 5th London ACC.

RUDIMENTS—A TYPE 1 PROCESS—OPENING AND CLOSING SESSIONS

COMMANDS: 	None as such. Rudiments is the establishment of the agreements basic to an auditing session, and the termination of them, at end of session. Students must understand what the rudiments are and be able to use them with any preclear who is capable of agreeing to them, by two-way communication. They are:

1. 	Auditor

2. 	Preclear

3. 	Auditing room

4. 	Start of session

5. 	Preclear’s goal for session.

Auditor, by two-way comm, gets preclear’s agreement to each of these, allowing preclear to state his own goals. The above order is not necessarily the order in which they are established. There should be enough two-way comm to get the preclear’s agreement and no more. The auditor should determine for himself, but not tell the preclear, what he (the auditor) intends to do with the session. At the end of session auditor makes sure the preclear is released from agreements. Auditor does not argue with the preclear about the preclear’s goals.

NOTE:	If a preclear cannot communicate about the rudiments or be brought to agree with them fairly easily, CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 should be run with only “Start of session” spoken by the auditor as total rudiments. Rudiments are not used otherwise with any preclear who needs to be run on CCH 1, 2, 3, 4. Alternatively, for more accessible cases, do “muzzled” auditing as described above.

MOCK UP A PICTURE FOR WHICH YOU CAN BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE
—A TYPE 4—SUBJECTIVE PROCESS

COMMAND:	“Mock up a picture for which you can be totally responsible.” “Thank you.”

POSITION:	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE:	To put preclear at cause with regard to mental image pictures to the degree that engrams are under his control.

TRAINING	That preclear not be run on this process before he is willing to carry out a
STRESS:	subjective process command exactly as given. Earlier processes should be well flattened before this is attempted. Otherwise the preclear will be given loses. The command means exactly what it says and the preclear’s thinkingness must be well enough under control for him to view the command that way. This process should not be run for ever without an occasional flattening of NOT-IS Straight Wire.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1958.

RE-EXPERIENCE AND EXPERIENCE PROCESS

—A TYPE 4—SUBJECTIVE PROCESS

COMMANDS:	“What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?” “Thank you.” “What part of the future would you be willing to experience?” “Thank you.” Commands run alternately, one for one.

POSITION:	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE:	To bring about the preclear’s ability to re-experience his past without enduring consequence and to confront the future without restimulation.

TRAINING	That student understand that the process is run until flat and that student be 
STRESS:	aware of what “flat” is. When the preclear can easily get out of any incident he gets into and when he can re-experience those things without enduring consequence. Where engrams are encountered with the process the auditor should attempt to find out the year of its occurrence by two-way comm and flash answers and should record the dates found. The auditor must not go into general two-way comm with the preclear about the incidents preclear contacts. Never end the process while preclear is sticking in an incident.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1959.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEMS—PART OF RUDIMENTS—TYPE 1 PROCESSES

COMMANDS:	Auditor, by two-way comm, discovers the preclear’s present time problem and discusses it with him. If it blows on this basis, fine. If not, we move out of Type 1 Processes. To handle the present time problem other than by two-way comm, discuss it with the preclear and get the names of the terminals involved. Ask the preclear which of these is realest. Run the one he names with Selected Persons Overt-Withhold Straight Wire. Discuss the problem. Find which of the remaining terminals is most real to the preclear. Run it with S.P.O.W.S.W. Discuss the problem and so on until the problem is run out, which is when the preclear does not need to do anything about it.

POSITION:	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.
PURPOSE:	To remove the surface difficulty that is the present time problem so that the auditing session can progress.

TRAINING	Student should know definition of a problem and should know very well 
STRESS:	what happens to auditing sessions where present time problem is unflat. A problem is “The conflict arising from two opposing intentions”. A present time problem is one that exists in present time, in a real universe. It is any set of circumstances that so engages the attention of the preclear that he feels he should be doing something about it instead of being audited. Auditor uses questions based on definition of present time problem to find present time problems. Never leave a present time problem half run. Preclears with whom the rudiments cannot be readily established should not be run on present time problems but should be run on CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in 1952.

ARC BREAK STRAIGHT WIRE—A TYPE 6 PROCESS

COMMAND: 	“Recall an ARC break.” “When?” “Thank you.”

POSITION: 	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE:	To as-is ARC breaks. To bring about the preclear’s ability to confront and as-is ARC breaks. To straighten out the preclear’s time track which has become collapsed by ARC breaks in restimulation. To key out and take out of restimulation the “Rock” chain.

TRAINING	To not acknowledge the preclear’s execution of the command until
STRESS:	the time of the ARC break has been established and to acknowledge with good TR 2 when the time is established. To accept preclear’s reality as to “when”. If he says, “It occurred the year I graduated from high school,” accept it and go on to next command. Assist him with two-way comm when he has difficulty locating time. Flash answers may also be used for this. Do not leave process until preclear can easily get out of incidents he gets into on the process. Process is flat when recalling ARC breaks no longer produces undue amounts of mis-emotion. Student should understand that the process has the limitation of being somewhat hard to clear command with person unfamiliar with the term “ARC”.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1958.

NOTE:	In handling ARC breaks with the auditor, the auditor should use Selected Persons Overt-Withhold with the auditor as the terminal when the break is severe. Otherwise, use TR 5N.

NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE—A TYPE 6—STRAIGHT WIRE PROCESS

COMMANDS:	“Recall a time you implied something was unimportant.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time somebody else thought something was important.” “Thank you.” Commands run alternately, one for one.

POSITION:	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE:	To bring NOT-ISNESS (Axiom 11) under preclear’s knowing control and to reduce the NOT-ISNESS in the preclear’s bank. To improve recall and increase reality. To generally increase preclear’s willingness to confront his past. To as-is the times when preclear not-ised others. To bring about the ability to evaluate importances.

TRAINING	To be certain preclear can recall overt acts to some fair degree before
STRESS:	attempting this process. To make certain the preclear is not running the process on the effect side (i.e. recalling times he thought things were important and times others implied things were unimportant). To persist when preclear’s restimulated NOT-ISNESS threatens to destroy the session. To run the process to a flat spot where the preclear easily gets out of the incidents he gets into and can recall incidents without immediately restimulating NOT-ISNESS, which is manifested by a sudden worsening of his recalls.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1959.

SCALE OF PROCESSES TAUGHT IN HCA/HPA

This is a scale of processes as they fit with the CONFRONTINGNESS SCALE, from the bottom up.

1. 	CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.
2. 	Rudiments.
3. 	PT Problems by Overt-Withhold Straight Wire.
4. 	ARC Straight Wire.
5. 	Selected Persons Overt-Withhold Straight Wire.
6. 	Factual Havingness )
		These two processes can be interchanged.
7. 	Third Rail	)
8. 	ARC Break Straight Wire.
9. 	NOT-IS Straight Wire.
10. 	Past and Future Experience.
11. 	Mock up a picture for which you can be totally responsible.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:-jh.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JULY 1959

BPI

Magazine Article

Definition of Scientology—Written by LRH
for Legal when setting up HASI Ltd.

“Scientology is an organized body of Scientific research knowledge concerning life, life sources and the mind and includes practices that improve the intelligence, state and conduct of persons.”

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :ps.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 JULY 1959
BPI

TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

We have a whole world full of “victims”.

That’s enough.

We don’t have to be victims ourselves. It’s a scarcity we don’t have to remedy.

New Definition: A Scientologist—one who is not a victim.

We can make victims into people without Q and Aing.

-------------------

Historical note: The whole Christian movement is based on the victim. Compulsion of the overt act-motivator sequence. They won by appealing to victims. We can win by converting victims. Christianity succeeded by making people into victims. We can succeed by making victims into people. It’s time the inversion turned anyway.

LRH:brb.rd                                  				L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1959

CenOCon

HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

The following rundown is to be used in all HGCs.

For use on unconscious and fixedly psychotic persons unwilling to be audited:

“You make that body sit on that chair (or lie on that bed)”, and CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.

For use on persons unwilling to be audited at any time:

Two way help bracket 
“How could you help me?” 
“How could I help you?”

Get each question answered. Use lots of two way comm. Don’t Q and A with reasons.

For use on persons unwilling to be audited by reason of session errors:

TR 5N, which is: 
“What have I done wrong?” 
“What have you done wrong?” 
with two way comm.

For persons who are acutely ill:

Ask them what part of their body they think is ill. 
Use that as the terminal. Run:

“From where could you communicate to a 	?”
(body part named).

For use on persons who complain that auditing has no effect on them or who make very slow gains, or who are going for OT. Run:

Process S2: “From where could you communicate to a victim?”

This is flat when pc can confront calmly a victim.

For use on persons in general. If this has been handled in an HAS Co-audit well, don’t handle it again:

Overt-Withhold Straight Wire after careful assessment and used on various buttons, Dynamic Straight Wire, Know to Mystery Straight Wire, are all more or less same processes but are different ways of assessment. Always run terminals, never conditions.

For use on persons who have a p.t. problem. Get them to name the terminals associated with the problem. Run:

“From where could you communicate to a 	?”
(general form of terminal).

For use on persons in general, always to some extent when they enter HGC:

S-C-S.

For use on auditors in for auditing. Run until fully flat:

Process S 2:

“From where could you communicate to a victim?’

For use on people going to theta clear. Use liberally and long:

Assess case with E-Meter. Spot terminals needing clearing. Use:

“From where could you communicate to a 	?”
on each terminal.

For use on people going to theta clear:

Find engram necessary to resolve the case each time. Check out all terminals present in it. Make a list. Run: “From where could you communicate to a___	?” (each terminal in incident by general name). Don’t run off from incident that is being run. Pc will go up and down the track but when one terminal is flat, choose the next from the same incident we started with. Remember to resurvey incident for new terminals when several are flat.

For finishing off cases to level of theta clear:

“From where could you communicate to a 	?”
(male, female bodies, bodies, mest).

For easing off any case into comfort or completion of an intensive:

Get person to say what is wrong. Get them to name the terminal they think is the trouble, run:

“From where could you communicate to a 	?”
(terminal name).

HAS CO-AUDIT

Comm processes may be used in HAS Co-audit. Assess by asking person: “Are you sick or well?” If he says “ill”, ask, “What part of your body do you think is ill?” Run:

“From where could you communicate to a 	?”
(body part person said).

If person says “well”, then say, “What person or thing have you been most sorry for?” (meaning pity). Whatever person says, run it as a terminal, “From where could you communicate to a		?” (generalized form of whatever he or she said).

This gets people up to talking and you get the “word of mouth advertising” you should have, plus a lot of better people.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:brb.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1959

BPI

ACTUAL WORKING DEFINITION OF PSYCHOLOGY

That body of practice devoted to the creation of any effect on living forms.

This is the totality of study. The ethics of the effect do not enter in this subject.

It is not a science since it is not an organized body of knowledge.

In actual use it is a dramatization of Axiom 10, wholly reactive.

In this wise the word can be used by Scientologists, and this definition can be used legally to prove Scientology isn’t Psychology.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:brb.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 AUGUST 1959

HGC PROCESSES

The lack of results in HGC is probably due to the restimulative nature of Communication Processes, a phenomenon we have noted on ACCs.

Therefore, I am giving you this regimen which I want you to very thoroughly enforce so that we can regain the results and therefore income and dissemination on the HGC.

These processes were first evolved by me in 1956 to process the personnel of a large London company so that they would get uniform results and would not be telling one another different processes during work. It is therefore amongst the first packages to be “used on anybody”. You have all the data on this, I am sure. It is in the paperback on Control. Switch all pcs to this and we’ll have a happier set of auditors and better results.

Run Psychos on CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.

Switch all other cases except the acutely ill (on which you should run Communication Process to the ill body part) to S-C-S and Connectedness.

When these are flat run the pc for a while on the following Comm Process:

“From where could you communicate to a person with difficulties?”

When pc seems to be flattish on this, return to S-C-S and Connectedness.

Let’s increase those results.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: mc.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 AUGUST 1959

All HCO 
Franchise 
All Staffs 	THE HANDLING OF COMMUNICATION PROCESSES
Central Orgs 
All HCOs	SOME RAPID DATA

The most important research development of recent times is the “Communication Process”. It has gradually been evolved for nine years, beginning in July of 1950 when I isolated Communication as one of the three important pivots on which all mental association turned, the other two being Affinity and Reality.

Much could be said about this evolution and the search, but the important gain remains, that to-day, I have evolved finally a single command type process that answers all requirements of all levels of clearing and violates no rules of auditing.

An auditor to-day could audit with just three packages:

1. 	The CCHs
2. 	S-C-S and Connectedness, and
3. 	The Communication Processes.

Using these he would certainly achieve releases and clears on all cases he could keep on the auditing roster. I must call your attention to the facts of this: we have achieved our finite goals in auditing and clearing can be done easily and broadly without kick-backs. Therefore all programs should be geared with these steps:

1. 	Make a clear or two.
2. 	Use Communication Processes, in Co-audit toward clearing.
3. 	Groove in administratively to clear your area.

I will shortly write a small book on Communication Processes which will give all. Meantime, the essentials of use are as follows:

1. 	By Communication Process is meant any process which places the preclear at Cause and uses communication as the principal command phrase.
       	A typical wording now standardised is, “From where could you communicate to a 	?”

2. 	The terminals to which Communication Processes are addressed must be real terminals never significances only.

       	Right “From etc, to a ‘husband’ “
       	Wrong “From etc, to a ‘thought’ “

       	Right “From etc, to a ‘dog’ “
       	Wrong “From etc, to a ‘mistake’ “

3. 	All terminals employed in the command should be generalised. Don’t peg pc to one lifetime with a proper name. Always use a generalised name since Communication Processes span lives too fast to be limited too much.

       	Right “From etc, to a ‘husband’ “
       	Wrong “From etc, to ‘Bill’ “
       	Wrong “From etc, to ‘your husband’ “

If you isolate Bill as the terminal that needs running, find out what Bill is to the pc. Use what the pc describes Bill to be or what rises on the meter. Bill will turn out to be ‘a husband’ or ‘a friend’ or ‘a mechanic’ or some generalised terminal. He is never run as ‘Bill’, as that pegs pc to one life and rarely clears Bill whereas the generalised terminal does  clear Bill.

4. 	Run a Communication Process more or less muzzled. The smoother, the more confident, the more experienced the auditor, the less muzzle is needed. The process wins totally muzzled so err in the direction of more muzzle, not less.

5. 	A Communication Process is flat when none of that class of terminal produces change or a comm lag or a cyclic aspect on the time track. If the pc no longer goes into past on a continuous long run, the process is flat.

6. 	Use a meter. This alone tells you when a terminal is really flat. This alone diagnoses a terminal properly. A good electrometer can save you three hours in every five. Lack of meters means lack of clears. Only a meter keeps the auditor from clearing the auditor’s buttons out of the preclear. Only a meter keeps processes from being left unflat. Only a meter can show when a terminal is clear or a preclear is clear. Use a meter if you want to clear people. Insist on your auditor using a meter if you want to get clear.

7. 	Know meter behaviour. There’s a lot of data on this. But I’ve recently found a new one.

A terminal needs to be run if it drops and then when ignored any further questioning causes a needle to rise only.  
The right terminal found again sticks the needle and stops the rise.

If a terminal is left unflat (if it is run and then dropped before it is flat), the needle in future sessions will only rise.

A steadily rising needle is by definition then the symptom of an abandoned terminal. That terminal must be found again. If found it will stop the rise of the needle. It must then be run and flattened. This is why some cases bog down and this is how it is remedied.

A further discovery is that a terminal clears on the meter just like a pc clears on a meter. Example—an unclear person doesn’t read steadily at Male or Female Clear reading, but goes above or below that reading and the reading changes. Similarly, a terminal found on a pc reads above or below Male or Female Clear reading. If the terminal is run by a communication process it makes the tone arm read higher or lower than Male or Female Clear. The running of the terminal changes the tone arm position, making it rise and fall, rise and fall. The rises of the tone arm get easier, the falls more rapid until at last the tone arm does not rise or fall but sits on Male or Female Clear, depending on the sex of the pc (not the terminal). The more flexible the tone arm, the looser the needle.

If that’s Greek to you, better grab plane or train to a Central Org and study the E-Meter because you won’t make any clears until you do.

8. 	A preclear is mest clear when no terminal selected is, when run by a Communication Process, productive of variation of the tone arm from Male or Female Clear reading. A preclear is theta clear when he can handle engrams without producing a change from clear reading.

9. 	Cases do not improve if they are in a victim valence as they self invalidate between sessions. Communication Process S2 or S22 must be run to remedy this.
10. 	If an assist is done by a Communication Process, the terminal chosen (usually a body part) must be flattened fully (see 7 above) before the case can be expected to move again on a new terminal.

11. 	When an auditor finds a steadily climbing needle on a pc new to him but not auditing, he must suspect that a terminal has been run but isn’t flat. He should query past auditing or living until he finds a terminal which stops the rise. He then runs this flat before he goes on.

12. 	Old pcs benefit from a Communication Process using “an auditor” as a terminal to clear off the case. This is done when the auditor fails with 11 above.

13. 	Old auditors can be smoothed out as cases by running a Communication Process on “an auditor” and “a preclear”. Run each flat.

14. 	In general run any terminal selected back down until the tone arm reads Male or Female Clear stably for many commands and pc is no longer cycling on track with that terminal.

15. 	Process illnesses with Communication Processes if the illness is in the way of the session. Assess by finding out what part of body pc considers ill. Run what he says. Run it in one or several sessions until that part reads Clear on the tone arm.

These are some of the rules above of Communication Processes.

A few cautions however should be emphasised.

Don’t Self Audit with a Communication Process. Use a touch assist on body or room instead.

Don’t clip a terminal into action on a case and leave it unflat. Flatten it in one or many sessions instead or make sure you tell the next auditor that it is unflat.

--------------------

Communication Processes are so simple. They are apparently innocent and charming. They are in actuality strong enough to move a whole bank. So they should be handled with accuracy and the same respect you’d give 90% dynamite.

--------------------

Note to HCO Secs, D of Ps and Assoc Secs and heads of Organizations: It would be well worth your while to study this bulletin thoroughly, then have your people study it and take an examination on it.

Those who can’t pass it eventually shouldn’t be handling paying preclears until well audited and retrained for we have no passing fancy here in Communication Processes and we use in them the cream of everything in techniques and procedure we have learned in nine years.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :brb .cden 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 AUGUST 1959

BPI

HAS CO-AUDIT—FINDING TERMINALS

If the instructor switches around terminals endlessly on a HAS Co-audit course, then you have nothing but rising needles left on these cases. It is necessary to get the very first terminal that dropped on the pc and convert it to a general form and run that terminal with a Communication Process until the terminal is again reading on the tone arm at male or female clear (depending on the sex of the pc, not the terminal) and stays there.

This is why you don’t fill up the Co-audit.

Regimen on this is find the first thing that dropped on the pc then state it in a general term—make sure it drops. Example: pc’s first assessment was on his wife. Find it again and see if it stops the needle rising; if it does, run: “From where could you communicate to a wife?” Note that it is a wife, not his wife. If the needle dropped the first time he was ever assessed on Bill, we have to find out what Bill is and run it.

On new enrollees in the Co-audit, take a body part only. A body part is then run on the Communication Process, “From where could you communicate to a (name of body part)”.

This is only considered flat when no matter what or how many questions are asked about that body part, it registers on the tone arm of the meter at male or female clear, whichever the pc is. Only then can you go on to a new process.

Communication Processes look so simple. They are in reality terribly tricky and terribly effective.

Pick the right body part on the pc and he’ll stay in the Co-audit until he’s clear on that part, that’s for sure.

When you see a pc getting fouled up by lousy Co-audit handling you are losing a student and, I am willing to confirm, gaining a victim computation.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :brb.cden 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 AUGUST 1959

BPI

TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC

In Ireland, where we had an office for some years, the problem of processing persons of the Catholic faith was thoroughly worked out and the Church did not consider itself interested in the matter of auditing Roman Catholics and did not restrain any from being audited when Roman Catholics asked permission to be. Indeed Scientology is closer to the “Faculty Psychology” of the Church in the sixteenth century than modern psychology is. Modern psychology is not accepted by the Church because it considers man to be an animal with no soul. Scientology not only accepts but can prove than man does have a soul. Saint Thomas Aquinas is an early forerunner of Scientology. Scientology is not an heretic religion and demands no belief or faith and thus is not in conflict with faith. Several monsignors of the Church have been interested in Scientology and have approved of our activities. The late Pope Pius was an enemy of psychoanalysis but was heard to express a neutral attitude toward Scientology. He once assisted us in handling a government matter in the United States.

All that processing requires is that you obtain a better reality on your environment and all its drills are aimed at this. Thus it has no conflict.

Just as your religion would not forbid you to obtain a better command over a typewriter, so it could not be expected to forbid you to obtain a better command over your office, staff, or home. There is no conflict here.

It is interesting that in nearly ten years of public presence, the materialistic sciences have often rapped at Scientology (Communism is a violent foe of ours) but never once in any country including Ireland has the Roman Catholic Church raised its voice against us.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: brb.cden 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 AUGUST 1959
BPI

GROWTH WITH COMPETENCE

There is a great deal of history to the development and dissemination of Dianetics and Scientology. And it has not been without its severe lessons.

One of the first vows I made, in L.A. in the fall of 1950, was based on the assumption that “it will go as far as it works”, and I vowed to make it work not just for the few but for the many and not just in expert hands but for the tyro as well. Well, that vow has been achieved.

The HAS Co-Audit course taught in Washington, D.C., by Nibs, Dick, Jan and Nina West has made Mest Clears using only muzzled co-auditing.

So it is working for the many in the hands of the relatively unskilled group co-auditor.

But there were other things learned in this history. And amongst them was the lesson that a Central Org can succeed as far as it can service. When a Central Org can no longer service it cannot succeed. And that goes for any individual or group in the whole of Dianetics and Scientology, and on these the sun never sets.

Our problem then, now, is to be able to service as far as we go. We are in the possession of powerful tools. We have relatively good literature and will soon have better. We can promise a great deal and point proudly to records of things we have done. We can say with truth that we have done more than fifty thousand years of thinking man could do in understanding and assisting the human being. We can command a very wide sphere of credit for first discoveries. We can promise a great many things on the basis of having delivered them. BUT CAN WE SERVICE THIS WELL AS A GROUP?

I get some very fine reports from HAS Co-Audits throughout the world. But amongst these reports there are a few failures, a few resistive cases. I could audit them, a great many Scientologists could audit them and push them through. BUT the fact remains that there are auditors here and there who cannot.

“Why?” I asked the HCO Area Secretary London the other night on telex—”Low ARC,” she replied. And this apparently explained two case failures by field auditors.

And not very long ago when we had a bad code break with a pc in the field, the Ethics Committee suspended the auditor for a few days and then told him he could be reinstated but would have to sign a paper pledging to obey the Auditor’s Code and HE REFUSED TO SIGN IT. Why? Because he had “gotten results with invalidating pcs too often”, but the truth is he hadn’t gotten good results and the tests showed it so he was wrong. But why wouldn’t he sign the Auditor’s Code?

These of course are isolated things BUT AT THIS PRESENT INSTANT THEY EXIST.

Low ARC, the HCO Area Sec London said.

Well, what’s this low ARC doing at this stage of the game? How come this late in the business does an auditor get discovered who doesn’t believe in the Auditor’s Code? Why do individuals and groups still flub on occasion?

I know that all these people basically mean well. I would stake my life on their humanity and decency. And have. But we’re in something that’s got to go all the way and the basic lessons contain this one, an Organisation will succeed as far as it can service.

And if groups are still flubbing service let alone Administration, then they aren’t going to go very far.

Now does this mean there must be more training?

No.

There will always have to be training but this won’t entirely solve this one.

“Low ARC,” the HCO Area Secretary London said. What did she mean by that? She meant basically that these auditors somehow or other weren’t going to make a pc well. They didn’t care enough about that pc to do the job.

The button which causes such things is VICTIM. This is the central button of the Overt Act-Motivator Sequence. Some auditor, perhaps one that is ordinarily quite good, gets a restim. He keys in something not from what the pc said for this couldn’t aberrate anyone. He gets a restim between sessions on the Overt Act-Motivator Sequence, and he comes back into session with the VICTIM button in full flare. And what does he do? Almost beyond his control he flubs. He makes a victim out of his pc. Why? Because that’s the exact action which occurs when an Overt Act-Motivator Sequence is triggered.

Low ARC. The whole answer to it is contained in VICTIM. The auditor feels that the pc deserves what he gets for a moment. He rationalises it all out—but he treated the pc as a victim. A dropped ashtray, a stupid auditor remark, an invalidation of a cognition. . . however the auditor flubs, he is treating the pc as a victim, and the pc victimised responds with bared engrams.

Well, true enough a lot of pcs ARC break easily because they are really being fully fledged victims, and all the auditor has to do is slightly hint toward victimising in the pc’s estimation and bang, out goes the session. But an auditor who ISN’T really treating the pc as his victim can pull the pc through. The auditor who is keyed in by this victim thing drops all the cans in the rack and flubs but grandly.

All this has been a big mystery previously. It’s understood now and thoroughly. And further, we’ve the processes that can do something about it.

The right way to audit this victim item out from scratch is with a Comm Process. Handling the whole case it is necessary in most instances to find a specific dropping terminal on the pc, perhaps even more than one, convert it into a generalised form and flatten it until it reads as a button right at the clear reading of the pc’s sex. When this has been worked over and done, it is usually safe to do a plunge into this victim thing. Given the pc in session—given the pc really answering the auditing question, then we can handle the Overt Act-Motivator Sequence with the Comm Process, “From where could you communicate to a victim?” The process is actually a one-shot OT Process.

Don’t make the mistake of running a pc who figure-figures his answers or gives philosophic type answers on a Comm Process without actually making him do it, do it, do it.

There are cases around that have been “audited” for years who have never really done a process. This can be whipped by a Comm Process done with paper and pencil. You locate the terminal with an E-Meter and then you lay the instrument aside, give the pc a sheaf of paper and a pencil, and every time he answers your auditing question, you have him or her draw the answer on the paper. As the Comm Process exceeds language, it can be easily checked. Even if the pc seems to be having some success but could succeed faster you can boost it along with the “paper trick” as this is called. So even the people who couldn’t be trusted with a thinkingness process can be run on a Comm Process using the paper trick.

All right. That’s what makes an auditor not flub, and it keeps him from being a burden to himself and others as a person too. It’s a cyclone of a process as the experienced person can tell you. And it prevents the flubbing of service in an Organisation.

Scientologists who can’t stand the sight of money or who can’t seem to get pcs are just having a fine old time being in some way or another, a victim. So let’s face this reality and understand clearly that we can guarantee our successes as individuals and Organisations by getting bell clear on victim. Then we can give service. And then an Organisation can give service. Then it’s safe to make promises. And we don’t get Administration chopped up. And it’s safe and successful to have an Organisation set up and financed and running on the mission of clearing Earth.

Of course we have to go right on with our jobs whether victim is flat or leaping about like a Texas thermometer. Of course we have to go right on organising and planning and making the future real. We can’t just quit and say well, when we all get to be clear then we’ll go-man-go. We can’t afford that. But this time be warned. We know that with our Organisations and Comm lines and plans we’re going to go successfully or not straight up the line. Let’s see this one coming though and not fly into the thunderhead blind. Let’s understand that staffs and individual Scientologists are going to goof just as long as the victim button is not flat and that it’s going to take quite a while to get it all flat.

People are always preparing for rainy days and failures. Well, let’s prepare for success. If we get much bigger nobody will be able to handle anything unless we get smooth operation, smooth procurement, efficient good looking HAS Co-Audit units, successful case handling everywhere. We won’t be able to live in a climate of 75% success and 25% failure. We won’t be able to administer with people here and there on our lines who are bound and determined to be victims and to appoint us their executioners.

We’re moving right up to the Big Win and we should be able to handle it without going half round the bend patching up the flubs made by the victim impulse that comes on when we’re restimmed or exhausted. Let’s win all the way this time and keep it won..

You see, you can’t ever get a victim valence to win. It’s a plain lesson to him, and he believes it, fallacious though it is, that when somebody wins there is always a loser and that winning “is always an overt act to somebody”. To prevent losers, our victim doesn’t win. He quits instead.

Thus there can be no constant and safe win until we have amongst us whipped our first big hurdle. No amount of planning, writing and care, no amount of education can overcome this impulse. We already know it can only be done by auditing. So let’s clear up this thing, let’s get the auditing, let’s make sure that when we set up something to go none of us will say, “Oh-oh, that’s a win! Mustn’t! Mustn’t!” and start tearing the whole thing down.

Before we get too far along this road let’s make sure we stay winners after we’ve won by making sure that none among us will go victim on us and cut our throats with the best intentions in the world.

Let’s define Scientologists as “People who aren’t Victims”, and really get the show on the road.

LRH:brb.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 SEPTEMBER AD 9
All U.S. Franchise
Holders from Ts Hill
All other Franchise
Holders via Central Orgs
All Central Orgs

WHY “VICTIM” WORKS AS A PROCESS

We all should have heard of the Overt Act-Motivator Sequence. If we have not we should review “The History of Man”.

The highest level of third dynamic activity and the earliest instant of it is and was communication. Before communication (in one form or another) there was only native state. Obviously you are not going to run out native state—leave that to the Psychiatrists and Politicians. Therefore the earliest button susceptible of aberration was apparently communication.

However, communication itself is not aberrative. Only the misuse and withhold of communication is aberrative. One received his first communication foul-up when he postulated “somebody can mess up my postulates”, when he granted that, right, then he or she had it thereafter.

The idea that communication could be harmful apparently came in about this point. And the obvious conclusion that one could injure with communication must have followed shortly after. That one could be injured and that one could injure was established by “example”. Here began the game of “victim”.

Death is just one of the varied forms of the game of victim. That one could be killed by the communication words or missiles of another is just an extreme form of the game.

That this was a game and that it was played out by Thetan “B” pretending that he had been injured so Thetan “A” would further withhold his postulates, has all been lost in the depths of the Reactive Mind. Death isn’t a game anymore. Not even injury is a game. We know how seriously these things are now regarded and how utterly caved-in and lost Thetans have been for a very, very long time.

Only with Scientology have we come back to the straight of it. And the straight of it is that one cannot be injured until he has postulated that Thetans can be injured and, by example of Thetans pretending to be injured, has come to the point of himself not only consenting to be injured but actually getting torn to shreds.

The basic postulate of injury or death (or harmful communication) is best summed up by “victim”.

To restrain others one sets an example as a victim. It might be said that this is a last ditch way of being cause. On that thin idea rests all the disease and death, all the agony and travail of man. It is almost the bottom point of the Reactive Mind.

In any Overt Act-Motivator Sequence there is a villain and a victim. If the auditor were to choose and run the “villain” then he would be violating the basic definition of operating thetan which is “To be willing and knowing cause over life, matter, energy, space and time”, and would be processing the pc at effect point. The basic definition of victim must then be, as our HCO Staff Auditor pointed out, unwilling and unknowing effect of life, matter, energy, space and time. Therefore, to keep the pc at cause we have no choice but to process him in such a way as to face him up to “victim”.

Naturally this process is not going to run on the following cases until they are up to it:

1. 	A person who cannot conceive of ever having done anything bad to anybody or anything (“old sweetness and light”).

2. 	A person who has a heavy present time problem (PTP).

3. 	A person who has had a bad ARC break with the auditor (who conceives the auditor has made him into a victim of bad processing or code breaks).

4. 	A person who needs to have several buttons cleared away which are pressing and making his present time very bad; and

5. 	A person who simply fogs out hour after hour on general comm processes and needs to have lighter buttons run until he can handle comm processes.

With these above five things cared for, then a pc should be able to run easily if lengthily on “From where could you communicate to a victim?”

During the run on the process all manner of chains come into view. Monitoring the type of chain or chasing down some sideline should be avoided thoroughly especially while running “victim”. The pc is all too willing to duck and dodge and an auditor who Qs and As (changes the process just because the pc changed or wandered) had better go back to the Academy for a spell or get his own case gone over at the HGC.

Pcs have gone into convulsions, screaming fits and many other manifestations while running “victim”. Of course they would, since they are dramatizing what they have done to others and are wearing the engram in full. But it is easier to run victim on the pc than to run engrams on him as such for he can pull out of “victim” engrams easily with a comm process.

A large percentage of pcs will not recover and stay recovered until “victim” has been run and flattened. This is due to their using auditing to be “victims” of. This is the heart of the old “service facsimile”. This is why they have service facsimiles. So they can be victims.

The pc, while running victim, goes rapidly back and forth from one valence to another. He goes through all the various phenomena of engrams, locks and secondaries and in spite of the violence of the process, very often would rather run victim than anything else.

But, as above, beware of trying to run this on somebody who will not ever admit having done something or anything to anybody. This is the figure-figure case. The difficulty here is that the person cannot face any terminal subjectively for fear of having ruined it or for fear of ruining it. Therefore—and watch this carefully—he does not do the comm process. Such a person needs a comm process run on very particularized terminals done in a general form: “From where could you communicate to a dog” or anything else that drops. But if this is very necessary then run the person on the paper trick even with the lighter terminals. Make him draw each answer. Cases that have never, never moved before in hundreds of hours of auditing, get shot down in flames with the paper trick.

While running victim, the auditor should not use “how could you communicate” as an interjected command. It’s a different process. If the auditor is having trouble he should have run a lighter terminal. One of the most effective light terminals and one of the best comm processes particularly for the HAS Co-Audit is a body part. One asks the pc if he has ever had trouble with any part of his or her body and when the answer is given, run body part named in a generalized form such as “From where could you communicate to a leg?”
From all the results I’ve been looking over lately, it would seem that the most broadly workable form of the comm process is a body part as above or “a body”. After all, the pc IS in a body. Doing the comm process on mest before a body part and the body are run, seems to be a little rough on the pc (this is part of a system called universe processes), as the pc himself as a Thetan is generally mest shy.

Auditing body parts, however, has its lighter moments. At the last congress I gave, the body part given by the pc as a part of the body with which he had had trouble, when run, didn’t do a thing for the pc. Surprised auditors and instructors were not long in finding out why—the pc’s body part had been run and flattened years ago by older processes and didn’t have a twitch left in it. This stuff’s been working for a long time you know.

Well, that’s the way it is. A person doesn’t get sick or injured unless he’s cast himself in the role of victim by reason of the game and his Overt Acts. And if you want somebody to cease to be a disease prone (new term there) and get up and do things and be bright and not flub and to win win win, get him up to a point where he can run victim with a comm process and from there on flatten the living daylights out of it.

When is victim flat? When the tone arm of the Hubbard Electrometer reads consistently at the clear reading for the pc no matter how many more auditing questions are asked about victims. Every terminal you run should be run until the tone arm reads male clear (12,500 ohms) for a man, and female clear (5,000 ohms) for a woman. And this is particularly true of a victim.

Don’t start this going in an HAS Co-Audit until the pc being audited has had flattened on him easier terminals. And these may take an awful lot of hours to flatten. Victim itself is a very long run. The run is shortened by preparing the case well first so preparation time is never lost time on this process.

There is another button, in fact there are many more special buttons. It goes on up toward OT. And it isn’t run at first on a comm process, but that’s another and later story. I’ll still be around when you get ready for it.

Meanwhile, de-victimize and win!

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:brb.cden 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1959

HAS CO-AUDIT

Here are some hints on how to run Comm Processes on assessment:

The instructor asks the preclear if he is sick or well. If the pc says he is ill then the instructor says, “What part of the body would you say is ill?” Whatever the pc answers, this is then run on “From where could you communicate to a .... (generalized terminal) body part.” If the pc answers that he is well, the instructor says, “Have you ever been ill?” The pc will in general say yes. The instructor then says, “What part of your body was ill?” and runs the Comm Process on whatever the pc says.

Giving you advance scoop on a new research win it seems that the most effective and rapid clearing could take place with what we will call Universal Processes. This means running a Comm Process on Universe as follows:

“From where could you communicate to the physical Universe.”

“From where could you communicate to a body.”

“From where could you communicate to a mind.”

“From where could you communicate to a Thetan.”

This is all experimental at this stage but it would be a separation process from all universes the thetan is anxious about and should be quite successful in general use.

However I give you this not to use but to show you that we would probably win further and better if we began to steam people up on the subject of being clear and then slammed right in on whatever universe they could handle on Co-audit. I would then run Co-audit as follows:

Do the actions described above on body part and when the pc has come through that go at once on to the physical universe and then graduate him on to any body part that bangs on the meter and finally when various parts are flat get him into running the body as a general terminal.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :iet.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 SEPTEMBER 1959

DATA ON CLEARING A STAFF MEMBER
AFTER SPECIFIC TERMINALS ARE FLAT WITH
OVERT-WITHHOLD STRAIGHT WIRE

“What would you like to confront?” until nominally flat.

Then:

“You make a mock-up for which you could be totally responsible,” run until Mest Clear.

Then:

“From where could you communicate to a body?” until Theta Clear.

Scout out and run Present Time Problems as they come up with:

“Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem,” E-Meter check for these each session and then don’t spend the whole of every session on it. Just run it until she/he doesn’t have to do anything about it right now.

On ARC breaks run TR 5N: “What have you done to me?” “What have I done to you?” then “What have you done to me?”

Run this regimen and no other and send special weekly reports labeled “THACKER CLEAR PROJECT”.

This will get them clearer faster than any other project I know just now.

                                     					Best

Converted from Telex Comm
in Los Angeles								Ron

LRH:rsh.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 SEPTEMBER 1959

BPI

TECHNICAL NOTES ON CHILD PROCESSING

The best process in Self Analysis, for a child if he can do it, is ARC Straight Wire, in the back of the book.

The best process for children in general is some version of TR 10 (Notice that ............[Room Object] ). The variation which is best is “Feel my arm,” “Feel your arm,” “Feel my face,” “Feel your face,” etc, all done with the hand. Another version for very young children is “Where is the table?” “Where is the floor?” etc on room objects.

Injured children respond best to touch assists and to locational “Where did you fall?” “Where are you now?” etc repetitive until child is well.

For an unwilling child use short sessions (as short as two minutes) but always begin and end the session complete with goals and PT Problem query.

For a bad-off child use CCH 1 and 2; these are heroic but effective. They require a very skilled auditor and no interference.

Give the child the dignity of real sessions. And when a child flips to trying to audit you as a turnabout, let him.

Remember that if you spoil Scientology for a child with bad auditing you may close the door on the only way out he’ll have in this life.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :iet.cden 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1959

UNIVERSE PROCESSES

I have just been checking out a process series we will call Universe O/W. It is a killer in sheep’s clothing.

Assessment is done with an E-Meter to discover which of four things has the greatest difference of needle pattern. One does not look for a drop, he looks for the one of the four that is different than the others.

The four are:

Thetan or spirit 
Mind or brain 
Body or male body or female body 
Physical Universe or earth or continent or town or house or dwelling.

One uses different ways of putting these things if he doesn’t get instant difference on calling off Spirit, Mind, Body, Physical Universe. If he does get a different pattern from the rest he proceeds to audit that discovered thing as follows:

“Think of something you might have done to a       .” (The “       “ being the terminal you discovered.)

Alternated with:

“Think of something you might have withheld from a	___” (same terminal).

Because these dive backtrack so fast the question may not be a direct “Recall what you have done to” since that implies certainty.

This problem could be a specific for illnesses of chronic type.

This is an allowable process in HGCs.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :iet.cden 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 OCTOBER 1959
Franchise Holders
BPI

UNIVERSE PROCESSES

Now that HCO WW at Saint Hill Manor is settling down for the long run, thanks to the co-operation of all Central Organizations and Franchise Holders with very few exceptions, I have been able to do some co-ordination work on processes I have been developing and would like to give you a rapid rundown on some of this work.

The first modern development of any importance since Comm Processes is called “Universe Processes”.

This is based on some work which started with the 1959 HPA/BScn Course. The most gross breakdown of parts of life is: 1. The Thetan 2. The Mind 3. The Body and 4. The Physical Universe. This division is a sort of shorthand of the eight dynamics and gives us the stuck points of the majority. As this division is refined it becomes the eight dynamics as used in the old Dynamic Straight Wire.

Almost anything which applied to or was used in Dynamic Straight Wire can also be used in Universe Processes.

The most elementary form of Universe Processes is called “Universe O/W”. This consists of doing an E-Meter assessment of the person on the four points above, taking the most different needle reaction from the rest (Thetan, Mind, Body and Physical Universe) and running what was found with Overt-Withhold Straight Wire.

Example: Let us say that we found Physical Universe to be the thing which fell the hardest or looked the most different on the E-Meter. One would then run as an alternate question: “Recall something you have done to the Physical Universe” alternated with “Recall something you have withheld from the Physical Universe”. When the E-Meter was reading Clear on the tone arm for the sex of the pc, one would then reassess and use the one of the three remaining terminals (Thetan, Mind or Body) which now fell differently or more than the other two. Thus all four would eventually be run.

Universe O/W is based upon the observable fact that a thetan is trapped in a thetan, a mind, a body and the physical universe. If he weren’t, he or she wouldn’t be sitting in a chair. Thus we process the extremely obvious, scouting out with an E-Meter only what obviousness is more troublesome to the pc than the other obviousnesses. Of course it seems strange that a thetan could think of himself being trapped in another thetan but you see this all the time in valences. Ghosts become ghosts by being overwhelmed by thetans they think are ghosts and so on. That a thetan is trapped in a mind and that it is not his own mind that he is trapped in is also obvious. If it were his own mind he would soon as-is it and you see what a hard time he has trying to erase it: that hard time comes about because he is misowning the mind in which he is trapped. And this is true of all traps. A thetan is usually quite sure that there is something wrong with the ownership of his own body and sure enough there is. And of course he’s in the universe without much understanding of it.

It is far more obscure that a thetan gets trapped in the remaining dynamics even though this is equally true. He isn’t really trapped in an animal if he is sitting there in a human body and so forth. So Universe O/W processes the obvious that is the most obvious.

All four of these terminals are run.

Now there is another way of attacking this problem and it is very successful. This is the “Universe Comm Process”. One assesses the pc in exactly the same way but runs the terminal on “From where could you communicate to a ... (one of the four universes as above)”.

It is very notable that Comm Processes work best on obvious and visible terminals and work much less well on things that are not present and worst on things that are merely ideas or significances. You can make great headway with a pc with “From where could you communicate to a body” when with the same pc you might get very, very slow results with “From where could you communicate to a brother”. Therefore the easiest to run and make progress with a Comm Process is using an obvious terminal and this of course would be one of the four universes, thetan, mind, body and physical universe.

However, when one runs a very obvious terminal with a Comm Process, one must carefully avoid pinning the process in present time. One cannot successfully run a Comm Process with “From where could you communicate to this room”. This is too specific. The pc is balked by the fact that the Comm Process strongly calls up every room like “this room” and if he answers anything about these other rooms he is not doing the exact auditing command and so goes rapidly out of session. Specific terminals that permit no large breadth of time span won’t run on a Comm Process because the process escapes the time limit imposed all too easily. One would have to run “From where could you communicate to a room” in order to wipe out the bad effects of “this room” on the case.

Universe Comm Processes are evidently the best version of all Comm Processes.

The assessment of the proper terminal can be a little tricky. The semantics of the terminal get in an auditor’s way. And yet the auditor may be led astray into using a version of the terminal that is not really an obvious terminal. Example: The pc does not understand what a thetan is and the meter does react to it so the auditor sorts out “soul” and “spirit”, etc, but gets a large drop on “astral body” and decides to run it only to discover that he is running an engram of recent origin in which the words appear. “Spirit” dropped less but would have run because it was more general.

You are probably wondering how we can get away with running “conceive a static”, forbidden in the book The Creation of Human Ability. We can just barely get away with it because of the nature and power of the Comm Process. By damping out excessive individuation the Comm Process increases havingness. A total individual can’t have much of anything—you can’t even have a car really unless you can be, besides self, a “car driver” or a “car passenger”. A totally individuated person cannot be anybody but himself, cares for nobody but himself and can share in no activity of any other person. Hence as we flatten out this obsessive individuation we gain in the pc usually enough havingness to run a massless identity such as a thetan. However this terminal usually runs less well than the other three employed in Universe Processes.

There are other developments which will be discussed in later bulletins, such as “Think of a creation you could make unknown” but these in general are not as important to us as the above.

If you are having trouble keeping your people on a Co-audit it’s because the things you are running on them are not real to them. I think you will find that by using a Universe Assessment on a Co-audit as above, you will have much more constant attendance. Try it anyway.

LRH: ph.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 OCTOBER AD9

HCO Secs
D of Ps

A USEFUL PROCESS

On your HGC process you have many who cannot seem to plumb an overt/motivator sequence. On any such and many more, you will find the following process works admirably:

          	“Recall being critical.”
          	“Recall withholding criticism.”

If the pc tends to become ill push on through. This is the lowest level of force and influences body form. Try it and tell me how it goes.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :j s.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 OCTOBER 1959
Franchise Holders

D.E.I. EXPANDED SCALE

(With a Note on Salesmen)

The original scale

          	4.0 Desire
	1.5 Enforce
           	.5 Inhibit

was expanded in 1952 to

Curiosity 
Desire
Enforce 
Inhibit.

In 1959 I have found another vital point on this scale which gives us a new case entrance point.

Curiosity 
Desire
Enforce 
Inhibit
Unknown

I suspect also that “Wait” fits between Unknown and Inhibit.

To make these agree in intention, they would become

Interest 
Desire
Enforce 
Inhibit
Unknow.

This scale also inverts, I find, similar to the Dynamics and below sanity on any subject.

Unknow 
Inhibit
Enforce 
Desire
Interest

These points, particularly on the inverted scale, going down, are lowered by failure. Each lower step is an explanation to justify having failed with the upper level.

One seeks to not know something and fails. One then seeks to inhibit it and fails. Therefore one seeks to enforce it and fails. Thus one explains by desiring it and fails. And not really being able to have it, shows thereafter an obsessive interest in it.

The above inversion is of course all reactive.

Reactive selling (of interest to us in a salesman campaign) would be accomplished thusly (and this is the basic scale of selling):

The salesman refuses to let the customer forget the product;

The salesman then inhibits all efforts by the customer to refuse the product;

The salesman enforces the product on the customer;

The salesman now finds the customer desires the product;

And the customer will remain interested.

There is an interplay here whereby the salesman reverses the scale:

Source of Sales Failure

	Salesman	Customer

	Interest	Unknow
	Desire	Inhibit
	Enforce	Enforce
	Inhibit	Desire
	Unknow	Interest

Salesmen, bringing about an inverted scale, can go downscale themselves as they do it. They seek to interest and meet forgetfulness. They want to sell and meet opposition. They high pressure the customer and get pressured back. And about the time the customer wants the product the salesman is reactively inhibiting the sale. And as the customer’s interest is at its highest the salesman forgets all about him.

SALESMAN SUCCESS

All a salesman has to do is continue to try to interest the customer and the reactive inversion will take place.

-----------------

It is interesting that this scale, more importantly, gives us new case entrances. A series of Comm Processes on any terminal, say “bodies”, could be run.

From where could you communicate to an unknown body an unwanted body a necessary body a desirable body an interesting body

This would pick the case off the bottom and run it to the top on any terminal that has gone totally reactive.

By the way, don’t take my remarks on salesmen as being “all for the best”. The basic overt act is making people want useless objects and spaces, and unfortunately for him that’s often part of the business of the salesman. He, unlike us, sometimes isn’t fishing people out of the mud. He’s often more likely pushing them in. Therefore he needs our help to get square with the world. As his income depends on making people want things and buy things (even though sometimes they need them), we haven’t much choice but to show him the mechanics of selling, to the end of getting him to help pull others out of the mud. Making somebody want something they really need is no crime, but the salesman is on very shaky ground. What do people really need? We had best not try to get involved in the ethics of all this, or to persuade them to sell only needed items.

The whole economic structure needs the salesman; he is the key of the whole structure. But we can leaven the flow of even useless goods by letting an invitation to freedom trickle in the same channel.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dd.rd.-h 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 OCTOBER AD9
HCO Secs
Franchise Holders
AN EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS

Recall Processes have always worked well. But it has been hard to get the most fundamental processes that would reach the lowest cases. Here are some Recall Processes that work way down South of the Auks:

COMM RECALL PROCESS:

       	“Recall a Communication”

KNOW MYSTERY RECALL PROCESSES:

       	“Recall an Unconsciousness”
       	“Recall Waiting”
       	“Recall a Mystery”
       	“Recall Sex”
       	“Recall Eating” (or a variation
       	“Recall Food”)
       	“Recall a Symbol”
       	“Recall Thinking”
       	“Recall an Effort”
       	“Recall an Emotion”
       	“Recall Looking”
       	“Recall Knowing”
       	“Recall Not-Knowing”

These are very good, especially on bad off cases. They all work. When the lowest seems flat one can go to one above. Probably there is an E-Meter tellingness that denotes flatness. I’m working on this and will have the gen soon.

The earliest experiments of this were on “Recall a Mystery” as a method of raising IQ and the pc was spouting poetry he’d “forgotten”.

There are many possible versions of these simplicities as one can run them on terminals and significances. Also, remember that these things (Recall Processes) take the pc out of PT and put him back in. You stop one with the PC back in PT. The Comm bridge to be used on this process is: “When you next get an answer close to present time we will end this process if it is all right with you.” Then don’t go on for an hour or two, catch it with 8 or 10 commands by seeing the pc is doing a short cycle at the time and has started back up.

“Recall Exhaustion” is a simple, very effective version of a work process.

“Recall Creating” is a good way, apparently, to mop up Step 6 flubs.

Therefore you can use these processes in the HGC or you can, when it is okayed, use them in training. These are individual processes and not co-audit. As a note on co-audit, the process, the only basic affinity process, “What would you like to confront,” could cut your co-audit attendance losses. It is now allowed, having been carefully tested. Man, do they get interested in cases and hence into session. This is a fine individual process for pcs that “have no reality on pictures”.

LRH :js.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

SPECIAL HCO BULLETIN OF 31 OCTOBER 1959

HCO Secs ) ONLY
Tech Secs  )

CREATE PROCESSES—DANGERS & ADVANTAGES

Just before I leave on extended trips I always take the safety measure of writing down the newest and latest and exactly where we are in proven research.

The newest and best as now authorized only for staff member use on Staff Theta Clearing and the Co-audit, and processing of staff members only, and not at this time for use in the HGC or on the general public, is the Create series of processes.

These are the first effective OT processes and as such, when used on persons not yet Theta Clear, they have certain dangers. Additionally, they are the most valuable series of processes which we have. They can be used in one form or another on any level of case and will reach pretty much all the way to the top.

As to dangers, I refer you to our experiences with Step 6 processes. Here was a series with great promise which in many cases became rather deadly. The datum here is that when you improve the ability of a pc to make and see a picture you also inadvertently improve every picture in the bank including engrams, and anybody who has seen a totally solid motivator engram will agree that it is not pleasant.

Create processes stem from a new study I have made of the Cycle of Action as given in FUNDAMENTALS OF THOUGHT. Axiom 10 becomes confused by the Thetan with the Cycle of Action. Draw the two and look at them as each other and you will see what I mean—identifying them is chaos. We get a “slip” automaticity which, whenever a person starts to create, forces him over into destruction. There is enough philosophy in this demonstrable fact to make it the subject of my next large book.

Cancelling any bad effect from this slip automaticity from Create to Destroy has been solved by using the middle point of the Cycle of Action—Survive. In Scientology the dynamic principle of existence is “Create” as in Dianetics it was “Survive” (see FUNDAMENTALS OF THOUGHT).

A case run toward Create is best run on this and the inverted ARC triangle— “What Would You Like To Create”. This becomes the key process of OT from any level. However, obsessive creation is in effect the whole engram bank and the reactive mind and a lot of other things. Therefore it is best to beware of beefing up the engrams for too long a period of time. The most tested way of easing a case off from the deadly Step 6 phenomena is to change from “What Would You Like To Create” back to “What Would You Like To Confront” at routine intervals. “What Would You Like To Confront” cancels out Step 6 phenomena by easing down the Survive part of the Cycle of Action. Confront and Survive are of the same order of thing. Survival could be represented best by “continuous confronting” at a process level. Too much “What Would You Like To Create” gets us into too persistent and solid a bank on occasion. The bank is surviving. Therefore the pc is made very uncomfortable and should then be run a bit on “What Would You Like To Confront”.

“What Would You Like To Confront” should be interspersed with “What Would You Like To Create” at a ratio perhaps of a session of each or, in a severe case, an hour of one then an hour of the other.
“What Would You Like To Destroy” is under test and apparently should run. This would be a psycho curer for sure. But “What Would You Like To Confront” would have to be interspersed with “What Would You Like To Destroy” in order to keep the bank from overwhelming the pc.

Here then we have three processes:

“What Would You Like To Confront?”

“What Would You Like To Create?”

“What Would You Like To Destroy?”

These are on the Cycle of Action as Create Survive Destroy. They are given above in the order of best tested. We know “What Would You Like To Confront” will make pcs feel wonderful and will straighten out Step 6’s habit of making the bank more formidable. It is a good, sound, well tested process.

“What Would You Like To Create” is the key to all cases, but to run it you will have to salt it down with periods of running “What Would You Like To Confront”. “What Would You Like To Destroy”, though not much tested at this writing, might also have to be interspersed with “What Would You Like To Confront”.

We will probably discover that all three of these have to be run and that the last one will be the best case entrance at my guess.

A new child process, very successful, has already emerged from this rationale. This is: “You Do Something You Think I’ll Like”. Various simplifications of the Confront and Destroy commands would be something like: “What Would You Like To Look At” and “What Would You Like To Tear Up”. The last one is not tested.

A sure kill on a pc would be to run “What Would You Like To Confront” until it has eased off and then to run “What Would You Like To Create” until it gets grim, and then “What Would You Like To Confront” again, and back and forth. This is somewhat tested as a combo at this writing and it works well.

Under test right now is the way of running all three parts of the Cycle of Action to obtain the smoothest possible recovery by the pc.

Right now this data is only for staffs of Central Orgs as it is very dynamite and very experimental, but it also gives the best and clearest promise of rapid case gains and we want Central Org staffs up before we release this stuff more widely. This is about as revolutionary in rapid effect as engram running was in its time and place. We’re really into something here with a high rapid gain which when it is all smoothed out and sweeping the field will take us right over the top unless we find stops on the part of auditors that we can’t easily overcome. And I think we can whip all the bugs and get it wheeling.

I came down to Sthil last Spring to find the route to OT that almost anybody could follow. Well, I’m betting even at this early look that we’ve got our teeth into it with Create series.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH: dd.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 NOVEMBER 1959
Fran Hldrs

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IN AUDITING

Avoidance of Double Acknowledgement is vital if you ever hope to keep the preclear in session.

Double Acknowledgement occurs when the pc answers up, the auditor then acknowledges, and the pc then finishes his answer, leaving the auditor with another acknowledgement to do (and also leaving the auditor with no session).

Wrong:

Command: “What could you say to your father?”
Pc:	“I could say, ‘Hello’.”
Auditor:	“Fine.”
Pc:	“ ‘. . . Father, how are you?’ I could say that.”
Auditor:	(weakly) “Good. What could you say to your father?”
Pc:	“I could say, ‘Are you feeling well?’ “
Auditor:	(desperate by now) “Good!”
Pc:	“ ‘. . . enough to go fishing?’ “
Auditor: 	“Well okay all right. Now “

A pc is not always sure he has answered the question so he often changes his mind. If the auditor gives him Tone 40 or any acknowledgement at all in between a pc’s reply the auditor is wrong.

You just don’t “encourage” a pc with a lot of agreement OK’s and Yes’s in the middle of answers. The pc answers, the pc is sure he has answered and the auditor then acknowledges. After all, it is the pc that must be satisfied.

There are many ways to mis-acknowledge a pc. But any mis-acknowledgement is only and always a failure to end the cycle of a command—auditor asks, pc replies and knows he has answered, auditor acknowledges. Pc knows auditor has acknowledged. That is a full auditing command cycle. Don’t forget it and expect a process to work, it won’t. The roughest spot in most auditors is TR 2, not so much how to acknowledge but when.

An auditor running into this with a pc should handle it this way.

Auditor:	“What could you say to your father?”
Pc:	“I could say, ‘Are you feeling well?’ “
Auditor:	“Did that answer the question?”
Pc:	“Well, no. I could say, ‘Are you feeling well enough to go fishing?’ “
Auditor:	“Did that answer the question?”
Pc:	“Yes, I guess it did. He always liked fishing and sympathy.”
Auditor:	(sure pc is through) “Good! What could you say to your father?”

And there’s the way of it. If the pc is not sure he has answered and that the auditor has accepted the answer, the pc will get no benefit from the auditing. And that’s how important that is.

Mood can be expressed by an acknowledgement. Evaluation can also be accomplished by acknowledgement, depending on the tone of voice with which it is uttered.

There is nothing bad about expressing mood by acknowledgement, except when the acknowledgement expresses criticalness, ridicule, or humour.

You can always spot a bad auditor. He does two things: he talks too much to the pc and he stops the pc from properly answering.

							L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 NOVEMBER 1959
Assn Secs )
HCO Secs ) only
Ds of P     )
 1ST MELBOURNE ACC MATERIAL

The following Technology is being taught on the 1st Melbourne ACC which began November 9, 1959, at HASI Melbourne:

Bring tone arm of meter to clear reading for sex of pc at the beginning of session by getting withholds off the case, use two-way comm and “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” and overts in PT restim on various dynamics. Auditing of processes on average pc not to begin until tone arm so registers. On lower than clear reading arms if all else fails to run S-C-S.

In extremely difficult cases to do an assessment by dynamics for current overts to get pc’s tone arm to read clear before session. Then, seeing needle changes on any one dynamic, to ferret out the overt.

75 hours spent getting pc in session not too long. Tone Arm trick to be done each session.

Create series of processes “What would you like to confront?” and “What would you like to create?” “What part of a 	(assessed terminal) would you be willing to create?” alternated with “What part of a (same terminal) would you be willing to confront?”

Cases in 1st Melbourne were started on clearing tone arm then running “Think of entering a mind.” “Think of not entering a mind.” Alternated. Goal of course is to get whizzing up toward OT.

Some of the scheduled processes to be run include: “What force would it be all right to use?” “What force would it be all right not to use?” The same pattern of process to be applied to postulates, spaces, masses, forms on various dynamics. Experimental version: “What		(as in this paragraph) would it be all right to make?” “What______would it be all right not to make?”

The main valence splitter is given above in entering minds. But another easier valence splitter (similar in action to Overt Withhold Straight Wire) is “Tell me a difference between (any specific or general terminal) and yourself.” “Tell me a similarity between (same terminal) and yourself.” The extreme version is “Tell me of a difference between yourself and a body.” “Tell me a similarity between yourself and a body.” Not necessarily recommended as not tested. This last is called Valence Differentiation.

My goal at Saint Hill, in which all Orgs are assisting, is to consolidate research and produce rapid OTs. The above processes are some of the fruits already garnered.

The 1st Melbourne Congress and ACC tapes are available from Melbourne or from HCO WW, same prices. Not too high. The full rationale of these processes and others are on these lectures and demonstration tapes of the 1st Melbourne.

LRH:js jh                                  	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER 1959
BPI
Franchise Hldrs

HAS CO-AUDIT

It has been found that the Overt-Withhold Straight-Wire Process runs better on HAS Co-Audit than the Communication Process, as the Communication Process does not get off overts, it causes people to “blow” the course.

To revert to previous instructions, then, run the following Process on HAS Co-Audits:

	“Recall something you have done to ........” (terminal)
	“Recall something you have withheld from ......” (terminal)
	(one question after the other)

The Co-Audit Instructor should select a terminal by communicating freely with the pc, asking questions relating to pc’s present life terminals and the eight dynamics. Pc will be fixated on any terminals against which he has committed overt acts—even though these overts may have been not-ised. The terminal chosen by the Instructor must be real to the pc and must show charge on the E-Meter.

Keep up the Co-Audit pc’s interest in Case. This is a most important factor if large groups are to be maintained. If there is little change in needle reaction and no obvious signs of mis-emotion on terminal, then run terminal to a comm lag flat point and then locate another terminal. After this terminal has been handled it may be preferable to return to previous terminal, but this is a matter for the Instructor’s discretion.

If pc runs out of answers (for Co-Audit only) abandon terminal and find another.

“What have you done?” “What have you withheld? “ is the general form of this process and may be used.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH js.cden 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE WORLDWIDE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex, U.K.

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER AD9

Franchised Auditors 
Assn Secs 
HCO Secs 
All PE Fnds and Personnel

URGENT CHANGE IN ALL CO-AUDIT COURSES

Here we go. I told you in the last Franchise Bulletin that we had hit a jackpot. Of course, you to some degree put this down to the usual Hubbard enthusiasm. But my enthusiasm and encouragement was what kept us at it until we knew what we had to know to go for broke on OT and quite incidentally on all lower level cases. And this isn’t even related to enthusiasm. No more cold-blooded statement was ever made than my telling you that the situation was definitely corralled. It is. I am sorry that the gen is sort of complicated and requires know-how, and would much rather have arranged it so all we had to do was push the button and we got a clear, but as soon as you see and experience this data I think you will be very happy with it.

It all begins back in Wichita when I wrote that extremely unpopular article which is still appearing in Advanced Procedure and Axioms—FULL RESPONSIBILITY. It turns out that this is the hottest thought the old man ever thought but it didn’t come into view in its full importance for more than eight years.

The one thing the public doesn’t want to have anything to do with is FULL RESPONSIBILITY. They shudder and they run whenever they think of it. So thee and me will have to shoulder the load and shove them at the sausage machine and all that. For the whole story develops around this center pin of responsibility. There was so much to the story and so many possible variations of the tale that getting it all in line and trailmarking a way through the darkly woods has been a very painful job—both to you and to me. But we did it. And we’ve got it. And if we can just hold still long enough we’ll have the full benefit of it.

Overt acts and withholds are important technology. If you can get somebody to take the overts out of any incident the incident will tend to vanish. And it would vanish completely except for one thing. Telling another person about one’s overts is not enough. It is also necessary to take full responsibility for them. Thus the old wheeze about confession as advocated by one of the pagan churches (pagan to Scientology), that all one had to do was whisper one’s misdeeds and they would go away, turns out to be so halfhearted that it becomes a very vicious operation. I’ve just been all over this ground and can tell you as a technical fact that the simple imparting of one’s sins, or, more comprehensibly, one’s overts and withholds, is as inadequate as using paste to build a skyscraper—and about as dangerous. If the Church or somebody then pretended to take responsibility for the confided overts, then we’ve spun our fellow in just like that and we’ve degraded the person and the society. The person who confides must then take responsibility for the action he considered a sin by means of honest processing or it’s just no-go, no-show, spin-down-spin-in. And there went the co-audits running overt-withhold. And there went up the tone arms when the pc told us his crimes. The rule is a thorough, harsh, unavoidable rule: When we get a person to confide a crime, we must then run on that crime what part of it he could be responsible for until it goes. ALERT YE HGCs. If you don’t do just that you’ll have some very unhappy people on your hands.

THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED THAT—whenever a person has discovered to the auditor a sin, crime or discreditable act or discreditable creation, that auditor is honor bound on all dynamics to run at once a process that will bring about the person’s taking responsibility for his action. If the auditor does not he will have a spinning pc.
THIS GIVES US THE ONLY PROCESS WE COULD GET AWAY WITH IN A PE CO-AUDIT: That would be a process which recovered responsibility. The currently indicated process, done without assessment, would be “WHAT PART OF YOUR LIFE (PAST) COULD YOU BE RESPONSIBLE FOR?” DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ELSE IN CO-AUDIT!

Of course doing an overt or a withhold is a refusal to take responsibility in some sphere, but overts and withholds are the offshoot of responsibility or lack of it not vice versa.

Now go back and read this again and start clearing some people. More gen later.

                                     				Best,

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

Writ by me for thee URGENT EXPRESS.

LRH:-.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 DECEMBER 1959

BPI

IMPORTANT

RESPONSIBILITY FOR O/Ws

To the degree that a pc does not take responsibility for his Overts and Withholds his bank becomes solid.

On all cases on which Overt-Withhold is being run it is absolutely necessary that they be levelled off with responsibility on the incident, or the session involved, or both.

A tone arm brought down by reducing the Overts and Withholds can be made high again because Overt-Withhold has a Step 6 reaction of toughening up the bank and making masses and facsimiles solid, unless the terminal and the session is handled with:

	“What part of a ........could you be responsible for? “

LRH :js.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Issue 110         	[1959, ca. late December]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

Techniques of Child Processing

L. Ron Hubbard

Tomorrow’s cases are child cases today. Whole civilizations have changed because somebody changed the children. In the past, the children were usually changed for the worse. Today let’s be different and change them for the better.

But whatever the benefits and reasons of child processing, however much it may do to smooth out a home and improve the future, the fact remains that it is a highly technical subject. The processing of children requires more technically perfect auditing and more properly applied sessions and processes than the average adult.

To achieve the greatest benefit for children, one should first achieve the greatest possible command of auditing skill and Scientology theory and practice. Because a child is helplessly unable to express his ARC breaks violently enough to be listened to is no reason he should be given them.

Child processing demands more perfect auditing than adult processing and therefore requires a better trained auditor than the average. If you would process children, be a Professional auditor first even if the children are your own. You will find that it will pay.

With that reservation in mind, here are a few very modern developments in the processing of children. These are the best processes I know and the only processes that have worked out over a long period of time on a great many children.

TYPE OF SESSION

A child must be given a very formal session. A child’s case will go downhill generally if the child is processed hit or miss, any old time, with careless sessioning. A child’s session must be given the full dignity of an adult session. It must be opened and closed. All the formalities of a session must be observed—and of course the auditing must be done in a place where the session cannot be broken in upon by outside persons or influences.

The old technique of “short sessioning” works very well with a child. All one does is formally open and close a session and run within it only a minute or two of some simple process as below. The attention span of a child is short and if the child is even faintly unwilling to be audited, you can coax the child into short sessions and then, as time goes on, lengthen them gradually.

ASSISTS ON CHILDREN

Of course one does not open and close a session with any formality while doing an assist. The preclear is always too tied up with the emergency and the agony to do anything but the process.

The best assist for a child is “Where did it happen?” and, after asking this, “Where are you now?” getting the child to point each time he answers the questions.

“Look at my fingers” while touching around the injured area lightly, is also a good assist for an injured child.

ROUTINE CHILD PROCESSES

Probably the most worthwhile child process which works as early as first speech is: “Where is the____?” using “table,” “chair” and other room objects, but avoiding bodies. The child takes this at first as a language examination and is very proud of it. It occasionally blows grief charges on losses.

Very effective on a child that is normal or has a physical defect is an alternate touching of the child’s arm, the auditor’s arm, and using various duplicative body parts first on the auditor then on the child, accomplishing in effect: “From where could you communicate to a body?” with the actual command: “Feel my arm,” “Thank you,” “Feel your arm,” “Thank you,” and so on, using common body parts. But a warning with this—if it turns on a somatic, do the same process session after session until the child is very bright and alert all the time. This is a very fine child psychosomatic process.

CHILDREN WITH ROUGH CASES

Very young children and children who are older but have rough cases, respond well to CCH I and CCH 2—but if you have to look those up to find out what they are, or if you are not a Professional, don’t try them.

A version of TR 5 “You make that body sit in that chair” can be run even on babies by substituting bed for chair.

INSTILLING CONFIDENCE

The worst crime most Scientology parents commit is demanding the child be far better and brighter than he or she can manage at once. This has the effect of making the child feel that he can’t really do anything to please his parents and that he is thus failing them. The right thing to do is to acknowledge what the CHILD thinks he can do or is all right. Otherwise you are evaluating for the preclear and that’s a Code break. A child seeking the approval of his parents is always inventing new tricks to attract attention. This means the child is already feeling neglected without reason, but is not in itself any bad sign. Acknowledge the tricks and spend more time with the child.

RECALL PROCESSES

Self Analysis Recall Processes contained on the next but last page of the book Self Analysis can be run on a child with some success. For the very young children, these require rewording.
___________________

The aforementioned may seem brief to you, but it is a complete catalogue of workable and invariably helpful processes for children. If they can run any more than this, they’re adults.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

 HCO BULLETIN OF 23 DECEMBER AD9

BPI

RESPONSIBILITY

If the definition of operating thetan is knowing and willing cause over all dynamics then we can see at once that responsibility must go hand in hand with making an operating thetan.

One cannot as-is acts for which one is taking no responsibility, but for which one is really responsible.

The reason one gets amnesia on his past lives or even denies their existence lies with responsibility. He or she is unwilling to take responsibility for having been this or that other identity. This keys in in present time and closes one down every time one stops taking responsibility for one’s fellows. Fighting ‘other identities’ in present time one ceases to be responsible for other identities. Therefore those he has had in the past become ‘other people’ and one dramatizes his own past identities because he cannot take responsibility for them.

When one falls away from responsibility on the various dynamics he can then become less and less able to influence those dynamics and therefore becomes a victim of them. One must have done to other dynamics those things which other dynamics now seem to have the power to do to him. Therefore one can be injured. One can lose control. One can become in fact a zero of influence and a vacuum for trouble.

The way one becomes separate from others is by his own overt acts against them. These overt acts become withholds and the person then individuates very strongly. You have seen this happening in auditing. The more overt acts the Auditor pulls on the pc the less willing the Auditor is to audit that pc. Further, the more overt acts the pc pulls on the Auditor the less willing he is to stay in session. It only looks as though cause and effect is at work. Actually all life consists of opposed causes where it is aberrated.

The way a person blows out of session or blows out of an organization or blows out of Scientology is a simple one. He withholds information and hides his overts. After a while he blows himself off. Show me a pc blowing session and I will show you a pc who has not levelled with his Auditor and who is guilty of undeclared overts against the dynamics and the Auditor. Show me a staff member who is blowing the Organization and I will show you a staff member who is guilty of undeclared overts against the Organization.

It is fatal to audit anyone unless full two-way comm is established between the Auditor and the pc. A person who goes on being audited without asserting his responsibility for what he has done is a person who will make no auditing gains or whose auditing gains will slump. As most of the human race has undeclared overts this fact alone assumes gigantic proportions in forwarding Scientology and for that reason alone we will have to give it a lion’s share of attention from here on out.

Of course you will see that many people at first will not come near us for fear of what we will find out. But as this is better understood you will find that the people who come to us will come with a willingness to bare their guilt to us and get it sorted out.

As this is so much the case we must then therefore have amongst us none with undeclared overts against the dynamics which would prevent their getting gains in processing or who would render a person’s confidences liable to use for less pure purposes.
Along with this technical discovery then goes the administrative must that our noses must be clean and our hearts cleared. Our strength will be the strength of a billion if we have nothing to hide.

This may or may not be popular. I don’t care about that. It is effective. I do care about that.

And remember that whenever a person discloses to view discreditable overts and withholds we must run what part of that act or incident could you be responsible for.

You’re going to see more case gains than you’ve ever seen before—providing you have the stamina to get over this first hump.

So here we change from irresponsible to responsible, from guilt to strength and all in the twinkling of an eye.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 DECEMBER AD 9
Fran Hldrs 
HCO Secs 
Assn Secs 
HASI 
Dept Heads

BLOW-OFFS

Scientology Technology recently has been extended to include the factual explanation of departures, sudden and relatively unexplained, from sessions, posts, jobs, locations and areas.

This is one of the things man thought he knew all about and therefore never bothered to investigate, yet, this amongst all other things gave him the most trouble. Man had it all explained to his own satisfaction and yet his explanation did not cut down the amount of trouble which came from the feeling of “having to leave”.

For instance man has been frantic about the high divorce rate, about the high job turnover in plants, about labour unrest and many other items all stemming from the same source—sudden departures or gradual departures.

We have the view of a person who has a good job, who probably won’t get a better one, suddenly deciding to leave and going. We have the view of a wife with a perfectly good husband and family up and leaving it all. We see a husband with a pretty and attractive wife breaking up the affinity and departing.

In Scientology we have the phenomenon of preclears in session or students on courses deciding to leave and never coming back. And that gives us more trouble than most other things all combined.

Man explained this to himself by saying that things were done to him which he would not tolerate and therefore he had to leave. But if this were the explanation all man would have to do would be to make working conditions, marital relationships, jobs, courses and sessions all very excellent and the problem would be solved. But on the contrary, a close examination of working conditions and marital relationships demonstrates that improvement of conditions often worsens the amount of blow-off, as one could call this phenomenon. Probably the finest working conditions in the world were achieved by Mr. Hershey of Chocolate Bar fame for his plant workers. Yet they revolted and even shot at him. This in its turn led to an industrial philosophy that the worse workers were treated the more willing they were to stay which in itself is as untrue as the better they are treated the faster they blow off.

One can treat people so well that they grow ashamed of themselves, knowing they don’t deserve it, that a blow-off is precipitated, and certainly one can treat people so badly that they have no choice but to leave, but these are extreme conditions and in between these we have the majority of departures: the auditor is doing his best for the preclear and yet the preclear gets meaner and meaner and blows the session. The wife is doing her best to make a marriage and the husband wanders off on the trail of a tart. The manager is trying to keep things going and the worker leaves. These, the unexplained, disrupt organizations and lives and it’s time we understood them.

People leave because of their own overts and withholds. That is the factual fact and the hardbound rule. A man with a clean heart can’t be hurt. The man or woman who must must must become a victim and depart is departing because of his or her own overts and withholds. It doesn’t matter whether the person is departing from a town or a job or a session. The cause is the same.

Almost anyone, no matter his position, can remedy a situation no matter what’s wrong if he or she really wants to. When the person no longer wants to remedy it his own overt acts and withholds against the others involved in the situation have lowered his own ability to be responsible for it. Therefore he or she does not remedy the situation. Departure is the only answer. To justify the departure the person blowing off dreams up things done to him, in an effort to minimize the overt by degrading those it was done to. The mechanics involved are quite simple.

It is amazing what trivial overts will cause a person to blow. I caught a staff member one time just before he blew and traced down the original overt act against the Organization to his failure to defend the Organization when a criminal was speaking viciously about it. This failure to defend accumulated to itself more and more overts and withholds such as failing to relay messages, failure to complete an assignment, until it finally utterly degraded the person into stealing something of no value. This theft caused the person to believe he had better leave.

It is a rather noble commentary on man that when a person finds himself, as he believes, incapable of restraining himself from injuring a benefactor he will defend the benefactor by leaving. This is the real source of the blow-off. If we were to better a person’s working conditions in this light we would see that we have simply magnified his overt acts and made it a certain fact that he would leave. If we punish we can bring the value of the benefactor down a bit and thus lessen the value of the overt. But improvement and punishment are neither one answers. The answer lies in Scientology and processing the person up to a high enough responsibility to take a job or a position and carry it out without all this weird hocus-pocus of “I’ve got to say you are doing things to me so I can leave and protect you from all the bad things I am doing to you.” That’s the way it is and it doesn’t make sense not to do something about it now that we know.

A recent Secretarial Executive Director to all Central Organizations states that before a person may draw his last pay cheque from an Organization he is leaving of his own volition he must write down all his overts and withholds against the Organization and its related personnel and have these checked out by the HCO Secretary on an E-Meter.

To do less than this is cruelty itself. The person is blowing himself off with his own overts and withholds. If these are not removed then anything the Organization or its people does to him goes in like a javelin and leaves him with a dark area in his life and a rotten taste in his mouth. Further he goes around spouting lies about the Organization and its related personnel and every lie he utters makes him just that much sicker. By permitting a blow-off without clearing it we are degrading people, for I assure you, and with some sorrow, people have not often recovered from overts against Scientology, its Organizations and related persons. They don’t recover because they know in their hearts even while they lie that they are wronging people who have done and are doing enormous amounts of good in the world and who definitely do not deserve libel and slander. Literally, it kills them and if you don’t believe it I can show you the long death list.

The only evil thing we are doing is to be good, if that makes sense to you. For by being good, things done to us out of carelessness or viciousness are all out of proportion to the evil done to others. This often applies to people who are not Scientologists. Just this year I had an electrician who robbed HCO of money with false bills and bad workmanship. One day he woke up to the fact that the Organization he was robbing was helping people everywhere far beyond his ability to ever help anyone. Within a few weeks he contracted TB and is now dying in a London hospital. Nobody took off the overts and withholds when he left. And it’s actually killing him-a fact which is no fancy on my part. There is something a little terrifying in this sometimes. I once told a bill collector what and who we were and that he had wronged a good person and a half hour later he threw a hundred grains of Veronal down his throat and was lugged off to hospital, a suicide.
This campaign is aimed straightly at cases and getting people cleared. It is aimed at preserving staffs and the lives of persons who believe they have failed us.

Uneasy lies the head that has a bad conscience. Clean it up and run responsibility on it and you have another better person, and if anybody feels like leaving just examine the record and sit down and list everything done to and withheld from me ;and the Organization and send it along. We’ll save a lot of people that way.

And on our parts we’ll go along being as good a manager, as good an Organization and as good a field as we can be and we’ll get rid of all our overts and withholds too.

Think it will make an interesting new view?

Well, Scientology specializes in those.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.cden 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JANUARY AD 10
(Originally Issued in Washington DC)

BPI

A THIRD DYNAMIC FOR SCIENTOLOGY

To bring about a Scientology third dynamic greater than any group has ever before had, your co-operation, whether pro or layman, is requested.

Any Scientologist, whether certified or not, may participate. There are two ways you can participate:

1. 	To get off your own overts and withholds, and

2. 	Urge other people to get off theirs.

To accomplish this and provide an orderly check on this and to prevent any overt being used by anyone, the following procedure is recommended:

(a) 	That a full list of present lifetime overts and withholds be made, with or without the assistance of sessions, particularly as they apply to Scientology or related groups and personnel, and signed and sent to HCO WW, Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex, England.

(b) 	That a second list then be made giving what responsibility one could take for these. Instead of the second list an auditor’s report saying it has been done, the auditor attesting it, may be forwarded.

That these files exist in my personal possession should make it effectively impossible for anyone to try to use the information.

In this way we can cover all existing certificates and people and by following this with new people keep an expanding group clean and clear.

I appreciate any co-operation you can give me in forwarding this programme and will doubly appreciate any auditing you do toward this direct goal.

All persons so cleared on overts would be listed from time to time in HCO publications as “people you can trust”.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.cden 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JANUARY 1960
Fran Hldrs 
Assn Secs 
HCO Secs 
HCO Staff & 
Cen Orgs
THE UNMOVING CASE

And here we are ten years after the date I wrote the first book with the solution to both types of cases that give us trouble. And that’s a good anniversary release.

Of course you saw the first book after January of 1950 but in the cold bitter winter of Bay Head, New Jersey, I was busy writing down the research of years which would become first a best seller and then a long term steady seller across the world, beating most book records.

You know “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health” and you know its data, and you know also that any case could be cleared if you could run all the engrams off the case. And you know as well that you have run into cases that resisted all efforts to run engrams or penetrate the bank. It was only these cases that kept Dianetics and all its goals from being realised by all auditors.

We have concocted many dodges and much training skill has been perfected, all to run just two types of cases—for most of the cases around in the public could still be cleared by straight Dianetic processing right out of Book One.

In this and the next bulletin I am going to take up these two types of cases and their solution. Valuable data? You stated it correctly.

The first of these two types was the case which didn’t experience any improvement even after you had run the exact engram necessary to resolve the case.

The hallmark of this case was unreality. It either went through it all with no emotional change or it jumped all over the track and de-railed at unlikely moments. This case also ARC broke very easily and was plain hell to keep in session, or it was so apathetic it continually slumped. When the case did make a gain it promptly relapsed and was telling everyone how bad the auditor was.

Well, we’ve actually been talking about this case for several bulletins. It is the case which mustn’t let anyone find out. Its earmarks are one or more of the following:

l. 	Runs with no reality

2. 	Skids around on the track

3. 	Goes out of Communication easily

4. 	Experiences little if any gain in processing

5. 	Criticises the Auditor

6. 	Propitiates

7. 	Tries to blow

Any one of the above and probably several more characteristics may be present in such a case. But it just can’t run engrams whatever else can be said about it and it just doesn’t make progress.

One of the things this case is doing is using auditing to make people guilty of overt acts. As an auditor this case won’t really get down to auditing and as a preclear the case just doesn’t ever get up and fly.

There are various degrees of this case. Almost anyone has sooner or later run into one or another of these. But the whole summary is contained in one fact: The person gets little benefit from Dianetics or Scientology.

If all the cases in Scientology were really wheeling we’d get no hold-ups either as auditor or as pc. Further we wouldn’t be tiptoeing around holding on to so many pc secrets that we ourselves get giddy making sure nobody tries to capitalise on them. We would be in fact a free people, the only free people on earth.

Further we can only be harmed by those things we have harmed and if all of us—for you have an influence in this too, remember—had our worst overts and withholds off no person or agency on earth would be able to touch a Scientologist harmfully. And that’s worth working for isn’t it?

The failed case doesn’t move (as listed above) and doesn’t audit very well, since it just can’t confront overts from another and turns them away.

Well, that’s the Dianetic failed case. And it’s the Scientology failed case. And knowing this we begin the road to freedom as a group as well as individuals.

The case that does not advance under auditing is the case that has undisclosed overts and withholds. The main ones that are harmful to an advance of the case are in the present lifetime and are known to the preclear (but sometimes are a trifle out of sight and bounce into view quite suddenly and painfully).

Get the overts and withholds off the case and run responsibility on them and you have a case that is wheeling at last. It can run anything and it can be cleared.

Well that’s the main Dianetic failed case and why.

Remember that when a pc tells you his current lifetime overts and withholds you are code bound to run responsibility on them.

Now, let’s face up to it and do it, do it, do it.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.cden 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JANUARY AD10 
(Originally issued in Washington, D.C.) 
HCO Secs 
Assn Secs 
Ds of P 
Staff Auditors 

OT PROCEDURES FOR HCS/BScn COURSES 
AS RECORDED IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ACADEMY 
JAN 1960 LRH TAPES, 9 HOURS, 71/2 ips.

SESSION DATA

Rudiments:

(a) 	Auditor checked out—o/w’s off on auditor or auditors or pcs until OK to be audited.
(b) 	Environment checked out—o/w’s on auditing room, associated personnel and people.
(c) 	PTP checked out—o/w’s on people connected with PTP unless it can be done by Problems of Comparable Magnitude or two-way comm.
(d) 	ARC breaks—check earlier sessions. TR5N.
(e) 	Goals for session.

Omit any or all of above except goals if pc already in session. Use any or all of above at any time if session bogs down or pc gets upset or choppy.

AUDITING ATTITUDE

You do the auditing. This is all HGC type auditing, not PE Co-Audit. The auditor handles pc and improves pc on his own responsibility. Instructions which violate this (making auditor a via, not cause) may be disregarded both by student and staff auditors.

Audit the pc on the whole track as a general rule only when pc’s tone arm is sitting at Clear as a consequence of setting up the session, getting off present life overts, rehabilitating ability to withhold, getting responsibility run on incidents pc has revealed, getting off discreditable creations and getting responsibility run on them.

Don’t wound-up doll on pc. Keep finding out what he is doing and how he is doing it and if he is doing anything else. Be interested.

Use heavy control, as extreme as you feel necessary, as mild as works.

If pc is ARC breaky work rudiments over or look hard for present life overts and withholds discreditable to pc.

Enfin DO WHAT YOU DO THOROUGHLY. If you only do a small portion of this, do it well and finish it before looking for greener pastures.

First Stage

1. 	Clean up and continue to keep cleaned up pc’s overts and withholds in life which would interrupt two-way comm with auditor. This includes anything pc has done in his life which disturbs the tone arm.
	Rehabilitate pc’s ability to withhold on any terminal he has done lots of overts against.

	(Overts include making another person guilty of anything. Don’t overlook these.) Always run responsibility on any major overts discovered.

2. 	Only when a pc has a needle reading at clear reading for his sex should you go for chronic somatics, etc.

	Note: The following steps are not necessarily to be run in the order they are listed here. It is at the auditor’s discretion which is tackled when.

3. 	Hunt up pc’s “discreditable creations” (use wording that best communicates to pc in asking for these), starting with his present lifetime. Run responsibility on these. Use some such commands as: “What part of that incident could you admit causing?”—”What could you withhold from that person (those people)?”

4. 	Check well into his goals. What goals does he particularly want rehabilitated? Clean up his earliest present life “discreditable creation” on this goal line by running responsibility on it. You may do well to run several of these. This, of course, may be done much later in session after whole track. This is artistic rehabilitation.

5. 	Find out how he feels about generally improving himself. Burning question: Does he deserve to get well? Investigate his chronic somatics and find out who he is making guilty by having them. Do this by clever two-way comm, not by repetitive auditing command. This is the make-break point of a case. Get real real about it. This step applies ordinarily to the very boggy case that isn’t running well. Any case can benefit from it but it is a must on a boggy case.

6. 	Clean up “social atmosphere” of present life by getting off 2nd and 3rd dynamic overt-withholds. Family, job, etc. This step would be more germane to an HGC pc and may be omitted by students. However, a bad tone arm that won’t adjust to clear by the above will possibly adjust with this step if you rehabilitate the pc’s ability to withhold from such areas.

General Note on Above. Always run some responsibility when a pc communicates an overt or withhold of magnitude. The tone arm will not come down or go up when pc communicates overt or withhold unless he assumes responsibility for the act.

Always rehabilitate pc’s ability to withhold, especially when auditor is getting him to spill a great deal. “Mindless Object” reading ( 1.5) indicates pc’s ability to withhold has been badly shaken. Good command: “Think of something you could withhold.” Runs well, alternated with various forms of “What could you admit causing?”

Second Stage

1. 	If pc has a field, somatics, malformity or aberration, clean it up as follows: 
	(a) 	Find out what he is looking at.
   	(b) 	Date it with the meter.
	(c) 	Run “What part of the scene could you admit causing?” (Keep on with the same command no matter how much the scene changes, until pc is in PT when he will most likely come up with the scene of present auditor and auditing environment within the last day or two. It is then flat for your purposes.

2. 	Disassociation from identities. Stable Datum: Any “identity” is a misidentification, therefore get it off case.

   	(a) 	Identity most in restimulation. (Whole track.)
	(b) 	Identities of the last two or three lives, with special attention to the shifts of identity involved.
	(c) 	Any identities you can get hold of. Be sure to get his most creative life. (Whole track.)

3. 	Immediate past lives. Most cases crack when the last life before this one and perhaps the last few lives are well explored. Tackle these with the E-Meter. Find out all about them.

The rule is that in stage one you set the pc up to be audited and clean up present life. In stage two you clean up immediate past life or lives and then the whole track.

SUMMARY

The keynote is INCREASE CONFIDENCE by increasing ability. The gradient scale is:

(a) 	Confidence in being audited.
(b) 	Confidence in present existence (immediate time track).
(c) 	Confidence in present life.
(d) 	Confidence in regaining health by running off chronic somatics.
(e) 	Confidence in regaining memory of and recovering from past few lives, particularly the last one.
(f) 	Confidence on the whole track by removing overts and re-establishing withhold ability on the whole track.

If a step is done well and thoroughly, the next step is done more easily by pc. If no thoroughness is present and if pc never wins on any step, recovery is only partial.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH : mg js .rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JANUARY AD 10

Fran Hldrs 
HCO Secs 
Assn Secs 
HCO and HASI Staffs

THE BLACK CASE

In the last bulletin I mentioned that two case types held us up in Dianetics and that I had now solved these ten years after the first book’s writing.

The first type was the case that had so many overts and withholds in this lifetime that it could not be gotten into two way communication. The remedy for this is to get the overts and withholds confessed and run responsibility on these acts.

The second type is the “Black Field” case. The case with a field could not run engrams because he could not see them. Before I started to teach people to audit I never found this case. I didn’t find it because I merely assumed that the case was stuck on the track and I persuaded the case to get unstuck. In May 1950 in teaching a class in Washington, D.C., I found that at the exact moment of stuck there was sonic, visio and the rest.

After I started teaching people how to audit this case eluded them and after a while I found some that eluded me too. Naturally anyone knowing that this was an unauditable case (for the fact was quite well advertised) used the mechanism to cover up overts and withholds.

The mechanism I am about to give you relieves however any such case and changes it around considerably. This remedy applies not only to Black Field cases but any kind of constant view including invisible fields and stuck pictures.

This formula has proven sufficiently good that the only way to get around it is for the pc to run like the dickens—and you can keep him from doing that by getting off his overts and withholds.

Whether or not you have relieved his overts and withholds, you can use this formula with great profit—and just because it’s simple, let’s keep it as simple as it is. It will work.

In taking hold of a new case, the first thing to do is start the session letter-perfect with rudiments and goals, whether the case has ever been audited before or not. Then ask the person to close his or her eyes and find out what the person is looking at. If it is PT, okay to proceed along any process line. If not PT but a stuck picture, a field or “nothing” at once put the pc on the meter (where he should have been all along) and do a time scout. Pin whatever the person sees in time as exactly as you can, right down to the minute of the day.

This may blow the pc up to PT in some cases. But usually it will only change the view slightly.

Now understand this: If a pc is stuck on the track all the auditing you are doing is around an out of PT area and is not valid for present life. So it is very valuable to handle just what it is that’s sitting there and not scramble it up with any other process than this one.

It does not matter, for this formula, where the pc’s tone arm is located for its reading will be more or less for the stuck incident and not as a result of present life material. So disregard the tone arm and the injunction never to audit a pc with a high tone arm when you are doing this. Attend to the tone arm after you’ve got the pc in PT.

All right, we’ve got the time of the incident. The pc is still sitting there with his eyes closed. His data is very vague, perhaps he may be totally unco-operative. Who cares. Do this anyway.

Run now “What part of that scene you’re looking at could you be responsible for?”

He may give you the most strained or vague answers. That’s all right. This will still work. Keep running it no matter how many times he repeats the same answer.

The picture will start to shift. It may shift with slowness or enormous rapidity or both, but it will shift. Well, just go on and run the process as above right up to PT and then skip it except for noting where he was stuck.

When you have the pc in PT get off his overts and withholds and let the tone arm down. “What would you let me know?” “What would you withhold from me?” alternated will do very well to clean it all up providing you run responsibility on any incident of importance the pc comes up with.

Well, that’s the case that couldn’t see pictures. That’s the psychologist who says they don’t exist. That’s the rough case that wouldn’t move on the track.

Despite all the randomity I’m getting some things done lately, eh?

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:jsjh.cden 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JANUARY 1960
HCO Secs
Assn Secs	
CASUALTIES
(not confidential)

There are a few casualties along the line of getting off overts, and by my telling you about them, you may be able to prevent others and to better understand what is going on.

Only about eight people have “run for the brush” to date because of an unwillingness to reveal their overts against Scientology. There may be a few more but the data is not to hand. The overwhelming majority of Scientologists have embraced these new techniques and measures with enthusiasm. Factually, those that blew were not in possession of much data on overts. I feel that if they had been they would have stood up to it.

In early November I ordered all organizations to give an E-Meter check on all staffs preliminary to auditing these on the new overt/withhold—responsibility combination. I also forbade Central Orgs to employ persons with hidden social crimes that might be used to hurt Scientology (blackmail) until expiation could be accomplished and auditing completed.

This began by suspending one Doug Moon in HASI Melbourne until he had been cleared since he was such a social liability.

Almost instantly on receipt of the E-Meter check order Iain Thompson in HASI London, long-time friend of Moon, unexpectedly resigned and caused Kaye Thompson to resign from HCO WW.

All that had happened at Saint Hill up to that moment was my release of casual non-Scientology personnel and a liquor stealing butler before I left for Australia so Mary Sue could carry on more easily. The day I returned to Saint Hill Norma Webb, a Peter Stumbke and another non-Scientologist named Dinah Day resigned and ran away.

On November 23rd at the urgings of Nina West, close friend of Webb, Nibs Hubbard deserted his post in Washington and left no forwarding address. It transpires that he had been caught up in the Moon—Webb—West connections. He tried to find nerve to face an E-Meter the Saturday he left but did not report for his scheduled session with his Washington auditor on that day. He has since been heard of here and there borrowing money and staying out of sight.

The registrar in Melbourne subsequently left before she could be put on a meter.

The only action taken concerning these people is suspension or cancellation of certificates pending E-Meter checks and clearing of overts against Scientology. None except Moon were dismissed, but they have been heard to say that they were. They resigned without notice to me.

Any Scientologist encountering any of these personnel would do all of us a favour by getting them on a Meter and getting their overts against us off and reporting having done so to HCO WW.

If any further blows occur as a result of present know-how, the same procedure will be followed.

As Nibs Hubbard was probably being blackmailed it is creditable that he removed himself from post before he could be made to harm the Washington Organization.

LRH js.rd 							L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1960                             
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY AD10
Fran Hldrs
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
HCO and HASI Staffs
JUSTIFICATION

When a person has committed an overt act and then withholds it, he or she usually employs the social mechanism of justification.

We have all heard people attempt to justify their actions and all of us have known instinctively that justification was tantamount to a confession of guilt. But not until now have we understood the exact mechanism behind justification.

Short of Scientology Auditing there was no means by which a person could relieve himself of consciousness of having done an overt act except to try to lessen the overt.

Some churches used a mechanism of confession. This was a limited effort to relieve a person of the pressure of his overt acts. Later the mechanism of confession was employed as a kind of blackmail by which increased contribution could be obtained from the person confessing. Factually this is a limited mechanism to such an extent that it can be extremely dangerous. Religious confession does not carry with it any real stress of responsibility for the individual but on the contrary seeks to lay responsibility at the door of the Divinity—a sort of blasphemy in itself. I have no axe to grind here with religion. Religion as religion is fairly natural. But psychotherapy must be in itself a completed fact or, as we all know, it can become a dangerous fact. That’s why we flatten engrams and processes. Confession to be non-dangerous and effective must be accompanied by a full acceptance of responsibility. All overt acts are the product of irresponsibility on one or more of the dynamics.

Withholds are a sort of overt act in themselves but have a different source. Oddly enough we have just proven conclusively that man is basically good—a fact which flies in the teeth of old religious beliefs that man is basically evil. Man is good to such an extent that when he realizes he is being very dangerous and in error he seeks to minimize his power and if that doesn’t work and he still finds himself committing overt acts he then seeks to dispose of himself either by leaving or by getting caught and executed. Without this computation Police would be powerless to detect crime—the criminal always assists himself to be caught. Why Police punish the caught criminal is the mystery. The caught criminal wants to be rendered less harmful to the society and wants rehabilitation. Well, if this is true then why does he not unburden himself? The fact is this: unburdening is considered by him to be an overt act. People withhold overt acts because they conceive that telling them would be another overt act. It is as though Thetans are trying to absorb and hold out of sight all the evil of the world. This is wrong-headed, by withholding overt acts these are kept afloat in the universe and are themselves as withholds entirely the cause of continued evil. Man is basically good but he could not attain expression of this until now. Nobody but the individual could die for his own sins—to arrange things otherwise was to keep man in chains.

In view of these mechanisms, when the burden became too great man was driven to another mechanism—the effort to lessen the size and pressure of the overt. He or she could only do this by attempting to reduce the size and repute of the terminal. Hence, not-isness. Hence when a man or a woman has done an overt act there usually follows an effort to reduce the goodness or importance of the target of the overt. Hence the husband who betrays his wife must then state that the wife was no good in some way. Thus the wife who betrayed her husband had to reduce the husband to reduce the overt. This works on all dynamics. In this light most criticism is justification of having done an overt.
This does not say that all things are right and that no criticism anywhere is ever merited. Man is not happy. He is faced with total destruction unless we toughen up our postulates. And the overt act mechanism is simply a sordid game condition man has slipped into without knowing where he was going. So there are rightnesses and wrongnesses in conduct and society and life at large, but random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out in fact is only an effort to reduce the size of the target of the overt so that one can live (he hopes) with the overt. Of course to criticise unjustly and lower repute is itself an overt act and so this mechanism is not in fact workable.

Here we have the source of the dwindling spiral. One commits overt acts unwittingly. He seeks to justify them by finding fault or displacing blame. This leads him into further overts against the same terminals which leads to a degradation of himself and sometimes those terminals.

Scientologists have been completely right in objecting to the idea of punishment. Punishment is just another worsening of the overt sequence and degrades the punisher. But people who are guilty of overts demand punishment. They use it to help restrain themselves from (they hope) further violation of the dynamics. It is the victim who demands punishment and it is a wrong-headed society that awards it. People get right down and beg to be executed. And when you don’t oblige, the woman scorned is sweet-tempered by comparison. I ought to know—I have more people try to elect me an executioner than you would care to imagine. And many a preclear who sits down in your pc chair for a session is there just to be executed and when you insist on making such a pc better, why you’ve had it, for they start on this desire for execution as a new overt chain and seek to justify it by telling people you’re a bad auditor.

When you hear scathing and brutal criticism of someone which sounds just a bit strained, know that you have your eye on overts against that criticised person and next chance you get pull the overts and remove just that much evil from the world.

And remember, by and by, that if you make your pc write these overts and withholds down and sign them and send them off to me he’ll be less reluctant to hold on to the shreds of them—it makes for a further blow of overts and less blow of pc. And always run responsibility on a pc when he unloads a lot of overts or just one.

We have our hands here on the mechanism that makes this a crazy universe so let’s go for broke on it and play it all the way out.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY 1960
BPI
Franchise Hldrs

RESPONSIBILITY

Responsibility is often misdefined by the pc.

The definition for auditing of responsibility is “Admit causing,” “able to withhold.” Usable commands would be “What about a (terminal) could you admit causing?” “What could you withhold from a (terminal)?” “What could you admit causing?”

Responsibility as a word can still be used as itself in an auditing command.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.cden 
Copyright ©1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 JANUARY 1960
All Staff Members

OT PROCEDURE

I have tested and released a new OT procedure for your use on Staff Clearing Course, in the HGC and in your own co-auditing which I know will give you theta clears in a relatively short time.

I am well embarked on a program now for the UK to release this new material.

We can get one theta clear a month off the HGC.

We can work successfully toward the goal of having nothing but theta clears on staff.

The Washington Congress blew the lid off in the US. People finishing the HCS Course there are fanning out all over the country giving non-certificate courses to old auditors by sweeping demands from the field.

The new PE program is also working wonders. It omits the Comm Course and puts people straight from the PE into the Co-audit, and there runs—”What could you admit causing a person?” “What could you withhold from a person?” This is advocated now for HASI London.

We are getting together a UK Congress that gives the Washington Congress over again and which is rigged to succeed as a Tape Congress.

To begin this decade of 1960’s we are well away from the mark and have the majority of the countries with us. We now have to make a hard push on the UK to get things wheeling like we mean it.

I thank you for your forbearance and hard work, and can assure you that it is all in the direction of the biggest win man has ever had.

This one we are going to make.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:rf.nm 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JANUARY 1960

Cent Orgs
OT-3 PROCEDURE
HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

This bulletin supersedes all previous bulletins.

Any case that cannot adequately define simple words like “change”, “problem”, “responsibility”: run CCHs 1, 2, 3, 4, as per their earliest bulletins.

STEP ONE:

Rudiments:
Check for present time problem. Run by any good method. Check for ARC breaks with auditor and environment. Erase by any effective method. Set goals for session when PT problem and ARC breaks handled.

Establish rudiments at the beginning of each session. Re-establish rudiments if pc goes out of session. Check over what pc got towards his goals at session end.

STEP TWO:

Scout for present life overts and withholds. If found, run “What about that incident could you be responsible for?” (see note on “responsible”). Flatten off all present life overt/withholds and zones of irresponsibility (high or low needle).

This should bring the needle into quietness and the tone arm down to clear reading for the pc’s sex.

On a low tone arm case, particularly below two, find any terminal that dips the needle, however slightly, and run withhold on that terminal: “What could you withhold from a       ?”

“What could you make (terminal) contribute?” run alternately with “What would you rather not contribute to (terminal)?” has also made a low tone arm rise. S-C-S and CCHs have also done so. The low tone arm is supposed to be the tougher one. Actually it’s the valence of a mindless object and the last resort of the pc to withhold, so rehabilitating withhold cleverly should get it easily.

STEP THREE:

Clear the pc’s field with responsibility as per recent HCO Bulletin on black, invisible or dub-in cases. When pc sees pictures of PT then go at case in general.

STEP FOUR:

Run “What about a victim could you be responsible for?” until the tone arm tends to read at clear reading for sex in this lifetime.

Whenever the pc encounters an incident that seems very sticky, which is to say when the picture sticks many commands by the E-Meter, spot the time in terms of years ago and down to the month and day. When the incident is spotted, if it continues to hang up run it as an incident with this command: “What about that incident could you be responsible for?” and, as needful, on a two way comm basis, and by any process as needed get off its overts and withholds and “Who would it make feel guilty?”

When any incident is reasonably flat continue with “What about a victim could you be responsible for?”

This does not mean that you spot and run every incident encountered. Spot and run only those that stick.

STEP FIVE:

Explore the immediate past lifetime or lifetimes of the pc. Get the pc’s identity and form (sometimes they were animals), and if lifetime alters position of tone arm, run “What about (name) would you be willing to be?” “What about (name) would you rather not be?”

Do this until incident is flat. If heavy engrams in such a lifetime stick, run “What about that incident could you be responsible for?”

STEP SIX:

Run down any famous or enduring identities of the pc on the whole track, and handle as above.

Ease off this with responsibility as a victim.

STEP SEVEN:

Do a dynamic assessment on the pc and locate any terminal that drops, and run on this “What could you withhold from a       ?” until pc can withhold.

If any severe incident turns up flatten with responsibility.

STEP EIGHT:

Any chronic somatic or disability of the pc, if still not located, should be tackled with “What about that (name it) could you be responsible for?” and untangle the resulting pictures by placing them in time and running responsibility on any that stick hard.

STEP NINE:

Flatten once more responsibility on a victim.

STEP TEN:

Rehabilitate the pc’s ability to withhold by running cause-withhold version of responsibility (see note below) on all dynamics with various terminals.

Cautions: Until some responsibility is run on some cases no present life overts show up. Responsibility is the key to high and low tone arms, not overts. Handle any severe overts that turn up on a case with responsibility process.

Do not run a mass-less terminal such as “sex” or “help”. Find instead some actual terminal, not a significance.

Beware running adjectival commands such as “frigid woman” or “a little boy with a mole under his left grind’. Run instead the plainest terminal that drops.

Do not run things that are not real to the pc as he has made them unreal to lessen the overt. Instead run lots of overt finding processes such as “What could you admit causing a (terminal real to pc)?” alternated with “What could you withhold from a (same terminal)?”

Much of the material here is on the Washington 1960 HCS tapes. But this rundown here is to be followed in the event of any conflict of procedure.

IMPORTANT NOTE: WHERE RESPONSIBILITY IS USED ABOVE IT CAN ALSO READ “WHAT COULD YOU ADMIT CAUSING (TERMINAL)?” “WHAT COULD YOU WITHHOLD FROM (TERMINAL)?” THIS ALTERNATE COMMAND IS A BETTER PROCESS THAN “WHAT ABOUT (TERMINAL) COULD YOU BE RESPONSIBLE FOR?”

Note: Usage of this rundown should be taught on staff theta clearing courses.

	                					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd
Copyright © 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard		
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JANUARY 1960

HCO Secs
Assn Secs
Fran Hldrs

THE KEY TO ALL CASES—RESPONSIBILITY

During the past three months I have made several important discoveries in the field of the human mind which iron out the bits and pieces that were getting in our road in making broad clearing programmes possible.

First of these was the discovery that the tone arm of the E-Meter rather than the needle was foremost in analysing the case. When the tone arm reads at three for males and two for females on the modern meter a process can be considered flat. Aside from various special states such as valence shifts, this will hold true. When the tone arm reads at clear for the person’s sex no matter what one attempts to restimulate on the case you have a clear. Additionally the hot areas of the time track are located because they throw the tone arm to higher or lower readings. Good auditing today cannot be done without an E-Meter of good reliable quality as distributed by HCO WW in the UK and by Wingate Enterprises in the United States. It could be said that the E-Meter has just now become an absolute necessity in auditing and general analysis—using the E-Meter RIGHT we can achieve clears.

Next, but not next in importance was the discovery of the anatomy of RESPONSIBILITY. Although Responsibility has been known as a case factor since 1951 (just as the overt-motivator sequence has been) it has not been until now that I have been able to get it to run well on cases.

Responsibility is a significance. Pcs define it in various ways. And all rather tend to run from it. Pcs in general pretend they would much rather be victims than causative sources—which is what is wrong with their cases. In order to get responsibility to run I had to find out a lot more about it and not until the very end of 1959 was I able to define it in any way that made it run and come into being on a case.

Now I mentioned the E-Meter first in this because it is RESPONSIBILITY— LEVEL OF which causes the tone arm of the E-Meter to fluctuate. Place the pc in an area which has a very high tone arm reading or a very low one and you find the pc in an area in time when he was being very irresponsible.

It is not always true that a pc picked up as reading at the clear reading of his sex is high on responsibility. There is an inversion of the matter where the pc is so very low on responsibility that he just gets a body reading for his sex and that is that. The test of this is the running of responsibility, as given in this bulletin. If the pc, run on responsibility, changes the position of the tone arm from the clear reading then that pc has a very long way to go perhaps before he can achieve any responsibility. If a pc is run on responsibility as given herein, if his track is explored, and if the tone arm reads and continues to read at clear then he is very responsible and very clear. But you would have to run the pc a bit not just read him on the meter in order to get an accurate view of the matter. In other words, don’t look for overts to check out on a case. Look for tone arm fluctuations when responsibility is run. It takes at least a certain level of responsibility to show up overt acts on E-Meter.

What exactly does the E-Meter read? It reads the degree of mental mass surrounding the thetan in a body.

A thetan accumulates mental mass, pictures, ridges, circuits, etc, to the degree that he misassigns responsibility. If he does something and then says that it was done by something or someone else then he has failed to assign cause rightly and, doing so, he is of course left with an apparently uncaused mental mass. This to us is the “bank”. To Freud it was the “unconscious”. To the psychiatrist it is lunacy. He therefore has as much bank as he has denied cause. As he is the only cause that could hang himself with a mass, the only misassigned cause therefore is self cause. Other people’s causation is not aberrative and does not hang up except to the degree that the pc is provoked to misassigning cause. Other people’s cause is therefore never audited.

Here then we have the anatomy of the reactive mind. The common denominator of all these unwanted ridges, masses, pictures, engrams, etc, is RESPONSIBILITY.

The discovery of the direct anatomy of RESPONSIBILITY is as follows:

Able to admit causation.

Able to withhold from.

This you will recognize as old reach and withdraw and as the fundamental of every successful process. But now we can refine this into the exact process that accomplishes a removal of the reactive mind and re-establishment of causation and responsibility.

A thetan will not restore his own ability until he is certain he can withhold from things. When he finds he cannot then he reduces his own power. He will not let himself be more powerful than he believes he can use power. When he gets mad he of course can control nothing, neither can he really direct anything. When he causes something that he thinks is bad, he next seeks to withhold. If he cannot withhold then he begins to compulsively cause things that are bad and you have overt acts happening.

What we call responsibility is restored on any subject or in any case by selecting a terminal (not a significance) and running on it:

WHAT COULD YOU ADMIT CAUSING A (TERMINAL)? THINK OF SOMETHING YOU COULD WITHHOLD FROM A (TERMINAL).

Overt acts proceed from irresponsibility. Therefore when responsibility declines, overt acts can occur. When responsibility declines to zero then a person doing overt acts no longer conceives them to be overt acts and YOU DO NOT EVEN GET A WIGGLE ON THE E-METER NEEDLE when looking for overts and withholds on such a case. Thus some criminals would not register on overts at all even though they had the loot in their pockets! And it is often necessary on any case to run cause/withhold on present life terminals as given above before the person can conceive of having committed any overts against those terminals.

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: No case will run well and many cases will not run at all with present life overts and withholds undisclosed and unflattened. These overts and withholds may not even come into view UNTIL THE VERSION OF RESPONSIBILITY GIVEN HEREIN IS LIBERALLY RUN ON THE CASE. Choose any area where the pc conceives himself to be a victim. Select a terminal to represent that area that falls on an E-Meter. Run cause/withhold as given herein on that terminal and watch the overts pop into view. It is not necessary to handle these overts when they come up with any other process than cause/withhold since cause/ withhold given here is responsibility.

There are other factors on cases that need handling but these are all handled with responsibility processes. If all the factors involved in a case are well handled as given herein you will have a theta clear who will be able to do a lot of things humans can’t do. And if you handled a case totally with this material and its specialized skills then you would have an Operating Thetan. Fortunately for this universe no thetan will let himself go free unless he can operate without danger to others and the responsibility factor is way up on all dynamics.

This material is covered in tape lectures from the Washington January Congress 1960 (nine hours) and in the HCS Course lectures, Washington, January 1960 (nine hours). The Congress, which was very warmly received in Washington, is being replayed in many areas by public demand and the HCS Course is being given as the HCS/BScn Course in all Central Organizations.

This is the major breakthrough we are starting the 1960s with. We are counting on HGCs turning out theta clears at regular intervals and we are working to get all staffs of Central Organizations through to theta clear on Staff Clearing Courses.

This material is also being used on PE Courses which now should run as follows: One week PE Course with TR demonstrations, this free. People pass from this course directly into Co-Audit (no Comm Course) at a fee, on the following process: “What could you admit causing a person?” “What could you withhold from a person?” Terminals other than “person” may be selected by the Co-Audit Instructor. A full intensive given by HGCs on the basis of OT-3 Procedure is sufficiently in advance of this to make individual auditing necessary in most cases. OT-3 has been released to all Central Orgs who have the Washington HCS tapes. The CCHs are used on cases incapable of defining terms.

In view of this material and what is now known of responsibility and overts and what they do to case level, a new kind of justice comes into being, making it completely unnecessary to punish. You can know a person by his case level. Does it advance or doesn’t it? Does he elect others ogres when he himself has been doing things or does he show Scientology in himself?

This is a brand new look and it can be made a brand new earth. We started the 1960s the right way as I think you will discover.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 FEBRUARY AD 10
BPI

THE CO-AUDIT TEAM

The running of a co-audit team as done on a staff theta clearing course, as done on staff and at home by Scientologists, can be either a very trying and unsuccessful activity or it can be a wonderful success, depending on whether it is done wrong or right. A fine example of this is the old time inability of a large percentage of husband-wife teams to succeed. But even a husband-wife co-audit team can succeed these days and come out clear if they follow the rules laid down in this bulletin.

Co-audit teams fail not because either partner is unwilling but because they dive into the deep without preparing the weather in advance.

The first requisite of any co-audit team is to thoroughly prepare the auditing climate and keep it repaired. This is true of any new team, no matter what either member of it did on any old team.

Therefore co-audit procedure must do the following before any cases are tackled:

Audit alternate sessions (not alternate intensives). 
Run as the first process to be flattened:

“What have you done to me?”
“What have you withheld from me?”

and they run this every time the ARC breaks stack up.

Assess the case with an E-Meter as to whether Dianetics and Scientology on one hand or the sex of the auditor on the other hand get the biggest fall on the meter or change on the tone arm.

This action determines whether Dianetics and Scientology or the sex of the auditor get run first. They are both to be run. A11 we want to determine is which to run ahead of the other.

Find one or more terminals that represent Dianetics and Scientology. Run each (the one with the biggest meter reaction ahead of the rest) on “What have you done to (terminal)?” “What have you withheld from (terminal)?” Run them all. Run only until each one is relatively flat and only as long as the pc has ready answers. Check them all over again.

Running the sex of the auditor must also be done. If the auditor is a woman then run “What have you done to a woman?” “What have you withheld from a woman?” If the sex of the auditor is male then run “What have you done to a man?” “What have you withheld from a man?”

All the above must be clean as a whistle before one tackles a case. So making sure of the above, no matter how many hours it’s devouring, will give wins all the way.

Every session one handles all the rudiments.

“Is it alright to be audited by me?” 
If not let’s get into O/W again and clean up Dianetics and Scientology again.

“Is it alright to be audited in this new environment?”
If not, get off the overts and withholds on the environment—finding some terminal that represents it as a general terminal.

“Do you have a present time problem?”
If so get it out of the road by two-way comm if possible, picking up the overts and withholds and guilt on the terminals involved. But don’t handle PTPs endlessly and skip other auditing.

“What goal would you like to set for this session?”
Buy the goal the pc sets so long as it’s real to him. Don’t force pc into the auditor’s goals or goals unreal to pc.

When one gets down to the pc’s case the auditor does a dynamic assessment and finds where the tone arm is moved by one or another of the dynamics. If the tone arm (not the needle) is moved by a dynamic, then using the needle motion, find the hottest terminal that represents that dynamic and run overt/withhold on that terminal. When this is flat, do another whole dynamic assessment. Find a terminal that represents that dynamic and run it. And so on. Always use general rather than particular terminals. Avoid adjectival commands. Never run a significance. A terminal is flat when overt/withhold no longer moves the tone arm around and the needle is not stuck. The tone arm does not have to be reading at clear for the pc’s sex if the terminal is flat—it must only be that the terminal no longer influences the tone arm and doesn’t drop the needle when mentioned.

When the pc reads more or less constantly at clear reading for his sex after doing all the above, then finish the case off with “What have you done to yourself?” “What have you withheld from yourself?”

And now get this: In co-auditing there are greater strains than professional auditing. Therefore havingness problems arise. So make it a rule that for every two hours of auditing on rudiments or O/W or anything else (which I hope not), run one half hour of objective havingness with the following single command “Look around here and find something you could have.”

I am at the present moment working on more co-auditing manual material, but it won’t be ready for quite a while and it contains more or less what you find shorthanded above. If one of the co-auditors has no HPA or HCA it’s worthwhile to get training before co-auditing.

I am giving you this in the interest of making clears. I have piloted this out as probably the only safe procedure for everyone available in present technology. These are both the fastest processes and least liability. The above regimen is not just pretty good. It’s a winner. But if you go running engrams or assuming the pc likes womankind or etc, etc, etc, or if you plunge into the case without clearing up the idea of auditing and sessions you are in for trouble, co-audit or professional.

Now let’s see some more clears around here.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1960
Sthil

SECURITY CHECK

In keeping with policy carried out by all Central Organizations, an E-Meter check will be made on all new and existing staff at Saint Hill.

An E-Meter is better known as a “lie-detector” and is used to ascertain truth of background and conduct.

The following points will be covered by the examiner:

Any criminal background 
Any Communist or subversive connection 
Spreading of slander concerning Saint Hill or its people 
Discouraging new employees by malicious lies 
Receipt of commissions on purchases for Saint Hill 
Overts against Doctor or Mrs. Hubbard.

No staff at Saint Hill are exempt.

No suspicion is necessarily attached to any person at Saint Hill. This is a security check. It is an effort to clear the air.

The test will be administered by Robin Harper, Technical Secretary, and any undesirable results will be rechecked by Mrs. Hubbard.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 FEBRUARY 1960
Fran Hldrs
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
THEORY OF RESPONSIBILITY PROCESSING

In order to make up one’s mind to be responsible for things it is necessary to get over the idea that one is being forced into responsibility.

The power of choice is still senior to responsibility. What one does against his will operates as an overt act against oneself. But where one’s will to do has deteriorated to unwillingness to do anything, lack of will is itself an aberration.

Variations in the reactions of pcs to responsibility processes stem from the pc’s belief that his power of choice is being or has been overthrown. Where an auditor has a pc balking against a responsibility process, the pc has conceived that the auditor is forcing responsibility on the pc and very little good comes of the session.

There is nothing wrong, basically, with doingness. But where one is doing something he is unwilling to do, aberration results. One does, in such a case, while unwilling to do. The result is doingness without responsibility.

In the decline of any state into slavery as in Greece, or into economic strangulation of the individual as in our modern western society, doingness is more and more enforced and willingness to do is less and less in evidence. At length people are doing without being responsible. From this results bad workmanship, crime, indigence and its necessities for welfarism. At length there are so many people who are unwilling to do that the few left have to take full burden of the society upon their backs. Where high unwillingness to do exists, democracy is then impossible, for it but votes for the biggest handout.

Where high unwillingness to do exists then we have a constant restimulation of all the things one is really unwilling to do such as overt acts. Forcing people who do not want to work to yet work restimulates the mechanism of overt acts with, thereby, higher and higher crime ratio, more and more strikes and less and less understanding of what it is all about.

The individual who has done something bad that he was not willing to do then identifies anything he does with any unwillingness to do—when of course he has done this many times. Therefore all doingness becomes bad. Dancing becomes bad. Playing games becomes bad. Even eating and procreation become bad. And all because unwillingness to do something bad has evolved and identified into unwillingness to do.

The person who has done something bad restrains himself by withholding doingness in that direction. When at length he conceives he has done many many bad things, he becomes a total withhold. As you process him you encounter the recurring phenomenon of his realization that he has not been as bad as he thought he was. And that’s the wonderful part of it. People are never as bad as they think they are—and certainly other people are never as bad as one thinks they have been.

The basic wonder is that people police themselves. Out of a concept of good they conceive themselves to be bad, and after that seek every way they can to protect others from self. A person does this by reducing his own ability. He does it by reducing his own activity. He does this by reducing his own knowingness.

Where you see a thetan who sleeps too much and does too little, where you see a person who conceives bad doingness on every hand, you see a person who is safeguarding others from the badness of himself or herself.

Now there is another extreme. A person who must do because of economic or other whips, and yet because of his own concept of his own badness dares not do, is liable to become criminal. Such a person’s only answer to doingness is to do without taking any responsibility and this, when you examine the dynamics, falls easily into a pattern of dramatized overt acts. Here you have a body that is not being controlled, where most knowledge is obscured and where responsibility for others or even self is lacking. It is an easy step from criminality to insanity, if indeed there is any step at all. Such people cannot be policed since being policed admits of some obedience. Lacking control there is no ability to obey, and so they wind up simply hating police and that is that.

Only when economic grips are so tight or political pressure is so great as it is in Russia do we get high criminality and neurotic or psychotic indexes. Whenever doing is accompanied by no will to do, irresponsibility for one’s own acts can result.

Basically, then, when one is processing a pc, one is seeking to rehabilitate a willingness to do. In order to accomplish this one must rehabilitate the ability to withhold on the pc’s own determinism (not by punishment) further bad actions. Only then will the pc be willing to recover from anything wrong with the pc—since anything wrong with the pc is self-imposed in order to prevent wrongdoing at some past time.

All types of responsibility processes have this as their goal: to rehabilitate the willingness to do and the ability to withhold on one’s own determinism.

Restraint in doing something one knows he should do is a secondary deterrent but comes with other offshoots of responsibility into the cognition area.

Thus we have a formula of attack on any given area where the pc cannot do, is having trouble or cannot take responsibility: (a) Locate the area. (b) Find a terminal to represent it. (c) Find what the pc has done to that terminal that he thinks he should have withheld. (d) Reduce all such incidents.

In short all we have to do to rehabilitate any case is find an area where the terminal is still real to the preclear and then get rid of what he has done and withheld, and we come up with an improved responsibility.

Of all the responsibility processes, the oldest one I developed is still the best one by test and that is:

“What have you done to a (terminal)?” 
“What have you withheld from a (terminal)?”

The processing results depend in large part on the accuracy of assessment, on the willingness of the auditor to process the pc and upon running the process as flat as it will go before finding another terminal.

Assessment accuracy depends upon skilled use of the E-Meter. Dynamic Straight Wire is best, and a weather eye upon the tone arm to see what terminal varies it, once one has the dynamic and from that has selected a terminal.

The willingness of the auditor to process the pc depends upon the confidence of the auditor to obtain results—and this is established by deletion of things the auditor has done to pcs and withheld from pcs in general and this pc in particular. Thus co-audit teams would be right always if they took each other as the terminals to be run first, get these pretty flat (and keep them flat during processing with “What have you done to me?” “What have you withheld from me?”), then as the next thing to do run the sex of the auditor off the pc, then clean up Dianetics or Scientology (or use this as step two). And only then go into “case”. That would be a pretty fine co-audit team after they have survived the first explosions and gotten them gone.

Then in searching out areas to run as a case, care should be taken not to over-run a terminal or under-run one. A pc running out of answers can get very restless.

Responsibility can be rehabilitated on any case and when it has been you have a clear and that’s all there is to it.

								L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.rd
Copyright ©1960						
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 FEBRUARY 1960

CenO

OVERT MANIFESTATIONS ON A LOW TONED CASE

Every high scale manifestation or activity has a low scale mockery:

There can be an apparent clear reading on a case that has never been successfully audited. This case is too low toned to register at all as a thetan. The resulting read is therefore that of the body minus a bank. No overts will show up on the needle of this case.

Only when responsibility has been run does this case shift off the low reading and get different tone arm and needle responses.

Such a case is fairly easy to recognize. The case has obvious areas of great irresponsibility and yet reads like a clear. But once you scout out the case this state of affairs becomes upset and the case reads otherwise, and then eventually comes back after an awful lot of sessions and intensives into the clear range and stays there. But now the case is able where it was before very apathetic and really useless.

Any clear check out must include the following exercise and indeed this is the process which gets these low level cases really cracking. This is both a clear examination and a good entrance to cases. It is also the best way to check out overts when in doubt.

You run on the E-Meter a dynamic assessment and pick up any dynamic that gives a change of needle pattern, or take any dynamic which makes needle drop no matter how slightly.

Having located the dynamic we now ask the pc for any terminal he or she thinks would represent that dynamic. We take any terminal that has any drop on it as given or suggested by the pc.

On this terminal we now run overt/withhold as follows:

“What have you done to a (terminal)?” 
“What have you withheld from a (terminal)?”

This was the terminal realest to the pc, therefore when responsibility is increased on it you have generally increased responsibility.

When we have flattened this off mildly we go through the whole operation above again.

Before we have done this many times overts will begin to show up on the case and will be recognized by the pc.

Doing this well just once unsettles the false clear reading and that reading will not return until the case is actually cleared.

LRH:js.mw.cden	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 FEBRUARY 1960
MA
Sthil
Assn Secs
HCO Secs
Fran Holders

HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, TOO

After you have achieved a high level of ability you will be the first to insist upon your rights to live with honest people.

When you know the technology of the mind you know that it is a mistake to use “individual rights” and “freedom” as arguments to protect those who would only destroy.

Individual rights were not originated to protect criminals but to bring freedom to honest men. Into this area of protection then dived those who needed “freedom” and “individual liberty” to cover their own questionable activities.

Freedom is for honest people. No man who is not himself honest can be free—he is in his own trap. When his own deeds cannot be disclosed then he is a prisoner; he must withhold himself from his fellows and he is a slave to his own conscience. Freedom must be deserved before there is any freedom possible.

To protect dishonest people is to condemn them to their own hells. By making “individual rights” a synonym for “protect the criminal” one helps to bring about a slave state for all; for where “individual liberty” is abused, an impatience with it arises which at length sweeps us all away. The targets of all disciplinary laws are the few who err. Such laws unfortunately also injure and restrict those who do not err. If all were honest there would be no disciplinary threats.

There is only one way out for a dishonest person—facing up to his responsibilities in the society and putting himself back into communication with his fellow man, his family, the world at large. By seeking to invoke his “individual rights” to protect himself from an examination of his deeds, he reduces just that much the future of individual liberty, for he himself is not free. Yet he infects others who are honest by using their rights to freedom to protect himself.

Uneasy lies the head that wears a guilty conscience.

And it will lie no more easily by seeking to protect misdeeds by pleas of “freedom means that you must never look at me”. The right of a person to survive is directly related to his honesty.

Freedom for man does not mean freedom to injure man. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to harm by lies.

Man cannot be free while there are those amongst him who are slaves to their own terrors.

The mission of a techno-space society is to subordinate the individual and control him, by economic and political duress. The only casualty in a machine age is the individual and his freedom.

To preserve that freedom one must not permit men to hide their evil intentions under the protection of that freedom. To be free a man must be honest with himself and with his fellows.

If a man uses his own honesty to protect the unmasking of dishonesty, then that man is an enemy of his own freedom.

We can stand in the sun only so long as we don’t let the deeds of others bring the darkness.

Freedom is for honest men. Individual liberty exists only for those who have the ability to be free.

Today in Scientology we know the gaoler—the person himself. And we can restore the right to stand in the sun by eradicating the evil men do to themselves.

So do not say that the investigation of a person or the past is a step forward to slavery. For in Scientology such a step is the first step toward freeing a man from the guilt of self.

Were it the intention of the Scientologist to punish the guilty, then and only then would a look into the past of another be wrong.

But we are not the police. Our look is the first step toward unlocking the doors—for they are all barred from within.

Who would punish when he could salvage?

Only a madman would break a wanted object he could repair—and we are not mad.

The individual must not die in this machine age—rights or no rights. The criminal and the madman must not triumph with their new-found tools of destruction.

The least free person is the person who cannot reveal his own acts and who protests the revelation of the improper acts of others. On such people will be built a future political slavery where we all have numbers—and our guilt—unless we act.

It is fascinating that blackmail and punishment are the keynotes of all dark operations. What would happen if these two commodities no longer existed? What would happen if all men were free enough to speak? Then and only then would you have freedom.

On the day when we can fully trust each other, there will be peace on Earth.

Don’t stand in the road of that freedom. Be free, yourself.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 FEBRUARY 1960
Place 1 in each
British E-Meter
BRITISH E-METER OPERATION

To operate the British version of the Electrometer designed under my guidance by Fowler and Allen, a British instrument firm, the following steps must be done at the beginning of each session.

The instrument has a 5,000 ohm calibration knob (a) and switch (b) not present on the U.S. Meter.

Before (or after) plugging in the electrodes at (e), with the tone arm at “off”, throw the 5,000 ohm switch (b) downwards from “off”. Then turn the instrument on with the tone arm (c) and place the tone arm at 2.

Now move the otherwise unmarked calibration knob (a) left or right until the needle is exactly on “set” on the dial.

Then move the tone arm to the white dot (g) between 2 and 3. The needle should move over to “test”. If it does the batteries are properly up (they last a year or more unless you carelessly leave the meter “on” for days when not in use).

Now click the 5,000 ohm switch (b) up to “off”.

Hand the pc the electrodes.

Have the pc squeeze the electrodes. The needle should fall 1/3 of the dial or more. Shift the 1—16 sensitivity arm (d) up or down until the pc, squeezing the cans, does, on one squeeze, get a 3rd of a dial drop.

You are now ready to audit.

Keep the needle around the “set” mark. Keep the sensitivity low so that you only get significant readings (not breath or heart beat). Most pcs run around 1 on sensitivity on this meter which is very live. Sticky pcs have to have a higher sensitivity setting.

When finished with the session and the meter, turn the tone arm to “off” or your battery will wear out much faster.

Stow the cord to the electrodes inside the electrodes which are hollow. A little examination will show you how. Then stow the electrodes in the case and close it. Use the U.S. E-Meter book for all other meter particulars.

If your meter ceases to function ship to Fowler and Allen, 39 Mackenzie Rd, Beckenham, Kent, at your postage expense. Enclose return postage. Unless due to carelessness or breakage, they will service and re-battery your meter. Opening the panel or changing the meter about inside voids the guarantee.

LRH:js.rd 							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 FEBRUARY 1960
Fran Hldrs
HCO Secs
Assn Secs	CREATE AND CONFRONT
D of Ps
D of Ts

The cycle of action (create, survive, destroy) and the communication formula (cause, distance, effect) with Axiom 10 (the highest purpose etc, creation of an effect) become identified in the mind with one another.

The preclear who is having a difficult time is on an inversion of the cycle of action (counter-create, counter-survive, counter-destroy).

Any preclear is somewhere on this cycle. The preclear who only gets death pictures or bad pictures is somewhere late on the cycle of action or late on an inversion cycle.

This preclear believes that every cause brings about a destruction.

Thus he falls out of communication, since any and all received communication will destroy him, he thinks.

All this is covered in the First Melbourne ACC Tapes and will probably not be covered to such a degree again. The Melbourne ACC Tapes are consecutive with the Philadelphia lecture series (fall 1952), and are a little out of the way of our present theory, but have a special place in know-how.

Out of this we now have an understanding of what a limited process is. Any process which makes the preclear create is a limited process and should be avoided. Such processes as “Tell a Lie” are creative processes.

The preclear has creation tangled up with cause and cause tangled up with the overt-motivator sequence. The thing that straightens all this out is any version of responsibility run with the pc at cause. Earlier the best we had to straighten this out was confront. Responsibility is confront and is very senior to confront as a process.

When a pc over-creates he accumulates the unconfronted debris. All you have to do to restimulate debris (stiffen up the bank) is to run the pc on some version of create process.

Havingness is a confront process and straightens out the create factor.

Havingness is the lowest version of responsibility; Confront is the next lowest; Overt-Withhold is the next; and at our present top for practical purposes is just plain responsibility. Actually all these are responsibility processes.

Create is bad only when one does not take responsibility for the creation.

The key process of all processes at this writing is being responsible for having been irresponsible.

There is a great deal of anatomy to responsibility. A great many answers lie waiting on its track. When one maligns another, he has not taken responsibility for the acts of that other person and so is separate from that other person.

One of the highest points of knowingness which is not at this time known is whether we are all one or if we are actually separate beings. Enough responsibility run achieves a subjective answer to this. While several offshoots of this present technology are under test at this time it can be said with certainty now that the best version of responsibility for most cases is:

“What have you done to a (terminal)?” 
“What have you withheld from a (terminal)?”

It will be seen at once that what could you do to and what could you withhold from a terminal is a create process, and is therefore slightly limited and leaves debris. Thus it can be said with finality overt/withhold rather than cause/withhold is the best process.

In the presence of ARC breaks, havingness is a must on any responsibility process and is always a good preventive for flops. Don’t forget havingness. We know now that it is the lowest rung of responsibility. This becomes evident when we examine the withhold aspects of havingness.

Plain ordinary “What could you be responsible for” is of course a very fine process and oddly enough often goes lower (for a short run) than overt/withhold. Responsibility isn’t just a high level process. It works where it works.

It is interesting that while running pure raw responsibility in its non-create form (what have you been responsible for) we see anew the old know-to-mystery scale revealed.

Factual Havingness can be run in its trio form with good results:

       	“Look around here and find something you could have”
       	“Look around here and find something you would permit to continue”
       	“Look around here and find something you would let vanish”

The old restrictions and know-how of running this still apply.

“Look around here and find something you could have” is of course a wonderful process. And whenever you run an hour and a half of any other version of responsibility you had better run half an hour of “Look around here and find something you could have” and be on the safe side.

SUMMARY:
The data in this bulletin is far from merely theoretical. To some auditors it will come as an emergency super frantic hysterical rush item for they should shift over any version of responsibility they are running to the above versions.

Don’t run any other version of overt/withhold than that given above. You can run responsibility as itself on any incident or terminal if the pc can take it. Run a half hour of havingness for every hour and a half of any responsibility subjective process.

NOTE:
Instead of the CCHs for that low low level case, why not get it going with havingness as above and then find any terminal that ticks on a meter and run O/W on that terminal. Then run more havingness. Then find another terminal that ticks and run O/W on that. Then run more havingness. And so on and on with the same pattern until you get the case shifted on the cycle of action and functional.

LRH:js.cden 	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 FEBRUARY 1960

Staff Auditors 
Fran Hldrs 
HCO Secs 
Assn Secs

HOW TO RUN O/W AND RESPONSIBILITY

I have just yesterday finally sorted out the exact relation of overt/withhold and responsibility as they apply to life and to auditing and have pretty well wrapped up the optimum auditing commands: therefore I want to get this data off to you as fast as possible and get it in use as soon as possible because here again is an increase in auditing effectiveness over and above our existing successes. In the next bulletin up I want to give you a revised form of a model auditing session and after that procedure OT 3A. However you can use this following material right now and without those, and I recommend that you recognize what you have here as a modification which changes all earlier statements even if they seem to you slightly in conflict.

To begin: A person who does an overt act to another life form has already abandoned responsibility for that other life form. An overt act and a withhold are evidently expressions of abandoning responsibility already extant and are therefore a manifestation of irresponsibility.

Therefore, for the sake of auditing skill as well as theory, overts and withholds are the same as irresponsibility.

When running overts and withholds, according to the evidence now to hand, you are actually running irresponsibility off the case. You are taking away the lower inversion of responsibility.

The way to run an overt/withhold process is to choose a terminal with an E-Meter. Early in the case choose terminals that are specific and close to PT. When you have chosen the terminal by reason of its drop on the needle and its reality in the pc’s life, you run on it the following:

“What have you done to a       ?” 
“What have you withheld from a       ?”

When addressed to a specific terminal it is worded:

“What have you done to       ?” 
“What have you withheld from        ?”

Now this may require up to thirty hours to flatten on some cases. But whatever you choose to do on a case then do that thing well. The tone arm may or may not go down on this process. But it will become very different. Try to end up the process with the tone arm lower than it was at the start. If the pc runs out of answers well that’s it. Don’t force him hard. Just go on to the second stage on the same terminal in a very generalized form.

By this time you have no more than discharged an irresponsibility and you have the responsibility all to handle. Indeed, according to the many cases I have now looked over, the tone arm may not even begin to come down properly or come up properly until the second stage is run and flattened.
The second stage process is responsibility. You take the same terminal you ran the O/W on and (if it was a specific form you now use a general form, i.e. O/W on your mother becomes responsibility on a mother) run as follows:

“What responsibility have you taken for a       ?”

This is the process which will bring the tone arm down or up, but only when the O/W is fully flattened first.

This above combination of processes is the fastest and surest main line of auditing procedure now known. The above commands are far and above the best proven commands.

As you can see the slightly older process “What could you admit doing to a	  ?” and “What could you withhold from a       ?” are indeed manifestations of responsibility and factually are an index of responsibility. But when it comes right down to cases the above versions cover all cases and do it right.

What a lot there is to know about auditing today. Getting a combination of processes such as the above for the general handling of cases relieves us of the constant tension of what should I run and gives us time to concentrate on a perfection of running it extremely well.

An auditor ought to be adept at CCHs and running the above. He ought to be very sharp with an E-Meter and he ought to be able to run a model session with no blunders. This done equals clearing people.

There is no substitute for training at the level of HCS/BScn. Running a session right and handling an E-Meter and pc successfully are auditors’ skills. It must be admitted that very few auditors are possessed at this time of complete and near perfect auditing ability. I take my own responsibility for this and that responsibility lies in not having established an inflexible regimen of auditing. I did not do so because there was ample room for the improvement of techniques and auditing routines. But these last five months of work have brought us closer and closer to the exact right ways to handle cases and the exact processes to run on them. This has arrived with a much fuller understanding of what complexity man is accomplishing toward aberration with the fifty-five axioms. Man got pretty complicated in digging himself in. It has been my job to get pretty simple about digging him out.

The new key data which has emerged as clear-cut fact includes as an invariable that the person himself dug himself in, lost sight of why, and is holding himself in a state of stupidity, aberration and even insanity. We suspected this for years, but a way to prove it and then give a person personal reality on it was not mapped through. Now it is as tough as this. If you run “What have you done?” “What have I done?” you can hold a tone arm inactive. Every gain is balanced with a counter accusation, which is to say a new overt, and so the process gets nowhere after a few questions. No, the pc did it all himself and must gradually come to realize that with total subjective reality through processing, not because the auditor told him.

The pc made the facsimile to restrain himself from ever doing it again. Basically good, he goes wrong by failing to keep his own high standards and so loses control of himself.

Another datum: A high tone arm shows loss of the ability to start or reach—a low tone arm (below the clear reading) shows the loss of ability to stop or withhold.

In locating a terminal on an E-Meter (and why try to audit without one of these key tools), remember that the needle drops only on those terminals that the pc still feels some responsibility for. There is some responsibility to be found on these. The drop does not mean that this is what is wrong with the case so much as this is that thing wrong with the case that can be remedied at this time. Overts don’t even show up on a terribly irresponsible case until some responsibility is restored. But a rather irresponsible case run on the above procedures on any terminal that does drop will get changes away from the clear reading on the tone arm.
To clear a case it is not so much necessary to run everything off the case as it is to run whatever you run so well that the confidence of the case is restored. Restoration of confidence in being able to handle the bank and therefore life is a better goal than trying to flatten the whole case indifferently. What you contact, do it well no matter how long it takes. A good proceeding is to find anything close to PT and in the environment of a pc (PTPs give a real good clue) and then handle it with great thoroughness with the above procedure. Any constant restimulator of PTPs aches to be audited with the above and will do more for the case as a whole if the auditing is well done and thorough than running any amount of back track. Confidence is the keynote of clearing. That is what the pc lost on his way down.

Don’t worry if the needle stays high or low and don’t believe the pc is still hiding something from you. You can take the above rundown and do it all. The overts of the pc will eventually out. He doesn’t tell you about overts at first because he doesn’t see them as overts. They were all justified and the target has been lessened, etc, etc. Then when he has O/W and responsibility run on any terminal that drops, his general responsibility comes up to a point where he knows an overt was an overt.

I trust the above will correct any small disturbances that have been occurring or any stalls you have been running into.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.jh 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HCOB 25 February 1960
OT3 PROCEDURE HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES
is not currently available

- the Editor

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 FEBRUARY 1960
MA
BPI

SCIENTOLOGY CAN HAVE A GROUP WIN

If every one of us relieved his conscience of all his transgressions against others, what would happen to society?

The social ills of Man are chiefly a composite of his personal difficulties. The combined dishonesties of individuals add into the formidable total of aberrated Third and Fourth Dynamics.

Criminality and war (and is there a difference? ) came about because of a staggering social aberration. This is only a composite of individual aberrations. People who believe otherwise are just being irresponsible for their share.

Each man and woman on Earth has contributed to this massive tangle of transgression. The overts and withholds of each are added to the total mass of social ills. Further, one man or one woman failing to take his or her share in the general responsibility which makes society sane works as a further subtractive from group or world effectiveness.

There are many, many instances on record now of a whole social situation clearing up with others when one person was processed on the problem. A wife, estranged for years, processed on her husband and his family, quite commonly hears from them. The enmity, vanquished in her, vanished from them.

There is, therefore, more to this than an arithmetical one for one throughout the world. It would not be necessary to process, apparently, every person on Earth to bring sanity to Earth.

First there is the easily seen advantage of returning communication and honesty to just one person by removing his overts and withholds from the total sum. On this proposition alone we could win. And we should try to win on this, whatever else we do. Each person should restore himself to communication with Mankind and the world by removing from himself his own transgressions and failures.

To this we add the fact that each person so processed becomes a strong point of effectiveness which then influences his associates and eventually, even if only by this influence, discharges their confusions.

And then to this we add the fact that when one’s own transgressions are dismissed the persons involved in them, even when not processed, tend to become unburdened.

And if we strongly influence others to become honest by getting their overts and withholds processed, we have approached with thorough and hard-headed practicality a resolution of the social ills of Man.

This is an impulse which can become a wave, and from a wave can grow into an avalanche that would sweep away the snarled tangles from human life on Earth.

All great cathedrals began their building by the placement of a single stone.

The building unit of a great society is the individual.

We can speak of clearing in a broader sense and we can discuss its potentials for Earth. But while we work at that there is today another meaning to the word—a smaller meaning to the individual perhaps but a greater meaning to all men. Since it can happen now, in a few hours of good processing: the clearing of one’s transgressions in this lifetime and the taking of responsibility therefore.

We are a group inured to high-flown tasks. This is an easy task to confront.

HGCs can do this for people. Field Auditors can do this for people. We can demonstrably and easily clear in under a hundred hours all the key overts and withholds from a case in all directions and restoring responsibility thereon. We have the skills. I know we have the will.

Every Scientologist can get this done. And every Auditor can do it using an E-Meter, and the processes of HCO Bulletin of February 18th, 1960 and the session model of HCO Bulletin of February 25th, 1960. The task is well within the scope of the skills of even the newly trained.

I think you will agree with me that this one we can do. And I assure you that doing it on a case gives that case its fastest available relief. Later we can carry the case forward to higher levels with all the gain that would bring—but just now can we not assume a goal that falls within the reality of all of us?

For it is no accusation for any person living in our times to say that he can be relieved of transgressions against his fellows. And even that small amount picked up from the great web of lies leaves the tangle surely less.

This programme is a simplicity. Its technology is to hand, proven and rechecked. And it points ahead to a big win.

Shall we take this step to a clearer Earth as our first great group accomplishment?

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HAVE YOU LIVED BEFORE THIS LIFE

by
L. Ron Hubbard

Published March 1960

Have You Lived Before This Life?, subtitled “A Scientific Survey,” is a study of past life incidents discovered during the 5th London Advanced Clinical Course of 21 October—29 November 1958. It contains an introduction to the subject, a statement of how the survey was conducted and by whom, and reports of forty-two incidents recalled by Scientologists attending the course. These incidents are dated between the twentieth century and many billions of years ago, and their locations range from England, Norway and Tibet to planets many galaxies distant.

Not only are these incidents fascinating, but their narration reflects how Scientology engram running was done.

The 21st American ACC (January—February 1959) also covered Scientology engram running; however, case histories in this book come only from the 5th London ACC.

176 pages, hardcover with dust jacket, glossary. Available from your nearest Scientology Organization or Mission, or direct from the publishers: Scientology Publications Organization, Jernbanegade 6, 1608 Copenhagen V, Denmark; or Church of Scientology Publications Organization U.S., 2723 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90026, U.S.A.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MARCH 1960
Fran Hldrs
Central Orgs

OT-3A PROCEDURE
HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

This bulletin supersedes all earlier bulletins.

Any case that cannot adequately define simple words like help, change, problem, control, responsibility: Run CCHs 1, 2, 3, 4 as per their earliest bulletins.

STEP ONE:

Rudiments—(See Model Session HCO Bulletin of February 25th, 1960.)

Goals
Surroundings
Auditor and ARC Breaks
Present Time Problem

Establish Rudiments every session. Establish them more often with touchy pcs.

STEP TWO:

Run Cause ARC Straight Wire to give pc a win on getting audited. Once each over and over. End process only with pc in present time on cycle.

“Recall communicating to someone”
“Recall a time you felt affinity for someone”
“Recall something that is really real to you”

STEP THREE:

S-C-S
High Needle Case: Run with emphasis on START 
Low Needle Case: Run with emphasis on STOP

STEP FOUR:

Scout for present life overts and withholds. If found run “What about that incident could you be responsible for?” (See note on Responsible.) Flatten off all present life overt/withholds and zones of irresponsibility (high or low needle).

This should bring the needle into quietness and the tone arm down to clear reading for the pc’s sex.

On a low tone arm case, particularly below two, find a terminal that is in a stuck picture and run withhold on that terminal: “What could you withhold from a	       ?”

If an overt is a very bad one that the pc can take little responsibility for, run O/W on the specific terminal involved, then generalize the terminal form in the command and run responsibility. Commands here are “What have you done to	__ ?” “What have you withheld from          ?” Then “What responsibility have you taken for a           ?”
When a pc has done a very bad overt to a person or thinks he has, his level of responsibility is already below zero on that type of person. Therefore responsibility run on the specific terminal (such as “Agnes”) won’t work as pc’s responsibility on “a woman” was very low before he did an overt to “Agnes”. Therefore it would be O/W on “Agnes” and responsibility on “a woman”.

The whole essence of clearing in this lifetime is done by the steps up to and including this one. The procedure would be to locate the present life overts (or personnel in PT Problems), run O/W on them and then responsibility on the general form.

STEP FIVE:

Clear the pc’s field with responsibility as per recent HCO Bulletin on black, invisible or dub-in cases. When pc sees pictures of PT then go at case in general. O/W on persons in a stuck picture will move it. Running withhold only on such persons will raise a low needle case.

STEP SIX:

Run “What about a victim could you be responsible for?” until tone arm tends to read at clear reading for sex in this lifetime.

Whenever the pc encounters an incident that seems very sticky, which is to say when the picture sticks many commands by the E-Meter, spot the time in terms of years ago and down to the month and day. When the incident is spotted, if it continues to hang up run it as an incident with this command: “What about that incident could you be responsible for?” and as needful on a two way comm basis, and by any process as needed get off its overts and withholds and ‘who would it make feel guilty?”

When any incident is reasonably flat continue with “What about a victim could you be responsible for?”

This does not mean that you spot and run every incident encountered. Spot and run only those that stick.

STEP SEVEN:

Explore the immediate past lifetime or lifetimes of the pc. Get the pc’s identity and form (sometimes they were animals), and if lifetime alters position of tone arm run “What about (name) would you be willing to be?” “What about (name) would you rather not be?”

Do this until incident is flat. If heavy engram in such lifetime sticks, run “What about that incident could you be responsible for?”

STEP EIGHT:

Run down any famous or enduring identities of the pc on the whole track, and handle as above.

Ease off this with responsibility on a victim.

STEP NINE:

Do a dynamic assessment on the pc and locate any terminal that drops, and run on this “What responsibility could you take for a          ?”

If a severe incident turns up flatten with responsibility on the incident.

This step can be done many times. Most of the pc’s case will be found connected with some general terminal.

STEP TEN:

Do a survey of case, finding anything that the pc has trouble confronting and run responsibility on it.

Clues: Sick Person—Insane Person—Robot—Prize Fighter—Worker.

STEP ELEVEN:

Find anything pc has created arduously for a long time and run responsibility on it.

STEP TWELVE:

Run Responsibility on Matter, Energy, Space, Time, Motion and Thought. Confront can be run first on these as a kinder step.

Caution: Until some confront and responsibility are run on some cases no present life overts show up. Control, Confront and Responsibility are the key to high and low tone arms. Always handle any severe overts that turn up on case with responsibility process.

Do not run a massless terminal such as “sex” or “help”. Find instead some actual terminal, not a significance.

Beware running adjectival commands such as “Frigid woman” or “a little boy with a mole under his left grin”. Run instead the plainest terminal that drops.

Do not run things that are not real to the pc as he has made them unreal to lessen the overt. Instead run lots of overt finding processes such as “What could you admit causing a (terminal real to pc)?” alternated with “What could you withhold from a (same terminal)?”

NOTE: Confront can be run as a prelude to any and all responsibility, with the following command “What about (....) could you confront?” Do not use the dichotomy version (rather not). Confront is sometimes easier, sometimes harder than responsibility.

Much of the material here is on the Washington 1960 HCS tapes.

Usage of the rundown should be taught on staff theta clearing courses.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.pl.rd 
Copyright ©1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 MARCH 1960
Fran Hldrs
Central Orgs

EXPANSION OF OT-3A PROCEDURE, STEP TWO
HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

Step Two of OT-3A Procedure is as follows:

Run Cause ARC Straight Wire to give pc a win on getting audited. Once each over and over. End process only with pc in present time on cycle.

“Recall communicating to someone” 
“Recall a time you felt affinity for someone” 
“Recall something that is really real to you”

Now people do have time tracks, the time span of the individual from beingness to present time on which lies the sequence of events of his total existence. And when the preclear is in session and is being run on a recall type process, he, with his attention, goes up and down this time track. He may recall things only from this life or he may recall things from his whole past track; but however that may be, his attention cycles from early on the track to present time or from present time to early on the track to present time. This is known as the cycle aspect of recall type processes. In ending such a process, it is of utmost importance that the auditor end it with the preclear in present time on the cycle. The auditor wants to watch ending the process when the preclear has not made a smooth cycle into present time, but has made a big jump from way back in the past to present time. In such a case, the preclear has really bounced out of the past incident into present time, and it is only an apparency that the preclear is in present time.

So when ending such a process, the auditor must exert caution to be certain the preclear is in present time. Being left with one’s attention back on the track is not a comfortable sensation and sometimes can be quite painful, despite any justification offered by an auditor who himself has no reality on the time track, and I hope there are no such auditors.

With Cause ARC Straight Wire, the auditor must forget his fastidiousness about ending the process precisely so on the last command, “Recall something that is really real to you.” He ends the process, no matter on what command of Cause ARC Straight Wire, when the preclear’s attention has come into or close to present time, close to present time being the last day or two.

In ending such a process the communication bridge used is as follows: “The next time you come close to present time I am going to end this process.” He continues to give the commands using the question, “When was that?”, after each answer the preclear gives and before the acknowledgement. When the preclear gives an answer close to present time, he says, “That was the last command of that process; end of process.” Bang. With processes that cycle, there can be no communication bridges like, “If it’s alright with you in a few more commands I am going to end this process.” It could take fifty more commands until the preclear is close to present time; and by that time, the preclear has entirely forgotten that there ever was any intention on the auditor’s part to end the process as it seems to him that the auditor must have changed his mind and decided to run the process longer than a few commands.

An auditor should not get upset with a preclear when the auditor, in an effort to get the preclear to give an answer right in present time, starts the preclear back down the time track again. Remember it is the auditor who calls the shot, and if he misses, then he had better learn to gage it a bit better. A good auditor allows himself time in which to properly end a process.

Now two further cyclic processes which can be seen under Step Two of OT-3A are:

1. 	“What would it be all right for you to make forgotten?” 
2. 	“What would you permit to have happen again?”

These are called Cause Elementary Straight Wire and are two separate processes which are not to be run alternately.

The first process puts the preclear at cause over forgetting, and the second process rehabilitates the preclear’s ability to duplicate. These are both terrific processes in turning on recall in the preclear. All processes under Step Two are unlimited, with the “make forgotten” one only slightly less unlimited as it has a bit of a tendency to run down havingness. Havingness, however, should be checked upon in each session and run as needed.

The auditor should not consider Step Two of OT-3A lightly. These processes are, in reality, very potent and will certainly do more for CCH-step cases than anything we have had before. An example of this is how preclears broke through from psychosis to neurosis to sanity with the simplified version of ARC Straight Wire as given in the original Self Analysis. So use these processes and win faster.

Note: On second thoughts for purposes of differentiation, the first process, “What would it be all right for you to make forgotten?”, should be termed Cause Elementary Straight Wire; and the second process, “What would you permit to have happen again?”, shall be called Duplication Straight Wire. These two processes were first used in early Advanced Clinical Courses in Phoenix and were called at that time “Elementary Straightwire”. The commands of “Elementary Straightwire” as given in Dianetics 1955 were: “Give me something you wouldn’t mind remembering” and “Give me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting”. As the ability to recall depends upon the mechanisms of forgetting and remembering (the ability to duplicate) you can easily understand the importance of these in Step Two of OT-3A.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MARCH 1960

Fran Hldrs

STANDARDIZED SESSIONS

There are many reasons why sessions should be standardized and held in pattern. First of these is confidence. The auditor, going over practised ground, feels more confident and, startled by some sudden action or new development, does not lose session control by seeming incapable to the pc. The preclear, accustomed to repetitive session pattern, feels a security when all his sessions are predictable as to pattern of address. And if he changes auditors he is still able to feel confident that he is getting real auditing.

A second reason is duplication: Just as old repeater technique done by the auditor to the pc will run out a phrase or charged word, so do session patterns, well followed, tend to run out earlier sessions. Duplication does not make all things seem alike. Duplication of a session adds communication to the session and speeds up the willingness of the pc to communicate to the auditor.

The basic freeing action of auditing depends upon the separation of thought from form, matter, energy, space and time and other life.

We see in “science” as currently practised a nearly total identification by the “scientist” of mass with thought. “Man from mud” is a natural conclusion by anyone who has all his thought bound up in mass.

The reason a clear’s needle is so free (and you’ve seen, certainly, how an E-Meter needle gets sticky, then freer and freer) is that his thought is separated from a matter, energy, space, time consequence.

The “deadin-’is-’ead” case is totally associating all thought with mass. Thus he reads peculiarly on the meter. As he is audited he frees his thinkingness so that he can think without mass connotations.

What auditing is doing is making the preclear think key thoughts until they can be thought without creating or disturbing matter, energy, space and time.

As most pcs associate themselves with thought, only when they can think a thought without ploughing anew into mass can they exteriorize. Difficult exteriorization or exteriorization with bad consequences is all caused by a person’s considerations of thought being matter, self being matter, etc, etc.

The basic overt act is making somebody else want mest. This recoils so that self wants mest. Thus we have the “necessity for havingness”. Running havingness restores the pc at cause over matter, permits him to be separate from matter to some degree.

Thinking, then, is separated from mest by repetitive thinking on the exact points that pin a particular person to mest.

If a person is aberrated, say, on the subject of women, the shortest cut to de-aberration (barring havingness difficulties—see below) would be the repeated command “Think of a woman.” At last he would no longer have pictures or masses just because he thought that thought and you would then find he could think about women as opposed to reacting about women.

This naturally leads to an obvious basic process, “Think about matter” “Think about energy” “Think about space” “Think about time” “Think about a thetan.” In theory each one could be run flat in turn and then all run again.

In actual practice this is pretty steep for most cases and would not be real to many. A more complex approach containing more significance is more real to the pc.

The pc’s mind is trapped into forms of mest and life, rather than merely mest and life. Thus, what falls on the E-Meter needle shows what form of mest and life his attention is fixed upon.

Havingness is a complicated subject when viewed in a pc’s mind. Familiarity, which is to say, predictability, is strongly connected with his ability to have or own. When he receives shocks or surprises, his ability to predict is invalidated and he can’t have.

The reason a thetan “dies” is his loss of the familiar by the introduction of the unpredictable. Rapidity of change of state, unpredicted, would be a definition of surprise, also of death and forgetfulness.

The more change he is subjected to, that he did not predict, the less he can have.

Thus when he is given a “rough session”, the pc’s havingness goes down. Not predicting the shifts and changes of the auditor, the pc ceases to be able to have the session or its appurtenances—the auditor, the room, etc. The smoother the auditing the better the pc’s havingness stays up.

The model session is designed to avoid unpredictable changes. Thus it is designed to retain havingness by retaining pattern, which is to say, retaining predictability by l;he pc.

Auditing, done smoothly, duplicatively session by session as to session pattern, runs itself out, even if the pc has a constantly changing bank.

A pc began to use pictures when he changed lives and sometimes, therefore, language, but only after he had already adopted language for thought. So an ultimate step in processing could concern itself with separating the pc from the significance of words. Some such process as “Think of a word,” followed by “Think of a meaning,” would in theory, if it could be run (but has not been tested and would violate havingness), discharge the pc of his dependence on language for thought and would find him less fixated on having pictures (which of course bridge the language barrier).

Appearing in a form composed of matter, running on energy, existing in space and keeping pace with others in time is a favour pcs do one another (or an overt act depending on how cynical you may feel when you consider it).

The games condition of havingness is have for self, can’t have for others. Appearing in a form violates this games condition. Also, giving another words violates it. Thus actors and writers tend to go downhill by violating their own games condition if they are in one. A games condition evolves from separateness. Running some form of separateness can then result in exteriorization not from willingness to lose the mass of the body but by curing the games condition. Separateness is of course handled on lower cases by running out obsessive connectedness. But separateness itself can be run.

Any auditing is a solution: Solutions are ordinarily an alter-is of problems. Thus getting people to confront problems or even solutions can resolve not only case but auditing where auditing itself has now and then, in absence of smooth analysis and session handling, become a problem to the preclear.

A fine process for this is “Tell me a problem that auditing would be a solution to,” and for that matter, this also applies to any psychosomatic illness. A person with a bad leg would experience relief if audited on “Tell me a problem a bad leg would be a solution to,” as a repetitive process. Similarly, it might work if one asked “Tell me a solution to a bad leg you could confront,” or “What problem about a leg could you confront?” which last is very good as a process.

The separation of thinkingness from a problem, from particular forms, and from Life and Mest are the primary targets of auditing. And just as the repetitive auditing command runs out not only the connection with a mass but itself, so does a repetitive session design eventually free the pc from not only his aberrations but auditing itself.

A person gets as able as he regains confidence—and he gets as free as his auditing is a constant not itself a wild variable.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MARCH 1960

Fran Hldrs 
HCO Secs 
Assn Secs 
All Staff Auditors 
D of P 
D of T

GOALS IN THE RUDIMENTS

A session is a cycle of action.

Unless it is started, continued and ended properly the preclear is put in continuous session. If it is not given a proper cycle of action it does not result in any control of the preclear.

Rudiments are not something it is nice to do. Rudiments are something that must be done.

A great deal of the value of auditing lies in the mechanics of the session itself. If you wish to demonstrate this for yourself all you have to do is try short sessioning. This consists of starting, continuing for a few minutes, a session, and ending the session. It has good gain qualities for a pc who has poor concentration. It does not matter what is run. What matters is that direct control of thought results in setting an example that thought can be controlled.

A session without proper rudiments is a session without control. A session without control gets no gains of any note.

After working with this for years I believe a nearly foolproof method of handling the rudiments has been developed.

The parts of modern rudiments are as follows:

                    	Goals
                    	Surroundings
                    	Auditor and ARC breaks

                    	Present Time Problem

                    	End rudiments:
                    	Present Time Problem

                    	Auditor and ARC breaks
                    	Surroundings
                    	Goals

(Note the end rudiments are changed in order from HCO Bulletin of February 25, 1960.)

GOALS

Goals are set at the beginning of the session in order to make the preclear postulate session occurrence. If the pc says nothing about goals or even says nothing will happen, probably nothing will happen of any note in the session. Goals are taken up first in a session before environment, auditor or problems because these may entail auditing if they are not right, and the moment you start to audit the last three then you are running a session without setting goals and may run the entire session of the auditor or the present time problem and muff it because no goal was ever set. The auditor who does not set up goals immediately following the start of a session may wind up without getting a chance to set goals.

There is a lot to know about goals. There have been processes entirely devoted to goals. A great many more processes could be developed about goals. However the value of these tools or processes does not compare to just getting a goal or three set for the session itself. If you run into difficulties about goals there are two processes which can be used, and perhaps other old processes might also be worked on the subject.

The basic reason we give stress to goals is to keep the auditor from making one of the greatest fundamental errors he can make: The auditor is processing in one direction and the pc wants to go in another. This creates a basic disagreement between auditor and pc which prevents auditing from getting anywhere and results squarely in ARC breaks and upsets. Where these are frequent this mistake must be supposed to exist and must be cleared up.

There are only three things a pc can do in a session so far as results are concerned: he can get better, he can stay the same, he can get worse. Therefore there are only three basic types of goals: improvement goal, no-change goal, deterioration goal. All this derives from survive and succumb as the two opposite poles.

The auditor may be seeking improvement while all the pc wants to do is succumb. The auditor may be trying to keep the pc from getting worse and the pc wants only to get better. The auditor (but let’s hope not) may be working unconsciously or otherwise on a particular pc to make him or her worse and the pc is trying to get better. Of course in the last case O/W is indicated for the auditor on this type of pc. Fortunately the last type is rare.

The commonest disagreement on goals comes about on the first mentioned. The auditor wants improvement and the pc wants deterioration. Some auditor trying wildly to make a pc better gets a failure only because he has never closely observed the pc’s goals and hasn’t got this straight with the pc.

If goals go wrong the simplest process to clear the pc on direction is a problem process. This might sound odd, but it is quite true. The fastest goals process is a general problems process. This occurs because the pc in looking over problems falls into realizing what his actual desires are. The quickie version of this process handles solutions in this fashion:

The auditor looks over the preclear and sees that the pc has some obvious disability. He asks the pc if the pc has any disability and steers it into getting the pc to bring this one to light. This would be something like a bad foot or cough. One selects a mass terminal for this disability, such as chest for the cough (whatever the pc says it is), and runs the following command, “What problem would a bad foot be a solution to?” Using this on one or more disabilities and running it a while (until pc is in pt on it) shows the pc at once that at least as far as a foot is concerned he has been trying to succumb.

This is a very ordinary occurrence since factually any chronic psychosomatic is an effort to succumb. Remember that the doors are all locked from within by the pc himself.

If pc is still reluctant and upset about goals or isn’t getting better faster because of the solutions process above, run some consequences in this fashion: “What would you be likely to do if you didn’t have a bad foot?” This makes the pc look at it some more, and some responsibility run on what he has said he might do will clear the thing away.

The general process that uncovers most of this is “Tell me a problem”; when pc has, “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?” When pc has, the auditor says again, “Tell me a problem,” etc, etc, etc, on a repetitive basis.

Now remember that we weren’t trying to make his foot well. That may or may not happen with any rapidity. What we are trying to get the pc to look at is that his goal alignment is not an improvement but a deterioration.

The old process of worse than, minus the invent part, also accomplishes the same end: “Think of something worse than a bad foot.” This on a repetitive basis will turn up all sorts of horrible consequences to not having a bad foot. Of course having a victim with his face kicked in before one and the police sirens sounding is worse than having a bad foot by the pc’s rationale.

Because people hold in and cripple themselves mentally and physically to keep from doing things they know are wrong, goals, more frequently than you would like to find, are in the direction of getting worse. Until you untangle this one as an auditor you may not be able to make any lasting progress with a pc.

Factually a pc in bad condition is more likely to have succumb goals than survive goals.

When handling rudiments, get the pc to set a goal, any goal or even two or three goals he really thinks he can make in the session. But if after two or three sessions it is apparent that he is not achieving his goals as set by him in the session, despite care to handle them by the auditor with processing, it should be suspected that the pc is technically an “opposite vector” case and has private goals quite the reverse to getting better. When one has uncovered this fact as the auditor, without evaluation, he had better get it uncovered to the pc.

There are no auditing failures. There are only errors in auditing. Chief amongst these errors is failure to take up and straighten out the pc’s goals. That is the first amongst the rudiments and last in the end rudiments so it must be pretty important. Don’t discount its value, and handle it with the attention it deserves.

Once upon a time or two I have asked some auditor auditing me what his goals for the session were. It produced some interesting randomity. But a pc is under no orders but the auditor’s and it isn’t something that is needed in the session. Also I have just up and told the pc what I would like to get done in the session and sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t, and I found that what the pc wanted to get done and what the pc said he or she wanted to get done were more important.

Unless the pc postulates his recovery, it won’t last even if you make him recover in spite of himself or herself. The way to make the pc postulate it is by handling goals as above. The pc is often very startled by what he finds out about his actual intentions.

I have stopped being startled by what pcs do. I find that when they don’t recover very fast they don’t want to and I start working over their goals no matter what else seems to be the matter.

The CCHs work better if rudiments are used, but sometimes that’s impossible due to state of the pc. Take up goals with such a pc at the first available chance however and make your work easier.

Life is a series of attained goals. Auditing requires at least the setting of goals and their attainment.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 MARCH 1960

All Auditors in 
	South Africa 
CenOCon
INTERROGATION

(How to read an E-Meter on a silent subject)

When the subject placed on a meter will not talk but can be made to hold the cans (or can be held while the cans are strapped to the soles or placed under the armpit, I am sorry if that sounds brutal, it isn’t), it is still possible to obtain full information from the subject.

Asking questions, one expects no reply, asks for no pictures. The auditor just watches the needle for dips when questions are asked.

It is best to start with several nul questions: “Will it rain?” “Do you like bread?” etc. And then shift off to heavier leads. At any time the subject gets too agitated to read, return to asking nul questions or use the agitation as a dip.

Meter response for “No” or negative or don’t know = no fall. 
Meter response for “Maybe” “You’re getting close” = slight fall. 
Meter response for “Yes” or “Correct” = steep fall.

Sample interrogation: Subject is given cans. Nul questions are asked. Then:

“Were you persuaded to make trouble?” (fall)
“Was the person who persuaded you a native?” (fall)
“What was the person’s name?” (no verbal answer, heavy fall)
“Do you know where the person who persuaded you lives?” (heavy fall) 
(Name various nearby towns.)
“Does the person live in ........?”
Take town with heaviest fall.

Divide town named into streets, sections, sort out the exact part of the town named. Give leads on location until you know the house.

If person were educated you would use: “Considering the alphabet to divide at 0, does the person’s last name start with a letter in the first half of the alphabet (pause, look at meter) or the last half of the alphabet” (pause, look at meter, compare the two readings—you may have to ask this two or three times). “All right, it was the first half. Now was it A, B, C, was it D, E, F, etc.” “Now the second letter of the person’s last
name ...	“, (repeat the same performance).

It’s a good idea to mark down your findings on a blackboard where the subject can see them if he’s very reluctant and can read.

A phonetic system can be worked out for subjects who are not educated. Maps of town areas are useful. With one eye on the meter you just point to areas of the map and let the meter guide you in.

When you have worked out an area or name, repeat it several times and shift it around until you get maximum drop.

A whole mine of information can be picked up from a silent person.

On reporters, looking for possible accidents is a good convincer. Tell the reporter not to speak and use over and under times “Have you ever had an accident?” “Was it more than five years ago?” “Was it less than five years ago?” Watch the needle, pin it down to maximum fall. That’s the year. Now get the month (first or last half of year, then, for first half, ask about Jan, Feb, Mar). Month found get the day. Then the hour of the day. Then the type of vehicle or accident. Then who was hurt, etc. Reporters always start talking somewhere along about this time. Don’t pay any attention. Just go on and nail it down.

In a security check, you want the person who persuaded the person you have on the cans to engage in a riot. When you locate and have brought this new person, you do the same thing. But now you have a whole committee of names to get and your subject is better educated.

Taking ten people from a strike or riot, you can find the instigator of their group. Finding the instigator and getting him on the cans you can run it back to a higher command level.

The end product is the discovery of a terrorist, usually paid, usually a criminal, often trained abroad.

Given a dozen people from any riot or strike, you can find the instigator of that group or more than one. Finding that one, you can get his boss.

Twenty or thirty paid agents provocateurs can keep a whole country in revolt. Clean them up and the riots collapse.

Thousands are trained every year in Moscow in the ungentle art of making slave states. Don’t be surprised if you wind up with a white.

Revolts kill an awful lot of natives. Only when security has been established can a reform be applied.

Use E-Meter “clean hands” to convince people that a population is loyal and that reforms are in order.

In the riots in London, anybody arrested has his fine paid for him by some mysterious group. Demonstrators are recruited. So this isn’t limited to South Africa.

Crack the agents provocateurs’ identities and you’ve cracked the new slavery of Earth—the worker’s production demanded by the state for nothing.

We have a lot of reforms ourselves but we don’t need criminal agents or dead people killed in riots to put them in effect. Don’t use guns, use E-Meters to make a country secure.

By the way, the answer to passive resistance is for the government to passive strike against any district from which it occurs. No water, lights, pay, government or service. Simply use the same tactic back. Don’t use guns, cordon the area off and shut off power and water.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.cden 
Copyright © 1960 by 
L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 MARCH 1960
Fran Holders

THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM

Everybody has present time problems at times. They come up unexpectedly. They happen, between intensives. They pop up between sessions. They, indeed, occur within sessions. And the auditor who neglects to handle them when they arise will get little auditing done.

It’s the present time problem that sticks the graph, makes it register no change. (It’s ARC breaks that drop one.)

What is a “PTP”, as the auditors write it in their reports?

It is basically the inability to confront the dual terminal nature of this universe.

It is an inability to span attention and denotes that the pc who is having lots of PTPs has his attention very fixed on something.

The definition of a problem is intention v. intention or “two or more opposing and conflicting views on the same subject”.

If the pc has problems with wife or husband, we can be sure that they have divergent views on some basic thing in life. Thus the auditor who has a pc who always has PTPs with one, the same, person, had better run O/W (overt-withhold) on that terminal in a specific form (George) and then responsibility on the general form (a husband). Thus a PTP is as good as an assessment. Find what terminals the pc has PTPs about and handle that terminal as above. Indeed this is more than a trick—it’s a great time-saver. One can waste hours on a pc who repeatedly comes up with a PTP on the same person. But that person in the PTP is often the current clue to the case. “Grace the wife” leads to “a wife” leads to “a woman”.

Present time problems are not always concerned with the world outside auditing. Auditors can be a PTP to the pc, especially when the pc has big withholds!

PROCESSES ON PTPs

Present time problem processes are many. The earliest was two-way comm. A later one was “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to ........” But this one of course is a create type process and is therefore very limited.

Still another process was “Tell me your problem.” “How does it seem to you now?” This almost runs the whole case.

A recent one that has workability is “What problem could you confront?” This finds out for the pc that he can’t confront a problem at first without doing something about it. That isn’t confronting the problem. This is an amusing, effective and educative process.

Problems tend to snap in on the pc. The mechanism here is that he cannot confront them so, of course, they snap in upon him. When he invents a few the first problem he had visibly moves away from him. This last is now a demonstration, not a process, because of the create factor.

The fastest current process is “Tell me your problem.” “What part of that problem have you been responsible for?” This is an alternate question process. You will find the problem changes and changes. It runs the whole case.

A general process on problems, which is a very healthy process, is “What problem have you been (or might you have been) responsible for?”

The easiest process on problems to run, if slower, is “Tell me your problem.” “What part of that problem could you confront?”

CONFUSION AND THE STABLE DATUM

Problems are nasty case stickers because in a problem one has an old solution causing new problems. This is the principle of confusion and the stable datum. The confusion (two or more opposed views or actions) stays in position because it is hung on a single fixed point. If you want to see a pc go into confusion ask him what solution he could confront. (This is not a good process, it’s a demonstration.)

A preclear is sometimes chary of motion in the bank. He seizes upon fixed particles to avoid moving particles. A very top scale process that does some fabulous things to a pc also illustrates this: “What motion have you been responsible for?” This truly sets a bank whizzing, particularly black cases or stuck picture cases. Running this, it is possible to discharge pc liability to problems.

THE DUAL UNIVERSE

The basic unit of this universe is two not one.

The less a pc can confront two things, the more he fixes on one. This is the highly individual person, also the self-auditing case.

This is probably the basic trap of a thetan. He is a single unit that has not cared to confront dual units and is therefore subject to the persistence of all dual things. As he does not seem to care as much for two as he does for one that which is not admired tends to persist and we have a persisting dual universe.

Also, when he is with somebody else, he tends to confront the other person but not to confront himself. “What about you could you confront?” is a murderous process. It is all right to run. It picks up the times when his attention was off self and yet self was creating. This is the genus of a reactive bank. It is probably what pain is.

However, a better and more spectacular process that demonstrates this and gets to the heart of problems is “What two things can you confront?” This increases ability and reduces one’s liability to problems. I suppose one could go gradiently up in number and have at last a pc that could tolerate any motion or number.

It is quantity not quality which makes a bank. Thus running significances is of little worth. A thetan gets ideas of too many and too few. He cannot have, at length, anything that becomes too scarce—one of the old important rules of havingness given in Scientology 8-8008.

OUT OF SESSION

A pc is in session when (a) he is willing to talk to the auditor and (b) he is interested in his own case.

The primary violation of part (a) is overts and withholds—the pc is afraid to talk or talks to cover up.

The second violation (b) occurs when the pc’s attention is “over there” in present time, fixed on some concern that is “right now” somewhere in the physical universe. Technically a present time problem is a special problem that exists in the physical universe now on which the pc has his attention fixed. This violates the “in session” rule part (b). The pc’s attention is “over there” not on his case. If the auditor overlooks or doesn’t run the PTP then the pc is never in session, grows agitated, ARC breaks, etc. And no gains are made because the pc is not in session. Hence the unchanged graph when the pc has a PTP that is overlooked or not properly handled.

PTPs are easy to handle. If you, the auditor, become impatient at having to “waste time” handling a PTP or if the pc considers it a waste of time to handle it, a mistake is being made. So long as a PTP falls on a meter even slightly, it had better be handled until it no longer falls when checked.

If the same type of PTP keeps coming up, use it as a case assessment and run it out-out-out as given above, using O/W and responsibility.

And if the pc always has problems, better note he also has motionless pictures, is only-one and self-audits heavily and get him used to motion and two particles as given in processes above and he’ll be a better case very soon indeed.

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 APRIL 1960 
Franchise Hldrs 
All Staff Auditors 
Note HCO Secs 
send to every certified 
auditor in your area.

A NEW SUMMARY OF AUDITING

(This bulletin is the first major break-through in processing in
1960. It is a new statement of processing you will appreciate.)

In ten years, the chief thing which needed improvement in the dissemination of Dianetics and Scientology was more and faster processing results.

A good result in processing depends on two things:

(a) The workability of the technical process; and 
(b) The ability of the Auditor to apply processing to a preclear.

The bulk of my own work for ten years, then, has been on these two things.

However, you should not make a mistake in thinking that the first released processes did not work as processes. Book One Engram Running, as any old time Dianeticist can tell you, works.

Engram running from “away back” works so well that I probably would not have advanced auditing technically to any degree, if people at large had been able to apply Book One engram running as given in 1950.

Personally I have rarely failed to resolve a case and bring it to a happy conclusion solely with engram running. I would have gone on researching to resolve the mystery of life but not to improve auditing if a majority of auditors had been able to get excellent results.

Alas (or happily) there were too many cases that didn’t change when audited by some auditors. And so I tied further researches on life with the development of processes most auditors could handle and with which they could obtain spectacular results rather easily. I do not say that to condemn auditors, only to show the why of further processes, the basic impulse behind the release of new processes. They make it easier to do it faster and they reach the few cases we now and then failed to reach before.

For a long, long, long time I’ve felt we have been there. I have wanted it to be positive enough so that all auditors could experience being there at a process level.

Training is better and easier. Theory today goes light years beyond what I would have considered as necessary years ago. Processes reach even unconscious people.

But in all this wealth of technology, we still have the problem of auditor application. Here is an example: In spring 1959, I gave the exact way to handle a co-audit group (London HPA and 6th London ACC tapes). To obtain maximum results, I had learned, the instructor was the auditor to each pc in the room. Each case was assessed by him. Each person run by him on a via of the co-audit auditor. Here and there I hear of a co-audit losing people. I hear of an instructor saying, “I only have to look in on them (the co-audit people) once in a while during an evening.” And I hear of a spectacularly spectacular co-audit group, fully successful, several clears in fact, where the only thing that was done was the exact duplication of the London HPA and ACC instructions!

Now do you see what I mean by processing results depending upon the auditor?

Co-auditing in groups was wrapped up, complete, in the spring of 1959. The task now is to get it adhered to so there will be more clears. A whole year later we are just starting to win on this.

The programme of research may present a myriad of new data. It has not changed certain fundamentals about auditing. It has not changed the exact way to make a clear. Let’s not lose sight of these facts.

The first and foremost rule of auditing is FIND SOMETHING THE PRECLEAR CAN DO AND PROCESS HIM TO IMPROVE THAT ABILITY.

A lot of auditors audit quite oppositely and fail here and there and say they don’t know why. The auditor finds “what is wrong” with the pc and tries to remedy it. That has nothing to do with the goal of auditing. That’s a Q and A with the pc’s bank. The pc thinks something is wrong with him and restrains himself. All you have to do to make a pc clear is to help him build his confidence back in the things about him that are right!

To clear a pc all you have to do is give him or her a series of wins he or she realizes are wins.

The 1947 scale of wins was this: Get a pc to have pictures by any device. Get the pc to erase light locks. Get the pc to be more and more able to handle gradiently heavier bits of bank. When pc was fully confident, pc was clear.

(That wasn’t all, by the way, that’s been overlooked in clearing. Read the Book One clear definition again.)

Of course as time has gone on we have been more and more articulate. I have found ways to say things, found ways to describe things that I thought everybody knew. I have erred consistently in overestimating understanding. I seek to remedy that by stating things more clearly. I feel I am winning on this.

But there are certain things I myself find very hard to understand. Among these is how I can run any engram flat in a few hours unless its overt has to be run first; and that some auditors take 50 to 75 hours to flatten an engram. How is that? Well, I’m sure I don’t know unless it is as follows:

All you have to do to run an engram is first get the pc accustomed to his bank and track by various mild processes, get him under good control, contact the least incident necessary to resolve the case and flatten it. Well, that’s it. To flatten an incident Dianetically, you only erase it. To flatten it Scientologically you run it until pc has it back again fully and is total cause over it (you run it after it has erased). To accomplish all this apply the rule in capitals above. No auditing tricks are necessary unless you have thrown the pc in over his head without a gradient approach to the bank.

Recently I had some auditors complain that they were being forced, using OT-3A to start at step one on new pcs when “auditor discretion should be used as to what step should be first taken”. And what was auditor discretion? Throw the pc in over his head, I guess; new pcs deserve at least some recall process to start out.

The rule I audit by is the one in caps above. By gradients I recover for the pc confidence in handling himself. At length analytical handling replaces reactive handling.

Here are the first winning sessions on two pcs and the point of first win on each:

PC “A” 1952: No pictures. All unreal. Suicidal. Now most people would have tackled the suicidal trait or some such. This pc had had at least 200 hours on engrams. No results. I found pc had an allergy to milk.

By using “think processes” I managed to get Expanded Gita run without creating mock-ups. “Think how you could waste milk,” etc.

The pc was able to drink milk after that. Big win! Pc made steady gains of like nature afterwards. The pc could drink water. That was an ability. I made the pc able to drink milk too!

PC “B” 1959: Pc never before audited and had a mysterious field. No relief or release on scouting the present life. No change. Got the pc to describe field. Found it was a window. Ran “What part of that picture could you be responsible for?” for a half an hour with pc’s only response, “I could be responsible for looking out of this window.” Then suddenly all shifted, pc got a big kinesthetic of jumping into his car and tearing off in it.

We stopped right there. Pc had a big win, felt there was a change. Felt he could be helped by auditing.

The indicated procedure after was to run responsibility on anything pc saw in the bank until he was in present time with his pictures and then, little by little accustom him to locks, secondaries and engrams, a win every time, until he was clear.

Clearing is a qualitative return of confidence in self not quantitative handling of bank. By returning confidence, one achieves clearing in a short while.

By the quantity approach one drags the hours out endlessly since there’s an endless supply of engrams. The regained ability to handle one fully is better than ploughing through a thousand briefly.

Well some day somebody will hear me. And we’ll have lots of clears.

There’s also this matter of having a session going before we tackle a bank, for the pc is always tackling his bank out of session and doesn’t recover, so there must be a session if he tackles his bank and does recover.

A session depends mostly on these conditions:

1. 	Pc willing to be helped by auditor (or as in an unconscious pc, unable to prevent being helped);
2. 	Pc under auditor’s control to the extent of doing the process;
3. 	Pc willing to talk freely to the auditor;
4. 	Pc interested in own case; and
5. 	Auditor well-trained enough to handle a session form properly.

Then and only then can we begin the gradient approach of recovering pc’s confidence in analytically handling himself and abandoning his reactive withholds and restraints and self-imposed barriers.

To accomplish 1 above, run two way help. Even an alcoholic bum, antagonistic and vicious, will come around eventually on two way help more or less two-way commed until it is running like a process.

“How could you help me?”
“How could I help you?”

Those are the magic words on the reluctant or unwilling pc. Eventually the pc becomes willing to be under the auditor’s control.

To accomplish 2 above, it is sometimes necessary to run “You make that body sit in that chair” or “You make that body stand still” or both for a long time, pc doing command each time, before control exists sufficient to run S-C-S. These can be big wins for a pc.

To do 3 above, the auditor can run “Think of something you could tell me,” “Think of something you might withhold from me,” until the E-Meter arm dives. Pc will eventually talk if the pc was under control enough to do the process.

To accomplish 4 we have only to be lengthy in discussing the aspirations and upsets of the pc’s life.

To accomplish 5 we should have started a long time ago.

To give pc Big Wins we tackle small targets. Open up the recalls with Cause ARC Straight Wire and “What would you be willing to forget?” Erase and put back a lock.

Erase and put back a moment of pain (stubbed toe, cut finger). Erase and put back a secondary. Erase and put back a minor engram. Erase and put back a rougher overt engram. Do every little job well. Handle every session well. finish what you start. If pc goes greasy on the track and skids, return to control processes via 1 to 4 above. Then win up some more wins.

Straighten up women and men and other terminals with O/Ws.

Do what you like, but keep it no heavier than pc can win with. Give him wins, not a caved-in bank.

Sometimes you have to patch up a whole case that was long ago flubbed. Go at it just as above and then run out the first engram that pc was ever thrown into and then run out that auditor.

This is the basic philosophy of auditing. The main reason any auditor has lost on a case is his misunderstanding of his approach. He knows “What’s wrong” with the pc and attacks it. And the pc loses before he wins.

The only thing wrong with a pc is his lack of confidence in handling himself without hurting others. So he creates disabilities which automatically restrain him from making the same mistakes again. Try to relieve those disabilities without returning confidence to the pc and you are liable to lose every time.

It would help you if you made up a chart for each pc and checked it off each session.

1. 	Pc still willing to be helped	
2. 	Pc under control and executing every command	
3. 	Pc willing to talk to me	
4. 	Pc interested in own case	
5. 	I am following model session exactly 	
6. 	Pc havingness is up	
7. 	Pc is having wins	

If you check these off every time before a session, you won’t miss. And you’ll know what to tackle if the intensive is not going too well. The answers are there in those seven points, not in a startling new departure in processes!

Look, I want you to have even more wins than you are having.

I’m not really growling about it. I’ll even concede I’ve never said it so succinctly before or lined it up so smoothly. But study it well, won’t you? It contains the whole “secret” of auditing. We want more clears.

Whip me up some more won’t you?

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.cden 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 APRIL 1960
Franchise Hldrs

PRESESSION PROCESSES

Have you ever wondered how to persuade a stranger to get audited? Have you ever had to “sell” a hostile family member Scientology before you could audit someone? Have you ever had trouble auditing anyone?

Well, you’ll be pleased to know that these problems have been vanquished by some material I’ve developed. You see—I do think of you!

Pre-session processes are a new idea. They were hinted at in HCO Bulletin April 7, 1960. But there’s more to it.

A pre-session process is a process that is used to get into session:

(a) 	A stranger who isn’t receiving well;
(b) 	A person antagonistic to Scientology;
(c) 	A person who ARC breaks easily in session;
(d) 	A person who makes few gains in session;
(e) 	A person who relapses after being helped;
(f) 	A person who makes no gains in auditing;
(g)	 A person who, having been audited, refuses further auditing;
(h) 	Any person being audited as a check-off before session, aloud to pc or silently by auditor.

Pre-session processes parallel in importance the auditing of unconscious people. But I feel they have wider use and will assist dissemination enormously as well as improve graph gains.

These processes are four in number. They are designed as classes of processes to handle these four points:

1. 	Help factor
2. 	Control factor
3. 	Pc Communication factor
4. 	Interest factor.

Unless these four points are present in a session, it is improbable, in a great number of cases, that any real, lasting gain will be made. This is old data.

It is new data to consider these as pre-session points.

Before one has a pc in session he cannot really run a Model Session or any session at all.

The usual struggle is to start a session and then try to start a session by having the pc go into session.

This is a confusion of long standing and leads auditors to run processes like the CCHs when they could be running higher processes. The CCHs are often necessary, but not necessary on a pc who could be put into session easily and could then run higher level processes for faster gains.

The only thing this changes about a Model Session (HCO Bulletin February 25, 1960) is the START. If a pc is in the auditing room and auditing is to be attempted, then one starts, not Tone 40, but formal. “We are going to begin auditing now.” The auditor then goes over his check list and ticks off the pre-session points 1, 2, 3, 4, and satisfied, goes into the rudiments and carries forward a Model Session. Naturally, if he wants to put the pc into session with pre-session processes, when the pc is finally in session we would startle him out with a Tone 40 “START”.

A pc who is running extraordinarily well and making fast gains should be checked over silently at beginning and then given “START” Tone 40 as in the Model Session and the auditor proceeds at once to rudiments. But this would be used only after the pc was really getting along. A new pc or new to the auditor should be pre-sessioned as above for many sessions.

A pre-session type of session might find the auditor not satisfied with more than the first two of the four points by session end. If so, end the session easily with a location of pc’s attention on the room and simply end it by saying so.

While many processes may be developed out of the four classes of help, control, communication and interest, it is certain that these classes will remain stable, since these four are vital to auditing itself and imply no wrongness in the pc. All other known factors of life and the mind can be handled by a session and improved. But these four—help, control, communication and interest—are vital to auditing itself and without them auditing doesn’t happen.

One or more of these four items was awry in every pc who, one, did not take auditing, two, on whom gains were poor or slow, and three, who failed to complete auditing. So you see that is a number of pcs and the pre-session processes are the important remedy. Why make the same error again.

One of my jobs is to improve auditing results. This may be, as you may find, the biggest single step in that direction since Book One, since it includes them all. The auditor can cause help, control, communication and interest rather than hope they will come to pass. As such these four factors are practically clubs.

I would almost rather not give you some processes to fit these four conditions. I certainly desire you to be free in inspecting, understanding and employing them. What great art could arise from this innocent scientific quartet. I would rather you used them as a maestro rather than play sheet music.

How adroit, how clever, how subtle we could become with them!

Example of what I mean:

Grouchy car salesman. Knows that anything Scientologist friend Bill takes up is “rot”. Hates people.

Scientologist approaches. Gets a scoff at Bill’s enthusiasms.

Scientologist handles help. “Don’t you think people can be helped?” Lazy argument, all very casual. Car salesman finally wins by losing utterly. He concedes something or someone could help him.

Another day. Scientologist approaches. Asks car salesman to move here and there, do this and that, all by pretending interest in cars. Really it’s 8-C. All casual. Salesman wins again by losing.

Another day. Scientologist gets on subject of communication with car salesman. Finally salesman concedes he doesn’t mind telling Scientologist about his shady deals. Does. Salesman wins and so does Scientologist.

Another day. Scientologist gets car salesman to see pictures or blackness by any smooth conversation. Salesman becomes interested in getting his flat feet fixed up.

Negative result: One scoffer less Positive result: One new pc.

Any way you handle them the Deadly Quartet must be present before auditing, or even interest in Scientology, can exist.

Talk about John Wellington Wells. The Scientologist can weave even greater magical spells with help, control, communication and interest.

Talk to a new club. What about? Help, of course. Get them to agree they could be helped or could help.

And when they ask you to come back talk about good and bad control. And when they want you again, it’s communication you stress.

And interest of course, when you give that talk, will find you ready people.

In Scientology everybody wins. It’s the only game in which everyone does. With these four factors you can’t lose and neither can they.

As a Scientologist you know several processes under each heading. It’s establishing each point in turn that’s important.

Ah, what a shock you’ll get on some pc when you find he wasn’t ever interested in his own case. He was getting audited for his wife! You’ll only find that out if you get the three forerunners flat first.

PROCESSES

On processes, under help you have two-way comm about help, two-way help, help in brackets, dichotomies of can-help can’t-help, rising scale on help; lots of forms.

On control you have two-way comm, TR 5 (You make that body sit in that chair), CCH 2, old-time 8-C, object S-C-S, S-C-S, etc, etc.

On communication you have two-way comm, “Recall a time you communicated,” etc, but much more basically, two-way comm to get off overts, O/W on the auditor, “Think of something you have done to somebody” “Think of something you have withheld from somebody” with occasional, “Anything you would like to tell me?” when meter acts up. Nothing helps communication like getting off fundamental overts that would keep pc out of session or ARC with auditor. That’s the point of this step, whether done casually in a drawing room or in an auditing room. “Surely, Mrs. Screamstack, you can’t sit there and tell me that, unlike the rest of the human race, you have never done a single wrong thing in your whole life!” Well, that’s one way to knock apart a case at a formal dinner party.

Interest is the place where your knowledge of the mind comes into heavy play. But note that this is Number Four. How often have we used it for Number One and flopped ! That was because the correct One was missing, to say nothing of Two and Three! I can see you now trying to interest a family member with Four without teaching on the first three. Why, I’ve done it myself! Just like you.

I audited an official of a government after a dinner party for two hopeless hours one night. He knew he’d been run over. But he surely was no sparkling result. I shamefully and vividly recall now that, not touched by me, his idea of help was to kill off the whole human race!

The first steps of OT-3A will gain interest from almost anyone. Even the Black Fives will get confounded when they find what state their recalls are in.

AND THEN?

And then follow a gradient scale of gain. Find something the pc can do and improve it.

When the four points, the Deadly Quartet, are covered, we have the rudiments and they must cover facts, not glibitity.

After the four points you improve the case by gradient scales.

And you keep the four points established.

SUMMARY

If it takes you a hundred hours to establish the four points of sessioning, you’ll still win faster because you will win.

If it takes only two hours the first time you do them on a pc, feel lucky.

Be thorough.

Establish the four points. Use a Model Session. Follow a course in processing of finding something the pc knows he can do and improve that ability.

And you’ll have clears.

And if your use of the Deadly Quartet becomes as adroit and smooth as I think it will, we will have this planet licked and be scouting the stars before we’re too much older.

At last, we’ve created the basic weapon in Scientology dissemination and processing that makes us a lot more effective on Earth than a lot of drooling politicians scrubbing their hands around an atomic warhead. By golly, they better watch out now.

But don’t tell them. Just run (1) Help, (2) Control, (3) Communication and (4) Interest.

Now go tackle somebody who wouldn’t buy Scientology—use the Deadly Quartet. And win!

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 APRIL 1960
U.S. Fran Hldrs

CONCERNING THE CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENCY

A person named Richard M. Nixon will enter his name this Fall at a convention as a citizen aspiring to the Presidency of the United States. Many Scientologists think he is all right because I once quoted him. This is very far from the facts and I hasten to give you the real story why Richard M. Nixon must be prevented at all costs from becoming president.

Two years ago in Washington this man’s name appeared in a newspaper article as uttering an opinion about psychology. I called attention to this opinion as a matter of banal interest in an article.

Shortly two members of the United States Secret Service, stating they had been sent directly by Nixon, entered the establishment of the Founding Church of Washington, D.C., armed with pistols, but without warrant or formal complaint, and with foul and abusive language threatened the girls on duty there.

Hulking over desks, shouting violently, they stated that they daily had to make such calls on “lots of people” to prevent Nixon’s name from being used in ways Nixon disliked.

These two men stated they were part of Nixon’s office and were acting on his express orders. They said that Nixon believed in nothing the Founding Church or Scientology stood for.

Their conduct before the ladies present was so intolerable that Mary Sue, having heard the shouting and curses from her office, had to come and force these men to leave, which they finally did, but only after she threatened to call the police.

As Scientologists were present, much information was obtained, of course, from these agents as to their routine activities. These were not creditable. Nixon constantly used the service against the voteless and helpless people of Washington to suppress the use of his name.

I am informing you of an exact event. It convinced me that in my opinion Nixon is not fitted to be a president. I do not believe any public figure has a right to suppress the use of his name in articles. I do not believe a public figure should enforce his will on writers or organizations by use of the Secret Service. I believe a democracy ceases to exist when deprived of freedom of speech. I do not believe any man closely connected with psychiatry should hold a high public office since psychiatry has lent its violence to political purposes.

Would you please write your papers and tell your friends that Nixon did this and that his actions against private people in Washington cause us to defy his cravings to be president.

It’s my hope you’ll vote and make your friends vote. But please don’t vote for Nixon. Even his own Secret Service agents assure us he stands for nothing we do.

I do not tell you this because Mary Sue came close to serious injury at Nixon’s hands. I tell you this because I think psychiatry and all Fascist-Commie forces have had their day.

We want clean hands in public office in the United States. Let’s begin by doggedly denying Nixon the presidency no matter what his Secret Service tries to do to us now in Washington. It is better, far better, for us to run the risk of saying this now, while there’s still a chance, than to fail to tell you of it for fear of reprisals and then be wiped out without defence by the Secret Service or other agency if Nixon became president. He hates us and has used what police force was available to him to say so. So please get busy on it. I am only telling a few friends.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 APRIL 1960

All Fran Auditors 
HCO Secretaries 
Assoc Secretaries
BOOKS ARE DISSEMINATION

One of the oldest Organizational Health Charts states “...given books in distribution, the remainder of these facts are true. . .”.

No matter what you do with an organization, no matter how much writing of letters you do, the dissemination success of a group will not accomplish any security unless books are distributed.

Seeing to it that the newly interested person is provided with the proper reading materials is a far more important step than most HCO Secs and PE directors have realized, but these are not the worst offenders. The field auditor, attempting to run a group and keep afloat, fails most often, when he does fail, in the Book Department.

Making sure that interested people get books is making sure that they will continue their interest.

Assuring then they will read and understand the books, it is necessary to get them into an extension course.

If you think you can interest a person in Scientology and yet avoid your responsibility in getting him or her to read books on the subject, you are wasting a tremendous amount of effort.

Do you know why the first book DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH was written? Word of mouth on Dianetics was going forward so rapidly that my letter volume, even before the first book, was startling. Each one of these people expected me, either to write them a long letter and tell them what it was all about, or to be given a chance to come and see me so that I could tell them personally what it was all about. In other words, my time was going to be consumed, not in further research, but in writing letters and talking to people. My answer to this was to write DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH which rapidly informed the newly interested person what this new science was all about.

I will make you a wager. I think you are wasting most of your time answering questions which are answered in books. I think you are talking yourself hoarse to friends, and other people, and groups, explaining over and over and over things that are already taken up in books. I think your time is being devoured by attempts to reach through the natural conversational barriers of people.

You are not giving, I am sure, the newly interested person an opportunity to go and sit down quietly by himself, without any social strain, and study a book on the subject. Only in this way will he come to a decision about the subject which is his own independent decision having inspected the materials. This has to be done quietly and it is best done through the pages of a book.

Without any reservations, I can tell you that DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH, based as it is upon mental image pictures and energy masses, those things which are most real to people, is the best forward vanguard in our possession. It was written at a time when I was very interested in bridging the gap between an uninformed public and an informed public, and contains in it most of the arguments necessary to quiet the suspicions of the newly interested person and contains as well most of the answers to that person’s questions.

DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH contains today a perfectly workable therapy. But more importantly it contains a bridge between the uninformed and the informed public on the subject of Scientology.

If you are not furiously pushing DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH and if you are not insisting that each newly interested person read it as something new, startling and strange in the world, you will be wasting most of your dissemination efforts.

Oddly enough, this book, to this day, sells more copies around the world than the average best seller in any given year. Where it has been pushed, Scientology is booming. Where it has not been pushed, Scientology is limp.

Just inspect the number of simple, startling items in DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH. Here you find the Dynamics, here you find several of the earliest Axioms, here you even find the rudimentary ARC tone scale. You find as well a thoroughly accurate description of clears and the reactive mind.

Do you realize that the world does not yet know anything about the reactive mind? Here is the total answer to Freud’s subconscious. Here is the resolution of most of the problems of psychotherapy.

You know so many things that are new and wonderful and strange that you forget that Bill and Joe and Mary have never heard of any part of them. They are not interested in past lives. They are interested in what makes them do strange and peculiar things. They have heard vaguely about the tenets of psychology. They do not know that these have all been answered in DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH.

When people are asking you questions about Dianetics and Scientology, no matter how obtuse or abstruse the questions are, your best answer to these questions was my earliest answer and that was, “Read DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH and that will answer your question”.

In the last HCO Bulletin I gave you presession processes. This makes a complete cycle. With presession processes we can take a new person and by running the course of help, control, communication and interest, put him in a frame of mind to want to know more about the subject.

In this Bulletin I am trying to tell you what to do about the person once you have brought him up to this point. It is all right for you to go on and audit him but I assure you he will never get anywhere until he has read DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH. All the questions and counter arguments and upsets which are boiling through his mind now are answered in that book, bringing him up to a point where he wants auditing, where he successfully goes through PE. Give him auditing, let him co-audit, do anything you want with him, but insist, insist, insist that he reads DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH.

You would be completely amazed at the ideas some people have of Scientology even after they have gone through a PE Course and have read Problems of Work or some other manual pushed off on them simply because it is cheap. Problems of Work is all right and should be distributed but it is not informative on the subject of the human mind.

Let’s get down to basics here and see what we have really done. We have made a breakthrough. The moment of the breakthrough is recorded at public level with DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH. If people do not read this book, they just will not have broken through.

Any “sales tricks” you employ after you have succeeded by use of help, control, communication and interest in arousing that interest, to get them now to inform themselves of the moment of breakthrough, will be well expended by you, otherwise these people will be talking through a fog and will experience a sensation of having been brought up to some high plateau without having climbed a cliff. It is factual that you can bring a person all the way to clear and have on your hands a mentally illiterate person. I know, because I have done just that. All the clears I made twelve to thirteen years ago evaporated into the society. I did them a great deal of good. Some of them are now occupying high positions, but none of them have ever associated me and my work in Dianetics and Scientology with what happened to them. They are, for the most part, convinced that what I did was some fabulously magical thing which was done for them only, and for them especially, something like a spiritual revival, but nothing to be understood. These people never did gain that understanding because I never explained to them what was happening. It was only after DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH was written and distributed that we began to get somewhere in the world. People we processed might have been led to worry more about their own cases than those I processed, but at the same time their worrying was at least intelligent. I can still clear people with the technologies of twelve and thirteen years ago and, indeed, have been carefully reintroducing you to these technologies. Now the time has come for us to realize that there are very close to two and a half billion people on this planet who are mentally illiterate. They do not know what makes them tick. They have no concept whatsoever of the basis of human reaction. They are intolerant. They are at war with one another. They follow strange leaders and wind up in strange places. They have no hope that anything will ever dig them out. Only a minute percentage of these people have ever been introduced to DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH.

Do not believe for a moment that just because I wrote a book on the subject cases became harder. As a matter of fact they became more co-operative. We are making a great many clears today. Hardly a week passes on my correspondence lines without clears being reported. But look at the mental illiteracy even of some auditors. Do you know that people report me clears and call them releases. These people have never studied the definition and capabilities of clear in DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH. They bring preclears up to this standard, find there is a considerable distance to go and start striking for theta-clear before they say anybody is clear. You yourself may have made a clear and classified the clear as a release just because you were not totally familiar with the conditions of clear. I still think the best statement of a clear occurred in DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH. I have had no reason to revise that statement. Pushed at, however, by many Scientologists, I have tried to find way stops between clear, as defined in DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH, and OT. There are quite a few. I almost laughed in somebody’s face the other day when he said to me that a notable person on one central organization’s staff was being audited by him and that he had gotten her up to a state of release “with a free needle on anything you asked her”, and added that he would soon have her clear if he kept working at it. Concerning the same person, visitors at that central organization for some time have been saying, “She has a sort of feeling about her as though she might be clear”. The truth of the matter is she has been clear for several months but her auditor is straining so hard, seeing as he does how far human capability can be made to reach, that it has never occurred to him that he has passed clear some time back. Any PC that has a relatively free needle has probably been cleared by the standards laid down in DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH.

Now that we can interest people, let’s take the next inevitable step. Let’s push this book. Let’s crowd it into people’s hands and demand that they buy it. Let’s develop the trick, when they ask us complicated questions, of stating that they should read DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH.
After all, we have a brand new science in the world. DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH is a brand new book that describes it at public level and it is a good thing if you want to get people into a house to get them to come in the front door. The front door we have is DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH. I, personally, do not believe the book could ever be written again, since it was written at a time when I was well aware of the public arguments concerning the mind. For the indifferently literate person it forms the necessary bridge from knowing nothing to knowing something. It is an exciting book. Push it. Get your people to read it. Now let’s get going.

If you cause cards to be printed concerning the whereabouts of PE Courses, always add to them:

“To know more about this subject read DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH, available at (give the place). The greatest scientific development in this century has happened.”

To all Central Orgs. Push this book with every possible display and mention. Where you find people have not bought it in your Central Files, you’ll find interest has been lagging. Play down all other PE books, display DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH as the book they must now buy. Tell them so during the breaks. “DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH answers your questions.”

Unlimited stocks are available at HCO WW and even more are already printed and being bound now in New Zealand for N.Z., Australian and South African shipment. Order all Southern Hemisphere stock of DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH through HCO WW.

We’ve lost the people in a maze of many titles. Take down all your many book displays. Concentrate on one, DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH.

I am asking Australia for instance to have a huge wooden book, DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH, erected on their marquee and spotlighted.

We can absorb the world’s confusion on one stable datum. Let’s do it.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 APRIL AD10
Auditors of South Africa

THE SCIENTIFIC TREATMENT OF THE INSANE

The insanity rate per capita in South Africa is appalling. Through the papers and reports of Peggy Conway and other sources, it is easily seen that a primary requisite in any programme of the rehabilitation of the Bantu in South Africa would be mental health.

Any race which lives in poverty is already overwhelmed by bad food and disease without adding insanity amongst its familial units.

For instance, a white family in the United States which has amongst its number one insane person is crippled economically through concern and confusion. In a family already burdened by the environment, one insane or even neurotic person could become the back-breaking straw.

However, my records show (and will have to do until I can make a closer survey myself) that the number of insane and neurotic persons runs much higher than amongst comparable populations. The subject has not been studied well probably because “native customs” or “tribal characteristics” are too often advanced as an explanation of irrational conduct. True, there are native customs and tribal characteristics but it would take a Scientologist to separate out the ethnic factors and understand the remainder as neurosis and psychosis.

Malnutrition and anxiety in any person, as we well know, can produce all the symptoms of insanity.

Having studied twelve separate primitive peoples in far flung parts of Earth in this life, it has become obvious that when a state of primitiveness is veneered by white customs the incidence of insanity rises amongst the primitives. For example, the American Indian, when he lost his tribal lands and hunting diet, turned to alcoholism and other degraded forms of insanity. The whites then adjudicated these as characteristics of the Indian rather than insanity.

Any race which is seeking survival under adjusted conditions experiences a high incidence of mental illness.

The keynote of insanity is destructive efforts on various dynamics.

It is doubtful if anyone has realized the part insanity has played in various disturbances, nor how it has prevented the bettering of various conditions in the world.

Mental Health, a real programme of mental health, is vital to the public peace and public safety.

Here we have a hardworking man, trying to adjust, trying to hold his head up. At home he has a wife too neurotic to help, a teenage son that has gone the route of criminal insanity, a father who has taken to drink, all of them hanging upon his work and pay. It’s rough trying to remain steady, hardworking and sane under such conditions. The temptation to quit is strong. Before a populace can be a credit it must have some hope it can live through it—and insanity is the biggest threat to that hope.

Yet insanity in any population is not limited to the poor. Indeed, the incidence of insanity in the United States is as high in the very rich as it is amongst the very poor.
Real mental health, which the Scientologist can accomplish as the practitioner of the only validated psychotherapy in the world today, would reduce the statistics.

South Africa lately suffered from insane have-nots and even worse at the hands of an insane “have”.

Insanity is a problem that is both legal and scientific. A criminal is in fact insane. A terrorist is insane. People can be policed only so far. The insane, as we know so well on a scientific level, are so far from being policed that they cannot follow the simplest order.

Insanity is neither hard to understand or treat. But only Scientology could say this.

Insanity divides into eight general types. These are easily plotted, they are irrationally destructive or succumb impulses on each dynamic. Assign the tone scale to each type and you have all the insanities there are.

The cure of insanity is accomplished in its deeper stages by very light and careful handling. A person has to be brought up to the level of being processed. The first step is rest. The second step is mild exercise. The third step is group processing. Above this level processing is possible. The cost of treatment is not high if undertaken sensibly. But 1 9th Century practitioners who knew little about it got on a compulsive “do” and, failing with milder methods, resorted to brutality. Fortunately, such practices are now fading out under our influence. Rest camps and hospitals would do more for insanity than all the violence in the world. But only a Scientologist would be wise enough to refuse to Q and A with the violence of insanity by using violence to “cure” it.

Scientology could handle the problem of insanity in South Africa. Only when insanity has been handled could there be broad guarantees of a calm future. What is a riot but a third dynamic insanity?

The tremendous work done by Peggy Conway, bless her, in her surveys and contacts now comes to great use.

Without in any way transgressing, we have already formed a programme on this.

We must legally establish ourselves, support the government in its desire to handle this problem, and coordinate our efforts.

The government and the population need our help. And if we help we will bring order in our sphere of activity. We will be wearing our own hats.

I am in deadly earnest about our role in public peace. It is not political but technical and as such we have no peers.

All we need to work on at the moment is getting people convinced of the truth that we can help the situation and that only we can help in this sphere.

So here we go. Are you with me?

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: dm.nm 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 MAY 1960

All Fran Auditors
Assoc Secs
HCO Secs
HELP

We have known for some time the importance of the button Help. It is first and foremost amongst the key buttons of Scientology. Thoroughly clearing Help alone, and on back track terminals, has made clears.

 In an essay published on the otherwise unpublished Students’ Manual, I stressed the fact that unless the preclear and the auditor had Help straightened out they were not not likely to make very much progress. Help is the key button which admits auditing. The remaining buttons of Control, Communication and Interest, give us a session. But ill we cannot even start presessioning with any other button than Help.

Since the winter of 1957/58 when this was used in an American ACC I have been working with this trying to get a better understanding of it for you.

It now appears that Help is the make-break point between sanity and insanity. That a person cannot accept help along some minor line does not mean that he is insane, but it certainly means he has some neurotic traits.

The inference level of this condition of aberration on the subject of Help would be a fear of dependency. This means that Help has already gone wrong with the person. We see in children occasionally an enormous striving to be self-reliant. We ordinarily applaud this but if we inspect the child carefully we will find that resistance to being helped goes along with an obsession to help. Parents themselves, disbelieving that the child can help them, usually inhibit the child’s help and thus worsen the condition. I have seen one child go downhill to “normal” by reason of a thwarting of help by the parents. But no matter how fondly the psychologist used to believe in the nineteenth century that childhood was a good pattern to use for estimating future social conduct, we in Scientology know that the child has already become aberrated on the subject before it is manifested in this light.

My examinations have now led me to the conclusion that a person has a make-break point of sanity on any given subject. This point is help. On the tone scale it would compare at 2.0 for any dynamic. The whole index of a personality could be adjudicated by an examination of the person’s reactions to various types of help. Above this point a person can help, and can be helped, providing, of course, the help is sincere, and really is help. Below this point help becomes betrayal.

Help is always betrayal to a thoroughly aberrated person. This explains a great deal to us when we understand it. The first example that comes readily to notice is the reaction of a very low scale pc undergoing auditing. He invariably thinks, and may even sometimes tell the auditor, that the auditor has not helped him but betrayed him.

All auditing protests except those against flagrant breaches of code denote a breakdown of the help button in the auditing session. While it does no good to run Help on a preclear and continue while running it to repeat flagrant code breaks, it does do a great deal of good to clarify the whole subject of help if a session seems to be full of ARC breaks, no matter what the auditor tries to do to patch them up.

It is unfortunately true that help can be as wrong with the auditor as it can be with the preclear where we have uncleared people doing auditing. However, it has been my experience that even while some of their efforts were completely knuckleheaded, practically no auditors exist who are not sincerely trying to help the preclear. The trouble comes about when the preclear clips the effort of the auditor into the category of betrayal. This makes the auditor react against the preclear, and the situation deteriorates.

We have, in the immediate past of this civilization, the deterioration of several of the practices which began as a sincere effort to help and which are not now classifiable as anything better than betrayal. Psychiatry and medicine are both good examples of this. The person who goes to a psychiatrist usually finds himself betrayed. He does not receive help, he receives brutality in the form of electric shocks, brain surgery and other degrading experiences. Even in the highest form of psychiatry it was common advice for the psychiatrist to tell the wife that the best cure for her troubles was to betray her husband, and vice versa.

The psychiatrist was caught in this help-betrayal deterioration. Psychiatry had so long attempted to help the insane without success that at last they began to Q and A with their patients. Of course, to an insane patient help is always betrayal. Medicine is now going a similar course unwittingly, and has lost most of its public repute through not having stayed on a research line that would bring medicine upscale, but continued with a line of application which considered man a body and would not consider him anything else. Considering a person to be a “hunk of meat” is a sort of a betrayal in itself. Naturally one betrays a thetan when he regards the thetan as a piece of meat.

World War Two pretty well saw the end of the last dregs of sincere help in psychiatry, most governments involved in the war employed psychiatry, it now turns out, for political purposes. They were set a very good example by one, Hitler. Thus the last embers of sincere help in psychiatry were more or less extinguished. Nothing like this would happen in Scientology because we are dealing with basic truths rather than basic ambitions. Where ambition becomes greater than truth any sphere of activity goes to pieces. Indeed, in the final analysis that is the fundamental deterioration of the track.

Another excellent example is found in the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya. The terrorists killed only twenty whites as compared to thousands of natives, but the whites they chose to kill were only those who had sought to help them. The Kikuyu was evidently completely certain that anyone seeking to help him was only betraying him. Their reaction, then, in killing their best friends becomes more understandable. The action remains insane, but in their frame of reference it was entirely comprehensible. Any time we go about the task of handling large bodies of insane people or illiterate and fearful native populaces, we would do well to keep in mind the importance of this help button, realizing that to these help is totally betrayal. The thing to betray is this help-betrayal identification, not the people.

If you sort this out and find your own examples and see whether or not it holds true for you, I think you have a small gasp of relief coming to you. No Scientologist has been without a preclear who has not become absolutely certain somewhere in the course of auditing that the entire goal of the auditor was to betray. This left one hanging with an unsolved riddle. Our own sincerity was beyond question. How to be misinterpreted this wildly was so incomprehensible that we often assigned the reasons to ourselves. Perhaps some of these reasons did lie with ourselves. Nevertheless, in the final analysis the only thing we did wrong was not to clear the Help button with the preclear.

CLEARING HELP

There are many ways to clear the Help button. As this is the first step on presessioning, it may be that the button has to be cleared several times in the course of auditing.

The first thing to do is to put the preclear on a meter. If you don’t have a good meter, and you don’t know what a meter does, order one fast and get instruction. Discuss help with the preclear, and note the needle reactions. If the needle tended to stiffen and stick on any discussion of help, then you have your work set out for you. If the needle remains free and continues to be free on the subject of help, no matter what you run or how you discuss it, of course the button remains free.

It is important that any attack you make upon this button be continued as a presession activity for auditing period after auditing period, if necessary, until the meter needle is free on this subject. There is no need to go on, in fact there is no point in going on, if the preclear thinks that you are going to betray. Somewhere this will manifest itself as ARC breaks, the whole auditing programme will go to pieces, and you will wind up without a preclear, as well as an unfinished cycle of action. So pay attention to what I tell you here, where auditing is concerned: work with help and nothing but help until the needle is free on the subject.

What processes should you run? The first process, of course, is ordinary two-way comm. One discusses the preclear helping others and others helping the preclear. One gets the preclear’s views on the subject of help, and without evaluating for the preclear, lets the preclear express these views.

The next process is Help on a two-way bracket. This is, “How could you help me?”, alternated with “How could I help you?” Do not expect this to do very much to the tone arm, because it won’t. A two-way flow of this character is not a reliable way to bring a tone arm down. But it does do something, and does tend to free up the needle on this particular subject.

The old five-way bracket on help can then be employed: “How could you help another person?” “How could another person help another person?” “How could another person help you?” “How could you help me?” “How could I help you?”

This is a rough bracket but it is useful and should not be dropped out of the repertoire.

Is there any process which would clear up the help button thoroughly and totally?

Naturally, since it moved forward again into such importance, I have been doing work on it and have developed up to a stage of conditional application (which means, I leave myself free to change my mind when broad experience has been gained) a new way of loosening up any solution. I have been applying this to the central buttons in Scientology and have found it working. The general formula is to take the button one wants to clear and ask the pc what problem a certain solution could be to him.

Applying this to help, one would repetitively ask the pc, “What problem could help be to you?”

I first used this on the button responsibility with very good results, since I found that responsibility is very aberrated in its reactive definitions and, because one is often being a valence, is run irresponsibly. This version of running responsibility to a flat point seems to be quite workable.

If the preclear is inventing answers rather than picking them up off the track, you might do better to ask him the following version, “What problem has help been to you?” If invention was present one always has the remedy, in spite of the fact that no terminal is apparently present, of running, “What help could you confront?” “What help would you rather not confront?” I don’t know how far this would go as I have not tested it over a long period, but at least in its first stages it works. Responsibility, oddly enough, can be run on a no-mass terminal or significance. I have not had much chance to test out confront, but on the theory that anything you could run responsibility on you could also run confront on, I would say at first glance this is probably a workable process. I will know more about it soon and I would appreciate your telling me anything you have on it.

You have, therefore, several processes by which help can be flattened. Unfortunately, none of these processes reach an unconscious or insane person. Of course, when I say unconscious, I mean somebody with his eyes shut, and when I say insane, I mean somebody who is institutionalized, and should be. In the matter of the unconscious person, you have the CCHs and you also have them with the insane person to some extent. However, the best thing for an insane person is not processing, but rest, and when the person has had considerable rest, still processing is not yet the answer, exercise is. And when the person has had some exercise over a long period of time, you will find that group processing with other insane persons is still better than individual auditing. Only at this time is it possible to do very much for the insane. The first reason, of course, that one takes this approach is the auditor. Why attack large numbers of insane cases with individual auditing when other methods are far more economical and efficacious, so long as those other methods are only rest, exercise, group processing, hobby work, and such. Efforts to reach the insane with help, of course, simply restimulate the insane idea that help is betrayal. This is why psychiatry resorted to such savage and bestial “treatments” as shock and surgery. They were up against people who apparently would not be helped. Thus psychiatry went into total effect. This is why psychiatry failed, and is in a failed state today and has lost all of its public repute.

People have been betrayed so often on the whole track that it is no wonder they get help mixed up with betrayal, but help became betrayal only at those periods of the track where the dwindling spiral had been reached for any civilization. Even the upstanding Roman by the third century A.D. was happily using the political mechanism of inviting all the Germanic chiefs, that would accept, to feasts and then poisoning them, after vast assurances that Rome was about to help the chief’s country. A deterioration of help can occur on any dynamic and in any area, but, as I said above, it occurs at the make-break point of sanity-insanity.

One word on all this. The preclear may be sane analytically and still react violently at times in session. Remember that he is reacting in session because he has been thrown into the area of his reactive mind. In reactive zones and areas help is almost always betrayal. Thus when running a rough engram do not be amazed to find the pc (whom you have carefully cleared on the subject of help) getting rabid about betrayal. He is in the middle of an engram and, of course, the hard core of any engram is betrayal. Don’t break off and start running help on him, just run him on through the engram. He will come out of it all right, if you do your job. Help should be handled as a presession process and should be handled well and thoroughly and if in any series of sessions the preclear’s idea of help apparently deterioriates, you have gotten him into a series of incidents where help is betrayal and he should be cleared once more as a presession activity in some later session on the subject of help.

There are many possible processes, there are many possible approaches. As a Scientologist, understanding this, you should not permit yourself too far into the frame of mind of believing a pc is evil or cannot be helped, simply because he apparently will not be helped. All pcs can be helped. Most pcs have aberrated ideas on the subject. It’s up to you to take hold of these as a first order of business and clean them up, at least until the meter needle is free on the subject, no matter how many hours that takes.

								L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.gh.rd							
Copyright © 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 MAY 1960
HCO Secs
Ds of P
All HGC Auditors

OUR TECHNICAL PROGRAMME

(This applies to all HCO and Central Org Staffs everywhere)

As the data has come in and I have had a chance to view what has been happening, I would say that many riddles are answered and that we are now embarked upon broad HGC pc and Central Org staff clearing programmes. I will be talking more about this and you will see the pattern shaping so here is a forecast of it.

From October to March I stressed security on Central Org staffs and heavy withholds on HGC pcs as the important point. Now we have broad experience with this. We will continue to use it and not forget what we know about O/Ws and we will continue to teach it.

Don’t let a bad security risk near a staff position ever whether you know the overt or not. It’s enough if the needle falls badly on key questions. That’s it. The person is not put on any post until audited. (Don’t retain on post while auditing for you’ll get Dev-T and other evils.) On an HGC pc a bad O/W picture must be cleaned up before you can get too far as the first thing to do. Not even Help bites on a non-confessed criminal. Such persons know their own overts. We’re kidding ourselves if we think they don’t. So shake the pc down when you see a wild tone arm. Getting the O/Ws confessed is all you do; the tone arm may not change much. But the pc will stop dodging it all and you can begin “Help”, for responsibility is too steep at this stage and the pc too far down for real high auditing.

In other words there’s a pre-presession stage for all staff members and a wild tone arm HGC pc. It’s not auditing, really. It’s a confessional. Cure the analytical “I’m afraid he’ll find out ....” the pc is holding to. Don’t run anything on it as though it were a real session. Just shake the info out by any means or process. That’s enough.

Now we begin on Help. Two way help is probably the hottest PE process there is. You can shift to that in PE. But remember to get the PE Co-audit team to a more general form of help within a couple of weeks. The five way bracket would be good enough for PE (complicated enough).

For the staff member we go from getting off a few of the hotter O/Ws to help. And we run help flat-flat-flat. Any version, type or kind. We run help until the pc can be asked “How could you help your worst enemy?” without registering the tiniest change on a needle. All we run is help, any version for hours and hours. We take up terminals. We take up dynamic assessment. But we only run help on anything we find. We flatten help until you couldn’t get its width with a micro electronic caliper. Nothing else. And you’ll hear me on this for months to come.

The same applies to the HGC pc. Once the worst O/Ws are confessed we run help in suitable versions. And we run it for weeks if need be until we get a needle flat, free, utterly calm on any help question. (Of course if the pc can’t talk sensibly at all, we use the CCHs.)

Remember, Help was the primary reason for the clears in 1957-58.

Remember, at 2.0 there is the make-break point. Help is betrayal. How to help? Betray! What is help? A way to do you in! So we audit pcs up to 2.0 with other processes, they blow, they don’t come back. “The auditor .........yak yak yak.” So why run any other process? If you do you’ll evidently lose the pc in lots and lots of cases.

Flatten help until the pc can be helped and can help without any qualms.

You’ve learned a lot about help. Apply it.

Now when we have help flat we’ll go to other things. We’ll follow up the scales of processes like this:

For a staff member in an HCO or Central Org:

O/Ws confessed only 
(don’t employ a wild tone arm) 
Help flattened 
Control flattened 
Communication flattened 
Communication re-established thoroughly 
(by O/W and responsibility) 
Havingness completely rehabilitated.

For an HGC pc:

O/Ws confessed 
Help flattened 
Control flattened 
Communication re-established thoroughly (O/Ws and resp) 
Locks, secondaries, etc as per the “light touch” bulletin.

If you have to use CCHs you probably are auditing somebody who shouldn’t be in an HGC.

On an HGC pc havingness can be run on any presession type session. End it up each day with an hour of “Look around here and find something you can have” and have a comfortable pc. But in using havingness while presessioning before control is flat to a free needle remember to make sure pc has done each command before you give the next.

On the field auditors and anybody who has been trained we ought to carry on a programme like:

Get O/Ws confessed 
Get help flat-flat-flat 
Make sure they get the highest cert they trained for 
Get them in for modern training 
Get them validated for 1960 
Get them audited the rest of the way.

If we attack the field in that order, flattening ourselves, each step we take with them, and taking this step by step with each new Academy trainee, we’ll be clearing the field.

Ah, so you penetrate what I’m trying to do! Yes you’re right. I’ve stayed on post and not gone off hunting lions and have re-researched ten years of work and successes and have plotted out the broadest clearing programme I could practically apply. I am clearing every staff member in Central Orgs and HCOs on a timed programme of a few months for each step as given above. You’ve had the first step, confessed O/Ws. It worked well. By the way, income came way up and flubs went way down. From an October of strewn wreckage we have moved to a May that sees us in pretty wonderful shape organizationally. Income is moving up everywhere. Comm lines are better. Staffs are happier. What did it? The first step for staff members—O/Ws confessed and their use in establishing security.

In my programme, just to make sure we thoroughly win, I’ve calculated how long it takes to move a new concept in. It’s about 5 months. O/Ws info is now grass common. Almost everybody on staffs is aware of meter action and potential. We won’t forget or lose it. All right. We conclude this stage for staffs as of now and move into help. You’re going to get help for months! Run it, PE it. Co-Audit it. HGC it. Staff clear on it.

Any one of you can grasp all this in minutes. But as a group we have to experience it, learn about it, know it, use it. So it’s months now coming on Help. After that we’ll move on up.

This is a long-range clearing effort. I want to see nothing but clear staff members the world around. And we’ll do it. In just twenty months from now it will be done. That’s the timetable. We’re five months on our way. Like it?

Now when I’m stressing this on staff members and HGCs are hitting it hard (HGC will continue to run the scale for HGC as given here on each pc), you are going to hit the field auditors and the public with the subject in vogue. Thus you’ll be stressing help now until five months are up to all the people you reach. Of course even after that you’ll stress it, but for five months we’re monomanic on it. Dig up the help essays in lectures and Abilities. Use them in mags and letters. Get familiar with handling help, talking to people about help, handling help in all its phases. You get clever on the subject. That’s all part of it, you’ll see another resurgence in Central Orgs and the field just by flattening this one for five months. O/W doubled our success. See what help does now.

What formidable people we’d be if we had all five steps flat! We’re already the most effective group on Earth. Let’s upgrade our own group ability.

So that’s the programme. A staff member is lucky to be aboard just now. Has been lucky especially since Autumn 1959. That was when the bell went. And do not send to find for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for an aberrated Earth.

I audit you. You audit the field and Scientologists, they audit Earth. Is it a bargain?

So get hot on the staff co-audit programme. Get hot on the PE with help. Grind help to pieces on the HGC. Picasso had his blue period. This is the help period.

So let’s get clear!

								L. RON HUBBARD 

LRH :js.cden 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 MAY 1960

Franchise Holders 
HCO Secs Assn Secs
HELP PROCESSING

At last we’ve found the button almost any case and all the world can run.

Help may not be everything that is wrong with the world but it is the only common denominator the world can understand.

I have known about help for some years and in 1957, autumn, used it, with fateful Step 6, in clearing people. The first clears made easily by others were done with meter assessments and five-way help brackets on terminals.

It was found that Step 6, being a creative process, was bad on some cases. The clearing formula was help and Step 6. We tended to abandon both when Step 6 became an overt. It blew us off.

The next big technical development was O/W. Overt-withhold, of course, is as old as 1954 (Phoenix) when reach-withdraw was introduced. But the full knowledge of what overt-withhold meant to cases was not released until November, 1959. Here came much new technical data, all of it vital to clearing. A person with large withholds from the auditor will not go into session. This is true, valid and useful. We could not clear many people even now without it. Further, we find all losses in Scientology personnel in Central Orgs and the field stem from O/W.

In researching O/W, as early as December, 1958 (Washington, D.C.), it was found and proven conclusively that it was what the person himself did to others that was aberrative, not what was done to him. The test of this can be made easily. Given: an ARC break between auditor and pc who have known each other some time. Note the position of the meter tone arm. Run “What have you done to me?” “What have I done to you?” Observe that after some small variation the limited value of this two-way flow (which assumes the auditor’s bad action was half what was wrong with the pc) shows up in a stuck tone arm. This two-way process is too limited to alter the tone arm after a few minutes. A lie has been introduced. This lie sticks the tone arm. Now shift to “What have you done to me?” “What have you withheld from me?” And watch the tone arm free up and eventually go toward clear reading. In other words, the situation freed wholly only when we assumed that only what the pc had done had any aberrative value.

This and other vital material learned between 1957 autumn and now was the technology necessary to do full clearing on everyone except the wholly psychotic and unconscious people (where we have the CCHs).

Everything learned about O/W is still necessary to clearing. But everything that applied in O/W also applies to running help.

It’s marvellous that a five-way bracket on help cleared people. It did clear some. But where it failed it ran into the rule that it’s only what the pc does that is aberrative, what is done to him is not. Thus, what help the pc has given and what help he has denied or failed to give are aberrative. What help the pc received, in the long run is not (no matter how the psychologists cut it).

There are probably thousands of ways help could be run. You can think of dozens. All of them would be effective in greater or lesser degree. Just add help into any process form we know. But the one general process on help that would rank high would be “What have you helped?” “What have you not helped?” alternated.

This is not a dichotomy. This is the best way I know of to run the sense of what help one has given plus what help one has withheld. This is the O/W version and we will call it “Help O/W” to keep ourselves oriented and not introduce too many new terms. I find “failure to help” instantly upsets “What help have you given?” “What help have you withheld?” This version does not run. The correct sense wording is “What help have you given?” “What help have you not given?” This lets the pc as-is his failures to help as well as his denials of help.

This is only the general form. Think how much more we know about O/W. Apply it to help.

Two-way help would have use. But would be limited. Use it. Know it’s limited.

Five-way bracket help would have use. But would be limited. Use it. Know it’s limited.

This pair has enough power to gain more constant attendance in a PE Co-audit than we have had. So use them in PE Co-audit. Two-way help has just moved a PE Co-audit case that has been in co-audit for one year without moving on any other process.

Two-way comm on help has value. It’s the presession version. No matter who is helping who, a discussion of it can get the pc closer to session.

Now here is data you’ve been wondering about. Does help in presession become an end all in the HGC. No. Hit the presession points lightly, then in Model Session form use help as the process to be run. And run it until it’s flat-flat-flat.

When the Model Session has begun, run a meter assessment. Find any terminal that drops. On that terminal, in specific or general form, “How have you helped ....?” “How have you not helped ....?”

Any experience you’ve had with O/W and meters and assessments, apply it to help.

And that’s how you’re going to clear people. It’s amazingly fast, even on a psychosomatic illness.

Now get your own reality on this.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.gh.rd 
Copyright ©1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 MAY 1960
Franchise Holders 
HCO Secs 
Assn Secs
HOW HELP BECAME BETRAYAL

Help is the button the world spun in on a few million years ago. It’s where we find our pc. “Help is betrayal”, so there is no way out. Scientology “must be bad” because “help is betrayal”. Everybody knows that. So if Scientologists help people then we “must be betrayers”!

We’ve heard it, seen it. But now we know what it is and can laugh quietly when people try to chew us up.

When they really wanted to make a trap of it all, it was propaganda given out that “help is betrayal”. None must have any help lest they be betrayed. So the thetans stay in their cages.

It is interesting how this mechanism developed. The game of victim is very old. It intended to arouse mercy and safeguard possessions. It became a trap. Once one believed in victims thoroughly he started to help only victims.

So this sequence began—one hurt another (who played victim), one felt sorry for the other, one sought to help the other. (Ever see a professional help sponge?) When this was very old, the action of injury became identified with the action of helping. As the cycle was injure—victim—help, as soon as the time gets vague in it, the parts of the cycle become injury-is-help or help-is-injury.

It has long been true that help could be injury as a common denominator. Out of this rose self-reliance as a virtue. You’ve known people who refused help because they were “proud” or “self reliant”. Well, that’s only the first stage of “help-is-injury”.

The second phase is not so old. I think it’s only been reversed for the last two million years or so in this quarter of the universe. The “complete flip” is not an identification of help with injury but a disassociation, a complete dispersal on the subject. How-to-injure becomes help. This is betrayal. With the intention to injure, one offers help to create a dependence on something disguised, which on use becomes injurious. It is this psychotic action which finalized the trap as a trap. “Don’t dare accept any help because it is only an effort to betray”, is the fixed idea which has become prevalent. One can have neither games nor life with that idea. It’s this idea which poisoned Christianity.

Now that may be hard for you to see because, by the very virtue of being a Scientologist, you don’t think all help is offered just to injure. But others have that idea and so you find them hard to understand. We are few because we few didn’t believe all help was injury. But as soon as we sought to help others, who didn’t accept Scientology, we ran into a wall. What was the wall? The above idee fixe. The majority in the world evidently believe that help is only an intention to injure. This is more than help-can-injure. This is “all-help-is-dangerous-because-anyone-offering-to-help-intends only-to-injure” .

There are too many examples around for you to need many more. You can find your numerous own. But the Mau-Mau people killed only those whites that had sought to help the blacks. And just as I was wrapping up the research on this technology (which is now beyond being only a theory) I received a letter from a white attorney who had been asked to help. In a panic he was demanding to be let off quick! It was very funny. With my research papers on my desk before me, I was presented with a perfect example of the technology! Poor man—little did he know what his letter was arriving into. I wrote him back and his next letter was so confused! He may even recover.

These ideas, as fixed convictions, are all about us and across the world. This is the idea which blocked our way in our sincere intention to make men free. This is how we have caught it in the press and, some of us, from our dearest friends and relatives.

We have been confused. But so is Man. Man is still confused. We are not. By studying and knowing our data on this, the “wall” will go “poof”.

Any psychosis, neurosis or illness is fragile, no matter how fierce it seems. These can only thrive in lies.

Now what will happen to the barriers we have had when they are hit by truth?

I give us twenty months to having all cleared staffs on Central Orgs, three years to all cleared Scientologists, two decades to a large proportion of Earth cleared. That’s my idea of it now.

So learn to handle help. Get cleared on it in co-auditing or in the HGC. Learn a dozen ways to discuss it so as to break down the barricade of “disinterest” (which is really fear) and get the show on the road.

Help is not injurious. Help is not the best way to hurt.

Help is just help. Let’s flatten it until we’ll always know it and never forget it again, and learn adroitly to collapse the help psychosis in others by talk alone.

We have bought our own Freedom to Help.

Use it.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

(In the next bulletin I will give you the exact way to use help in Model Sessions.)

LRH :dm.cden 
Copyright ©1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MAY 1960

MA

DE-CERTIFICATION, HOW YOU SHOULD SUPPORT IT

The Cancellation of an Auditor’s certificates is a measure taken by HCO when these conditions exist: (a) The auditor has consistently refused supervised processing; and (b) the auditor has committed anti-social acts liable for prosecution under criminal law; or (c) continues to associate with a de-certified auditor and balk efforts of HCO to bring the person into an HGC for auditing.

Wild tales and rumours are often spread by a person who has been de-certified and his “friends” to prevent the public from recognizing the truth of the action. That truth is: HCO is trying to get somebody to have auditing that is effective before he irrevocably harms himself, and that HCO has evidence of criminal activity or association.

Support HCO’s efforts to get auditors in for supervised processing when they have gone wrong. You can assist HCO by doing the following: (a) Realize that the whole “punishment” by HCO consists of getting the auditor to have processing that is effective and at very low rates, (b) realize that HCO has evidence of criminal actions or association when the certificate is “pulled” and (c) support HCO’s efforts to keep certificates in clean hands and the repute of Scientology beyond reproach.

If they don’t believe Scientology will help them, why are they auditing?

Please assist HCO to make auditors keep their code. Don’t buy auditing from de-certified auditors. Don’t pay bills to de-certified auditors (they have no right left to sell processing for money). Force them in to the HGC where we can care for them. Very few get de-certified. But they do all the public damage to Scientology. In HCO we have to choose between two overt acts:

1. 	An overt act against the offending auditor by de-certifying or
2. 	An overt act against you, the public and Scientology by ignoring their anti-social actions.

In HCO we always choose 1.

Many are the cunning rebuttals and tales put out by an auditor whose certificate has been pulled. Just remember when you hear them that the person putting them out refused auditing for a long time before he lost his certificates and that HCO has evidence of criminal activities by that person it is not publishing. We don’t “pull” two certificates a year in all the thousands around the world. Help us keep it low by making our demand that offenders get audited, where we can supervise it, stick. It’s only kindness. When we don’t get them to an HGC they sometimes die, sometimes ruin their lives, and they hurt all of us. Back HCO so HCO can back the honest and the good.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright ©1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 MAY 1960
Franchise Hldrs 
HCO Secs 
Assoc Secs

SECURITY CHECKS

The Organization Secretary in Washington is here at Saint Hill for briefing on future US campaigns.

When I showed her how to do a security check and gave her a demonstration, she made the following notes. They are of considerable interest to all Central Orgs and HCOs as well as auditors. Therefore, I give them to you in full.

Security Check

1. 	Stable data—you are not processing but looking for needle or tone arm action that will not blow off. (Clear up on investigation—further questioning and E-Meter exploration. )

2. 	Rising needle means nothing except you aren’t asking right questions.

3. 	You are looking for significant drops or tone arm changes that will not clear up. It is something that person is consciously withholding and as he continues to withhold it on further questioning the needle or the tone arm action will increase.

4. 	You start out by asking non-significant questions—50% of questions are to be these, i.e., if you have 10 significant (security) questions to ask you start out with 10 non-significant questions. If you have a needle pattern on non-significant questions you note it and it doesn’t count on security questions.

5. 	On significant questions—any question that gets drop or TA action—you don’t go any further but explore on this question. You may be getting action on past life or rather unimportant this life acts—i.e., sniping a balloon from a store as a small child. Clear this out. The needle may cool off (less action) but still be reacting. If so, explore further—see if you can clear it off. If on exploration the action increases, the person is consciously sitting on something he doesn’t want you to know. If he’s handing you up something else to explain the needle action (i.e., trying to clear it up by handing you something else) the action will increase because he’s basically lying. If the action increases you can tell him he’s sitting on something he won’t tell and that he’s a risk. He may break down and let go of it at this time. If so—he still needs processing on it and is a risk until he’s responsible for it. Just letting go of the withhold doesn’t make him responsible for it. He is not retained on staff while being processed to clear it up. What you are looking for is that which won’t cool off. You can cool something off and go on to the next security check question and then later come back to the reacting question. It may have built up again. If so, explore some more.

6. 	On a Security Check Sheet you only note those questions that wouldn’t clear. If something won’t clear or cool off the person is a security risk. If he does tell you and clear it, if it’s a heavy crime, note it.

7. 	E-Meter—use of in security check—check out meter before connecting person to be checked. See former bulletin on checking out E-Meter. Generally you set the sensitivity straight up on American meter unless the needle is very very sticky. English meter is more sensitive—so you set it lower. Then set the TA—have the person squeeze the cans. You want about a 1/3 dial drop so you can adjust the sensitivity if the action is too much or too small on the can squeeze. Put the person at ease. Don’t act accusative. You don’t want to restimulate all the interrogation in the bank. It’ll just take that much longer to clear it off.

8. 	There may once in a while be a person who reads nicely at their clear reading with no action and you’re very suspicious the guy isn’t clear. This could be a complete “blab” no responsibility case—a mockery of clear. You can check this out as follows. Make a somewhat accusative statement to the person that would be real to him—i.e., “You never get your work done.” The mockery of clear person will wildly justify and blame. Check this person out on help—2-way—on an employer, etc. They will be real nowhere on help—i.e., can’t conceive of helping an employer—can’t run 2-way help, etc. This person, no matter how secure he may seem, is an employment risk because he can’t help and will only cause difficulties on a post. He’ll be a camouflaged hole.

9. 	Along with security check on staffs a help check should be given. If the person is sticky on help (can conceive of some help in some areas but has several areas of no help, especially on 3rd dynamic), he needs processing before he can be hired. If he’s nowhere on help—can’t run 2-way or can’t conceive of helping an employer or an organization, he is not hirable until he’s flat on help which will probably take many hours. He’s probably a CCH case.

10. 	Remember, as a security checker you are not merely an observer, or an auditor, you are a detective.

I trust these notes will be of use.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :dm.cden 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MAY 1960
MA (not a lead	
article	Issue II
but a 2nd place)

Dear Scientologist:

For a long ten years I have had to wear many hats. Amongst them is an Ethics hat by which I have had to protect, often with small support, the good name and standards of conduct of Dianetics and Scientology.

To say the least the hat and necessary actions of counter-attack and defense have been distasteful to me. And in this regard, I humbly ask your help.

We have the answers today as to the why of “squirrels”. We know the reason for their overts against Dianetics and Scientology. Technically, with overt-withhold and the phenomena of help we not only understand them but can straighten out their insecurity and hates to their own benefit.

Could you help me in this? It must be evident by now after ten long years that if there were any twist or untruth, betrayal or insincerity intended by me or organizational people, we long since would have passed away. The rumours that are put out by unbalanced people achieve only harder work for me and for good people everywhere.

In ten consistent years you should have proof enough that I’ll stay at my post and do my job and overcome barriers, technical or administrative, organizational and field, somehow.

I dislike punishments and quarrels and entheta as much as any of you. Sometimes I haven’t handled these things well, but I have tried to do my job as best I could here on a muddy earth.

Today nothing can destroy us or our works. I have no fear for our future and I know what we can do. Available to your hands is the technology necessary to handle rumor mongers, unethical persons and enturbulators. You can help me by handling them and getting them to good auditors, preferably an HGC, and preventing them from upsetting others and our task. Winning is so easy now, success is in our very grasp.

What failure do you think I feel when I am asked to cancel a certificate? With all the wealth of truth before him, someone avails himself or herself of no part of it and with a glass of water held in hand, dies of thirst.

Yet some of this burden lies with you. When an auditor forgets his personal auditing, and audits without being clear, why does the field permit him to crack up? Why haven’t his friends and associates thought enough of him to force him to get processing from a reliable source? Why do they wait for him, overworked already, to emerge from the tangle of some emotional crisis utterly unstrung and hating everything, before they offer processing?

Clearing the executives, the auditors, the people of Scientology is your job now. When you hear somebody “going bad”, running away and raving against us all, don’t harbour him and sympathize—you’ll kill him. Make him go to the nearest HGC or an auditor with altitude over him and get his overts off and his ability to help increased.

There are thousands of auditors across the world. Few of them are clear. Once or twice a year amongst all these one of them turns upon us. Rumours fly. People wonder. Eyebrows raise. Why? In a few years they’ll be clear. We’ve just begun the project. Right now they are not. Instead of standing around blinking, wondering even believing such wild tales, why aren’t you being effective? The person doing bad and untrue things needs assistance. The least you can do is drive or force him to an HGC where supervised auditing (and not patty-cake) will straighten the person out and make life bright again.

My lines are heavy. My days are long. To these should we also add my Ethics hat?

A breakthrough has happened here in 1960’s spring bigger even than O/W. We’re clearing people fast in HGCs. It just began to happen. But it isn’t happening to auditors in the field yet and it won’t for quite some while. Meanwhile must I go on and act to minimize the damage being done by people not only not yet clear but heavily caved in?

You could help me by pressing these people in toward auditing, by understanding the why of their rumours and hates and getting them processed. And you can help by insisting that “names” in Scientology get processed regularly by competent auditors in an HGC (not by some “friend” who’ll patty-cake) until they’re really cleared. I myself have had scores of hours of processing since last fall. If I could be clearer than I am, what’s that make the case of other Scientologists?

You could lighten my lines, and my heart, if you’d share this burden even a little bit. Hold the field together until they are all clear.

Now, certain you will help in this and let me get on to wider work, I wish to celebrate the occasion of HGCs, using new technology, beginning to make clears again, by announcing the complete and unqualified restoration of all certificates and awards ever cancelled since 1950. They’re all in force again. Let’s get on with our job.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 MAY 1960

BPI
MA
BY THEIR ACTIONS ......

By their actions you shall know them, whether bad or good, whether on another side or ours.

And what in their actions gives us the keenest insight? Their ability to help.

Some think that help cannot be done. Shun them. Some think that help is always an effort to betray. Process them for here you have the criminals of Earth.

Some people cannot help. They can only injure and destroy. And if in the name of help they only injure and destroy then know them carefully for they are criminals.

What is a criminal? One who thinks help cannot be on any dynamic or uses help on anyone to injure and destroy.

Who are these men with covert ways who bring Earth its pain? They are the men who cannot help. Who are the women who must be helped but who can only maim? They say, these men and women, that they’ll help and then they make a thorough shambles of it all.

From where did Earth conceive her traps and aspects that are grim? Earth would be a lovely place if all men helped to help, not to destroy.

Think heavily on this point. Judge men from what they think of help. Judge women too and find the good ones from the bad.

The good can help. The bad will not or if they do, they “help” only to betray.

The good of Earth comes from above the point of make and break where help is help and honestly. The pain of Earth comes from the tones where help does not exist or where it’s used to pull us into agony.

Know your friends. It’s strange that those who argue with us against our goals and Scientology cannot conceive of honest help. Discuss help with them and you’ll find their tone and whether they are worth a lot as friends.

This is the test that you can use to separate the good from bad and then clear-eyed begin to make a world in which all life can live.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.cden 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JUNE 1960
Fran Hldrs 
Central Orgs 
HCOs

THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF 
SCIENTOLOGY VERSUS OVERTS

The entire secret of all overt-withhold mechanisms is valences.

I have known for a long while that a profile on our tests is a picture of a valence.

If the preclear were in no valence, but was himself completely, he would have a perfect test response and would be wholly clear. In this statement we have one of the background structure points of Scientology.

This was an assumption point for some time, a point of departure, like “conservation of energy” in physics is the primary assumption point of 19th Century physics—if we assume this point then we have the “truths”, axioms and other data in elementary physics. The point, assumed and never proven (and not even well phrased) is the start point in physics from which all deductions are made. It is an “understood”, a non-examined theory. Physics was demonstrable truth, but only in a limited and finite sense. The moment nuclear physics, my dear companion that haunted my college days, came into action, the assumption point began to crumble and is not now considered to be truth. Hence while elementary physics works in a finite limited sense, it is not a considered true science any longer—it is only elementary science.

Freud, for instance, had as his start point (or assumption point), the Libido Theory of 1894 in which he based all on sex.

It is rare that a science ever embraces its own assumption point and resolves it. Freud was stuck with his Libido Theory, just as Newton’s successors were stuck with “Conservation of Energy”. So long as elementary physicists were concerned only with energy which “could not be destroyed or created” they tread-milled themselves into a dead-end mirrored in such things as inadequate costly engines, difficult construction and a complete lock out from space and other planets.

The great Einstein, not a physicist but a mathematician, established a new science which deserved the name of the physical science “physics”, a name already purloined by the natural philosophy of the 1 9th Century. Old time physics was the science of the age of fire and ended with the age of fire. It died to whimpering embers under the down blast of atomic fission. We are no longer scientifically nor politically in the age of fire. We are in the age of freed energy. We do not yet have an atomic physical science. We have only a number of guestimates like the bronze worker of early Greece who knew nothing of the facts of fire metallurgy. The fire age, begun by Prometheus, whoever he really was, is ending on Earth. The raw energy age has begun with all the teething troubles of any new era. Called the “Atomic Age” just now, it started with hints of others before Einstein but was actually born when Einstein wrote his Theory of Relativity. This, a crude guestimate, was yet a great departure point in the history of this planet. It has unlocked space to Man, promised him new engines, widened his scope. Unhappily it has also unlocked vast opportunities for political bungling—but I would rather say that it exposed political diplomacy as a bungling subject which must now urgently improve. Nations can no longer afford political ineptness.

Now the assumption point of physics, the science of the fire age, became disproved and the science is in question and the fire age is in fact over. The holes in physics have begun to glare. Some day a new science will be organized from the assumption point of Einstein’s work (no matter if he’s debunked, forgotten or becomes a legend like Prometheus, the professors of tomorrow can teach as a myth [Einstein stole the secret of eternal fission from a Heaven named Princeton where the goals... ] ) And ages hence somebody will prove or expose the basic assumption and the fission age will resurge or die, depending on whether or not the assumption is found to be true or false.

In Freud’s case in a lesser sense, a short and ineffective but highly interesting age of psychotherapy began with the Libido Theory in 1894 and began to disintegrate through lack of progress and development about 1920 although the subject itself became an intellectual football in the late 20s, an artist’s cross in the early 30s and a teenager’s subject in the late 50s. His contemporaries added nothing effective to Freud’s work and the subject, like psychology, which originated in 1879 and assumed men were animals, failed in all fields but wide popularity.

Back of all work on mental states, however, lie various assumption points, most of them hidden or undelineated, from which the remainder of the subject evolves and grows. If the cornerstone is proven only relatively factual, a long enduring career is guaranteed to the subject. Freud used as his assumption point more than his Libido Theory that all impulses and behaviors are sex-motivated. He assumed that if one were sex-motivated, then if one unblocked this drive by removing an early traumatic sex experience that was impeding the drive, the patient would recover from neurosis. All manner of interesting complications proceed from this: art, being considered a sublimation or aberration of the sex drive, had to be considered wholly neurotic: success, being most desirable as sexual success, was a product of a blessed neurosis if achieved in any other field. As treatment it was common for a Freudian practitioner to cut through the Gordian knot by ordering a patient to go out and have sex with everyone, prove his or her prowess and thus become well and happy. While this secured the popularity of the subject, it did little to reduce asylum statistics as these were on the increase throughout the Freudian age and were highest at its end, and indeed were higher in Freudian dominated areas than in others where Freudian treatment was not used. (Not my propaganda, just a recorded fact.)

The psychiatrist, following a Russian science, has a more basic and brutal assumption point which is that a shock cures aberration. The idea goes back a very long way, making psychiatry a long, if sporadic, age. Psychiatry ebbs and rises in use since it is a dramatization rather than a science. It springs from the same impulse that assumes punishment cures wrong-doing. The limited workability of this is apparent around us on every hand. We could do nothing socially about crime so we inhibited crime by striking at criminals. This gave us suppressed criminality and more criminals but it must be said that lacking any solution that worked well, then any solution that even seemed to work occasionally was considered better than nothing.

Perhaps at some early date in whole history this worked better, but all expedient cures tend to become a new illness. Alcohol, in any alcoholic, once cured something but now produces with amazing similarity the malady it once cured. These are stop-gap cures that do this, not cures in any absolute sense.

As the earliest punishment was the production of a shock in the offender whole track history continues to repeat the treatment for misbehavior as a dramatized action, not an intellectual undertaking. If a person misbehaves, he should be punished. Thus if a person misbehaves insanely he must be punished. Psychiatry is not, then, a science, but a legalized, at present, dramatization. And this is the very dramatization that makes this a cruel universe when it is. Punishment is unworkable as all the statistics show. Punish the criminal and he becomes, too often, a confirmed and hardened criminal.

All this, however, is based on a yet earlier lie. The last two years of my researches have been devoted to establishing or not, as the case may be, whether anything could actually be done to a person, or whether it was not the person himself who did it. I “knew” the latter was theoretically true but I had not found means to demonstrate it-and indeed was quite prepared to discover that something could be done to a person without his being prior cause. This work will be found under all 1958-59 data released all overts and withholds.

The earlier assumption to punishment is that something can be done to another being.

By evidences to date, odd as it may seem, it appears, by all processing tests, that one becomes aberrated only by means of his own, not another’s actions. I do not say that nothing can be done to a person or a being by another person or being. Obviously communication exists. I am only saying that all aberrative effects of action are created by the person who has them. Indeed none could be processed successfully through a burn or engram unless he himself were holding the aberration there—for the fire, location and other people are not consulted and are not even there in fact at the time of processing. A preclear being audited on a past incident can recover from its ill effects. Therefore it seems conclusive that he himself must be causing the ill effects in present time or he could not eradicate them since the “sources are not present”. Thus they must not have been the sources of his “ill effects”. The preclear must have been.

Inspecting the assumption points of Dianetics and Scientology one finds now that what was originally assumed is fact. Thus we are to be here as a science for a very long time.

As no science before ever proved its assumption point that I know about, we are suddenly unique in that our results tend to verify more than our basic truths. The further we go forward, in other words, the more basic are the assumption points. Unlike, then, physics or psychoanalysis or other sciences, we have examined and improved our assumption points.

We assumed in Dianetics that if we removed engrams, life would resurge and become good. This assumed that a being was all right until injured and that eradicating the injury would find him all right again. This is not the same as Freud for Freud never assumed goodness or rightness in Man, but on the contrary seemed to warn that we had better not go too far, art and all that depending on the madness of us all. As God seems to be blamed for most of the art work in this universe this seems a most impudent evaluation of God’s sanity on Freud’s part, although I do not think he ever displayed an actual professional sign saying “S. Freud, Psychotherapist by Appointment to God”.

The Dianetic assumption that Man is basically good and is damaged by punishment holds valid in practical practice and in some tens of thousands of cases (and we’re the only ones in history that validated our findings by strict long, long precise testing on cases); we find that the more we process successfully, the kinder and more ethical our people become. That disposes of the vile nature of Man by staggering poundage of evidence. The assumption that “all art is derived from aberration” is discounted by the numbers of singers and artists who sang better and painted better after they were made saner by us.

The basic psychiatric assumption that enough punishment will restore sanity is disproven, not only by psychiatric statistics but by actual observation and removal of the effects of “punishment” by processing.

That a being, without aberration, would be good, ethical, artistic and powerful, is still a basic assumption in Scientology. It has just been demonstrated as factual for our practice. This is news. Our assumption point has just become a basic truth. It is not just an assumption. Therefore we will now find ourselves on a new plane of progress, perhaps with new teething troubles, certainly with even further goals.

The truth was demonstrated in this wise:

I knew valences, those mocked up other-beingnesses a person thinks he is, were the source of test profile patterns.

When we rid the pc of an undesirable valence his profile rose on the graph and he felt and acted better. When we did not alter the valence in tested cases the profile remained much the same. If the preclear were driven into undesirable valences by experiment, his profile worsened apparently, although this is more difficult to verify, since the tone of the existing valence was undoubtedly dropped as well.

Now from this I have found the mechanism by which a being gives himself pain that is actually self-inflicted but is apparently other-inflicted. And this is a vast stride for it resolves O/Ws and we can consider it a broadly completed cycle of research ending two years with a victory for our assumption point.

By being a valence, not himself, a person confuses the source of pain. Inflicting it himself upon the valence he is in, and by experiencing the pain from the valence, a being can counterfeit the effect of being an effect of punishment. By being Valence A, he can conceive the environment is guilty of striking Valence A, but as this is in fact an overt by himself against Valence A (if only by failing to protect it) he feels the pain of Valence A. As he thinks of himself as Valence A, he can then feel his own pain.

The conclusion is that to feel pain and for pain to persist one must be in a valence.

The remedy for pain, illness, aberration, insanity and the lot, then, is to free the preclear of valences. Apparently, freed of all valences of an unconscious level, the preclear would yet be able to experience, but would not be involved with pain, etc, except by postulate.

The way to free him of all valences or unconscious counterfeit beingness is not the purpose of this paper.

Here I only wish to examine with you the aspects of assumption points of subjects and sciences (each of which has one, usually unknown to the originator) and to pass along the interesting intelligence that our former assumption point of “remove the aberration and you have a worthwhile person” has become demonstrable in practice and can be considered truth.

This means a new level has opened to the future with new certainty.

An overt recoils upon one because one is already in a valence similar to that of the being against whom the overt is leveled.

The mechanism is exposed. And as it is exposed, we find it is not needed since a being without valences is basically good. Only a being with valences has his overts recoil upon him. Only a being with valences commits overts harmful to others as he is behaving as he supposes the “evil” valence would behave but as no unvalenced being does.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1960

MA
WHAT WE EXPECT OF A SCIENTOLOGIST

We inherited, when we began, a great many hidden errors in the society, so deeply laid they seemed right. “Everybody knows that ....” is a tombstone of progress for it contains uninspected lies that bring the wittiest of us to grief. “Everybody knows that Man is Evil” was only one of the many things we found wrong, exposed and dropped from our own knowledge.

However, in the field of what is expected of a Scientologist, we have for ten years carried along an inherited error. It is this: “Everybody knows that a specialist in a science hangs out a shingle and, if a professional, becomes a private practitioner.”

Now listen. Psycho-analysis was developed in 1894 by Sigmund Freud. Everybody who studied it was expected to hang out a shingle and start practising. It took half a century for psycho-analysis to become generally known by the people. Yet how could it miss? Its tenet was that if you were sexually uninhibited you would be happy.

The psycho-analyst took his cue from the medico of his day. If you could heal you were a healer with a shingle.

Well, I’m afraid a lot of us have bought this too. If we were trained in Scientology as a professional we should hang out our shingle as a practitioner. With all due respect to the Scientologist in professional practice (where they have every right to be) this is not a true idea. It is a borrowed idea. It’s as old as the witch doctor.

A Scientologist is the being three feet behind society’s head. And society runs on eight dynamics, not in a sick room. Some of us, of course, would become professional practitioners. But a professional Scientologist is one who expertly uses Scientology on any area or level of the society.

A housewife who does not have professional level skill in Scientology could not expect to run a wholly successful family or keep order in her neighbourhood and keep her family well. A factory foreman could not possibly handle his crews with full effectiveness without professional Scientology skill. The personal assistant to a corporation executive could not do a fully effective job without being a professional Scientologist. A corporation president without a certificate will someday fail. And the head of a country would go to pieces if he didn’t know Scientology from a professional angle.

How can these people handle life if they have no expert knowledge of how to handle life.

Now we don’t expect everyone in the world to become a trained auditor. But we expect the people who are making the world to have a knowledge of how to make it go.

A trained Scientologist is not a doctor. He is someone with special knowledge in the handling of life.

We have many, many personal success stories in Scientology. They begin with a book acquaintance and bloom when professional skill enters the background. These people, small people, big people, drove a wedge for themselves into companies, societies, with Scientology and then took over control of the area. They succeeded where they never would have dreamed they could. And every time one of us drives in such a wedge, we all win because the world is brought nearer to a sane and decent world.
The factories, the marts of trade, the homes, the neighbourhoods, these are the places we want trained Scientologists. In that way alone, we’re on the busy, still healthy communication lines of the world.

Some of us need to run centres and schools just to give the rest of us service when required. Training at a pro level must continue and must be kept good. And service and communication must be given. Hence, we have Central Organizations on every continent and HCOs. But if we avoid the throbbing comm lines of the world and act like doctors, we will not win soon enough as a group.

Any trained Scientologist can win to success in society. Heightened IQ, a knowledge of life, a forthright attitude—with these things it is easy for him or her to improve 2 social or business position, to get higher pay, to exert wider personal influence. This we know we can do, we have done it so often so let’s improve the ability.

Process people weekends, run a co-audit some evenings of the week at home, but get on the active lines of the world and make your presence felt.

It takes full training to do it. It’s been done from our books alone but not always well. It takes tough Academy training to make a Scientologist, so don’t go at it half armed.

And stop feeling apologetic because you are not a “full time auditor”. We are the auditors to the world, not to a handful of the sick.

We are not doctors. We are the world’s trouble shooters. When we make a company win, the whole world wins, when we make a neighbourhood win, we all win.

A full time Scientologist makes life better wherever he is. And that is enough pro activity for anyone.

What do we expect of you? To become the best Scientologist that can be and to get on the comm lines of the world and bring a big win where it counts. We don’t expect you to hang up a shingle as a doctor and have a private practice. We’ll respect you if you do. But we’ll respect you just as much and even more if you get trained as a pro and go out and up in the world of action and of life.

Hit for the key spots by whatever means, the head of the women’s club, the personnel director of a company, the leader of a good orchestra, the president’s secretary, the advisor of the trade union—any key spot. Make a good sound living at it, drive a good car, but get your job done, handle and better the people you meet and bring about a better earth.

And stop feeling hangdog because you “aren’t auditing full time”. Nobody expects you to.

We’ll keep centres going to service your needs, some of us, we’ll provide ammunition and books. And the rest of us had better invade every activity there is on a high level of success and make our influence felt on the comm lines of the world.

Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins.

So let’s help the world win.

LRH:js.rd						L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1960

All HGCs

HGC PRECLEAR ASSESSMENT

With considerable data accumulating on Help when used in conjunction with Alternate Confront and Havingness, and with Help even working on vague past terminals in concept form (“Get the idea of helping a       “ “Get the idea of not helping a       “), it is time to pick up any cases that have been in processing more recently, by starting them again on the first terminal they were ever run on.

You will find that Help O/W will move a case that was begun unsuccessfully no matter how long ago, providing that you discover with a meter what terminal the case was started on originally and address that terminal and audit it until it is flat.

This experimental approach should work, because it has worked that when cases were started again and the first process ever run was flattened, the case began to move.

This will work even though the first approach was engram running or straight wire away back. It should be discovered what the pc’s first goal in auditing ever was, or his first hope for auditing, and get the terminal closest to that goal. It will often be found that the pc was trying to help his eyes or his wife or himself as the first Help terminal in auditing.

When this terminal was not totally flattened the pc, finding he had not helped whatever he was trying to help, got an auditing lose. By finding out what the pc was trying to help at the very first contact with Scientology and by giving him sessions on it with Help O/W a most important win can be obtained.

This bulletin should be given very serious attention in HGCs where the cases always come that have real heavy auditing problems. HGCs get the toughest cases and usually all the old time cases. Where any case is being handled in an HGC it should be suspected that there has been an auditing flub somewhere along the line. Perhaps the pc won wonderfully with the first auditing session but failed heavily down the line somewhere. In such a circumstance always convert the loss to a win.

HGCs do more patch-up than virgin work. Thus it is safe to assume first that any applying pc has had something he tried to help in his own auditing that he received, and that it isn’t flat, and second that the pc has had a lose on some terminal.

HGC auditing as a rule should regard itself as parasitic upon other auditing already done. HGC staff auditors should rarely be attempting the new and strange in an assessment of a case but should be trying to recover past data dredged up in earlier than HGC sessions and converting the losses to wins. This is a type of assessment peculiar to an HGC and we should study it.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :j s.cden 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 JUNE 1960
Fran Hldrs

HINTS ON RUNNING CASES WITH HELP

Presession Help—Two Way Comm.

Rudiments Help—2 way Help, Auditor and pc.

PTP—Use ordinary overt-withhold not help on personnel involved with PTP.

Assessments—There are several Assessments. Dynamic Assessment (HCO Bulletin of May 30, 1960, “Dynamic Assessment on Help”, covered this) terminals found should be handled with Concept Help. Use lots of havingness when running such a terminal.

There is another new assessment, Know to Mystery Scale Assessment. This is done by using the E-Meter on the buttons of the Know to Mystery Scale. That level which most changes the pattern of the needle is the target. Use Concept Help on it.

The most profitable, fast way to get a case moving is to find out what the person was most trying to help when he or she came into Dianetics and Scientology.

This may be “an arm” or “my friends” or “myself”. But whatever it is run it on any help process until it is flat. Concept Help is a good starter for the terminal thus located. This gives the pc a big primary win.

Flatten the Terminals

We stalled on ACC Clearing Procedures because auditors did not flatten help before starting on Step 6. Let’s not lose this horrible lesson.

The technical reason for this is that when help is unflat, a pc is still in a valence. Running Step 6 in a valence is courting disaster as the pc is in a picture that increases in mass and gives him somatics.

We are not returning to Step 6. We have better processes. But we are returning to help with far more knowledge of it.

Flatten every terminal on which you run help. By flatten is meant no needle change when the terminal is mentioned. A way to test this is to depart by two way comm from the terminal and then ask about it again. If the needle reacts the terminal mentioned is not flat. Just talk about something else, like the weather, and then mention the terminal again. You’ll see.

It is better to use a general form of a terminal than a specific form. It is better to run “a young man” than “Joe”. If the E-Meter reacts to “Joe” it is best to find out what Joe is to the pc and find the general form that reacts most (“a friend”, “a young man”, “a bum”) and run that, not “Joe”. You will get a lot further than when you run a specific close to present time terminal.

Help As Valence Problem

When people become a valence, they do so for at least two reasons.

First and probably most powerful: The thetan takes a valence that he believes will help others or the universe.

Second and more mechanical: The thetan tries to help something or somebody and fails and the last stage of his effort is to mock up a picture of the thing and try to help it.

There are various aspects of all this, more and more complicated. The thetan becomes a man to help women. He fails and thinks men can’t help women. So he restrains men, or he becomes a woman.

A thetan can become very involved with his computations on the subject of help. One black case I know is seeking to help others by absorbing all the blackness in the universe !

There is a formula for handling 1. above. Find out what a thetan is being and find out what that beingness helps and not helps by using the command, “What would ____help?” “What would       not help?”

There is a general form which discovers beingnesses in a pc. Find out something, very general, that a pc is trying to help or has failed to help and run “What would help ____?” “What would not help____?” on the discovered terminal. The pc will get cognitions on what he or she is being and what the pc is restraining himself or herself from being.

Finishing Off a Difficult Terminal

Any terminal that is being run on help that was unwisely chosen can be eased off by running old overt/withhold, alternate confront or responsibility. This is a crude way out but it will work.

In any event, any session should contain general alternate confront “What can you confront?” “What would you rather not confront?” and havingness. These take the edge off unwise choices, any rough auditing and make the case feel better.

If the pc can do it, responsibility can get a pc off a bad choice fastest. If a pc can run responsibility easily. The pc has to be running rather well in general before it can be attempted. The pcs who are suffering because of an auditor choice of-wrong terminal usually can’t run responsibility easily. Of course, successful auditing is “What you can get away with”.

The best and smoothest way to get off a bogged terminal is alternate confront. But when the case has afterwards been run on other terminals with help, it’s best to go back and clean up the ones that earlier bogged with help by running more help on them.

General Processes

The general processes which assist help sessions are alternate confront—”What can you confront?” “What would you rather not confront?” and Havingness, “Look around here and find something you could have.”

Any couple hours of help should be followed in the same session with fifteen minutes of alternate confront and fifteen minutes of havingness. These times are approximate and are given just to communicate some idea of ratio. A truly boggy case could do with a ratio of 1:1:1 such as 45 minutes of help, 45 minutes of alternate confront, 45 minutes of havingness. As the case gets out of long, long comm lags on help, increase help in the ratio to 1 :1/2:1/2 or one hour of help, a half hour of alternate confront, a half hour of havingness. All this is auditor judgment established by observation. As it is the help in any form that does it, remember to use help to advance the case, and alternate confront and havingness to make the pc feel good.

Alternate confront and havingness improve a case, of course, but are long, long hauls as processes if we think of clearing with them.

Help on near present time terminals is far less effective in clearing than help on general terminals that have a lot of track to them. As general terminals can get a pc into a lot of confusion on the back track, alternate confront and havingness keep the pc from getting too bogged to run. Alternate confront also takes the edge off invented answers by the pc. (Create—confront phenomena.)

There are lots of help processes and many ways to run them. They all win to some degree. It is the amount of help run rather than the number of terminals cleared that clears the case.

Help basically sheds valences. Therefore havingness is needed. But the valences are all “can’t-haves” so when the valence is off at last the havingness of the pc comes up.

Almost any brand of help run long enough by good auditing should clear a pc. Hence, the idea is to run help and run it flat.

LRH:dm.cden						L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JUNE AD10

Important MA 
Franchise Holders
SPECIAL ZONE PLAN
The Scientologist’s Role in Life

Ten years ago, on about this date, I was up against third dynamic confusion of such magnitude that within a few months, I was to decide to forget organization problems and concentrate on research.

Because of this decision for years we were poorer in numbers but richer by far in knowledge.

It evidently was not enough to be able to help the basic problems of an individual. There were eight dynamics. It was necessary to take in at least some of all eight dynamics before we could be effective.

And toward the end of June in 1950, I first sensed that truth. And the maxim—bring order to your own house before you attempt order next door.

In June, 1950, the Foundations were already beginning to shatter under the enthusiastic door pounding of the public. I had built the proverbial better mousetrap and all the world was beating a path to our door—and was breaking the door down!

Yes, we could do wonders with people. Greater wonders than had been done in recent millenia. But we were ignorant beyond the first two dynamics. The moment we sought to handle the third we were done.

That was ten years ago. Within months of that date all that was left of the first organizations was rubble and newspapers blowing by in the wind.

I worked hard, and studied and researched, never friendless, often helped and worked ahead for ten years.

The First Dynamic, self, fluctuated in results and has stabilized with unsurpassed processing technology. In proof, our people are individually in better shape than any other group.

On the Second Dynamic, family and sex, we have gotten into a winning position. We know the answers to marriage, children and sex. The material isn’t all published broadly enough yet even for Scientologists to know it but it’s there and we’re living better lives.

The Third Dynamic, groups, is the spectacular breakthrough of today. It’s happened so gradiently we’ve hardly realized we have won. But observe: we have a magnificent organization. In America, England, South Africa and Australia we have just about the most wonderful organizations Man has seen for their size, cost and defensibility. Here we have achieved spectacular stability. Largely self-determined, yet co-operating smoothly these third dynamic examples compare with June, 1950, Foundations like the Royal Ballet compares with the aftermath of Hiroshima.

Just as we can represent in ourselves the grip we have on the first dynamic, so do we represent in our organizations that we have the third dynamic well in hand.
The technology of our third dynamic in organizations and the field is an exact one, as skilled as an auditor’s know-how. And having applied it to organizations we are now applying it to the field, which is the main subject of this bulletin. You in “the field”, you are about to win, too, with a complete new level of policy and action if you want it: you are about to be included “in”.

The Fourth Dynamic, Mankind, is now an understood zone of operation and is declared herewith to be operational for a Scientologist. The prize of understanding Man as a racial and political species has fallen to our hand. Don’t smile. I know it’s an incredible announcement. But it’s factual.

On the Fifth Dynamic, that of living things, I have been making headway since last year and know quite a bit now about them. Many of the secrets have dropped into our hands.

On the Sixth Dynamic, the physical universe, we have for some time stood well above what they know in physics.

On the Seventh Dynamic, the spirit, we covered this ground very thoroughly in 1953-54-55 and it’s still all true but too advanced for general consumption. The best record of this was in the 1953 Philadelphia Lecture Series of 64 hours.

On the Eighth Dynamic, the Supreme Being, we have at least found the key question and in a little while we should have it answered on a demonstrable basis. Far from presumptuous it is about time somebody neither atheist nor zealot asked some questions, and arrived at some answers that have no self-interested curves in them.

So you can see where we are going and have at least a passing acquaintance with developments. Here we are with the largest fund of information of life and its patterns that has been assembled in a factual package on Earth.

Now the question is, what are we going to do with it?

Until we had the third and fourth dynamics demonstrably in hand technically we could not answer the question. We’ve each had his own idea of what we should be doing with it and each of these ideas is right to the degree that it’s right for each of us. I have never discussed this point strongly because I did not want to shake anyone into an uncertainty. So let’s say that all these ideas are right and then add a Third Dynamic Idea with which we can all agree.

Improvement is the common denominator of all our ideas. And of course each one has a zone of interest where he or she feels improvement is most needed or where he or she would be most comfortable in doing the work of improvement.

And that’s the gist of this Third Dynamic Idea. It’s a rather deceptive idea at first glance since we are each of us doing something of that.

But let us be far more definite. And let us expose a fallacy that has long been riding with us, as an unknown passenger.

People think of professional practitioners as doctors who, aloof from all other concerns, practise on the sick. This is a very novel idea. Dreamed up, probably, by the first lazy witch doctor and used forever thereafter by most specialists in human livingness. And here I want to as-is and banish that idea from amongst us all.

If we are doctors (by which might be meant “repairers”) then we are doctors on the third and fourth dynamics and handle the first and second dynamics only to achieve better function on the third and fourth.

And true enough, most Scientologists agree, I think, with this concept. But it itself is as new and novel as the idea of being a professional practitioner to individual health once was.

I believe our third dynamic organization, taking in all Scientologists, should go this way:

The Central Organization and Centre Scientologists should service the remaining Scientologists, doing administration, instructing and auditing. Instruction to a professional level of all Scientologists should be entered upon as a must. Central Organization and Centre Auditing should be special and referred cases and the Scientologists themselves when they want it as part of service.

Being trained and cleared need not hold up the next zone of action, though it is taken for granted that these will occur for each.

The “field auditor” should be included wholly “in” to the general activity as a large zone divided into smaller specialized zones. The “field auditor” should of course run a group some evenings (he will find he has to) and audit not only members of his family but contacts in his zone on weekends or evenings. But, as you will see, he or she is largely wasting time by trying to be an individual doctor type practitioner where he or she is only partly successful at it. Some of course will have to work full time in centres as we get into action but centres are mentioned above as a special activity along with Central Organizations.

The largest majority of Scientologists should, I feel, consider themselves as “doctors” on the third and fourth dynamics. And if we work well at this, we will have answered all our various needs and brought it off on the third and fourth as well.

Now I wouldn’t be talking to you like this if I didn’t feel I had this studied to a conclusion.

Consider our position: we have arrived at a very special plateau of knowledge as has been reviewed above. Data on our know-how is being codified for use in these zones of action.

Consider the position of the world. The story is often repeated on the whole track. As Mest is made to help too much, a plateau of civilization is reached in which the individual is downgraded to a number. The end of this—the lights eventually go out through lack of personal initiative and ability.

We are in a fantastic position, at the right time and place, to halt this cycle of decay and start a new one on Earth. And I believe we should overtly do so.

How?

We are masters of IQ and ability. We have know-how. Any of us could select out a zone of life in which we are interested and then, entering it, bring order and victory to it.

Of course, there’s a heavy challenge in doing this. Some of the victories would be hardly won. But we would win across the world if we kept our vision bright.

The third and fourth dynamics subdivide. Any third breaks down into many activities and professions, a neighborhood, a business concern, a military group, a city government, etc, etc, etc. The fourth dynamic breaks down just now mainly to races and nations.

Now just suppose a Scientologist were to consider himself a professional only for the purposes of treating and repairing or even starting again these third and fourth zones?

See this: a housewife, already successfully employing Scientology in her own home, trained to professional level, takes over a woman’s club as Secretary or some key position. She straightens up the club affairs by applying comm practice and making peace and then, incidental to the club’s main function, pushes Scientology into a zone of special interest in the club—children, straightening up marriages, whatever comes to hand and even taking fees for it—meanwhile of course going on being a successful and contributing wife.

Or this: a Scientologist, a lesser executive or even a clerk in a company, trains as a professional auditor, and seeing where the company is heading, begins to pick up its loose ends by strengthening its comm lines or its personnel abilities. Without “selling” anybody Scientology, just studies out the bogs and remedies them. If only as “an able person” he would rapidly expand a zone of control, to say nothing of his personal standing in the company. This has been and is being done steadily across the world. Now that we have presessioning, it’s easy to straighten up other people. Our unreleased technology on handling third dynamic business situations is staggeringly large. You’d be surprised how easy it is to audit seniors. They and their families have so many troubles. Or how easy it is to spot the emergency-maker and audit him.

And see this: a race is staggering along making difficulties for itself. Locate its leaders. Get a paid post as a secretary or officer of the staff of the leaders of that race. And by any means, audit them into ability and handle their affairs to bring co-operation not trouble. Every race that is in turmoil in a nation has quasi-social groups around its leaders.

And this: a nation or a state runs on the ability of its department heads, its governors, or any other leaders. It is easy to get posts in such areas unless one has delusions of grandeur or fear of it. Don’t bother to get elected. Get a job on the secretarial staff or the bodyguard, use any talent one has to get a place close in, go to work on the environment and make it function better. Occasionally one might lose, but in the large majority, doing a good job and making the environment function will result in promotion, better contacts, a widening zone.

The cue in all this is don’t seek the co-operation of groups. Don’t ask for permission. Just enter them and start functioning to make the group win through effectiveness and sanity.

If we were revolutionaries this HCO Bulletin would be a very dangerous document. We are not revolutionaries any more than we are doctors of sickness in individual patients. But we are not revolutionaries, we are humanitarians. We are not political. And we can be the most important force for good that the world has ever known. Who objects to a company functioning better to produce a better civilization? Who objects to a race becoming sane and a stable asset to its communities? Who objects to a neighborhood smoothing out?

Only the very criminal would object and they are relatively ineffectual when you can know and spot them. And there are no criminals except the mentally disabled.

So this is a challenge on the third and fourth. Almost all Scientologists are in a position to begin to help on such a programme.

And I am studying now first the popularity with you of this plan and, if great, how best to help us all achieve it. The first thing required is an understandable designation for Scientologists undertaking their portion of this Special Zone Plan. I should think the word “Counselor” is acceptable with an appropriate additional designation such as “Family Counselor” or “Company Counselor” or “Child Counselor” or “Organization Counselor”. What we would do is issue an HPA or HCA as a certificate as always and would issue a special zone certificate to any person operating in that zone after he or she had completed an additional correspondence type briefing course covering that general zone. In other words anyone would have to have a professional certificate before he or she could be designated as a special zone counselor. The costs of obtaining such a certificate would be kept slight, no more than bare administration. The advantages of having such a designation are plain. A clerk with a certificate on the wall from the Academy of Scientology designating that he or she has been graduated as a “Company Counselor” would startle even a complacent executive into conversation about what was wrong with the place and as he was talking to a pro auditor any scepticism would quickly fade. A pro would know! As it all starts with being a good auditor and as the additional technology is exact in any of these fields, the programme is feasible.

We are at this stage of this programme: I have found that Scientologists operate with high success on the third and fourth but that it rarely occurs to them to try it and when they do they think I want them to audit full time and they are apologetic about their attempt. I have the technology pretty well to hand and can write zone manuals. I feel we now have clearing well in hand in Central Orgs and will soon have it broadly so for Scientologists in “the field’’ but I do not feel we need wait on that but take it and further training in stride. I feel that we are ripe for an overt attack on the third and fourth down spiral. I feel our auditors should take advantage of their increased personal ability and should be regarded accordingly by society and its zones. I see clearly that we have to win on the third and fourth if we are to attain our goals of a better world.

The special zone plan is made possible by a slight shift of approach. Take the case of a police officer who got interested on a PE course and read some books. He tried to “sell” his chief on Scientology as a subject and was given a heavy loss. One, our PE level trainee was insufficiently schooled to be effective. Two, as a pro his approach could have been any one of several. He could have eased himself nearer a command source area in the department, or he could have taken over a pistol marksman on the force and made him a champion as we did with the Olympics team once. The slight shift is that we would have made this police officer get pro training before telling him “sell Scientology” to the force and then would have advised him to sell it by action, not words. Handling the familial problems of the commissioner as his driver or making the rookies gasp at how fast he could train them would be selling by action only. And no other kind of selling would be needed. He’d be running an evening coaching class for his fellows or superiors on Scientology in a few months and making some of them follow the same route. How long before he had altered the whole character, ability and effectiveness of the police force and through that how long before he would have civilized the whole approach to law enforcement in that area? For, once we have created an opening, we always avalanche to fantastically swift gains.

That’s the Special Zone Plan. Several hundred thousand are ready for the first steps. Those that aren’t trained as pro HPAs and HCAs could start in soon. There are special ways to get training at an Academy now. And even while awaiting this training and working toward clearing such Scientologists could begin to determine their zone goals and work on them.

Our impact on the society is already weighty. With Special Zone Plans we could move that impact up thousands of times greater and have in our present lifetimes our goals at least in part accomplished and a decent world to come back to again.

What do you think of it? Write to me in care of Central Organization HCO in your area to give me your views on the Special Zone Plan.

When you write please advise me as follows: whether you like or do not like the idea. If you like it tell me the zone you are in or would like to be in (what area do you want to help?). But whatever you say please write as your letter will be considered as a vote. We have arrived at a crossroads where our action now could well affect the future history of this planet.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rdjh
Copyright © 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard                        				
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JUNE 1960

Franchise Holders

CREATE AGAIN

As you know, the basis of a reactive mind is creativeness done below the level of consciousness.

The source of all engrams is the pc who creates a picture of the incident below his level of knowingness and recreates it into a “key-in”. He uses the engram to warn and restrain himself, but this as a solution to trouble is a faulty one. It might have cured trouble once but like all cures became itself a new trouble.

In 1957-58 we attempted to handle this before we had HELP flat-flat-flat. Step 6, used then, made the whole bank toughen up, if HELP was unflat.

If a person is in any valence, he is victimized by his own creation. To produce or create anything is to invite a toughening of the reactive mind.

If HELP is flat on numerous terminals and if the E-Meter no longer reacts to help questions of any kind, the person is Mest clear. Only now is it really safe for any auditor to handle the subject of create.

Several things reduce the toughening up of a reactive mind due to aberrations concerning creation. Chief amongst these are alternate confront in any form, particularly general. Responsibility processes also reduce the bank’s heaviness. Havingness also takes the edge off a bank. And of course help on terminals reduces a heavy or thick bank. Therefore Help, alternate confront and havingness are the keys. Responsibility is less workable in early stages since the pc is usually in some valence and when he says “I could be responsible for....” he means “Valence could be responsible for....” which runs in fact irresponsibility, not responsibility, since valence, not pc, is responsible.

There are some ways to run “create” in early stages before help is wholly flat on other terminals. Best of these subordinate methods is “What creation have you helped?” “What creation have you not helped?” One that is pretty high but sometimes works well if the person is not in a valence is “What creation could you be responsible for?” (Combination suggested by Dick Foster.)

O/W on other people’s creations is not very good but very spectacular. Using create with alternate confront (“What creation could you confront?” “What creation would you rather not confront?”) is of course workable.

Enough people are coming up toward or have arrived at Mest clear now that you had better have the next stage.

I would advise help and not help on creations until the needle is floating with no reaction to questions of any kind on them. Alternate confront on creations and havingness should still be used as in help.

But first be sure help is flat on all terminals including the thing the person came into Dianetics or Scientology to help and also flatten help on every terminal that has been contacted or run on O/W processes or any help process first. Then you can try the above.

LRH :js.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
copyright ©1960						
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 JULY 1960
HCO Secs 
Assn Secs 
D of Ps
MAKING CLEARS AND PICKING UP HGC QUALITY

To the HCO Sec: IMPORTANT

To improve the auditing results of an HGC, put the following programme into effect: Results are good today but they can get faster in any HGC.

Appoint a competent Instructor from the Academy (not a staff auditor). Give this Instructor the many HCO Bulletins on Pre-sessioning, Model Sessions, Help, Alternate Confront, Havingness. Have him gen himself up on those and this present HCO Bulletin.

Convene the HGC, including the D of P, for one hour three days a week immediately after they complete auditing for the day.

Have the Instructor drill them on the following subjects:

First — Teach them Regimen 1. 
Second — Get them easy with Model Sessioning. 
Third — Get them easy on Pre-sessioning. 
Fourth — Make them study all the data on Help, Alternate Confront, Havingness. 
Fifth — Check them out on Dynamic Assessment, meters and flat needles.

Lay down and permit them to run as your first step, as of now, only the following:

REGIMEN 1

(Only Regimen I can be used until an auditor has
excellent results on several pcs)

(a) 	Assessment—ask the pc what is wrong with him. Take the pc’s answer, make it into a general terminal. Run that and nothing else. When it’s cooled off, assess again, same way, run that. Don’t argue or dispute or change what the pc says except to convert it to a general terminal.

Example: 	Auditor: “What do you think is wrong with you?” 
	PC: “My wife.” 
	Auditor: “OK, we’ll run a wife.”

Example: 	Auditor: “What do you think is wrong with you?” 
	PC: “I’m impatient.” 
	Auditor: “Can you think of somebody who was impatient?” 
	PC: “My Father.” 
	Auditor: “OK, we’ll run a Father.”

Example: 	Auditor: “What do you think is wrong with you?” 
	PC: “Well, I think I’m attenuated.” 
	Auditor: “Did you ever know an attenuated person?” 
	PC: “Yes.” 
	Auditor: “Who was it?” 
	PC: “George James.” 
Auditor: (since this is a specific terminal and we want a general one) “What was George James?” 
	PC: “A Loafer!” 
	Auditor: “OK, we’ll run help on ‘a loafer’, all right?” 
	PC: “Fine.”

When “a loafer” is flat, flat, we do the same assessment again and as above get a new general terminal.

(b) 	Use as a process two-way concept help. Example: “Think of a father helping you,” “Think of you helping a father,” etc. Flatten it down to a no reaction on meter. (Lay meter aside for most of sessions. Use only to check.)

(c) 	For a quarter of any session time run alternate confront. “What could you confront?” “What would you rather not confront?”

(d) 	For a quarter of every session’s time run havingness to end with—”Look around here and find something you could have.”

(e) 	Start session with checking for PTPs and ARC breaks. Handle PTP with “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?” only.

(f) 	Handle ARC break with “What have I done to you?” “What have you done to me?” only.

Regimen 1 omits pre-sessioning. It does a rough kind of Model Session, as good as one can get but skip being critical of it.

It will take the instructor a week or two to get the staff to buckle down on Regimen 1 only. Don’t let the instructor get off into anything else than Regimen 1 while teaching it, except these above points and the following:

1. 	Handle pc pleasantly.
2. 	Don’t chatter at pc.
3. 	Get pc to execute every command given.
4. 	Run good TRs.

Now with the D of P, stress all auditing points and handling the auditors with heavy 8c. Teach D of P not to Q and A with auditor problems. Example: Auditor comes in, demands unusual solution. D of P gives it. Auditor comes back saying “It didn’t work.” It didn’t work of course, because auditor never used D of P’s solution. The only reply of D of P should be “What didn’t work?” and all is revealed. D of P is taught not to give solutions or sympathy, just to demand adherence to instructions and get results. Auditors don’t have personal cases where the D of P is concerned. The instructor must get this effective attitude into effect. Good 8c on staff auditors. No excuses accepted.

The instructor can be given this as an added assignment and can still instruct in the Academy. It’s only 1 hour 3 days a week, probably between 3.30 and 4.30. Switch the tape hour in the Academy or something.

Now on all new staff auditors, use Regimen 1, no matter what else comes out that’s new. While he’s learning Regimen 1 he can still audit pcs. How? You ask the new staff auditor, “What process have you been most successful with?” He says, “8c.” You say, “OK, that’s what you run on pcs until further notice.” Meanwhile he learns Regimen 1 out of session and when he has it cool, switch him to that. You could do this on the whole HGC staff while they learn Regimen 1 if desired.

SUMMARY
Here’s the point on the above. An uncertain D of P or staff auditor is guaranteed if he or she is using stuff that’s unfamiliar. Raise familiarity with the simplest version of modern processes and you raise confidence.

This is good for any HGC even if it is doing well.

And this is the way to handle new staff auditors.

You want clears? OK, build up the confidence of the HGC on a gradient scale. You’ll have clears.

It is envisioned this programme will go on for months until it is complete and all auditors are handling all varieties of help and doing assessments well enough with meters to be turned loose with everything. They are turned loose on a gradient scale as they win.

It is also envisioned that staff auditors, like other staff members, will be getting auditing evenings or on staff clearing courses.

Regimen 1 is recommended for staff clearing courses.

LRH:vbn.rd 							L. RON HUBBARD
copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JULY 1960

Fran Hldrs
THE ASSESSMENT OF HELP

You should realize at this stage that we are still feeling around for the most adequate and fastest method of running HELP. Everything which has been given to you thus far is near the mark, and pre-sessioning, model session and flattening help are right on the mark. However there are certain things that make auditors unhappy with running help. Chief amongst these is the fact that it is a tremendously restimulative process when one has not had any run. This means that we had better get the staff theta clearing course or staff co-auditing going fast on a supervised basis.

The second thing is that help does not flatten very easily on a late specific terminal. Of course, this is true of all processes. But help is a peculiar process and is slower on late terminals than other buttons, and here is why.

Help resolves cases because it is the basis of all association, and as you know association leads to identification. And identification is the basis of all mental upsets. The action of help is not aberrative. The failure to help is what does it, or the lack of things to help. However all valences and all identification stem from this button and no other. Now do lights dawn and bells ring? Help is the button which, if run, settles all difficulties with association and identification and all problems of beingness.

Thus there is something peculiar about help which is not true of any other button. Any help run is a gain even (Gawdelpus) if it is left wholly bogged with a half hour comm lag. All bits of help run are chewing away at all tangles of identification. So chew away and to the Dickens with it. Any help run is better than no help run. And because the PC is a bundle of aberrated identifications, any help run untangles some of him. And any help run on any terminal tends to “get at” any other terminal.

So that’s why help run in any old way will sooner or later make the grade. But this is no reason to believe there are not also smart ways to run help.

Any late specific terminal, being so confounded far from basic-basic on the time track, runs tough and endlessly. Therefore as always it is better to run general terminals than to run specific terminals. However in the case of a PTP you can go ahead if you have to and run help on the PTP personnel, but as soon as the edge is off the PTP for Heaven’s sakes shift to the general form of the specific terminals you have been running, and flatten those a lot or a little.

Keep a very close record of what you have run on help as the only precaution you have to take, and when the PC is running toward mest clear check back with help on these terminals and make sure they are flat. When a lot of help has been run on basic material then of course you will find that what ran very arduously before will now run much better. It is almost a waste of time to run specific terminals, but still you must run things that are real to the PC, and if only yesterday was real to him then you are stuck with running the PC on later terminals or even specific terminals.

A much faster way to run help than by sorting out real terminals on an E-Meter (which is still necessary sometimes) is to do an assessment on the PC using help and the dynamics, and finding a button that is entirely off dynamic and that the PC can’t imagine helping. This is a trigger to a case. Unusual results happen very fast.

Another way to go about this is a simple questioning of the PC on the subject of his dislikes. Watch the meter and when you get a silly reaction on a dislike, like a rock slam or a heavy drop or a sudden theta bop, then pick this out, make a general form out of it that registers like the first mention, and run that on the PC. This is a rather loose and sometimes misleading assessment. But remember that all help run leads to untangling all buttons and so it is a perfectly good approach, and as the PC gets run on something he is awful darn sure he ought to be run on he is often very happy and co-operative in this. Whereas on a dynamic assessment he is made intensely curious as he didn’t know he was aberrated on what you found out. In other words just asking the PC what is wrong with him, getting it into a general form that registers on the meter and running Help O/W or concept help on it, is good reasonably fast processing. It is better than assessing for just a terminal that drops or for a specific late terminal that drops.

As a comment it should be noted that help is the last thing that folds up in the dwindling spiral of aberration. About the first thing that folds up is interest. But when it is gone there are still three buttons left on which the person can function. The next one to go is communication. This becomes a contest of overts as in the ARC breaky case. Anybody below this lives his or her life this way. The next one to vanish is control. So don’t be surprised to find somebody around who does plenty of overts and who can’t stand control who can yet be run on help and who can still function in life. When interest, communication, control and help are gone, that’s it. You haven’t got a person left. So beware people who are below help. Beware of them in living. But in auditing when you can’t get HELP to bite at all (and if he can talk to you you can get help to bite) you have nothing left but the CCHs. You can make it on them too but with tremendous investment in hours. And when you’ve got the CCHs flat then you can start running help.

But as I said above I have not yet been able to say the PERFECT way of running help. I am still investigating it like mad and am giving you all the gen as it comes visible. However have patience with me. I have learned that people not only have it twisted a bit, they’ve got it shattered, and that’s the majority of people. So we’re in there slugging away and we’re making clears, and if I get hold of any faster ways to do you’ll be the first to get the gen.

LRH:js.cden							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JULY 1960

Fran Hldrs

CURRENT RUNDOWN

CONCEPT HELP

Concept processing is very old (1953). The original version of concepts goes:

   	“Get the idea of .............”

The modern version of Concept Help O/W goes:

   	“Think of helping a .............”
   	“Think of not helping a .........”

Two-way Concept Help goes:

   	“Think of a ...helping you”
   	“Think of you helping a ............”

Five-way Concept Help would go:

(a) 	“Think of a ..helping you”
(b) 	“Think of you helping a ...........”
(c) 	“Think of a ..helping others”
(d) 	“Think of others helping a ..”
(e) 	“Think of a ..helping a ..”

Concept Help has the value of being below, in its effect, the level of articulate thought which of course means that it bangs away at reactive thought.

Just exercising a pc in thinking at command is a sort of CCH on thinkingness, with which, of course, pcs have trouble. They have more trouble with creating than thinking and concepts are more in kind with confronting than with creating. Making a pc invent answers is, of course, right on his worst button. Therefore Concept Help goes a long ways on a case. It is quite unlimited, no matter what form is run, so long as some attention is paid to flow direction. (A flow run too long in one direction gives anaten—unconsciousness, remember?)

ALTERNATE CONFRONT

Concept Help, however, has the liability of making things “muggy” at times because of its indefiniteness.

Aside from create, the primary button that is awry (but which cannot be directly attacked without often overshooting the case or involving it in heavy bank reaction), the next things mechanically wrong with a pc would be unconsciousness and confusion. Help, of course, is the primary point of association and identification and is WHY things go wrong with a pc. But a scale of WHAT is right with a pc in descending order of importance would be, as above:

      	Creativeness
      	Consciousness
      	Order
      	Control

and these would be flanked by the things wrong with these items which make them decline:

Create—Irresponsibility 
Consciousness—Refusal to confront 
Order—Unwillingness to bring order 
Control—Lack of control.

Help fits in somewhat on this order. One creates to help (and fails). One goes unconscious to help or makes another unconscious to help him/her (and fails). One sees difficulty for others in too much order, seeing that two systems of order clash, and lets down his to help.

One conceives that control is bad and ceases to control and resists control to help others. These are all wrong helps, apparently, and when done, bring about aberration.

Aberration consists, evidently, of wrong-way assistance as follows:

Optimum Condition -----> Response -----> Resulting Condition 
Creativeness -----> Irresponsibility -----> Disowned Creations 
Consciousness -----> Non-Confront -----> Unconsciousness 
Orderliness -----> Unwilling conflict -----> Confusion 
Ability to Control -----> Consequence of control -----> Mis-control.

Confront is a remedy for the consequences of the first three conditions and also communication. An auditing session itself by its TR mechanics, improves control and communication. Therefore Confront in one form or another is needed in routine sessions.

Havingness is an objective and somewhat obscure method of confronting and using it as we do objectively, it is a specialized form of confronting, possibly its best form, objective or subjective, even though a series of subjective havingness in Washington in 1955 tended to show that profile gains were not made by subjective confront, a conclusion still subject to further checking.

Confront straightens out any “mugginess” churned up by Concept Help. No vast tone arm improvements should be expected from Alternate Confront, but even if it doesn’t work well, like havingness, as a primary process, it has very good uses. Alternate Confront gives us a stabilizing tool. Pc feels weird = run Alternate Confront. He’ll feel saner. Following this subjective process with the best objective process, havingness, we achieve stability for the gains reached by a help process.

As a comment, beingness is more involved with havingness than with confront.

Confront, on short test, can be run lop-sided, and does disturb the tone arm. “What would you rather not confront?” run all by itself in one pc (a BMA type test series!) did very well. “What can you confront?” of course did very well. Alternate Confront has enough wrong with it to be poor as a process for getting gains but wonderful as a process for stabilizing a case. I’ll run some more tests on Negative Confront and let you know. But it is a fluke. By theory it is improbable as it is a cousin to the no-good “What could you go out of communication with?” But “What could you withhold?” is the greatest IQ raiser known! And it works. So perhaps Negative Confront, “What would you rather not confront?”, will work too. Of course it’s a fundamental button. All unconsciousness, stupidity, forgetfulness and enforced beingness result from problems in confronting.

IDENTIFICATION
A=A=A=A is as true today as it ever was. The inability to differentiate is, of course, a decline in awareness. Identifying Joe with Bill or Rocks with Smoke is loony. This is identification, a word that is amusing semantically, as its exact opposite, “Identify”, is its cure, but is the same word!

Association of things or thoughts into classes is considered all right and may even be necessary to “learn” things. But this is the middle ground, already half way to lazy thinking.

Help, as assistance, is an identification of mutual interest in survival. Thus we have (1) possible confusion of beingness and (2) continuation. This makes help ripe for trouble. When one fails to help he keeps on helping! No matter how. He does keep on helping what he has failed to help. One of many mechanisms is to keep the scene in mock-up.

Help is a fundamental necessity, it appears, to every person. But it is dynamite when it goes wrong.

As a symptom of its continuance (survival factor—see Book ONE) pcs running help readily get the idea that help on some terminal “will never flatten” even though it is flattening nicely!

To handle this as a special item, one can run the confront part of a session with “Continuous Confront”, the Alternate form of which is:

(a) 	“What could you continue to confront?”

(b) 	“What would you rather not continue to confront?”

The positive form (a) can be run alone for case gain. And I am going to test the negative form (b) as a single run to see if it can be “gotten away with”. In theory, as all anaten is unwillingness to confront and as all help is continuous survival, form (b), Negative Continuous Confront, should do marvels for IQ and may become the proper companion for help processes if the session is ended with havingness.

At the present moment auditing routine is:

          	Pre-session
          	Model Session
          	Help Processes
          	Alternate Confront
          	Havingness

all in every session.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright ©1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1960
Fran Hldrs

SOME HELP TERMINALS

ASSESSMENTS

The basic method of finding a help terminal is of course the E-Meter, using an ordinary or dynamic assessment.

A simple and very satisfactory way of making a pc happy and getting results is to ask the pc what he thinks is wrong with him/her and run whatever the pc says—providing it’s a terminal—in a general form. If it’s not a terminal, get the pc to convert it to one.

Example: 	Auditor: “What do you think is wrong with you?” 
PC: “My wife.” 
Auditor: “OK, we’ll run a wife.”

Example: 	Auditor: “What do you think is wrong with you?” 
PC: “I’m impatient.” 
Auditor: “Can you think of somebody who was impatient?” 
PC: “My Father.” 
Auditor: “OK, we’ll run a Father.”

Example: 	Auditor: “What do you think is wrong with you?” 
PC: “Well, I think I am attenuated.” 
Auditor: “Did you ever know an attenuated person?” 
PC: “Yes.” 
Auditor: “Who was it?” 
PC: “George James.” 
Auditor: (since this is a specific terminal and we want a general one) “What was George James?” 
PC: “A Loafer!” Auditor: “OK, we’ll run help on ‘a loafer’, all right?” 
PC: “Fine.”

TERMINALS BY PROFESSION

There are however some “professional” terminals you can run which do a lot for a case.

Find out what the pc was professionally in this lifetime and sort out what this profession helped as a terminal and run that.

Then run the beingness of the pc in this lifetime as a terminal and you’ve cleaned up a lot of track.

Always use, of course, the general form of any terminal—not Aunt Agatha but an Aunt. Not “the works mechanic at Pulman” but a works mechanic or a mechanic. The less adjectives the better.

This does much for a case, and rapidly.

ASSESSMENT BY GOALS
A pc also gets very happy when you run a beingness the pc is trying to be or hopes to be or even once hoped to be.

For instance, the pc wants to be a painter or wishes he were a painter or wishes he could be a painter again. Fine, just run help on “a painter”.

The pc wanted to be a singer. Run it as “a singer”.

The pc is trying to be a good housewife or husband. Fine, run “a housewife” or “a husband”.

In short, when you explore why the pc wants to be processed the pc often is either trying to correct something wrong (see above) or is trying to be something. Your assessment is done when you establish either item and the pc will recover, do better and be very happy with you.

RECOVERY OF PAST SKILLS

When a pc is getting processed to be able to recall Sanskrit or German, if the pc is in good shape by reason of other processing as above, you can recover it for him by finding out what spoke the language or had the skill and run Concept Help on that terminal.

Example: (typical) Pc can’t learn Spanish, desperately wants to learn Spanish. E-Meter will tell you it’s overts against the Spanish people (or Iberians) that occludes it all. Overts, run, will improve the situation but help, neglecting the overts, should recover the ability. Run “Think of helping the Spanish people (or Spain or whatever falls hardest on the overts)” and “Think of the Spanish people (or same as first command terminal) helping you.” Level it off with a version of Continuous Confront and Havingness on the room and you should attain the goal.

ODDBALL PROCESSES

Some particularly vicious and penetrating terminals can be run on a pc providing his case is already in good shape.

These terminals stem from HCO Bulletin of July 14, 1960. They are run in the order below:

a confusion 
an unconscious person 
a creative person.

Two other deadly terminals that probably should be used to finish off the last stage before clear on an auditor should be “a victim” and “a practitioner”.

Concept Help is the only known version of help that can be run on the five terminals named here as the first three are the fundamentals of a reactive mind.

“A responsible person” can be run before “a creative person”.

These are all rather deadly, over-the-average-ability-to-run, terminals so they should be reserved for the end of clearing.

By the way, just as a comment, clearing is happening with help processed in various forms and by various auditors, around the 250 hr mark, with no reference to time spent on earlier auditing. This is an early datum, based on two cases. On one of these there was auditor trouble and a change of auditors. The processes used were:
Help O/W 
Concept Help 
Confront Havingness.

The terminals used on these two cases were selected by myself, which renders this data specialized.

								L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rd 							
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 JULY 1960
Fran Hldrs

DOUBLE ACTION CYCLES

POLICY ON NEW DATA

Although no change is anticipated on current processes, Regimen 1, Presession, Model Session, and Help, since these are making clears very easily when well assessed and letter-perfectly run, I still have a research line running and new facts appear. Thus I will continue to present this data even though it is not for immediate use in processes.

OLD ACTION CYCLES

The oldest cycle of action is of course the early Vedic hymn, probably written by the monk Dharma himself, so far as I recollect. It shows the dawn becoming the day, becoming the night, and out of nothingness a progressive development into a new nothingness. This has been written as, I think, “The Hymn to the Dawn Child”, available probably in most libraries as the Vedic Hymn.

The next cycle of action is the Create—Survive—Destroy of early Scientology. The dominant part of this cycle of course appeared in Dianetics as the primary law of Book One—Survive. The Dynamic Principle which motivates most biological life is SURVIVE.

The more fundamental urge of a thetan, as different from biological existence, is Create. Thus, in Fundamentals of Thought, the cycle of action becomes Create-Create-create-create—No create (or Counter-create).

Survival is the apparency of creating. Creation brings about an effort to continuously create which becomes “Survive”.

DOUBLE CYCLES

It is interesting now that behaviour, particularly as applied to work, is easier to understand by a closer viewing of the cycle of action.

There are two “double actions” in the cycle which give a better grasp of the actual value of a worker, as well as other areas of life. These then become valuable, at this time, as an evaluation of human beings.

The lowest double action in the cycle is the most difficult to handle when it is present in an organization. This is “destroy in order to survive”.

We see this most easily to-day on the Fifth Dynamic with Eating. One destroys form in order not to die. One kills to live. Of course this involves some very degrading consequences as it is not a duplication. Out of this we can evolve the overt-motivator sequence.

Duplication would be “killing in order to die” or “making survive in order to survive”. As soon as one “Destroys in order to Survive” he is in a mis-communication situation. There is no duplication possible. Individuation results. The intention is double and contrary. One destroys something over there in order not to be destroyed over here. The violation of duplication brings about the upset of feeling bad here when one tries to kill there.

There are too many workmen who enter this upon the whole programme of work. Around them machines, structures and people collapse. Such workmen are trying to survive only by destroying everything around them. And this reaction is not confined to workmen. Anyone in an aberrated state may have some tinge of it.

Another double cycle action is to create in order to survive. This is fairly sane. An artist sometimes will not work unless his survival is threatened. Then he creates. This principle of threatening survival is common to most actions in business and the arts.

The middle ground double is of course making things survive in order to survive. As Survival is translated for processing as Continuous Confront (“What could you continue to confront” + rather not continue, etc) we can find persistences in this category.

We also see “destroy in order to be destroyed” and “create in order to be created” in phases of life.

Probably the worst double is “destroying in order to survive” and the most susceptible to psychosis is “creating in order to destroy”. Science, dedicated to the last as weapons people, go quite mad. And even the farmer’s decline is found here.

Concept running on these doubles is quite interesting. “Destroying in order to survive” is the first concept to be run, being the lowest.

USE IN PROCESSING

All this data is of value in the area of theta clear processing to operating thetan.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

P.S. I am developing some processes which promise to run out engrams about one thousand an hour for a theta clear while holding havingness up.

P.P.S. I am getting some intensives and am stabilising along the + theta clear level. It’s wonderful. Standard modern processes are being used.

								L.R.H.

LRH:iet.rd 
Copyright ©1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 AUGUST 1960

Fran Hldrs
REGIMEN 1

For some time it has been obvious that we needed an auditing procedure that would serve to train auditors using for the first time Model Sessions.

Some weeks ago I developed “Regimen 1”. This was primarily for use in training HGC auditors. It has been so sweepingly successful that it is here given for general field use.

It must be clearly understood that a complete session would consist of pre-sessioning, the exact use of Model Sessions, and the new techniques that are producing Clears. Regimen 1 then is a stop-gap bridge between old style formal auditing and a complete grasp of pre-sessioning and Model Sessions.

It is intended when using Regimen 1 that the auditor come as close as possible to a Model Session but not be critical of it. As Regimen 1 is more and more used by the auditor he should continue to study Model Sessions (HCO Bulletin of February 25, 1960) until he can do one letter perfect.

Once he has the Model Session pat he should then study up on pre-sessioning until he has that perfect.

Naturally all the TRs and knowledge of the E-Meter go into a session. These, with pre-sessioning, the Model Session, give us an auditing form which should be mastered before complete clearing results become inevitable.

REGIMEN 1

(Only Regimen 1 can be used until an auditor has
excellent results on several pcs)

(a) 	Assessment—ask the pc what is wrong with him. Take the pc’s answer, make it into a general terminal. Run that and nothing else. When it’s cooled off, assess again, same way, run that. Don’t argue or dispute or change what the pc says except to convert it to a general terminal.

Example: 	Auditor: “What do you think is wrong with you?” 
PC: “My wife.” 
Auditor: “OK, we’ll run a wife.”

Example: 	Auditor: “What do you think is wrong with you?” 
PC: “I’m impatient.” 
Auditor: “Can you think of somebody who was impatient?” 
PC: “My father.” 
Auditor: “OK, we’ll run a father.”

Example: 	Auditor: “What do you think is wrong with you?” 
PC: “Well, I think I’m attenuated.”
Auditor: “Did you ever know an attenuated person?” 
PC: “Yes.”
Auditor: “Who was it?” 
PC: “George James.”
Auditor: (since this is a specific terminal and we want a general one) “What was George James?”
PC: “A Loafer!”
Auditor: “OK, we’ll run help on ‘a loafer’, all right?” 
PC: “Fine.”

When “a loafer” is flat, flat, we do the same assessment again and as above get a new general terminal.

(b) 	Use as a process two-way concept help. Example: “Think of a father helping you,” “Think of you helping a father,” etc. Flatten it down to a no reaction on meter. (Lay meter aside for most of sessions. Use only to check.)

(c) 	For a quarter of any session time run alternate confront. “What could you confront?” “What would you rather not confront?”

(d) 	For a quarter of every session’s time run havingness to end with—”Look around here and find something you could have.”

(e) 	Start session with checking for PTPs and ARC breaks. Handle PTP with “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?” only.

(f) 	Handle ARC break with “What have I done to you?” “What have you done to me?” only.

Regimen 1 omits pre-sessioning. It does a rough kind of Model Session, as good as one can get but skip being critical of it.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Naturally there are some general requirements which make up the background music, or lack of it, in sessions, and while there may be many of these, four of them are vitally important. These are:

1. 	Handle pc pleasantly
2. 	Don’t chatter at pc
3. 	Get pc to execute every command given
4. 	Run good TRs.

It also goes without saying that one should follow the Auditor’s Code in session as well as the Code of a Scientologist out of it.

So far as the Auditor’s Code is concerned, the only modern error which keeps repeating itself and coming to attention is “evaluation”. Apparently this is because very few newly trained auditors have a good grasp of what evaluation is. Briefly, evaluation consists of telling the pc what to think about his case. This is something an auditor should never do. It is directly contrary to Scientology practice, and enormously inhibits a pc’s gains. Nothing will cause an ARC break like an evaluation. An example of this is to say “Good” with a question mark on it, or to say “All right” as though you don’t believe the pc.

Another difficult point in auditing consists of the auditor thinking he has to believe the pc utterly and accept his story completely in order to have any reality with the pc. A little study of this will demonstrate that one acknowledges what the pc believes. He acknowledges it as something which is believed by the pc. The auditor is quite entitled to his own opinion of it and quite ordinarily supposes that the pc will change his idea of it after more auditing, but this does not mean that one should take what the pc says in a state of mind of “Well that’s reality for you, but I have my own reality on the situation.”
There is at this late date, now that we have the various TRs, no excuse for command flubs. An auditor should not make errors. If an auditor is found to be making errors he should get himself run on Op Pro by Dup.

LRH :js.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 AUGUST 1960
Franchise Hldrs

THE LAWS OF ASSESSMENT

The most important part of auditing is assessment.

This became apparent when I realized that I had assessed all the clears of the 20th ACC and most other clears. Therefore, it follows, I must have been doing something in assessing that I had never articulated and with the advent of the 1st Saint Hill ACC, I managed to do this for Dick and Jan. I have reduced a file cabinet of data on assessing, not before co-ordinated, to two primary laws as the common denominators of assessing.

While assessing still requires judgment, we now can check proper assessment and can begin to teach accurate assessment.

This is a preliminary paper on the subject.

The Laws of Assessment are:

I: 	A thetan’s Reality on a terminal depends upon the degree of outflow a thetan can tolerate from that class of terminals.

II: 	A thetan tends to become that on which he has produced non-beneficial effects. A thetan tends to move from source beingness to effect beingness.

III: 	A thetan tends to maintain a position on the tone scale where inflows are comfortable and to change that position it is necessary to accustom him by auditing, to higher terminals.

LAW I

The fall registered on the E-Meter, when a terminal is mentioned, registers the amount of inflow the thetan is aware of. When he is not aware of inflow he is totally unreal on it or he is completely aware of the terminal.

Therefore when any terminal is mentioned to a pc it will be:

      	(a) 	Too forceful
      	(b) 	Barely tolerable
      	(c) 	Completely real
      	(d) 	Too weak
      	(e) 	Ignored

The E-Meter registers on (b) type terminals with a fall. It registers on (a) type with a rise or no reaction. It does not register on (c) type.

A pc has no concept of (a) type. Even though he flinches from it (steady needle rise) he does not know it. He cannot confront on (a) type but may not even realize it.

A pc reacts to (b) type because it is slightly above his tone scale position but is difficult to confront. Therefore he can be run with moderate success on any terminal that produces a fall.

A pc does not react to type (c) since he can confront it with comfort.
Type (d) is so weak that a thetan at a higher position tends to outflow toward it and thus possibly interiorize into it.

Type (e) terminals are too insignificant to a thetan in any given tone scale position and tend to be ignored. They are still real.

LAW II

A thetan moves from source beingness to effect beingness so therefore any time a fall is noted on an E-Meter, it can be assumed that the thetan has become an effect beingness. It is necessary to find what would create or handle the terminal that caused the fall. This is better to run than the fall terminal, even though it barely checks a rise.

One runs causative terminals always, never effect terminals. But what may seem an effect terminal to the auditor may be a causative terminal to the preclear.

LAW III

Always seek to run terminals that do not clear by two-way comm and which are causative to some slight degree to terminals that produce a fall on an E-Meter.

A TERMINAL IS IMPROPERLY ASSESSED IF IT DOES NOT DURING AUDITING

1. 	Produce a loosening and a tightening of needle action;

2. 	Produce a change of position on the tone arm of at least (minimum) three tones of difference up or down per hour of auditing;

3. 	Produce longer and longer periods of loose needle as the intensives continue;

4. 	Produce a change of comm lag from command to command in the pc;

5. 	Produce cognitions; and

6. 	Improve the ability of the case to confront.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 AUGUST 1960
HCO Secs 
Assn Secs 	
Franchise Holders
VITAL INFORMATION

Having developed now a process package which makes Mest Clears, Theta Clears and OTs without further special uses on many cases, I hasten to send you the data and ask that you yourself at once get audited on it and audit those persons who are surest and best around you in order to obtain a “control of areas” with the increased ability.

Nothing in this process discards the main line of theory of Dianetics and Scientology but since results can be obtained so swiftly with it, it must be asked that persons uneducated in Scientology must not be run too far on it, as they will obtain high levels of action without any understanding which would be an overt against them. In short, do not complete this process on any pc beyond the level of Mest Clear unless the pc has been sent for a course. This will save considerable upset and instability in the long run. It is a technical fact having nothing to do with economics of Central Orgs.

The only overt we can do is to fail to disseminate correct data. We can refuse to process without any overt occurring. But we cannot fail to disseminate without an overt. Study it out and you’ll see it’s true.

I will not give you much theory on this at this writing beyond a statement that all apparent dynamics on people are inverted from their sixth dynamic and that the theory of confusion and the stable datum is paramount here.

In the process we remove the confusion and permit the pc to release the various terminals and ideas.

Later assessment and the running of terminals is probably needful.

The basic process was looked for first in 1951. There was a lecture on it called “Motion and Emotion” and a talk about the “governor” of a pc’s speed of advance. Since then I have had to search very hard and it has taken eight years to match up processes to hit at this.

I have now done this.

The rundown is as follows, every session:

          	Presession
          	Model Session
          	Help
          	Alternate Confront
          	Havingness

The thing on which Help is run is MOTION. The commands are these:

“What motion have you helped?” 
“What motion have you not helped?”

Do not run “What motion could you help” or any invent process. Help, being a responsibility process, gives us the only practical way to get the pc to face a non-terminal like Motion.
This is Mest Clear Route, Theta Clear Route, OT Route.

If the pc runs to flat meter, assess for a terminal, run that terminal flat, then run more Motion as above exactly. The assessment is the most difficult part. If the assessment is right one gets a fast run, if wrong, it takes ages.

But start now on Motion.

We’re off the launching pad. Glad you’re with us.

								L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.cden  
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 AUGUST 1960

Franchised Auditors
Assn Secs
HCO Secs
POWERFUL PRESESSION ADDITIONS

Presessioning had some missing points in it which I have been filling in in order to clear as many 1st Saint Hill ACC students as possible.

Seeing that students were not obtaining as much tone arm action as HGC auditors would for the same amount of auditing it was necessary to study the fact. Students audit each other without altitude and so I had to resolve altitude as such.

Altitude is the factor that makes a pc receive and execute an auditing command. Any good auditor in the field and certainly HGC auditors audit from altitude. Therefore they get more tone arm action and faster clearing. Students auditing each other audit without altitude. As one can’t build up the altitude of students to one another, it was necessary to reduce the need of altitude on the part of the pc.

I have developed then a new presession step at the level of control to care for altitude. It turned out to be a possible one-shot clear command.

This step should be run hard on any pc and very hard on pcs who do not have much effect on their banks. Many pcs cannot run a “think” command. The gradient of cases is the increasing ability to affect the bank with new thought. A low level case can’t. A high level case can.

As low level cases also cannot execute an auditing command cleanly without alterations, vias or non-execution, it follows that the process run is not in question. What is in question is the pc’s ability to follow a command.

Therefore if a tone arm on an E-Meter does not swing at least through 3 tones in an hour of auditing the pc is not following the command clearly or the pc can produce small effect on his own bank. If such a condition exists then the pc is allergic to orders and will be a slow case or hangfire in auditing.

The remedy of this is a presession process at the level of Control.

The process is Presession Control Processing.

The commands are:

(a) 	“What order was disobeyed?” or 
(b) 	“What intention was not followed?”

If (a) does not work go to (b). In any event eventually run both (a) and (b) at the level of Control in Presessioning.

As this is a heavy gain process, if the pc is low scale on a graph, run it instead of help in a Model Session for many sessions.

Presession Commands which are now set are:

PRESESSION INTEREST: (Live or Die)

“What is worse than death?”

PRESESSION HELP: (two-way help on auditor-pc)

“How could I help you?” 
“How could you help me?”

PRESESSION CONTROL:

“What order was disobeyed?” or 
“What intention was not followed?”

PRESESSION COMMUNICATION: Rapid handling of possible overts. There is a set procedure for this that removes life computations which will be expanded later.

As noted, Presession Interest (Live or Die) belongs actually fourth as Interest and may be so placed later.

On the new Presession Control Process the tone arm is the clue. If it doesn’t shift rapidly (3 tones at least per hour of Help processing) the remedy is the Presession Control Process as given above.

								L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.jh
Copyright © 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 AUGUST 1960
Issue II

NEW DEFINITION OF PSYCHOSIS

After a careful study of cases, based on new data, I have a method of detecting and an answer to psychosis which is simple and useful.

The lower a person is on the tone scale the less they can receive and follow orders and directions.

That person who raves and screams at the very thought of receiving an order is of course completely insane.

That person who obsessively fights an organization that gives him clean instructions to help him is, of course, insane.

All persons who have been too much around a bad military or who have had military fathers are very likely to be subject to a derangement. This derangement multiplying brings an insanity. They rave and scream if even their best friends try to help them.

What is gone is the control level. Help may still be there but on obsessive cause of help only. No help may be received.

Look around you, look it over. The criminal will not receive the orders called law. The psychotic will not receive the orders that bring real help.

This gives you a real weapon.

A psychotic is that person who cannot receive orders of any kind, who sits unmoving or goes berserk at the thought of doing anything told him by another determinism.

Want to know if they’re crazy? Give them a simple order.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 AUGUST 1960
1st Sthil ACC
HCO Secs 
Assn Secs

REGIMEN TWO

Regimen Two requires no assessment.

This regimen is run with presession and Model Session and contains a complete set of processes for the Model Session.

MODEL SESSION

It should be noted that the patter wording of a Model Session is what is set and fixed. By always using the same words to open, continue and close a session, to begin and end processes, a duplication of sessions is achieved which as they continue, runs them out. The patter wording of a Model Session should be learned by heart and not changed. The commands of regimens of processes used in Model Sessions may change. But not the patter. It is this patter which makes a Model Session a Model Session, not the commands run in it.

ASSESSMENT

No assessment is used in Regimen Two. The E-Meter is employed to determine the advance and stage of case. Advance is determined by change of tone arm position and loosening or tightening of needle, per unit time of processing, the sensitivity knob always being set the same, session after session. The stage of case is judged by the rapidity of the repetitive loosening and tightening of needle action and the width and rapidity of change of the tone arm.

CLEAR INDICATION

When a case has at last a steady tone arm near clear reading for the sex of the pc and when the needle is loose and does not respond to elementary presession questions, the person is Mest Clear. (See chapter on this in Book I and read it carefully.)

STEPS OF REGIMEN TWO

Step (a)	“What motion have you helped?”
	“What motion have you not helped?”

Step (b) 	“What can you confront?”
	“What would you rather not confront?”

Step (c) 	“Look around here and find something you could have.”

Step (a) is run for the bulk of the session and Steps (b) and (c) are given equal times at session end.

Step (c) may be run at any time if pc’s havingness drops. Step (c) must however always be run until the pc can have each one the bulk of the objects ;n the room.

Cases which do not respond to Regimen Two should be presessioned until the tone arm becomes active, no matter how many sessions this requires.

LRH:js.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 SEPTEMBER 1960
Franchise Hldrs
ACC Students
Ds of P
Assn Secs
HCO Secs
PRESESSION TWO

A reshuffling of theory during the past few weeks in order to improve all ACC cases and clear as many of them as possible has given us new weapons for the difficult case and new heights for all cases with evidence of increased speed in processing and easier handling of processes by auditors. I have been very busy on this and myself received some eighty hours of processing to iron out commands and get a subjective reality by case synthesis on these new approaches.

I evolved a new basic theory of processing from observation of what did not move some ACC cases and what did.

This has been a strenuous research period and though by no means at end, results should now become much easier to obtain in other areas.

Presession Two is not composed of new processes but is a new combination.

In 1956 I discovered that talking reduced a difficult pc’s tone level. Now it is obvious that no significance process moves a low graph case. Therefore, Presession Two is to be used on all cases until a pronounced change of tone arm and needle reaction is attained as below.

Presession Two cannot be run without a good E-Meter.

When a pc has been steadied at his clear reading by many sessions of Presession Two then Regimen Two (or Three as will be issued) may be embarked upon.

PRESESSION TWO

The presession is begun by stating to the pc, “If it is all right with you, we will begin auditing.” On his assent the auditor says (Tone 40), “Start of session. We will begin by running havingness. Here is the first command,” and gives it.

No discussion is begun or permitted with the pc, no rudiments. No chatter. The auditor starts briskly and crisply and invites no discussion of anything and if any is offered by pc, says, “We will take that up later on in processing. Right now we have to begin.”

A case can be retarded by talk in its first stages. Therefore, no talk, just processing.

The Havingness Process is “Look around here and find something you could have.”

This is run to a loose needle and any closer approach (up or down) of the tone arm to the clear reading. The best action on which to end the process is a “blow down” of the tone arm (or a “blow up” in the low tone arm case), meaning a sudden approach of the arm from a non-optimum reading toward the optimum read. The first “blow down” (or “blow up”) is the signal to change to the second process.

The auditor then says, “I will run two more commands of this and end the process if that is all right with you.” And then does so. When he reaches the last command he says, “That was the last command of this process. Is there anything you would care to say before I end the process?” He acks whatever pc says, keeps it brief and then says, “End of process.” At once the auditor adds, “We will now begin alternate confront if that is all right with you. Here is the first command.” And gives it.

The commands of alternate confront are:

“What could you confront?” 
“What would you rather not confront?”

This process is run to a relatively tight or sticky needle and, secondarily, to an abnormally high or low tone arm.

As soon as the meter shows the pc is now “getting sticky” the auditor says, “I will run two more commands of this and end the process if that is all right with you.” He does so and says, “Is there anything you would care to say before I end this process?” The auditor acks whatever pc says, keeps it brief and says, “End of process (not Tone 40).”

At once the auditor says, “We will now begin havingness if that is all right with you.” He acks pc’s consent and does so. “Here is the first command. Etc.”

The action of the tone arm is the signal to change processes—loose needle to change from havingness, tight needle to change from alternate confront. This may take three minutes to happen on either process or a half an hour. There is no set time. It is all done by the E-Meter.

One runs these two processes one after the other, on and on, presession after presession, until the tone arm is stabilized at the clear reading. Then one begins Regimen Two (or Three).

That is the entirety of Presession Two. No goals, no check-out on help, control, comm, no PTPs, no ARC breaks handled. It runs out PTPs and ARC breaks anyway.

It is smoothly audited, crisply with good TRs, almost muzzled.

This will move any case that can go through the action of the commands.

Even if the havingness does not seem real to pc, keep pc at it. It will become real by and by.

The alternate confront answers do not have to be subjective but usually will be.

Here is an auditor trick that permits better attention on pc’s answers and less command mistakes on alternate command processes. When you give the plus command (could you) put your thumb on your index finger. Hold it there until it is answered. When the minus command (rather not) is given, put your thumb on the second finger tip until it is answered. This sets up a physical universe tally and keeps one from mucking up the command sequence without having to “hold it in mind”. This permits better observation of the pc. If he fogs out and needs the question again, thumb position tells the auditor which one it is without recall. I have been using this to free up all attention units for observation of pc and meter and find the additional attention helps the pc. The thumb system is done unobtrusively, of course. This may seem a bit silly to propose but your auditing attention is for the pc and the state of the meter, not holding a command like a concept. The mental holding of the command starts some uncleared auditors into self-audit during a session and may be a cause of session self-audit.

A presession is ended by the auditor asking after his last “End of process”, “Do you have anything you would like to say before we end this session?” He can now take up whatever the pc says and gracefully ease the session to a close. The presession activity is closed by saying, “I am now going to end processing for (this morning) (this afternoon) (today) (tonight). Here it is. (Tone 40) End of session.” He can add, “Now tell me I am no longer auditing you (this morning) (this afternoon) (today) (tonight).”

AN AUDITING PRESESSION

In actuality, a presession of this type is a session of sorts, minus rudiments and end rudiments. But in very real actuality I now find a pc isn’t enough there before he is consistently reading at clear to do anything but cut up his havingness with talk in session. His postulates aren’t sticking well yet. He ARC breaks unexpectedly. Any talk by the auditor invites upsets. And havingness and alternate confront handle PTPs and ARC breaks better for somebody who reads off clear than most other processes. Further, as above, the more pc talk, the more chance for flubs and ARC breaks.

SUMMARY

Presession Two is based on the theory that one is taking the 6th Dynamic off the Seventh Dynamic. This is opposed to taking the Seventh Dynamic out of the Sixth Dynamic. There’s so much to this and so many mechanical facts involved that I’m going to write a book about it shortly as it’s too lengthy for bulletins.

We’re going right ahead now and make lots of Book One Clears through the HGCs and the field. Only these will be whole track Book One Clears. Presession Two and Regimen Three are the first process arrangements I have done which require only repetitive commands, no assessment or judgement of a case beyond E-Meter needle and tone arm readings. As assessment and discussion with the pc have been the major impediments to broad modern clearing by others, I am happy to be able to remove them. It has been quite a feat. As this also gets those stuck arm, stuck needle cases really going, some moving swiftly for the first time, I feel we’ve achieved something. The processes have been to hand but a new theory of processing had to be evolved to isolate them from thousands of other good processes and to get them run exactly right in the correct order.

Presession Two, by the way, is not for HAS Co-audit use or any co-audit use, where meters are not in every auditor’s hands. It is vital that they be run by meter. Otherwise these two processes just stall each other. Co-audit people would just get involved in engrams here and there and be unhappy. Use help on supervisor-assessed terminals in co-audits. It’s good. Don’t run alternate confront. Run havingness afterwards if you like.

One further comment on needle action in running Presession Two. The fastest case advance is probably achieved by getting off alternate confront and back to havingness immediately after a consistent needle rise or steady creep downward (for a low arm case) sets in. A steady rise means the pc has just hit something he can’t confront (the source of rise or steady slow fall for a low tone arm). It’s all no have from there. This requires watchfulness. Be certain to catch it and return to havingness again each time there is a sticky needle coming about.

(All comments on needle and meter reaction in this bulletin are subject to review as the matter is still under study but the above meter data is already proven to be workable and should be used for now.)

								L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.jh								
Copyright ©1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 SEPTEMBER 1960
Fran Hldrs

THE PRESESSIONS OF THE 1ST SAINT HILL ACC

The 1st Saint Hill ACC is being very successful.

The advanced process used on higher cases is Regimen 3. Help on Motion, Alt. Conf., and Havingness done in a Model Session. (Regimen 3/II.)

This has been preceded by Presessions. The presession only is used until pc rides at clear reading with a loose needle during session. Then the presession that cracked the case is combined with Help on Motion as a new Regimen 3. This is designated as follows: Regimen 3/V. This means that a Model Session is run with Help on Motion, the Confront command being that of Presession V, the Havingness command being that of Presession V. In the Model Session, the sequence of processes is the Havingness process, the Help-Motion process, the Havingness process, the Confront process, the Havingness process, the Help-Motion process, etc. The Havingness process is run briefly until Havingness is up. The Confront is run until pc is in p.t. Help-Motion is run until pc gets high on the arm or gummy on the needle.

The following presessions are those that have been effective on one or another of the ACC cases. A more detailed report will be made later.

Presession II is for a fairly easy case. Presessions V to VII inclusive moved, one or another of them, all difficult cases, Presessions VIII and IX have not been used but are included for completeness.

The rule is that if a tone arm does not shift more than one division on a meter dial in an hour of processing, you should try another presession.

If you have the right one for the case, you should get rapid shifts of the tone arm and should flatten it as a presession (pc reading during its use at clear read) and then go into Model Session using your same presession as the Havingness and Confront commands of Regimen 3.

No rudiments, no two way comm of any kind is used while auditing the presession only.

COMMANDS FOR PRESESSIONS II—X

PRESESSION II:

Havingness: 	“Look around here and find something you could have.”

Confront: 	“What could you confront?” “What would you rather not confront?”

PRESESSION III:

Havingness: 	“Point out something in this room you could confront.”
	“Point out something in this room you would rather not confront.”

Confront: 	“What unconfrontable thing could you present?”

PRESESSION IV:

Havingness: 	“What part of a beingness around here could you have?”

Confront: 	“What beingness could others not confront?”

PRESESSION V:

Havingness: 	“Point out something in this room you could confront.”
	“Point out something in this room you would rather not confront.”
Confront: 	“Point out a place where you are not being confronted.”

PRESESSION VI:

Havingness: 	“Look around here and point out an effect you could prevent.”
Confront: 	“What would deter another?” “Where would you put it?”

PRESESSION VII:

Havingness: 	“Point out something.”
Confront: 	“Tell me something I am not doing to you.”

PRESESSION VIII:

Havingness: 	“Where is the (room object)?”
Confront: 	“Recall something really real to you.”
	“Recall a time you liked something.”
	“Recall a time you communicated with something.”

PRESESSION IX:

Havingness: 	“Look around here and find an object you are not in.”
Confront: 	“Recall somebody who was real to you.”
	“Recall somebody you really liked.”
	“Recall somebody you could communicate with.”

PRESESSION X:

Havingness: 	“Look around here and find something you could have.”
Confront: 	“What beingness could you confront?”
	“What beingness would you rather not confront?”

Notes:

By finding the Presession Havingness process that moved the tone arm well and the Confront process that moved the tone arm well, the auditor can make a presession out of this new pair.

On all “POINT OUT” commands: Have pc hold both E-Meter cans in one hand with a piece of paper, or cardboard, between to prevent shorting out, so pc has one hand free to point with.

Havingness command of Presession IV: Unless more than one auditing team present in auditing room, must be run as a walk-about, or in room where pc can see people from window.

Confront command of Presession VI: Use either no acknowledgement, or a very light, continuing sort of acknowledgement, between these two questions.

(Data on the use of Presessions as part of Regimen 3 as given in this HCO Bulletin is subject to further study.)

LRH :js.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard                   
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1960

Fran Hldrs
THE TONE ARM

If you haven’t got an E-Meter, you can’t clear people. That has now emerged as a final datum.

For without an E-Meter you cannot tell, the way it has now developed, whether a case is really moving or not or whether a process is biting.

This startling fact was proven in the 1st Saint Hill ACC (7th London).

In late 1959 I began to study the tone arm as a means of discovering more data about a case.

A year later I can assure you of the following truths:

1. 	A case which is not registering a rapidly moving tone arm during a session is not progressing well.

2. 	A case which has no wide tone arm movement during processing has not remedied objective havingness.

3. 	Extreme low arm and extreme high arm cases only have low objective havingness.

4. 	A case should move three tone divisions of the tone arm dial up or down in an hour of processing before it can be considered to be running well.

5. 	If a tone arm doesn’t change under processing the case is not progressing.

6. 	The keys to a moving tone arm are:

(a) 	Havingness
(b) 	Overts

7. 	No case should be processed on anything else but some form of objective havingness or O/W before the tone arm is moving freely.

8. 	Extreme high and extreme low tone arm cases alike are unable to have the room of the session.

9. 	Extreme high and extreme low tone arm cases alike cannot have the auditor or people.

10. 	Until a case is made to read around the clear read, it should not be processed on anything but havingness, O/W, confront (or duplication) processes.

The tone arm tells you, by its motion, the extent of case advance, long before you get another graph. Inadequate tone arm motion during processing means inadequate case gain.

If the case isn’t gaining, try another objective havingness process.

LRH:js.cden							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 SEPTEMBER 1960

D of Ps
Assn Secs
HCO Secs
GIVING THE PC FULL HOURS

It has come to attention that pcs are sometimes deprived of a part of their full 25 hours in an intensive by including coffee breaks in the auditing time.

As this is one of the most fruitful sources of pc dissatisfaction even when unexpressed, the practice is forbidden.

If the pc demands a break or if the auditor declares one, the time so spent is added to the 25 hours, which is to say the time is made up in actual auditing in the same day it occurred. Careful count must be kept of a break since it must be added to session time and given in actual auditing.

Auditing time is very precious to pcs. Please don’t waste it.

HAVINGNESS INJUNCTION

No pc may be run on two-way comm, confront, help or other process until a process has been found that remedies his havingness and brings the tone arm to clear read.

Overt-withhold on the auditor or other terminal may be considered a preliminary process as it assists duplication and therefore havingness. It is not, however, to be considered a havingness process for purposes of running a case.

Havingness processes meant herein are those of the 1st Saint Hill ACC issued in contemporary bulletins.

MODEL SESSION

HGCs will hereafter use Model Session form immediately that a havingness and a confront process are established for a particular pc. Thereafter all sessions shall be in Model Session form.

The purpose of this is to get the rudiments covered to the end of obviating ARC breaks and present time problems, the only two things which can stall a case which has once gotten started.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: dm.cden 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1960
BPI

CAPTIVE BRAINS

Pity the poor Scientist. He is a captive brain.

Today he has no liberty. He may not, must not utter blasphemy against his captors.

All he is permitted to do is slave.

The cause for which he slaves derives from an accident of geography. If he was born in the “West” he gets to slave for the Extreme right. If born in the “East” he slaves for the Extreme left.

Should he find anything or invent anything, his discovery becomes the boast of Leftist or Rightist.

At once, he has been persuaded, he must deny all further responsibility for his creation and sign over the whole thing for a rouble or one dollar to his captors and must remain anonymous.

And then he must also wear his old school tie and belong to the right society. His credentials must always be in order. If he invents or discovers anything his credentials are examined first, its political use is examined next and then he’s given his microcosm of security and sent back to his cell.

His govemment, his society, his employer all have managed to insist that these conditions exist and, more, are normal and fitting.

If he utters blasphemy such as “I feel radiation is not assimilable for babies” or “Science was invented to serve Man”, he is sacked. His security is taken roughly away and they tear up his old school tie. They say nasty things about him in the papers and glare at his former fellows hoping they start no nonsense now.

When you make a man grind enough years at the mouldy texts of yesterday’s prejudices, he is already on the ropes. He is dimly peeping through bad eyesight at a myopic world. He has been made to feel that if he doesn’t treat life like a tightrope, he’ll fall.

And so he is piteously grateful to receive his old school tie. He is cringing with gratitude when they offer him anonymous rewards. If he destroys Mankind thereby by dreaming up a bomb, he never finds it out. He forgot Mankind. He denied all responsibility for his creation.

Once scientists stood for Truth and tried to serve humanity. Now they serve economics and political creeds.

Why has no defence been built against fission? Because nobody wrote a cheque to build it. Scientifically it is a problem only slightly more complex than Atom Bombs. Why has no scientist started to work on it, cheque or no cheque?

Can it be they gutted scientists of guts when they perverted Newton?

Can it be he or she is a coward, this scientist? Can it be a pay cheque and old school tie mean more to him than life?

Ah yes—I well recall seeking to shame some apple-cheeked young officers, strayed like blinking lambs, into a man-of-war. I graded them on their watch standing with A and B and C and put gold stars on their records on the bulletin board. Such was my irony, so heavy was my hand, as I stood back, that finally I could only weep. They thanked me!

So the product of the group-think, the death of the individual in a university of today, extends further than the scientist.

Slaves it has been said, love their chains. No more so than a scientist who sells his tiny spark of a soul for a pat on the head from a political boss.

And so, as the responsibility of the individual for his creation dies, so we enter in upon a madness of destruction where all human suffering is made available to all.

The man who would destroy all Man for pay, not even vengeance, is so far below contempt he is no longer man but animal, a beast unclean who cares not what he kills so long as he is fed.

You want to end the threat of bombs, then please awake. Politics died with Victoria. Government is no longer done that way. It’s done not by appeals to men but appeals to their bellies and their fears. The world is now controlled by economic groups who debase laws and rewrite texts and so make slaves.

For anything to happen now, enough to end this crazy dance, it will be needful to amend Man’s pride and confidence and teach him he can stand alone on his two feet. The re-creation of the individual is all that’s left, no matter what you would improve.

Man buys his lies from cowardice. Afraid to face the truth he cannot view his death-coming fast, for all Mankind.

In companies, in every path of life, show men they can be free and you’ll have courage back for them.

How do I know this about Scientists? For thirty years I’ve been a maverick, an iconoclast. Each old school tie they sought to hang me with I painted its stripes comically. And I have watched in thirty years almost every other maverick go down. I’ve seen them denied security, given bad notices. I’ve seen them produce brilliant work and have it lie neglected even though their nation bled.

America had the V-2 in 1932. Why did she have to import a foreign Scientist to “recover its secret”?

America had helicopters in 1936. Why did she copy a German machine, the Focke-Wulf, ten years later?

America had a thousand things she would not buy from men who would not wear the old school tie and bow their heads in abandonment of their creations.

I was myself once threatened with expulsion from a university because I said that students should be allowed to think. A terrible crime.

We go into the teeth today, we Scientologists, of the greatest slavery of them all, the slavery of thought. The battle is not ended yet—but listen, we’ve broken through!

We today are the only group on earth that is not owned by either camp or any creed. We serve no flighty masters.

Once there was only me, sickened sometimes by Lying press inspired because I would not be a slave. But now there’s you and you and you. Sometimes we’ve lost a man or a girl but only because they were not brave enough to stand upon a mountain top and say “I’m me! I think. I feel. I am no slave. Come on! Be free!”

But even in our very trying days, we still kept most of us and now we grow into a crowd whose mutters shake the cornerstone of prisons.

And we’ve won technology. Why should I give you sales talks now? Upon every continent an HGC is turning people into clears.

We’re winning or why should the press begin again to growl? On one hand on the stands we read that a grayayayt university now believes that IQ can change, while in the same day a huge scientific group says we are no good.

Our hands lie heavily on destiny, yours and mine. We’ve turned a downward trend upward again. And so as we mount higher, be clever and understand what’s happening.

Attacks in press and elsewhere will mount up. Upon me. Upon us. No. No violence. Just entheta. And money, lots of money will be sent to scream out more and more. Be gratified. Their hysteria is our index of win, nothing less.

Pity the poor slave master! There in his Extreme Right or Extreme Left den, he’s penned successfully the cream of brains and wit. And just as he licks his chops to say, “You’re now all slaves!”, a mighty host cries back, “Who us?” and strikes the fetters from his prey. Poor fellows. Commissar Gulpski and Capitalistic Grab will have to unite to have a quorum in their caves.

Oh no. It’s no mad dream. Politics is dead. Economics now dominates the world. And we sit laughing with technology to undo all their buttons and their charms.

As we improve organisations, we will improve people. And as we improve people we make men brave. And then at last the slave looks down and says, “Why, what are these chains?” and shakes them off.

The vested interest of the world, since its beginning, made but one mistake. They thought that punishment and hard duress were all that made Man work. But Man just worked so long as he could help. And when his wares were turned to bringing hate and death, he struck. Until someone, you and me, give back his willingness to help, the world, like tired wheels, will grind down to a stop.

It is an overt act by you and me to leave in power any group that denies men freedom, knowing what we know. Therefore, attack.

We are the only men and women left on Earth who are no longer slaves.

And we are now all past the point in knowledge and in numbers where we will wear their chains.

The men who need us most are the slave masters.

We will get around to them last, I think. It is more fitting so.

P.S. And now do you wonder why the mutter grows: “Scientologists are dangerous”. But Scientology is the only game where all dynamics win!

LRH:js.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1960
(Originally issued in Johannesburg)
HGCs

ORDER OF TEST OF HAVINGNESS 
AND CONFRONT COMMANDS

Based on data of the 1st Saint Hill ACC which I have now tabulated for what moved cases it is possible that the following processes should be tested on pc in the given order.

The Havingness Processes should bring needle down or up toward clear read for pc’s sex with a loosening needle.

The Confront process should move the tone arm at least 3 tones per hour of processing. The test should at least move arm and change needle pattern. While testing Confront processes run the Havingness process already found between tests until the needle is free and back at clear read.

In testing, first find the Havingness Process that suits the pc. If you can’t get one on the list to return the tone arm to clear read, use CCH 3 or 4 or both until Tone Arm is at clear read with a loose needle.

O/W also assists obtaining a clear read, so does a PTP run with O/W or an ARC break run with O/W. A PTP or an ARC break can stop or prevent a process from being found or from continuing to work when it has already worked before. Get off the PTP or the ARC break and the former workable Havingness will work again. If pc ARC breaks too easily to permit a cleanup with O/W, use Havingness XXXI (two objects) or CCH 3 or 4 or both. If pc still can’t be handled use CCH I and CCH 2, then get run what pc wouldn’t run.

A dozen commands is enough to show if a Havingness process is going to work or not. If the needle fails to free and the Tone Arm starts to go away from clear read, stop at once and bridge to next test process.

Only when the Havingness process is found should the Confront process needed be searched for.

When the two have been found, this is the pair which should be flattened. When they seem flat, combine them with a Help O/W process and run a regimen in this order:

The pc’s Havingness Process.

Help O/W on a terminal assessed or on a factor of Mest (Matter, energy, space, time, form or location as assessed per Regimen 6). (For Regimen 6 hear ACC tapes.)

The pc’s Havingness process.

The pc’s Confront process.

The pc’s Havingness process.

The pc’s Help O/W process.

The pc’s Havingness process. Etc. Etc.
A Havingness process is always run to Tone Arm clear read with a freed needle. The Help process is run to a sticky needle and off Tone Arm. The Confront process is run to present time if possible.

Don’t run anything else on pc until you have found pc’s Havingness process or proved out what he says it was according to last auditor.

By definition:

A pc’s Havingness process is one that returns the Tone Arm to clear read and frees the needle.

A pc’s Help process is one that moves the Tone Arm at least 3 tones per hour and brings the reading always a bit closer to the clear read. (5 to 6, 5 to 6 on and on won’t do.)

A pc’s Confront process is defined in the same way as his Help process, except that it should move pc on the track, going further and further into the past and easier and easier into present time. Pc’s pictures should improve on a confront process.

Run all tests and processes in Model Session Form in HGCs now.

Here are the commands in possible order of likelihood they will locate the pc’s Havingness process and Confront process.

Havingness Commands in Order of Test for Pcs

VII	“Point out something.”

VI	“Look around here and point out an effect you could prevent.”

XIX 	“What is the emotion of that (indicated object)?”

XI	“Notice that (indicated object).” (No acknowledgement) “What aren’t you      putting into it?”

XIII 	“Look around here and find something you could have.” 
	“Look around here and find something you could withhold.”

XXIV 	Outside Process. “What is the condition of that person?”

XXXI 	(Two small objects in auditor’s hands.) Exposes them alternately to pc, with as little motion of arms and hands as possible.
	“Look at this.” (No acknowledgement) “What around here isn’t this duplicating?”

VIII 	“Where is the (room object)?” (Pc points.)

IX	“Look around here and find an object you are not in.”

XII	“Look around here and find something you can agree with.”

XVI 	“Point out something around here that is like something else.”

XVII 	“Where isn’t that (indicated object)?”

XX 	“What is that (indicated object) not duplicating?”

XXI 	“What scene could that (indicated object) be part of?”
XXVI 	“What bad activity is that (indicated object) not part of?”

II	“Look around here and find something you could have.”

Confront Commands in Order of Test for Pcs

VII	“Tell me something I am not doing to you.”

X	“What beingness could you confront?”
	“What beingness would you rather not confront?”

IV	“What beingness could others not confront?”

XVI 	“What is something?”
	“What makes sense?”

XVII 	“What unkind thought have you withheld?”

XI	“Tell me something you might not be confronting.”

VI	“What would deter another?”
	“Where would you put it?”

III	“What unconfrontable thing could you present?”

XXIV	“What is a bad object?”

XXVI	“How would you not duplicate a bad person?”
	“How would you not duplicate a bad thing?”

V	“Point out a place where you are not being confronted.”

IX	“Recall somebody who was real to you.”
	“Recall somebody you really liked.”
	“Recall somebody you could really communicate with.”

XIX	“What intention failed?”

XXII	“What would be a betrayal?”

XV	“What would you rather not duplicate?”

XII	“What is understandable?”
	“What is understanding?”

XIII	“What have you done?”
	“What have you withheld?”

XXI	“What past beingness would best suit you?”
	“What past thing would best suit you?”

II	“What could you confront?”
	“What would you rather not confront?”

The following Havingness Presession Process may be considered nul:

XXII.
The following Confront processes may be considered nul:

XX; XXIII; XXV.

None of the above four moved cases in the 1st Saint Hill ACC.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:aecjs.rd 	
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 SEPTEMBER 1960
Originally issued from Johannesburg
Central Orgs
HGCs
TIPS ON HOW TO CRACK AN HGC CASE

Run lots of “What question shouldn’t I ask you?”, and get them all off.

Find and solve all PTPs with O/W on the terminals involved.

Lots of O/W in general.
____________

Lots of discussion about failed help. Have pc check over many help failures.
____________

Then check for havingness process.
____________
Here are some good tips.

“Look around here and find something you can have” always works on any pc if the rudiments are done, done, done thoroughly.

New Experimental Havingness Processes:

“Look around here and find something you don’t have to make duplicate you.”

“Feel that (indicated room object).” 
“How could you have that (indicated room object)?” 
“How could that (indicated room object) make somebody guilty?”

“Notice that (room object). How long can you be absolutely sure it will be there?”

“What problem could that wall be?”

Confront Processes:

“What unworkable situation could you confront?” 
“What unworkable situation would you rather not confront?”
____________

“What sexual activity could you confront?” 
“What sexual activity would you rather not confront?”
____________

“What sound (or other perception) could you confront?” 
“What sound (or other perception) would you rather not confront?”

“Think of a problem.”

LRH:aec js.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1960 
Franchise holders

HAVINGNESS AND DUPLICATION

After several years of trying to find the precise mechanics of havingness, I think I’ve come very close.

Havingness is apparently the willingness and ability to duplicate in all senses of the word. It also has many lesser connotations but the havingness ability of a pc apparently depends upon his willingness and ability to duplicate, again in all senses of the word.

That which makes communication work in processes is the duplication part of the communications formula (Axiom 28).

The position of a being on the tone scale is determined by his willingness and ability to duplicate. The lower the tone of the being the less willing the being is to permit similar incidents to happen again. This outlaws the experience factor and leaves the being with an “experience-scarcity” which causes him to refuse further experience.

All this is remedied by objective havingness processes (objective duplication increase). The bank additionally must be adjusted by subjective confront processes (subjective duplication increase).

A case will not advance appreciably until the being can remedy objective havingness. Objective havingness, the ability to remedy it, determines the entrance point of a case. Before a process to improve a pc’s objective havingness is well established, the case will not advance, no matter what else is run. After a process that remedies objective havingness is sufficiently established to bring the E-Meter tone arm down to the clear read for the pc’s sex, the case will advance on confront and help and other processes so long as objective havingness is re-established frequently.

Objective havingness is probably incapable of making a case totally stable in the absence of other subjective processes.

As havingness is the willingness to duplicate room objects (Axiom 28), then anything which improves the pc’s ability to duplicate improves his or her havingness.

If a verbal process, after considerable test of various verbal command objective havingness processes, fails to work, the pc may be run on the new Presession XXXI or CCH 3 or CCH 4 or both CCH 3 and CCH 4.

Various old mimicry processes have some workability and we now know why. They are duplication processes and work only because they raise havingness.

I feel sort of slow on this one. It took me six years to find and establish it. But it gives us now the entrance point of all cases. This is why they did or did not make gains. They could or could not remedy objective havingness. Possibly (by 1st Saint Hill ACC case standards only) some 25 out of 40 pcs are not able to run “Look around here and find something you could have” and successfully remedy their havingness without havingness undercuts being used. Therefore this is a critical point in cases and demands care at the very start of a case.

An objective havingness process must be found for every case which will reduce or increase the tone arm to clear read for the pc.
Thirty-seven new havingness processes now exist. Use them.

People go out of present time because they can’t have the mest of present time. That’s it. Present time is the only referral point that exists. In its absence all becomes “bank”.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dm.cden 						 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 OCTOBER 1960R
REVISED 8 MAY 1974
Remimeo

THIRTY-SIX NEW PRESESSIONS

The following material was developed for the 1st Saint Hill ACC. All cases of this ACC were well started toward clear, 25 of them started for the first time. These new presessions were employed. Two of the cases started with two-way comm on failed help only after which some of the presessions following worked.

NOTE: These presessions are subject to revision after my further study. Their numbers will not be changed. I will probably change some of the processes and commands. They are given here exactly as developed and in the order of development, not workability.

NOTE: The assistance of Dick and Jan Halpern, ACC Instructors, is gratefully acknowledged for the discussion and testing of these presessions.

NOTE: Presession I is to be found in HCO Bulletin of 25 August 1960 and is not actually part of this series, not being a havingness confront presession.

PRESESSION II:

Havingness: 	“Look around here and find something you could have.”

Confront: 	“What could you confront?” “What would you rather not confront?”

PRESESSION III:

Havingness: 	“Point out something in this room you could confront.”
	“Point out something in this room you would rather not confront.”

Confront: 	“What unconfrontable thing could you present?”

PRESESSION I V:

Havingness: 	“What part of a beingness around here could you have?”

Confront: 	“What beingness could others not confront?”

PRESESSION V:

Havingness: 	“Point out something in this room you could confront.”
	“Point out something in this room you would rather not confront.”

Confront: 	“Point out a place where you are not being confronted.”

PRESESSION VI:

Havingness: 	“Look around here and point out an effect you could prevent.”

Confront: 	“What would deter another?” “Where would you put it?”

PRESESSION VII:

Havingness: 	“Point out something.”

Confront: 	“Tell me something I am not doing to you.”
 PRESESSION VIII:

Havingness: 	“Where is the (room object)?”

Confront: 	“Recall something really real to you.” 
	“Recall a time you liked something.” 
	“Recall a time you communicated with something.”

PRESESSION IX:

Havingness: 	“Look around here and find an object you are not in.”

Confront: 	“Recall somebody who was real to you.” 
	“Recall somebody you really liked.” 
	“Recall somebody you could really communicate with.”

PRESESSION X:

Havingness: 	“Look around here and find something you could have.”

Confront: 	“What beingness could you confront?” 
	“What beingness would you rather not confront?”

PRESESSION XI:

Have:      	“Notice that (indicated object).” (No acknowledgement.) 
	“What aren’t you putting into it?”

Confront: 	“Tell me something you might not be confronting.”

PRESESSION XII:

Have:      	“Look around here and find something you can agree with.”

Confront: 	“What is understandable?” 
	“What is understanding?”

PRESESSION XIII:

Have:      	“Look around here and find something you could have.” 
	“Look around here and find something you could withhold.”

Confront: 	“What have you done?” 
	“What have you withheld?”

PRESESSION XIV:

Have:	“Notice that (room object). Get the idea of making it connect with
	you. “

Confront:	(First ask: “Is there anything around here that is absolutely still?” If the answer is yes, continue. If no, use another presession.) “Look around here and find something you could stop,” (to change of needle pattern or tone arm) then: “Look around here and find something you could start,” (to change of needle pattern or tone arm) then, when neither command unsettles needle pattern or tone arm any more, use 5 or 6 commands of “Look around here and find something you could change.” Then return to “stop”.

PRESESSION XV:

Have:      	“Look around here and find something you could withhold.”
	
Confront: 	“What would you rather not duplicate?”
PRESESSION XVI:

Have:      	“Point out something around here that is like something else.”

Confront: 	“What is something?” “What makes sense?”

PRESESSION XVII:

Have:      	“Where isn’t that (indicated object)?”

Confront: 	“What unkind thought have you withheld?”

PRESESSION XVIII:

Have:      	“What else is that (indicated object)?”

Confront: 	“What would make everything the same?”

PRESESSION XIX:

Have:      	“What is the emotion of that (indicated object)?”

Confront: 	“What intention failed?”

PRESESSION XX:

Have:      	“What is that (indicated object) not duplicating?”

Confront: 	“What two thoughts aren’t the same?”

PRESESSION XXI:

Have:      	“What scene could that (indicated object) be part of?”

Confront: 	“What past beingness would best suit you?” 
	“What past thing would best suit you?”

PRESESSION XXII:

Have:      	“Duplicate something.”

Confront: 	“What would be a betrayal?”

PRESESSION XXIII:

Have:      	“What is the condition of that (indicated object)?”
Confront: 	“Describe a bad case.”

PRESESSION XXI V:

Have:      	“What is the condition of that person?”

Confront: 	“What is a bad object?”

PRESESSION XXV:

Have:      	“What aren’t you putting into that body?”

Confront: 	“What beingness would it be all right to confront?”

PRESESSION XXVI:

Have:      	“What bad activity is that (indicated object) not part of?”
Confront: 	“How would you not duplicate a bad person?” 
	“How would you not duplicate a bad thing?”

 PRESESSION XXVII:

Have:      	“Where would that wall have to be located so you wouldn’t have to restrain it?”

Confront: 	“Describe an unpleasant environment.”

PRESESSION XX VIII:

Have: 	(a) “What around here would you permit to be duplicated?” or, 
	(b) “What is the safest thing in this room?”

Confront: 	“Describe a removal.”

PRESESSION XXIX:

Have:      	“Who would that (indicated object) be a good example to?”

Confront: 	“What would that person be a good example to?”

PRESESSION XXX:

Have:      	“What would you have to do to that (indicated object) in order to have it?”

Confront: 	“Spot a change in your life.”

PRESESSION XXXI:

Have:      	(Auditor holds two small objects, one in each hand. Exposes them alternately to pc, with as little motion of arms and hands as possible.) “Look at this.” (No acknowledgement.) “What around here isn’t this duplicating?”

PRESESSION XXXII:

Have:	“How could you deter a ......?”
	“What have you not given a ......?”

Confront: 	“What could you own?” 
	“What have you denied owning?”

	(To clean up Scientology auditing or instruction run on ‘‘auditor’’, “pc”, “instructors’’, “student”, as indicated.

	‘‘What would a.....own?”
	“What would a .....not own?’’)

PRESESSION XXXIII: (This is used as a “post-session” to clear up an intensive at the end.)

Have:	Whatever havingness runs best on pc, as havingness command.

Confront: 	“What have you done in this room?” 
	“What have you withheld in this room?”

	(To clean up all auditing, use “an auditing room”.)

PRESESSION XXXIV:

Have:      	Whatever pc runs best, as havingness command.

Confront: 	“Who have you overwhelmed?” 
	“Who have you not overwhelmed?”
PRESESSION XXXV:

Have:      	“Notice that (indicated room object).” “How could you get it to help you?”

 Confront: 	“Whom have you failed to help?”

	(This will fish up a case who is out the bottom with ARC Breaks. Corrects alter-isness.)

PRESESSION XXXVI:

Have:      	“Notice that (room object).” “How could you fail to help it?”

Confront: 	“Think of a victim.”

Replace Havingness of Presession XXV with:

Have:      	“Notice that body.” 
	“What aren’t you putting into it?”

3 Versions of—Regimen 6 O/W Commands:

	1.	“Get the idea of doing something to ......”*
		“Get the idea of withholding something from ......”*

	2.	“What have you done to ........	?”*
		“What have you withheld from .......?”*

	3.	“Get the idea of having done something to ........”*
		“Get the idea of having withheld something from ......”*

	*Assessed 6th Dynamic terminal.
	(Number 3 runs regret.)

LRH:js.esc.ntm.jh 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 OCTOBER 1960
Fran Hldrs

SCRIPT OF A MODEL SESSION

A Model Session is a Model session because of its “patter”, not because of specific processes. This is a handy script of the “patter of a Model Session”. Use it. Don’t vary it. Know it by heart. It’s the mark of a well trained auditor. By making all patter the same later sessions run out earlier sessions.

This does not enjoin against two-way comm. But keep auditor comments and chatter out of sessions if you want smooth results and no ARC breaks.

TO START SESSION:

Auditor: 	“Is it all right with you if we begin this session now?” 
Pc:    	“Yes.” 
Auditor: 	“All right. Start of session!” (Tone 40)

Note I: 	If pc says “No”, Auditor two-way comms concerning objections, then asks again, “Is it all right with you if we begin this session now?”

Note II: 	If pc doubtful as to whether session has started:

Auditor: 	“Has the session started for you?” 
Pc:     	“No.” 
Auditor: 	“All right, Start of session.” (Tone 40)

RUDIMENTS:

1. Goals:

Auditor: 	“What goals would you like to set for this session?” 
Pc:    	Sets goals. 
Auditor: 	“All right. Any goals you would like to set for life or livingness?” 
Pc:    	Answers. 
Auditor: 	“Good.”

2. Environment:

Auditor: 	“Is it all right to audit in this room?”

3. Auditor Clearance:

Auditor: 	“Is it all right if I audit you?”

4. Present Time Problems:

Auditor: 	“Do you have any present time problem?”

STARTING A PROCESS:

Auditor: 	“Now I would like to run this process on you.” (Name it.) “What would you say to that?”* 
Pc:    	“All right.” 
Auditor: 	(Clears command with pc) then— 
Auditor: 	“Here is the first command.” (Gives command.) 
Pc:    	Answers. Auditor: Acknowledges.

*Note I : 	If, after discussion, it seems that the pc will not be able to handle the announced process, auditor says, “According to what we have been talking about then it would seem better if I ran (names another process).”

ENDING A PROCESS:

Auditor: 	“If it is all right with you I will ask the question two more times and end the process.”
Pc:    	Answers.
Auditor: 	(after last command) “Is there anything you would care to say before I end the process?”
Pc:    	Answers.
Auditor: 	“End of Process.”

REPEATED COMMANDS:

Auditor: 	(Gives command.)
Pc:    	“I don’t know, I can’t find any answer.”
Auditor: 	“All right, I’ll repeat the auditing command.” (Repeats command.)

COGNITION:

Auditor: 	(Gives command.)
Pc:     	(not having answered command yet) “Say, that mass in front of my face just moved off.”
Auditor: 	“Very good.” (Repeats command without announcing that it is a repeat.)

END RUDIMENTS:

1. Present Time Problem.

Auditor: 	“Do you have a present time problem now?”

2. Auditor and ARC Breaks:

Auditor: 	“How do you feel about my auditing in this session?” (needle twitches)
Auditor: 	“I am going to run some (name of process) on you, so here is the first command.”

3 Auditing Room:

Auditor: 	“Look around here and see if you can have anything.” (needle twitches)
Auditor: 	“I am going to run a bit of havingness on this. Here is the first command.”

4. Goals:

Auditor: 	“Do you feel you have made any part of your goals for this session?”

FINAL COMMANDS OF SESSION:

Auditor: 	“Is it all right with you if we end the session now?”
Pc:     	“Yes.”
Auditor: 	“All right. Here it is. End of session.” (Tone 40)
Auditor: 	(optional) “All right. Tell me I am no longer auditing you.”
Pc:    	“You are no longer auditing me.”
Auditor: 	“Good. “

LRH:js.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960	
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 OCTOBER 1960
Originally issued from Johannesburg
HCOs
Central Orgs

TERMINAL STABLE DATA

Terminal chosen must:

Fall  on meter

Fit pc’s case (interest)

Must cover lots of track

Avoid adjectives

If Man is  run, then sometime in the future, Woman and then human being  must be run, then body  must be run.

Run any terminal assessed flat before any  reassessment.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.cden 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 OCTOBER 1960
Franchise Holders

THEORY 67

Midway in the 1st Saint Hill ACC it became obvious to me that cases would not move adequately on significances.

As all cases (and banks) are an inversion of the 8 dynamics into the Sixth Dynamic and that they then invert into the Seventh Dynamic, it seemed better sense to me to take the Sixth Dynamic off the Seventh rather than the Seventh off the Sixth.

This is Theory 67.

It at once produced results. The new presessions and then the new definition of havingness came out of Theory 67.

Several correlative data were observable. If you exteriorize a pc he does not remain stable but goes back sooner or later into his head. Only a theta clear would remain out. Therefore taking the Seventh out of the Sixth has limited workability. If a thetan were to be able to stay out it would be because he was used to Mest. Therefore the way to make a theta clear would be to handle the Sixth to obtain a straight Seventh Dynamic.

Also, pcs permitted to talk too long go down tone scale.

Therefore to clear a circuit, don’t strip the thought out of it. Take the motion and Mest off the thought.

The target of Theory 67 is Mest. Mest has six parts—Matter, energy, space, time, form and location.

Get the pc to handle Mest and you can clear him easily.

Some pcs are further inverted so that the Seventh is the Sixth (see “modern” science). In such one has to handle the Seventh first, then the pc finds the Sixth. Thus the new presessions have some beingness havingness commands.

Theory 67 revolutionized Scientology. It was first announced at the beginning of the fourth week of the 1st Saint Hill ACC 29th August, 1960.

It has ended failed cases according to the results of the 1st Saint Hill.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 OCTOBER 1960

Franchise Hldrs
REVISED CASE ENTRANCE

I am having no technical difficulty in South Africa getting cases started. As these have included the roughest cases in Scientology, you can see that my confidence in processing as it exists right now is well taken.

The only difficulty I am having is compliance with auditing rundown and this is not much of a barrier as, in general, the South African staff auditor is very good. -So D of Ps, be warned. If cases aren’t moving today with the following rundown in use, look for gross auditing errors.

This is what I am using on all cases:

Check for the Havingness process. If the one that works is found it will loosen the E-Meter needle and bring the tone arm toward (not necessarily to) the clear read for the pc’s sex. The right Havingness process will do this in a dozen commands. So only use a dozen commands to test each Havingness process. If the process doesn’t work in 12 commands (which is to say, doesn’t loosen the needle), then skip it and go to the next for test.

If you have found the Havingness process for the case, and it ceases to work after a session or two, look for ARC Breaks, PTPs between sessions. With these cleaned up the Havingness process will start working again.

Rule: The Make-Break Point of any case is getting the case to run consistently on an Objective Havingness process. No gains will be stable unless an Objective Havingness process is established for it and used often in sessions.

Rule: When a Havingness process ceases to work, ARC Breaks and PTPs must be cleaned up before the Havingness process will work again.

In clearing up PTPs and ARC Breaks use only O/W on related terminals which is the havingness version.

Rule: A case must be prepared and repaired with O/W to make a Havingness process work.

Exception: If a Havingness process is not clearly established in a few hours (not more than ten) revert to “Failed Help” only.

To prepare a case to run a Havingness process, I have been “shaking the case down” for withholds as follows:

Run “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” until needle no longer quivers in response even though meter sensitivity is increased to 16.

Run “What have you done”, “What have you withheld” (general form) until needle is unresponsive and tone arm moves toward clear.

If case does not respond well, if case gives thinkingness answers for mass, I at once go to Failed Help.

Failed Help

This is the best case-cracking process now known. I have worked with it since 1957 as a line of examination and it emerges as the lowest verbal entrance process. Therefore this process is a very important one.

Help is actually the most effective version of taking responsibility. When O/W will not run well, when the case just doesn’t respond on the meter even though giving out with hair-raising overts, the responsibility button is out. This is recovered by “Failed Help”.

Failed Help is run in this fashion, alternately.

“Who have you failed to help?” 
“What have you failed to help?”

Two-way comm on failed help is not always well handled. The auditor should not direct the pc’s attention to time periods or terminals. The process is run permissively.

All cases will run on Failed Help. It is a one-shot clear process. But used exclusively it introverts too hard. Havingness must be discovered as a process and run, as havingness is the make-break point of the case.

To go further, here is the proceeding so far:

For Average Cases 

Try for Havingness.

If you find it go on to locate the right Confront process.

If you have the Havingness and the Confront, assess for a good, general whole track terminal. Using the Havingness and the Confront liberally, run Alternate Help on the terminal found.

Typical session thereafter is run with Model Session Form (all in one session).

1st Process 	— 	Objective Havingness. 
2nd Process 	— 	Alternate Help on the assessed terminal. 
3rd Process 	— 	The Objective Havingness process. 
4th Process 	— 	The Confront process. 
5th Process 	— 	The Objective Havingness process. 
6th Process 	— 	Alternate Help on the terminal. 
7th Process 	— 	The Objective Havingness process. 
8th Process 	— 	Alternate Help. 
9th Process 	— 	The Objective Havingness process.

How long to run each? Run Havingness always to a loose needle and TA nearer clear. Run Alternate Help or Confront process to a tight needle and pc near present time (cyclic aspect). If needle gets very sticky and TA ceases to move well on the Confront or Help, get over to Havingness fast. Run Havingness only until needle is loose and case feels better. Don’t run Havingness as the process that solves the case. Run Havingness only as the process that stabilizes the case. Havingness runs to loose needle. All other processes run to a tight needle. All processes (except Objective Havingness) if they are working make the TA move. If the TA doesn’t move, the process isn’t working. Run Havingness and try again.
Poor Cases

If Havingness cannot be found at once, go into “What question—” and O/W. Then try to find Havingness. Be very careful to keep ARC Breaks and PTPs cleaned up.

Find the Confront process and proceed as in an average case.

Low Cases

If pc is diffident about having auditing, if pc critical of others, if pc ARC Breaks easily, if pc favours significances over objects, start in with Failed Help as above and try as above to get case up to Havingness.

Patch up case frequently with Failed Help, O/Ws. Keep the case running and the Havingness established and effective.

The difference between average/poor cases and low cases is that one keeps up the Havingness with O/W in the average/poor and in the low case keeps Havingness running with Failed Help and O/Ws.

This should get some understanding around.

I believe as of now that there are no impossible cases.

If a case won’t talk or be audited as a chronic condition (not just as a result of ARC Breaks) we still have the CCHs.

The lions say to tell you hello.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js. rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 NOVEMBER 1960
Franchise
Holders
FAILED HELP

Probably the most sensational case cracker of all time is Failed Help.

In that the pc has many times tried to help his own case and failed, the most accessible button is failed help.

This is run as “Who have you failed to help?” “What have you failed to help?” alternately. More difficult cases run on either one or the other. It can be distracting when the pc hits an automaticity on who or what. However even the alternate version will win.

This flattens PTPs and ARC breaks, so on a very low case whose havingness is down, the rudiments may be omitted the first few sessions.

Failed Help may also be run on a terminal. If the pc is always having PTPs with a certain type of terminal (woman, man, etc) then failed help can be run in a specific or general fashion. How have you failed to help your wife? This is run repetitively. Or: How could you fail to help a woman?

A lower dichotomy could be run in this fashion. How could you prevent help? How could you fail to help? This last pair are experimental. They would be run alternately.

While running failed help one should attempt every now and then to find the pc’s havingness process.

If the pc’s havingness process cannot be found even with overts off, run failed help as above, but continue to search for the havingness process at least once a session. If failed help is running very well indeed do not chop into it to search for the havingness process. Do that toward the end of the session.

A quarter of a division of the Tone Arm in three hours auditing is a good shift for a low case on failed help. Do not expect big changes at first.

As any failed help run is good, it’s all right to make an error and use it on cases that could have better gains on something else. Cases that don’t need it move the least on the Tone Arm with it.

No one has yet run 75 hours of failed help on a previous CCH case. So I cannot tell you how much it will take or how far it will go. But I would be prepared to run 75 hours of it of the Who—What version on a case before it could run a havingness process.

This is a marvellous process. I thoroughly recommend it. Just be careful not to lay in ARC breaks and try to keep the case coaxed along and I think you’ll make it with some version of failed help on cases we found hard to start before.

LRH:js.cden 							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 NOVEMBER 1960
Franchise
Holders
FORMULA 13

I am having very good luck undercutting beginning or old unmoving cases in Scientology by using a new formula called Formula 13. This consists of running failed help as the confront process and O/W on specific present time terminals as the havingness process.

Failed Help is almost the lowest rung of help processes. It is run with the commands “Who have you failed to help?” “What have you failed to help?” alternated. There’s a lower help process than this. That is “Who have you intended not to help?” “Who have you helped?”, but this is not Formula 13.

Overt Withhold is a havingness process. This comes about since havingness is duplication and one will not care to duplicate what he has overts against. Therefore the source of low havingness is overts against people and mest. It might be commented that overts against mest are more important than against people in the reduction of havingness, but this again is not Formula 13.

The essence of running Formula 13 is running in model session form a little failed help, with O/W on a present time terminal. It is done in this fashion. One opens the session, even uses Presession I if needed, does rudiments using O/W to clear PTPs and ARC breaks, and then does about ten minutes on failed help. Then he makes an assessment from a prepared list of people the pc knows in PT, and assesses for a needle fall on one of these. Then O/W is run on that specific person until the fall vanishes regardless of TA position, and returns to failed help for ten minutes or so, then reassesses for a PT terminal from his list until he finds one that falls, and flattens O/W on this, and then runs failed help and so on.

It will be found that this is the best case undercutter for general use I have so far developed. It is generally recommended and urged for all HGCs.

Formula 13 is followed by finding the havingness process then the confront process, and then Regimen Three is used, assessing for a general terminal and with the havingness and confront process running alternate help on the general terminal.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.cden 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 NOVEMBER 1960
All Orgs
Franchise Holders

CHANGE ON MODEL SESSION

A gross typographical error is found in HCO Bulletin of October 13, 1960, “Script of a Model Session”, under “Starting a Process”.

The line, “Auditor: (Clears Command with pc) then—”, is completely incorrect and in error. This at the most would be done on a vague pc and then only once in his auditing career. Delete the line.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.nm 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
23 Hancock Street, Joubert Park, Johannesburg

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 NOVEMBER 1960
Rush to all
Central Orgs
From S.A.
Sthill reissue as
HCO B 8 Dec 60
CLEARING ROUTINE

It is urgent that the following clearing routine be adhered to if clears are to be made. These are musts. Some are new, some are old. Some of the old ones are being ignored grandly.

1. 	Get the pc in session. Definition: Interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor.

2. 	Use Model Session script exactly and continuously. (Delete command clearing except once on low graph cases.) Learn the script exactly.

3. 	Clear PTPs with O/W on connected terminals. Never neglect a PTP.

4. 	Clear ARC Breaks whenever they occur with O/W on the session’s auditor (“me”).

5. 	Get case started with Presession One or a Formula.

6. 	Early in auditing don’t scout for more than 15 minutes without running Who/What Failed Help or some version of it.

7. 	Early in auditing don’t run any O/W for more than 15 minutes without running 10 minutes of Failed Help or a new help version.

8. 	When case knows improvement has occurred on a Formula and E-Meter is changing—(not clear reading), check for Havingness process.

9. 	Don’t scout for more than 15 minutes for the Havingness without running more Failed Help for 10 minutes.

10. 	When Havingness is found, use it and Failed Help while looking for the Confront process.

11. 	When both Havingness and Confront processes are found, run them one after the other until case seems stable. (Two hours to two sessions.)

12. 	Regardless of the clear read on the TA run Havingness and Confront while scouting for the help terminal.

13. 	Regardless of later data than July, 1960, find the help terminal by doing a dynamic assessment, find the dynamic that changes needle pattern, then ask pc what represents that dynamic. Search around for terminals associated with what pc said on same dynamic you found until you get one that drops most. This must take in lots of whole track, be without adjectives and understood by pc.

14. 	Start Regimen 8. Using Havingness, Confront and Help on the terminal found.

15. 	Put the most time in sessions in on Alternate Concept Help or Help O/W on this terminal found. Get in some of the Confront and run a bit of Havingness often.
16. 	Run the help terminal for at least 75 hours regardless of needle action freeing, tone arm movement or lack of it. DO NOT CHANGE THIS TERMINAL for 75 hours of sessions. Graphs demonstrate poor gains when terminals are changed because they are “flat”. Graphs demonstrate high stable gains if the terminal for help is run at least 75 hours. It’s an auditing error to change a help terminal once begun. It’s help that clears, not the terminal.

17. 	You can change the Havingness process, change the Confront process in Regimen 8 but never the help terminal.

18. 	Havingness is only required to loosen the needle. It need not shift the TA. It is run only until it loosens the needle. This may be 5 to 12 commands. A good test for loose needle is to have the pc squeeze the cans before the 1st command of Havingness, squeeze the cans after 5 commands. If the drop is greater on the second squeeze, the Havingness is working. If Havingness tightens the needle after an overrun like 10 minutes pc has picked up an ARC Break.

19. 	Don’t overrun Havingness. It is only to stabilize the gains and the pc.

20. 	The Confront process must move the TA. If it consistently doesn’t, find a new Confront process.

21. 	The Havingness and Confront process may be changed in Regimen 8, the help terminal never.

22. 	The way help is being run may be changed in Regimen 8 from, say, Alternate Concept Help to Help O/W or Two Way Help on the terminal, but the terminal may not be changed.

23. 	End a long period of auditing such as several intensives with O/W on the auditor, the room, Scientology, etc.

24. 	New Formulas of getting cases started do not alter the above stable data.

25. 	From Mest Clear to Theta Clear requires an address to the 6th Dynamic with help processes.

	One assesses for the greatest fall on Matter, energy, space, time, form or location and runs help on it in the same pattern as Regimen 8.

26. 	OT requires all parts of the 6th and 7th to be cleared on help and responsibility using a Regimen 8 pattern.

The above are musts if you want to make clears.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:aec.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 NOVEMBER 1960
Franchise Holders

STARTING CASES

It should be remembered that most processes and routines for auditing require first that the pc be in session.

This is a factor often lost in processing.

Unless an auditor is aware of the definition for “in session” and uses it, very low, slow results will occur. The key to fast, high results is “pc in session”.

There are various degrees of being out of session. The most severe of these is the person who refuses auditing. The answer is usually old Presession One (Help, Control, Communication, Interest). The next degree is sitting in the chair but refusing to answer questions. Presession One or its Two-Way Help part is generally the answer. Failed Help is a useful tool here. The next degree is sitting in the chair and being uncooperative or even choppy. The best answer is Presession One or Two-Way Help.

Now in all the above “out of sessions” is meant the pc coming to have processing for the first time. There are similar aspects from different causes during session.

A pc used to processing can go out of session in varying degrees. A pc who refuses to answer questions is suffering from an ARC break or has a withhold.

If it’s an ARC break, then run O/W on “me” (the auditor) or, better, run O/W on an auditor. If the pc appears vague or nervous, it’s probably a PTP, and the specific terminal or terminals connected with it should be run on O/W. The withhold case can be handled with “What have you done?” “What have you withheld?” alternated.

The definition of “in session” is (a) Interested in own case, (b) Willing to talk to the auditor. When either of these is violated the pc is “out of session” and is receiving no benefit from processing.

For the beginning pc, these two factors must be established. If the above remedies do not suffice, then the auditor must run by definition. The auditor must find something in the pc’s case in which the pc is interested and something about which the pc will talk to the auditor. An E-Meter will fall on things that the pc is interested in and will talk about.

If a case already accustomed to processing goes out of session, the rudiments long ago were designed to get the pc running again. Rudiments can be used at any time during a session.

All the clever processes in the world will fail if the pc is out of session.

It is a high sign of auditing skill to get the pc into session—which is to say, interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor.

There is an exception to case interest—when the pc goes upscale on any one process he or she will hit boredom before enthusiasm. Don’t stop at that point. Go on even if pc infers it will slay him or her with boredom. The period of time they hang up in this is brief—a few minutes or at most a session.

Discussions of people the prospective or out of session beginning pc has failed to help usually solves this difficulty. Here is a lower point—people the pc intended not to help.

But however they get started, start them and get them into session before you worry too much about what’s wrong and what’s to be run. It pays off in results.

LRH :js.rd 							L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1960                             
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 NOVEMBER 1960
BPI
Franchise Hldrs
HAS CO-AUDIT ENDED

After a long trial, HAS Co-Audit is suspended.

While it did do well on procurement and in its original state, got good results (communication processes), it has been abused and has caused some to blow Scientology.

Unreported to me for a long while, HAS Co-Audit and Franchise Holders have been converting any individual process released into an HAS Co-Audit process.

This has worked great hardship on many cases. First, newcomers to Scientology in crowded rooms have not dared to get off their overts and auditing became stagnant. Further, the very processes that could clear them have thus been abused and nulled.

Formulas and Regimens were never for co-audits, yet many instructors have been putting into effect in co-audits anything released for individual use.

Thus, HAS Co-Audit has been abused and has stalled some cases. The idea is good, in many places the results were good and if we had no better ideas I would go on with it, stating only not to use Formulas and Regimens on it but only communication processes and Presession One.

The facts are that for new people, Group Auditing from Group Auditor’s Handbooks One and Two were better for early mass case gains.

I have just completed a repatterning of all PE type activities which I will give you in due course and which stampede the people in. HAS Co-Audit is omitted from the rundown for the above reasons as well as the strength of the new pattern.

But HAS Co-Audit deserves by itself a special mention with its decease. Run by careful instructors on the original rundown it has done some wonders.

It would still be used, and may be used in the future if I had any idea that instructors would not go crazy enough to run individual clearing processes on it and make rash promises or have ambitious hopes for clearing on it.

HAS Co-Audits are out because:

a. 	They may mess up the only processes known that will clear people at individual processing level, thus barring the road;

b. 	Instructors have not noted or realized the stress done cases when they had to hold on to heavy overts, thus making the person blow Scientology;

c. 	They do not procure well in comparison to other activities now under development by me in Johannesburg;

d. 	They develop a false sense in attendees of knowing all about Scientology when they have not begun;

e. 	They slow clearing by making individual auditing seem like a Co-Audit and therefore lacking value;

 f. 	They have not resulted in large numbers of people getting clear.

The new Johannesburg routine for PE courses is easier to run, makes more informed people, paves the road to clearing, and tends to keep people with us.

Furthermore, now that I can guarantee that any trained auditor can crack any case (a fact borne out daily for months now), I am turning Scientology activities all the way up. We will shortly have thousands where we had one.

The new programme for Central Orgs and Franchise Holders procures at a fantastic rate never before known. It is the largest administrative-procurement development since the PE and is thousands of times as effective. 25 new people a day are enrolling in the Central Org in Johannesburg.

So stand by to re-organize. A first step is to shift HAS Co-Audit to one hour early type group auditing sessions.

More will be sent on this. But meanwhile groove group auditing in.

Any Group Auditing session begins, by the way, with the group auditor explaining what he means to do and why. Otherwise some newcomers think it is pointless. Then he opens session and runs the random type processes of 1953 and onward.

But a final salute to HAS Co-Audit—if instructors hadn’t been so fixated on turning every individual process issued into an HAS Co-Audit process, it might be in the line-up still—and if people learn this lesson, may be with us again in a more exact form.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.nm 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER 1960

Franchise Holders

THE UNMOVING CASE

Formula 13 will move almost all cases satisfactorily up to finding the havingness, finding the confront, help O/W terminal and thus clear.

But there remain certain very few cases that do not move on Formula 13 as such. A variation is required. These are:

       	1. 	The hyper-critical case
       	2. 	The big withhold case
       	3. 	The case that wants no processing

Case 1 does not move because he is continually chopping Scientology, Auditors, the Org, etc behind the auditor. This should be suspected when Formula 13 does not work. The chopping is severe to prevent ordinary Formula 13 from working. The answer is to run Formula 13 with assessment on Scientology terminals for the O/W PLUS any Scientology invalidative person or persons our pc is in contact with in PT.

Case 2, the Big Withhold, has a crime of magnitude when it will not move on Formula 13. “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” may not remedy this if it’s big. “Think of something you’ve withheld” interspersed with the casual question, “Is there anything you’d like to tell me?” every half dozen O/W questions should produce an unburdening of the withhold to the auditor. There may be more than one withhold of this nature.

Case 3 is the person who has never had processing and wants no processing but sits in the chair and runs off answers misemotionally. The oldest approach was “Tell me why you shouldn’t have processing.” Presession One is more modern. The latest experimental process is “Tell me something you don’t want,” repetitively.

All cases above are followed by Formula 13 when willing to be audited or make gains.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.cden 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 DECEMBER 1960
Franchise Holders

NEW FORMULAS

A Formula is a method of getting a case started. The numbers are in order of development, not case level.

Formula 13: Model Session. Run 10 minutes or so of Who/What Failed Help. Make a list of everyone pc knows in pt. Assess from list until needle drops. Run O/W on that terminal only until drop is off (10-20 mins at most). Run 10 minutes Failed Help. Assess from list (add to it if new names come up) only until one gets a drop. Run drop off with O/W, 10 minutes Failed Help, etc, etc. When pc’s condition warrants go on to locate Havingness process, running Failed Help between tries.

Formula 14: Same as 13 except one uses the present time mest objects of pc instead of people for O/W. Failed Help and O/W handled the same as 13.

Formula 15: Case ( 1) of HCO Bulletin of November 24, 1960. List Scientology, Scientology terms and Org and persons instead of pt people as in Formula 13. This is for hypercritical unmoving pcs. It is also used for other reasons on students and old time Scientologists.

REGIMENS

A Regimen is the workhorse combination of processes that boosts the case to clear after it has been started.

Regimen 3: Alternate Help on a terminal, Alternate Confront, Factual Havingness.

Regimen 8: Find Havingness process from the presessions while running Failed Help between tests for 10 minutes or so. When established (loosens needle), find Confront process from the presessions, (changes TA well). Use Havingness process between Confront tests. When established, run these two found processes, the Confront to a tight needle or pt, the Havingness to a loose needle (as little as 8 commands, rarely more than 20). When pc reads around his clear reading, assess for a terminal to run Help O/W upon. When found, run session as follows: Havingness, long time on Help O/W, Havingness, Confront, Havingness, Help O/W, Havingness, Confront, Havingness, Help O/W, Havingness, etc, etc.

All Formulas and Regimens are run in Model Session form with the exact patter wording.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :j s.msp.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER 1960

Franchise Holders
PRESESSION 37

A presession is run without a model session.

Presession 1 and 37 are the only presessions now in regular use.

Presession 37 is a method of getting off withholds. This problem is the primary case problem. Presession 37 resolves it. This presession is now the proper way to run “What question shouldn’t I ask you?”

The auditor runs “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” for a few times.

Then the auditor runs “Think of something you’ve done.” “Think of something you have withheld.” Alternated for a short time (maximum five minutes).

Then the auditor runs “What question. . .” a few more times.

If the pc develops an evasion system such as “You shouldn’t ask me if I have murdered anybody,” the auditor asks it. The pc says, “No, I never have,” etc. Then the auditor must reword “What question . . .” to “What question would embarrass you?” or “What would you hate to have the police or your husband or whatever find out about you?” Vary “What question” so that you get off the withholds.

Always run Presession 37 until you have a no-response to question needle with E-Meter sensitivity at 16.

The O/W on this is to keep up the havingness.

FORMULA 16

A formula is always run in model session early in the case or to get it moving again.

Formula 16 is as follows:

Failed help is run with:

“Whom have you intended not to help?”

“Whom have you helped?”

This is run for about 10 minutes, then the following is run for about twenty commands or so:

Assess PT terminals. Take first one that falls. Assess every time. Run:

“What unkind thought have you had about (terminal)?”

Then switch back to the above failed help version.

This is for cases that don’t respond well on ordinary O/W.
FORMULA 17

Help is run as two-way failed help on an assessed terminal which has to do with a healing profession or religious or mystic person.

Then “What unkind thought have you withheld from a person?” is run for havingness.

This is for the person who has been to healers, hypnotists, spiritualists, psychologists, ministers, religious family members, psychoanalysts, etc, etc. This also works on doctors, psychologists, etc.

One makes the assessment list from general terminals and specific persons connected with pc’s past. One assesses each time from the list and takes the first one that drops. The drop is barely run off before switching to the thought O/W on “a person”.

Two-way failed help is run as follows:

“How could you fail to help a .... ?” 
“How could a .... fail to help you?”

Positive failed help:

“How could you help a .... ?” 
“How could a .... help you?” should also be run if indicated. (If pc insists they helped.)

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 DECEMBER 1960

Franchise (Merry Christmas)

HAS CO-AUDIT RESUMED

I am testing a new series of processes I have developed to replace all former processes used on HAS Co-Audit.

Co-Audit stalled cases when:

1. 	HGC Processes were used (ruining the process for the pc because of its being run against heavy O/Ws still on case) and

2. 	Pcs on Co-Audit felt unable to get off their overts amid so much company (the processes would not bite and even upset cases since the pc was not free to run his withholds), and

3. 	Rudiments were not used or were badly used to the end of driving people away.

I have remedied these matters and as soon as I have any bugs out, probably by next week, I will release the new Co-Audit processes.

Co-Audit will only be permitted if the new routine is followed and no other. I dislike losing people we could help and messing up cases.

The new series by-passes the need of rudiments, O/W or HGC processes, yet gives, by a startling new advance and process type, very good results—better than the average obtained two years ago in individual auditing. I am sure they will keep the people coming and advancing.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.nm 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
23 Hancock Street, Joubert Park, Johannesburg

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 DECEMBER 1960

Franchise
O-W A LIMITED THEORY

Before I would permit you to believe that the overt-withhold mechanism was a total way of life, I would point out that it applies only to a strata of existence and that it stems from failures to help.

The theory that what you do to others will then happen to you is a punishment control mechanism peculiar to this universe. It derives from a deteriorated willingness to duplicate. It is the law of physics of Interaction—for every action there is an equal and contrary reaction.

“Love thy neighbour”, when it is no longer a willingness, is enforced by the theory of O-W. “Love thy neighbour” can exist only when help, control and communication are high. When all these go, then O-W comes into vogue as a method of enforcing peace.

O-W is a theory which sets in when aberration sets in. It is not a high natural law. It is junior to the various laws of Communication, Control and Help.

O-W can occur only when help has failed. Help is a co-joining of vectors of life. When two beings who have joined forces to help fail each other, only then does O-W come into existence.

The forces of two beings cannot come into dispute until after they have first joined. Thus there is no war like that seen between brothers or husband and wife.

The cycle is this:

          	INDEPENDENT BEINGS
          	COMMUNICATION
          	MIS-COMMUNICATION
          	CONTROL
          	MIS-CONTROL
          	HELP
          	FAILED HELP
          	OVERTS AND WITHHOLDS
          	OVERTS AND WITHHOLDS BY TRANSFER
          	WORRYING OTHERS
          	WORRYING ABOUT OTHERS
          	BEING CRITICAL
          	BEING CRITICAL OF SELF

Basically, O-W is an effort to regain the status of independent being without taking responsibility for any of the intervening steps.

The reason we run O-Ws is that most pcs are on O-W by Transfer, which is to say, when they kick George in the head they get a headache themselves. This makes them think they are George. We use O-W since it explains phenomena found at a low humanoid level. We do not use it because it is a senior governing law of the universe.

When Help comes up, O-W as a mechanism drops out. We could run a full case, it would appear, with Help. However, in practice it is better to run lots of O-W with failed help as they complement each other and move the case faster. By running O-W we disclose many new failed helps. Why? Look at the cycle above and see that O-W occurs only when Help has failed.

Similarly, on the same cycle we see that worry undercuts O-W. But if it is run, it should be worked with O-W. The worry cure has commands as follows:

Get the idea of worrying something. Get the idea of not worrying something. Get the idea of something being worrisome.

People, animals, things can be used in place of “something”. The process, going rapidly up toward failed help, is a bit limited and should be run with another process of the type of “Get the idea of attacking something” “Get the idea of not attacking something” to keep it going. The worry process bogs if run too long just by itself. It is a very valuable process as it explains many reactions and undercuts many cases. Worrying something is close to the lowest level of overt. It is the lowest effort to individuate.

But just as worry is not a way of life nor an answer to all of life, neither is the O-W mechanism an end-all law.

Many cases are not up to recognizing their overts. They will also have trouble recognizing their failures to help. Usually, then, they can recognize being worried or worrying people and thinking unkind thoughts and even attacking things.

Failed help also lies as a harmonic below O-W and so runs on any case if assisted with O-W as in Formula 13 or assisted with the Worry Process as above.

Worrying people is almost a way of life for the juvenile, just as O-W is with a criminal. People who feel childish or act that way are stuck in the violent motion of childhood and worrying others. Many pcs use their processing just to worry the auditor. Worry is the most easily dramatized O-W.

O-W, whether as worry or being critical (unkind thoughts), is the result of failure to help. O-W is the reason one gets another’s valence. O-W is why pcs have somatics. But O-W is not a high order law.

You will not always have to be careful not to bump Joe. It would be a horrible universe indeed if O-W was its senior law, for one could then never do anything.

Fortunately, it drops out, both as a governing law and a necessity in life.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: pe.cden 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 DECEMBER 1960

Franchise Holders

THE NEW PE AND THE NEW HAS CO-AUDIT

The new HAS Co-audit takes company in a PE Foundation with the free PE Course, the new Anatomy of the Human Mind Course (requisite for HPA/HCA) and a tape play.

The PE Course can run 3 nights a week or 5 nights. The Anatomy Course (consisting of 20 lectures) should run 2 nights a week. HAS Co-audit can run 3 to 5 nights a week but might work better running the same nights as free PE. The tape play can be run at any time—5 nights or two hours on Saturday afternoon or Sunday.

As to materials, I am now assembling these. This HCO Bulletin gives the backbone of the HAS Co-audit. I am readying up full texts of the Anatomy Lectures. PE Text will shortly be more fully released. I have installed a new PE Foundation in HASI Johannesburg and it is successful at the rate of 30 new people a day. But to smooth it out and make it economical is taking me a bit longer.

An HAS Co-audit should be run only for people who have been “trained” on a PE free Course. The PE free Course should consider itself a training activity for the Co-audit, rather than a selling activity for Scientology. One should assume in teaching a PE that the student wants to help people and get help for himself. Elementary (very) Comm Course TRs should be sketched in and a touch assist taught. The only selling is defining Scientology and saying that to know the parts of the mind one should take an Anatomy Course.

The following is conditional, subject to review:

People who take a Free PE and an Anatomy Course get an HAS Certificate. It is also required that they spend 3 weeks on the Co-audit. Free PE is the only requisite for Co-audit attendance.

The HAS Co-audit consists of the same elements as always. The people come in, show the Instructor their paid invoices, are put in their chairs and auditing started by the Instructor. Cans can be held by the pc if a switchboard E-Meter rig exists. But individual E-Meters are not used.

At the end of the first period of auditing, the teams are shifted but not just exchanged. People are not audited by their pcs. They are started again by the Instructor. The session is ended by the Instructor.

Extreme muzzle is used. The auditor needing help puts his hand back of his chair for the Instructor to arrive.

The commands are written on one or two boards for the auditors to see. They are also issued on sheets of paper.

The pc faces outward into the room. The auditor inward.

The fee should now be per evening, perhaps 5s. or 50 ¢ per person.

There are just two processes to be used. These are to be called the HAS Co-audit Process I and HAS Co-audit Process II. They are complicated enough to hold interest. HAS Co-audit Process I runs ARC breaks, PTPs, Somatics, the bank and the room and hits all case levels. Leave standard O/W, help and other clearing processes alone, no matter the temptation. The HAS Co-audit processes are what the attendee can do, not what the Instructor can do in individual session. The Instructor runs all cases present, and he needs something that bites just enough to improve the case but not enough to make a bog.

The HAS Co-audit Process I, I developed from the 1950 ARC triangle. A new process type that is permissive between bank and room makes this new development unique.

HAS CO-AUDIT PROCESS I

The commands are as follows:

       	“Find something you disagree with”
       	“Find something you agree with”
       	“Find something you would rather not communicate with”
       	“Find something you would communicate with”
       	“Find something that seems unreal”
       	“Find something that is real”

HAS CO-AUDIT PROCESS II

The commands are as follows:

       	“Get the idea of attacking”
       	“Get the idea of not attacking”

HAS Co-audit Process I is of course a fundamental way of raising tone. It also has a taste of Rising Scale (8-8008) in it. This is the confront process. If the pc gets sticky or dopey or choppy, one shifts to II but HAS Co-audit I is the workhorse—it is done longer than II.

HAS Co-audit Process II is of course the havingness process. If a pc looks too belligerent or too mild, the Instructor should run II heavily on the pc. The worse off a case is, the more automatic the attack factor is and the less the pc can attack anything. All psychosis is is dramatized attack, so this process runs from low to high. Naturally you can see that it is an O/W version, but no withholds need be announced.

In HAS Co-audit Process II the Instructor may substitute “think” for “get the idea” at his discretion with cases that have trouble with “Get the idea”, but a higher percentage of cases, I believe, bog on “think” than on “get the idea”. In II the Instructor may in some cases at his option assess a generalised terminal and add it after “attacking” in the command.

Process II may be run on a case before I. But a little II goes a long way. If a central meter switchboard is used, cases that get sticky on I can be shifted to II. Try to end a session on I, not II.

I think you will find that II makes roaring tigers out of pcs and I makes them into serene angels.

Both processes are unlimited. I and II could be run for 500 hours. They might actually clear people if used long enough but the fact is not yet known.

If a pc continually stays in PT and uses only the room on I, shift the pc to II for he is afraid of his bank, just as some are afraid of past lives.

These are both new, powerful processes. I think you will find Co-audit attendees very happy with them.

								L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js. rd 							
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6012C31 AHMC-1 The Genus of Dianetics and Scientology

The genus of scientology and dianetics was in the 20’s, when LRH was a  kid in the orient, seeing all kinds of oddities.  While a George Washington  University, he conducted tests and found that poetry gives the same  wavelengths in all languages.  He went to the psychology department with this  discovery, got rebuffed, and found that none of them understood the mind.  He  calculated that there cannot be enough bits of information carried on the  protein molecules in the brain to store all the memories that men have.  In  Austria this got published as “This is how man remembers.” LRH was well known  at the Explorers Club for his ethnological studies.  In 1938, he got to  “survival” as the common denominator to all races and possibly all life.  At  this point in his studies, he met Commissar Golinski from Amtorg (a diplomatic  trade channel with Russia).  He offered LRH a job in Pavlov’s lab, $200,000,  plus expenses for research. etc.  LRH refused.  “About two years later they  broke into my quarters -- or some unknown people did -- and stole the original  manuscripts.  I have a flimsy copy of the research, but it’s not complete.”

In 1946 and 1947, LRH did the research that culminated in DMSMH. At this  time, a high-ranking naval officer offered him a job with the Office of Naval  Research.  He was to find ways to use his knowledge of the mind to make people  more suggestible.  When he was refused, he was threatened with being pulled  back into military service.  He figured out a way to resign from the service.  This was the end of a beautiful friendship with the American government.  They  didn’t make up their minds that we were con men until LRH said no.  Any  government is interested in how the mind works, but against anyone that knows  more about it than they do.

This has left us the only free organization on the earth.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JANUARY 1961

Franchise
NEW HELP DATA

Failures to help on the various dynamics can bring about confusion of identities.

This is normally resolved by a thetan by obsessive efforts to individuate (blow phenomena or merely insistences upon individuation).

The end product of failures to help is aberrated self-determinism.

At an overt-withhold level, the thetan is trying to individuate and is therefore proceeding to individuate after failing to help. Thus a thetan is at obsessive cause while trying to do overts or get motivators.

As I have stated before it makes little theoretical difference whether help is run two-way or on an O/W basis.

I also promised to inform you when more data was to be had on this.

Apparently there may be some virtue (in terms of case gain and saved time) in running help on a pan-determined basis.

The theoretical look at this (see recent table in HCO Bulletin of January 5th, 1961, “O-W A Limited Theory”) is that overts are below help and that when one enters upon an improvement in help, obsessive individuated cause falls out and pan-determinism moves in.

Possibly, very early in running help at Regimen 3 level one could run Help O/W but after a few hours on the same terminal could shift to two-way help, and after a few more hours could change to 5-way help and finish the bulk of the 75 hours of run of help on the same terminal with the 5-way version.

I think not doing this is slowing clearing.

In other words, when the pc starts on his help on a terminal, he is still rather in the O/W band. Very soon he is moving higher and into pan-determinism. And shortly after this should move very broadly into pan-determinism.

My evidence on this is technically light at the moment but I do know of at least one case that needed this. So let’s shift now and run this gradient for a while and see if it isn’t generally faster.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.cden 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JANUARY 1961
Franchise

ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES

HAS III

“Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting” unlimited. Run in particular on any pc who has the goal of improving his memory. This process may also be used in the HGC where the pc has the chief goal of getting reality on the whole track or just improving memory.

HAS IV

“Get the idea of changing.” 
“Get the idea of not changing.”

The Instructor may add “something” (HAS IVa), “somebody” (HAS IVb) or a meter selected terminal (HAS IVc) to these commands at his discretion.

HAS V

“Get the idea of solving a problem.” 
“Get the idea of not solving a problem.”

The HAS Instructor may add a terminal if the pc complains about having lots of problems with that terminal.

HAS VI

“Communicate with (body part).” 
“Don’t communicate with (body part).”

For persons who come into a co-audit chronically or temporarily ill. The person is asked by the Instructor what part of the body is ill. The Instructor takes whatever body part the pc names, not body condition, and uses it in above process.

HAS VII

“Tell me something worse than a (body part).”

For more violent chronic or temporary illnesses assessed by Instructor exactly as above in HAS VI.

HAS VIII

“Get the idea of making people friendly.” 
“Get the idea of making people unfriendly.”

Instructor may use a specific person or the singular “a person” at discretion.

In all HAS Co-audits, the newcomer should fill out a goals sheet once a week and the Instructor should pay attention to it in choosing processes.

Further HAS Co-audit processes will be released when checked over.

L. RON HUBBARD 

LRH:jms.rd                                 				
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JANUARY 1961
Fran Holders

HANDLING OF RUDIMENTS

On goals, the preclear should never be challenged as to what he establishes as his goals. The auditor accepts and acknowledges any and all goals the preclear has for the session and for life and livingness.

In handling the environment, if there is charge on the E-Meter after asking, “Is it all right to audit in this room?” and if charge does not blow with a little two-way comm, then run TR 10, “Notice that        .” However, if you have already located the Havingness process for the case, you would run that Havingness process until there was no longer any charge as far as the auditing environment is concerned. Only be careful in using TR 10 to flatten any somatic turned on while running it.

Auditor clearance is the most important of the rudiments, because if the auditor is not cleared, negative results will be obtained on the profile of the preclear. To handle charge on the auditor, TR 5N should be run, if charge does not blow on a little two-way comm. TR 5N is:

“What have I done to you?” 
“What have you done to me?”

Overt-withhold on the auditor is far too accusative and invalidates the pc.

If the relationship between the auditor and pc is one of long standing then you would run TR 5N as follows:

“What have I done to you in this session?” 
“What have you done to me in this session?”

On asking “Are you withholding anything?” under auditor clearance, you can say, “What did you think when the needle dropped? There it is again. What did you just think?” This can blow the charge on this question; however, if the charge does not blow, Presession 37 (“What question shouldn’t I ask you?”) or Formula 19 (“Who have you failed to help?” “Who has failed to help you?” “What have you failed to help?”) with General Overt/Withhold can be run.

As regards a Present Time Problem, the first thing you want to know is whether it is a problem of long duration or a problem of short duration. Only short duration problems are handled. If the pc has a problem with regard to the fact that he promised to call his wife at 4:00 p.m., and it is 4:00 p.m., the best way to handle this problem is to end the session and let him call his wife. When the session is resumed, you start the session again and go to where you were in the rudiments and ask, “Do you have a present time problem?” If the pc has a present time problem of being excused, you would not in this case end the session, as he will remain in the building and be back shortly.

The process of handling the present time problem of short duration and one which cannot be handled as above, is: “What part of that problem have you been responsible for?”

Problems of long duration are run on Presession 38, as will be given. These problems of long duration are not handled as a part of rudiments, but these long duration problems tell the auditor what it is he will have to process on the case.

Overt/Withhold on the auditor, or on an auditor, or on a practitioner, may also be used in Auditor Clearance, if considered advisable—see Note 17, HCO Bulletin of 21 March 1961, “Script of a Model Session”.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jl.rd							
Copyright © 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 JANUARY 1961
Franchise

THE “ULTIMATE” PROCESSES

The “ultimate” processes—when they can be run on the pc—now exist. And they can be run providing the pc is first brought up into the vicinity of Mest Clear by the current rundown (Presession 37, Formula 15, 14, 13 or 16 as needed, Regimen 3 derived from Presessions 2 to 36—SCS and Connectedness also for some—with the Regimen being run with Help on a terminal for at least 75 hours without changing terminals).

If all this is gotten out of the way, the pc should be in very good shape indeed. Then, after perhaps another process or two, these ultimates could be attempted.

It is very important to remember these as they wipe out any liability of having been active in mental “healing” on the whole track, or, more importantly, having abused the field of the arts.

Remember, however, that, just as it says in Creation of Human Ability, there is a lot of agony attached to running “a thetan” or some allied word. Unless havingness is away up and stable, as is achieved in Regimen 3, it can’t be done.

With these warnings, here are the basic versions of the processes:

ULTIMATE l

	“Get the idea of doing something to a thetan.”
	“Get the idea of not doing something to a thetan.”
and

ULTIMATE 2

	“Get the idea of doing something to a thetan’s pictures.”
	“Get the idea of not doing something to a thetan’s pictures.”
and

ULTIMATE 3

	5 way help on a thetan
and	                    

ULTIMATE 4

	5 way help on a thetan’s pictures 
and

ULTIMATE 5

“Get the idea of allying oneself.”
“Get the idea of not allying oneself.” 
and

ULTIMATE 6

“Get the idea of creating.”
“Get the idea of not creating.”

These processes should probably be run with a Regimen 3 form, certainly with model session.

Each should be flattened in turn several times around.

This is our nearest data approach to OT at this time. Only Ultimate 5 could be run without having brought the pc to Mest Clear first.

The word “picture” is used instead of “creation” because of Step 6 phenomena and for other reasons.

Responsibility could be run afterwards on all items mentioned in these “Ultimates”.

------------------

Although you get this at a much later date, this HCO Bulletin was written on Christmas Day, 1960, in Johannesburg. So it’s a Christmas present. And I hope all of you, regardless of any fancied differences, had a Very Merry Christmas and will have a very fine and successful AD 11.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
23 Hancock Street, Joubert Park, Johannesburg

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JANUARY 1961

Continental HGCs
Copy to Sthil
Eventual Franchise
NEW ASSESSMENT SCALE

I have developed a new assessment scale which takes in most possible formulas and regimens.

The scale and its use follows:

The Pre-Havingness Scale

Havingness
	Failed Havingness

Interest
	Failed Interest

Communication
	Failed Communication

Control
	Failed Control

Help
	Failed Help

Overts
	Failed Overts

Withholds
	Failed Withholds

Importance
	Failed Importance

Leave
	Failed Leave

Protect
	Failed Protect

Abandon
	Failed Abandon

Inverted Help

Inverted Control

Inverted Communication

Inverted Interest

Obsessive Can’t Have

This scale may have other points I have not located yet.

ITS USE

The use of the Havingness Scale in auditing is as follows:

Havingness is the make-break point of a case. Before havingness can be tested for, all heavy areas on the lower part of the scale must be flat.

The most elementary use of the scale and the one recommended at this time is to assess the points on the scale upwards until a fall is observed and then to run this fall out. Then to assess again from the bottom until a fall is observed and run it out.

All auditing to be done in Model Session form. The assessment follows either after the rudiments or after a discovered button has been flattened.

The upper nine points of the scale are best run as Regimens (from Help upwards).

I have not accumulated cases using this type of approach on this scale but I feel, by past experience, that it should catch even those cases that “failed help” hasn’t reached.

I do not know how long it should take to flatten one button on this scale. I would guess, from failed help down, that it would take a few hours per button.

Probably this will develop into running pairs as in all formulas but until it is established how that should be done, the above simple system should be used.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:aecjh 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 FEBRUARY 1961
Franchise

UK CASES DIFFERENT

In finding the bugs in running the South African case, I also had a chance to study the UK case somewhat as the country is full of English people fresh from home and I’ve already had years of experience with it in England.

I believe that clearing a UK case easily requires between finishing off the Formulas and starting the Regimen a lot of S-C-S or 8C + the Havingness found effective for the case.

Control seems to get inverted on a UK case more easily than on some other nationalities and I think the inversion must be cleared up before Help (as in Regimen 3) can be effectively run.

This isn’t a criticism on the UK case. It’s just an effort to speed up clearing. A close study indicates that the UK case tends strongly to alter-is a command. It’s no wonder, looking over the country’s history, that commands got dangerous.

Therefore, in the HGC in London, I am now going to require an addition to procedure for clearing as follows:

When the Formulas are gotten out of the way and, while still running Failed Help between tests for havingness, the Havingness is found, a period of at least forty-five hours is instituted where the pc is run on S-C-S or 8C interspersed with a few commands of his Havingness every half hour. The last five hours will be run on Op-Pro-by-Dup.

Only when this is done will the auditor locate the Confront and then continue with Regimen 3.

If a test by the auditor, on any case, regardless of nationality, shows that the pc is poor on control, the above routine should be followed.

This data is backed up by enormous success with S-C-S and Op-Pro-by-Dup in England and the general success of 8C.

I have been looking for the bug in UK clearing for some time and feel that this is its remedy.

S-C-S

S-C-S now has four stages, instead of three. It has been found that at least one pc never flattened start because the body was “already started” being in constant motion and so the pc never could start it. The added command is “When I tell you to stand still, I want you to make that body stand still.” “All right?” “Stand still.”

The remainder of S-C-S is as always.

LRH :jms.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Issue 125			[1961, ca. February]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

Personal Integrity

L. Ron Hubbard

WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself 
And when you lose that you have lost everything.

What is personal integrity? 
Personal integrity is knowing what you know— 
What you know is what you know— 
And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed. 
And that is integrity 
And there is no other integrity.

Of course we can talk about honor, truth, all these things, 
These esoteric terms. 
But I think they’d all be covered very well 
If what we really observed was what we observed, 
That we took care to observe what we were observing, 
That we always observed to observe.

And not necessarily maintaining a skeptical attitude, 
A critical attitude, or an open mind. 
But certainly maintaining sufficient personal integrity 
And sufficient personal belief and confidence in self 
And courage that we can observe what we observe 
And say what we have observed.

Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you 
Unless you have observed it 
And it is true according to your observation. 
That is all.

                                 						L. RON HUBBARD

Copyright ©1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard. 
All Rights Reserved.

6102C14 3SAACC-14  Fundamentals of Auditing (Jo’burg)

The fundamentals of auditing are designed to handle fixations and changes  of attention.  Attention is fixated or in a constant state of flux to the  degree that a person is creating and counter-creating.  That’s what a thetan’s  attention gets fixed on: the creates or the counter-creates.  All other things  (ruds, havingness processes, etc.) fall into line on that understanding.  The  case is fixed on or fluctuating amongst the masses and energies it has  created.  the things that put them out of existence or make them unreal are of  course created by the case.  The person is at war with himself.  That’s why an  “attack” process works.  It’s a counter-create.  Most cases, especially  downscale, are more dedicated to counter-creation than creation.  The case is  in a state of unreality about the fact that he’s doing it (mocking up things  on which he is then fixing his attention).  Sometimes a person may know he’s  doing it or not doing it.  But often thetans don’t know that they are creating  what they are fighting.  So you could have a level of processing of doingness  on creating, e.g.  “What wouldn’t you mind creating / would you rather not  create?”

We’re dealing strongly with havingness these days, with success.  The  axiom of aberration is, “All doingness harms self.” Doingness processes  address this fact.  You could ask, “What liability would there be to doing  something?” or “What could you do which wouldn’t be harmful to you?” This  could fall flat because the person is doing so many more complicated things  that he has to come up to these basics.  This process is too high for most  cases.

Beingness processes are relatively easy to run.  You could run an engram  with, “What, in that incident would you be willing to be?” The PC must have  the ability to be something before this would be a workable process.  Some  people can’t be anything, so you have to test for this with, “Look around here  and find something you could be.”

You could develop the whole rationale of processing at the level of  beingness or doingness or havingness, though they must eventually merge; all  three are needed.

If a PC doesn’t move just with elementary rudiments: no TA; no change of  case, it’s probable that the PC is withholding some big recent overt.  Or the  PC may have some unusual or secret goal not imparted to the auditor, or the  trouble may be a big PTP.  So in going over a case on the basis of rudiments,  one takes it easy until one finds out that the havingness scale, as you have  been taught to use it, doesn’t move the TA.  Why ask for trouble before you’ve  got it?  You go over the ruds pretty well -- no wild drops, go on in search of  the prehav level, find where the PC lives, get one of his principal goals  aligned, convert it into a terminal which drops as well as the goal dropped,  assess the prehav scale with that terminal, then run anything that fits that  level.  The commands are, “What was _______ ?” for positive and, “What _______  failed?” for negative.  For a terminal it’s, e.g., “What (terminal) was  _______ ?” and “What (terminal) failed to _______ ?” or “What (terminal) was  not?”  These are the all-bracket commands.  They could be repeated for each  level.  You could run 15 brackets against the prehav scale “When has  (terminal)(action)(terminal)?” There are possibilities of 32-way brackets, but  five-way is enough.

[More details on prehav running]

If a PC isn’t interested in the process, the ruds are out, as it’s an  interesting process.  So beat the ruds to death.  If you can’t solve it with  ruds, run CCH’s.  The PC needs this when he can’t control attention and your  command isn’t reaching him, a no-effect case on whom no command has anything  to do with him, etc.: totally on automatic, etc.  So use CCH’s to give them an  example that control and duplication can exist, and to increase their  alertness, havingness, and effectiveness.  Ten to twenty-five hours of CCH’s  must be done, with good auditor control and presence.  If the auditor can’t  impinge on the PC, however, and has no auditor presence, even CCH’s won’t  work, since they depend on impingement.  LRH impinges more than most auditors  because of his certainty that something will happen and his not being scared  to confront the PC.  To LRH, it’s a personal affront if the PC isn’t moving.  He can even get bad research results because even when using a process that  shouldn’t work, his postulate that the case should change and his wanting to  do something for the PC will cause the process to work.  So he depends on HGC  results, etc., to test processes.  Just asking the PC questions can do a  tremendous amount for the PC.  Don’t underestimate what auditor presence,  confidence, and interest can do.

CCH’s depend on auditor presence more than any other process.  Maybe 6  percent won’t get gains, because of needing CCH’s.  The rest have ruds out, if  they don’t win on goals and prehav.

[More data on goals and prehav running]

The havingness processes are arranged in order of their frequency of  effectiveness.  A command that works on cases that have relatively  uncontrolled banks and can’t run engrams is, “Where is _______ ?” Frequently a  person with low havingness is in a universe of objects that are mad at him,  etc.  As you run, “What is the emotion of that (object)?”, the object goes  downscale and the PC cuts in across the bottom and goes upscale.  When he’s  upscale about the object, the process is flat.  This havingness process can  change, when emotion disappears out of the physical universe, to “What is the  condition of that (object)?” If the havingness process stops loosening the  needle, first check to see if there is an ARCB about the command, and then, if  not, find a new havingness process.

Other processes: are TR-10: “Notice that (indicated object).  What aren’t  you putting into it?” A good outside process is, “What is the condition of  that person?”

When you get a rise on a can squeeze, the PC may have heavy withholds,  maybe inverted interest, and won’t lie-check.  Perhaps the havingness test  would be how much less does the needle rise in this case.  If the case ARCB’s all the time, you can run, “Who would I have to be to  audit you?”

The prehav scale running runs subjective havingness; the hav processes  run objective havingness.  The objective havingness determines his havingness  of the physical universe; the prehav scale determines his havingness of the  subjective universe.  You only run enough objective havingness to keep the PC  in PT and loosen his needle.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 FEBRUARY 1961
Franchise

NEW PRESESSION DATA AND SCRIPT CHANGE

Presessions

The use of Presession 37 should be limited to about 2 hours at the most.

As a case progresses it becomes conscious of more withholds. Therefore Presession 37 can be run at intervals as a case goes along, briefly each time.

Model Session Script Change

For the purpose of getting all the withholds off a case, a new line is now added to the Model Session.

Immediately after “Is it all right if I audit you?” insert the line “Are you withholding anything?”

With the discovery that many non-progress cases are not progressing because of heavy undisclosed withholds, the subject of withholding is graduated up to take permanent residence in the rudiments as above. Therefore it could be said that Presession 37 is actually repeated in the rudiments but, of course, remains itself.

Formula 19 is a better thing with which to slug a case than long runs of Presession 37. If you suspect withholds you can’t rapidly get, Formula 19 speeds up the whole case and gets real gains at the same time.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.bh
Copyright © 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 FEBRUARY 1961

Franchise
FORMULA 19

Formula 19 is developed to give a general form to Failed Help and O/W running.

It is better to use this than Presession 37 for long runs. Presession 37 must be done. Formula 19 is, however, a better case digger as it improves case up to where pc realizes he has withholds. As a case improves it becomes more aware of overts and withholds since the overts “unlessen” and the case responsibility rises.

Formula 19 improves responsibility and brings up awareness of withholds and improves the case.

Formula 19 consists of Who/What Two Way Failed Help and general O/W, about a ten minute or a to present time run for each.

The commands are:

“Who has failed to help you?” 
“Who have you failed to help?” 
“What has failed to help you?” 
“What have you failed to help?”

The above commands are run consecutively.

“What have you done?” 
“What have you withheld?”

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 FEBRUARY 1961
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
Ds of P
All HGC Personnel
All Auditors
Auditing Staff	S.O.P. GOALS
All 22nd American
ACC Students	Marvellous New Breakthrough
All 3rd S.A.	BE—DO—HAVE Coordinated
ACC Students

On all staff cases without exception the following Goals Standard Operating Procedure will be used.

This data I developed for the 3rd S.A. ACC is a major breakthrough. I want it run on all staff cases now no matter what was being run before. Take note of what was being run for later application or for use as terminals after Goals Assessment if they fit and are only partially flat on older processes.

S.O.P. Goals Intensives

Use Model Session throughout. Heavily stress Rudiments. Use “What part of that problem could you be responsible for” for PTPs. Use TR 5N for ARC breaks (“What have I done to you”, “What have you done to me”).

1. 	Go over Rudiments carefully .

2. 	Do a Goals Assessment.

	Find out every goal the pc can recall ever having. Make a list. Get in particular any secret goals, or withheld goals. Go over list with a meter. Take goal that falls the most.

3. 	Convert goal to a terminal.

	Get wording of terminal simple but make sure the version you select falls as much as possible on meter. HCO Bulletin of February 2nd, 1961 (some issues were dated March 9, 1961, from HCO Saint Hill), gives sample general commands to which terminal can be added.

4. 	Assess this terminal on the Pre-Havingness Scale from bottom to top.

	Take level that falls the most.

5. 	Develop an auditing command, preferably two-way, that uses terminal and pre-havingness level.

	The right commands fall as much as goal or terminal did.

6. 	Run the command until tone arm becomes less active.

7. 	Go one down on the Pre-Havingness Scale.
	Develop a command for next level that falls.

8. 	Run the command until the tone arm becomes less active.

9. 	Return to first commands and run them (the first level found).

	Alternate the higher and one-down level commands, ten minutes of one level, ten minutes or so of the other level.

10. 	When the tone arm loses its action on these two commands and tends to stick, no matter whether high or low arm (one half hour is a good test), REASSESS TERMINAL ON PRE-HAVINGNESS SCALE from bottom up until a level falls hard.

11. 	Proceed as in Steps 5 to 11.

12. 	When the first terminal selected, run at several levels of the scale and the one just below, seems flat, return to Goals Assessment, REASSESS GOALS. Proceed from Steps 5 to 12.

13. 	When tone arm stabilizing around clear read (two or three terminals run), LOCATE HAVINGNESS PROCESS from the 36 Presessions.

14. 	Add the havingness process into the processes run, using it at appropriate places (certainly at session end) while continuing Goals S.O.P.

15. 	When havingness process has been used for a couple of sessions to help Goals S.O.P., find the CONFRONT PROCESS.

16. 	Add the Confront Process into the Model Session.

17. 	If you run out of goals, get a NEW LIST OF GOALS from the pc and proceed as above.

Beingness, Doingness and Havingness must be balanced. Each must be flexible in the pc for a stable gain.

Goals processing finds the beingness and the mind’s doingness toward it (Pre-Hav Scale) and results in Havingness.

On Assessments you may find, going from bottom toward top of the PreHavingness Scale (No Effect upwards), that after several levels the pc’s needle begins to rise consistently. It is probably useless to go higher on the scale as a rising needle means “no confront”. A quicker way than assessing the whole scale would be, then, to assess upwards to a rising needle action and then go back down until the needle stops rising. Hunt from that point down for the biggest fall and you won’t go very wrong.

------------------

Tone arm movement is the keynote to Case gain—No tone arm action = no gain. 1 to 2 Divisions of the Six Divisions of the Tone Arm Circle movement per half hour is good movement.
-----------------

If a pc does not respond well to Goals S.O.P. (about 15% won’t) do the following: Go over Rudiments with high sensitivity setting on meter. Clean up the withholds.

If that doesn’t work, run the following for a few hours (it’s the lowest but most general process now known):

What was your attention concentrated upon? When was your attention shifted?

This should get the tone arm moving. When tone arm is moving well for a few hours move back into Goals S.O.P. Step 2 and get the case going. It may be necessary to run Formula 15 and/or Formula 13 on some cases if Goals S.O.P. still finds a quiet tone arm.

Cases don’t move when heavy withholds or PTPs are present. Cover Rudiments and End Rudiments carefully every session.

Example

Model Session is begun. Rudiments well covered. Goals Assessment shows up strongest goal to be “to get over having a painful body”. Terminal is chosen, “Painful Body” is shown to fall most as terminal wording.

“Painful Body” is assessed on Pre-Havingness Scale. Endure falls most.

Auditing command is developed which falls on meter, “What should a painful body endure?” No additional command developed for Endure.

Developed command is run (heavy somatics) until the tone arm ceases to get 2 divisions of action, gets only one. Process ended.

Command is developed for Failed Endure, next lower level, “What has a painful body failed to endure?” This starts heavy tone arm action again.

When action cooled, same “endure” command is run again.

After three runs of Endure and two of Failed Endure command tone arm stiffens at 5 on the scale. A 15 minute test of both commands fails to get it moving; “Painful Body” is reassessed in the Pre-Havingness Scale and is found now to drop at Withheld.

Command is developed for Withheld that falls on meter (the command causes the fall), “What should be withheld from a painful body?”

This new command run and tone arm again in motion. TA motion gets less.

Dropping down one level of Pre-Havingness Scale to Failed Withhold, command is developed that falls on needle—”What have you failed to withhold from a painful body?”

Command is run and restores motion to tone arm. When motion dies down a bit, Withhold command is resumed.

After 2 runs of Withhold and two of Failed Withhold, tone arm became slow at 3.

“Painful Body” reassessed on Pre-Havingness Scale, is now found at Inverted Communication. “Painful Body” added to command given on HCO Bulletin, 2nd February, 1961, for Inverted Communication. This run for 1 hour. Then Inverted Interest run on “Painful Body”. Etc. Etc.

Data on all this will be found on the 17 hours of tape lectures of the 3rd S.A. ACC. This condensation is not on the tapes.

The Pre-Havingness Scale referred to has been the subject of two February 1961 HCO Bulletins. (Some issues were dated March 9, 1961, from HCO Saint Hill.)
An expanded scale will shortly be released. The shorter scale works, however.

-----------------

As this is the fastest road to Clear, I want all staff members to be processed on nothing else, from scratch, former auditing not to be taken into account. We want clear staffs. They deserve it.

								L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:aecjs.rd							
Copyright © 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 FEBRUARY 1961
Ds of P	
All HGC Personnel
All Auditors
IMPORTANT DATA ON GOALS S.O.P.

It is vital to know that cases run on Goals S.O.P. or the Pre-Havingness Scale may slump between sessions and become misemotional even out of session until the scale is flat—flat—flat on any assessed terminal.

It is also important to know that a case run on the Pre-Havingness Scale in such a way as to leave a level unflat may hang-fire thereafter and will move only when that process is completed.

This scale is hot and fast, but its very workability can unstabilize cases during an intensive.

Use the scale. But use it intelligently. Do not permit it to be used by untrained unsupervised Auditors.

Flatten Terminals

Flatten every level started, get tone arm and needle to a stick or no action before assessing another level for the terminal.

It is all right to alternate two levels, running the one assessed and the one below, back and forth. But do not leave either level unflat before assessing again.

When is a Goals Terminal Flat?

An assessed terminal taken from the heaviest reacting goal of the pc must be run, reassessed and run at various levels of the scale until the goal terminal has no reaction on a cranked up sensitivity needle for any level of the Pre-Havingness Scale. If a reaction is found, run it off and check again.

Don’t quit a terminal because the pc wants to. Quit it only when meter has no reaction.

Use the Pre-Havingness Scale.

Don’t be disturbed by the misemotion of a pc during or between sessions.

Run any goals terminal you assess flat on all levels of the scale before going on to assess new goals.

LRH :js.rd 							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 FEBRUARY 1961

Franchise
PT PROBLEM AND GOALS

It will be found that PT Problems are often disclosed by the goals announced by the pc.

A PT Problem can wholly stall a case. Only withholds, PT Problems, and ARC Breaks (gross auditing errors) can stop a case now.

Definitions: A problem is an intention counter intention that worries the preclear.

A Present Time Problem is a problem that exists now in the physical universe.

The pc often announces a PT Problem when asked for his goals.

Example: Asked for goals, pc says he wants to improve his memory. Memory is a PT Problem to him. Until something is done about this, the case stalls. Auditor runs “Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting,” so long as pc is happy with it and unhappy with memory. This may be 25 hours or more.

Example: Pc says his goal is to get rid of paralysis in his leg. This is his PT Problem. Auditor runs “Tell me something worse than a leg” until it is no longer a problem to the pc.

The Dianetic Assist is Presession 38. Finding an engram or secondary and running it, but only to resolve pc’s PT Problem and only as a prelude to formulas, takes care of the goal-PT Problem situation in most cases. In any event you have 11 years of technology to handle these PTPs that exist as goals.

I’m happy to have found this data and to have found new ways of handling engrams. But it does not supplant Formulas and Regimens as announced.

Most of this modern rundown will be found on the 22nd American ACC tapes, January 1961, 10 hours, now being used to train Central Org Personnel.

Research wise, I am trying to find a way to resolve the goal-PT Problem situation with new ways of handling failed help on the basis that whatever the pc thinks is wrong he has failed to help.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.cden 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MARCH 1961

HCO Secs
Assn Secs
Ds of P
All HGC Personnel

NEW PRE-HAV COMMAND

Here is a new command for Communication on the Pre-Hav Scale.

It comes as a surprise to me to find a new Comm process after Comm being in prominence 11 years, but that’s what’s happened. Also this process is foreshadowed by the Code of Honor.

It replaces the Pre-Hav Command in HCO Bulletin of February 2, 1961 (dated March 9, 1961 from Saint Hill).

The basic command from which the others are derived is: 
“RECALL NOT WANTING TO COMMUNICATE.”

The full commands that can be run in sequence are:

“Recall not wanting to communicate.” 
“Recall another not wanting to communicate.” 
“Recall not wanting another to communicate.” 
“Recall another not wanting you to communicate.” 
“Recall another not wanting others to communicate.” 
“Recall a communication.” 
“Recall a no-communication.” 
“Recall a communication.” 
“Recall a no-communication.” 
“Recall a communication.” 
“Recall a no-communication.”

The command structure, having so many possibilities, has only been partially sorted out. The first five commands of the above or the last six commands of the above or all of the above may be run. The last six, of course, handle loss incidents.

It just may be that the first line as a process underlies all withholds and gives later withholds power. This may then, just as a process, considerably ease the task set in getting off withholds on secretive cases.

Using all the first five lines in sequence is probably easiest on the pc, afterwards flattening the last six commands.

LRH: ph.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MARCH 1961

Franchise
FORMULA 20

Formula 20 is an effort to run Control on a thought level. It is relatively experimental.

It is for cases that have much alter-is as represented by inability to duplicate commands. Also for cases that have unsteady engram banks that shift.

The commands are:

“Who has failed to control you?” 
“Who have you failed to control?” 
“What has failed to control you?” 
“What have you failed to control?”

      and

“Who have you helped?” 
“Who has helped you?”

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MARCH 1961 
Franchise Holders 
Central Orgs

SCRIPT OF A MODEL SESSION
(Cancels HCO B of October 13,1960, same title)

I have brought the Model Session up to date, including “withholds” and changing “we” to “I” and “the” to “this” session throughout to reduce randomity. I have also added the proper processes to run at Rudiment level.

A Model Session is a Model Session because of its “patter”, not because of specific processes. This is a handy script of the “patter of a Model Session”. Use it. Don’t vary it. Know it by heart. It is the mark of a well trained auditor. By making all patter the same, later sessions run out earlier sessions.

This does not enjoin against two-way comm; but reduce auditor comments and chatter in sessions, if you want smooth results and no ARC breaks.

START OF SESSION

Auditor: 	“Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?”

Pc:     	“Yes.”

Auditor: 	Acknowledges. “Start of Session!” (Tone 40)

Note 1: 	If pc says “No”, Auditor two-way comms concerning objections, then asks again, “Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?”

Note 2: 	If pc is doubtful as to whether the session has started:

Auditor: 	“Has this session started for you?”

Pc:     	“No.”

Auditor: 	Acknowledges. “Start of Session!” (Tone 40) Then, “Now has the session started for you?” If pc still says “No”, the Auditor says, “We will cover it in the Rudiments,” and continues the session.

RUDIMENTS

1. 	Goals

Auditor: 	“What goals would you like to set for this session?”

Pc:     	Sets goals.

Auditor: 	Acknowledges. “Are there any goals you would like to set for life or livingness?”

Pc:     	Answers.

Auditor: 	Acknowledges.

2. 	Environment

Auditor: 	“Is it all right to audit in this room?”

Note 3: 	If not, use TR 10 (see Note 15) or pc’s Havingness process.

3 . 	Auditor Clearance

Auditor: 	“Is it all right if I audit you?”

Note 4: 	If not, clear objection, or use TR 5N (see Note 16) or “Who should I be to audit you?” or “Who am I?” depending on nature of difficulty. If TR 5N seems to worsen the ARC break, run O/W on Auditor (see Note 17).

4. 	Withholds

Auditor: 	“Are you withholding anything?”

Note 5: 	If so, get withhold off or run Presession 37 (HCO B Dec 15, 1960).

5. 	Present Time Problem

Auditor: 	“Do you have any present time problem?”

Note 6: 	If so, clear problem, or use “What part of that problem have you been responsible for?”

START OF PROCESS

Auditor: 	“Now I would like to run this process on you (name it). What would you say to that?”

Pc:     	Answers.

Auditor: 	Acknowledges. Clears the command for pc only for the first time the command is used.

Note 7: 	If, during clearing of the command or failure of needle to react, it seems that the pc will not be able to handle or do the announced process profitably, Auditor says: “According to what we have been talking about, it would seem better if I ran (name another process).”

END OF PROCESS

1. 	Cyclical

Auditor: 	(Wishing to end process) “Where are you now on the time track?”

Pc:     	Answers.

Auditor: 	Acknowledges. “If it is all right with you, I will continue this process until you are close to present time and then end this process.”

Pc:     	Answers.

Auditor: 	Acknowledges. Auditor continues the process, asking after each pc answer, “When?” until the pc is close to present time.

Pc:     	Answers close to present time.

Auditor: 	Acknowledges. “That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to say before I end this process?”

Pc:     	Answers.

Auditor: 	Acknowledges. “End of process.”

2. 	Non-Cyclical

Auditor: 	“If it is all right with you I will give this command two more times and then end this process.”

Pc:     	Answers.

Auditor: 	Acknowledges and gives the command two more times.

Pc:     	Answers.

Auditor: 	Acknowledges. “Is there anything you would care to say before I end this process?”

Pc:     	Answers.

Auditor: 	Acknowledges. “End of process.”

Note 7a: 	The cyclical ending is only used on terminals that exist also in present time, or when pc is going into the past in his answers. It is not used after pc says he is in present time. Non-cyclical is used when the pc is running terminals which do not exist in present time or when the cyclic aspect can be neglected.

REPEATED COMMANDS

Auditor: 	Gives command.

Pc:     	“I don’t know. I can’t find and answer.”

Auditor: 	Acknowledges. “I will repeat the auditing command.” Repeats the command.

Note 8: 	If pc still cannot answer, two-way comm to discover why.

COGNITION

Auditor: 	Gives command.

Pc:     	(Not having answered command yet) “Say, that mass in front of my face just moved off.”

Auditor: 	Acknowledges. Repeats command without announcing that it is a repeat.

END RUDIMENTS

5. 	Present Time Problem

Auditor: 	“Do you have any present time problem now?”
Note 9: 	If so, run “What part of that problem have you been responsible for?”

4. 	Withholds

Auditor: 	“Are you withholding anything?”

Note 10. 	Pulls withhold or runs Presession 37.

3. 	Auditor Clearance

Auditor: 	“How do you feel about my auditing in this session?”

Note 11:	 Use only TR 5N or O/W on present auditor, “What have you (done to) (withheld from) me in this session?”

2. 	Environment

Auditor: 	“Look around here and see if you can have anything.”

Note 12: 	Run TR 10 or pc’s Havingness process.

1. 	Goals

Auditor: 	“Have you made any part of your goals for this session?”

Note 13: 	Auditor may remind pc of session goals if pc can’t remember them.

END OF SESSION

Auditor: 	“Is there anything you would care to say or ask before I end this session?”

Note 14:	 Auditor may show pc relative TA positions reached in session or tell pc what he cares to know about session.

Pc:     	Answers.

Auditor: 	Acknowledges. “Is it all right with you if I end this session now?”

Pc:     	Answers.

Auditor: 	Acknowledges. “Here it is. End of Session!” (Tone 40)

Auditor: 	(Optional) “Tell me I am no longer auditing you.”

Pc:     	“You are no longer auditing me.”

Auditor: 	Acknowledges.

Note 15: 	Commands of TR 10: “Notice that (room object).”

Note 16: 	Commands of TR 5N: “What have I done to you?” “What have you done to me?” alternated. “In this session” may be added if auditor-pc have long known each other.

Note l 7:	 Commands of O/W: “What have you done to me?” “What have you withheld from me?” or in general form if pc berates auditors, “What have you done to an auditor?” “What have you withheld from an auditor?” or if the pc has been psychoanalyzed heavily, “What have you done to a practitioner?” “What have you withheld from a practitioner?”

Note 18: 	Present Time Problem for the purpose of rudiments must be what is called “a problem of short duration”. A problem of long duration (such as a goal or psychosomatic difficulty) is not handled as in rudiments but in proper session and will emerge in the normal course of assessing S.O.P. Goals.

Note 19: 	If any rudiment difficulty can be blown with a very small amount of two-way comm, no process is run.

Note 20:	 Only the meter reaction shows if the environment, ARC break, withhold or PTP is still in existence. In all questions of whether something is blown or not or if a terminal is flat or if the process is flat, take what the meter says if it is different from what the pc says. The meter knows even if the pc says something else.

Note 21: 	After running a process on a rudiment because a meter reaction showed it should be run, always ask the rudiment question again before bridging to end the process. If it still reacts, audit the process further. Do not abandon a rudiment until the meter gives no reaction to the question.

Note 22: 	Always get an answer to every auditing command.

Note 23: 	Never expect two answers for one question even in doing an assessment.

Note 24: 	It is not obligatory for the pc to actually set goals. He must always be asked. He cannot be forced to do so. Ordinarily when he does not care to set goals for this part of the rudiments, he is suffering from an ARC break.

Note 25: 	Follow the Auditor’s Code.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :jl.rd 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 MARCH 1961

CenOCon
Fran Holders

S.O.P. GOALS MODIFIED

A slight modification to make S.O.P. Goals easier to run is made herewith:

As I am expanding the Pre-Hav Scale with several new levels and as these levels are not necessarily in exact position, it is no longer possible to derive an exact formula using two levels. Only one level will be run for each assessment.

Strike out Steps 6, 7, 8 and 9 of HCO Bulletin of February 18, 1961.

Strike out the word “two” in Step 10, first line.

At Step 11, add: “omitting Steps 6, 7, 8 and 9.”

At Step 12, first and second line, omit “and the one just below”. Add to end of step: “omitting Steps 6, 7, 8 and 9.”

Adjust example accordingly.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:ph.rd 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 APRIL 1961
Staff Auditors
Franchise
ASSESSING FOR GOALS AND TERMINALS
OR ELIMINATION

As the only weak spot in S.O.P. Goals is assessing for the right goal and terminal, I have given this a lot of study and am utilizing something new I have observed that should cancel out any doubts about rightness in the auditor’s mind.

Do all S.O.P. Goals steps in Model Session form. This gives you two cracks at the withholds and ARC breaks. If in doubt about how the pc is standing up to a long assessment end the session, give pc a short break and start a new session.

GOALS LIST

To do Goals, get pc to give you every goal he or she can think of. Then start using the meter to find goals and keep on finding goals until when you ask for one you get no drop on the meter. In other words, look for goals like you look for withholds.

Ask for: 

Secret goals. 
Withheld goals. 
Anti-social goals. 
Childhood goals. 
Goals you’ve just remembered. 
Silly goals. 
Goals you’ve failed at.

Your resulting list may be as long as a hundred or more or as short as fifty. Just clear the meter on the subject. Make sure you write down every goal you get.

Now to assess the goals. Tell pc he or she doesn’t have to answer aloud, and start reading the goals off to the pc. Write down how much each goal fell by divisions or fractions of divisions. Lightly cross out every goal that does not fall.

Go over list to pc again, still watching needle. Read off to pc every goal that fell before. You will find some of these have gone nul. Mark present divisions of fall for each goal. Cross out every goal that now does not fall.

Read remaining goals off to pc. Mark divisions they fell and cross out those that went nul.

Read now the goals that remain and cross out those that go nul.

Keep doing this until you have only two or three goals.

Discuss these with the pc. They may be all the same goal. Get a better definition of the goal.

Now read the remaining goals to pc and cross out the ones that go nul.

You will have at least one heavily falling goal left that does not go nul on two way comm. This of course has to be run.

This assessment is assessment of goals by elimination.

TERMINAL LIST

We have the goal. Now to get the terminal.

We get the pc to suggest terminals that represent this goal we have found.

We keep on urging the pc to give us more terminals for that goal.

We list every terminal the pc thinks up. We are not content until we have a list of about thirty possible terminals.

We now treat this list exactly as we did the goals list.

We read the list to the pc, marking divisions of fall and crossing out terminals that don’t fall now.

We take the uncrossed-out terminals and read these to the pc. We mark divisions they fall and cross out those that no longer fall.

We keep doing this until we are left with one terminal.

This is our terminal. The only way it will nul is by auditing.

This is terminal assessment by elimination.

Commands are pretty easy to get.

The best command is the five-way bracket as follows:

	You	terminal.
	Terminal	you.
	Terminal	another.
	Another	terminal.
	Terminal	terminal.

The How type of command is very good.

The additional data on terminals commands is to add “bad” or “badly” at the inverted levels.

On the Pre-Havingness Scale you should add WASTE below FAILED ABANDON.

You should add REGRET, SHAME and BLAME going upwards from somewhere around PROTECT. I will give you the full Pre-Hav chart in a week or two, but you need these right now.

LRH:ph.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 APRIL 1961
HCO Secs	
Any Directors
of Security
JOHANNESBURG SECURITY CHECK

This is the Johannesburg Security Check sheet further amplified by myself. This is the roughest Security Check in Scientology. We will call it the “Jo’burg Security Check”. It does not necessarily replace other check sheets but it is probably the most thorough one we have now.

In reprinting this form use legal (foolscap) length and double-space everything except directions.

Joburg Security Check Sheet

HCO Security Form 2

_________________________________		_____________________
Name of Person	Date

_________________________________
Name of Security Checker

Directions: Attempt to clear any fall observed. Mark any fall observed or any meter reaction change elicited by the question. Then write what it cleared on. Mark largely if the fall could not be cleared since this constitutes a failure to pass. Only fail somebody if there is no needle motion of any kind even with sensitivity at 16 on any question. If they are failing because it is hard to clear a question, work very thoroughly on it in an effort to clear it. In all cases complete the test.

If an important question fails to clear even after Security Checker has worked very hard to get it off, the test is flunked.

The following statement should be read or quoted to the person being Security Checked:

“We are about to begin a Security Check. We are not moralists. We are able to change people. We are not here to condemn them. While we cannot guarantee you that matters revealed in this check will be held forever secret, we can promise you faithfully that no part of it nor any answer you make here will be given to the Police or the State. No Scientologist will ever bear witness against you in Court by reason of answers to this Security Check. This Security Check is exclusively for Scientology purposes. The only ways you can fail this Security Check are to refuse to take the test, to fail to answer its questions truthfully or if you are here knowingly to injure Scientology. The only penalty attached to failure of this check is processing or our refusal to employ you or issue you a certificate, and this will only happen if we find that you are trying knowingly to injure Scientology. You can pass this test by (l) agreeing to take it, (2) answering each question truthfully and (3) not being a member of a subversive group seeking to injure Scientology.”

The first questions are nul questions to determine your reaction pattern.

We will now begin—

Lie Reaction:

Are you sitting in a chair? 
Are you on the moon? 
Are all cats black? 
Am I an ostrich? 
Is this Earth? 
Have you ever drunk water? 
Are you holding up a tree? 
Am I an elephant? 
Are you a table? 
Is this a Security Check?

Have you ever lived or worked under an assumed name? 
Have you given me your right name? 
Are you here for a different purpose than you say? 
Have you ever stolen anything? 
Have you ever forged someone else’s signature? 
Have you ever blackmailed anybody? 
Have you ever been blackmailed? 
Have you ever smuggled anything? 
Have you ever been in prison? 
Have you ever indulged in drunkenness? 
Have you ever done any reckless driving? 
Have you ever burglared any place? 
Have you ever embezzled money? 
Have you ever assaulted anyone? 
Have you ever been in jail? 
Have you ever told lies in Court? 
Have you ever had anything to do with Pornography? 
Have you ever committed Arson? 
Have you ever been a Drug Addict? 
Have you ever peddled Dope? 
Have you had any dealings with stolen goods? 
Do you have a Police Record? 
Have you ever raped anyone? 
Have you ever been involved in an abortion? 
Have you assisted in any abortion? 
Have you ever committed adultery? 
Have you ever practised Homosexuality? 
Have you ever had intercourse with a member of your family? 
Have you ever been sexually unfaithful? 
Have you ever practised Sodomy?
Have you ever consistently made a practice of sexual perversion?
Have you ever slept with a member of a race of another colour?
Have you ever committed culpable homicide?
Have you ever bombed anything?
Have you ever murdered anyone?
Have you ever kidnapped anyone?
Have you ever done any illicit Diamond buying?
Have you ever betrayed anyone for money?
Have you ever threatened anyone with a fire-arm?
Have you been in illegal possession of fire-arms?
Have you ever been paid for giving evidence?
Have you ever destroyed something belonging to someone else?
Have you ever been a spy for an Organization?
Have you ever had anything to do with Communism or been a Communist?
Have you ever been a newspaper reporter?
Have you ever had intercourse while under the influence of drugs?
Have you ever had intercourse while under the influence of alcohol?
Have you ever used drugs or blackmail to procure sex?
Have you ever ill-treated children?
Have you ever taken money for giving anyone sexual intercourse?
Have you ever had any connection with a brothel?
Have you ever had anything to do with a baby farm?
Have you ever been a spy for the Police?
Are you afraid of the Police?
Have you ever done anything you are afraid the Police may find out?
Have you ever falsified the books in any firm you worked for?
Have you ever done anything your Mother would be ashamed to find out?
How could you help yourself generally?
What represents yourself?
How could you help your family?
What represents your family?
How do you feel about sex?
What represents (the Org (others (a group to you?
How could you help (the Org? (others? (a group?
How could you help mankind?
Have you ever controlled people?
How do you feel about being controlled?
What represents mankind to you?
How could you help animals and plants?
What represents animals and plants to you?
How could you help material things?
What represents Matter, Energy, Space and Time to you?
How could you help Spirits?
What represents Spirits to you?
How could you help God or Infinity?
What represents God or Infinity to you?
What is Communism?
Do you feel Communism has some good points?
Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
Have you ever been a member of any group with similar ideals as the Communist Party?
Do you know any Communist personally?
Have you ever injured Dianetics or Scientology?
Have you ever committed any overts on a Scientology Organization?
Have you ever stolen anything from a Scientology Org?
Do you have any overts on LRH?
Have you ever had unkind thoughts about LRH?
Do you have any overts on Mary Sue?
Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about Mary Sue?
Have you ever injured any Scientologists?
Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about Scientologists?
Have you ever betrayed Scientology?
Do you know of any secret plans against Scientology?
Have you ever taken money to injure Scientology?
Have you ever used Dianetics or Scientology to force sex upon someone?
Do you know of any plans to injure a Scientology Organization?
Are you upset about this Security Check?

______________________________	_________________________________
Passed					Failed
_____________________________________________________________________
Why?
	_________________________________
                               	Signed by Examiner

LRH:lmw.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 APRIL 1961
CenOCon

TRAINING DRILLS

These “TRs” are those released to the 18th ACC. They are in their original form. They are the correct drills for use in all instruction.
                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

NUMBER: TR 0
NAME: Confronting Preclear. COMMANDS: None.
POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart—about five feet.
PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing.
TRAINING STRESS: Have student and coach sit facing each other, neither making any conversation or effort to be interesting. Have them sit and look at each other and say and do nothing for some hours. Student must not speak, fidget, giggle or be embarrassed or anaten. Coach may speak only if student goes anaten (dope off). Student is confronting the body, thetan and bank of preclear.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957 to train students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be “interesting”.

NUMBER: TR 1
NAME: Dear Alice.
COMMANDS: A phrase (with the “he saids” omitted) is picked out of the book “Alice in Wonderland” and read to the coach. It is repeated until the coach is satisfied it arrived where he is.
POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.
PURPOSE: To teach the student to send an intention from himself to a preclear in one unit of time without vias.
TRAINING STRESS: The command goes from the book to the student and, as his own, to the coach. It must not go from book to coach. It must sound natural, not artificial. Diction and elocution have no part in it. Loudness may have.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to teach the communication formula to new students.

NUMBER: TR 2
NAME: Acknowledgements.
COMMANDS: The coach reads lines from “Alice in Wonderland” omitting “He saids” and the student thoroughly acknowledges them. The coach repeats any line he feels was not truly acknowledged.
POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.
PURPOSE: To teach student that an acknowledgement is a method of controlling preclear communication and that an acknowledgement is a full stop.
TRAINING STRESS: Teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so that preclear knows it was heard. Ask student from time to time what was said. Curb over and under acknowledgement. Let student do anything at first to get acknowledgements across, then even him out. Teach him that an acknowledgement is a stop, not beginning of a new cycle of communication or an encouragement to the preclear to go on.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to teach new
students that an acknowledgement ends a communication cycle and a period of time, that a new command begins a new period of time.

NUMBER: TR 3
NAME: Duplicative Question.
COMMANDS: “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?” Communication bridge between. POSITION: Student and coach seated a comfortable distance apart.
PURPOSE: To teach a student to duplicate without variation an auditing question, each time newly, in its own unit of time, not as a blur with other questions, and to acknowledge it; and to teach him how to shift from one question to another with a communication bridge rather than an abrupt change.
TRAINING STRESS: One question and student acknowledgement of its answer in one unit of time which is then finished. To keep student from straying into variations of command. To insist on communication bridge when question is changed. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked as though it had never occurred to anyone before. To teach student that a communication bridge consists of getting three agreements—one agreement to end this question, second agreement to continue session in general and maintain ARC, third agreement to begin a new question. Teach student that preclear is part of these agreements. To teach student never to vary question or shift question or command without a bridge.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to overcome variations and sudden changes in sessions.

NUMBER: TR 4
NAME: Preclear Originations.
COMMANDS: The student runs “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?” on coach. Coach answers but now and then makes startling comments from a prepared list given by Instructor. Student must handle originations to satisfaction of coach.
POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart.
PURPOSE: To teach a student not to be tongue-tied or startled or thrown off session by originations of preclear and to maintain ARC with preclear throughout an origination.
TRAINING STRESS: The student is taught to hear origination and do three things: 1. Understand it; 2. Acknowledge it; and 3. Return preclear to session. If the coach feels abruptness or too much time consumed or lack of comprehension, he corrects the coach into better handling.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to teach auditors to stay in session when preclear dives out.

NUMBER: TR 5
NAME: Hand Mimicry.
COMMANDS: All Commands are by motions of one or two hands. The auditor makes a simple hand motion, holding his hand or hands in the final position. The coach bobs his head as having received it. The coach then, mirror-wise, makes the same motion with his hand or hands. The student then acknowledges. If the motion was not correctly done by coach the student acknowledges doubtfully, then repeats the motion to the coach. If the coach does it well, student thanks coach by shaking own two hands together (prize fighter fashion). Keep motions simple. Student must always be able to duplicate own motions.
POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other at a short distance, coach’s knees inside student’s.
PURPOSE: To educate student that verbal commands are not entirely necessary. To make student physically telegraph an intention. To show student necessity of having preclear obey commands.
TRAINING STRESS: Accuracy of student repeating own commands. Teaching student to give preclear wins. Teaching student that an intention is different from words.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, from the principles of body mimicry developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Camden, N.J., in 1954.

LRH:ph.bh 							L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard                        
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex 

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 APRIL 1961
Remimeo
All Checksheets	
Franchise
TRAINING DRILLS MODERNIZED

(Reissued 5 January 71, substituting word “supervisors”
for “instructors”, adding the words “a command” to TR 3
and substituting the words “and coach’s remarks about self as
pc” in TR 4 in place of “and remarks aimed only at the student.”)

Due to the following factors, I have modernized TRs 0 to 4:

1. 	The auditing skill of any student remains only as good as he can do his TRs.

2.	Flubs in TRs are the basis of all confusion in subsequent efforts to audit.

3. 	If the TRs are not well learned early in the HPA/HCA, BScn/HCS Courses, THE BALANCE OF THE COURSE WILL FAIL AND SUPERVISORS AT UPPER LEVELS WILL BE TEACHING NOT THEIR SUBJECTS BUT TRS.

4. 	Almost all confusions on Meter, Model Sessions and SOP Goals stem directly from inability to do the TRs.

5. 	A student who has not mastered his TRs will not master anything further.

6. 	SOP Goals will not function in the presence of bad TRs. The preclear is already being overwhelmed by process velocity and cannot bear up to TR flubs without ARC breaks.

Academies were tough on TRs up to 1958 and have since tended to soften. Comm Courses are not a tea party.

These TRs given here should be put in use at once in all auditor training, in Academy and HGC and in the future should never be relaxed. Seven weeks on a Comm Course until he does the TRs perfectly lets the student receive at least one week’s training in the eight. A poor Comm Course in one week can wipe out the whole eight weeks.

NUMBER: TR 0 Revised 1961

NAME: Confronting Preclear.
COMMANDS: None.

POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart— about three feet.

PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing. The whole idea is to get the student able to hold a position three feet in front of a preclear, to BE there and not do anything else but BE there.

TRAINING STRESS: Have student and coach sit facing each other, neither making any conversation or effort to be interesting. Have them sit and look at each other and say and do nothing for some hours. Student must not speak, fidget, giggle or be embarrassed or anaten. It will be found the student tends to confront WITH a body part, rather than just confront, or to use a system of confronting rather than just BE there. The drill is misnamed if Confront means to DO something to the pc. The whole action is to accustom an auditor to BEING THERE three feet in front of a preclear without apologizing or moving or being startled or embarrassed or defending self. After a student has become able to just sit there for two hours “bull baiting” can begin. Anything added to BEING THERE is sharply flunked by the coach. Twitches, blinks, sighs, fidgets, anything except just being there is promptly flunked, with the reason why.

Patter: Student coughs. Coach: “Flunk! you coughed. Start.” This is the whole of the coach’s patter as a coach.

Patter as a confronted subject: The coach may say anything or do anything except leave the chair. The student’s “buttons” can be found and tromped on hard. Any words not coaching words may receive no response from the student. If the student responds, the coach is instantly a coach (see patter above).

Supervisors should have coaches let student have some wins (coach does not mention these) and then, by gradient stress, get the coaches to start in on the student to invite flunks and then flunk them. This is “bull baiting”. The student flunks each time he or she reacts, no matter how minutely, to being baited.

This TR should be taught rough-rough-rough and not left until the student can do it. Training is considered satisfactory at this level only if the student can BE three feet in front of a person without flinching, concentrating or confronting with, regardless of what the confronted person says or does.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957 to train students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be “interesting”. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard April 1961 on finding that SOP Goals required for its success a much higher level of technical skill than earlier processes.

NUMBER: TR 1 Revised 1961

NAME: Dear Alice.

PURPOSE: To train the student to deliver a command newly and in a new unit of time to a preclear without flinching or trying to overwhelm or using a via.

COMMANDS: A phrase (with the “he saids” omitted) is picked out of the book “Alice in Wonderland” and read to the coach. It is repeated until the coach is satisfied it arrived where he is.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

TRAINING STRESS: The command goes from the book to the student and, as his own, to the coach. It must not go from book to coach. It must sound natural not artificial. Diction and elocution have no part in it. Loudness may have.

The coach must have received the command (or question) clearly and have understood it before he says “Good”.

Patter: The coach says “Start”, says “Good” without a new start if the command is received or says “Flunk” if the command is not received. “Start” is not used again. “That’s it” is used to terminate for a discussion or to end the activity. If session is terminated for a discussion, coach must say “Start” again before it resumes.

This drill is passed only when the student can put across a command naturally, without strain or artificiality or elocutionary bobs and gestures, and when the student can do it easily and relaxedly.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to teach the communication formula to new students. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard 1961 to increase auditing ability.

NUMBER: TR 2 Revised 1961

NAME: Acknowledgements.

PURPOSE: To teach student that an acknowledgement is a method of controlling preclear communication and that an acknowledgement is a full stop.

COMMANDS: The coach reads lines from “Alice in Wonderland” omitting “He saids” and the student thoroughly acknowledges them. The coach repeats any line he feels was not truly acknowledged.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other at a comfortable distance apart.

TRAINING STRESS: Teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so preclear knows it was heard. Ask student from time to time what was said. Curb over and under acknowledgement. Let student do anything at first to get acknowledgements across, then even him out. Teach him that an acknowledgement is a stop, not beginning of a new cycle of communication or an encouragement to the preclear to go on.

To teach further that one can fail to get an acknowledgement across or can fail to stop a pc with an acknowledgement or can take a pc’s head off with an acknowledgement.

Patter: The coach says “Start”, reads a line and says “Flunk” every time the coach feels there has been an improper acknowledgement. The coach repeats the same line each time the coach says “Flunk”. “That’s it” may be used to terminate for discussion or terminate the session. “Start” must be used to begin new coaching after a “That’s it”.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to teach new students that an acknowledgement ends a communication cycle and a period of time, that a new command begins a new period of time. Revised 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: TR 3 Revised 1961

NAME: Duplicative question.

PURPOSE: To teach a student to duplicate without variation an auditing question, each time newly, in its own unit of time, not as a blur with other questions, and to acknowledge it. To teach that one never asks a second question until he has received an answer to the one asked.

COMMANDS: “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?”

POSITION: Student and coach seated a comfortable distance apart.

TRAINING STRESS: One question and student acknowledgement of its answer in one unit of time which is then finished. To keep student from straying into variations of command. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked as though it had never occurred to anyone before.

The student must learn to give a command and receive an answer and to acknowledge it in one unit of time.

The student is flunked if he or she fails to get an answer to the question asked, if he or she fails to repeat the exact question, if he or she Q and As with excursions taken by the coach.

Patter: The coach uses “Start” and “That’s it”, as in earlier TRs. The coach is not bound after starting to answer the student’s question but may comm lag or give a commenting type answer to throw the student off. Often the coach should answer. Somewhat less often the coach attempts to pull the student in to a Q and A or upset the student. Example:

	Student: “Do fish swim?”
                	Coach: “Yes”
                	Student: “Good”
                	Student: “Do fish swim?”
                	Coach: “Aren’t you hungry?”
                	Student: “Yes”
                	Coach: “Flunk”

When the question is not answered, the student must say gently, “I’ll repeat the auditing question,” and do so until he gets an answer. Anything except commands, acknowledgement and, as needed, the repeat statement is flunked. Unnecessary use of the repeat statement is flunked. A poor command is flunked. A poor acknowledgement is flunked. A Q and A is flunked (as in example). Student misemotion or confusion is flunked. Student failure to utter the next command without a long comm lag is flunked. A choppy or premature acknowledgement is flunked. Lack of an acknowledgement (or with a distinct comm lag) is flunked.

Any words from the coach except an answer to the question, “Start” “Flunk” “Good” or “That’s it” should have no influence on the student except to get him to give a repeat statement and the command again. By repeat statement is meant, “I’ll repeat the auditing command”.

“Start”, “Flunk”, “Good” and “That’s it” may not be used to fluster or trap the student. Any other statement under the sun may be. The coach may try to leave his chair in this TR. If he succeeds it is a flunk.

The coach should not use introverted statements such as “I just had a cognition.” “Coach divertive” statements should all concern the student, and should be designed to throw the student off and cause the student to lose session control or track of what the student is doing.

The student’s job is to keep a session going in spite of anything, using only command, the repeat statement or the acknowledgement.

The student may use his or her hands to prevent a “blow” (leaving) of the coach. If the student does anything else than the above, it is a flunk and the coach must say so.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to overcome variations and sudden changes in sessions. Revised 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard. The old TR had a comm bridge as part of its training but this is now part of and is taught in Model Session and is no longer needed at this level. Auditors have been frail in getting their questions answered. This TR was redesigned to improve that frailty.

NUMBER: TR 4 Revised 1961

NAME: Preclear originations.

PURPOSE: To teach a student not to be tongue-tied or startled or thrown off session by originations of preclear and to maintain ARC with preclear throughout an origination.

COMMANDS: The student runs “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?” on coach. Coach answers but now and then makes startling comments from a prepared list given by Instructor. Student must handle originations to satisfaction of coach.

POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other at a comfortable distance apart.
TRAINING STRESS: The student is taught to hear origination and do three things: 1. Understand it; 2. Acknowledge it; and 3. Return preclear to session. If the coach feels abruptness or too much time consumed or lack of comprehension, he corrects the student into better handling.

Patter: All originations concern the coach, his ideas, reactions or difficulties, none concern the auditor. Otherwise the patter is the same as in earlier TRs. The student’s patter is governed by: 1. Clarifying and understanding the origin. 2. Acknowledging the origin. 3. Giving the repeat statement “I’ll repeat the auditing command,” and then giving it. Anything else is a flunk.

The auditor must be taught to prevent ARC breaks and differentiate between a vital problem that concerns the pc and a mere effort to blow session. (TR 3 Revised.) Flunks are given if the student does more than 1. Understand; 2. Acknowledge; 3. Return pc to session.

Coach may throw in remarks personal to student as on TR 3. Student’s failure to differentiate between these (by trying to handle them) and coach’s remarks about self as “pc” is a flunk.

Student’s failure to persist is always a flunk in any TR but here more so. Coach should not always read from list to originate, and not always look at student when about to comment. By Originate is meant a statement or remark referring to the state of the coach or fancied case. By Comment is meant a statement or remark aimed only at student or room. Originations are handled, Comments are disregarded by the student.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to teach auditors to stay in session when preclear dives out. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in 1961 to teach an auditor more about handling origins and preventing ARC breaks.

As TR 5 is also part of the CCHs it can be disregarded in the Comm Course TRs despite its appearance on earlier lists for students and staff auditors.

Training Note

It is better to go through these TRs several times getting tougher each time than to hang up on one TR forever or to be so tough at start student goes into a decline.

LRH:jw.cden 	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 APRIL 1961
CenOCon
Franchise
CHANGE PROCESSES

I have been studying change processes in relation to the tendency of the pc to alter-is commands and have found that if a pc is bad off on change (which includes about eighty per cent of the pcs you get), he cannot run another auditing command cleanly as he never really runs the command but runs something else. Therefore the only thing that can be run is a change process and it must be run until motion is removed from the Tone Arm. (This does not mean a “stuck” Tone Arm, but a motion of about one-sixteenth of a division on the Tone Arm dial.)

DISCOVERY

What has made the change process so important is a recent discovery I made that resisted change is the basis of all mass in the physical universe. Resisted change is the basis of every stuck point on the track.

There are probably dozens of versions of change processes.

The safest way to dope out what change process to run on the pc is to read it on the needle and get each different command of the whole process to fall properly, and then to run whatever has been figured out.

SAFE RULES FOR CHANGE PROCESS

Run at least two ways of flow.

Run positive and negative change.

Run a version that is real to the pc, with each command cleared on the meter (to get each command to fall before actually using it). This is meter clearing the command. It’s new.

Examples:

“Think” vs. “Get the idea of” can be sorted out on the meter. The right one will fall. The wrong one won’t or will fall less.

Get the flows sorted out with commands.

Process Versions:

“Get the idea of changing yourself.” 
“Get the idea of another changing himself.” 
“Get the idea of changing another.” 
“Get the idea of another trying to change you.” 
“Get the idea of another trying to change another.” 
“Get the idea of not changing yourself.” 
“Get the idea of another not changing himself.” 
“Get the idea of not changing another.” 
“Get the idea of another not changing you.” 
“Get the idea of another not changing another.”

Another Version:

“How have you changed another?” 
“How have you failed to change another?”

Another Process:

“How have you tried to change yourself?” 
“How have you tried to change another?” 
“How has another tried to change you?” 
“How has another tried to change himself?” 
“How has another tried to change another?”

Another Process:

“Think of something changing.” 
“Think of something failing to change.” 
“Think of changing somebody.” 
“Think of failing to change somebody.”

Another Process:

“Get the idea of changing another.” 
“Get the idea of failing to change another.”

Another Process:

“Recall a change. “ 
“Recall a failure to change.”

SUMMARY

There are many many versions of change. To get the best result, adapt a process to the pc. Before leaving a change process you have been running, because motion has come out of the Tone Arm, try to find another change process that will get the motion going again.

Change does not particularly cut down havingness, but after a while you can scout the pc’s havingness process out and use it from time to time during and at the end of a session. The reason change does wreck havingness is that resistance to change prevents the pc from having, and as the ideas of change are sorted out the pc has increased havingness anyway, similar to O/W which is a havingness process.

                                        L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jl.rd 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 APRIL 1961R
Remimeo

CHANGE BRACKETS AND COMMANDS

(Only changes are correction of typo errors whereby
“not” was omitted from commands 8, 9 and 10 of the
15 Way Bracket and inclusion of the terminal assessment.)

The basic commands of CHANGE form a series of brackets.

The basic curve of change compares to the CYCLE OF ACTION.

Therefore the basic versions of CHANGE would consist of Change, No Change and Failed Change.

The Standard bracket is a five way bracket. The general form of this is as follows:

	You ....................	Terminal
	Terminal.................You
	Terminal ................Another
	Another .................Terminal
	Terminal ................Terminal

Change as a five way bracket would be somebody or something as the terminal (whichever falls most on a meter) and:

Assess:	Somebody__________
          	Something__________

5 Way Bracket

(Use whichever gave best read above.)

1. 	“How have you changed something?”
2. 	“How has something tried to change you?”
3. 	“How has something changed another?”
4. 	“How has another changed something?”
5. 	“How has something changed?”

	or:

1. 	“How have you changed somebody?”
2. 	“How has somebody tried to change you?”
3. 	“How has somebody changed another?”
4. 	“How has another changed somebody?”
5. 	“How has somebody changed self?”

15 Way Bracket
(something or somebody)

1. 	“How have you changed something?”
2. 	“How has something tried to change you?”
3. 	“How has something changed another?”
4. 	“How has another changed something?”
5. 	“How has something changed?”
6. 	“What have you not changed?”
7. 	“What has not changed you?”
8. 	“What has not changed something?”
9. 	“What has something not changed?”
10. 	“What has not changed self?”
11. 	“What have you failed to change?”
12. 	“What has failed to change you?”
13. 	“What has something failed to change?”
14. 	“What has failed to change something?”
15. 	“What has failed to change self?”

The above commands are run consecutively as one process. This process is the basic Release Process.

Another version:

1. 	“What change have you avoided?”
2. 	“What change have you sought?”
3. 	“What no change have you avoided?”
4. 	“What no change have you sought?”
5. 	“What failed change have you avoided?”
6. 	“What failed change have you sought?”

Another version:

1. “Recall a change.”
2. “Recall a no-change.”
3. “Recall a failed change.”

Another version:

Sort out “Think” or “Get the idea” by the meter’s reaction. Use one that produces the most fall.

1. 	“Think (get the idea) of a change.”
2. 	“Think of a no-change.”
3. 	“Think of a failed change.”

LRH:nt.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1961, 1973,1974 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

E-METER 
ESSENTIALS 

1961

CLEARING SERIES
VOLUME 1

by 

L. Ron Hubbard

A startling and thorough coverage of the E-Meter incorporating all modern developments and its use in Assessments, Security Checking and S.O.P. Goals

THE HUBBARD ELECTROMETER is an electronic instrument for measuring the mental state and change of Homo Sapiens.

CONTENTS

E-METER ESSENTIALS	2
THEORY	3
PRACTICE THE TONE ARM	4
MECHANICS	6
THE SENSITIVITY KNOB	7
THE NEEDLE	8
FINDING HAVINGNESS AND CONFRONT PROCESSES	13
SECURITY CHECKING	13
METER ODDITIES	15
METER FRAILTIES	16
FUTURE METERS	18
SUMMARY	19

E-METER ESSENTIALS

THE FOLLOWING essential points concerning the Electrometer must be known to an auditor.

2.	There is no known way to clear anyone without using a meter.

3.	There is no guarantee that scrap or non-standard meter will behave properly.

4.	The only way known to learn to use an E-Meter is use one, handle one, practice with one. Skill in meter use depends upon familiarizing oneself with the actual meter.

5.	Get familiar with the meter by holding it, watching it, turning it on and off. Touch it. Reach and withdraw from it.Play catch with it. Don’t just read books about it.

6.	Put various persons on the meter. Check them out on Security Checks, rudiments checks, and release checks. Check out dates of incidents.

7.	Do Dynamic Assessments. Do goals assessments.

8.	The person who says the meter is not a precision instrument is either unfamiliar with one or has something to hide. The auditor’s questions can be off. The meter never is.

THEORY

1.	The meter tells you what the preclear’s mind is doing when thepreclear is made to think of something.

2.	The meter registers before the preclear becomes conscious of the datum. It is therefore a pre-conscious meter. The meter passes a tiny current through the preclear’s body.

3.	This current is influenced by the mental masses, pictures, circuits and machinery. When the unclear pc thinks of something, these mental items shift and this registers on the meter.

4.	Some preclears are in denser masses than others. Therefore the ToneArm reads very low (most dense), very high, or normal.

5.	A low-toned preclear may not be able to influence his mind or body atall and reads the same as a dead body around two or three without action. A low-toned person may read at two or three on the Tone Arm with a stickyneedle.

6.	A middle-toned preclear reads actively on the meter both Tone Arm and Needle, with low sensitivity setting.

7.	A Very high-toned person (clear) reads at two or three on the ToneArm with a free needle.

8.	The key difference between a low-toned preclear and a high-toned one is seen in needle response, the low-toned having a sluggish needle or a stickyone, the high-toned person having a free needle.

9.	The low-toned person cannot answer questions about help intelligently.

10. 	Thus we see that the E-Meter basically registers the body at two (female) or three (male) on the Tone Arm. If a thetan is ‘dead’ he doesn’t addto or subtract from the reading. If a thetan is ‘partially alive’ he adds or subtracts from the reading. If a thetan is ‘fully alive’ he is not necessarily inside the body he controls and so does not add to or subtract from the reading.

PRACTICE THE TONE ARM

1. 	The three general states have many way stops. There is always a lower-toned mockery of higher tones. A low-tone case, to the relatively unskilled, can be at clear read, unreactive on a sticky sort of needle. He cannot, however, do things in Life. He or she cannot answer questions intelligently about Help or Control.

2.	The first advance of a very low-toned case may be to drop into theminus two area on the Tone Arm Dial.

3.	Because of the construction of an E-Meter, the Tone Arm cannot pass through the bottom of the dial. As a low-toned case gains responsibility, theTone Arm goes from three or two to 1.5 to 1 to 6 to 5 to 4 to 3 (for a male) and then to 2 (for a female). This occurs over a long term of processing, of course, and takes many, many hours of processing and the Tone Arm ebbs and flows back and forth.

4.	Very few cases are in a ‘dead’ state. Most cases will be found on theTone Arm around four or five.

5.	The Tone Arm registers Density of Mass (ridges, pictures, machines, circuits) in the mind of the preclear. This is actual mass, not imaginary, and can be weighed, measured by resistance, etc.

6.	Therefore the Tone Arm registers State of Case at any given time in processing.

7.	The Tone Arm also registers advance of case during processing by moving. An unmoving case has an unmoving Tone Arm. A moving case has a moving Tone Arm.

8.	If a case is not moving, no matter what the preclear says, the ToneArm is not moving.

9.	If a case is moving, no matter what the preclear says, the Tone Armis moving during processing.

10. 	If the Tone Arm shows motion, continue the process, no matter whatthe preclear says.

11. 	If the Tone Arm shows no motion, you can change the process.

12. 	To change a process while the Tone Arm shows good motion is a breachof the Auditor’s Code Clause 13. Also to continue a process that is producingno Tone Arm motion is a breach of the same Clause.

13. 	When a level of the Pre-Havingness Scale is flat for terminal. the Tone Arm is showing very little motion. One must reassess for a new level for the same terminal on the Scale, whereupon the Tone Arm will again show motion.

14. 	When all levels that needle-register on the Pre-Havingness Scale are flat, the Tone Arm will no longer show motion, but neither will it stick in a frozen way.

15. 	It is a nice judgment when to leave a process. The judgment is done by the Tone Arm action.

16. 	When the Tone Arm slows down and isn’t moving more than a quarter of an inch up or down, it is time to reassess. To go longer would stick the ToneArm and make needle action too stuck for a reassessment to be possible. You will always find any unflat level in future reassessments on thePre-Havingness Scale so it is not dangerous to so leave one. It is dangerous to leave a level of the Pre-havingness Scale when the Tone Arm shows motions of one inch up or down the Tone Arm Dial, as the preclear will get confused.

17. 	Take hold of the Tone Arm of your E-Meter. Set it at 4.5 on its dial.Move it to 3. Move it to 5. Now pretend a period of twenty minutes. Move theTone Arm from 5 to 4, then from 4 to 4.5. then from 4.5 to 3.5, then from 3.5 to 4.8, then from 4.8 to 4. If all that happened in twenty minutes of processing, that is terrific Tone Arm motion. The case would be changing very,very well. You would not change a process. You would go on running the same process.

18. 	Take the Tone Arm in hand again. Set it at 3.5. Pretend a period of twenty minutes. Move it from 3.5 to 3.3. Move it from 3.3 to 3.6. Move it from 3.6 to 3.4. If that’s all that happened in twenty minutes of processing, be alert, for you’d better reassess for a new level for the terminal on the Pre-Havingness Scale. The Tone Arm may be getting ready to stick.

19. 	But don’t be surprised if the Tone Arm motion suddenly picks up again. If it does, carry on with the same process.

20. 	The above give you two extremes of Tone Arm motion. The first example is excellent motion. The second example is poor motion. Between these two examples you have a variety of types of motion.

21. 	In using the meter you are trying to (a) assess for a process that will produce Tone Arm motion and (b) run the motion out of the Tone Arm.

22. 	When the Tone Arm does not move under processing one of two things is true: (a) you did not get the right process to run or (b) you have run it flat. The remedy for (a) is to do better assessment and run another process.The remedy for (b) is to do another assessment.

23. 	That the Tone Arm moves under processing denotes a change in the preclear’s mind. That the Tone Arm doesn’t move under processing denotes no change of mass, pictures, machinery or circuits in the preclear.

24. 	When a preclear is clear he may occasionally get some Tone Arm motion due to purely body electronics but in the main reads at male or female on thearm (3 or 2) according to his or her sex.

25. 	As a preclear nears clear, an assessment plus a few commands will ‘blow’ the connected masses and thus flatten the terminal chosen. As a preclear gets even nearer, assessment alone blows the remaining masses.Therefore, when the state is approached, the Tone Arm motion gets less and less, no matter what you do. But the condition is self-evident when observed, the preclear gaining more and more effect on his bank with less and less time necessary to remedy a condition.

MECHANICS

1. 	The Tone Arm stops moving and sticks because the assessment and process have dragged in a picture, chain, or mass upon the preclear that thecommand as-ises only part of. When the process is no longer as-ising the picture or mass, yet is still restimulating it, the Tone Arm registers that the picture, chain or mass is there but not changing. Another process from thePre-Havingness Scale for the same terminal is now needed to as-is another portion of the picture, chain or mass. Thus the Tone Arm starts moving again.

2.	When you overrun a process level of the Pre-Havingness Scale, particularly early in processing, you can pull this picture, chain or mass in so strongly (running a stuck Tone Arm) that reassessment becomes very difficult as nothing moves the meter.

3.	Stop running a level while you can still read the meter.

4.	If you do overrun too far, still try to read the meter for a newlevel of assessment. If you can’t, run the change process to get back actionand then reassess the same terminal. You will now be able to read the meter. To have to do this, however, is pretty dull.

5.	Processes move in or activate pictures, chains, masses, machinery,circuits, and nullify them, thus clearing people. Life is doing this to them all the time without running them out.

6.	The mechanics of the mind in clearing are only those mentioned in this section. To try it without a meter, or without knowing a meter well, is of course beyond the observational ability of Homo Sapiens.

7.	Only a meter registers these mechanics. Only processes blow these barriers to living.

THE SENSITIVITY KNOB

1. 	The sensitivity knob increases the swing of the needle.

2.	To run with too high a sensitivity makes the auditor’s work unreliable.

3.	To run with too low a sensitivity makes the needle unreadable.

4.	The sensitivity knob is adjusted at the start of the rudiments, any assessment, or any process or when the auditor wants to know.

5.	The exact setting of the knob is done as follows: Have the preclear hold the electrodes comfortably in his hands. Have him tighten his hands andthen relax them, still holding the cans. The needle should drop exactly one-third of a dial. Adjust the sensitivity knob by asking the preclear to squeeze the cans again and observing the needle fall.

6.	On older meters, as the preclear gets to release, you can’t get just one-third of a dial -- you get more even with the knob on the lowest sensitivity. Set it as low as you can and use it anyway.

7.	In short, adjust the knob to a still needle that will yet move on needed responses.

8.	If at any time the needle doesn’t react and you want a comparative reaction between two or more questions, increase the knob, read the question responses, and then set it back again for running.

9.	If you change the sensitivity knob during an assessment, you have to do the whole assessment again on the new setting as the amount of needle fall will be changed.

10. 	In running rudiments, when suspicious, set the sensitivity knob higher.

11. 	In looking for suspected withholds in particular, read with a high knob.

12. 	By holding a constant sensitivity knob during an assessment or during a process, you find out how the preclear is reacting on the needle relative to the start of the assessment or process.
THE NEEDLE

1. 	A needle is monitored by the sensitivity knob, the Tone Arm and the momentary or changing reactions of the preclear.

2.	There are ten main needle actions:

(1)	Stuck

(2)	No reaction (nul)

(3)	Fall

(4)	Change of characteristic

(5)	Rise

(6)	Theta bop

(7)	Rock slam

(8)	Free needle

(9)	Body reactions

(10) Stage Four

3.	In a totally stuck needle (1) the preclear would not even register being pinched. It looks stiff. In a nul needle (2) the question does not change the needle behavior.

In the presence of an ARC break with the auditor, the needle is liable not to register any reaction at all, and to look like a nul needle; therefore, before writing off any assessment item, prepcheck, or security check questionas nul, be sure to check for -- and repair -- any ARC break.

4.	A falling needle (3) makes a dip to the right as you face the meter.A fall may consist of half a division (about one-eighth of an inch) or may consist of fifteen dials (the whole meter face dropped fifteen times). It is still a fall. A fall always happens with rapidity, within a second or two. It is also called a drop, a dip and a register. It denotes that a disagreementwith life on which the preclear has greater or lesser reality has met the question asked.

5.	A fall is the most used and observed needle action. It means to the auditor, ‘I’ve found it’, or ‘I’ve gotten a response in the bank’. (It is the click of the light switch illuminating where we are going.

6.	Falls are measured relative to falls. That’s why we leave the sensitivity alone when we are looking for something question by question.

7.	Given two falls, the longer fall is the right one. For instance, a question about ‘Joe’ gets three-eighths of an inch of fall. A question about ‘Mabel’ right after gets five-eighths of an inch of fall. The right answer is Mabel.

8.	Any fall denotes there is something there. Any fall at any sensitivity level on rudiments questions denotes the presence of a bad reaction to the room, an ARC break, a withhold, or a present time problem and must be cleared no matter what the preclear says.

9.	A fall follows at once upon the question being asked. A fall can be in two stages or more providing they take place within a second or two after the question.

10. 	A fall is the diagnostic meter action. Set for falls from a still needle as given under Sensitivity above.

11. 	In starting out the first thing you want to know is, ‘Is the preclearreading on this meter?’ You get the preclear to squeeze the cans. You get a fall as he does. Oh. He or she is reading on the meter. The meter is not broken or turned off or disconnected. It is the fall that tells us.

12. 	The next thing we want to know is rudiments. It is the fall thattells us what we must handle.

13. 	The next thing is the assessment. It is degree of fall that tells uswhat is right, for we always take the greatest fall we can obtain, the sensitivity being kept constant.

14. 	The next thing is the running. We ignore the fall now and watch the Tone Arm instead. The needle, of course, has to move if the Tone Arm is going to move, but, until we want more rudiments type answers or until we want a new assessment, we ignore the needle and watch only the Tone Arm.

15. 	Change of characteristic (4).Sometimes, as in old Dynamic Assessment, we cannot get clean falls on what we are looking for. Another guide is “change of characteristic’ of the needle.

16. 	The needle is doing a pattern of small rises and falls. We ask a question, it stops moving. We ask another question, it resumes idly rising and falling as before. That stop is a change of characteristic. Or the needle is stopped while we ask a long series of questions but suddenly does a small dance. That is a change of characteristic.

17. 	Change of characteristic occurs when we hit on something in the preclear’s bank. It occurs only when and each time that we ask that exact question. As the question or item alone changes the needle pattern,we must assume that that is it and we use it.

18. 	A question that stops a rising needle is a change of characteristic question and like a fall means we have struck something. Further exploration usually develops it into a fall.

19.	By using ‘change of characteristic’ we can sometimes get our foot in the door and get into a channel that brings about falls.

20. 	A whole assessment can be done by change of characteristic as well as by falls but it is not usual and, in fact, will develop falls anyway; if you are on to something hot.

21. 	It is not much used but must be known as it may have to be used sooner or later when we can’t get falls.

The only needle reactions in which you should be interested are those which occur INSTANTLY, i.e., within one-tenth to one-half of a second after you have asked a question of the preclear.

22. 	Rises (5). A rising needle means ‘no confront’.

23. 	Of course a needle must rise at times or the Tone Arm would never move. But it still means that the preclear has struck an area or something he isn’t confronting. One never calls his attention to this. But one knows what it is.

24. 	The only use a rising needle has at this time is to stop going up the Pre-Havingness ladder with a terminal assessment when the needle begins a marked rise. You have exceeded the preclear’s reality and he isn’t confronting, so you’d better turn around and go down the ladder again before you get things too unreal for him by asking if the terminal can do things the preclear cannot imagine it could do.

25. 	The right circuit, valence, machinery, called off, will stop a rising needle. This was once used but is not necessarily employed at this lime.

26. 	The rising needle is, therefore, not much employed, but one should recognize one. It is a steady, constant movement of the needle, rather slow, from right to left.

27. 	A needle returning to position after a fall is not a rising needle.

28. 	A Theta Bop (6) is a small or wide steady dance of the needle. Over a spread of one-eighth of an inch, say (depending on sensitivity setting -- it can be half an inch), the needle goes up and down perhaps five or ten times asecond. It goes up, sticks, falls, sticks, goes up, sticks, etc., always the same distance and a constant speed.

29. 	A theta bop means ‘death’, ‘leaving’, ‘don’t want to be here’. It iscaused by a yo-yo of the preclear as a thetan vibrating out and into the body or a position in the body. It’s as if the needle is jumping between two peaks across a narrow valley.

30. 	Mention death to anyone (or make them think about it) while they’re on a meter and you’ll see a theta bop.

31. 	Its use is to detect whether a preclear is being left stuck in death, or to locate death or departures.

32. 	If a preclear wants badly to get out of session he or she may start theta bopping without being stuck in a death. But few theta bops mean the preclear wants to leave session. It’s most often turned on for ‘desire to leave session’ during a security check.

33. 	If you get a ‘bop’ turned on during an assessment (or a security check) it takes it quite a while, sometimes, to turn off. The next several questions after a ‘bop’ turns on are therefore seldom validly readable. Just keep on with an assessment but be careful to go over the ground again and again if you’re getting a ‘bop’. Theta bops turn on fast and turn off slowly.

34. 	They are not very important in diagnosis. They’re more interesting than vital.

35. 	Rock slam (7). In assessing or running you occasionally get a Rockslam. This originally meant (and still does) that you are on the rock chain.

36. 	A Rock slam is a crazy, irregular, unequal, jerky motion of the needle, narrow as one inch or as wide as three inches happening several times a second. The needle ‘goes crazy’, slamming back and forth, narrowly, widely, over on the left, over on the right, in a mad war dance or as if it were frantically trying to escape. It means hot terminal or hot anything in anassessment and takes precedence over a fall.

37. 	It differs from a theta bop, which has no precedence over a fall, in that a theta bop is even and gentlemanly and a Rock slam is as crazy as a Commie agitator.

38. 	If found in an assessment, use it, but make sure of what turned it on before you buy. It means the item is hot.

39. 	If found in running a process, just carry on. It means the going is hot, so for Heaven’s sakes don’t stop the session.
40. 	Free needle (8). This is probably the least understood term and needle action in all of E-Metering.

41. 	It means an idle, uninfluenced motion, no matter what you say about the goal or terminal. It isn’t just nul, it’s uninfluenced by anything (except body reactions).

42. 	Man, it’s really free.

43. 	You’ll know one when you see one. They’re really pretty startling.The needle just idles around and yawns at your questions on the subject.

44. 	It doesn’t happen until a person is well above release, so don’t worry about it until you see it.

45. 	Use NUL as a word, not Free, if you’re in doubt about it. A NUL just doesn’t fall on a question. It might fall on a similar question. A Free Needle wouldn’t fall if the psychiatrists surrendered in a body or the Empire State Building fell down.

46. 	A Free Needle means, when it is used as a term, ‘The preclear is getting awful close to clear’.

47. 	Tight needles (stuck) are far from free. A stuck needle can be made to fall by advancing the sensitivity ‘way up. Thus even a ‘stuck needle’ can be ‘nul’. But a Free Needle is not stuck or nul. It just floats around.

48. 	Body reactions (9). The deep breathing of a preclear, a sigh, a yawn, a sneeze, a stomach growl can any one of them make a needle react.

49. 	Get a person on the cans. Turn the sensitivity high. Make him do the following one at a time: sigh, yawn, breathe deeply, cough, laugh, knock the cans together, lift a finger off the electrode (can), convulsively grip the cans, scratch his head while holding the cans, scratch his leg, rub a can against his or her shirt or skirt, rub his fingers together without letting the cans touch, and stretch. Note the needle reactions. Now have the person do all these things again as you read them off. Now turn down the sensitivity knob so that the needle drops one-third of a dial (about one and a half inches). Now with that setting, read off the list to him and watch the needle.

50. 	Do you see now why you don’t run with high sensitivity?

51. 	These are body reactions.

52. 	The meter will also read Basal Metabolism, interesting because it tells you if the preclear really is eating, or has eaten breakfast. Have the preclear on the cans take a very deep breath. If a moment later the needle falls half a dial (two inches or more) the preclear has a good high Basal Metabolism. If he hasn’t eaten breakfast, it won’t fall like that. On the second or third deep breath let out, the Basal Metabolism stops registering, so the first time is the test, not subsequent tries.

53. 	You can also make a high sensitivity set needle jump by ‘imagining’ the preclear’s hands being better connected to the cans and ‘seeing’ a whitish glow between cans and finger tips. That is, if you’re in good shape. You can also do it by ‘seeing’ this glow in the area of a preclear’s old injury. That is the extent of your influencing the preclear and the meter reading outsideof auditing.

54. 	You can also (after you’ve been talking to, not processing, a preclear) set the meter on yourself, then give the cans to the preclear and he or she will read the same adjustments for a few moments.
55. 	These are all more or less Body Reactions. They get in your road as to movement and sneezes and they don’t affect your processing as to ‘crosscurrents’ between auditor and preclear.	

So bear up under them and skip them.They’re not important once you know what they are.

56. 	Stage Four (10). This is the sole survivor of an old system (20thACC) that used four stages of meter reaction as a test of state of case.

57. 	A Stage Four Needle is still important to identify when met as it means this preclear is from No place as a case.

58. 	A Stage Four is below a merely stuck needle. The preclear’s thoughts and few of your questions have any bearing on the preclear’s case. This is most promising as CCH stuff. But not only a Stage Four takes CCH. (See Director of Processing Check Type One for case reactions that take CCH.)

59. 	Possibly the change process or attention process may bite here.

60. 	A Stage Four needle goes up about an inch or two (always the same distance) and sticks and then falls, goes up, sticks, falls, about once asecond or so. It is very regular, always the same distance, always the same pattern, over and over, on and on, and nothing you say or the preclear says changes it (except Body Reactions).

61. 	Break through this meter action by pulling withholds or unkind thoughts or the Jo’burg Security Check or the CCHs or processes, and you have busted the lowest level of the case.

62. 	But it’s a disheartening phenomenon. The E-Meter just doesn’t react to anything except a kick in the head. Up, stick, fall, up, stick, fall. On and on like a metronome set for the Dead March of Saul. Know it when you see it. Until you break it, there’s no case change.	

FINDING HAVINGNESS AND CONFRONT PROCESSES

1.	The Thirty-six Havingness and Confront Processes are tested for on the E-Meter in an exact way.

2.	The Havingness Process is located on the needle by the preclear squeezing the cans before the command is tested and after it has been run five to eight commands.

3.	If the second squeeze shows the needle looser (wider swing) than the first squeeze did, you’ve got it. The command you are testing is the Havingness Command for the preclear and may thereafter be used at intervals toset up the room in Rudiments, gain havingness before or after processes and at session end, using only ten or twelve commands at a time.

4.	The Confront Process from the Thirty-six Presessions is located on the Tone Arm. If eight or ten commands of one of these moves the Tone Arm,that’s the Confront Process to be used after other processes and before theHavingness Process.

5.	Havingness is tested on the Needle with can squeezes.

6.	Confront is tested on the Tone Arm by its motion.

7.	If the process tested for Havingness tightens the needle during the test, get rid of it. Don’t bridge off. Just get off now.

8.	If the process being tested for Confront fails to move the Tone Arm during test after eight or ten commands, get off it, don’t bridge off. (No more commands of it.)

9.	The Havingness Process selected, even if the right one, if run too much (more than ten or twenty commands), will start running the bank. It doesn’t harm the preclear, but that isn’t its use. The Tone Arm may ‘blowdown’ toward clear if you run fifteen minutes or half an hour of the Havingness Process.	Again, it might not. The purpose of a havingness processis to get the preclear stabilized in his environment. It will also do otherthings if overrun, none bad, but other processes do them better.

10. 	The Confront Process gets the preclear to present time from areas on the track where his attention was fixed by an earlier process.

11. 	Use of the Havingness Process of the preclear (ten to twelve commands at a time) plus the Confront Process of the preclear (run ten or fifteen minutes, ended with preclear in or near present time) followed by the Havingness Process, followed by the Confront, etc., etc., just as above, often can bring the preclear down to his clear reading if carried on. This is known as stabilizing a case. It should be done before a person is pronounced a Release. It is never done now to start a case, despite the name of the Thirty-six Havingness and Confront Processes (Presessions). We can now start cases faster using S.O.P. Goals or attention or change or the CCHs. But the meter behavior and the necessity of Havingness and Confront Processes remain the same. It must be done at some stage of the case. It is usually done after the first S.O.P. Goals terminal and goal are flat on the Pre-Havingness Scale, and should be done before the person is pronounced a Release. It can only be done on and with an E-Meter.

SECURITY CHECKING

1.	In using the meter for Security Checking you establish needle response to common (non-meaningful) questions. Seeing this, you do not mistake a real fall when it comes.

2.	On meaningful questions you look for falls. A fall means ‘Oh, oh! He’s got me.’ You don’t leave a question that is getting a fall response until you are sure you have been told all and the needle no longer falls when you ask that question.

3.	If the needle still falls on the question, you have one of twothings: (a) the preclear hasn’t told all; or (b) it’s in a past life and he does not consciously know about it (since the meter precedes preclear consciousness).

4.	In the case of (a) you keep asking in various ways until it is cleared (no fall even with a high sensitivity knob -- and you do turn up the knob on a question that didn’t respond well at first and then turn it back before you go on to the next).

5.	In the case of a past life possibility you add, ‘In this lifetime’ to your security question. As you repeat that, if the misdeed was in a past life,the fall will vanish.

6.	A person being security checked is subject to mental dispersal. You may get only one fall and then no fall at all for one or two repeats and thena fall. You haven’t asked quite the right question. The preclear is trying to ignore it. The rule is, if you get a trace of a fall or reaction on a question, beat it to death by varying your wording of the question or slightly shift the type of question. In any event, be sure not to leave a trace of a reaction or a single reaction until you are certain it won’t develop.

7.	If the preclear tells you a withhold, always (as in all Rudiments) ask the question again as this might not be all of it.

8.	The fall comes out if the preclear tells all. The fall stays or gets worse if the preclear is hedging.

9.	On a security check sheet, follow up every change of characteristic before you go on. Change of characteristic, if it amounts to anything, will develop into a fall.

10. 	If the preclear has not told all (or it’s a past life) the meterwon’t be clear.

11. 	Don’t be fooled by excuses. Don’t discredit the meter (the preclear’s first attempt when he’s in a really tight spot).

12. 	The meter is right.

13. 	If a question will not clear it’s (a) or (b) above and that’s the total of it.

14. 	Grim experience of a decade has taught me that it’s (a) or (b) and never ‘I moved the needle myself’ or ‘I feel nervous just generally’. The E-meter is right even when it seems to make the preclear wrong.

15. 	The mark of a good Security Checker is thorough, swinish suspicion and no belief in mankind or the devil -- only the meter.

16. 	PEOPLE’S CASES WILL NOT MOVE UNTIL THEY ARE CLEAR ON ALL WITHHOLDS, SO A THOROUGH CHECK IS REALLY A KINDNESS AFTER ALL.

METER ODDITIES

1.	There are few exceptions to the rule with E-Meters. They are a study composed of facts which have right or wrong answers and the answers to E-Meter questions are, all in black and white.

2.	These are the known exceptions:

3.	Some people (a very few in very bad shape) get a rise when they are asked to squeeze the cans. This is a reverse action. It means nothing except they need to be started in low levels.

4.	Some preclears, in very bad shape, rock slam when security checked and one can’t find what is rock slamming. As nothing clears the slam, they have to be flunked, audited, and tried again.

5.	In South Africa a Bantu’s withholds read not on the needle alone but on the Tone Arm as well. The Tone Arm goes up as much as two divisions (3 to 5) just before you get off a bad withhold on one.

6.	High Tone Arms on anyone (or very low) mean lots of withholds -- but they might not be conscious of them all at once. They come off session by session as we run along.

7.	Holding the two cans in the right hand with a paper between so they don’t short is the way to free a preclear’s hands for pointing out things. If you change hands and he holds them in the left, the meter will read differently. This only means he is electronically imbalanced (old Epi-Centers) and has no other use.

8.	Preclears claim sometimes they are pushing the meter about, ‘that’s why it reads’. You could also ask, ‘Then why didn’t you prevent it from reading?’ -- but don’t really ask them that.

9.	The meter ‘knows’ more about the preclear than the preclear. It is reading created masses he is withholding himself from. The preclear won’t confront all he is creating. Hence the omniscience of the meter.

10. 	Dating things on a meter is not as important as it was, but a skilled auditor should be able to do it. It isn’t covered here because few can do it well and it looks so complicated you might miss the important things and they are all in this book.Dating is well covered in ELECTROPSYCHOMETRIC AUDITING, the first book on the meter, and the later book, THE HUBBARD ELECTROMETER.

11. 	Another E-Meter oddity occurs when asking a preclear to do a lie reaction test. Some will get a fall only on the truth.Some will get a fall every time they are asked to answer only in the negative, or will get a fall only with the positive replies. This is not very important. The important thing about a lie reaction test is whether or not the person is reading on the E-Meter and the characteristic needle response to vital questions remains unchanged. The lie reaction test is given to study needle pattern for the preclear, not to establish his lies.

METER FRAILTIES

1.	E-Meter faults occur in new meters or after long use.They are few.

2.	If the meter doesn’t register the squeeze the preclear gives the cans, it isn’t turned on or connected up or it isn’t working. See the mechanical direction sheet for setting up a particular meter and follow it before you decide a meter is out of order.

3.	If a meter registers the can squeeze, it is usually in good working order.

4.	The batteries rarely run down in a British Hubbard Electrometer, the drain being ‘the shelf life’ of the battery even if you left it on for weeksday and night. This is not true of the American Hubbard Electrometer (steelcase). Its batteries can run down if it’s left on for days.

5.	If the meter is not in working order when you get it, send it to the manufacturer or the Director of Materiel in a Central Organization or HCO for repairs. Do not try to fix it yourself.

6.	If it is responding to a can squeeze when turned on according to directions, it is undoubtedly faithfully all right throughout. The Hubbard Electrometers do not go slightly wrong. They either work or they don’t.

7.	One exception: The British and American Hubbard Electrometer early models had a ‘carbon pot’ which is to say the Tone Arm was in ‘pure carbon bearings’, if you could call it that. A speck of dust can get in the ‘pot’ and cause the needle to rock slam whether connected to the preclear or not. Pull the lead wire jack (disconnecting cans) and if the slam continues, it’s the’pot’ that’s wrong. Work the Tone Arm vigorously for a while. If that doesn’t stop it, squirt some lighter fluid into the Tone Arm ‘bearing’ from the meterface side. If that doesn’t stop it, turn it in to be repaired. Later models ofthe British and American Hubbard Electrometer have ‘wire wound pots’ and this does not happen.

8.	If the batteries go down after a year or two, the ‘test’ will not register in its needle dial area. Be sure the meter is set up for use before you use rest as in the British meter Test can be thrown off by the zero setting knob (‘Trim’) and you’ll think the batteries are down when they’re not. If they are down get some new ones. They are available anywhere there’s an electric shop. Anybody can install them. It is cheaper than shipping, but HCO will do it if you like.

9.	The ancient (tube valve) meters that connected to the Mains still work on all the above rules. But they pass an uncomfortably strong current through the preclear and sometimes shock him. Also, after the 1950 models, they became too fancy in design with too many dials and knobs for intelligent use -- too many variables could be run in on them.

10. 	Squirrel meters or home-built meters may be right or wrong but they are noted for inaccurate needle behavior. Some don’t show bops because the Potentiometer used was too cheap.	
Some register a half a second or a second late on questions. Some are so lightly needled that they register everything they can. I only trust meter types I’ve checked out myself, making sure they register the preclear, not the local TV antennae. Cheap meters at cut rates usually prove to be very expensive in the long run. I developed the present E-Meter with hundreds of tests and expert assistance and I know how wrong a meter design can go.

11. 	The new British (now ready) and American (when built) HubbardElectrometer Mark IV are the best meters we have ever had and will be the standard meter for a long time to come. They are built by one of the best instrument people in England and their parts are specially made by a very old firm.	

FUTURE METERS

1.	I have an entirely different meter for an entirely different purpose under development. It is for use above Clear up to O.T., a range not covered by an E-Meter.

2.	They are to be available toward the end of 1961.

3.	They will be called O.T. Meters. I’ve been working on this since 1952 and have it pretty well solved.

4.	The O.T. Meter will not outmode the E-Meter, which will continue in use so long as we have Homo Sapiens to audit.

NOTE:	Since first publication of this book the advanced Hubbard Mark V has become the single authorized E-Meter.	For information on purchasing a Mark V see the page following the Index in this book. -- The Editors.	

SUMMARY

1.	It will be seen that the Tone Arm, the Sensitivity Knob, and the Needle form three distinctly different parts of E-Meter operations.

2.	The Tone Arm shows case change and process action. The Needle shows case significance and reality. The Sensitivity Knob is a magnifying glass for the needle.

3.	The Needle shows (except for finding Confront Processes) What to run.The Tone Arm shows How it is Running.

4.	When searching, watch the Needle.

5.	When running a process, watch the Tone Arm.

6.	The Needle’s most looked for reaction is the fall.

7.	The Tone Arm’s most looked for reactions are: (a) change of position, and (b) ceasing to change position.

8.	Skill with the meter comes from gaining great familiarity with it, by handling and using it.

9.	Handle the meter. Study this book. Handle the meter. Study this book.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MAY 1961
Franchise

PROCESS LEVELS
NECESSITY FOR TRAINING

Here is some good news and some bad:

After considerable study of the use of SOP Goals by Auditors, it is apparent that the technology, while very effective in the strictly supervised auditing of HGCs is beyond the average training level of the field at this time in TRs, E-Meter and Model Session.

This means that we can do Releasing at once but we are confronted by an enormous retraining programme before broad field auditor clearing can begin. But great advances can be made on cases now with the Change Processes.

My findings indicate that the chief reason auditors fail to handle the E-Meter expertly is to be found in the TR failures, mainly confront.

SOP Goals, to be effective, demands a precision of auditing skill common only in HGCs. SOP Goals is pure dynamite to cases, but it becomes pure backfire when used by a poorly trained auditor.

SOP Goals works too fast to admit of bad technical application. Before SOP Goals becomes effective it must be applied with perfect technical precision.

However, there is no cause here for alarm because concurrent with SOP Goals, I have made another discovery which was released in last week’s HCO Bulletin, Change Processes, which wrap up (really and truly) all cases from “answers intelligibly” to Release.

Thus we have a simple basic process which takes a preclear to Release, a basic accurate test for Release (all brackets of change nul on the needle), and another full process package from Release to Clear in SOP Goals.

This gives us the most orderly division of training levels we have ever had and rather smooths out what we do, where we go and why.

HCA /HPA LEVEL

Training to perfection in the use of TRs, Model Session and E-Meters and CCHs.

One Basic Process taught: Change Processes.

Goal of Auditing: Release.

Level of training for HPA/HCA: To accomplish without exception the state of Release in all pcs audited.

B. Scn/HCS

Training to perfection in the use of the E-Meter in SOP Goals.
One SOP taught:     SOP Goals.

Goal of Auditing:     Clear.

Level of training of B.Scn/HCS: To accomplish clearing in persons who have already obtained a State of Release.

D. Scn/HGA

Training in theory and practice of Dianetics and Scientology and the use of advanced meters.

Processes Taught:     Theta Clearing.

Goal of Auditing:     Theta Clear.

Level of training of D.Scn/HGA: To accomplish Theta Clearing in persons who have already attained the State of Clear.
__________

The levels of Release and Clear are established facts process-wise as of now.

The level of Theta Clear and Advanced meters is still under research.

I have to hand adequate evidence now to see that auditors can and will audit Change Processes easily and successfully with enormously swift results on pcs.

When all Change Processes are flat on a pc, the State of Release is easily tested and observed.

When SOP Goals is flat on a pc you have a Clear.

Apparently SOP Goals should not be run on a pc by an average auditor until all Change Processes are flat, since many pcs don’t do the actual commands until change is flat.

Thus I am very happy to be able to tell you of lots of wins and orderly progress ahead even if I have to warn you not to run SOP Goals until your pc is a Release and you are a perfect technician.
__________

Any auditor should use all the Change Processes he wishes on a pc, and until Change is fully flat, and until the auditor is perfectly trained in TRs, Model Session and the E-Meter, no SOP Goals should be run.
__________

I hope you are happy with this news. I am.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jl.rd 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6105C07 SHSpec-1  E-meter Talk and Demo   

SOP Goals running: Assess for all the goals the PC ever had.  When all are out  and no longer give a fall on the meter, the list is complete.  When the list  is complete, the meter no longer registers.  Reassess the list until only one  goal continues to read.  Now list all the terminals for the goal -- all the  terminals which would represent that goal -- until the meter goes flat.  Null  the list until only one terminal reads (falls) on the meter.

SOP Goals is the entirety of data needed to clear all cases.  This is  unlike the situation earlier when LRH would develop a regimen to handle one  PC’s case, then develop the theory which matched it.  Sometimes this was  picked up by others and a whole school of therapy was based on it, For  instance, the dianetic tech used to handle one individual -- Altman -- later  became Gestalt Therapy.

The E-meter is a tension machine: the more tense the individual, the more  off-beat is the read.  Clearing is taking the tension off the meter.  At the  lowest level of tension, there’s no point in doing anything about anything;  you’ve got a dead thetan, totally incapable of influencing the machine.  He  reads as a clear, but this kind of case can still be detected because the  needle is tense; it doesn’t react favorably at all; the person cannot answer  to his satisfaction or yours any questions about help.  The needle also shows  no reaction to anything, even a kick.  The sensitivity has to be way up to get  a third of a dial drop on can squeeze.  The guy can be machine-motivated,  feels he had “bad luck”, doesn’t believe anything can be done, so he can get  no help, etc.  He’s a very obvious “can’t do” case.  Doingness is the common  denominator of the prehav scale.  Someone who can’t do isn’t even on the  scale.  The best case detector is the sensitivity knob, not the TA or needle.  The worst case is where a person is super tense but doesn’t know it.  This guy  would be a long job to sec check.

A rock slam is a stronger indication than a fall.  It shows that you are  on the chain of the first time the person ever decided to be another valence.  The theta bop is diagnostic; it has to do with leaving and death, the thetan  moving in and out like a yo-yo.  It can be dial wide or small.  It can be  repetitive or even, at an extreme, one cycle (this is not very useful).  “Returning” will also give you a theta bop.  The rise means the PC isn’t  confronting.  We used to be concerned about what stopped the rise, which was  what was producing it, or rather the PC’s non-confront of that thing caused  it.  Stage four needle is an indicator of a total no-effect case.  It can be  very tiny.  It always has a stick at the top of the rise, unlike the theta  bop.  The bottom of it is very relaxed.  It just means lousy case shape.  Sometimes, you see the needle vibrate.  This means that the PC has an  alternating current ridge.  4.5 means a crowd; if he’s stuck there, he’s  afraid of people or stuck with people.  Stuck at 2.5 means a robot, a  machine.  There’s a seven on the TA dial that can’t be read on the meter.  As  a person develops responsibility (say he’s a dead thetan at 2.0), he’ll go  down to 1.5, then “go out the bottom” through 7 to 6.5, 5, 4, etc., to in  range.

A PC can have a consistent pattern; he can even repeat the same fall.  In  this case, a change of characteristic is diagnostic.  When the PC has a  charged question in his level of reality, you get a change of pattern.

The meter that would be used above clear would be an oscilloscope meter,  an O-meter or theta meter, which registers flows.  This is not comfortable to  audit with.  The meter has to be very sensitive.  Someone could be clear and  still have “bugs” -- because he’s still using a body.  The E-meter measures  the games condition called the physical universe.  You need something which  shades the tiniest things from 20.0 up.

We have theoretically transcended MEST weapons.  As someone goes theta  clear, his tolerance of motion is so great that he wouldn’t be hurt by a  bullet.  He probably couldn’t even be hit by it.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 MAY 1961

Franchise
E-METER HORROR

Dick Halpern reports from the 22nd American ACC that out of 48 students, many trained on earlier ACCs, 48 did not know what FALLS, RISES or THETA BOPS were or meant on the E-Meter.

The moment one starts on SOP Goals it becomes painfully apparent when he or she cannot do TRs, Model Session or read an E-Meter. SOP Goals works when one knows it and these items.

I have just written a book, E-Meter Essentials, which details these things. You better study it.

I am opening up Unit One of Academies for retread on TRs, METER and Model Session.

Special Briefing courses will be taught.

A very special clearing course is being taught at Saint Hill.

Every effort is being made to enable you to release and clear pcs fast. You have to make the effort too to avail yourself of this data.

IF you know TRs, MODEL SESSION, METER, CHANGE PROCESSES and SOP Goals you can Release and Clear Anyone. We’re proving it daily.

Auditors who can’t run or read a meter (100% of the 22nd American, remember, that had old-timers in the majority, did not know how to read a meter) can’t release or clear anyone.

Auditors who can’t do TR 0 Revised 1961 aren’t enough there to read a meter. (An actual fact.)

Auditors who make technical flubs on SOP Goals wind up wasting 66 2/3 of the auditing time. (We just proved that, too.)

We’ve got the tools. They’re easily available. Let’s go.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jl.cden 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6105C12 SHSpec-2  Assessment

“You, in trying to equate a relatively simple fundamental in scientology,  are of course picking up a fundamental which sits right in the middle of  anyone’s case.  And you tend to blow off a little confusion in trying to get  a hold of it.  It would be easy to teach you to run a Diesel engine, but the  data we’re teaching goes straight into the middle of a reactive computation.  SOP Goals does this exact thing, exactly reversing how the mind got  aberrated.” The most hidden factors of a mind were the things that aberrated a  mind, because no one’s ever freed a mind before, so they must have been the  most concealed or they would have as-ised.  SOP goals undoes all the things  that plowed someone in; it consists of all the solutions a person adopted to  fix all the oddball circumstances he got into, ever, that no longer apply.  Who wouldn’t want to have the kind of mind that could be happy doing something  simple?  Basically, what you’re afraid of is getting bored.  This happens  because what you are doing is somehow inadequate to the demands of the  environment.  If one’s simple game gets invalidated, one looks for a more  complicated one.  This could only happen if one had invalidated someone else  already.  To get kicked in the butt, you must have kicked someone in the butt  and postulated that it’s bad to get kicked in the butt.

If the way to do a perfect assessment were put on paper, there’s a high  probability that it wouldn’t be followed, because we’re dealing with the basic  stuff of which the reactive mind is composed.  And on this subject more than  any other, you’ll find more confusion, more silly questions.  The datum  restimulates the whole confounded bank.  What happens is that the guy does  something which eventually recoils on him in a way which gives him a new  problem.  He gets his motivator and gets a new beingness to have a new game.  But he’s now not being himself, he’s being a solution to the problem of  livingness.  The solution eventually ends him up with a new problem which he  solves with some new beingness, some new game.  Every time he gets overwhelmed  in some game, he shifts beingness to the new game which solves the old one.  If you clear someone without clearing up his be/do/have condition, he’ll  realize he has no game and he’ll recreate his old condition or be bored or  worried.  He’ll go unclear.  He thinks it’s less dangerous to be aberrated  than to have no game.  If you clear (erase) his games conditions, across the  boards, he’ll do this.

The essence of all games is beingness and doingness towards havingness.  The problem is that they get jammed into a can’t have / must have situation.  In a games condition, the person “has to be something, but he can’t be it.  There is something wrong with being what he is being, so he can’t be it, and he dare not be it, and yet he must be  it, and this emerges when you are auditing SOP Goals.  A game or goal is  abandoned because it was invalidated too many times.  A guy goes into a new  game and valence and ends up not being himself.  In assessment, you are  backtracking these valences, expressed as goals.  Since by this time, the PC’s  comm with the world is very poor, you have to handle what’s real to the PC, so  that’s what you handle.  What’s odd is that there’s only one valence that’s  real to the PC at one time.  In life, as the valence goes up, the PC comes  down.  This ends up with a serene valence and the PC out the bottom.  So the  individual goes around acting psychotic in a serene valence.  This is the  theetie weetie case.  As you audit the person, the valence comes down and the  PC starts taking over handling the game and the environment on his own  determinism.  As the PC gets out of fixed games, he can look around and find  he’s got more games.  If he’s got more games, he’ll go more clear; if less,  he’ll go unclear.  The act of finishing off clearing (doing more and more SOP  Goals) is what stabilizes the clear.  Having to play the game is what prevents  one from playing the game; one can play the game as long as one doesn’t have  to.

[Details on running of SOP Goals]

Any goal which is to put up a mockup is liable to be a false one and is a dangerous one to audit.  It is perishable, because the result of failure is to  create a mockup, so that you get into an arts goal.  Always be suspicious of  an arts goal, because there’s always the thing you can do when all else fails,  and that’s usually the arts.  When actual masses don’t work to overwhelm the  opposition, they turn to aesthetic masses, which are closer to the thought  band.  If you go just a little further with assessment, the case will likely  get into a better goals channel.  You can ask, “What did you want to do before  you went into the arts?” This also applies to professions in the thought band,  like philosophy and law.  A featherweight goal denotes a hell of a failure  just ahead of it.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 MAY 1961
CenOCon

URGENT

ASSESSMENT DATA

On SOP Goals assessments the following mistakes are being made:

1. 	Auditors are assessing with a high sensitivity knob setting.

2. 	Auditors are taking up to an hour and a half to assess on the Pre-Hav Scale.

3. 	Auditors are trying to run the whole case on Rudiments only.

These rules which follow become very important. They prevent endless assessing for goals and terminals on SOP Goals and save session time.

RULE ONE

Assess with the sensitivity knob set for one third of a dial drop on the can squeeze, no more. Rule: High sensitivity knob settings for more than a third of a dial drop are for any Joburg Security Check or getting off withholds only. Only increase sensitivity beyond a third of a dial on withholds. Assess with only a third of a dial drop sensitivity setting.

If the sensitivity knob setting won’t decrease enough to get only a third of a dial drop get your meter rebuilt.

If you have a larger setting than above, the SOP Goals assessment by elimination will take ten times as long.

RULE TWO

Assessment on Pre-Hav Scale is not by elimination. One assesses with one read up and one read down and takes the largest (not the lowest) read on the needle. The needle read for the proper Pre-Hav level will repeat on the trip up and the trip down. Only say the level once. Don’t keep saying one level over and over. That’s auditing.

You can get all the Pre-Hav data you want with one coverage upward from scale bottom and one coverage downward to scale bottom.

This rule applies to assessing for a general command and assessing for a terminal.

Goals and terminal searches require a repeat over and over of the goal or terminal on the list in order to get them to go nul (as nul as they go with the sensitivity set for a third of a dial drop as above). The Pre-Hav assessment for level does not require a repeat of a level over and over in assessing. In fact you had better not.

This one time Pre-Hav Rule will also apply to the new Pre-Hav Scale now being compiled. In that one you will read levels once upwards, once downwards on the Primary Scale. Taking the largest reaction of the needle as your level, go over to the Secondary Scale and do the same thing—once up, once down, and then take the resultant greatest needle reaction.

For purposes of assessment a RISING NEEDLE has NO meaning. Don’t even remark that it is rising. You don’t know what the pc couldn’t confront that starts the rise so you ignore a rising needle ALWAYS in any modern assessment. Anything that Stops a Rise is meaningful. The Rise has no meaning. Don’t even list Rise on an auditor’s report.

Further, RISE means nothing as a reaction in Rudiments.

RULE THREE

Don’t ever run a rudiment only because a needle was rising. Only run a rudiment if the needle rock slams, theta bops, or falls. Only run a rudiment as long as a reaction (rock slam, theta bop, fall) remains on that rudiment. A Rise indicates no meaningful data.

The rule about Rudiments is this:

Don’t run a case by rudiments. The reason you use and clean rudiments is to get the pc in session so you can have the pc 1 ) in communication with the auditor and 2) interested in own case. Therefore you run rudiments with the sensitivity set that will give the needle a third of a dial drop with a can squeeze. You can increase sensitivity when asking for withholds in rudiments but if you do, decrease it when finished with withholds back to a third of a dial drop.

The purpose of rudiments is to set up a case to run, not to run a case.

SUMMARY

I developed the above rules to correct various mistakes being made that were taking an assessment as high as thirty-five hours (the auditor was erasing goals by repeater technique with the sensitivity set to a full dial drop), and to help auditors get on with auditing, not trying to solve the whole case with rudiments.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: ph.bh 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6105C19 SHSpec-3  E-meter

When the E-meter is reading sporadically on something, chances are what  you are talking about is quite close to what it’s reading on.  When you ask  just the right question, it reads hard and consistently.  You must then get an  answer to every auditing question, or the read will persist forever.

If you don’t audit the hidden standard, the PC will seem to progress in  the session and then say he didn’t make any of his goals for the session.  He’ll be putting a via on every command answer to slant it through the hidden  standard.  You can ask the PC if there’s some goal there he hasn’t told you.  It’s necessary to getting case progress to get it out of the way.  The E-meter  won’t be reading well either, as it’s not the question if you don’t ask for  the hidden standard.

A PC will not improve if he has withholds or undisclosed overts on his  auditor or scientology.  In fact, he’ll pull in motivators and get no case  gain.  You can’t accept help from quarters you have overts on because it seems  like betrayal, since you’ve betrayed and the overt motivator sequence is in  force.  A person who has specialized in teaching by implant dawn the track  will develop an identity which gives themselves implants.  They amount to  perhaps 5% of the human race.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 MAY 1961 
CenOCon 
Franchise

THE ONLY VALID SECURITY CHECK
(Amends all existing data on Security Checks)

HCO Sec Form 3.

Name of Person	Date_________________

Name of Security Checker	Location  _____________

Since a Security Check failure can compromise or injure a person’s position or economics, and because we are not moralists, it is better to be more positive on the subject of a Security Check failure, leaving no part of it up to judgment.

The question of what constitutes a Security- Check failure has now troubled enough people to make it necessary to lay down the following policies.

A Security Check to be used for any organizational reason must be made on an HCO WW form.

There are only three ways a Security Checker may flunk any person.

1. 	The Security Check may be considered flunked if there is no needle response of any kind to any question with meter sensitivity even at extreme high. Rise as a reaction is ignored throughout a Security Check. A rise is not a useful reaction.

2. 	The Security Check may be considered flunked if any compromising or important question still persists in getting a consistent reaction (not a rise) even after the Security Checker has done his best to get the person being checked to clear it by answering truthfully.

3. 	Refusal to be checked.

Lie Reaction failure may no longer be considered a flunk. Important questions always have enough charge on them to cause a reaction even on bad criminals and the reaction will continue consistently or sporadically if the person is still withholding information.

The question of something reacting because of past life crimes is ruled out if, when a question fails to clear, the Security Checker adds “In this lifetime?” to or in the question and works on that question continuing to use that added phrase. Reactions by reason of past lives tend to drop out and clear if this is done.

The task of the Security Checker is to carefully question and clear if possible changes of meter needle behaviour caused by the question. Plainly note any level that failed to clear. This fails the person.

The Lie Reaction questions were originally used in Scientology only to study the needle pattern of the person being checked so that changes in it could then be judged in their true light. Some pcs, for instance, get a slight reaction every time any question is asked. Some get a reaction only when there is heavy charge. Both can be Security Checked by studying the common pattern of the needle demonstrated in asking the Lie Reaction questions. The purpose of the Lie Reaction questions is returned to the original intention.

A totally stuck needle can be freed by processing, or by getting off withholds. If a person is flunked by reason of 1 above, they require auditing before another check is taken, the auditing to be taken at the responsibility of the person being checked.

All Security Check sheets of persons Security Checked should be forwarded to Saint Hill, complete with all markings and the reason why the question would not at first clear, if important, or the drop marked which would not clear and whether or not the person was passed or failed.

Nothing in this Policy Letter changes the responsibility of the Director of Training in preventing Scientology from being taught to persons who would use it in violation of the Code of a Scientologist.

In reprinting this check sheet leave all directions as part of every sheet.

Directions: Attempt to clear any reaction observed. A Rise is not classed as a reaction. Mark any reaction observed or any meter reaction change elicited by the question. Then write what it cleared on. Mark largely if the reaction could not be cleared since this constitutes a failure to pass. Only fail somebody if there is no needle motion of any kind even with sensitivity at 16 on any question. (Rise is not a reaction.) If they are failing because it is hard to clear a question, work very thoroughly on it in an effort to clear it. In all cases complete the test. Run check with a high sensitivity setting (more than 1/3 of a dial drop).

If an important question fails to clear even after Security Checker has worked very hard to get it off, the test is flunked.

The following statement should be read or quoted to the person being Security Checked:

“We are about to begin a Security Check. We are not moralists. We are able to change people. We are not here to condemn them. While we cannot guarantee you that matters revealed in this check will be held forever secret, we can promise you faithfully that no part of it nor any answer you make here will be given to the police or state. No Scientologist will ever bear witness against you in Court by reason of answers to this Security Check. This Security Check is exclusively for Scientology purposes. The only ways you can fail this Security Check are to refuse to take the test, to fail to answer its questions truthfully or if you are here knowingly to injure Scientology. The only penalty attached to failure of this check is processing or our refusal to employ you or issue you a certificate, and this will only happen if we find that you are trying knowingly to injure Scientology. You can pass this test by (1) agreeing to take it, (2) answering each question truthfully and (3) not being a member of a subversive group seeking to injure Scientology.

“The first questions are nul questions to determine your reaction pattern.

“We will now begin—”

Establish needle pattern:

________________TA	Sensitivity for 1/3 dial drop

________________Sensitivity setting for check.

Are you sitting in a chair?
Are you on the moon?
Are all cats black?
Am I an ostrich?
Is this Earth?
Have you ever drunk water?
Are you holding up a tree?
Am I an elephant?
Are you a table?
Is this a Security Check?
Needle Pattern

Have you ever lived or worked under an assumed name? 
Have you given me your right name? 
Are you here for a different purpose than you say? 
Have you ever stolen anything? 
Have you ever done any shoplifting? 
Have you ever forged a signature, cheque or document? 
Have you ever blackmailed anybody? 
Have you ever been blackmailed? 
Have you ever cheated? 
Have you ever smuggled anything? 
Have you ever entered a country illegally? 
Have you ever been in prison? 
Have you ever tried to act normal? 
Have you ever indulged in drunkenness? 
Have you ever done any reckless driving? 
Have you ever hit and run with a car? 
Have you ever burglared any place? 
Are you guilty of anything? 
Have you ever embezzled money? 
Do you have a secret you are afraid I’ll find out? 
Have you ever assaulted anyone? 
Have you ever practised Cannibalism? 
Have you ever been in gaol? 
Have you ever told lies in Court? 
Have you ever been Court-martialed? 
Have you ever deserted from a military service? 
Have you ever illegally prevented conscription? 
Have you ever been a mutineer? 
Have you ever had anything to do with Pornography? 
Have you ever committed Arson? 
Have you ever been a drug addict? 
Have you ever made anyone into a drug addict?
Have you ever peddled Dope?
Have you ever PDH’d anyone?
Have you had any dealings with stolen goods?
Have you ever divulged government secrets for pay or political reasons?
Do you have a Police Record?
Have you ever raped anyone or been raped?
Have you ever been involved in an abortion?
Have you ever assisted in any abortion?
Have you ever committed adultery?
Have you ever committed bigamy?
Have you ever practised Homosexuality?
Have you ever practised or assisted intercourse between women?
Have you ever had intercourse with a member of your family?
Have you ever been sexually unfaithful?
Have you ever practised sex with animals?
Have you ever publicly exhibited yourself sexually?
Have you ever hidden to watch sexual practices?
Have you ever practised Sodomy?
Have you ever consistently made a practice of sex with a member of your own sex?
Have you ever slept with a member of a race of another colour?
Have you ever committed culpable homicide?
Have you ever committed a justifiable crime?
Have you ever bombed anything?
Have you ever murdered anyone?
Have you ever hidden a body?
Have you ever attempted suicide?
Have you ever caused a suicide?
Have you ever kidnapped anyone?
Have you ever done any illicit Diamond buying?
Have you ever acted as an informer?
Have you ever betrayed anyone for money?
Have you ever betrayed a trust?
Have you ever betrayed an employer’s trust?
Have you ever speculated with somebody else’s funds?
Have you ever knowingly implicated an innocent person?
Have you ever withheld a communication concerning a crime or misdemeanour committed by another?
Have you ever threatened anyone with a fire-arm?
Have you ever been in illegal possession of fire-arms?
Are my questions embarrassing? 
Have you ever been paid for giving evidence? 
Have you ever acted as an informer? 
Have you ever injured somebody’s reputation by knowingly spreading lies? 
Have you ever injured somebody by spreading tales you knew were true? 
Have you ever destroyed something belonging to someone else? 
Have you ever plotted to destroy a member of your family? 
Have you ever had a member of your family in an insane asylum? 
Have you ever been pronounced insane? 
Have you ever been a spy for an organization? 
Have you ever looted any place? 
Have you ever stolen from the armed forces? 
Have you ever conspired with anyone? 
Have you ever had anything to do with Communism or been a Communist? 
Have you practised fraud? 
Have you ever been a newspaper reporter? 
Are you hiding anything? 
Have you ever had intercourse after placing another under alcohol or drugs? 
Have you ever used hypnotism to procure sex or money? 
Do you collect sexual objects? Have you ever ill-treated children? 
Have you ever practised sex with children? 
Have you ever practised masturbation? 
Have you ever taken money for giving anyone sexual intercourse? 
Have you ever sexually coerced a servant? 
Do you have any bastards? 
Are you withholding anything? 
Have you ever had any connection with a brothel? 
Have you ever coerced anyone into giving you sex? 
Have you had anything to do with a baby farm? 
Have you ever killed or crippled animals for pleasure? 
Have you ever crippled a person? 
Have you ever been a spy for the Police? 
Have you ever pretended a disability? 
Are you afraid of the Police? 
Have you ever committed a misdemeanour? 
Have you ever committed a felony? 
Have you ever committed a capital offense?

Have you ever done anything you are afraid the police may find out?
Have you ever falsified the books in any firm you worked for?
Have you ever criminally avoided taxes?
Have you ever counterfeited money?
Have you ever fraudulently altered or issued certificates or documents?
Have you ever obtained money under false pretences?
Have you ever done anything your mother would be ashamed to find out?
How could you help yourself generally?
What represents yourself?
How could you help your family?
What represents your family?
How do you feel about sex?
What represents	( the Org
	( others
	( a group to you?
How could you help 	( the Org?
	( others?
	( a group?
How could you help mankind?
Have you ever controlled people?
How do you feel about being controlled?
What is Communism?
Do you feel Communism has some good points?
Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party or any associated group?
Have you ever been a member of any group with similar ideals as the Communist Party?
Do you know any Communists personally?
Have you ever injured Dianetics or Scientology?
Have you committed any overts on a Scientology Organization?
Have you wronged anyone in a Scientology Organization?
Have you ever stolen anything from a Scientology Organization?
Do you have anything in your possession that you shouldn’t have?
Do you have any overts on L. Ron Hubbard?
Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about L. Ron Hubbard?
Do you have any overts on Mary Sue Hubbard?
Have you done bad things to leaders in Scientology or Scientology Orgs?
Have you withheld anything from executives in Scientology?
Have you sought to get any staff member dismissed?
Have you knowingly planned not to do your job?
Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about Mary Sue Hubbard? 
Have you ever injured any Scientologists? 
Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about Scientologists? 
Have you ever betrayed Scientology? 
Do you know of any secret plans against Scientology? 
Do you plan to steal a Scientology Organization? 
Have you ever taken money to injure Scientology? 
Do you deserve to be helped by Scientology? 
Have you ever used Dianetics or Scientology to force sex upon someone? 
Have you ever falsified a claim for money to be repaid to you or to be paid you? 
Do you know of any plans to injure a Scientology Organization? 
Do you know of any plans to injure a Scientologist? 
Are you upset about this Security Check? 
What question in this check shouldn’t I ask you again? 
Have you withheld from answering anything because it might injure someone? 
What unkind thoughts have you thought while I have been doing this check? 
Have any of your answers here been designed to injure another? 
Are you upset about this Security Check?

Passed	Failed______________________

Why?________________________________________________________________

	___________________________
                              					Signed by Examiner

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jl.rd 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1961
Central Orgs

Urgent for Use on All Cases

PREHAV SCALE REVISED

(This is the rough version. The Primary Scale is Accurate and Complete. The Secondary Scale is not necessarily complete or edited.)

This is the first major revision of the Pre-Havingness Scale I originated in January of 1961. This Scale now contains a Primary Scale and a Secondary Scale. The Secondary Scale contains nearly all simple verbs in the English Language, properly placed for Level and repeated on other Levels.

USE

The Scale is used for General Running of Levels (without specified terminal) in brackets of 5 or 10, using “Someone” or “Something” as the terminal, sometimes using plus and minus (Change, No Change).

The Scale is also used for terminals found for S.O.P. Goals by Goals and Terminal Assessment.

The two uses of the Scale are done exactly the same way with the single exception that for a general run one says, “Do you have_____(Pre-Hav Level)” or “Are you_____(Pre-Hav Level)” or “Do you_____(Pre-Hav Level)”, and in the use for goals terminals one says, “Would the (or ‘a’)_____(goals terminal) (Pre-Hav Level)?”

General Run Assessment Example: Start at Bottom of Primary Scale 65 (Faith). Go up Pre-Hav Primary Scale asking about each level once only and carefully noting E-Meter Needle Reaction (ignore Rises of the needle) that responds or doesn’t respond to the question. Convert the level to a sensible question without varying the actual level. The questions: “Do you have Faith?” “Are you Cause?” “Do things have No Effect upon you?” “Are you the Effect of things?” “Do you think people run a Can’t Have on you?” “Do you Create?” “Do you Think?” etc, etc. When you have reached the top of the Scale, go back down again (from Level 1 to 65), still noting reaction. The one that reacted most when you went up and when you went down the Primary Scale is the Level. (Do not take the lowest level, take the level that reacted most, as the worse off people are, the higher terminals tend to be found on the Scale as a loose rule. Terminals come down scale as the pc goes up on successive assessments after runs.)

You now take the Primary Level found by E-Meter needle reaction and GO TO THE SECONDARY SCALE FOR THAT LEVEL. Assess this Secondary Scale for the level exactly as you did the Primary Scale. Go from the highest number (lowest point) up to the top (lowest number), asking once about each level and noting needle reaction (not rise). Take the Level that reacted most on the needle. Form it into a five way bracket (or 10 way) consulting the needle for the best expression of each “leg” of the bracket. Then run it. The motion of the TA should increase, then decrease, then tend to halt. If it remains unchanged (1/8 to 1/4 of a Tone Arm Division of motion only in 20 minutes) Reassess.

When reassessing on the Pre-Hav for a new level, assess exactly and as carefully as you did the first time—first assess on the Primary. Then assess on the Secondary Scale for that level.

Example for assessing a goals terminal (or a PT Problem or ARC break terminal). The assessment is done the same way as in a general run assessment except all questions have to do with the terminal. Example: If the goals terminal were “woman”. Start at the bottom (highest number) of the Primary Pre-Hav Scale and assess one level at a time. “Would a woman have Faith?” “Would a woman Cause things?” “Would there be No Effect on a woman?” etc, etc, noting the needle reaction (not rise). Then come down (lowest to highest number) the Pre-Hav Primary Scale one level at a time, again noting the needle reaction (always ignore rises). The right level will react going up and going down in much the same way. Take this level and go to the Pre-Hav Secondary Scale. Assess it from bottom (highest number) to top (lowest number) and then back down again. Choose the level that reacted both going up and down.

Any levels found may be checked cautiously (repeating only once) by comparing it to other levels in terms of needle reaction. You want the level with most reaction always.

If you take more than fifteen minutes to do a level assessment, you are doing something odd or unnecessary such as saying the levels several times or expecting the pc to answer you aloud (the pc should remain silent during an assessment) or you are unfamiliar with the Scale.

In asking assessment questions on the Scale always speak with the same degree of loudness and inflection, and always make the level the hardest and most stressed word in the question. If you vary loudness from question to question or change emotional tone, the needle may react to your change, not the Pre-Hav Level, giving you an inaccurate reading based on your goofs or changes, not on different Scale levels.

You can do an Assessment twice. You should come out with the same Primary and Secondary Levels. If you don’t, run, don’t walk, to the nearest Academy.

The Secondary Level is the one used in Commands. You will note that the Primary Level words are repeated in the Secondary Scale. Thus if the level comes out to be that Primary word, you’ll still have it as a Secondary word and can use it in the command.

Audit only one level at a time. Use only the word that caused the needle to react to make up your command. Do not combine two levels.

If you get Tone Arm motion running a level either generally or as a goals terminal, PTP or ARC break level, flatten it before choosing and running a new level. One knows when level is flat. The Tone Arm doesn’t move any more. You can cause a pc to feel “spinny” by starting a new level before the old one is flat.

Do not overrun a level. The test of “flat” is the TA moving only 1/4 to 1/8 of a division up or down in 20 minutes of auditing (not cumulative movement such as “The TA moves 1/16th twice so that’s 1/8th of a division”—this is wrong. If it moves from 2.25 to 2.50 to 2.25 two or three times in twenty minutes, this is called “flat” and has moved only 1/4 of a TA division. This is right.)

The Secondary Level, if not the word in the Primary Level, may react on the needle far more than the Primary Level.

The Primary Level may not react at all in rare cases. If this happens, assess the whole Secondary Scale, all groups, independent of the Primary Scale, starting with the Secondary group for Faith and going right on through the groups. This is only likely to happen with rough beginning cases or with persons nearly clear who are being shaped up and stabilized.

When a pc assesses as a Rock Slam, it may be necessary after a level turns on the Rock Slam to say a nul word to the pc like “Floor, Floor, Floor....” until the Rock Slam turns off. Rock Slam carries over many levels unless it is shaken out of the needle in this way. Mark the Level that turned it on “Rock Slam”. This is the strongest react there is. If several levels turn on a Rock Slam, choose by reading the Rock Slam levels once each again (using a nulling word several times between each one) and choose the widest Rock Slam or the one that didn’t fall out (which will probably be the widest).

In auditing a Rock Slam, the rule “Assess by the Needle, Audit by the Tone Arm” seems to have an exception. However, if the needle that is Rock Slamming could be held at SET on the needle dial by moving the TA you would see that a Rock Slam is a Tone Arm reaction. Thus one can’t call a process flat while a Rock Slamming needle still exists on a level. The Rock Slam has to be run out before the level is flat.

_____________

The Complete and Edited Version of the Secondary Scale and the Primary Scale will appear first in the Clearing Series Book S.O.P. Goals to be published in about two months. This rough version will however serve your purposes for the moment.

								L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:iet.rd 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

(Note: This bulletin is being sent to you with the completed Primary Scale attached. The Secondary Scale will be sent to you in parts as it is run off the mimeograph machine. More copies may be mimeographed locally if required.)

PRE-HAVINGNESS SCALE
PRIMARY SCALE

66. TR 10	33. FAILED LEAVE
65. FAITH	32. LEAVE
64. CAUSE	31. WAIT
63. NO EFFECT	30. SURVIVE
62. EFFECT	29. FAILED TO ARRIVE
61. OBSESSIVE CAN’T HAVE	28. ARRIVE
60. CREATE	27. FAILED IMPORTANCE
59. THINK	26. IMPORTANCE
58. INVERTED INTEREST	25. PROPITIATE
      (PECULIAR INTEREST)
	24. ATTENTION
57. DISPERSE
	23. SEPARATE
56. INVERTED COMMUNICATION
      (INTEND TO NOT COMMUNICATE)	22. FAILED WITHHOLD
55. INVERTED CONTROL	21. WITHHOLD
54. INVERTED HELP	20. MIS-EMOTIONAL
      (BETRAY)	
	19. DESTROY
53. COLLECT	
	l 8. MOTION
52. SUBSTITUTE
	17. FAILED OVERT
51. WITHDRAW	      (FAILED ATTACK)
50. DUPLICATE	16. OVERTS
	      (ATTACK)
49. ENTER
	15. DISLIKE
48. INHIBIT
	14. LIKE
47. DISAGREE
	13. COMPETE
46. ENFORCE
	12. FAILED HELP
45. AGREE
	11. HELP
44. DESIRE	
	10. FAILED CONTROL
43. WANT TO KNOW
	9. CONTROL
42. FAILED TO ENDURE
	8. EMOTIONAL
41. ENDURE
	7. FAILED COMMUNICATION
40. NO MOTION
	6. COMMUNICATION
39. FAILED TO ABANDON
	5. FAILED INTEREST
38. ABANDON
	4. INTEREST
37. FAILED WASTE
	3. CONNECT
36. WASTE
	2. FAILED HAVINGNESS
35. FAILED TO PROTECT
	1. HAVINGNESS
34. PROTECT

SECONDARY SCALE

1 — H A V I N G N E S S

This is the Secondary Scale of Havingness. It is not usually used for assessment as subjective havingness does not run with benefit. If a case is, however, “live” on a havingness level, run them on it, using their objective havingness process at frequent brief intervals ( 10 to 12 commands of objective havingness).

OBTAIN EARN TAKE REGAIN RECLAIM PURCHASE PROCURE INHERIT AFFORD ACCEPT PROFIT DEPOSIT AMASS GET POSSESS ACQUIRE HAVE RETAIN GAIN SHARE SALVAGE SUSTAIN TENDER SUPPLY REPLETE STOW FILL SUFFICE FINANCE REIMBURSE ENDOW REDEEM BESTOW CONTRIBUTE REFIT OFFER PROVIDE EQUIP CULTIVATE PAY REPAY REMUNERATE TRAFFIC TRADE REMIT IMPORT RAFFLE WEAR DISTRIBUTE RAID PRE-EMPT SPOIL COMMANDEER FORAGE DRAW REQUISITION SEIZE DESPOIL SACK SNATCH EXPLOIT WREST BOARD IMPRESS CAPTURE EXTORT IMPOUND GRASP PLUNDER REPLACE RECEIVE REPLENISH RESTORE PERMEATE PERVADE LOOT CONSERVE KEEP CLAIM CHERISH TREASURE CATCH ENTRAP HAVINGNESS CACHE SECURE

2 — F A I L E D  H A V I N G N E S S

COVET PIECE EXACT CONSERVE PAWN PETITION WANT DISCARD PREPAY LOSE AMPUTATE DISBURDEN RAID CASTRATE CROP DESPOIL GUT EVISCERATE DISEMBOWEL TAX SACK SCALP STARVE WREST SINK DEPRIVE OSTRACIZE BANISH EXILE MAROON IMPOVERISH IMPOUND DEMOTE SPILL SWINDLE ADULTERATE BEHEAD SQUEEZE SPOIL SURRENDER DROP PLUNDER ISOLATE DIE ABOLISH OBLITERATE ERADICATE EXPUNGE LIQUIDATE ERADICATE EXTIRPATE DISINTEGRATE LAPSE FINISH FAIL EXPIRE WITHER EFFACE ANNUL ELIMINATE ELAPSE ESTRANGE TERMINATE EXPEND DISPOSE ENGULF OCCLUDE DELETE ERASE EXPURGATE EXTINGUISH DESTROY ANNIHILATE RUIN ERODE CONSUME DISPERSE STRAY STREW LOOT SEPARATE ZONE DIVIDE DIFFER OUTLAW EXCOMMUNICATE DETACH DIVEST UNLOAD DISROBE EXCLUDE STRADDLE SUNDER SCRAPE BICKER QUARREL REMONSTRATE CONTRADICT DISSENT PROTEST CONCEDE DECLINE RECEDE SLOP REFRAIN EXCEED TRY FORGO WEAN REFUSE DWINDLE DISABLE DISSUADE DEPRIVE ENTRAP ESCHEW CAGE ENFEEBLE MISS DENY CURTAIL DEMUR FUMBLE DEDUCT DEBIT BEMOAN BEWAIL LOSE MISPLACE MISLAY DISALLOW DESPAIR ENVY SURFEIT DWINDLE MOURN REGRET EKE FAILED HAVINGNESS

3 — C O N N E C T

CONNECT MISIDENTIFY LINK IDENTIFY ASSOCIATE CIRCUMSTANTIATE WEAR APPLY CONCILIATE SUPPORT RECONCILE ENTWINE YOKE CLING SPEAR TIE BIND BOARD NAIL DISPERSE DRAW CONSORT LINK JOIN ATTACH PERMEATE ACCOMPANY PERVADE CONJUGATE MEET ENCOUNTER ADJOIN PERTAIN REJOIN APPEND INTERSECT COMBINE EMBRACE SPLICE KNIT REUNITE FRATERNIZE TOUCH MARRY WED BETROTH CONFUSE CRUCIFY GRAFT HANDCUFF FETTER MANACLE CONFUSE ESCORT CHAIN TRUSS ENTANGLE SEIZE TRICE GRAB PASTE INVOLVE FIND UNITE HAMMER HANG HIT INDENT INCRIMINATE IMPLICATE WIPE LASH LICK INTERCEPT SHACKLE TIE SHEATHE FASTEN SUSPEND BIND CLUTCH TACK WEAVE WELD LIKE ASSOCIATE

4 — I N T E R E S T

TOUT PROFFER PROMULGATE CANVASS CIRCULARIZE QUIZ PEDDLE QUERY INCLINE SAMPLE URGE ILLUMINE BID INFORM INITIATE EVOKE ILLUMINATE ILLUSTRATE ANTICIPATE POPULARIZE IGNITE INFUSE AROUSE ROUSE TEASE TEMPT FLIRT WOO ELECTRIFY EXCITE ENKINDLE ALLURE SCINTILLATE TRANCE IMPRESS CAPTIVATE FASCINATE ATTRACT TANTALIZE PERFORM ENGROSS STUNT PARTICIPATE WAGER ATTEND DETERMINE INSPIRE COMPETE MARVEL GOGGLE PROBE FIND PURSUE SEARCH TRAIL AWAKE WAKE WAKEN DISPLAY UNFOLD UNROLL UNFURL UNVEIL UNDRESS UNEARTH UNCOVER EXPLORE TRACK SCOUT TRACE INTEREST PERK RECREATE REVIVE VOLUNTEER ENLIVEN DELIGHT DIVERT RECALL LECTURE DESCRIBE ADDRESS ANNOUNCE SPEAK CHAT PREACH PEN RECITE TRAIN TEACH WRITE DISPORT DEMONSTRATE NARRATE DECORATE TATTOO TALK SING SERENADE WARBLE HUM WHISTLE EXHIBIT SHOW QUESTION INVESTIGATE QUIZ INTERROGATE REACT DISPOSE EXPEND VIVISECT PICNIC SOJOURN LIKE CRAVE PERMEATE PERVADE RADIATE RANGE BURST HUNT HAUNT GROPE DEBATE COAX THRALL RUMMAGE RISK EDUCATE SPECIALIZE BESIEGE TURN TUG SHOW INSTIL INSPECT LOVE TRANSCEND RECOMPENSE POSE PREFER PRESENT PROMOTE PROPAGATE CATCH ENTRAP EMBELLISH SURPRISE AMAZE GARNISH TRIM CACHE DESIRE EXHUME PRY CONNIVE BETRAY INSPIRIT ASPIRE ADORN BOAST BRAG PICK PREOCCUPY TOP INLAY APPRECIATE PRESENT DESPISE

5 — F A I L E D  I N T E R E S T

REJECT NAP YAWN SLEEP SLUMBER BORE DROWSE DOZE NOD PALL FAILED INTEREST DIVERT DAZE STUN STUPEFY STULTIFY DESERT STRAGGLE PROLONG OCCLUDE LAPSE FINISH FAIL WILT EXPIRE WITHER EFFACE ANNUL ELIMINATE ADJOURN ELAPSE ESTRANGE TERMINATE DESIST QUIESCE ABIDE OSSIFY FREEZE RELAX RUSTICATE BECALM LOAF STRAGGLE STREW DISPERSE STRAY INDISPOSE CONCEDE DECLINE RECEDE SHIRK GARBLE SLOP IMMERSE HUMOUR RESORT JUMBLE BOGGLE REFRAIN BOTCH TRY FORGO SHRUG LEAP TOY TURN FORGET CLOY EMBITTER DESPAIR DISPLEASE DISLIKE MOPE DRUDGE ENCUMBER COMMISERATE REGRET BEGRUDGE MEDICATE MIRE BOTHER CURTAIL DISHEARTEN DENY DISCOURAGE ESCHEW CRITICIZE DISSUADE SUBMERGE IGNORE

6 — C O M M U N I C A T I O N

MANIFEST EMBLAZON WARRANT PROMISE PROPOUND WITNESS PROPOSE X-RAY DISPENSE PERSUADE TRAFFIC PURPOSE TRADE REMIT AGREE FORWARD YARN RENDER REMUNERATE SANCTION IMPORT OSCULATE WEAR RAFFLE THROW RATIFY SIGNIFY SIGN PROJECT DISTRIBUTE NOTIFY CONFRONT INDICATE PERUSE EXHORT CORRESPOND REPAY ACQUAINT UNDERSTAND SPECIFY PHRASE ACKNOWLEDGE ASSENT APPLY APPEAL WELCOME REMARK REPLY REQUEST ADDRESS CONVEY PARTAKE DOT CIRCUMSTANTIATE DESIGNATE DEMONSTRATE PROCLAIM ALLUDE ASK VOICE UTTER DISPUTE STATE DISPATCH WRITE RESPOND RETAIL TRUMPET DESCRIBE SUGGEST HAIL DISCUSS ASSERT REPORT DECLAIM NARRATE CONSENT DELINEATE HEAR CONSULT LECTURE CONTRACT TRAIN PURVEY DECLARE PROFESS CABLE PARAPHRASE TEACH PEN SOUND CALL SPEAK ANNOUNCE EXPOUND DISCOVER PREACH EVINCE ELUCIDATE RECITE PRELUDE SCRIBE FACE CHAT DETECT INTRODUCE INTERVIEW DECREE EXPRESS DISCOURSE PUBLISH PRONOUNCE PREAMBLE ATTEST AFFIRM ENUNCIATE MAIL PAY DISPORT VIEW ESPY SPOT SURVEY GAZE GLANCE BEHOLD GLIMPSE SEE SCRUTINIZE INSPECT LOOK SCAN OGLE OBSERVE SNIFF WHIFF SMELL TASTE TAP FEEL RUB STROKE CUDDLE CARESS HUG SING SERENADE WARBLE HUM VOCALIZE WHISTLE EXCLAIM EXHIBIT REVEAL SHOUT SHOW REACH TELL TALK DISCLOSE PLEA CALM EXPLAIN COMFORT SOOTHE SOLACE RECOMMEND REASSURE CONTRIBUTE CONSOLE ENLIGHTEN ENCOURAGE ADVISE ASSURE INSTRUCT COMMAND ORDER HANDLE HEAVE MANIPULATE OPERATE TOW MIX DRILL HOIST LOAD PUT PUSH HAUL FETCH START STEER SHUT MANAGE SUPERVISE SUPERINTEND ADMINISTER MEDIATE NEGOTIATE TREAT SEND CONSIGN AIM AWARD UTILIZE ALLOT ALLOCATE APPOINT ASSIGN COMPLY DISBURSE SHAPE DISABUSE ORIENTATE ARRANGE STIPULATE PRESCRIBE HUSH NAVIGATE PILOT USHER EMEND EDIT REGULATE ADJUST CORRECT SUMMON SUBDUE CHALLENGE RECALL HITCH TAG UNTANGLE ORGANIZE REIGN ENUMERATE SPACE HEFT HABITUATE OFFICIATE IDENTIFY TACKLE REWARD PRESIDE REQUIRE VOTE ASSORT MASTER DEPUTE DELEGATE VEST ACTUATE ALTER ENGAGE DEPLOY JOCKEY JUGGLE TEST HOLD HALT STOP DISCIPLINE DIRECT RULE EMPOWER APPROVE DISSUADE CATCH PERCEIVE DISTINGUISH PLAY DISPLAY IMPLY INFORM INTERSECT INVIGORATE ADVANCE TUG TURN TUSSLE DIVULGE PRESENT REJECT CITE INSCRIBE PROMOTE ARBITRATE AVOW ELECT RENT SHAPE HIRE COMMUNICATION RECALL QUESTION INTERROGATE INTIMATE QUIZ ISSUE ORIGINATE EMIT EMANATE PULSATE SMART TINGLE THROB SWELTER STINK SPARKLE GLISTEN PATTER SWISH CLACK CLANG CLINK PEAL JINGLE REVERBERATE RIPPLE RING DRIP SLUMP SLIP SLOUCH REACT RECIPROCATE RESTORE REPLACE REPLENISH REHEARSE MIME PRACTISE PORTRAY IMITATE ENACT SKETCH DEPICT REPRODUCE RECORD TRANSCRIBE PRINT REPRINT COPY REDUPLICATE DUPLICATE EMULATE CHARACTERIZE TRANSMIT RECOUNT REFER RELAY QUOTE REITERATE ITERATE RECAPITULATE TESTIFY SUBSTANTIATE RELATE REPEAT RETRACE REVIEW RECOGNIZE REMEMBER REMIND RECEIVE UNDERSTUDY COMPREHEND MULTIPLY EXECUTE EAT GNAW DEVOUR EXPLODE FLAME VIVISECT EMBOWEL DRINK NIBBLE SWIG SWALLOW QUAFF SUP SLAY SLAUGHTER CRUSH SWILL GUZZLE TIPPLE CRUNCH ERODE CRUMPLE GOBBLE GRUMBLE EFFUSE STIMULATE DUB GLOW PROMULGATE PIN SECURE SITE BELAY LOCATE PARK CAMP BATTEN DWELL ABIDE RESIDE SOJOURN BASK RECLINE SPRAWL SIT SQUAT POISE PICNIC NESTLE POSE STICK INFORM PERCH QUERY CIRCULARIZE MISS POPULARIZE PROFFER BID URGE ILLUSTRATE CANVASS DEMEAN CONNECT COMBINE ENTWINE KNIT LINK JOIN ATTACH PERVADE PERMEATE APPEND CONSORT ENCOUNTER FRATERNIZE ACCOMPANY UNITE REUNITE REJOIN MEET TOUCH CLING EMBRACE YOKE SPLICE SHOWER RADIATE RANGE SPREAD SPATTER DISROBE ZONE CLEAVE FILTER SUNDER CHASE SEPARATE HUNT HAUNT COLLIDE IMMERSE EDUCATE PETITION MISTAKE CLARIFY SORT ARTICULATE LEVEL INTERCHANGE DEMAND DISALLOW CONVINCE FAMILIARIZE ENTREAT DICTATE BETRAY CONNIVE DELIVER SALUTE REGARD PRAISE
 
7 — F A I L E D  C O M M U N I C A T I O N

FAILED COMMUNICATION PERSUADE EXHORT PROCLAIM SPEAK STATE SUGGEST ASK ASSENT BLIND DEAFEN EXILE MAROON DECEIVE GAG STALK SQUELCH IMPRISON ISOLATE CHOKE KIDNAP INTERDICT CHEAT CONFOUND INCARCERATE INFILTRATE SINK DESERT OSTRACIZE QUARREL FIGHT WRANGLE BANISH RASP FINISH DEODORIZE TERMINATE DISPOSE EXPEND ESTRANGE ENGULF DESPATCH CONSUME DELETE ERASE ELAPSE ADJOURN EXTINGUISH EXPURGATE ELIMINATE ABOLISH ANNUL OBLITERATE EFFACE ERADICATE EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE IRRADICATE LIQUIDATE DEVASTATE DEMOLISH EXECUTE PURGE ANNIHILATE DESTROY DISINTEGRATE LAPSE WILT WITHER EXPIRE FAIL QUIESCE OSSIFY FREEZE REPOSE RELAX RUSTICATE BECALM IMPAWN LOAF DESIST DISPERSE STRAY STREW STRAGGLE STAMPEDE DIFFUSE INTERSPERSE BURST ROUT BESTREW UNCLASP UNLOAD DIVEST DETACH EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW DIFFER DIVIDE SEPARATE EXCLUDE CLEAVE SUNDER SHATTER RECEDE GARBLE IMMERSE HUMOUR RESORT RISK WISH SLOP STUMBLE BOGGLE HESITATE EDUCATE FORGO AMPUTATE LOSE RETRACT WEAN BESIEGE FOUL BOTHER MIRE MEDICATE FUMBLE BEGRUDGE CHIDE COMMISERATE REGRET JUMBLE CARP CHEW CONDEMN COMPLAIN BLAME REPROACH FULMINATE REPREHEND AVENGE CENSURE UPBRAID SWERVE SUCCUMB RETCH WAVER WRITHE SQUIRM VOMIT WINCE NAUSEATE FALTER TIRE HATE PANT PUFF CAPITULATE CRY FIGHT DESPAIR ZONE DESPOND DEMAND DICTATE DISALLOW CLAIM REJECT SCORN SHRUG TURN TUSSLE IGNORE PLOT CONSPIRE GESTICULATE CONNIVE CONVINCE DOMINATE COMPEL COERCE ENFORCE DEPRIVE MORTIFY ESCHEW SHAME EMBARRASS CAGE DISOBEY CRITICIZE CURSE DISCOURAGE DENY DISHEARTEN DISTRACT DISAPPROVE CURTAIL MISCONCEIVE OVERLOOK PEER DECLINE CONCEDE PROTEST DISSENT CONTEND CONTRADICT BICKER REMONSTRATE QUARREL HUNT HAUNT GROPE DEBATE COAX LISP HARP

8 — E M O T I O N A L

EMOTIONAL DISPUTE RESPOND EXHORT WELCOME UNDERSTAND APPEAL PLEA IRRITATE TERRIFY TERRORIZE IRK TORMENT DENOUNCE DEPRESS DISGRACE DISHONOUR DISAFFECT DERANGE DISMAY DEMORALIZE IMPRECATE FRIGHTEN GRIEVE ALARM SCARE PERK SOOTHE EXHILARATE ENLIVEN CHEER DELIGHT BRUTALIZE BULLY DEJECT DEGRADE DEMENT AGGRAVATE BENUMB BEDEVIL APPALL STUPEFY STUN VEX UNNERVE WORRY RASP PAIN QUARREL OFFEND NETTLE BEATIFY ANIMATE ENGROSS TANTALIZE ATTRACT FASCINATE CAPTIVATE IMPRESS TRANCE SCINTILLATE ENKINDLE EXCITE AROUSE ROUSE MARVEL ELECTRIFY INSPIRE TRANSPORT SHRUG HIDE NEED APPROVAL FROM OWN PROTECT CONTROL BLAME PUNISH BE KILL MAKE APATHETIC MAKE AMENDS GRIEVE PROPITIATE SYMPATHIZE FEAR NOT SYMPATHIZE RESENT COVERTLY ANGER PAIN BORE MAKE INDIFFERENT CONTENT MILDLY INTEREST INTEREST STRONGLY ENTHUSE MAKE EAGER MAKE SERENE CONVICT DESPISE HUMILIATE BETRAY SIGH REPENT RUE YELP AGONIZE SORROW WEEP SADDEN MOAN MOPE MOURN ENVY DESPAIR EMBITTER WAVER FALTER AVOID CAPITULATE COMMISERATE REGRET DEMUR DISHEARTEN EMBARRASS BEMOAN BEWAIL SULK OUTCRY SCORN INFURIATE RAGE RANKLE GROWL POUT GRUMBLE NAG YAP DISGUST DISLIKE DISPLEASE DETEST HATE INCULPATE ASCRIBE UPBRAID CHIDE COMPLAIN CHEW CONDEMN OBJURGATE CARP IMPLY FULMINATE REPREHEND REPROACH AVENGE RESENT CENSURE DEPLORE RECRIMINATE DARE DISAPPROVE ABUSE REBUKE CRITICIZE CRY FOUL ENFEEBLE MORTIFY DARE SHAME ASHAME INSANE ENTREAT BE SERENE AMUSE EXULT ENJOY SMILE NUZZLE JUBILATE FROLIC FONDLE REJOICE GRIN GLADDEN LIKE REVEL TRUST LOVE RELISH ESTEEM

9 — C O N T R O L

EXPAND DILATE ELONGATE AMPLIFY ENLARGE MAGNIFY EMPHASIZE BEGIN ABATE ALLOW MODERATE SITUATE SET TAME ACCOUNT DETAIL ACQUIT DEMAGNETIZE UNRUFFLE PREDISPOSE HIRE RENT ELECT APPROVE EMPOWER RULE DIRECT DISCIPLINE STOP HALT HOLD TEST JUGGLE JOCKEY DEPLOY ENGAGE ALTER ACTUATE VEST DELEGATE DEPUTE MASTER ASSORT VOTE REQUIRE PRESIDE REMAND TACKLE IDENTIFY OFFICIATE HABITUATE HEFT SPACE ENUMERATE REIGN ORGANIZE UNTANGLE TAG HITCH RECALL CHALLENGE SUBDUE SUMMON CORRECT ADJUST REGULATE EDIT EMEND USHER PILOT NAVIGATE HUSH PRESCRIBE STIPULATE ARRANGE ORIENTATE DISABUSE SHAPE DISBURSE COMPLY ASSIGN APPOINT ALLOCATE ALLOT UTILIZE AWARD AIM CONSIGN SEND TREAT NEGOTIATE MEDIATE ADMINISTER SUPERINTEND SUPERVISE MANAGE SHUT STEER START FETCH HAUL PUSH PUT LOAD HOIST DRILL MIX TOW OPERATE MANIPULATE HEAVE HANDLE ORDER COMMAND CIVILIZE DRIVE DIVERT DEVELOP CULTIVATE EXPEDITE ENABLE SPONSOR REHABILITATE FACILITATE REFORM RECTIFY LEAN EXTEND PREPARE PERMIT SERVE INSTRUCT CONTROL OBSERVE WIN CONTINUE RECUPERATE RECOVER REPRIEVE REINSTATE PROSPER LUXURIATE SUCCEED FLOURISH SURMOUNT GROW THRIVE LIVE SURVIVE MAINTAIN RECONSTRUCT RENOVATE RENEW GRUB LABOUR TOIL NURTURE FIX NOURISH MATURE PERPETUATE TIME DARN VALET LAY MEND INHALE RESPIRE OPPRESS REPRESS OVERWHELM OVERPOWER TYRANNIZE COMMIT DRAG CHARGE DEPOSE QUELL INTERDICT TROUNCE ISOLATE STEADY STEER GRASP COERCE FORCE FOX VANQUISH IMPLANT ADMONISH ENSLAVE SUBJUGATE SWITCH IMPOUND CAPTURE PRESS IMPRESS CONQUER DOUSE EXILE SURVIVE REPLENISH REPLACE EXECUTE FINISH DEODORIZE TERMINATE DISPOSE EXPEND BATTEN CAMP QUIESCE PARK LOCATE BELAY SITE SECURE PIN PERVADE PERMEATE APPEND REUNITE REJOIN ENTWINE YOKE SPLICE CONNECT COMBINE KNIT LINK JOIN ATTACH BETROTH WED MARRY RADIATE DIFFUSE INTERSPERSE SPREAD SHOWER BESTREW RANGE CLEAVE STRADDLE DECOCT FILTER EXCLUDE SORT SEPARATE ZONE DIVIDE DETACH DIVEST UNLOAD UNCLASP DISROBE INJECT INSERT INVITE MATRICULATE INSTALL INVEST INOCULATE ENTRUST HUNT CONTRADICT DEBATE DECLINE REMONSTRATE PROTEST COAX CONCEDE EXTRICATE LIMIT SHACKLE TIE ISOLATE LOCALIZE IMMERSE THRALL FASTEN PROHIBIT PREVENT EDUCATE STILL FORBID PETITION RESTRICT WEDGE ARREST SUSPEND BOUND DISPOSE PLAY DISSUADE PREDETERMINE DENY CAGE ENTRAP ENJOIN CATCH CHECK CURTAIL CAUTION READJUST LEGISLATE PROVE FAMILIARIZE DESIRE ENTREAT DISALLOW DICTATE DEMAND PREVAIL DELIVER ALIGHT CONNIVE CLAIM REJECT RESPECT PREDOMINATE LIFT SHOVE LEAP TURN TUG SHIFT CURB PROTRACT RETARD IGNORE ADVANCE TRANSPORT TEACH INTERVENE TRAIN SECURE SHAKE EDUCATE

10 — F A I L E D  C O N T R O L

PROLONG PROTRUDE EXCEED POTTER DRIBBLE BOTCH BOGGLE STUMBLE SLOP WISH JUMBLE RISK RESORT RUMMAGE HUMOUR IMMERSE GARBLE COLLIDE FAILED CONTROL LOSE WRANGLE WALLOP WRECK FIGHT QUARREL WRENCH WREST DESERT WHIP MUTINY SINK PILLORY SLAP SMACK UNSETTLE STICK SLAM DROWN DOPE DRUG BUMP COLLIDE BURN GAS BULLY ELECTROCUTE KEELHAUL POACH BRAND MAIM DISABLE MANGLE SCOURGE SCORCH INCAPACITATE SCALD IMPOSE FLOOD PLAGUE INUNDATE SMUDGE HASH SHAKE INCARCERATE HANG SIN SMUGGLE BOOTLEG CRIPPLE STRAGGLE SACK THROW SCRATCH CLAW COMMIT TRANSGRESS DISSIPATE DERANGE DRENCH CAPITULATE DUCK CRUCIFY DISLOCATE DENT FETTER TRUSS HANDCUFF CHAIN MANACLE SEIZE GOOF ENTANGLE TRIP SICKEN BESIEGE TORTURE TRIFLE DECAPITATE LOOT STRIKE DAMAGE TRICE JERK RACK PARALYZE FLOG EXECUTE SLACK GOLDBRICK SHIRK IMPRISON PENALIZE RAVAGE PESTER REND PLUNDER PROSECUTE REVOLT REBEL JOLT DROP JOSTLE STUN INTOXICATE CONQUER VANQUISH BIND TIE INEBRIATE SURRENDER SMASH SPANK SPLIT VIOLATE BROACH SPLASH STAIN SPRAIN SPOIL GAG STORM FLAIL SWAMP LOSE NICK BASH BATTER ASSAIL THRASH SWITCH BELABOUR BESLAVER SLAVER DROOL BESET BESLOBBER BESMEAR BESPATTER ADMONISH SPREADEAGLE BITE SHELL BOMB BOMBARD BREAK SPILL IMPLANT IMPALE CORRUPT DEBAUCH DEFACE FRACTURE CAPSIZE PRICK PUNCTURE PUNISH DISTURB CANE MUTILATE PIERCE BUTCHER MOB RUIN MAR MASH MASSACRE BRUISE SMASH REACT SLOUCH SLIP PULSATE THROB TINGLE SMART SLAVE SWELTER STINK TOPPLE CRUMBLE FAIL RUIN GOBBLE ERODE CRUNCH TIPPLE GUZZLE EXPIRE SWILL WITHER WILT LAPSE DISINTEGRATE DESTROY CRUSH BURST STREW ROUT SPATTER BESTREW DISPERSE STRAY STRAGGLE SPREAD STAMPEDE LOOT HACK IMPERIL DIVEST DIVERGE EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW FILTER INFEST EVADE TRESPASS LACERATE RE-ENTER ADMIT PENETRATE LISP DEAFEN GROPE BICKER DISSENT QUARREL CONTEND HARP HAUNT RECEDE SHIRK THWART GARBLE THREATEN HUMOUR RESORT RISK JUMBLE REFRAIN BOTCH TRY REFRAIN HESITATE RESIST FORBEAR AMPUTATE LOSE BESIEGE DISTRACT DISHEARTEN DISCOURAGE MEDICATE FUMBLE MINCE BOTHER REGRET COMMISERATE WET FEAR DISAPPROVE SURRENDER FULMINATE CHIDE COMPLAIN CONDEMN CHEW CARP BLAME REPROACH RESENT CENSURE UPBRAID ATTEMPT PUTREFY PANT PUFF SAY CRY DRAIN TIRE DOMINATE COMPEL COERCE ENFORCE WIGGLE STAGGER RETCH WOBBLE WAVER WRITHE VOMIT WINCE NAUSEATE ROT FALTER DESPOND ENTREAT DESIRE DESPAIR CRITICIZE EXHUME PRY SQUIRM NAG FIDGET FIGHT PLOT REVOLT IMPLORE CONSPIRE BETRAY CONNIVE SLOBBER WITHSTAND STRUGGLE SHIVER TOLERATE SHRUG SHOVE LEAP TURN SHIFT CLUTCH YIELD REJECT DEMAND CONVINCE EXERT DICTATE DISALLOW DENY SHAME ERR ENFEEBLE CAGE EMBARRASS DARE ENTRAP ENJOIN DEPRIVE SQUABBLE TANGLE LIMP STAMMER STUTTER DISABLE DIVERT BREAK SCATTER MORTIFY

11 — H E L P

INSTRUCT SHARE INNERVATE SERVE TRAVAIL ASSIST HEAL HARMONIZE SALVAGE SATISFY SALVE HELP HABILITATE SUSTAIN ASSURE BEFRIEND BESPEAK ABSOLVE ALLEVIATE ADVISE ALLAY MITIGATE PARDON PALLIATE PERFUME PERMIT PERK EASE EDIFY PLEASE ENCOURAGE PREPARE ENDEAR ENERGIZE ENHANCE ENLIGHTEN TENDER REIMBURSE ENDOW FINANCE BESTOW SUPPLY REPLETE STOW SURFEIT FILL SUFFICE FULFIL CONSOLE EXTEND CONTRIBUTE CO-OPERATE AVAIL LEAD LEND SIMPLIFY IRRADIATE RAISE REASSURE RECOMMEND RECONCILE REDEEM RECTIFY RECREATE REFORM REFIT REDRESS REFRESH RE-ENFORCE FACILITATE REGENERATE REHABILITATE REJUVENATE REINFORCE RELIEVE RELY REPAIR FORGIVE RESPITE RESUSCITATE RESCUE FURTHER RETOUCH REVIVE REVISE OFFER RETRIEVE REVIVIFY OBLIGE UNDERTAKE SMOOTH UPHOLD SOLACE VALIDATE VERIFY SOOTHE SPELL SPONSOR WILE VOLUNTEER VINDICATE VOUCH STAUNCH STRENGTHEN STOKE SUBSCRIBE SUCKLE SUCCOUR SURCEASE SUPPORT ENABLE EXHILARATE PROVIDE ENLIVEN EQUIP CHEER EXCEL EXCULPATE COMFORT EXCUSE CONCILIATE EXPEDITE EXPLAIN DEFRAY DELIGHT CULTIVATE DEVELOP DIVERT DISBURDEN DRESS DRIVE WINE CALM CIVILIZE BURNISH CURE INVIGORATE ENGAGE HEAVE HANDLE MANIPULATE ACTUATE EMPOWER OPERATE ALTER ORDER COMMAND RULE DIRECT DISCIPLINE STOP RADIATE HALT HOLD TEST JUGGLE JOCKEY DEPLOY TOW MIX DRILL PUSH PUT LOAD HOIST DILATE EXPAND HAUL FETCH START STEER STRUT MANAGE SUPERVISE SUPERINTEND ADMINISTER NEGOTIATE MEDIATE TREAT SEND ELECT APPROVE CONSIGN RENT HIRE VEST ELONGATE AMPLIFY DELEGATE DEPUTE EMPHASIZE AIM AWARD MAGNIFY ENLARGE UTILIZE ALLOT ALLOCATE APPOINT ASSIGN COMPLY DISBURSE BEGIN ABATE ALLOW MASTER SHAPE ASSORT DISABUSE ORIENTATE ARRANGE MODERATE PRESCRIBE STIPULATE HUSH PILOT NAVIGATE USHER VOTE SITUATE SET EMEND EDIT REGULATE ADJUST CORRECT SUMMON REQUIRE SUBDUE CHALLENGE RECALL TAKE HITCH PRESIDE ACCOUNT TAG ORGANIZE UNTANGLE HABITUATE PREDISPOSE OFFICIATE IDENTIFY REWARD TACKLE DETAIL REIGN ENUMERATE SPACE ACQUIT DEMAGNETIZE HEFT UNRUFFLE HELP REQUEST PURVEY ELUCIDATE PARTAKE CONSENT CONSULT CONVEY DEMONSTRATE WELCOME UNDERSTAND TRADE AGREE REMIT REMUNERATE FORWARD RENDER DISTRIBUTE CORRESPOND REPAY TRAIN TEACH PLEA TIE BIND BUTCHER DOUSE STEADY EXTRACT BOIL STAVE PENETRATE SMEAR FIX FORCE GRASP ISOLATE GRAB PASTE FORAGE QUENCH SEIZE BOTHER STICK INVESTIGATE DOCK NAIL MEND TIME DARN VALET LAY GRUB LABOUR TOIL NURTURE REPAIR NOURISH MATURE PERSIST PERPETUATE MAINTAIN RECONSTRUCT RENOVATE RENEW CONTINUE RECUPERATE RECOVER REPRIEVE REINSTATE PROSPER LUXURIATE SUCCEED FLOURISH WIN SURMOUNT GROW THRIVE LIVE REMIND REMEMBER IMITATE REVIEW REPEAT RELATE TESTIFY RECAPITULATE REITERATE QUOTE RECOUNT PRACTISE REHEARSE REPLENISH REPLACE RESTORE ENACT DEPICT SKETCH REPRODUCE UNDERSTUDY COMPREHEND REFER SUBSTANTIATE RETRACE RECOGNIZE RECIPROCATE PRINT REPRINT COPY REDUPLICATE DUPLICATE TRANSMIT RELAY TRANSCRIBE RECORD EXECUTE FINISH DEODORIZE TERMINATE DISPOSE EXPEND BEATIFY PROCREATE PROFFER INFORM PARK LOCATE SITE SECURE PIN BATTEN CAMP BELAY PARTICIPATE YOKE BETROTH PERMEATE PERVADE REUNITE REJOIN SPLICE CONNECT COMBINE KNIT LINK JOIN ATTACH MARRY WED EMBRACE TOUCH MEET ACCOMPANY FRATERNIZE CONSORT BESTREW DIFFUSE INTERSPERSE ROUGE EXCLUDE SORT SEPARATE ZONE DIVIDE DETACH DIVEST UNLOAD UNCLASP DISROBE LICK LANCE INOCULATE INVEST PENETRATE ADMIT INSTALL INVITE RE-ENTER INHABIT INHUME INTRUST INSERT INJECT COAX CONCEDE INCREASE HUMOUR RISK TRY EDUCATE PIECE CONSERVE PAWN DISCARD FORBEAR AMPUTATE LOSE WARD WARN SPARE COMMEND CLEANSE CATCH OBVIATE POLISH PACE MOISTEN PRETTIFY CLARIFY CAUTERIZE PURIFY PREFER SOLVE ENTRAP INTERVENE DENY MODIFY MODULATE SWEETEN SWEEP BEAUTIFY AMEND PERFECT MODERNIZE INVIGORATE INTERVENE LOVE SHADE TRANSPORT DEVOTE DEDICATE ADORN ARBITRATE COMPLIMENT DISCOUNT GRANT UNCHAIN RELEASE UNFETTER UNTIE UNLOCK LIBERATE SHIFT EXEMPT EMANCIPATE LUG SHOVE LEAP TURN LIFT IMMIGRATE ADVANCE HURRY ACCOMPLISH ACHIEVE ATTAIN ANOINT ADAPT INSPIRIT ACCUSTOM REWARD FOSTER PROMOTE PROVE FAMILIARIZE DELIVER DONATE DESIRE PACIFY AMELIORATE SHELTER COMFORT FEED LAVE SAVE TEND COVER LEGITIMIZE CACHE WIPE WASH FERTILIZE LUBRICATE SEW INTERVENE IMPROVE TRANSFORM CHECK CAUTION PROSPER SPRAY VARNISH EXTRICATE STANDARDIZE LIKE QUIESCE

12 — F A I L E D  H E L P

CUMBER SYMPATHIZE REMAND TACKLE FAILED HELP PROLONG PERSIST NICK LOSE SWELTER STINK SMASH BRUISE CRUSH MAROON MAR RUIN MOB MUTILATE DISTURB PUNISH PUNCTURE CONQUER PRICE PROSTRATE FRACTURE DEFLATE CONVICT DEFRAUD DAZE DEFACE DEBASE EXCRUCIATE CORRUPT DEBAUCH DECEIVE EXTORT DEJECT DEGRADE DELUDE IMPOVERISH SPILL DIVORCE DEMOTE AMBUSH KILL BREAK BESPATTER BESMIRCH BESET BEDEVIL SWINDLE SULLY SUBJUGATE ENSLAVE STRAIN SPOIL SPRAIN VITIATE STAIN SPLASH VIOLATE VANQUISH VICTIMIZE VEX UNDERMINE UNDERCUT SMEAR SURRENDER INEBRIATE INTOXICATE DROP NETTLE REVENGE PESTER PLAGUE PERSECUTE INFECT MAUL GOLDBRICK SLACK SHIRK PAUPERIZE PARALYSE TERRIFY TERRORIZE DUPE TROUBLE IRK DAMAGE TRIFLE TORMENT TRIP SICKEN INCRIMINATE DENOUNCE DEPRESS DEPOSE CAPITULATE DISGRACE DRENCH DISHONOUR DESPOIL DISAFFECT DERANGE DERAIL DISMAY TRANSGRESS SCRATCH TAX STRAGGLE CRIPPLE DEMORALIZE EXPLOIT CONFOUND SMUDGE FLOOD TRICK IMPOSE BOTHER STARVE SCALD INCAPACITATE FRIGHTEN GRIEVE ALARM SCARE SCORCH MANGLE DISABLE MAIM MOLEST BRUTALIZE BULLY UNSETTLE TYRANNIZE SINK WEARY ULCERATE UNNERVE WOUND WORRY MUTINY DESERT DEPRIVE PAIN QUARREL FIGHT WRECK OPPRESS LOSE EAT DEVOUR ESTRANGE CRUMPLE GOBBLE GNAW EXPLODE FLAME ERODE ENGULF RUIN ANNIHILATE SLAUGHTER SLAY PURGE EXECUTE CRUSH DEMOLISH DESTROY DEVASTATE LIQUIDATE IRRADICATE TOPPLE DOOM DESPATCH EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE ERADICATE OBLITERATE EFFACE DISINTEGRATE FAIL VIVISECT GRUMBLE EMBOWEL CRUNCH LOAF DESIST IMPAWN BECALM TEMPT ENTWINE YOKE CLING STAMPEDE STRAGGLE STRAY DISPERSE SPATTER ROUT STREW BURST DIVERGE DIVEST DETACH EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW DIFFER DIVIDE ZONE SEPARATE EXCLUDE SUNDER CLEAVE HUNT DEAFEN GROPE HAUNT HARP CONTRADICT BICKER DECLINE DISSENT REMONSTRATE QUARREL PROTEST CONTEND COLLIDE GARBLE IMMERSE RESORT RISK JUMBLE BOGGLE REFRAIN BOTCH EXCEED TRY HESITATE EDUCATE FORGO EXACT WANT DISCARD FORBEAR LOSE AMPUTATE WEAN ABSTAIN ENTREAT RESENT CENSURE UPBRAID CHIDE COMPLAIN CONDEMN CARP REGRET COMMISERATE BOTHER FOUL MIRE MEDICATE SHRUG TURN IMMIGRATE FUMBLE BEGRUDGE DISHEARTEN DENY DISCOURAGE CURSE CRITICIZE DISAPPOINT ENFEEBLE SUFFER RENOUNCE ABANDON FORSAKE REPUDIATE FORSWEAR REJECT IGNORE WEEP BETRAY CONSPIRE REVOLT PLOT GRIEVE GROAN POUT PRY DISPLEASE CRY DESPAIR DESPOND SUCCUMB SUBSIDE SUBMIT TIRE AVOID HATE PERISH CAPITULATE BLAME REPROACH AVENGE DESIRE CAGE ENTRAP ENERVATE DEPRIVE DISABLE

13 — C O M P E T E

RACE RUN SPAR PURSUE HUNT TRACK BREAST SUBVERT CONTEST JOUST BOX CHASE BELEAGUER BATTLE BET COMBAT WRESTLE SCUFFLE ANGLE STEM COMPETE BUFFET FIGHT ENGAGE LAY STRUGGLE STRIVE FISH CRUSADE ENCOUNTER STAKE WAGER SKIRMISH MILITATE CONFLICT PLAY TUSSLE WAGE ANTAGONIZE GRAPPLE ATTACK CAMPAIGN SUPPLANT DISPLACE DISCREDIT UNDERMINE OUST SWEEP PRETEND REDUCE BETRAY ENVY HATE RESENT DEFY SURMOUNT EXCEL DEFEAT WIN LOSE CONFOUND EXPLOIT CRIPPLE DEMORALIZE CHEAT DISMAY DESPOIL CAPITULATE DUCK CHARGE ENSNARE TRAP FENCE DUEL SEIZE BESIEGE TROUBLE TROUNCE COUNTERFEIT DUPE SIEGE RAID PARALYSE PENALIZE REVENGE COERCE REVOLT FORCE REBEL RETALIATE TIE SURRENDER UNDERCUT UNDERMINE VANQUISH PENETRATE SQUELCH STAVE STALK SUBJUGATE BEAT ATTACK BESET CAPTURE DECEIVE CONQUER CRUSH PRACTISE REHEARSE WAGE PARTICIPATE PERFORM WAGER RADIATE HECKLE DIFFER SCORE LICK SCUFFLE INFRINGE INVEST CONTEND DEBATE HUNT LIMIT INTERCEPT TIE SEIZE COLLIDE THREATEN THRASH GARBLE RESORT RISK PREVENT YIELD OVERPOWER VIE COVET FRUSTRATE RESIST FOIL LITIGATE OUTWIT OUTWORK OVERWHELM SURPASS OUTSTRIP WIN TRIUMPH LITIGATE CHASE SCRIMMAGE DISAGREE CONTRAVENE CONTEST COMBAT RACE WRESTLE TUSSLE TAUNT COMPETE DIVERT LEAD RE-ENFORCE REINFORCE UPHOLD STRENGTHEN EXCEL DISPUTE FACE PURPOSE THROW CONFRONT SUE SUCCEED SURMOUNT TIME LIVE SURVIVE THRASH LOSE WRANGLE QUARREL FIGHT WRING DEPRIVE WREST OVERPOWER OVERWHELM WORRY WHIP UNSETTLE INFILTRATE DISABLE INCAPACITATE BOTHER IMPOSE TRICK INVADE GAMBLE CONTEND COPE PIT RIVAL DUEL GAMBLE

14 — L I K E

SAVOUR SNUGGLE PET RELISH ESTEEM LIKE BEFRIEND PLEASE ENCOURAGE ENDEAR DELIGHT SANCTION UNDERSTAND WELCOME ACKNOWLEDGE RESPOND HUG CARESS STROKE CUDDLE FEEL RUB EMULATE COPY COMPREHEND RESTORE DUPLICATE REPRODUCE REPLENISH INCLINE SHOWER BESTOW RADIATE BURST CLEAVE TOY WANT APPROACH LEAP REVERE RESPECT COMMEND COMPLIMENT CHERISH TREASURE SELECT APPRECIATE IDOLIZE REGARD PRAISE APPLAUD VALUE LOVE—HATE LIKE—DISLIKE FAMILIARIZE DESIRE LOVE BE SERENE AMUSE EXULT ENJOY SMILE NUZZLE JUBILATE REVEL FROLIC FONDLE REJOICE GRIN GLADDEN LIKE TRUST FAVOUR PREFER FANCY LOVE DOTE ADMIRE ENJOY APPRECIATE APPROVE

15 — D I S L I K E

DISLIKE OFFEND DISMAY DISAFFECT IRK PERSECUTE GRIPE BITCH MIMIC RIDICULE IMITATE MIME ANNUL ABOLISH ELIMINATE EXPURGATE ANNIHILATE SLAUGHTER SLAY PURGE EXECUTE CRUSH DEMOLISH DESTROY DEVASTATE LIQUIDATE IRRADICATE TOPPLE DOOM EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE ERADICATE OBLITERATE EFFACE DISINTEGRATE FINISH ESTRANGE STREW ROUT RADIATE SPATTER INSULT HORRIFY HIT ABUSE EXCLUDE SEPARATE ZONE DIVIDE DIFFER OUTLAW EXCOMMUNICATE LOATHE PROTEST QUARREL REMONSTRATE DISSENT CONTEND DECLINE BICKER CONTRADICT HARP RECEDE DISMISS SHUN SHIRK SPURN RESENT VILIFY PREJUDICE RESIST LITIGATE RESENT SADDEN ABOMINATE EXECRATE CONDEMN BLAME DESPISE HATE DISCARD GARBLE LEAP TOY TUG DISPARAGE REJECT PROHIBIT HESITATE HATE—LOVE DISLIKE—LIKE SULK OUTRAGE ABHOR ABOMINATE ANGER SCORN INFURIATE COLLIDE BETRAY CONNIVE RAGE RANKLE POUT GRUMBLE FIGHT DISPLEASE DETEST AGONIZE ENVY DISGUST DISLIKE HATE

16 — O V E R T S

INTRUDE TERRIFY TERRORIZE BURGLE GASH RACK RAID COMMANDEER QUARTER RAM RAPE RAP FORAGE RANSACK PARALYSE DEVASTATE FLOG PASTE SLUG RASE GOAD PAUPERIZE EXECUTE GRAB RASP KIDNAP IMPERSONATE COUNTERFEIT FORGE DUPE REQUISITION THRUST SIEGE CHOKE THUMP THROTTLE TROUNCE INTERDICT TORTURE TORMENT QUENCH QUELL TRIFLE QUASH DECAPITATE DAMAGE TRICE JERK IRK TICKLE TROUBLE TRIP SICKEN BESIEGE JAB SPY INTERROGATE SEIZE GOOF ENTANGLE TRUSS CHAIN MANACLE INTIMATE DEMOLISH DENT FETTER HANDCUFF ENSNARE SNIPE FENCE DUEL INCRIMINATE TRAP DRENCH DISGRACE DISMEMBER CASTRATE DISSECT DUCK CAPITULATE CHARGE DEPOSE DEPRESS CRUCIFY DISLOCATE DEPRAVE CUT DENOUNCE CROP DISHONOUR DRAG DESPOIL GUT DRAW DISAFFECT DERANGE DERAIL DISMAY EVISCERATE CLAW DISEMBOWEL DISSIPATE CHEAT TRANSGRESS COMMIT SCRATCH THROW CHOP TAX DAZZLE SACK RUSTLE STRAGGLE SNATCH STEAL PREVARICATE EMBEZZLE LIE CRIPPLE DEMORALIZE EXPLOIT CONFOUND CRIMINATE AXE SMUGGLE GAMBLE SIN BOOTLEG INVADE GOUGE KICK INCARCERATE SMUDGE SKIN INUNDATE FLOOD TRICK IMPOSE SCALP BOTHER STARVE WRY SAVAGE SCALD IMPRECATE INCAPACITATE GRIEVE FRIGHTEN ALARM SCARE INCINERATE SCORCH INCISE SCOURGE KNOCK MANGLE DISABLE MAIM BRAND POACH MOLEST KEELHAUL GAS ELECTROCUTE BRUTALIZE BULLY BURN COLLIDE BUMP DRUG DOPE SMOTHER DROWN EMASCULATE IMMOBILIZE NEUTER SPAY POISON SMITE INFILTRATE SLAM SLICE STICK QUIZ SLAP INVESTIGATE UNSETTLE SMACK SIZZLE SLIT TYRRANIZE DOCK PILLORY REPRESS NAIL SINK WHELM WEARY WHACK PROD ULCERATE WHIP UNNERVE ANNEX WOUND WORRY OVERWHELM OVERPOWER WARP MUTINY WAYLAY DESERT WREST DEPRIVE PAIN WRENCH WRINKLE ROUGH WRING OSTRACIZE QUARREL FIGHT WRECK WALLOP WRANGLE OPPRESS BANISH OFFEND LOSE NICK NIP RASP MASH THIEVE CRUSH MASSACRE MOB EXILE BRUISE BRUTIFY SMASH MAROON DOUSE CANE PIERCE MUTILATE PINCH BUTT BUTCHER SQUEAL RUIN DISTURB MAR DEBAUCH CORRUPT EXCRUCIATE DEBASE BOARD DEFACE EXPOSE DAZE DEFRAUD CONVICT DEFLATE FRACTURE PRESS PRICK CAPSIZE PROSTRATE PROSCRIBE IMPRESS PULVERIZE PUNCH SHOOT CONQUER PUNCTURE PUNISH CLUB DECEIVE IMPLANT DEGRADE DEJECT EXTRACT CAPTURE IMPALE EXTORT SHELL IMPOVERISH DECORTICATE DEMENT DELUDE IMPOUND BOMB GAG BOMBARD BREAK KILL AMBUSH DEMOTE MURDER DIVORCE HEW SPILL AGGRAVATE SWITCH BELABOUR BENUMB BESLAVER BESET BESLOBBER BESMEAR BESMIRCH BESPATTER ADMONISH STULTIFY SPREADEAGLE BITE BOIL STORM STRANGLE STRAFE YANK STRAIN STUN FLAIL SWAMP STUPEFY ENSLAVE SUBJUGATE SULLY SUFFOCATE SWEAT APPAL SWINDLE ADULTERATE BASH BATTER ASSAIL BEFOUL BEAT BEHEAD BEDEVIL ATTACK THRASH STIFLE STRIKE STALK STARTLE STAVE SQUELCH SQUEEZE STAB DEAFEN SMASH SMEAR UNDERCUT UNDERMINE SMOKE SPANK SOCK SOIL VICTIMIZE VANQUISH SPLIT VEX VIOLATE SPLASH BOOBYTRAP STAIN SPEAR VITIATE SPRAIN SPOIL PENETRATE GOSSIP SQUASH SPIT SURRENDER BLIND INEBRIATE BIND INTOXICATE FOMENT RETALIATE RIVE FIX JOLT NETTLE DROP JOSTLE RAZE GRASP RAVISH RAVAGE INFECT PERSECUTE PLAGUE GRILL PESTER RECK REVENGE REND PLUNDER POKE GRIPE BITCH POUND PROSECUTE TIE FLAGELLATE FLAY COERCE REVOLT FLOOR FORCE REBEL IMPRISON RIP RIFLE IRRITATE SHIRK GOLDBRICK SLACK MAUL CRIMP ASSASSINATE PECK ISOLATE PENALIZE PRY QUESTION BESTRIDE SHATTER LOATHE TRESPASS LYNCH LASH LACERATE LAME TRAP SENTENCE LICK SEAR LANCE INJURE SCUFFLE INFRINGE SCRATCH TRAMPLE INFLICT TUT SCORE INFILTRATE INFEST SCRAPE INDISPOSE IMMURE HATCH IMMOLATE HURT HARRY HOUND HANG HORRIFY HECKLE HACK HASH HIT HARASS HAMMER HAZE SHOCK SHRED LOOT INSULT ATTACK ENGAGE TACKLE HEAVE HANDLE MANIPULATE ACTUATE EMPOWER OPERATE ALTER REMAND ORDER COMMAND RULE DIRECT DISCIPLINE STOP HALT HOLD TEST REPAY THROW TRAFFIC PERSUADE EXHORT TEACH PEN SUGGEST ALLUDE LECTURE DISCUSS DISPUTE DISCLOSE REVEAL SHOUT TAP SMELL OGLE INSTIGATE CONTRIVE STINK TESTIFY MIMIC GOBBLE GNAW EAT DEVOUR ESTRANGE CRUMPLE EXPLODE FLAME ERODE ENGULF RUIN SLAUGHTER SLAY PURGE EXECUTE CRUSH DEMOLISH DESTROY DEVASTATE LIQUIDATE IRRADICATE TOPPLE DOOM DESPATCH EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE ERADICATE OBLITERATE EFFACE DISINTEGRATE FAIL VIVISECT GRUMBLE EMBOWEL CRUNCH STIR PROVOKE INVOLVE PLANT MAKE SPAWN IMPREGNATE DAB STICK LOAF FREEZE PURSUE TRACK PROBE TRAIL ROUSE AROUSE ELECTRIFY TEASE TEMPT CLING YOKE ENTWINE BETROTH CONSORT MEET TOUCH EMBRACE WED MARRY JOIN LINK COMBINE PERVADE PERMEATE STREW BURST ROUT RADIATE ROUGE STAMPEDE SPREAD SHOWER SPATTER STRAGGLE STRAY INTERSPERSE DISPERSE BITCH DISROBE DIVEST DIVERGE DETACH EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW DIFFER DIVIDE ZONE SEPARATE EXCLUDE SUNDER CLEAVE EXTRADITE INOCULATE INVEST PENETRATE INSTALL INHUME INSERT INJECT HAUNT DEAFEN HUNT HARP CONTRADICT BICKER DISSENT CONTEND QUARREL YANK DISMISS INTERCEPT SHIRK SHACKLE SEGREGATE THWART TIE ISOLATE SEIZE COLLIDE GARBLE THREATEN THRASH IMMERSE RISK JUMBLE SLOP STUMBLE BOTCH GAG EXCEED FETTER AMPUTATE LOSE DISCARD EXACT COVET REPRESS ARREST SURROUND SUSPEND BESIEGE HURRY ADVANCE TRAMP STOVE LEAP TOY TURN TUG SHIFT TOSS HURL ENCHAIN INFORM IMPACT INSINUATE STARVE STEAL PILFER PURGE CALUMNIATE CURSE PHILANDER SCOLD FLAUNT INTRUDE SATIRIZE SCATTER IMPLY SHAKE INVEIGH ROB CONDEMN DISCREDIT DISOBEY DISMISS DISQUALIFY EMBEZZLE MISAPPROPRIATE BEREAVE SWIPE STEAL THIEVE DISABLE BLIND SLANDER DEPRIVE POLLUTE PERJURE DAMN INVALIDATE PROFANE CATCH ENERVATE ENTRAP MORTIFY SHAME DARE ABORT ROB EMBARRASS CAGE ENFEEBLE CRIPPLE DISOBEY CHASTISE ERR ENDANGER MISTREAT ABUSE MISBEHAVE SUBJECT CRITICIZE CURSE DISCOURAGE DEFORM DENY DISHEARTEN PEPPER DISAPPROVE DISTRACT RACK CARVE FLAY MASSACRE MEDICATE BEGRUDGE BOTHER FOUL STAMP SPRAY COMMISERATE WIPE SKEWER LEVEL TEAR SMUGGLE MUTINY REBEL REVOLT CARP CHEW OBJURGATE CHIDE COMPLAIN UPBRAID CENSURE INCULPATE IMPLY RESENT ASCRIBE AVENGE REPROACH BLAME REPREHEND OVERTHROW OVERWHELM KNIFE DISTRESS DISLIKE DISPLEASE PERFORATE MINCE DISCHARGE WASTE DEVASTATE DISALLOW DICTATE DEMAND CONVINCE DOMINATE COMPEL COERCE ENFORCE HATE EXHUME GLOAT FIGHT AGGRIEVE MADDEN SADDEN PROVE PRY RECANT IMPUTE IMPUGN TRADUCE REVOLT PLOT CONSPIRE CONNIVE COLLUDE INFURIATE BETRAY OUTRAGE ANNOY TRUMP CERTIFY OVERPOWER UNDERBID DEVEST DEROGATE DESECRATE DETRACT DISRATE PROTRACT RETARD DISPARAGE DISCREDIT

17 — F A I L E D O V E R T

EDUCATE HESITATE TRY FAILED OVERT INVIGORATE EXPEDITE COMFORT CHEER EQUIP ENABLE SUPPORT SUCCOUR STRENGTHEN OBLIGE RESPITE RELIEVE FACILITATE RECONCILE REASSURE CO-OPERATE CONTRIBUTE SUPPLY ENERGIZE ENDEAR ENCOURAGE PLEASE EASE HELP ASSIST INNERVATE CAPITULATE SURRENDER PARRY SHIELD WARD TURN CONCEDE RECEDE THWART TIE LOCALIZE LATCH THREATEN HUMOUR RESORT BOGGLE PREVENT BESIEGE BOTCH DESPAIR RESIST FORBID FORBEAR REPRESS FOIL WARD WARN RETRACT SPARE REFRAIN STRIVE WITHSTAND REGRET TURN SHRUG

18 — M O T I O N

TUNNEL TRENCH DAB FLAP POP DESCEND DIP PROD EFFUSE BROWSE CRUISE PITCH PLUNGE PLY POUR PRANCE POWER PROCEED PROGRESS PROWL PULL CAPER DISLODGE DISPLACE CAREEN CARRY CAST DODGE CLUMP COAST COIL DABBLE CREEP CLIMB SOAR SPIN SPEED SPRINT SPRING SPURT STAGNATE STEP STEM STRIDE STROLL STRUM SURGE SWAY SWIM SWIRL ARISE SWING BESTIR BLOW BOOST BRANDISH MARCH BUDGE BUSTLE PASS MOVE MOUNT EBB ELEVATE WRESTLE WHIZ WHIRL WHISK WEND WHEEL WEIGH SLINK SLING SLOG SLIDE SLUSH SKIM HURL HUSTLE HASTEN FLANK TEEM FLARE FLING FLIP FLICK RETURN FLIT FLOAT FLOP FLOW FLUTTER FOLLOW FLY REPASS REVOLVE RISE ROAM ROMP ROLL ROTATE ROW ROVE JOG JOIST JOURNEY JUMP ZOOM WABBLE WADE WADDLE WANDER WALTZ WAGGLE WALK WAG WAFT WAVE WIELD TREMBLE TREK TOTTER TOSS TODDLE TILT THRUM LEAN TICK TOUR LEVER LILT LIMBER LIMP LOWER LUNGE LURCH FALL GALLOP RACE GLIDE RAMBLE GLIMMER PACE PADDLE PARADE PEDAL FARE PLOD GUSH REDOUBLE SHUFFLE LAP SIDLE IMPEL SKID TROLL IMPRINT DANCE DASH DART QUAKE QUIVER QUAVER TRILL TWIRL TWIDDLE TREND TROT TRICKLE LAUNCH TREAD TRAVERSE TRAVEL TUMBLE SHIFT TUSSLE TUG TURN SHIP TOY SHAMBLE LEAP SHEER LUG SHOVE SHRUG TRUCK LIFT TRUDGE ADVANCE TRAMP TRANSPORT SAUNTER SCALE IMMIGRATE HURRY ASCEND AMBLE APPROACH SAIL MOTION JUGGLE JOCKEY DEPLOY TOW MIX DRILL PUSH PUT LOAD HOIST DILATE TACKLE EXPAND HAUL HEAVE FETCH START STEER HANDLE SHUT DISPORT OSCULATE HUG CARESS STROKE CUDDLE TAP FEEL RUB TRANSACT COMMENCE PATTER SWISH CLACK CLANG CLINK PEAL JINGLE REVERBERATE RIPPLE RING DRIP SLUMP SLOUCH REACT SLIP PULSATE THROB SLAVE HIT GRAB PUNCH RASP GOAD SLUG FLOG RAP RAM GASH BANG THUMP THRUST JERK JAB CROP CUT DUCK DRAG DRAW CLAW CHOP SNATCH AXE GORGE KICK INCISE SCOURGE KNOCK COLLIDE BUMP SMITE SLAM SLICE SLASH UNSETTLE SMACK SLAP SLIT DOCK NAIL SINK PROD WHACK WHIP WARP WREST SCREW WRENCH WRINKLE WRY WRING WALLOP NIP NICK CRUSH MASH BUTT PINCH PIERCE CANE DOUSE CLUB PUNCTURE PUNCH PULVERIZE SPUR PRICK EXTRACT SPILL BITE BESMEAR BESPATTER SWITCH BEAT BATTER BASH FLAIL STRAIN YANK STRIKE STALK STAVE STAB SQUEEZE SQUASH PENETRATE SPRAIN PRY SPEAR SPLASH SPLIT SMEAR JOSTLE DROP JOLT FORCE COERCE POUND POKE REND RIP SLACK SUFFUSE STIMULATE STIR TOPPLE BUILD MAKE PRODUCE ERECT NIBBLE INNOVATE MANUFACTURE ESTABLISH CONSTRUCT INITIATE INCLINE UNCOVER UNEARTH UNDRESS UNVEIL UNFURL UNROLL ENGAGE DISPLAY TRAIL SCOUT TRACE TRAIL SEARCH PURSUE TRACK EXPLORE PARTICIPATE PERFORM KNIT STREW BURST ROUT RADIATE RANGE BESTREW STAMPEDE SPREAD SHOWER SPATTER STRAGGLE STRAY HARRY DISROBE UNCLASP UNLOAD DIVEST DETACH CLEAVE EVADE EXTRICATE GO EMERGE YANK REBOUND RECEDE RECOIL SHAKE INJECT INSERT RE-ENTER INSTALL ADMIT PENETRATE INVEST HUNT EVADE EXTRACT IMMERSE STUMBLE BOUND BOLT HAUL HASTEN HURL HOIST HUSTLE PUSH HEAVE TOW SCATTER SEND SHUT RAISE VIBRATE PRECIPITATE MEANDER BEND SURFACE SWERVE EXHUME EVICT RUSH SCRAM SKIP VACATE SCATTER RUN RETREAT EMIGRATE UPHEAVE PASTE TRUNDLE SLOP

19—D E S T R O Y

ABOLISH OBLITERATE ERADICATE EXPUNGE LIQUIDATE IRRADICATE EXTIRPATE DISINTEGRATE LAPSE FINISH FAIL EXPIRE WILT WITHER EFFACE ANNUL ELIMINATE ADJOURN ELAPSE ESTRANGE TERMINATE EXPEND DISPOSE ENGULF DELETE ERASE EXPURGATE EXTINGUISH DESTROY ANNIHILATE RUIN CONSUME ERODE TOPPLE VIVISECT EXECUTE DEMOLISH DEVASTATE PURGE DOOM DEPRECIATE DEODORIZE DESPATCH EAT GNAW DEVOUR EXPLODE FLAME EMBOWEL DRINK NIBBLE SWIG SWALLOW QUAFF SUP SLAY SLAUGHTER CRUSH SWILL GUZZLE TIPPLE CRUNCH CRUMPLE GOBBLE CRUMBLE DESTROY WEAR SMASH ASSASSINATE RAZE RAVAGE FLAY RIVE WRECK SINK POISON DROWN SMOTHER EMASCULATE NEUTER SPAY CASTRATE DEAFEN BLIND SMASH UNDERMINE SPLIT SPEAR VITIATE SPOIL SQUASH SPIT STAB EXPOSE STIFLE STRANGLE SWAMP SUFFOCATE BASH BATTER BEHEAD BOIL BOMB SHELL BOMBARD BREAK KILL SLAY MURDER IMPALE DEFACE PULVERIZE SHOOT CLUB DOUSE MUTILATE BUTCHER MOB RUIN MASH CRUSH MASSACRE MAUL BURN GAS ELECTROCUTE KEELHAUL MAIM DISABLE MANGLE SKIN SCORCH INCINERATE INCAPACITATE SCALD SAVAGE STARVE SCALP FLOOD INUNDATE AXE CRIPPLE SACK CHOP CLAW DISEMBOWEL EVISCERATE GUT DERAIL DRAW DRAG DISMEMBER DISSECT CRUCIFY DEMOLISH QUENCH QUASH DECAPITATE DAMAGE CHOKE THROTTLE QUARTER RAM PARALYSE DEVASTATE RASE EXECUTE RADIATE ROUT BURST DISPERSE STREW SHRED HANG HACK HASH IMMOLATE IMPALE CLEAVE SUNDER SHATTER LYNCH SEAR TRAMPLE INFLICT PENETRATE INVEST INOCULATE BICKER QUARREL DEAFEN EXTRACT COLLIDE GARBLE JUMBLE SLOP BOGGLE BOTCH LOSE AMPUTATE DISCARD REPRESS LEAP SPAY WEED LEVEL SHRED AVENGE UPROOT WASTE DEVASTATE REVOLT COLLUDE BETRAY REJECT SHRIVEL RETARD HANG SHATTER LYNCH INCINERATE IMMOLATE CREMATE DISABLE DEPRIVE ENERVATE ABORT CURSE SACRIFICE ENFEEBLE DESICCATE CURTAIL MASSACRE DISSOLVE MASTICATE DEDUCT MEDICATE STERILIZE
 
20 — M I S - E M O T I O N A L

MIS-EMOTIONAL RESPOND DISPUTE EXHORT WELCOME UNDERSTAND APPEAL PLEA IRRITATE TERRIFY TERRORIZE IRK TORMENT DENOUNCE DEPRESS DISGRACE DISHONOUR DISAFFECT DERANGE DISMAY DEMORALIZE IMPRECATE PERK SOOTHE EMBITTER ENLIVEN CHEER DELIGHT FRIGHTEN GRIEVE ALARM SCARE BRUTALIZE BULLY DEJECT DEGRADE DEMENT AGGRAVATE BENUMB BEDEVIL APPAL STUPEFY STUN VEX UNNERVE WORRY PAIN QUARREL OFFEND NETTLE STIR PROVOKE ANTICIPATE QUAIL LOATHE HAUNT LISP HARP BICKER PROTEST WISH BOGGLE TRANSPORT SHRUG STUMBLE SYMPATHIZE RELISH ESTEEM HUMILIATE HIDE NEED APPROVAL FROM OWN PROTECT CONTROL BLAME PUNISH BE KILL MAKE APATHETIC MAKE AMENDS GRIEVE PROPITIATE SYMPATHIZE FEAR NOT-SYMPATHIZE RESENT COVERTLY ANGER PAIN RESENT OVERTLY BORE MAKE INDIFFERENT CONTENT MILDLY INTEREST INTEREST STRONGLY ENTHUSE EXHILARATE MAKE EAGER MAKE SERENE DESPISE WAIL SORROW SIGH BETRAY GRIEVE GROAN REPENT RUE YELP AGONIZE MOAN MOPE MOURN ENVY CRY DESPAIR EMBITTER WAVER FALTER AVOID CAPITULATE COMMISERATE REGRET DEMUR DISHEARTEN EMBARRASS BEMOAN BEWAIL WEEP AGONIZE DISGUST ENTREAT CENSURE UPBRAID FOUL DISAPPROVE ENFEEBLE HUMILIATE MORTIFY DARE SHAME ASHAME SULK OUTCRY SCORN INFURIATE RAGE RANKLE GROWL POUT GRUMBLE NAG YELP YAP DISGUST DISLIKE DISPLEASE DETEST HATE INCULPATE ASCRIBE CHIDE COMPLAIN CHEW CONDEMN OBJURGATE CARP IMPLY FULMINATE REPREHEND REPROACH AVENGE RESENT DEPLORE RECRIMINATE DISAPPROVE ABUSE REBUKE CRITICIZE CONVICT INSANE OUTRAGE WHOOP SLOBBER ABHOR ABOMINATE ANGER ANNOY SCORN INFURIATE SENTIMENTALIZE SHUDDER SIGH QUIBBLE IMPLORE GESTICULATE RAGE RAMP GLOAT PANIC GNASH FAINT FIDGET FIGHT REPENT FRET DREAD RUE YELL AGGRIEVE MADDEN PALPITATE DISLIKE DISPLEASE DISTRESS DESPAIR DESPOND DETEST AMERCE MORTIFY SHAME RESENT CURSE DISCOURAGE DISTRACT BOTHER COMMISERATE REGRET BLAME HATE 

21 — W I T H H O L D

ACCUSE ABUSE ACCOST PURLOIN IMPEACH AGITATE IMPERIL IMPAIR IMPALE AFFLICT IMPLICATE TRANSFIX SCAR INCRIMINATE INDENT INDICT SEGREGATE SEAL SHACKLE TUCK SHIRK SECLUDE INTERCEPT SHUN HIDE HIBERNATE HINDER LIMIT INSULATE EXEMPT CLAM EXCEPT CONCEAL CONTAIN CONSTRICT CONSTRAIN CURB ENCHAIN CLUTCH ENGORGE PRECLUDE PINION MUZZLE MUFFLE BOUND BOLT BIND ABSTAIN BESIEGE BAN ARREST SWADDLE SURROUND SUSPEND APPREHEND STILL SPECIALIZE SPARE WEDGE SNARE WEAN WARD WARN RETRACT WITHHOLD STOW REFORM SOOTHE STAUNCH EXCUSE CIVILIZE CALM HOLD HALT STOP SHUT HITCH DISCIPLINE TAME RECALL CHALLENGE SUBDUE REQUIRE SUMMON HANDLE CORRECT ADJUST REGULATE EDIT EMEND SET SITUATE VOTE STEER USHER NAVIGATE PILOT HUSH STIPULATE PRESCRIBE DIRECT MODERATE ARRANGE ORIENTATE ASSORT DISABUSE SHAPE RULE COMMAND MASTER ORDER ABATE PARRY SQUEEZE TIE BIND NAIL DESERT DEPRIVE OSTRACIZE BANISH FIX GRASP TRAP CRIMP COMMANDEER REQUISITION KIDNAP INTERDICT TRICE QUELL SEIZE MANACLE CHAIN TRUSS ENSNARE HANDCUFF FETTER CRUCIFY DEPOSE CAPITULATE COMMIT STEAL SNATCH INCARCERATE STARVE EXILE MAROON EXPOSE EXCRUCIATE TAX DEFACE EXTORT CAPTURE EXTRACT SPILL MURDER FORGET DESIST IMPRESS IMPRISON IMMURE SORT ZONE UNCLASP UNLOAD DIVIDE CLEAVE EXCLUDE INDISPOSE YANK RECOIL INOCULATE INHUME CONTRADICT DECLINE RECEDE HUMOUR GAG EDUCATE CONSERVE PAWN CAGE CEASE COMMIT CONSECRATE COVER DISABLE DEPRIVE CATCH ENJOIN ENTRAP ESCHEW CAGE ENFEEBLE DENY SUPPRESS CURTAIL MIRE FOUL PLOT CAUTION CHECK CACHE COVER DISARM DISALLOW CONSPIRE GO CONNIVE COLLUDE CLAIM RETARD FORGET FILTER RESTRAIN RESTRICT SECRETE FRUSTRATE RESIST RESERVE FORGO FORBID REPRESS FOIL FETTER FASTEN PROHIBIT PREVENT REFRAIN GAG RECOMMIT LOCALIZE LATCH THREATEN THRASH THRALL TIE ISOLATE SHEATHE SEIZE IMMURE FORBEAR THWART 

22 — F A I L E D W I T H H O L D

SHRIVE LOOSE GASP GRANT RELEASE FLAUNT YIELD LIBERATE PHILANDER OUTBREAK UNCHAIN UNLOOSE UNLOCK UPHEAVE UNTIE UNGIRD UNFETTER ACQUIESCE ACCEDE BLAB BLURT PEACH EMANCIPATE CLOY DISGORGE DIVULGE FAILED WITHHOLD WHIMPER SHARE SATISFY RECOMMEND ADVISE PARDON PERMIT TENDER REIMBURSE ENDOW COAX PANIC FINANCE BESTOW SUPPLY REPLETE OBLIGE SURFEIT FILL SUFFICE FULFIL EXTEND CONTRIBUTE CO-OPERATE AVAIL LEND REDRESS RE-ENFORCE REINFORCE OFFER REVIVIFY UNDERTAKE VOLUNTEER SUCKLE SUPPORT DEFRAY PROVIDE EQUIP DRIVE MANIFEST REMAND ALLOW START BEGIN FETCH HEAVE HAUL DISBURSE COMPLY ASSIGN APPOINT ALLOCATE ALLOT UTILIZE ENLARGE MAGNIFY EXPAND AWARD AIM ALTER EMPHASIZE DEPUTE DELEGATE TACKLE OPERATE EMPOWER DILATE AMPLIFY ELONGATE VEST ACTUATE HIRE RENT CONSIGN APPROVE ELECT HOIST MANIPULATE LOAD PUT SEND REMAND PROFESS APPEAL RESPOND REPORT REMARK REPLY ASK VOICE UTTER SPEAK CALL SOUND BREAK DISCLOSE REACH TELL TALK EXCLAIM EXHIBIT REVEAL SHOUT SHOW SMELL SLUMP SLOUCH REACT STINK SLIP SMART PULSATE THROB TINGLE DRIP RECOUNT QUOTE REITERATE RECAPITULATE TESTIFY RELATE REPEAT REVIEW REMEMBER REMIND IMITATE BREAK BOMBARD SHELL AGGRAVATE BITE BESPATTER BESMIRCH BESMEAR BESLOBBER BESET BESLAVER BELABOUR ATTACK BEDEVIL BEFOUL ASSAIL BATTER BASH FLOOD SWAMP FLAIL STORM STRIKE STAB SQUELCH SQUASH GOSSIP SPOIL PRY STAIN SPLASH VIOLATE SPLIT VEX SOCK SOIL SMEAR SMASH SURRENDER SMITE INFILTRATE SLAM SLICE SLASH SMACK SLAP SINK WHACK WOUND WORRY OVERWHELM MUTINY PAIN WRENCH QUARREL WRECK WALLOP OPPRESS OFFEND NIP NICK JOSTLE DROP NETTLE JOLT RETALIATE REBEL FORCE REVOLT POUND POKE PLUNDER REND REVENGE RECK PESTER PLAGUE PERSECUTE RAVAGE RAVISH RAZE IMPRISON RIFLE RIP PECK GRAB GOAD SLUG PASTE DEVASTATE RANSACK RAP RAPE RAID GASH BURGLE THUMP THRUST TROUNCE TROUBLE IRK DAMAGE TORMENT TORTURE SPY JAB TRIP INTIMATE INCRIMINATE DUEL SNIPE DENT DENOUNCE CUT CHARGE DRENCH DISSIPATE TRANSGRESS COMMIT CLAW DAZZLE SACK EXPLOIT CRIMINATE SMUGGLE INVADE KICK SIN SMUDGE INUNDATE IMPOSE BOTHER SAVAGE SCALD SCORCH KNOCK MANGLE POACH MOLEST BUMP MAUL MASSACRE SQUEAL MOB BUTT BUTCHER PIERCE CANE DISTURB CLUB SHOOT PUNCH IMPRESS PRESS IMPALE IMPOUND LIQUIDATE DEVASTATE DESTROY DEMOLISH CRUSH EXECUTE PURGE SLAY SLAUGHTER ANNIHILATE RUIN ENGULF EXPIRE WILT ERODE FLAME EXPLODE CRUMPLE EXPEND ESTRANGE CONSUME DEVOUR SWILL EAT GUZZLE SWIG GNAW GOBBLE TIPPLE NIBBLE DRINK TOPPLE IRRADICATE IMPREGNATE DIVULGE SQUEAL UNCOVER UNEARTH UNDRESS UNVEIL UNFURL DISPLAY UNROLL UNFOLD EXTRACT ENTWINE CONSORT TOUCH WED MARRY EMBRACE PERVADE PERMEATE ENCOUNTER CLING DISPERSE DIFFUSE STRAY STRUGGLE STREW SPATTER SHOWER BURST SPREAD ROUT STAMPEDE HAMMER HAZE SHOCK LOOT INSULT BITCH HORRIFY HECKLE HIT HARASS IMMOLATE HURT HARRY HOUND INCRIMINATE IMPLICATE AFFLICT ACCOST ABUSE DISROBE UNCLASP CLEAVE UNLOAD DIVEST DIVERGE SUNDER DETACH EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW DIFFER DIVIDE ZONE SEPARATE TRESPASS SHAKE LYNCH INJURE SCRATCH INFLICT ADMIT PENETRATE INJECT INSERT INVEST HARP HUNT LISP DEAFEN CONCEDE CONTRADICT PROTEST QUARREL REMONSTRATE DISSENT CONTEND BICKER TIE COLLIDE GARBLE IMMERSE JUMBLE SLOP STUMBLE BOTCH EXACT PAWN WANT DISCARD SHOVE LEAP TOY TURN TUG SHIFT ENVY AGONIZE MOAN YELL YAP YELP RUE REPENT GRUMBLE FIGHT POUT GROAN GLOAT REVOLT IMPUGN RECANT TRADUCE BETRAY SHUDDER INFURIATE ANGER SLOBBER WEEP WAIL OUTRAGE OUTCRY SHIVER BROOK CONFESS PRY DESIRE ENTREAT DESPAIR VOMIT NAUSEATE SUCCUMB RETCH REVEAL DISCLOSE SPILL STOOL SING TALK TATTLE DEDUCT ELUDE ENFEEBLE ENTRAP INFORM SQUEAL DISTRESS BULLY RAM ACCUSE INFRINGE

23 — S E P A R A T E

SUNDER STRADDLE REFRACT DECOCT EXCLUDE FILTER DISROBE UNCLASP UNLOAD DIVEST DIVERGE DETACH EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW DIFFER DIVIDE ZONE SEPARATE SORT CLEAVE DILATE INDIVIDUATE SHARE RIVE ISOLATE IMPRISON SECEDE BANISH DIVORCE OSTRACIZE WRENCH DEPRIVE DESERT SLIT SEVER SLASH SPILL SPLIT PRY BEHEAD IMPOUND MAROON INCISE AXE SNATCH STRAGGLE CHOP DISEMBOWEL EVISCERATE DRAW DESPOIL DISMEMBER CASTRATE DISSECT CUT CROP KIDNAP BANISH STRAY INTERSPERSE STREW SPATTER DIFFUSE DISPERSE RADIATE RANGE SHRED LOOT HEW HASH PURLOIN EXTRACT DEBATE PROTEST QUARREL REMONSTRATE DISSENT CONTEND BICKER CONTRADICT RECEDE YANK EMERGE DISMISS HIBERNATE SHUN SECLUDE SEGREGATE ISOLATE LATCH THRASH AMPUTATE DISCARD RESERVE WEDGE WEAN PARTICULARIZE DISTINGUISH TABULATE ITEMIZE DIVERSIFY BISECT DEDUCT DISCRIMINATE DISCHARGE DEPORT EXILE FIRE EXPEL BANISH SECEDE SELECT EXORCIZE EXCEPT CLEAVE

24 — A T T E N T I O N

FIX FIXATE DAZZLE DAZE IMPLANT STARTLE WORRY PESTER HELP ASSIST SERVE INVOLVE EVOKE WAKE WAKEN AWAKEN ENGROSS TEMPT ATTRACT TANTALIZE MARVEL ALLURE TRANCE IMPRESS CAPTIVATE FASCINATE ELECTRIFY HORRIFY HARASS HOUND TRANSFIX DIVIDE SEPARATE SORT ZONE THRALL BOGGLE EDUCATE SPECIALIZE SHIFT PREOCCUPY USE PURSUE PRACTISE FREQUENT EXERCISE EMPLOY WELCOME THANK SYMPATHIZE REMEMBER RECOGNIZE INGRATIATE HOB-NOB FAVOUR ENDEAR EMBOSOM BEFRIEND ACKNOWLEDGE WORSHIP VENERATE VALUE TREASURE REVERE PRIZE LOVE LIKE IDOLIZE HONOUR HARBOUR HALLOW GLORIFY ESTEEM DOTE CHERISH APPRECIATE ADORE ADMIRE AWAIT WATCH GUARD BEWARE TREK OVERHAUL MARAUD FORAGE DISSECT CANVASS TRAVERSE SCOUR PIERCE EXPLORE VENTURE STALK FOLLOW CHASE SOUND PROBE FUMBLE FATHOM DELVE TEST EXPERIMENT WINNOW SIFT ANALYSE SPECULATE REGARD OBSERVE MARK CONTEMPLATE BEHOLD STARE PEER PEEP OGLE GLOAT GAZE SPY SCAN QUIZ PRY EYE SEEK SEARCH RUMMAGE RANSACK QUEST NOSE LOOK HUNT FERRET SCHEME PLOT PLAN GET THE IDEA ATTENTION FIXED THINK FORESEE RECALL RECONSIDER VALIDATE PREMEDITATE DELIBERATE CONCENTRATE BETHINK ABSORB VIEW SENSE PERCEIVE IMAGINE FEEL CONCEIVE CATCH APPREHEND THEORIZE CON RECKON REASON PHILOSOPHIZE COGITATE REVOLVE RUMINATE PONDER MUSE MEDITATE CUDGEL CHEW REGARD PERUSE BROOD SPECULATE TEST COMPARE WEIGH MIND HEED ENTERTAIN CONSIDER ATTEND STUDY SCRUTINIZE AWAKE EXAMINE CONSULT ATTENTION SHIFTED ATTENTION

25 — P R O P I T I A T E

GRATIFY PACIFY PANDER PAMPER PRAY FAWN FLATTER APPEASE STOOP SUPPLICATE SYNCOPATE PLEAD BESEECH BOW PROPITIATE EXPATIATE EXPIATE DEFER CRINGE DOTE INDEMNIFY AMELIORATE LULL THANK PAY WINE DIVERT CULTIVATE CONCILIATE WILE SOOTHE ALLAY SMOOTH OBLIGE APPEAL WELCOME PROMISE PERSUADE REMUNERATE SANCTION REPAY CONSENT PROFESS ASK RESPOND SATISFY PLEA SLAVE EMULATE ADMIT PROSTRATE ABASE CLING ENTWINE CONSORT FRATERNIZE JOIN COMBINE REJOIN REUNITE SHOWER BESTREW IMMOLATE CLEAVE DISROBE UNCLASP UNLOAD DIVEST INVITE CONCEDE COAX CONTRADICT HUMOUR WISH TRY CONSERVE LOSE PETITION PREPAY DEIFY SHRUG SHAMBLE SYMPATHIZE TRUCKLE EXTOL DEDICATE EXALT CROUCH ENTREAT APPEAL GRIN SACRIFICE WORSHIP CAJOLE INDULGE SIMPER TRY COMMISERATE WHEEDLE APPLAUD LIONIZE SHINE SIGNALIZE AWE GLORIFY PRAISE IDOLIZE INFLATE WEEP SLOBBER IMPLORE REPENT DREAD WORSHIP ANOINT CAPITULATE

26 — I M P O R T A N C E

TRUCKLE TRUMP TROW DEVOTE DEVOLVE DESERVE CROW DEIFY CONSECRATE EXTOL DEDICATE CONGRATULATE PROMOTE ENNOBLE CAPITALIZE ESTIMATE CERTIFY CHERISH EXALT CITE COMPLIMENT COMMEND PRESENT FELICITATE REPUTE FOSTER RESPECT REVERE REWARD JUDGE OUTNUMBER WAX WORSHIP SLATE VALUE SOLEMNIZE VOW STRESS STRUT SUPERPOSE SURPASS ANOINT SWAGGER SWANK APPLAUD ARBITRATE ASPIRE ASSAY AVOW ADJUDGE ADJUDICATE ADORN BLAZON BOAST BRAG MILITATE PICK PLEDGE POSTURE PRECEDE PREDOMINATE PREEN PREOCCUPY LIONIZE INSTIL SHINE SIGNALIZE TRIUMPH TOP AWE RANK GLORIFY RATE GRADE PRAISE REGARD IDEALIZE IDOLIZE IMMORTALIZE ACCREDIT APPRECIATE TOWER INAUGURATE SALUTE INFLATE SELECT TREASURE INLAY INSCRIBE INSPIRIT EDIFY ENCOURAGE ENDEAR ENHANCE EXTEND CONTRIBUTE RAISE REINFORCE RE-ENFORCE RELY FURTHER UPHOLD VALIDATE SPONSOR STRENGTHEN EXCEL DELIGHT LIVE CULTIVATE DEVELOP CIVILIZE PAY EMBLAZON DECORATE TATTOO EXHIBIT PERSIST PERSEVERE PERPETUATE MAINTAIN RECONSTRUCT RENOVATE RENEW CONTINUE PROSPER SUCCEED WIN SURMOUNT GROW SURVIVE IMPRESS BRAND EXPLOIT GOAD DUB ATTRIBUTE CRAVE SHOWER BESTREW RADIATE STAMPEDE HORRIFY ZONE EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW FILTER DECOCT SORT DIFFER CLEAVE SCORE INTRUST BICKER CONTEND COAX DISSENT REMONSTRATE QUARREL PROTEST DEBATE HARP SEAL ISOLATE THRALL HUMOUR RISK EDUCATE SECRETE COVET CONSERVE WARN SPECIALIZE SURROUND BESIEGE ASCEND HURRY ADVANCE TURN FLAUNT ESTEEM BLUSTER INITIATE INSPIRE RECOMPENSE PREFER SWEAR RAVE CATCH SCORE ENTRAP DARE ELABORATE EMBELLISH SWELL GARNISH TRIM TRANSFIGURE CACHE BLESS WORSHIP FLATTER PROVE EXHUME PRY ENVY AGONIZE NAG DREAD YELL GROAN GLOAT RAMP PLOT CONSPIRE QUIBBLE CONNIVE COLLUDE SHUDDER ABOMINATE BETRAY ABHOR WEEP WHOOP PALE STRIVE PREVAIL INSURE PROCLAIM PLEDGE PROMISE CONCENTRATE DISPLAY DRAMATIZE DISTINGUISH EXAGGERATE BEDAZZLE IMPORTANCE

27—F A I L E D  I M P O R T A N C E

IMBRUE DESPISE DESECRATE DEROGATE DISDAIN DISPARAGE DISRATE DISCREDIT DISCOUNT CROUCH DEIGN CRIMP DETRACT DWINDLE DEVEST BLUSTER SUPERANNUATE SUBMERGE STANDARDIZE UNDERBID UNDERESTIMATE UNDERRATE UNBEND UNDERVALUE OVERPOWER OUTSTRIP OUTWIT OUTWORK WAIVE RELEGATE WANE REDUCE GLOZE IGNORE SHRINK SHRIVEL CRITICIZE DISCOURAGE HEAL SALVE ABSOLVE ALLEVIATE ALLAY MITIGATE PARDON PALLIATE CONSOLE RECONCILE FORGIVE SMOOTH SOOTHE EXCULPATE COMFORT DEFRAY DISBURDEN ABASE DEGRADE DEBASE DEFLATE SHAME CONQUER CRUSH EXILE DISABLE INCAPACITATE DEPRESS DEPOSE QUELL TRIFLE QUASH DAMAGE ASSASSINATE OVERWHELM SINK REPRESS SMASH SMEAR UNDERMINE UNDERCUT VANQUISH SQUASH SQUELCH STULTIFY ENSLAVE SUBJUGATE DEMOTE LOAF REPOSE RELAX RUSTICATE SPATTER BURST STREW DIFFUSE ROUT STRAY STRAGGLE DISPERSE INSULT IMPEACH EXCLUDE SUNDER DETACH DIVEST UNLOAD UNCLASP DISROBE DIVIDE SEPARATE CLEAVE INHUME CONCEDE DECLINE SHIRK LOCALIZE HUMOUR RISK FORGO LOSE DISCARD RETRACT RETREAT RETIRE INURE OUTCRY SCORN MOPE MOURN ENVY EXHUME DESPAIR DESPOND BELITTLE CAPITULATE PERISH PUTREFY ROT SUBMIT SUCCUMB IGNORE STOOP MOCK BOW FOUL DECREASE ENFEEBLE RANK RESCIND REPUDIATE RESIGN FORSAKE RENOUNCE SHIFT LEAP TURN SHRUG REJECT FORGET CLOY TAUNT DISAPPROVE CURTAIL WHITTLE REGRET DEGRADE DEMOTE HUMILIATE JEER DECRY DEFAME GIBE RAG REBUFF CATCH SCOFF MORTIFY EMBARRASS MINIMIZE SLUR RIDICULE RIB DEPRIVE JIBE INVALIDATE DEPRECATE SPURN SNUB SNEER DISPROVE DISCLAIM OMIT DISABLE RELINQUISH PROSTITUTE FAILED IMPORTANCE

28 — A R R I V E

ATTAIN ALIGHT ACHIEVE ACCOMPLISH ENCAMP CONCLUDE CULMINATE DETRAIN ARRIVE END COME DELIVER BARRACK CONFRONT FACE REVEAL EXHIBIT SUCCEED WIN SURVIVE MATURE COMPREHEND SUBSTANTIATE TESTIFY RECOGNIZE RELAY TRANSMIT REPLACE RESTORE REPLENISH DUPLICATE REMEMBER COPY PRINT QUOTE RECEIVE INFILTRATE RAM RAID SMUGGLE INVADE INUNDATE BOARD BESET STORM PENETRATE MATERIALIZE FIND ABIDE DWELL SOJOURN CAMP PARK PERCH SITE ATTEND WED MARRY JOIN REJOIN REUNITE CONNECT LINK MEET INTERSECT ENCOUNTER COMBINE MATRICULATE INSTALL ADMIT PENETRATE INJECT INSERT INVEST INOCULATE INTRUST EMERGE IMMIGRATE LEAP CATCH

29 — F A I L E D T O A R R I V E

PROTRACT RETARD FAILED TO ARRIVE RECAPITULATE REITERATE PRACTISE REHEARSE RETRACE TRANSCRIBE REPEAT RECORD REMIND REDUPLICATE REPRODUCE REVIEW MULTIPLY RECOUNT DERAIL STRAGGLE MAROON IMPOUND AMBUSH DROWN IMMOBILIZE WAYLAY WRECK RUSTICATE RELAX REPOSE LOAF BECALM BASK IMPAWN RECLINE SPRAWL SIT SQUAT STICK DESIST POISE BURST STREW DIFFUSE RADIATE RANGE STAMPEDE ROUT DISPERSE STRAY STRAGGLE HANG STRADDLE EXCLUDE ZONE SUNDER DETACH DIVEST UNLOAD EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW FILTER CLEAVE DISMISS GARBLE RESORT STUMBLE BOTCH BOGGLE PREVENT BESIEGE MIRE SUCCUMB PERISH SWERVE STAGGER WAVER FALTER DESIRE MOPE FIDGET FRET STRIVE STRUGGLE RETREAT SAUNTER TURN DEPRIVE DISSUADE DISABLE EVADE

30 — S U R V I V E

PROSPER RECOVER RECUPERATE WIN SUCCEED SURMOUNT TIME GRUB LIVE VALET DARN REPRIEVE RENEW LUXURIATE THRIVE FLOURISH RECUR CONTINUE TOIL LABOUR SURVIVE PERSEVERE MAINTAIN PERPETUATE PERSIST PROLONG LAY INHALE RESPIRE NURTURE NOURISH RECONSTRUCT RENOVATE REINSTATE GROW MATURE FIX INVIGORATE CIVILIZE DEVELOP CULTIVATE EXCEL ENLIVEN PROVIDE EXHILARATE ENABLE SUPPORT SUCCOUR REINFORCE RE-ENFORCE STRENGTHEN VOLUNTEER UPHOLD UNDERTAKE REVIVIFY REVIVE FURTHER RESCUE RESUSCITATE REJUVENATE REGENERATE RAISE CO-OPERATE CONTRIBUTE EXTEND FULFIL ENERGIZE SUSTAIN HELP TRAVAIL SERVE INNERVATE LENGTHEN DUPLICATE MULTIPLY IMITATE REPRODUCE RESTORE REPLACE REPLENISH REMEMBER REMIND EMULATE COPY RECORD PORTRAY PRINT REPRINT DEPICT QUOTE REPEAT REDUPLICATE VANQUISH EXPLOIT PROSECUTE PROPAGATE POPULATE BREED PROCREATE INBREED BEGET IMPREGNATE SECURE RELAX REPOSE LOAF SOJOURN DWELL ABIDE RESIDE SITE RUSTICATE FREEZE OSSIFY INHABIT CONSERVE PIECE REIGN PREVAIL EVOLVE ENDEAVOUR QUALIFY TRANSPORT ADVANCE PROTRACT IMMORTALIZE TRIUMPH WAX EXIST PREVAIL ENDURE EKE LAST WITHSTAND SUBSIST CLEAVE

31 — W A I T

PROCRASTINATE EXPECT DELAY DETAIN DETER LURK DALLY DANGLE DAWDLE QUEUE LOUNGE WAIT LANGUISH LIGHT IMPEND TEMPORIZE LOITER LOLL AWAIT MUSE PAUSE POSTPONE BIDE WAIT MEDIATE NEGOTIATE REMAND HOLD HALT STOP SHUT ENGAGE TREAT DRILL PERSIST PERPETUATE MAINTAIN PERSEVERE CONTINUE RECUPERATE TIME PROLONG WAYLAY HANG STICK IMMOBILIZE AMBUSH STALL LAG LURK BESIEGE SEIZE ANTICIPATE ABIDE RESIDE LOCATE SITE STICK RUSTICATE PERCH POSE SQUAT SIT SPRAWL RECLINE BASK BECALM NESTLE IMPAWN PIN BATTEN BELAY FREEZE CAMP SECURE OSSIFY POISE RELAX REPOSE LOAF PARK SOJOURN DWELL CLING ENTWINE BETROTH HANG CLEAVE INHUME DEBATE HAUNT HIDE BOGGLE HESITATE CONSERVE SUSPEND TOY PARK AMBLE SAUNTER FIDGET DESIRE FRET RELAPSE MOPE RETARD SUBMIT STALL DISSUADE DEFER ENTRAP CAGE PROTRACT

32 — L E A V E

EXPEL EXPORT DEPORT DESERT DISAPPEAR DISCHARGE EXUVIATE WITHDRAW UPROOT EXHALE EXTRUDE EXUDE BANISH EJACULATE EJECT ELOPE ESCAPE EMBARK ENTRAIN APOSTATIZE EVACUATE EXHAUST DECAMP QUIT PERSPIRE ABSCOND ABSENT SECEDE LEAVE HIE HIKE ABDICATE ABDUCT LEAVE START BEGIN ALLOW RELAY TRANSMIT WILL RETREAT SINK DESERT BANISH DISSIPATE EXILE DEVISE QUIT PURSUE DESIST DECAMP RADIATE RANGE STAMPEDE ROUT DISPERSE STRAY STRAGGLE OUTLAW EXCOMMUNICATE UNLOAD UNCLASP DISROBE DIVEST DETACH SUNDER DIVERGE DIVIDE SEPARATE EXTRICATE GO DISMISS EMERGE YANK REBOUND RECEDE RECOIL CONCEDE REBOUND LOSE AMPUTATE MIGRATE CURTAIL DISSUADE DEPART FLY RETREAT FLEE MARCH SAIL RETIRE RESIGN PERISH AVOID TIRE UNFIT ROT NAUSEATE VOMIT RETCH SWOON PUTREFY DRAIN CAPITULATE SUCCUMB END VACATE SCATTER RUN EXORCISE FLUSH SKIP RUSH SCRAM BETAKE EVICT FORSAKE EMIGRATE FORSWEAR CEASE REJECT OUTBREAK SHIFT TURN LEAP SHOVE TRANSPORT IMMIGRATE BOLT TRAVEL JOURNEY SEPARATE EVAPORATE DEPRIVE

33 — F A I L E D  L E A V E

FREQUENT ENWRAP ENCOMPASS ENVELOP ENCLOSE ENCIRCLE OVERTAKE SETTLE HOVER REMAIN VOLUNTEER HELP ASSIST REMAND HITCH STOP TAME RECALL MEDIATE NEGOTIATE CHALLENGE MIX ENGAGE TREAT FETCH SUBDUE DEMAND REQUIRE SUMMON HEAVE HAUL HOLD HALT DISCIPLINE INTRUDE RECALL RECOVER REPRIEVE REINSTATE PROLONG RECONSTRUCT RENOVATE RECUR RENEW PERSIST PERPETUATE MAINTAIN PERSEVERE CONTINUE RECUPERATE PILLORY RESTORE REPLENISH DUPLICATE REPRODUCE REDUPLICATE REMIND REMEMBER RECORD COPY PORTRAY PRINT REPRINT DEPICT QUOTE REPEAT TRANSCRIBE RECEIVE CHARACTERIZE ITERATE RETRACE REHEARSE PRACTISE REITERATE RECAPITULATE REVIEW REPLACE PENETRATE TIE DROWN BIND IMMOBILIZE WARD WAYLAY FIX PESTER PLAGUE RAVAGE IMPRISON RAM QUARTER RACK TRICE BESIEGE SIEGE TRUSS CHAIN MANACLE SEIZE TRAP FETTER ENSNARE CRUCIFY COMMIT INVADE INCARCERATE DISABLE MAROON BECALM IMPRESS PRESS BOARD IMPALE IMPOUND SECURE CAMP FREEZE BELAY BATTEN PIN IMPAWN NESTLE BASK RECLINE SPRAWL SIT SQUAT POSE PERCH RUSTICATE STICK SITE LOCATE RESIDE ABIDE DWELL SOJOURN PARK LOAF REPOSE RELAX QUIESCE OSSIFY EMBRACE CLING ENTWINE MARRY WED REUNITE REJOIN HANG HECKLE IMMURE HARRY IMPERIL INFILTRATE INFEST TRESPASS INFRINGE RE-ENTER INHABIT HAUNT HARP LIMIT INTERCEPT SECLUDE SHACKLE SEIZE LATCH THRALL HUMOUR FASTEN PREVENT HESITATE FETTER RESIST RESTRICT SNARE ARREST SURROUND APPREHEND LAST DESPAIR MOPE UNDERGO ENDURE WITHSTAND EXIST PREVAIL RETARD BOUND BIND BOLT CUMBER ENTRAP MIRE CACHE ABIDE HAUNT STICK INFEST DELAY HOLD CAGE FIDGET TURN TUG CATCH FAILED LEAVE   

34 — P R O T E C T

COVER DISPEL EMBANK EVERT DISCRIMINATE CODDLE PRESERVE PROTECT ENTRENCH ESCORT KEEP DEFEND LAVE LEGALIZE LEGITIMIZE LEGISLATE LICENSE GUARD GIRD FEND FORTIFY REPULSE REPEL FRANCHISE THATCH AVERT BLESS PARRY PATROL PICKET SAVE DISARM SAFE TEND DEFLECT HELP SUSTAIN ASSURE ALLEVIATE ALLAY MITIGATE PALLIATE EASE STOW RAISE REASSURE REFORM REDRESS RE-ENFORCE REINFORCE RESCUE FURTHER UPHOLD SPONSOR VINDICATE STRENGTHEN SUCCOUR SUPPORT PROVIDE EQUIP CULTIVATE DRESS ADMINISTER SUPERINTEND SUPERVISE MANAGE PRESIDE HANDLE ASSIGN APPOINT ALLOCATE ALLOT TOW ACCOUNT TAG UTILIZE HOLD TEST ORGANIZE UNTANGLE CORRECT ADJUST REGULATE DISCIPLINE HALT EDIT STOP DETAIL ENUMERATE ENLARGE MAGNIFY EXPAND AWARD AIM EMPHASIZE DRILL TAME EMEND ALTER DELEGATE DEPUTE SHUT RECALL NEGOTIATE MEDIATE TACKLE CHALLENGE SET OPERATE DEPLOY EMPOWER START SITUATE REIGN DILATE AMPLIFY ELONGATE VEST VOTE SPACE MIX DEMAGNETIZE ACTUATE ACQUIT UNRUFFLE RENT HIRE ENGAGE CONSIGN STEER TREAT HITCH HEFT JOCKEY JUGGLE USHER NAVIGATE PILOT OFFICIATE IDENTIFY FETCH BEGIN SUBDUE REMAND PREDISPOSE HUSH APPROVE STIPULATE PRESCRIBE DIRECT REQUIRE ELECT MODERATE ARRANGE HABITUATE ALLOW ORIENTATE ASSORT DISABUSE SUMMON HOIST SHAPE MANIPULATE RULE COMMAND MASTER ORDER LOAD PUT PUSH HEAVE HAUL SEND COMPLY ABATE DISBURSE RENDER CIRCUMSTANTIATE SPEAK PLEA REPRIEVE REINSTATE REPAIR RECONSTRUCT RENOVATE RENEW PERSIST PERPETUATE MAINTAIN PERSEVERE CONTINUE RECUPERATE NOURISH FIX NURTURE LABOUR TOIL DARN LAY GRUB VALET REMIND REPRODUCE MULTIPLY TESTIFY COMPREHEND RECOGNIZE REPLACE RESTORE REPLENISH REMEMBER PICKET PATROL DODGE STAVE DUCK SECURE FREEZE BELAY BATTEN PIN IMPAWN LOAF OSSIFY CAMP REPOSE RELAX NESTLE CONNECT CLING ENTWINE MARRY WED BETROTH JOIN COMBINE EMBRACE PERSUADE PERMEATE LINK HECKLE HURT ZONE SEPARATE EXCLUDE FILTER OUTLAW EXCOMMUNICATE UNLOAD UNCLASP CLEAVE DISROBE DIFFER DIVEST DETACH SUNDER DIVERGE DIVIDE LASH INOCULATE CONTEND HUNT INSULATE HIBERNATE HIDE SECLUDE TUCK SHACKLE SEAL SEGREGATE THWART ISOLATE SHEATHE LOCALIZE LATCH THREATEN IMMERSE HUMOUR RESORT RISK FASTEN PROHIBIT PREVENT EDUCATE RESIST FORBID FORBEAR FOIL WARD WARN SPARE SWADDLE SURROUND SHELTER ENCLOSE ENCOMPASS HARBOUR COLLUDE CONNIVE ENTREAT ENFORCE DOMINATE DISALLOW DICTATE COMPEL TIRE SWERVE SWOON GUARANTEE WALL SAFEGUARD MUFFLE BOLT LEAP TURN TUG CLUTCH EXEMPT RETARD CLAIM CHERISH FOSTER VALUE INSURE BETRAY INTERVENE CACHE JUSTIFY CONDEMN CAUTION MEDICATE DISTRACT CURSE ENTRAP CAGE CATCH CONSERVE PREPARE CAMOUFLAGE

35 — F A I L E D P R O T E C T

SURRENDER STAKE OVERWHELM UNARM OVERTHROW GAMBLE COMPLY ALLOW DISBURSE PAIN AGGRAVATE CAPTURE DEGRADE DEJECT TERMINATE FINISH IRRADICATE LIQUIDATE TOPPLE DOOM DISPOSE DEVASTATE DESTROY DESPATCH CRUSH DEMOLISH DELETE EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE EXECUTE PURGE ERASE ERADICATE OBLITERATE SLAY SLAUGHTER ANNIHILATE ABOLISH ANNUL ELIMINATE EFFACE DISINTEGRATE RUIN ENGULF EXPIRE EXPURGATE EXTINGUISH DEPRECIATE FAIL LAPSE ELAPSE WILT WITHER FLAME ERODE EXPEND EXPLODE DEODORIZE CRUMBLE CRUMPLE ESTRANGE ADJOURN SWALLOW EMBOWEL DEVOUR CONSUME EAT SHAKE IMPLORE SWILL SWIG GUZZLE GOBBLE GNAW TIPPLE QUAFF SUP DRINK CRUNCH NIBBLE TERMINATE IMPREGNATE SEIZE TROUBLE TROUNCE KIDNAP REQUISITION TORTURE TORMENT QUASH DAMAGE TERRORIZE TERRIFY GASH COMMANDEER RAM RAPE RANSACK PARALYSE DEVASTATE PAUPERIZE RIP RIFLE RAZE PERSECUTE PLAGUE PESTER REND PLUNDER PROSECUTE JOLT DROP OPPRESS WRECK ROUGH WRINKLE OVERPOWER OVERWHELM WORRY WOUND SINK REPRESS TYRANNIZE UNSETTLE SLASH SURRENDER SMASH SMEAR UNDERMINE SOIL VEX VICTIMIZE VANQUISH VIOLATE STAIN VITIATE SPOIL PENETRATE SQUASH SQUELCH STARTLE STORM STRAFE STRAIN ENSLAVE SUBJUGATE SULLY BATTER BASH BEFOUL BEDEVIL BESET BESMEAR BESMIRCH BESPATTER SHELL BOMBARD BREAK EXTORT BOARD DEBASE EXCRUCIATE CORRUPT DEBAUCH EXPOSE DEFACE FRACTURE PRICK CAPSIZE PROSTRATE CONQUER DISTURB MUTILATE MOB MAR MASH CRUSH MASSACRE BRUISE BRUTIFY SNARL BUMP BULLY BRUTALIZE MOLEST TRESPASS POACH MAIM DISABLE MANGLE SCORCH ALARM FRIGHTEN SCARE INCAPACITATE SCALD SAVAGE BOTHER IMPOVERISH IMPOSE INVADE VIVISECT EXPLOIT DEMORALIZE CRIPPLE STEAL SNATCH RUSTLE SACK DISMAY DERANGE DESPOIL DRENCH DISHONOUR DISGRACE DENT DENOUNCE INCRIMINATE IMBRUE OSSIFY PIN IMPAWN BECALM STRAY STRAGGLE DISPERSE SHOWER SPATTER ROUT STAMPEDE BURST BESTREW STREW HAZE SHOCK SHRED LOOT INSULT HANG HORRIFY HACK HIT HARASS HARRY HOUND INCRIMINATE SCAR IMPLICATE AFFLICT IMPAIR IMPERIL AGITATE ACCUSE ABUSE DIVIDE CLEAVE DIFFER DIVEST DETACH SUNDER SCORE INFILTRATE INFEST SHATTER LYNCH LICK INJURE INFRINGE INFLICT INVEST INJECT PENETRATE DECLINE DEAFEN REMONSTRATE PROTEST HUNT RECEDE SEIZE COLLIDE THREATEN THRASH IMMERSE RISK JUMBLE BOTCH REFRAIN FORBEAR ENFEEBLE CURTAIL AVENGE SLOBBER SORROW ANNOY SHUDDER BETRAY CONNIVE ENVELOP PERISH EMBITTER ABANDON FLINCH CRINGE DISTRESS DESPOND DESPAIR SUCCUMB ROT PUTREFY DREAD PRY EXHUME AGONIZE PALPITATE FAINT AGGRIEVE PANIC EMBROIL TRAMP ADVANCE LEAP TREASURE EVICT RESCIND RENOUNCE REPUDIATE RELINQUISH FORSAKE FORSWEAR ABANDON RETREAT SUFFER PALE WAIL END OUTRAGE FRET DISABLE SACRIFICE WORRY UPSET PERTURB CATCH ENTRAP CAGE DEPRIVE DISROBE FAILED PROTECT

36 — W A S T E

SCRAP WASTE SPEND SQUANDER ATTEMPT BURY REPLETE SURFEIT MEDIATE DETAIL ENUMERATE EXPAND MAGNIFY ENLARGE EMPHASIZE DRILL TAME EMEND ALTER DELEGATE DEPUTE SHUT RECALL NEGOTIATE REVIEW PRACTISE REHEARSE RETRACE ENGULF FORGET BREAK STULTIFY STRIKE SQUELCH SQUASH SPOIL VITIATE SPILL SURRENDER IMMOBILIZE EMASCULATE ABORT CONTRACEPT NEUTER SPAY POISON SINK WRECK DROP REND RAVAGE RAZE IMPRISON EXECUTE DEVASTATE DAMAGE TRIFLE DUEL CASTRATE GUT SACK CRIPPLE FLOOD INUNDATE IMPOUND INCAPACITATE SCORCH INCINERATE MANGLE DISABLE MAIM BURN EXILE MASSACRE CRUSH MASH MAROON MAR BUTCHER MUTILATE DEFACE DEBASE IGNITE RUSTICATE LOAF REPOSE QUIESCE SIT SPRAWL RELAX RECLINE BASK IMPAWN DESIST BECALM ABIDE BETROTH WED MARRY BESTREW STREW SPATTER SHOWER STRAY STRAGGLE DISPERSE SPREAD HACK IMMOLATE ZONE DIVEST SEPARATE EXCLUDE EXCOMMUNICATE OUTLAW SUNDER SHATTER LOATHE LAME INJURE DECLINE SHUN SECLUDE SHIRK SEGREGATE GARBLE RISK SLOP BOTCH PROHIBIT EDUCATE CONSERVE PAWN DISCARD FORGE FORBID REPRESS BAN PERISH PUTREFY VOID ROT NAUSEATE VOMIT RETCH SUCCUMB REJECT SPOIL DEMUR MIRE FOUL DENY ENTRAP ESCHEW DEPRIVE CATCH PROSTITUTE DISABLE CAGE LOSE DAWDLE LOUNGE SEVER ABANDON SKIP UNDERVALUE UNDERESTIMATE UNDERRATE TRAMP TOY CLUTCH FORGET DISGORGE PROTRACT DISCARD LOAF IDLE FRITTER EXPAND MISAPPLY MISUSE DESTROY DEVASTATE OVERLOOK IGNORE WISH

37 — F A I L E D  W A S T E

GLUT GORGE LAVISH FAILED WASTE SHARE SALVAGE BESPEAK CONTRIBUTE AVAIL LEND REDEEM REFORM REFIT REHABILITATE REJUVENATE REPAIR RESCUE RESUSCITATE OFFER RETRIEVE STAUNCH SUCKLE HOLD UTILIZE ACCOUNT TAG RATION ALLOCATE ALLOT AWARD ASSIGN APPOINT AIM TOW HANDLE ORGANIZE SUPERINTEND ADMINISTER SUPERVISE MANAGE PRESIDE TEST UNTANGLE CORRECT ADJUST REGULATE DISCIPLINE EDIT HALT STOP RENOVATE RECONSTRUCT REINSTATE RENEW REPRIEVE CONTINUE PERSEVERE MAINTAIN PERPETUATE PERSIST FIX REPAIR DARN VALET PROLONG RECOVER REVIEW RECAPITULATE REITERATE TRANSCRIBE REPEAT RECORD REDUPLICATE RECOUNT RELAY TRANSMIT DUPLICATE COPY PRINT QUOTE RECEIVE RELATE EMULATE IMITATE PORTRAY REPRINT DEPICT REMIND REPRODUCE MULTIPLY REPLACE RESTORE REPLENISH REMEMBER WREST PLUNDER GRASP RIFLE GRAB FORAGE RANSACK QUARTER RAID BURGLE COMMANDEER REQUISITION SEIZE TRAP DESPOIL RUSTLE SNATCH EXPLOIT SMUGGLE SCALP POACH IMPRESS PRESS EXTORT EXTRACT SCRAPE INFRINGE TUCK GARBLE HUMOUR FASTEN PREVENT EDUCATE COVET WANT RESERVE SPARE WEAN LAST ADAPT EXIST ENCUMBER ENGORGE ABSTAIN DETEST EXCEED BLOAT

38 — A B A N D O N

FLUSH EXORCIZE VACATE SCATTER DISCONTINUE RUN SKIP EMIGRATE RETREAT CEASE RELAPSE SCRAM SEVER SHED RUSH BETAKE EVICT RENOUNCE RESCIND REPUDIATE RETIRE RELINQUISH FORSAKE FORSWEAR RESIGN ABANDON REFORM EDIT DIVERT COMPLY EMEND ALTER DISBURSE ABATE DEPUTE DELEGATE SHUT RECALL NEGOTIATE MEDIATE STOP HALT BREAK SLACK STRAGGLE QUIT DODGE FALTER DROP BANISH OSTRACIZE DESERT SURRENDER MAROON EXILE LOAF DISSIPATE DERAIL RUSTICATE DESIST IMPAWN BELAY PARK SPRAWL RELAX BASK RECLINE QUIESCE REPOSE DISPERSE STAMPEDE STRAY SUNDER ROUT DIVERGE UNLOAD UNCLASP OUTLAW FILTER EXCOMMUNICATE DETACH EXCLUDE SEPARATE DIVEST EVADE EXTRICATE GO REBOUND RECOIL CONCEDE DECLINE QUAIL RECEDE SHUN SECLUDE SHIRK THRALL JUMBLE BOTCH AMPUTATE LOSE RESERVE FORGO RETRACT BOLT IMMIGRATE SHRUG SHOVE LEAP TURN SHIFT FORGET PERISH REJECT AVOID TIRE UNFIT ROT SUCCUMB SWOON PUTREFY CAPITULATE ABDICATE RESIGN RETIRE DECAMP ESCAPE APOSTATIZE EVACUATE QUIT RUN RETREAT FLY FLEE DESERT SURRENDER MIGRATE DEMUR CURTAIL DISCARD ESCHEW END SUSPEND DISALLOW DUMP DISSUADE DEPRIVE ENJOIN SHEER

39 — F A I L E D  T O  A B A N D O N

FAILED TO ABANDON DEVELOP SUPPORT SUCCOUR STRENGTHEN VINDICATE SPONSOR SPELL SOLACE UNDERTAKE REVIVIFY RETRIEVE REVIVE FURTHER RESCUE REPAIR RELY RELIEVE REINFORCE REHABILITATE RE-ENFORCE REFIT RAISE LEAD CO-OPERATE CONTRIBUTE EXTEND CONSOLE STOW SUPPLY ENCOURAGE BEFRIEND SUSTAIN HELP SALVAGE ASSIST SERVE HOLD HALT STOP TACKLE MEDIATE NEGOTIATE CHALLENGE INTRUDE RECALL RENOVATE RECONSTRUCT REINSTATE RENEW REPRIEVE CONTINUE PERSEVERE MAINTAIN PERPETUATE PERSIST FIX DARN VALET PROLONG RECOVER LIVE SURVIVE MATURE RECUPERATE PILLORY REPLENISH REMEMBER PRACTISE RETRACE REHEARSE REFER RELAY TRANSMIT REPLACE RESTORE REVIEW RECOUNT DUPLICATE COPY PRINT QUOTE RELATE PORTRAY REPRINT DEPICT REMIND REPRODUCE MULTIPLY RECAPITULATE REITERATE REPEAT RECORD TRANSCRIBE REDUPLICATE INFILTRATE STEAL ENSNARE FETTER TRAP SEIZE MANACLE CHAIN TRUSS KIDNAP REQUISITION COMMANDEER BESIEGE TORMENT TRICE GOAD GRAB GRASP RAVAGE PERSECUTE PLAGUE PESTER PLUNDER FIX WRENCH WREST WAYLAY WORRY STICK BIND TIE VEX SWEAT ASSAIL ATTACK BELABOUR BESET BOMBARD MOB MAUL SAVAGE IMPOUND DESPOIL DRAG CHARGE ABIDE DWELL SOJOURN OSSIFY BASK NESTLE SIT POSE PERCH IMPAWN PIN FREEZE SECURE STICK LOCATE RESIDE DESERT DECAMP ENTWINE CLING REUNITE REJOIN BETROTH WED MARRY HANG HECKLE HEW HOUND HARRY INDENT STRADDLE INFILTRATE INFEST INDISPOSE TRESPASS INFRINGE INHIBIT CONTEND COAX DISSENT HARP GROPE REMONSTRATE PROTEST BICKER CONTRADICT HAUNT TUCK SHACKLE TIE SEIZE SIEGE RECOMMIT LATCH HUMOUR BOGGLE FASTEN PREVENT FETTER SECRETE RESIST SNARE ARREST DEBATE SURROUND STRIVE FIDGET FAMILIARIZE PROVE EXHUME DESPAIR DESPOND WAIT DELAY LANGUISH ENFORCE CACHE SUBMIT MIRE CAGE ENTRAP REMAIN PARK CLAIM TUG CLUTCH BOLT BIND BESIEGE ACCUSTOM ENCUMBER EKE ENDURE PREVAIL DEVOLVE INSURE STRUGGLE WITHSTAND BOUND

40 — N O  M O T I O N

SET HOLD SHUT STOP HALT FOSSILIZE PIN QUIESCE ABIDE OSSIFY FREEZE RELAX RUSTICATE BECALM LOAF DESIST PICNIC SOJOURN IMPAWN STICK REPOSE NESTLE POSE POISE SQUAT SIT SPRAWL RECLINE BASK PERCH RESIDE DWELL BATTEN CAMP PARK LOCATE BELAY SITE SECURE FIX PILLORY BECALM MAROON IMPALE CRUCIFY CRIPPLE IMPOUND SPREADEAGLE STUN TIE BRAND IMMOBILIZE STICK NAIL STALL FLOOR IMPRISON PARALYSE TRICE BESIEGE SIEGE TRUSS TRAP SEIZE MANACLE CHAIN FETTER PLACE PLANT INCARCERATE ANTICIPATE KNIT ENTWINE HANG IMMURE IMPALE ZONE INHUME SHACKLE GARBLE BOGGLE HESITATE PAWN ARREST SWADDLE SUSPEND STILL SETTLE DISABLE ABIDE HITCH DISSUADE CATCH ENTRAP ENERVATE CHECK MIRE SUBMIT SUBSIDE BOLT CUMBER WITHSTAND NO MOTION

41 — E N D U R E

DRUDGE EXIST PREVAIL ENDURE EKE ENCUMBER ACCUSTOM ADAPT LAST INSURE INURE TOLERATE WITHSTAND UNDERGO STRUGGLE STRIVE SUBSIST SUFFER BEAR BROOK TRAVAIL SUSTAIN UPHOLD REVIVE RESUSCITATE REFIT REPAIR REJWENATE REGENERATE FACE CONFRONT DRILL SITUATE REIGN CONTINUE PERSEVERE MAINTAIN PERPETUATE PERSIST PROLONG SURVIVE MATURE GROW RECUR TOIL LABOUR COPY PRINT QUOTE RELATE PORTRAY REPRINT DEPICT REMIND REPRODUCE MULTIPLY REPLACE RESTORE REPLENISH REMEMBER PRACTISE RETRACE REHEARSE REFER RELAY TRANSMIT ENACT SKETCH SUBSTANTIATE CHARACTERIZE ITERATE TESTIFY RECOGNIZE IMITATE EMULATE RECAPITULATE REITERATE REPEAT RECORD TRANSCRIBE REDUPLICATE REVIEW RECOUNT DUPLICATE DETERMINE OSSIFY PARK CAMP SOJOURN DWELL PICNIC ABIDE RESIDE LOCATE SITE STICK SECURE FREEZE BELAY BATTEN PIN BECALM IMPAWN REUNITE REJOIN KNIT SPLICE ATTACH CONSORT CONNECT LINK PERVADE PERMEATE JOIN COMBINE WED MARRY CLING ENTWINE YOKE ACCOMPANY CLEAVE STRADDLE SHAKE INHABIT BICKER CONTEND IMMERSE HUMOUR RESORT RISK WISH STOP BOTCH EDUCATE RESIST FORBEAR STAGNATE ABSTAIN TRANSPORT TRAMP TRUDGE ADVANCE SHRUG IMMORTALIZE PROTRACT CONFRONT FIDGET FRET FAMILIARIZE DESPOND ENTRAP CURTAIL COERCE COMPEL EXERT

42 — F A I L E D  E N D U R E

RETCH AVOID SUCCUMB NAUSEATE PANT PERISH PUFF DRAIN CAPITULATE HATE SAG CRY VOMIT SWOON ROT FALTER TIRE PUTREFY UNFIT WINCE SQUIRM WRITHE WAVER WRIGGLE WOBBLE SUBMIT STAGGER SUBSIDE BLANCH SWERVE PALE SHIVER WHIMPER WEAR RESPOND APPEAL DISCIPLINE PUNISH RULE RECALL CORRECT STOP HUSH EMEND EDIT ALTER REMAND SHUT HOLD SUBDUE UNTANGLE HALT BREAK SHOUT PLEA FEEL THROB PULSATE SMART SLIP STINK SLOUCH SLAVE REACT SLUMP SWELTER TINGLE DRIP SLACK SHIFT EXTINGUISH TERMINATE FINISH IRRADICATE LIQUIDATE TOPPLE DOOM DISPOSE DEVASTATE DESTROY DESPATCH CRUSH DEMOLISH DELETE EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE EXECUTE PURGE ERASE ERADICATE OBLITERATE SLAY SLAUGHTER ANNIHILATE ABOLISH ANNUL ELIMINATE EFFACE DISINTEGRATE RUIN ENGULF EXPIRE EXPURGATE DEPRECIATE FAIL LAPSE ELAPSE VIVISECT WILT WITHER FLAME ERODE EXPEND EXPLODE DEODORIZE CRUMBLE CRUMPLE ESTRANGE ADJOURN SWALLOW EMBOWEL DEVOUR CONSUME EAT SWILL SWIG GUZZLE GOBBLE GNAW TOPPLE QUAFF SUP DRINK DODGE YIELD SICKEN REVOLT REBEL WRECK DESERT MUTINY SURRENDER CAPITULATE BREAK DISABLE INCAPACITATE DISMAY DEPOSE FOLD SQUEAL FALTER FLAG QUIT ROUT STAMPEDE STRAY STREW STRAGGLE BURST DISPERSE BITCH HORRIFY HARASS HURT IMPAIR AGITATE DIVIDE DIVERGE UNLOAD UNCLASP SUNDER OUTLAW ZONE CLEAVE EXCOMMUNICATE SPATTER CRUNCH DISROBE DETACH EXCLUDE SEPARATE DIVEST DIFFER INDISPOSE EXTRICATE GO EMERGE REBOUND EVADE SHATTER LOATHE INJURE SCRATCH HAUNT HUNT DEBATE DECLINE DEAFEN BICKER CONCEDE PROTEST QUARREL REMONSTRATE HARP DISSENT CONTRADICT QUAIL RECEDE EVADE EXTRACT HIBERNATE HIDE SHUN SECLUDE SHIRK RISK SEGREGATE THREATEN WISH SLOP BOGGLE PROHIBIT PREVENT PIECE LOSE AMPUTATE DISCARD PETITION WARD RETRACT YELL AGONIZE PALPITATE MOAN MOURN DISGUST DISLIKE GROAN POUT GRUMBLE FAINT DREAD NAG YELP YAP MADDEN CRY ENTREAT DESPAIR DETEST EMBITTER BOLT SHRUG SHOVE SHEER LEAP SHAMBLE TURN PANT FORGET YIELD GASP SQUEAL SHRINK DUCK SHRIVEL QUIVER TREMBLE FALTER FADE WANE SUPERANNUATE REJECT ABANDON CEASE FORSWEAR RESIGN RETIRE RETREAT VACATE FORSAKE SCATTER DISCONTINUE SKIP RELAPSE SCRAM SHED BETAKE ABHOR MOPE END CULMINATE OUTCRY WAIL WEEP OUTRAGE WHOOP SLOBBER ABOMINATE ANGER ANNOY INFURIATE BETRAY PANIC GRIEVE DISTRESS SHUDDER SHATTER COLLAPSE FLINCH CRINGE PERSPIRE SURRENDER DECOMPOSE SIGH FADE FAG REGRET MEDICATE DISTRACT DISHEARTEN DISCOURAGE ENFEEBLE SAP EMBARRASS MORTIFY ENTRAP ENERVATE SCREAM SHRIEK HOWL SOB WHINE RUN DEPRIVE SNIVEL SQUAWK BAWL DISMAY BREAK RECOIL FAILED ENDURE

43 — W A N T  T O  K N O W

PROVE FAMILIARIZE EXHUME PRY WANT TO KNOW INTERVIEW CONSULT TEST CIVILIZE EXPLAIN VOUCH VALIDATE VERIFY RELIEVE RECOMMEND REASSURE ENLIGHTEN ADVISE ASSURE INSTRUCT TIME PROVOKE RECONNOITRE SCOUT PICKET PATROL INFILTRATE QUERY QUIZ EXTORT EXTRACT SQUEEZE PRY QUIZ INVESTIGATE WRING GRILL QUESTION RIFLE SPY INTERROGATE EXPLORE SEARCH PROBE PURSUE TRACK TRAIL TRACE SCOUT DETACH SEPARATE SORT DISROBE REFRACT FILTER SPECIALIZE APPROACH SCOOP DREDGE DARE SNOOP DISCOVER BETRAY

44 — D E S I R E

DESIRE ENTREAT REQUEST PARTAKE DELIGHT OBLIGE FULFIL SUFFICE SURFEIT REPLETE ENDEAR PLEASE BESPEAK ELECT PREDISPOSE APPROVE STIPULATE PRESCRIBE DIRECT REQUIRE TINGLE THROB PULSATE WILL INCLINE CAPTIVATE EXCITE ROUSE AROUSE ATTRACT WOO TANTALIZE FASCINATE FLIRT TEMPT INSPIRE FRATERNIZE CONSORT PERVADE EMBRACE PERMEATE JOIN COMBINE WED MARRY CLING ENTWINE LINK CONNECT BETROTH CONJUGATE TOUCH CRAVE CLEAVE DISROBE COAX RISK EXACT PETITION WANT APPROACH IMMIGRATE LEAP PANT HANKER YEARN LUST ITCH ENJOY LOVE LIKE SELECT SIGH MADDEN ENVY

45 — A G R E E

ENDORSE SUPERSCRIBE CLAIM PREDISPOSE UNRUFFLE VOTE ALLOW DEPUTE DELEGATE VEST APPROVE ELECT HIRE RENT AGREE RATIFY SANCTION WARRANT PROMISE AFFIRM ATTEST ASSENT UNDERSTAND ACKNOWLEDGE CONTRACT CONSENT CONCILIATE SUPPORT SUBSCRIBE SPONSOR VERIFY VALIDATE FURTHER RECONCILE CONTRIBUTE CO-OPERATE ENCOURAGE PLEASE PERMIT HARMONIZE SHARE COMPLY PREDISPOSE NEGOTIATE MEDIATE MODERATE ARRANGE HABITUATE ALLOW APPROVE ORIENTATE ORDER ASSORT ADJUST REGULATE OBSERVE REACT COPY DUPLICATE REPRODUCE REMEMBER SUBSTANTIATE TESTIFY EMULATE COMPREHEND SLAVE INCLINE BETROTH FRATERNIZE CONSORT EMBRACE PERMEATE JOIN COMBINE WED MARRY CLING ENTWINE LINK CONNECT MEET SPLICE ACCOMPANY PERTAIN KNIT REJOIN REUNITE SPREAD DIFFUSE HATCH CLEAVE CONCEDE SEAL THRALL HUMOUR EDUCATE PREPAY ESTEEM RESPECT COMMEND COMPLIMENT CERTIFY APPRECIATE ACCREDIT PRAISE PLEDGE APPLAUD VOW AGREE—DISAGREE TOLERATE COLLUDE PROVE FAMILIARIZE DESIRE ENTREAT CONCUR LICENSE FRANCHISE APPROVE OKAY CONSENT PROMISE SWEAR AGREE ACQUIESCE SHIFT SYMPATHIZE ACCEDE

46 — E N F O R C E

DISALLOW CONVINCE EXERT DOMINATE COMPEL ENFORCE COERCE DECLAIM DECREE DECLARE ASSERT EXPOUND UPHOLD REINFORCE RE-ENFORCE STRENGTHEN INTRUDE PERSEVERE STOP CHALLENGE HALT SHUT HOLD SUBDUE TACKLE STIPULATE TAME DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBE REMAND CORRECT SUMMON HOIST ADJUST SHAPE MANIPULATE RULE COMMAND MASTER ORDER DIRECT REGULATE LOAD PUT PUSH HEAVE HAUL REQUIRE SEND EMPOWER DRILL START EMPHASIZE ENLARGE MAGNIFY EXPAND SET TOIL MAINTAIN PERPETUATE PERSIST PROLONG LABOUR LAY TRANSFIX GRUB BREATHE RESPIRE INHALE NOURISH NURTURE WIN REMIND SUCCEED SURMOUNT RECOVER FIX RECONSTRUCT REPEAT REPLACE REITERATE RECAPITULATE REVIEW RECOUNT REDUPLICATE RECORD MULTIPLY PRACTISE REHEARSE RETRACE SUBSTANTIATE TESTIFY REMEMBER SCREEN WILL STIMULATE LIQUIDATE TOPPLE DOOM DISPOSE DEVASTATE DESTROY DESPATCH FINISH DEMOLISH CRUSH EXECUTE PURGE ERASE ERADICATE OBLITERATE SLAY SLAUGHTER ANNIHILATE ABOLISH ANNUL ELIMINATE EFFACE DISINTEGRATE RUIN ENGULF VIVISECT FLAME EXPLODE CRUMPLE CRUMBLE SWALLOW EMBOWEL CONSUME DEVOUR EAT GOBBLE CRUNCH TIE INVOLVE BESTRIDE ORDAIN URGE SQUEEZE PENALIZE CONTRACEPT FETTER TROUNCE RECK PROSECUTE COERCE FORCE OPPRESS OVERPOWER OVERWHELM TYRANNIZE BIND VANQUISH SUBJUGATE BELABOUR ADMONISH IMPOSE TAX COMMIT CHARGE IMPLANT COAX SENTENCE CONVICT IMPRESS PRESS PUNISH CONQUER IMPAWN STICK SECURE FREEZE QUIESCE RUSTICATE DESIST BELAY PIN BATTEN BECALM COMBINE WED MARRY CLING ENTWINE LINK SPLICE KNIT ATTACH YOKE BETROTH JOIN EMBRACE RANGE RADIATE INTERSPERSE ROUT SHOWER SPATTER SPREAD STAMPEDE STREW BURST HAMMER SHOCK HANG HIT HARASS HURT HARRY HOUND INDENT INDICT INCRIMINATE AFFLICT DIVEST DIVERGE DECOCT SUNDER OUTLAW ZONE FILTER REFRACT CLEAVE DIVIDE EXCOMMUNICATE DISROBE DETACH EXCLUDE SEPARATE DIFFER INDISPOSE INFILTRATE INFEST SHAKE SENTENCE LASH LICK SCUFFLE INFRINGE INFLICT TRAMPLE INOCULATE INJECT INSERT INVEST INSTALL PENETRATE CONTEND CONTRADICT DECLINE DEAFEN BICKER PROTEST QUARREL REMONSTRATE HARP YANK DISMISS SHACKLE RECOMMIT LATCH COLLIDE THREATEN THRASH IMMERSE FASTEN EXCEED EDUCATE EXACT CONSERVE WARM WEDGE FIGHT NAG PROVE DICTATE DEMAND HURRY SCALE ADVANCE LIFT SHOVE LEAP TUG POWER CONSTRAIN PROTRACT RETARD INSTILL PREDOMINATE STRESS PREVAIL ENCUMBER INSURE CORRECT CONDEMN MEDICATE CRITICIZE DENY SUBJECT CAGE ENTRAP CATCH OBTRUDE DRIVE

47 —D I S A G R E E

CHALLENGE CORRECT HALT STOP HUSH EDIT ALTER DISABUSE ESTRANGE TINGLE THROB PULSATE SMART SLUMP SWELTER DRIP SLOUCH SLIP STINK REACT PROVOKE SNIPE MUTINY REVOLT DENOUNCE DISAFFECT ATTACK ASSAIL VIOLATE OSTRACIZE QUARREL WRANGLE OFFEND NETTLE FOMENT EMEND DISPUTE REBEL PROSECUTE PECK IRK INTERDICT ARGUE STRAGGLE STRAY INTERSPERSE SHREAD INSULT BITCH HECKLE HIT ABUSE DIVIDE DIFFER SEPARATE EXCLUDE DISAGREE CLEAVE ZONE OUTLAW SUNDER DIVERGE DIVEST SCORE LOATHE TUT SEAR SCUFFLE HARP REMONSTRATE QUARREL PROTEST BICKER DECLINE DEBATE DISSENT CONTRADICT CONTEND QUAIL RECEDE DISMISS HINDER SHIRK THWART COLLIDE THREATEN GARBLE BOGGLE BOTCH PROHIBIT PREVENT EXCEED HESITATE DISCARD RESIST REPRESS DISAGREE—AGREE SULK OUTCRY OUTRAGE ABHOR EXCOMMUNICATE ABOMINATE ANGER SCORN INFURIATE BETRAY QUIBBLE CONNIVE REVOLT TRADUCE RECANT RAGE RANKLE POUT GRUMBLE FIGHT NAG REJECT ENVY DISLIKE DISPLEASE FLOUT DISOBEY CROSS UPBRAID CENSURE CONDEMN DEPLORE DISSUADE PROVOKE SQUABBLE BANDY OBSTRUCT FLOUT REFUTE REFUSE REBUKE RANT RAVE INVALIDATE SCOFF HAGGLE DENY DISAPPROVE CHIDE COMPLAIN CENSURE CARP REPREHEND REPROACH DEMUR OBJURGATE CRITICIZE DISGUST SHOVE TUG SHIFT DISPARAGE

48 — I N H I B I T

INHIBIT DEDUCT DEBIT CHECK CAUTION DEMUR CURTAIL DENY ENFEEBLE CAGE ESCHEW ENTRAP ENJOIN ENERVATE CATCH DEPRIVE DISSUADE DISTRAIN ILLEGITIMATE DISABLE EXHORT CIVILIZE PALLIATE MITIGATE ALLAY ALLEVIATE STOP CHALLENGE HALT HOLD SHUT SUBDUE DISABUSE TACKLE EDIT EMEND ALTER STIPULATE TAME DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBE ABATE ANNUL WILL DEPRIVE IRRADICATE LIQUIDATE DISPOSE DEVASTATE DESTROY DESPATCH TERMINATE FINISH DELETE DEMOLISH CRUSH EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE EXECUTE PURGE ERASE ERADICATE OBLITERATE SLAY SLAUGHTER ANNIHILATE ABOLISH ELIMINATE EFFUSE DISINTEGRATE EXPIRE EXPURGATE EXTINGUISH DEPRECIATE FAIL LAPSE WITHER WILT ELAPSE ERODE DEODORIZE CRUMPLE EXPEND CRUMBLE ESTRANGE SWALLOW EMBOWEL CONSUME DEVOUR GNAW GOBBLE ADJOURN DRINK CRUNCH INCARCERATE IMMOBILIZE HANDCUFF CHAIN MANACLE TRUSS QUENCH QUELL QUASH TRICE THROTTLE TERRORIZE TERRIFY PARALYSE PENALIZE PERSECUTE OVERPOWER OVERWHELM REPRESS BIND TIE SQUASH SQUELCH STIFLE STUN STULTIFY SUBJUGATE BENUMB ADMONISH MAIM DISABLE FRIGHTEN SCARE INCAPACITATE DEMORALIZE CRIPPLE CHOP DEPRESS PUNISH MASH CRUSH IMPRESS STUNT IMPRISON STICK SECURE FREEZE OSSIFY LOAF QUIESCE RUSTICATE REPOSE DESIST BELAY BATTEN PIN BECALM IMPAWN JOIN EMBRACE BETROTH CONNECT COMBINE WED ENTWINE MARRY CLING LINK YOKE ROUT INTERSPERSE SHOWER SPATTER STAMPEDE BURST DISPERSE DIFFUSE HANG HIT HARASS IMMURE DIVEST SUNDER OUTLAW ZONE CLEAVE EXCOMMUNICATE DETACH EXCLUDE SEPARATE DIFFER DIVIDE LAME TRAP SCUFFLE TRAMPLE INHUME INOCULATE CONTEND CONTRADICT DISSENT HAUNT LISP HUNT DEBATE DECLINE DEAFEN BICKER PROTEST QUARREL REMONSTRATE HARP CONSERVE QUAIL RECEDE DISMISS INSULATE LIMIT HINDER INTERCEPT SECLUDE SHACKLE SEAL SEGREGATE TIE THWART SEIZE ISOLATE LOCALIZE LATCH THREATEN THRASH GARBLE IMMERSE JUMBLE SLOP BOGGLE BOTCH PROHIBIT PREVENT REFRAIN GAG HESITATE EDUCATE AMPUTATE FETTER DISCARD FRUSTRATE RESIST RESERVE FORBID FORBEAR REPRESS FOIL WARD WARN RESTRICT SNARE WEDGE WEAN BAN ARREST SWADDLE SURROUND BOLT ABSTAIN BIND BESIEGE BOUND STILL MUFFLE REJECT MILITATE REDUCE SHRUG LEAP CLUTCH CONCEAL CONSTRICT CURB ENCHAIN PRECLUDE PINION FORGET RETARD COLLUDE BETRAY CONNIVE PLOT CONSPIRE RECANT FIGHT REPENT NAG DISLIKE EMBITTER REGRET TIRE DETER DISALLOW UPBRAID COMPLAIN CONDEMN CENSURE CHEW CARP BLAME REPROACH BOTHER MIRE MEDICATE DISAPPROVE DISTRACT COMPRESS DISHEARTEN DISCOURAGE CURSE CRITICIZE CASTRATE REVOKE EMBARRASS MORTIFY SHAME BEWARE FOREWARN REFUSE CURB CLUTCH HUSH IMPEDE SUPPRESS CONTROVERT

49 — E N T E R

INOCULATE INVEST PENETRATE ADMIT INSTALL MATRICULATE INVITE SIP RE-ENTER INHABIT INHUME INTRUST INSERT INJECT ENTER X-RAY IMPORT INTRUDE IMPREGNATE INFUSE IMPACT PROBE TRESPASS PIERCE PUNCTURE PRICK BOARD INFILTRATE INVADE INUNDATE BREAK INRUSH STORM STAB PENETRATE SLASH SLIT FORCE RAPE RAM RAID JAB IMPAWN CAMP PARK PERMEATE PERVADE EMBRACE MARRY WED BETROTH TRANSFIX TRESPASS LANCE SHEATHE IMMERSE EDUCATE INSINUATE IMMIGRATE ADVANCE INSTIL INVADE PRY

50 — D U P L I C A T E

DUPLICATE REPLACE RECEIVE RECIPROCATE RESTORE REPLENISH EMULATE TRANSMIT REITERATE REMIND REMEMBER REPEAT RECOGNIZE RECORD RECAPITULATE DEPICT RETRACE REVIEW COMPREHEND REFER REHEARSE PRACTISE REDUPLICATE REPRODUCE MULTIPLY RELAY ITERATE REPRINT RELATE UNDERSTUDY QUOTE COPY SKETCH CHARACTERIZE IMITATE MIME PORTRAY TESTIFY SUBSTANTIATE RECOUNT ENACT PRINT DEMONSTRATE PARAPHRASE UNDERSTAND VALIDATE VERIFY REVIVIFY RETOUCH REPAIR REJUVENATE REHABILITATE REGENERATE REFIT RECUR DISGUISE BEGET INBREED PROCREATE BREED GERMINATE PROPAGATE TRACE IMITATE FORGE COUNTERFEIT IMPERSONATE HIT INFRINGE RE-ENTER EMBODY DRAW COUNTERFEIT ENGRAVE ETCH APPROXIMATE EDUCATE FAMILIARIZE VIZUALIZE DEFINE TYPIFY RECOLLECT EXEMPLIFY PERSONIFY PLAY IMPERSONATE PAINT RECOMMIT TRANSLATE CORRESPOND SPELL TRANSCRIBE

51 — W I T H D R A W

EXTRACT EXTRADITE EVADE EXTRICATE GO DISMISS EMERGE YANK REBOUND RECEDE RECOIL WITHDRAW FETCH RECALL ABATE SUMMON SCRATCH ADJOURN JERK WRING WRENCH DESERT YANK DECAMP DRAW SNATCH EVISCERATE DISEMBOWEL DRAG EXTRACT REPOSE RELAX RUSTICATE QUIESCE SIT PARK PERCH IMPAWN CAMP RESIST STRAGGLE STRAY ROUT STAMPEDE DIVEST DISROBE DETACH EXCOMMUNICATE EXCLUDE FILTER ZONE OUTLAW SEPARATE SUNDER UNCLASP DIVERGE DIFFER SCRATCH CONCEDE DECLINE DISSENT QUAIL MIGRATE DEMUR DISHEARTEN DISCOURAGE DENY EMBARRASS MORTIFY ESCHEW ENJOIN TUG DEPRIVE DISSUADE VANISH RETREAT INSULATE HIBERNATE DISCARD SHRUG FAINT EXHUME SUBSIDE WITHDRAW REGRET RESORT BOGGLE HESITATE EXACT LOSE AMPUTATE HIDE RETRACT REFRAIN SHIRK SECLUDE

52 — S U B S T I T U T E

BARTER COMPENSATE COST COUNTERFEIT DRAMATIZE EMBODY EXEMPLIFY IMPERSONATE IMPROVISE INCARNATE INTERPRET MEAN PERSONATE PERSONIFY PLAY PRETEND PUN PURPORT REBATE REPRESENT RECOMPENSE SIMULATE SUBLIMATE SPELL SUBSTITUTE SUPERSEDE SUPERVENE TRANSLATE BETOKEN VOTE RELIEVE DEPUTE ELECT VEST EMPOWER DELEGATE RECORD RECOUNT REMIND REPLACE ENACT SKETCH CHARACTERIZE IMITATE MIME UNDERSTUDY TRANSCRIBE PRINT RELATE PORTRAY REPRINT DEPICT MIMIC EMULATE MASQUERADE ACT DISGUISE DUB SWITCH ADULTERATE PRETEND COUNTERFEIT IMPERSONATE FORGE IMPAWN INSERT GARBLE BOTCH DECOY EDUCATE LIE DILUTE EXCHANGE VARY INDEMNIFY SWAP SHIFT IMAGINE FIB

53 — C O L L E C T

COHERE CONVENE FUSE FORAGE FEDERALIZE GLOMERATE PACK RECRUIT RALLY GLEAN GATHER SUMMARIZE LUMP ABSORB ACCRUE ACCUMULATE INTEGRATE TROOP INCLUDE UNITE INCORPORATE UNIFY VISIT STACK AMALGAMATE AGGLOMERATE AGGLUTINATE ADOPT AGGREGATE MINGLE PARCEL MOBILIZE MONOPOLIZE PILE ENLIST COLLECT COMPILE CONGREGATE CONSCRIPT CONVOKE CRAM CONCRETE COAGULATE HUDDLE RETICULATE NATURALIZE PELLET POUCH COLLECT SALVAGE CONSIST COMPRISE COMPREHEND CANVASS RAID RUSTLE SWAG SACK HERD CORRAL IMPRESS PRESS SITE IMPAWN CAMP LOCATE COMBINE CONJUGATE MEET LOOT SORT CLEAVE MOB ZONE INVEST INTRUST ADMIT HUNT LOCALIZE RUMMAGE JUMBLE EDUCATE EXACT SURROUND PAWN PREPAY CONNIVE CONCENTRATE COLLUDE CONTAIN CATCH ENTRAP CAGE

54 — I N V E R T E D  H E L P

BOTHER MIRE FOUL MEDICATE BEGRUDGE FUMBLE PUBLISH DISCUSS SUGGEST ALLUDE SPEAK STOP CHALLENGE HALT HOLD SHUT TAME SUBDUE DISABUSE HOIST TACKLE PEN IDENTIFY SUMMON CENSOR EDIT EMEND ALTER ADJUST SHAPE MANIPULATE TEST REVEAL CONTRIVE INSTIGATE EAT DRIP TINGLE THROB PULSATE SLUMP SMART SLOUCH SLIP SWELTER STINK SLAVE REACT GOLDBRICK REMIND REPLACE SKETCH CHARACTERIZE IMITATE MIME PORTRAY DEPICT COPY QUOTE RECOGNIZE REFER REMEMBER TESTIFY RECORD SUBSTANTIATE PAIN INVOLVE INVENT CONCOCT ANNUL SLAY ABOLISH ANNIHILATE SLAUGHTER OBLITERATE ERADICATE SUP ERASE PURGE EXECUTE EXPUNGE EXTIRPATE DELETE CRUSH DEMOLISH DESPATCH DESTROY DEVASTATE DISPOSE FINISH TERMINATE IRRADICATE LIQUIDATE TOPPLE DOOM SWALLOW GUZZLE SWIG SWILL GOBBLE GNAW TIPPLE QUAFF WILT EMBOWEL DRINK DEVOUR CRUNCH CONSUME NIBBLE ADJOURN ESTRANGE CRUMPLE CRUMBLE DEODORIZE EXPLODE EXPEND ERODE FLAME WITHER VIVISECT ELAPSE LAPSE FAIL DEPRECIATE EXTINGUISH EXPURGATE EXPIRE ENGULF RUIN DISINTEGRATE EFFACE ELIMINATE IMPREGNATE INFORM MAR MUTILATE MOLEST PROSTRATE DISTURB EXCRUCIATE DEBASE DEFACE CONVICT IMPLANT DEGRADE DEJECT DENOUNCE DEPRESS DISGRACE DISHONOUR DESPOIL DERANGE DISMAY CRIMINATE DEMORALIZE CONFOUND IMPOVERISH INCAPACITATE DISABLE MANGLE MAIM AGGRAVATE BESET ATTACK BEDEVIL STALK SQUASH SQUELCH SPOIL VITIATE VICTIMIZE VEX UNSETTLE UNNERVE INVERTED HELP WORRY OPPRESS OFFEND NETTLE PROSECUTE PLUNDER REVENGE PLAGUE PESTER PERSECUTE RAVAGE PARALYSE TORTURE TORMENT DAMAGE TROUBLE TRIP PARK LOCATE SIT SPRAWL BECALM SECURE STICK FREEZE LOAF QUIESCE PIN RUSTICATE REPOSE RELAX DESIST IMPAWN ENTWINE YOKE CONSORT FRATERNIZE CLING HAZE SHOCK SHRED LOOT INSULT ROUT RANGE SHOWER STAMPEDE STRAY STREW BESTREW STRAGGLE BURST DISPERSE HECKLE HIT HARASS HURT HARRY HOUND IMPLICATE AFFLICT IMPAIR IMPERIL AGITATE DIVIDE DIFFER DIVERGE UNLOAD STRADDLE SUNDER SEPARATE OUTLAW ZONE CLEAVE EXCLUDE EXCOMMUNICATE DETACH DIVEST ABUSE ACCUSE INFILTRATE LOATHE TRESPASS SHAKE LAME TRAP INJURE INFRINGE INFLICT INVEST INSERT INOCULATE INJECT INHUME ADMIT PENETRATE HAUNT HUNT DEBATE DECLINE BICKER GROPE HARP REMONSTRATE QUARREL PROTEST CONCEDE CONTRADICT CONTEND DISSENT QUAIL RECEDE EVADE EXTRACT HINDER INTERCEPT SHIRK THWART COLLIDE GARBLE THREATEN IMMERSE RESORT RISK JUMBLE WISH SLOP STUMBLE BOGGLE REFRAIN BOTCH EXCEED TRY HESITATE EDUCATE FRUSTRATE COVET WANT DISCARD AMPUTATE LOSE FOIL SNARE BAN SWADDLE BESIEGE AMBLE HURRY SHRUG SHOVE TOY SYMPATHIZE RETARD REJECT ENCUMBER SUFFER BEAR END CONCLUDE SORROW ANNOY SENTIMENTALIZE CONNIVE BETRAY REVOLT RECANT PLOT CONSPIRE GRIEVE DENY CRITICIZE AGGRIEVE PRY EXHUME DISLIKE DISTRESS DISPLEASE DESPAIR DETEST EMBITTER AMUSE CAPITULATE PERISH HATE PUTREFY AVOID TIRE ROT NAUSEATE VOMIT RETCH SUBMIT SUBSIDE SUCCUMB SWOON ENFORCE DISALLOW COMPEL COERCE EMBROIL AVENGE REPREHEND REPROACH FULMINATE BLAME UPBRAID CARP CENSURE CHEW CONDEMN COMPLAIN CHIDE INVERT COMMISERATE DEDUCT CAUTION CHECK CRITICIZE CURSE DISCOURAGE DISHEARTEN DISAPPROVE DISTRACT MEDDLE MISLEAD ENFEEBLE TRADUCE ENTRAP DISPARAGE DISABLE OPPOSE DISSENT CATCH DEPRIVE ENERVATE FRET CONSPIRE IMPUGN IMPUTE GLOAT RANKLE PROTRACT BETRAY CONNIVE MAKE CONNIVE PLOT REVOLT COLLUDE CONSPIRE ENSNARE COZEN DECEIVE DEFRAUD DELUDE DEPOSE DEPRAVE INCRIMINATE CRIPPLE CHEAT TRICK IMPOSE SWINDLE STAB VIOLATE VICTIMIZE UNDERCUT UNDERMINE WAYLAY FOMENT IRK DAMAGE DUPE HARASS SHOCK SPATTER HORRIFY HIT HATCH HURT ACCUSE GARBLE FOIL REJECT RETARD TURN DISCLOSE FORSWEAR FAIL HATE EMBITTER DISPLEASE PROVE BOTHER DENY CAGE DARE SHAME MORTIFY ENTRAP CATCH DEPRIVE SPY SCHEME DUPE PROSTITUTE PLANT KNIFE STOOL TALK SING TURN LEAK

55 — I N V E R T E D  C O N T R O L

MISLEAD MISFIT MISBEHAVE MEDDLE SUPPRESS SUBJECT FLURRY SENSUALIZE SEDUCE TANGLE BEWITCH HYPNOTIZE CONFUSE CADGE ERR ELUDE ENCROACH ENDANGER ENDEAVOUR EMBROIL MUDDLE MORALIZE MISTREAT MISTAKE MISS MISPLACE RIOT CORRUPT CONVULSE DECOY CONTROVERT DISORDER DISOBEY DISHEVEL CROSS DISCONCERT DISCOMPOSE DISBAND DISARRAY DISARRANGE DISAPPOINT MISDEMEAN PROMISE PERSUADE THROW CONFRONT EXHORT APPEAL RESPOND TRAIN TEACH FACE DRIVE SHOUT ASSASSINATE COERCE FLAY FLAGELLATE SPANK GAG THRASH BEAT ENSLAVE SPREADEAGLE SWITCH MURDER KILL IMPALE IMPLANT PUNISH CAPSIZE CONVICT CANE WALLOP WRING WRENCH WHIP WHACK DOCK PILLORY SMACK SLAP POISON SPAY NEUTER EMASCULATE DOPE DRUG COLLIDE BURN GAS BULLY BRUTALIZE ELECTROCUTE KEELHAUL BRAND SCOURGE INCARCERATE TAX COMMIT CROP CRUCIFY CASTRATE HANDCUFF FETTER MANACLE TRICE SEIZE TRUSS CHAIN TORMENT TORTURE EXECUTE SLUG PASTE FLOG RACK PRECIPITATE STINK SWELTER SMART SLUMP PULSATE THROB TINGLE DRIP REACT SLAVE SLOUCH SLIP WILL STRAGGLE INNOVATE TERMINATE FINISH IRRADICATE LIQUIDATE TOPPLE DOOM DISPOSE DEVASTATE DESTROY DESPATCH CRUSH DEMOLISH DELETE EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE EXECUTE PURGE ERASE ERADICATE OBLITERATE SLAY SLAUGHTER ANNIHILATE ABOLISH ANNUL ELIMINATE EFFACE DISINTEGRATE RUIN ENGULF EXPIRE EXPURGATE EXTINGUISH DEPRECIATE FAIL LAPSE ELAPSE VIVISECT WILT WITHER FLAME ERODE EXPEND EXPLODE DEODORIZE CRUMBLE CRUMPLE ESTRANGE ADJOURN EAT NIBBLE CONSUME CRUNCH DEVOUR DRINK EMBOWEL SUP QUAFF TIPPLE GNAW GOBBLE SWALLOW SWILL SWIG GUZZLE BULLY MUTINY IMPRESS VITIATE VIOLATE FORCE COERCE REBEL REVOLT STRIKE TRIP TROUBLE JERK DAMAGE IRK TRIFLE TORMENT RAM GOAD GRAB PENALIZE PESTER PLAGUE WRECK WORRY OVERWHELM DOPE DRUG VEX SPRAIN STRAIN SWAMP SUBJUGATE BEDEVIL BELABOUR BESET PRICK DISABLE INCAPACITATE SAVAGE IMPOSE TRICK CONFOUND EXPLOIT DEMORALIZE TAX SACK TRANSGRESS DERAIL DERANGE DISAFFECT DEPOSE DEMENT IMPLANT DEBAUCH EXTORT DISTURB CAPSIZE PRESS POACH MOB BUMP MAUL IMPAWN DESIST RELAX REPOSE RUSTICATE LAZE QUIESCE LOAF ABIDE OSSIFY FREEZE STICK SECURE BECALM NESTLE RECLINE SPRAWL PICNIC BASK SIT HAZE SHOCK SHREAD LOOT STAMPEDE STRAY STREW BESTREW STRAGGLE BURST DISPERSE HANG HECKLE HACK HASH HARASS IMMURE HURT HARRY HOUND INDICT INDENT INCRIMINATE AFFLICT IMPALE IMPERIL AGITATE IMPEACH DIVEST DETACH EXCOMMUNICATE EXCLUDE CLEAVE ZONE OUTLAW UNLOAD DIVIDE DIFFER IMPEACH ABUSE INFILTRATE EXTRACT EXTRADITE EXTRICATE GO DISMISS YANK REBOUND RECOIL SHATTER SHAKE LYNCH LASH LAME SENTENCE LICK INJURE SCUFFLE INFLICT INSTALL PENETRATE INHUME INJECT INSERT DISSENT QUAIL RECEDE EVADE EXTRACT HINDER SHACKLE THWART TIE COLLIDE GARBLE THREATEN THRASH RUMMAGE RESORT RISK JUMBLE WISH SLOP STUMBLE BOGGLE BOTCH REFRAIN EXCEED TRY HESITATE EDUCATE FETTER PETITION EXACT RESIST REPRESS SNARE COMPLAIN CHEW CONDEMN VACILLATE COMMISERATE INVERT TAMPER RESENT AVENGE REPREHEND UPBRAID REPROACH BLAME CENSURE CAUTION CHECK BEGRUDGE BOTHER MIRE FUMBLE FOUL CURTAIL MORTIFY CRITICIZE DISCOURAGE DENY DISHEARTEN DISAPPROVE DISTRACT ENFEEBLE REBEL MUTINY REVOLT DISSUADE DISABLE EMBARRASS SURRENDER CACHE MISUSE SAG CRY DRAIN MISAPPLY BESIEGE ARREST SWADDLE BIND ABSTAIN TRANSPORT TRUDGE SHOVE SHAMBLE TOY TURN TUG TUSSLE LIMP CUMBER EMANCIPATE LOOSE DISTRACT PROTRACT RETARD REJECT EMIGRATE EVICT TOLERATE WITHSTAND UNDERGO SUFFER BEAR BROOK END CONCLUDE ATTAIN SULK SLOBBER ABHOR ABOMINATE INFURIATE CONNIVE BETRAY IMPUTE CONSPIRE REVOLT TRADUCE IMPUGN IMPUTE PLOT QUIBBLE FIGHT NAG PRY EXHUME PROVE DISTRESS ENTREAT DESIRE DESPAIR ENFORCE DICTATE DISALLOW CRIPPLE DOMINATE DEMAND CONVINCE COMPEL COERCE STAGGER RETCH WOBBLE WIGGLE WAVER SQUIRM VOMIT WINCE NAUSEATE ROT FALTER TIRE PUTREFY PANT PUFF SHAME ENTRAP ENJOIN INTERFERE WHEEDLE INVEIGLE FLOUT DEPRIVE OBSTRUCT PERTURB DISTORT CAGE PUNISH CHASTISE CONSPIRE CONNIVE DISCOLOUR CHANGE HAPPEN OCCUR TRANSPIRE BEFALL BETIDE COMPRESS DISCOLOUR DIVERSIFY DREDGE PAINT ETIOLATE PEPPER SLOT PREFIX ENGRAVE PRUNE PUCKER PRETTIFY PUDDLE PUNCTUATE PURIFY CALCIFY PURL CARVE ETCH CAUTERIZE BISECT BLOAT BOB SYMMETRIZE MACERATE BRAID BRAISE EVAPORATE DISSOLVE EVOLVE CHANGE CHIP CLARIFY CLASSIFY CLEANSE EXCHANGE COMPOUND COCK CLIP CONDENSE CONTORT CRITICIZE CONVERT CORRUGATE DEFORM CREMATE CRINKLE CURVE DESICCATE DISTEND DEVIATE DIGRESS DRAPE DILUTE INTERCHANGE TRANSPOSE ZIGZAG WASH WRAP UNDULATE WIPE WHITTLE OSCILLATE WIDEN WHET WET WEED WEAVE WELD SIZE SMELT SOAK VACILLATE VARIEGATE SNIP VARY VARNISH SOLIDIFY SOPHISTICATE VIBRATE VOLATILIZE SPRINKLE VITRIFY SPRAY VULCANIZE SQUIRT STAMP FOUL STERILIZE STEAM STIPPLE STREAK STRETCH STITCH TUNE STROP SUPPLE AMEND SURFACE AMAZE SWELL SWAP SWEETEN SWEEP APPROXIMATE BAKE ARTICULATE BESPRINKLE BEAUTIFY BEND SURPRISE BROIL BREW MASTICATE MEANDER MIGRATE MINCE PERCOLATE PERFECT PERFORATE PARCH MODERNIZE MODIFY MODULATE MOISTEN PAVE PEEL PETRIFY PICKLE PIT ELABORATE EMBOSS PLUCK POLISH EMBELLISH SCOOP SATURATE HOLLOW RUMPLE TACK TRANSFUSE SEW SERRATE SHEAR UPHOLSTER TAMPER TAINT TEMPER TOUSLE SIMMER IMBUE TRANSFER SIFT INTERVENE SIEVE EMBITTER IMPROVE TRANSUDE TRANSVERSE LIQUEFY LENGTHEN TRANSMUTE TATTER SCRUB TRANSFORM TRANSPLANT TEAR TAPER TARNISH ADULTERATE TRANSFIGURE SEAM TRIM SCREW SCOUR LEVEL SLACK SKEWER KINDLE INVERT INTENSIFY DECANT DECOMPOSE DECREASE TWIST TINGE TIP TIGHTEN TINT LUBRICATE VARNISH RAREFY GLAZE GRAFT GRANULATE READJUST REAP GRATE GRAVE GRIND FABRICATE REFRIGERATE FADE FAG FERMENT FERTILIZE FLUCTUATE FORGE FRIZZLE RINSE RUFFLE THAW COMPLICATE SIMPLIFY PARAPHRASE EXTEND ENHANCE PREPARE EDIFY PERFUME REFORM REFIT RE-ENFORCE REHABILITATE REINFORCE REJUVENATE REPAIR RETOUCH CURE STRENGTHEN ENLIVEN DEVELOP DIVERT CIVILIZE BURNISH DEMAGNETIZE DILATE ELONGATE EMPHASIZE EXPAND ENLARGE MIX SPACE AMPLIFY MAGNIFY EDIT EMEND CORRECT SHAPE ADJUST ALTER SPARK SWITCH SICKEN DAMAGE GASH RASP PARALYSE PAUPERIZE RIP RAZE GRILL REND POUND WRY WRINKLE WARP SIZZLE SLIT UNSETTLE SLASH SLICE NEUTER SMASH SMOKE SOIL SPLIT STAIN SPOIL SQUASH SQUELCH STARTLE STUN STULTIFY STUPEFY SULLY BEFOUL BENUMB BESMEAR BESMIRCH BESPATTER BOIL BREAK MAIM MANGLE INCISE INCINERATE SCORCH SCALD SMUDGE AXE CHOP DRENCH DISMEMBER DISSECT DEPRESS CUT DEPRAVE DEPOSE CROP DEMEAN DEJECT DEGRADE DEFLATE DEFACE DOUSE PULVERIZE PUNCTURE FRACTURE PIERCE BURN BRUTIFY BRUISE MANGLE CRIPPLE DISLOCATE DENT MUTILATE MASH MAR YOKE IDENTIFY CONSORT COMBINE EMBRACE LINK CONNECT JOIN SPLICE KNIT ATTACH INTERSECT APPEND REUNITE REJOIN ENTWINE CLING SHRED SPATTER HEW IMPAIR AGITATE DECOCT REFRACT FILTER GARBLE JUMBLE EDUCATE AMPUTATE DISCARD DISSUADE DEDUCT SHIFT SCRAPE CHEW TURN IMMIGRATE ADVANCE SHIFT PROTRACT RETARD SHED SCATTER ADAPT INURE PUTREFY SHRED ROT PREPARE VACATE SUBVERT INVERTED CONTROL

56 — I N V E R T E D  C O M M U N I C A T I O N

DISGUISE DUPE CAMOUFLAGE DOGMATIZE DERIDE DRIVEL DISSEMBLE DEPRECATE DEPLORE EXECRATE EXCORIATE EXAGGERATE COZEN CAVIL DISTORT CANT CALUMNIATE HUFF MURMUR DRONE CLAMOUR CAJOLE CACKLE PREJUDICE PRATTLE PRATE MUMBLE PERTURB MOCK MISSPELL MISREPRESENT MISNOMER MISAPPREHEND BUZZ MEW MALIGN BRAY BOYCOTT ALLEGE BOOM BLEAT STIGMATIZE BLARE BEWILDER BEWAIL BEMOAN BELLOW BELIE BEGUILE BEDAZZLE BAWL BANTER BANDY BAMBOOZLE BAFFLE BACKBITE BABBLE VILIFY GRUNT SUBVERT STUTTER STARE STAMMER SQUINT OBVIATE OFFSET OBSCURE OBSTRUCT SPURN SPUTTER SQUAWK SPY SQUEAK SQUABBLE SPOUT SPLUTTER SOUR SPAR SOB SOLICIT SNUFFLE SNIGGLE SNUB SNIVEL VAGUE SNOOP SNORT SNEAK SNEER SNICKER SNIGGER SMUT SNAP SMUGGLE SMIRCH SNARL SLUR SMIRK SLANDER SIMPER RETORT WHIMPER UNBELIEVE WHEEZE SWEAR WHEEDLE WHINE WHISPER OBTRUDE OVERHEAR ROAR RIDICULE RIB FOOL FLOUT FIB SIBILATE FEIGN FALSIFY REHASH REFUTE REFUSE PROFANE RECRIMINATE POLLUTE REBUKE REBUFF PERJURE RAVE RATTLE RANT RAG GIBE GAPE GABBLE TITTER TWITTER QUIP HOWL DEFILE DEFAME DECRY DAMN JEER INVESTIGATE JIB INVEIGH KID JIBE INVALIDATE INVEIGLE TITTLE SHRIEK INTERRUPT INTERPOSE INTERFERE LEER INSINUATE LIE SHADE SHAM SERMONIZE SEEM SCRAWL SCOWL SCRIBBLE ARGUE TATTLE HOOT HISS SCREECH SCREAM INFER SCORE SCOFF SCOLD SATIRIZE IMPEDE HINT HAGGLE TAUNT INVERTED COMMUNICATION PERSUADE EXHORT REPAY ALLUDE DISPUTE SUGGEST LECTURE TEACH PREACH SPEAK INTRUDE STOP CHALLENGE HALT HOLD SHUT SET SUBDUE DISABUSE GAG POISON SHOOT BOMBARD BOMB SHELL MOTIVATE INSTIGATE CONTRIVE INVOKE TINGLE THROB SPARKLE SWISH PATTER PULSATE STINK REACT SMART SLUMP SWELTER JINGLE GLISTEN REVERBERATE RING RIPPLE PEAL CLINK CLANG CLACK DRIP GOSSIP FIB PREVARICATE STIMULATE STIR PROVOKE FORGET DEAFEN BLIND INVOLVE GAG ENGULF RUIN DISINTEGRATE EFFACE ELIMINATE ANNUL ABOLISH ANNIHILATE SLAUGHTER SLAY OBLITERATE ERADICATE ERASE PURGE EXECUTE EXPUNGE EXTIRPATE DELETE DEMOLISH CRUSH DESPATCH DESTROY DEVASTATE DISPOSE TERMINATE FINISH IRRADICATE LIQUIDATE TOPPLE DOOM GUZZLE SWIG SWILL SWALLOW GOBBLE GNAW TIPPLE QUAFF SUP EMBOWEL DRINK DEVOUR CRUNCH CONSUME NIBBLE EAT ADJOURN ESTRANGE CRUMPLE CRUMBLE DEODORIZE EXPLODE EXPEND ERODE FLAME WITHER WILT VIVISECT ELAPSE LAPSE FAIL DEPRECIATE EXTINGUISH EXPURGATE EXPIRE SMEAR INVENT DUB CONCOCT GRIPE SNIPE ROUSE AROUSE TEASE TEMPT FLIRT WOO ELECTRIFY EXCITE ENKINDLE ALLURE SCINTILLATE TRANCE IMPRESS ATTRACT TANTALIZE TOUT CAPTIVATE FASCINATE QUARREL SMUGGLE PRETEND DUPE FORGE COUNTERFEIT IMPERSONATE COZEN IMPAWN DESIST RELAX REPOSE RUSTICATE QUIESCE LOAF OSSIFY IMPOSE TRICK CONFOUND CHEAT DENOUNCE DELUDE IMPLANT DEFRAUD EXPOSE DAZE DECEIVE EXILE MAROON BOMBARD AGGRAVATE ADMONISH ATTACK STUPEFY STULTIFY STARTLE QUARREL OSTRACIZE WRANGLE PLAGUE GOAD GRILL PESTER INTERDICT INTERROGATE INTIMATE HAZE SHOCK INSULT BITCH INTERSPERSE SPATTER STAMPEDE STRAY STREW BESTREW STRAGGLE DISPERSE HORRIFY HECKLE HIT HARASS IMMURE HATCH HURT HOUND INCRIMINATE IMPLICATE DIVIDE STRADDLE UNLOAD SUNDER SEPARATE OUTLAW ZONE FILTER EXCLUDE EXCOMMUNICATE IMPEACH ACCOST ABUSE ACCUSE SCORE INFILTRATE INDISPOSE LOATHE TRESPASS TUT SENTENCE INJURE INFLICT CONTRADICT CONCEDE COAX PROTEST QUARREL REMONSTRATE HARP BICKER DEAFEN DECLINE DEBATE LISP HAUNT HUNT QUAIL EVADE EXTRACT INSULATE LIMIT HIBERNATE HIDE SHUN SECLUDE SEAL SEGREGATE THWART ISOLATE SHEATHE LATCH GARBLE THREATEN HUMOUR RUMMAGE RESORT RISK JUMBLE WISH SLOP STUMBLE BOGGLE PREVENT BOTCH REFRAIN GAG EXCEED HESITATE EDUCATE SECRETE RESERVE FORGO WARN FORBID WARD RETRACT RESTRICT BAN STILL MUFFLE SHRUG SHOVE SHEER ABSTAIN SHAMBLE TOY TURN SHIFT CONCEAL CLAM MUZZLE FORGET BLAB PEACH DIVULGE PROTECT PET SNARE GLOZE DISDAIN DISPARAGE DEROGATE DISCREDIT DETRACT REJECT CROW POSTURE BRAG BOAST SULK OUTCRY WAIL OUTRAGE SLOBBER ABOMINATE ABHOR ANGER ANNOY SCORN INFURIATE SENTIMENTALIZE CONNIVE COLLUDE BETRAY IMPUGN IMPUTE CONSPIRE PLOT RECANT SIGH QUIBBLE IMPLORE RAGE GLOAT GROWL POUT GRUMBLE FIGHT NAG YELP YAP YELL MOAN PRY EXHUME DISGUST ENTREAT DESPAIR EMBITTER CONVINCE DEMAND DICTATE DISALLOW SWERVE SUCCUMB RETCH WAVER WRITHE SQUIRM VOMIT WINCE NAUSEATE FALTER TIRE HATE PANT PUFF CAPITULATE CRY IGNORE CACHE PUZZLE CURSE CONSPIRE CONNIVE DISSUADE PROVOKE DEPRIVE INTERVENE INTERSECT INFORM SLANT HUSH IMPLICATE SURPRISE DEMUR OBJURGATE AMAZE INCULPATE COMMISERATE FABRICATE TWIST INVERT MORTIFY ESCHEW SHAME DISHEARTEN DISAPPROVE DISTRACT FOUL BOTHER MEDICATE MISCONCEIVE CHIDE COMPLAIN CONDEMN CHEW CENSURE CARP BLAME UPBRAID FULMINATE REPROACH REPREHEND AVENGE ASCRIBE RESENT IMPLY EMBARRASS DECOY EMBROIL MORALIZE MISLEAD DIGRESS CRITICIZE CURSE DISCOURAGE DENY PRAY KID LIE PREVARICATE PRETEND CRITICIZE SUSPECT RANKLE WORSHIP WHOOP INTEND TO NOT COMMUNICATE

57 — D I S P E R S E

STREW STRAGGLE DISPERSE SPREAD SHOWER RADIATE RANGE BURST SPATTER STAMPEDE BESTREW ROUT INTERSPERSE DIFFUSE DISPERSE DISTRIBUTE DISPENSE DEPLOY SOW PROPAGATE DISSIPATE PULVERIZE SCARE UNSETTLE STRAFE CHARGE DISMEMBER DEMENT UNNERVE LITTER HOUND SCATTER AGITATE SHATTER QUAIL EVADE RUMMAGE JUMBLE BOGGLE BOTCH DISCARD OUTBREAK SCATTER EMBARRASS SHUDDER PANIC SWERVE SQUANDER EXPORT DISPEL VOLATILIZE SPRINKLE DISBAND FLURRY DISTRACT DISTRIBUTE STRAY

58 — I N V E R T E D  I N T E R E S T

INDULGE INCITE INCULCATE SCANDALIZE ASTOUND INDUCE LIKE LUST INFLAME INFATUATE WALLOW GIGGLE THRILL TITILLATE TITIVATE QUIRK PEEP MYSTIFY ENCHANT PROSTITUTE IMBIBE INEBRIATE INVERTED INTEREST BENUMB BELABOUR MASH MAR MANGLE MAIM BESPATTER BESMIRCH PERFUME BESMEAR BESLOBBER BESLAVER BESET BIND CAMP SOJOURN ABIDE RESIDE DWELL LOCATE IMPAWN REPOSE NESTLE LOAD DISABLE TRUSS TOY PLAY WED BETROTH MARRY PERVADE PERMEATE TOUCH ACCOMPANY REUNITE ATTACH KNIT SPLICE JOIN CONNECT LINK EMBRACE COMBINE CONSORT YOKE ENTWINE CLING MURMUR TWEAK CRAVE PRICK PRESS FRACTURE MOLEST PENETRATE PIERCE MUTILATE PINCH BUTCHER BUTT MOB BRAND BURN BUMP MAUL BRUTIFY AWAKEN AROUSE SATISFY GRATIFY STIMULATE EXCITE BRUISE HABITUATE ENUMERATE DETAIL OPERATE TEST DISCIPLINE MANIPULATE PRESCRIBE PREDISPOSE COMPLY REMAND SUMMON STOP ELONGATE DILATE ENLARGE EXPAND EMPHASIZE CORRECT EMEND EDIT MAGNIFY AMPLIFY ALTER ADJUST SHAPE RIFLE RANSACK SPY INFILTRATE PRY GRILL PERSECUTE PERSEVERE MAINTAIN PERPETUATE PERSIST PROLONG RESPIRE NURTURE NOURISH RECONSTRUCT RENOVATE REINSTATE MATURE FIX MARTYR SURVIVE BULLY PREDESTINATE DROOL SLAVER VIOLATE REACT STINK SLUMP SMART SLAVE SWELTER SLIP SLOUCH PULSATE PATTER SWISH SPARKLE THROB TINGLE DRIP CLACK CLANG CLINK PEAL RIPPLE RING REVERBERATE GLISTEN REPRODUCE RETRACE QUOTE COPY REMIND SKETCH CHARACTERIZE IMITATE MIME PORTRAY DEPICT REPLACE RECOGNIZE REMEMBER TESTIFY SUBSTANTIATE RECORD RECOUNT ENACT PRINT EMULATE RESTORE DUPLICATE RECIPROCATE RECEIVE REPLENISH TRANSMIT PRACTISE REHEARSE MULTIPLY REITERATE REPEAT RECAPITULATE REVIEW REDUPLICATE BANG SCREW RUIN STIMULATE STIR PROVOKE MAKE GUZZLE SWIG SWILL SWALLOW GOBBLE GNAW QUAFF SUP EMBOWEL FRATERNIZE DRINK DEVOUR CRUNCH CONSUME NIBBLE EAT ADJOURN ESTRANGE CRUMPLE CRUMBLE DEODORIZE EXPLODE EXPEND ERODE FLAME WITHER WILT VIVISECT ELAPSE LAY INHALE GROW CONJURE JINGLE TIPPLE LAPSE FAIL DEPRECIATE EXTINGUISH EXPURGATE EXPIRE ENGULF RUIN DISINTEGRATE EFFACE ELIMINATE ANNUL ABOLISH ANNIHILATE SLAUGHTER SLAY OBLITERATE ERADICATE ERASE PURGE EXECUTE EXPUNGE EXTIRPATE DELETE DEMOLISH CRUSH DESPATCH DESTROY DEVASTATE DISPOSE DOOM TOPPLE LIQUIDATE IRRADICATE FINISH TERMINATE ENSNARE DISPLAY ENGROSS ENKINDLE CAPTIVATE EXCITE FASCINATE FLIRT ROUSE AROUSE ATTRACT IMPRESS TRANCE SCINTILLATE ALLURE GOGGLE MARVEL ELECTRIFY TANTALIZE WOO TEASE TEMPT INTOXICATE SMUGGLE DEPRAVE FETTER FORCE WINE BED SLEEP LIE UNDRESS DRESS DIVERT CULTIVATE DELIGHT COMFORT EXHILARATE ENLIVEN SUCKLE WILE SOOTHE SOLACE OBLIGE RELIEVE REJUVENATE INNERVATE SATISFY PERFUME PERMIT PLEASE ENCOURAGE ENDEAR ENHANCE BESTOW SURFEIT CONSOLE BEDEVIL ATTACK BEAT BEFOUL BATTER ASSAULT BASH ASSAIL SWEAT SULLY SUFFOCATE SUBJUGATE STUPEFY STUN STRAIN STRANGLE STRIKE STIFLE STALK SPOIL STAIN VIOLATE SPRAWL LOLL VICTIMIZE SOCK SOIL UNDERMINE HANDCUFF MANACLE FETTER CHAIN SMEAR GRASP COERCE POUND POKE REVENGE GRILL PLAGUE PESTER PERSECUTE RIP GRAB GOAD PARALYSE RACK GASH TORMENT END TOLERATE IDOLIZE PET FORGET PHILANDER CLOY PINION CLUTCH CRAVE HANKER PANT MASTURBATE JOLT RETALIATE FORCE FLAY FLAGELLATE SLASH SLICE SLAP SLIT TYRANNIZE EXHAUST WHACK WHIP WOUND OVERWHELM OVERPOWER WARP WRENCH WRING TWIST WRY ROUGH WALLOP OPPRESS OFFEND NIP NICK SMACK SMITE SLAM NEUTER EMASCULATE SPAY SMOTHER DROWN DOPE DRUG SMASH NIBBLE SNIFF STROKE RUB APPEAL ATTRACT ENTICE FRIG COHABIT FUCK FORNICATE COPULATE LAY MAKE JAZZ DRUG JERK PLAY TEASE TWITCH DESPAIR DELIVER COME TRIFLE TRICE JAB SICKEN INTIMATE INTERROGATE TWIST BRUTALIZE HAMMER HAZE SHOCK INSULT SPATTER STAMPEDE STRAY BESTREW BURST DISPERSE HANG HORRIFY HECKLE HIT HARASS IMMOLATE HURT HOUND HARRY SCAR AFFLICT IMPALE AGITATE ZONE DISROBE EXCLUDE OUTLAW SEPARATE DOPE SUNDER UNLOAD DIVERGE TOSS ROLL WRITHE DIFFER DIVIDE DIVEST LASH ACCOST ABUSE INFILTRATE LOATHE TRESPASS LYNCH LAME LACERATE LICK INJURE SCUFFLE SCRATCH INFLICT INJECT INHUME PENETRATE ADMIT INVITE INOCULATE INSERT SIP HAUNT YANK EXTRACT HIDE SHUN SECLUDE SHACKLE SEIZE THWART TIE COLLIDE GARBLE THREATEN THRASH THRALL IMMERSE RUMMAGE RESORT RISK SLOP STUMBLE PROHIBIT REFRAIN GAG EXCEED TRY FETTER FRUSTRATE SECRETE GO COVET EXACT CONSERVE LOSE PETITION AMPUTATE DISCARD WANT FORBID REPRESS SPECIALIZE SNARE TWEAK TONGUE ENJOY LOVE LIKE SUCKLE SQUEEZE TARNISH TAINT SCREW KINDLE INVERT INTENSIFY HUMILIATE DEGRADE REGRET NIP COMMISERATE LURK JUMBLE FONDLE NUZZLE SUCCUMB SWOON BURY EJACULATE COME STAY SLEEP PROCURE COVER PAW CACHE DEFILE DALLY DISLIKE DISTRESS DESIRE DISGUST SIGH GLOAT GROAN AGONIZE MADDEN PALPITATE MOAN EAT EXHUME COLLUDE RECANT TRADUCE BETRAY SENTIMENTALIZE CONSPIRE PLOT CONNIVE SHUDDER SUFFER CONCLUDE ACHIEVE ATTAIN WAIL OUTRAGE WEEP SLOBBER CULMINATE ENDURE SHIVER TRANSPORT SHAMBLE SUSPEND BIND TURN TUSSLE LIMP PROWL DABBLE ENFEEBLE FONDLE ABUSE CORRUPT TUG EMBARRASS SHAME MORTIFY ENTRAP ALLURE PINCH REVEL SQUIRT SOPHISTICATE PUCKER CRITICIZE CONTORT BOTHER FOUL DEFORM DEVIATE BEWITCH SEDUCE SENSUALIZE CATCH ENERVATE INSINUATE LEER DEFILE TITTER POLLUTE TOY WHISPER DEPRIVE SMIRK SMIRCH CORRUPT SNIGGER SMUT SNEAK SOLICIT RAPE RAVISH PASSION PERVERT FOREBODE FOREWARN YEN OBSESS SUCK BESOT BEWARE BITE BAN PROCURE BEGUILE CREEP STRIP INITIATE FEEL BARE PRY PAINT KISS LICK TATTOO FLOG CASTRATE HYPNOTIZE WHIP SEDUCE CARESS TICKLE DISABLE BIND TORTURE IMPLICATE IMPOSE SCALP SAVAGE INCISE SCOURGE SKIN KNOCK SIN TRICK WRIGGLE KICK SMUDGE DAZZLE SNATCH EMBROIL CRIPPLE DEMORALIZE CRIMINATE EXPLOIT COMMIT SCRATCH CLAW CHOP TRANSGRESS CHEAT DISSECT DISMEMBER DISGRACE DISHONOUR DRAG DESPOIL DERANGE DISEMBOWEL EVISCERATE DISLOCATE DEPRAVE CRUCIFY CROP DEMENT DEMEAN DELUDE DEGRADE ERECT DEFACE DISSIPATE EXPOSE DECEIVE CANE DEBAUCH DEBASE EXCRUCIATE EXTORT CAPTURE CONQUER CUT PUNISH PUNCTURE PUNCH DETRACT CLEAVE

59 — T H I N K

CONSTITUTE COMPRISE CONSIST NEOLOGIZE SCHEME WONDER OUTLINE JUSTIFY NUMERATE THEORIZE GENERALIZE THINK PARTICULARIZE RATIONALIZE PERCEIVE REALIZE CONCUR CONCERN CONCENTRATE CONCEIVE COMPARE COGITATE DOUBT DISTINGUISH DISPROVE DISQUALIFY CALCULATE PRESUPPOSE PRESUME PREPENSE PREJUDGE PREFER PREDICT EDUCE PREDICATE PRECONCEIVE PHILOSOPHIZE METHODIZE BETHINK BEMUSE BELIEVE ASSUME SYMBOLIZE SYSTEMATIZE ANALYSE SURMISE SUSPECT SUPPOSE SPECULATE EXCOGITATE VISUALIZE SOLVE WEEN EQUATE AMOUNT COMPUTE INFLECT DERIVE DENOTE DEFINE DEEM COUNT CONTEMPLATE CONSTRUE CONSIDER ASCERTAIN ASSESS TRANSCEND ASSOCIATE LIST DECIDE DEDUCE QUALIFY ITEMIZE QUANTIFY PLAN RECKON PONDER RECOLLECT POSTULATE RECONSIDER PREDETERMINE REFLECT FORECAST RESOLVE RUMINATE TOT TYPIFY DISCERN TABULATE TALLY IMAGINE PUZZLE THINK UNDERSTAND RECALL REVISE SIMPLIFY IDENTIFY ASSORT STIPULATE DETAIL ENUMERATE GRASP RECOGNIZE REMEMBER REMIND RECORD REVIEW RETRACE RECAPITULATE MULTIPLY REPRODUCE DEPICT COMPREHEND REFER FORGET ELIMINATE MANUFACTURE CONCOCT CONSTRUCT INVENT ESTABLISH DEVISE EVOKE PROBE PURSUE EXPLORE DETERMINE APPEND ADJOIN INTERSECT COMBINE LINK CONNECT PERMEATE PERVADE CONJUGATE STULTIFY STUPEFY DAZE BENUMB DEMENT DERANGE DIVIDE DIFFER EXCLUDE SORT SEPARATE EXTRACT WISH BOGGLE EDUCATE MISCONCEIVE FUMBLE BOTHER REGRET CLASSIFY CRITICIZE INFER INFORM RECALL WORRY REGARD GRADE RATE RANK VALVE ADJUDGE ADJUDICATE PROVE DESPAIR MUSE SUMMARIZE APPREHEND ESTIMATE TROW IDEALIZE CONCLUDE CONFUSE INSPIRE ADDUCE

60 — C R E A T E

GENERATE ISSUE MOTIVATE EMIT EMANATE ENGENDER PERPETRATE INVOKE TRANSACT COMMENCE CONTRIVE PREDESTINATE CONJURE INSTITUTE NOMINATE DESIGN ORIGINATE PRECIPITATE INSTIGATE PROPAGATE BEGET POPULATE PROCREATE INBREED BREED IMPREGNATE GEMINATE DEVISE INCUBATE VIVIFY ORDAIN VITALIZE DECORATE INVENT MANUFACTURE CONSTRUCT SPROUT INCREASE DUB CONCOCT ESTABLISH ANIMATE GLOW ATTRIBUTE INNOVATE WAGE CREATE WRITE PEN DISCOVER EXPRESS ENDOW RECREATE REGENERATE PLANT MATERIALIZE BUILD MAKE PRODUCE SOW SPAWN CREATE STAY PLACE CLING JOIN EMBRACE LINK MEET LOCATE FOMENT IMPROVISE IMAGINE ERECT NARRATE

61 — O B S E S S I V E  C A N ‘ T  H A V E

DISAVOW DISBELIEVE DISCLAIM DUMP DISOWN EMACIATE EMBEZZLE YEARN OPPOSE OWE SKIMP STARVE STEAL STINT STRIP SWIPE SURCHARGE BEREAVE MISAPPROPRIATE MISTRUST MOULT ECONOMIZE PILFER PINE LACK REMOVE FAST RATION THIEVE THIRST RID SCRIMP SCAMP SAP SACRIFICE HOG ABORT ROB RETRENCH REVOKE OBSESSIVE CAN’T HAVE DISBURDEN CURE RAID PRE-EMPT SEIZE DEMOLISH CUT GUT TAX GORGE SLAVE STINK SLIP SWELTER SLOUCH REPLACE REACT DUPLICATE REHEARSE PRACTISE REDUPLICATE REPRODUCE MULTIPLY CROP DOCK DEPRIVE STEAL OBLITERATE DEMAGNETIZE TERMINATE FINISH IRRADICATE CRUSH LIQUIDATE TOPPLE DOOM DISPOSE DEVASTATE DESTROY DESPATCH DEMOLISH DELETE EXTIRPATE EXPUNGE EXECUTE PURGE ERASE ERADICATE OBLITERATE SLAY SLAUGHTER ANNIHILATE ABOLISH ANNUL ELIMINATE EFFACE DISINTEGRATE CENSOR RUIN ENGULF EXPIRE EXPURGATE EXTINGUISH DEPRECIATE BATTEN FAIL LAPSE ELAPSE VIVISECT WILT WITHER FLAME ERODE EXPEND EXPLODE DEODORIZE CRUMBLE CRUMPLE ESTRANGE ADJOURN EAT NIBBLE CONSUME CRUNCH DEVOUR DRINK EMBOWEL SUP QUAFF TIPPLE GNAW GOBBLE SWALLOW SWILL SWIG GUZZLE REQUISITION INTERDICT GUT KIDNAP ANNEX IMPOUND OSSIFY LOAF FREEZE QUIESCE CLING ENTWINE YOKE CONSORT LINK JOIN ATTACH ACCOMPANY CRAVE EMASCULATE NEUTER ALTER SPAY RIFLE RANSACK TAX SACK IMPOVERISH SCALP FLAY SKIN SNATCH RUSTLE EXPLOIT CHEAT DESPOIL CROP DECORTICATE DEFRAUD CAPTURE EXTORT POACH PINCH BEHEAD SWINDLE SPOIL WRING WREST OSTRACIZE PLUNDER GRASP RAVAGE RAZE PAUPERIZE DECAPITATE BESIEGE SIEGE COMMANDEER SHRED LOOT SHOWER STREW BESTREW STRAGGLE DISPERSE IMMOLATE EXCOMMUNICATE EXCLUDE FILTER SEPARATE ZONE OUTLAW SUNDER STRADDLE UNLOAD DETACH DIVERGE DIFFER DIVIDE DIVEST PURLOIN DISMISS EVADE SHATTER INFRINGE REMONSTRATE BICKER GROPE DECLINE DEBATE HUNT HAUNT DISSENT CONTEND CONTRADICT CONCEDE PROTEST QUARREL HARP RECEDE RECOIL YANK EXTRACT DISMISS INSULATE LIMIT HINDER SHUN SEGREGATE THWART ISOLATE SEIZE LATCH COLLIDE GARBLE IMMERSE RUMMAGE RISK RESORT JUMBLE WISH SLOP STUMBLE BOGGLE BOTCH PROHIBIT PREVENT REFRAIN TRY HESITATE EDUCATE WANT DISCARD PAWN FRUSTRATE RESIST SECRETE AMPUTATE LOSE COVET CONSERVE FORGO FORBID WARN RESTRICT WEAN BAN ABSTAIN SHOVE SHEER LEAP SHAMBLE TUG SHIFT FORGET RETARD REDUCE DISDAIN CRIMP DEVEST REJECT FORSWEAR VACATE FORSAKE EKE REPUDIATE RENOUNCE RELINQUISH SHED ENCUMBER INURE WAIL WEEP SORROW ABHOR ABOMINATE RECANT SIGH GRIEVE FRET DREAD MOAN MOPE MOURN ENVY DISGUST DISLIKE DESPAIR SUCCUMB PUTREFY ROT NAUSEATE VOMIT ABDUCT DISARM SURRENDER SACRIFICE DEPOSIT AMASS POSSESS ACQUIRE RETAIN CAUTION CACHE BEGRUDGE ESCHEW CONDEMN SHEAR SOAK DEDUCT TAKE DEMUR CURTAIL PLUCK PRUNE BOB DISAPPROVE DISHEARTEN DENY DISCOURAGE CLIP CRITICIZE FOUL BEGRUDGE MIRE DESICCATE ENFEEBLE ENCROACH CADGE CAGE DISCARD DISPOSE POACH PURLOIN IMPOVERISH RUSTLE ENTRAP ENJOIN ENERVATE HAGGLE CATCH DEPRIVE DISSUADE COZEN DISABLE CASTRATE CHEAT DESIRE DESPOND ENFORCE RETCH

62 — E F F E C T

EFFECT REACT SLOUCH SLUMP SLIP PULSATE SMART TINGLE THROB SWELTER STINK SPARKLE GLISTEN PATTER SWISH CLACK CLANG CLINK PEAL JINGLE REVERBERATE RIPPLE RING DRIP SLAVE RESPOND THUMB CONSOLE SURFEIT REPLETE ENLIGHTEN ENHANCE ENERGIZE PREPARE ENCOURAGE EDIFY PERK PERFUME HABILITATE SALVE HEAL INNERVATE INSTRUCT LEAD REASSURE REFORM REFRESH REGENERATE REHABILITATE REJUVENATE RELIEVE REPAIR RESPITE RESCUE RESUSCITATE RETOUCH REVIVE SMOOTH SOLACE SOOTHE STRENGTHEN SUCCOUR SURCEASE SUPPORT EXHILARATE ENLIVEN CHEER COMFORT DELIGHT CULTIVATE DEVELOP DIVERT DRESS DRIVE WINE CALM CIVILIZE BURNISH CURE INVIGORATE SMELL FEEL WILL ORDAIN IMPOVERISH SCALD INCAPACITATE SCORCH INCISE KNOCK KICK SMUDGE CRIPPLE DEMORALIZE CONFOUND CHOP DRENCH DRAG DISAFFECT DERANGE DEPRESS DISMAY DISLOCATE CUT DEPRAVE DENT CROP DEMENT DEJECT DEGRADE DEFLATE DEFACE DAZE DEBAUCH DEBASE EXCRUCIATE EXTORT CAPTURE CONQUER DOUSE DISTURB PULVERIZE PUNISH PUNCTURE PUNCH PROSTRATE CAPSIZE PRICK PRESS PIERCE MUTILATE MOLEST BUTT BURN BUMP MASH BRUISE MAR MANGLE MAIM BREAK BOIL AGGRAVATE BESET BENUMB BELABOUR BEDEVIL BEFOUL BEAT BATTER BASH APPAL SWEAT SULLY SUFFOCATE SUBJUGATE SWAMP STRAIN STORM STRANGLE STIFLE STARTLE SQUEEZE SQUELCH STAIN SQUASH SPOIL SPRAIN SPLASH SPRAWL SPLIT SPILL VICTIMIZE VEX SOIL SMOKE UNDERCUT UNDERMINE SMEAR SMOTHER SLAM SINK SIZZLE TYRANNIZE WEARY ULCERATE UNNERVE WORRY WOUND WRY WRING WRINKLE OPPRESS JOSTLE JOLT FLOOR PLAGUE PESTER PERSECUTE GOAD RASP RAP TERRORIZE THUMP TICKLE QUELL QUENCH QUASH IRK DAMAGE JERK SICKEN TROUBLE HOUND HARRY HURT HARASS HIT HECKLE HORRIFY INSULT SHOCK HAZE HAMMER AFFLICT SCAR IMPAIR AGITATE ABUSE ACCUSE INDISPOSE SHATTER SHAKE LACERATE LAME INJURE QUAIL THREATEN MORTIFY COMMISERATE REGRET FOUL MEDICATE MIRE DISTRACT DISHEARTEN DISCOURAGE CURSE EMBARRASS SHAME BLANCH

63 — N O  E F F E C T

VANISH MINIMIZE OMIT NO EFFECT PARDON EXCUSE PARRY CONTRACEPT VITIATE PETRIFY ABIDE FREEZE STICK SECURE BECALM IMPAWN DESIST QUIESCE OSSIFY STAVE DUCK EVADE INSULATE HIBERNATE SECLUDE THWART HUMOUR PREVENT REFRAIN TRY CONSERVE WARD DENY ENFEEBLE WITHSTAND DESPAIR DESPOND SHRUG WAIVE REJECT FORSAKE RETREAT RETIRE FORSWEAR RESIGN DISSUADE

64 — C A U S E

BUILD MAKE PRODUCE MATERIALIZE PLANT EFFECT AFFECT SOW ERECT SPAWN BEATIFY STIMULATE SPARK NECESSITATE PROVOKE INVOLVE WILL CAUSE PROJECT PURPOSE DISCOVER EXPEDITE INVIGORATE CIVILIZE DRIVE DIVERT DEVELOP CULTIVATE DELIGHT EXCEL ENLIVEN EXHILARATE ENABLE STRENGTHEN SPONSOR VERIFY VALIDATE UPHOLD UNDERTAKE REVISE FURTHER REPAIR REHABILITATE FACILITATE RE-ENFORCE RECTIFY RAISE LEAD INSTRUCT ASSIST HEAL SUSTAIN ASSURE ALLEVIATE PREPARE ENERGIZE SUPPLY REPLETE SURFEIT FILL FULFIL EXTEND CONTRIBUTE CO-OPERATE COMMAND PRESIDE RULE REIGN JUDGE JOCKEY JUGGLE USHER NAVIGATE PILOT OFFICIATE REGULATE DIRECT UNTANGLE ORDER ORIENTATE ORGANIZE OPERATE ADMINISTER SUPERINTEND SUPERVISE MANAGE MASTER CONSTITUTE INSTITUTE ORIGINATE GENERATE CONTRIVE CONJURE DESIGN ENGENDER MOTIVATE SUFFUSE ORDAIN ATTRIBUTE INVENT INNOVATE INITIATE LOCATE SITE TEMPT INSPIRE PERVADE PERMEATE FOMENT TROUBLE SICKEN DAMAGE QUELL TORMENT TERRORIZE RAID PARALYSE PAUPERIZE PENALIZE PERSECUTE PROSECUTE FORCE OFFEND OPPRESS WORRY WHELM WEARY TYRANNIZE UNSETTLE VEX VICTIMIZE SPOIL VITIATE SUBJUGATE APPAL BELABOUR AGGRAVATE PRESS DISTURB DISSIPATE DEPOSE DEPRESS DERANGE DESPOIL DEMORALIZE DISAFFECT DISGRACE COMMIT CONFOUND EXPLOIT INUNDATE INVADE IMPOVERISH INCAPACITATE IMPOSE RADIATE SHOWER SPATTER BURST FILTER EXCLUDE ZONE SEPARATE OUTLAW SUNDER DIVERGE DIVEST DIVIDE INDISPOSE INFLICT COAX BOTHER FABRICATE DICTATE DEMAND DISALLOW CONVINCE EXERT DOMINATE COMPEL ENFORCE COERCE INAUGURATE FOSTER PREDETERMINE POSTULATE CONCEIVE DIFFER SORT STIR

65 — F A I T H

HOPE CREDIT FAITH ENTRUST DEPEND MEDITATE CALM DISBURDEN COMFORT EXCULPATE CHEER PROVIDE SUPPORT SURCEASE SUCCOUR VINDICATE VOUCH SOOTH SOLACE OBLIGE REVIVIFY OFFER CURE REVIVE RESPITE FORGIVE RELY RELIEVE REJWENATE REGENERATE REFRESH REFORM RECREATE RECTIFY REDEEM RECONCILE REASSURE IRRADICATE LEAD SERVE TRAVAIL HEAL SALVE HELP SUSTAIN ASSURE BESPEAK ABSOLVE ALLAY MITIGATE PARDON PALLIATE EASE EDIFY ENCOURAGE ENHANCE ENLIGHTEN ENDOW BESTOW SUFFICE CONSOLE AVAIL PREDESTINATE TESTIFY EMULATE REPLENISH TRANSMIT NEOLOGIZE INSPIRE REPOSE IMPAWN DWELL SOJOURN ABIDE RESIDE DENOUNCE PROSELYTIZE CONVERT CONFESS CONFIRM BAPTIZE IMPLANT CLING YOKE JOIN PERMEATE PERVADE REJOIN COMBINE EMBRACE CONNECT REUNITE FRATERNIZE WED MARRY BETROTH ENTWINE BESET BELABOUR BESMIRCH ADMONISH BREAK BURN MOB MOLEST PROSTRATE CONQUER DEFLATE DEFRAUD DELUDE DENOUNCE CRUCIFY DEPRAVE DISAFFECT CHEAT CONFOUND DEMORALIZE DAZZLE SIN TRICK SCOURGE FLAGELLATE IMPRECATE IMPOSE TRANSGRESS TRESPASS UNFROCK BEDEVIL ASSAIL SWINDLE SUBJUGATE STUPEFY STULTIFY VICTIMIZE VANQUISH UNDERMINE SMITE WREST PERSECUTE PARALYSE RACK QUENCH INTIMATE RADIATE HEW CLEAVE EXCOMMUNICATE REBOUND EMERGE IMMERSE WISH REVERE DEIFY AWE WORSHIP ACHIEVE ATTAIN LOVE TRUST ASCEND TRANSPORT ASPIRE BELIEVE EXCLUDE 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 MAY 1961

Franchise
RELEASING AND PREPARING A CASE FOR
S.O.P. GOALS

S.O.P. Goals takes a great deal of accurate Scientology to run. One has to be the kind of expert one would become from studying at Saint Hill or under a person who has been here who graduated with honors.

One has to have his TRs 0 to 4 perfect. One has to know an E-Meter backwards and forwards. One has to know Model Session so well that he or she can pass all TRs while doing it. And one has to know assessment.

There is nothing, however, so bad as to get a wrong S.O.P. Goals Assessment on a case. It condemns the pc to an infinity of auditing. He or she will never get Clear until a right assessment is done. And the auditing in between is wasted.

So until you get to Saint Hill or get a special course in S.O.P. Goals from a Saint Hill honor graduate, or from Australia’s Peter Williams, whom I taught in South Africa, or unless I am right on the other end of a Telex as I am for London, may I please ask you to content yourself (and get marvellous case gains) releasing people with the preparatory steps of S.O.P. Goals and skip trying to run S.O.P. Goals on wrong assessments.

These Steps release people.

The Preparatory Steps of S.O.P. Goals consist of only two things:

1. 	The Johannesburg Security Check, well done (the revised issue of which will come to you next week), and

2. 	General runs on the Pre-Hav Scale after proper assessment of the pc on that scale.

You can easily learn to give a “Joburg”. You can easily learn to assess on a Pre-Hav Scale. And you can’t do any real damage and can get the fastest case gains you’ve ever seen.

THE JOBURG CHECK

If withholds make the pc get no gains, then what better way to clear them up than by a fabulously thorough check on withholds such as is found in the “Joburg Check”.

Ask every question in various ways until the pc gets no further needle action on that question with sensitivity raised way up.

The General Runs on Pre-Hav: Assess the Pre-Hav Scale saying each level once to the pc on the meter going up it. Saying each level once to the pc going back down it. Write down every fall, theta bop or rock slam and how much. Take the level which gave the most reaction going up and down.

Take that Pre-Hav level that reacted most.

Using your good sense, make up a five-way bracket auditing command from the level.

Suppose the most reactive level was Overts. This translates as “DONE TO”. The 5-way command is “What have you done to someone?” “What has someone done to you?” “What has someone done to another?” “What has another done to others?” “What has someone done to himself?”

Run the process watching the meter Tone Arm.

When the Tone Arm moves more than 1/4 of a Tone Arm Division movement up or down (no matter how many times it went up or down), continue the process, no matter what the pc says about its being flat.

When the Tone Arm moves less than 1/4 Of a division of the Tone Arm Dial in 20 minutes, change the process. Bridge out, reassess on the Pre-Hav Scale as before. Take the next level, make up a five-way bracket the pc can do and flatten it off as above.

Audit by the Tone Arm (except in rock slam). Assess by the needle. For rock slam, just run the slam out of the level until it’s gone for 20 minutes.

Then, with two Pre-Hav levels flat on the Tone Arm, do a new “Joburg” Security Check.

It will have changed!

Do it all in Model Session. Handle the Rudiments. Do a “Joburg”, then a couple of Pre-Hav levels, then a “Joburg”, then a couple of Pre-Hav levels, then a “Joburg”, etc, etc, on and on.

The case will soar.
RELEASE

This is the production of a Release.

It is the simplest and fastest way to produce a Release.

It has to be done anyway to set a case up for an S.O.P. Goals Assessment.

MISTAKES

You can louse up a pc by:

1. 	Failing to get a nul needle on every “Joburg” question as and when you ask it. Get each question cleared, not by Auditing, just by watching the needle and asking until the pc tells you the withhold.

2. 	Running several levels without flattening any. This puts the whole case in a stew. The movement of the Tone Arm as you run it tells you when something is still unflat. As long as the Tone Arm of the Meter is moved by the process, continue the process. It’s a code breach not to!

3. 	Running a level too long. You can stick the Tone Arm by overrunning the level. This is more serious than leaving one slightly unflat. If a Tone Arm for twenty minutes is only moving between, say, 3.25 and 3.35, you are already in danger of sticking the Tone Arm. Get off of it! If you do overrun, it’s hard to reassess for the new level and hard also on the pc. A remedy for overrunning is to assess the auditor on the Pre-Hav Scale and run the auditor out of the pc for about ten, fifteen minutes—if the needle moves at all.
4. 	Dwelling on levels in the Assessment, repeating them over and over instead of just once each, can start an avalanche on the pc. Don’t do it. Take the meter needle reads when they happen. Jot them down. Then take the most reaction. That’s it.

5. 	Sad to relate, it’s been done. But don’t think you just take the first level of the Pre-Hav and run it and then go up one and run it and then the next one up. That’s murder. Assess them with an E-Meter and run the levels of the Pre-Hav that react when they react.

6. 	Don’t skip the “Joburgs” because they make pcs squirm. This is how you find and get the withholds off. The case won’t move if you don’t. And give many Joburgs, one after every long Pre-Hav run, one or two levels, for the case responsibility comes up and as it comes up new overts are realized and they’ve got to come off.

SUMMARY

You’ll do the most for the pc by taking him or her to release with Preparatory S.O.P. Goals runs.

This is strong, powerful auditing. The pcs will thank you. They won’t if you try S.O.P. Goals when you don’t know how. That’s the way to make enemies.

E-Meter Essentials is coming out soon. A new Pre-Hav (same one you have but extended) Scale is being issued in another Clearing Series book. And I’m giving you straight dope and the best tools in these Bulletins. How can you lose. You’re sunk. You can’t!

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :im-.rd 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6105C26 SHSpec-4  On Auditing

Before you can change people, you have to increase their tolerance for  change.  Change is pain, because its fundamental is a shift of location in  space.  On a mechanical level, change is time.  Time is a temperature, the  hotter the faster.  This is a discovery in physics.  It goes along with the  discovery that the speed of light is not a constant but depends on the  velocity of emission, and that zero is a variable, not an absolute zero.  Time  is change on a mechanical level.  Rate of change is measured by rate of  change, not by time, but one pretends that it is measured by time.  If you  find the right temperature, you can speed time up or make something timeless.  For instance, after the atomic bomb exploded, nothing moved for twenty  minutes, not even the twenty minutes.  Temperature alteration caused this.  There is a zero.  There is nothing, but a nothing of what?  This is variable.

Society at present doesn’t know that it doesn’t know.  This is  dangerous.  Scientology points this out to society, which is painful to  society.  The best approach to study is always to find out what you don’t know  and then to remedy the situation.  One should not start out study by finding  out something new.  The gradient approach is:

1.  Not knowing that one doesn’t know.

2.  Knowing one doesn’t know, but not knowing what one doesn’t know.

3.  Finding out what one doesn’t know.

4.  Remedying the situation.    The only thing wrong with one’s case is the vast area of one’s beingness that  one doesn’t know one doesn’t know about.

Things you do reactively produce the opposite result from what you  intend.

Gradient of states of case:

1.  Release.  A release is a person who knows he won’t get any worse.  He has a low state of case, but he is better than a non-release, since he knows he isn’t there yet.  On a meter, he would give a whole dial drop on a low-sensitivity can squeeze, and the TA would be fairly near clear read.  He would also have reality on scientology as a way to improve.  The communication, help, and control buttons are in good shape.  He can as-is certain things by inspection.

2.  Stable release.  This is a tested release.  He has no adverse needle reactions on help, communication, or control.  Life can still mess him up, but he will come through better.
3.  MEST clear.  This individual has an F/N at sensitivity One and doesn’t react to routine questions.  He reads at the clear read for his sex.

4.  Stable clear.  This is a MEST clear who has run lots more SOP goals, where they start blowing by inspection.  For this individual, engrams have no persistence.  He can erase engrams or mock them up at will.  His healing rate is fantastic.  Thinkingness can have an effect on the bank before clear, but a clear has more effect on the bank.

In all case states up to clear, thinkingness has a varied effect on the  bank.  The lower the case state, the less effect one’s thought has on the  bank.  A psycho is total effect of the bank and can produce no effect on the  bank.  Then we go up to more and more effect of person on the bank, up to no  bank.

Memory trouble is withholdingness.  Withholding from people results in  withholding from self.  The PC lessens the overt and pushes it out of sight.  If you increase his responsibility, he becomes aware of more overts.  The  overts “unlessen” and one starts to feel bad, for instance when you discover  that you have been committing overts against the Org that has been so nice to  you.  This is what happens when you process a person towards greater  responsibility without pulling withholds: the person will cave in again.  Therefore you must pull these overts and withholds and get the charge off them  as they become available.  This is the rationale behind interspersing sec  checks with other auditing.  Otherwise the PC becomes unwilling to make case  gain and is likely to blow. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MAY 1961
Central Orgs

CLARIFICATION OF “CHANGE PROCESSING”

The following despatch to D of P Washington, D.C., who had been using “Change” exclusive of the whole Pre-Hav Scale and had been having trouble, is of interest to all Technical staff.

29th May, 1961 
Wayne—

Change is only one part of Pre-Hav Assessment. It is the only one that has a Secondary Scale. To “Assess on Pre-Hav” means to assess the whole Pre-Hav Scale of which Change is a part.

Change belongs at “Inverted Control”. Cross out “Inverted Control”, write in “Change” instead. Assess only on the whole Primary Pre-Hav. If and only if you get a reaction on “Change”, you assess Change Scale. When a level is flat you return to the whole Pre-Hav Scale and assess the whole scale.

Every Pre-Hav Level of the Primary will soon have its own Secondary Level. You always assess on any new assessment for level the whole Primary Pre-Hav Scale. You choose the most reactive (reacting on the needle) level of the Primary. Then you move over into that level’s Secondary Scale. You find the most reactive Secondary Level. You run just and only that level flat. Then you take the whole Primary Pre-Hav Scale for the next assessment. Once more you find the most reactive Primary Level. Then you move over into its Secondary and so on.

“Change” is the first one to have a Secondary Level. Every level now has one and they will be issued shortly.

So put “Change” at “Inverted Control” instead of “Inverted Control” and carry on.

The best routine is HCO Bulletin of May 13, 1961. It modifies nothing of this but gives you a sure approach to release, provided you keep rudiments cleaned up every session.

                                        					Best,
									Ron.

LRH:jl.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6106C01 SHSpec-5  Flattening Process and E-meter

On running a prehav level, be sure that you run the process long enough  to get it to bite.  When the PC needs a high sensitivity for a third of a dial  drop, you may not get much TA in the first three hours.  This can happen on a  sticky level at any time.  It is not flat, or it wouldn’t read in the first  place.  So run the TA in, then out.  If it is getting a little TA and never  did get much, you are getting some TA, and you want to continue to increase  it.

The goal becomes less intense when you find the terminal.  This is  because the goal is the significance that surrounds the terminal, and the PC’s  attention has been yanked off the goal over to the terminal, where it was  fixed anyway.  So the goal, after you have found the terminal, will read less  than the terminal.  There’s nothing in the goal for his attention to be fixed  on, since the goal is just something he achieved reactively to solve a problem  given him by a terminal that overwhelmed him.  The goal is the tag hanging out  from the bank and can be used to get in there and handle the bank.  This  phenomenon of tags was first noticed in 1949 with engrams.  For instance, with  a boy who is always worried about red caps, it turns out that red caps were in  an engram about which he knows nothing.  Goals work the same way.  The goal  that won’t null is the toughest one, the one attached to the terminal that  most overwhelmed the PC -- that he can still confront. 

Issue 129			[June 1961]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

The Sad Tail of PDH

L. Ron Hubbard

Every time we get up to a high roar, such as now when we’re clearing people as never before, we measure our progress by the violence of reaction in squirreldom.

They come down from the trees and start looking for nuts to convince how we’re all wrong. If they weren’t paid to do it I’d be happier.

The latest brainwave to greet our highest peak of helping Man is rumors of “PDH.” This is Pain-DrugHypnotism as practiced by the Communists. Brainwashing, in fact. It is interesting that when the Commies fight you, they try to convince people that you’re guilty of their own overts. It is also fascinating that a Commie rumor line is international in scope. The same rumor bursts out in a dozen quarters around the world, spread by paid agents at the same time.

This rumor of PDH started in Australia, where Scientologists laughed at it, went to South Africa where Scientologists got mad about it and then sprang up in the U.S. where some Scientologists “didn’t know.” Well, disregarding the fact that such don’t know anything anyway, we now know who is helping the little red brothers with the sickle in one hand and the hammer in the other to make trouble in the U.S.

Anyway, I’m not writing this article to scold. I’m really laughing at the idiocy of it.

I’ve been showing the students here at Saint Hill who’ve come for special briefing and clearing (and who are getting clear) how to convince a pc, by flagrant meter reaction, that the cat has “PDH’d” him. It’s very funny. But you’d have to know how an E-Meter works to appreciate the joke.

Here is the drill:

You put anybody on an E-Meter and say, “Have you ever been a victim of Pain-Drug-Hypnotism?” The meter reacts strongly. So of course the test subject on the meter is startled. He begins to gape. The meter action is so strong. It’s so convincing.

“Now,” you say, “who did this to you? Was it_____?” and name some person the subject knows or knows of. And we see another fall. The subject gapes, astounded. Has dear old Frank been giving him PDH’s? How horrible. He never would have thought this of poor old Frank. And you leave it at that and your test subject now believes he has been brainwashed by his best friend. But you don’t leave it at that.

“All right,” you say, “do you know of any pets?”

The test subject says, “Yes. I have a cat.”

“Well!” you say, “did this cat give you a dose of Pain-Drug-Hypnosis?”

And the meter falls!

The test subject is bewildered or ridiculing now. But there it is.

“Did your cat make you a victim of Pain-Drug-Hypnosis?” you insist.

And the meter reacts!

“What date?” you say. And the meter reads for midnight 12 July 1960.

Our subject now has horrible visions of his cat sitting on his chest while he sleeps PDHing him.

Why?

Well, people who believe bad things instinctively often aren’t capable of learning. But you are capable of learning so here’s the explanation:

You say to the test subject, “Is this meter falling on the word: PAIN?”

The subject wriggles. Giggles. “I sure don’t like pain,” says the subject. The meter clears up on it.

You say, “Is the meter falling on the word: Drugs?” And that fall comes off as the person says, “No, drugs are pretty bad.”

“Is the meter falling on the word: Hypnotism?” And that fall comes off because the subject realizes that he doesn’t like hypnotists and says so.

“Or did the meter fall on the word: VICTIM?”

The subject now laughs or responds.

The meter is cleared up in this way.

“Now,” you say, “have you ever been the VICTIM of PAIN-DRUG HYPNOTISM?”

The subject laughs. You repeat the question. The meter doesn’t react at all.

“Now how about this cat?” you say. (Or J. Edgar Hoover or whoever.) “Did you ever kick this cat? Do you have overts on this cat?”

“Well, yes,” says the subject. “I didn’t kick the cat. I drowned a cat once.”

“When?”

And after dating it on the meter, “Midnight 12 July 1960!!!” The exact date of the “PDH” (or one should say, the overt on the person [cat] ).
For the meter reacts on any person or thing on whom the subject has committed overt acts!

And when these things are inquired into, the question, “Have you ever been the victim of Pain-Drug-Hypnotism?” draws a nul meter. If it were really true, the meter would still respond.

You have to compartment any meter question to get the truth. The E-Meter never lies. But you can ask a sloppy question. When a question, the basis of which is false, contains restimulative or charged words, one has to break the question down to phrases or words, get the charge off them and then ask the question again. Now if the fact is true the meter reacts on the question not the words in the question.

Example: (asking a pc about a goal) “Do you want to be a freeman and climb ladders and rescue beautiful women?” The meter falls madly. What is it falling on? To sort the goal out one must know. The whole goal is true or part of it or none of it. So one asks, “Do you want to be a fireman?’’ Meter is nul. “Do you want to climb ladders?” Meter is nul. “Do you want to rescue?” Meter is nul. “Beautiful women?” Meter falls off the pin. “Do you have a goal to have beautiful women?” Meter falls off the pin again. It was Beautiful Women, not Fireman that made the meter fall.

Meters are accurate. But sometimes people are sort of stupid.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

PS: If there were any advantage in Brainwashing (which there isn’t) and if anybody were really PDH’d, it will clear up in a few minutes by assessing the PDHer on the Pre-Hav Scale and running the person off the bank. Takes about 30 minutes by the new processes. It takes the Russians 70 days to lay one in.

We’re winning.
                                        					LRH

PPS: If the meter falls only on Overts, won’t somebody please tie these squirrels down for a Johannesburg Security Check? Their PDH screams rather point the bony finger! Certificates must be in clean hands. Any HCO will give any certified auditor a security check, with or without witnesses. And any HCO can now stamp certificates “Clean Hands 1961.” Personally I wouldn’t let myself be audited by people who haven’t had security checks. Every person in a Central Organization is security checked. There you are in clean hands. And don’t try to tell people otherwise after all the work I do to keep orgs clean for you or I’ll revoke not only your certificate but your Thetan, too.

                                        					LRH

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 JUNE 1961
Central Orgs
ASSESSING

Clarifying how to do assessment on the Pre-Hav Scale, Primary and Secondary:

Assess Primary Pre-Hav. Locate most reactive level by most reactive needle response. If several levels react, clarify them by asking about one, then another, very briefly.

At the Primary Level you discovered (say “withhold”) move over to Secondary Scale (say, Withhold Secondary) for that level. In the same way as on the Primary Scale, find the most reactive verb on the Secondary Scale (say the Withhold Secondary).

Run that verb only. Don’t try to run nothing but that Secondary Scale for the next 5000 hours. Run only the one verb, made up into a multi-bracket command.

When that one verb no longer produces Tone Arm motion (less than 1/4 of a TA Division of motion in 20 minutes of auditing means flat, get off) the “level” assessed is flat.

You now assess again on the Primary Scale. You find the most reactive level of the Primary Scale as before.

Taking this Primary Level you move into its Secondary Scale. You assess the Secondary just like you assess the Primary.

You find one word, (one level) of this Secondary Scale, just one verb that reacts on the needle more than the rest. You choose this one verb. You run it flat on the Tone Arm. You don’t reassess inside this Secondary again unless its Primary comes up again in new assessments. You assess newly on the Primary Level, etc.

It is always the same system. You always do the same steps of selection. Find Primary Level. Find the One Point of its Secondary that reacts. Make up a command with brackets. Run the Tone Arm flat. Assess again on the Primary Scale. Go to its Secondary. Find the Secondary. Make up command and run the Secondary flat, etc, etc, etc.

At this writing only one Primary Level has had its Secondary Scale issued. That is Change which belongs at Inverted Control. But as this is written, all the Secondary Scales for 65 levels of the new Primary Scale are sitting in a box near my desk, being mimeoed one by one. Mary Sue, Jan and Dick Halpern assisted in the assembly for nights on end or it wouldn’t have been ready for 20 years if done by Ford Foundation or U of Pishtush standards.

So very shortly you will have all Secondary Levels complete. I will later cull them out and arrange them a bit neater in gradients but you need them and so they are being mimeographed and sent as they are.

When you have them all, don’t do as one person did—read that you ran the “Secondary Level” and so ran every one of the words in the whole Secondary Scale without further assessment. Ruined more pcs it did.

LRH :jl.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1961		                    			
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6106C02 SHSpec-6  Flows, Prehav Scale, Primary Scale

A person that has flowed in one direction too long, e.g. a writer who has  written too much, a shipping clerk who keeps shipping, etc.  One day he will  want to stop.  It is an electrical phenomenon.  People who are affected by  gravity are affected to a degree by Newton’s Laws of Motion: action and  reaction.  When a thetan pushes a particle out, there’s a recoil effect.  The  law really only applies to masses of comparable magnitude.  The stuck flow occurs when one neglects  the return flows one is in fact receiving; one fails to as-is it, and creates  a ridge from the resistance.  If there’s been too much inflow, a ridge may be  formed from not-ised out-pushes.  Newton’s second law is thus the reason for  solidification of flows.  The facsimiles of back pushes are neglected.  Therefore they stick.  The stuck flow is reacted to with unconsciousness,  which is dope-off.

If you have someone run a flow in one direction (in mockup), he can  either get a field in front of his face going black, or an avalanche will be  triggered where all the “things” come at him at once, or a reverse flow  avalanche, an avalanche of resistance, an inversion.  A flow too long in one  direction produces a reverse flow, not just a stuck flow.  This reverse flow  is:

1. Not as-ised, because not noticed.

2. Resisted.  [Then you get a flow in the original direction, but on an inversion.]

On running O/W, we can only do this when the PC is below the ability to  tolerate change.  O/W is reach and withdraw, but only from one terminal, and  it doesn’t account for all the possible motions.  As long as the individual is  below change, O/W only runs well on F-2 (See “O/W -- a Limited Theory” HCOB  5Jan61).  O/W is 100% effective below change but not effective above it.  [Cf.  the later order of the grades.] Below the level of tolerating change, the  individual’s inflow and outflow get locked up, and change produces ridges on  various flow lines.  Therefore, the person is individuated, can’t change his  viewpoint.  Resisting change, he gets left on some individuated point of the  bracket.  [E.g.  he has a stuck outflow, so he can’t relate to people.]  If he  was so bad off as to be psycho, he’d maybe get upset with flow three, and  maybe get up to obsessive cause.  If one is fluid on change, and doesn’t  resist it, he won’t resist the flows and therefore, he won’t create the  ridge.  When he sets up Newton’s Second Law of Motion, he knows there’ll be a  consequence of every thing he does, so he knows better than to cause or  experience much.  The consequences of change is change; when he can’t stand  change, he’ll go into O/W.  That’s why running brackets is a safety factor.  When a ridge is set up, it has to be taken apart on both sides alternately.  If a person goes unconscious on running a bracket, it may be that one flow is  overloaded, or maybe he isn’t really doing one leg of the bracket.  So you  have to check and see about that by asking once on each leg, “Did you answer  that to your satisfaction?”  The flow three on brackets is to handle his  dispersal.

In connection with stuck flows, the concept of God is interesting.  What  kind of shape would you think God would be in, if he’d just been creating  things and causing everything?  You could never reach him or say anything to  him.  What kind of duress must he be under to propitiate to us all that much?  He must be quite spun in.  Anyone who’s on such an obsessive cause must be  practically nuts!  We should have a society for the resurrection of God.  He  ploughed himself in for us, so we should help him out.

The Prehav Scale is a reactive bank scale.  When a person is eventually  able to have, he doesn’t have to have a bank, so the bank disappears, at the  point of Have.  The bank wouldn’t be there to measure on an analytical scale.  The best description of the analytical Have scale would be Axioms One and  Two.  All other truths are the result of postulates, agreements, and  considerations, so the scale would depend on what a bunch of thetans agreed  on.  It could change.

The Prehav scale is fixed, a “now-I’m-supposed-to,” “This is it -- why  we’re here” scale.  It’s the order of the value of postulates that are fixed  and not changeable in the absence of

scientology.  At some time early on the time track, this scale must have  been dreamed up.  Recovering it is quite a trick.  All levels may not be  there.  Also some levels repeat in changed wording, and there are harmonics. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JUNE 1961
CenOCon
Franchise

PROCESSES ALLOWED
(Cancels earlier Process directives)
(D of P Re-evaluate all cases, staff and public, on the basis of
this bulletin and apply this bulletin at once to all cases.)

As of this date only the following processes may be used in HGCs, Central or City Offices, excepting only Academies where any process may be used for training.

Process Routines
Routine One

For all cases that show one or more points near the very bottom of the graph on Traits A, B, C, D, E, F, and G regardless of other test or meter criteria, and for all cases that show all points within 25 points of the top of the graph, again regardless of other meter or test criteria:

1. 	CCHs.

2. 	Joburg Processing Checks.

1. 	The CCHs are to be run by their earliest criteria—London ‘57—which is to say CCHs 1, 2, 3, 4, are run in rotation and each only so long as it produces change and no longer. Change is measured by Comm Lag or alterations of pc in doing process. Do, for instance, CCH 1 only so long as it is producing changes in pc’s responses to doing it. Twenty minutes of no-change of response should be regarded as nul for the moment. One then goes on to CCH 2. The same rule applies. Only if pc’s responses are faster or slower or different each time, continue the process. Test for twenty minutes, again all of which must produce no marked difference of response to the process. If process is now nul, go on to CCH 3. Same rules apply. Go on to CCH 4. Same rules apply. Go to CCH 1. Same rules apply. Etc, etc. It is a Code Break (Clause 13) to change the process while the pc is giving differences of timing (comm lag) or attitudes of response. It is a Code Break (Clause 13) to fail to change the process when the pc is not giving any differences in timing or attitudes of response.

If done this way and with good Tone 40 wonderful results are achieved by the CCHs.

The case criteria is meant to embrace the “no auditor” case at the bottom and the “Theetie Weetie Case” (sweetness and light) case at the extreme top of the graph (who will go to graph bottom before the case starts up again as though the profile were a cylinder which when it goes off the top, then appears on the bottom when people are in “serene” valences [meaning they are wholly overwhelmed as a thetan].)

2. 	The Johannesburg Processing Check is the same as the Joburg Security Check only it is now being used for processing purposes with great results. I have rewritten it in HCO WW Form 3 as the Joburg Security Check and will rewrite it as HCO WW Form 4 calling it “HGC Gain Control Check” or some such name, but the questions are about the same. Meanwhile use Form 3 as is in HGCs. Don’t rewrite or omit.

The directions are on the Check form. The difference is that in using the Joburg in Processing, these rules apply:

1. 	Clear all needle reaction from any question before going on to the next question. By-pass no reaction you see on the meter to the question. If you do let one slide, the pc will shortly complain about being given the check. If a pc starts complaining about the check, you have either passed a hot question without getting the withhold, or he has a hot withhold. Remedy: if pc complains continually while being checked during processing (not in pure Security Checking for the Org but in using the check in processing) you go back to the beginning and start over.

2. 	The Joburg used in processing only is done in Model Session only. However on the question, “Are you withholding anything?”, don’t spend more time than needed to clear PT withholds on the auditor as the whole check is devoted to withholds.

3. 	If pc refuses check altogether and you can’t get on, return pc to CCHs, do them a few more hours and try the check again.

This is all there is to Routine One. CCHs and Joburgs. And the graph is now the full criteria of when you use Routine One.

Routine Two

This is covered very fully in HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1961, “Releasing and Preparing a Case for SOP Goals” and other current HCO Bulletins.

Routine Two consists of two steps only.

1. 	Joburg checks, given as above in Routine One.

2. 	General Runs on Pre-Hav Scale without terminal, using Primary and Secondary Scales.

3. 	On PT Problems of Long Duration (years or within this lifetime only) assess on meter for terminal and nul the Tone Arm for each level, level after level, using mainly the Primary Scale.

4. 	Find the pc’s Havingness and Confront Processes and use them briefly early in each session and at each session’s end and where needed.

For every general level flattened fully on the Pre-Hav Level found, do a Joburg. For every PTP of Long Duration, completed, run a Joburg.

The Hav and Confront Processes can be found at any time but are better found after one Joburg and one general level flattened.

Why all these Joburgs? As a case gains it gains in responsibility. As it gains in responsibility, the pc remembers more withholds and considers the things he has done more in the light of having been overts. If the case isn’t given a chance to get rid of these, it stalls. Or the pc is half killed by realizations that he has been bad when the targets of his overts unlessen from pigs to people. Therefore it is brutally unkind to improve a case without then removing the withholds now realized. This is also an excellent therapeutic mechanism. It is also an excellent test of a pc’s progress, i.e: if he has no more withholds on a new Joburg that weren’t found on his last, the pc isn’t progressing. On successive Joburgs if no new overts and withholds show up that weren’t there before, the pc is not progressing. Yes, I’ve found why cases stalled and gained only so far and then blew. Your thanks are in order.
This Routine Two, closely followed and carried out, will bring out the state of Release in from 50 to 75 hours.

Routine Three

1. 	SOP Goals Assessments for goals and Terminals;

2. 	Running SOP Goals Terminals Flat on every level;

3. 	Joburg Processing checks (as in One and Two above);

4. 	Use of Hav and Confront Processes as in Routine Two or finding new Hav and Confront Processes as case gets more able.

This is the full extent of the things used in Routine 3.

Routines 2 and 3 are not crossed or intermixed.

Routine 3, if one is expert indeed, can be done on any case but one can make mistakes, find the wrong goal or terminal, and so, until fully briefed and flawless in TRs, E-Meter, Model Session and Assessing, an auditor will get more case gains per unit of time by using Routine Two. When he or she is a Release, it is much easier some day to have Routine 3 then completed if the person is Released first.

In short, for sure gains until you are sure of your tools, as listed above, use Routines 1 and 2. When you are perfect in handling SOP Goals, do Routine 3 on pcs.

W A R N I N G

On running general runs and SOP Goals Terminals on Pre-Hav Levels, the most serious mistake that can be made is not flattening a level before reassessing.

On a rough case, the TA motion required to end is present at the beginning and so auditors leave the level and leave it unflat.

If two or more levels are run and left unflat, the pc can feel he is spinning!

Flatten levels in this wise:

1. 	Run until TA is showing better motion.

2. 	Run until needle is practically stuck for the whole of 20 minutes.

3.	Reassess.

Example on a sticky meter case: 
Level Assessed: “Build” 
First three hours of running: 
Tone Arm dial reads:

4.2, 4.3, 4.1, 3.9, 4.2.

Second three hours of running:

4.2, 4.4, 4.1, 4.6, 4.0, 3.75, 4.9, 3.5, 4.3, 3.25.

Third period of two hours:

3.25, 3.5, 3.2, 3.6, 3.9, 4.1, 4.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4.7, 3.6, 4.8, 5.0, 4.7.

Last twenty minutes:

4.7,5.0,5.0,5.0,4.9,5.0,5.1,5.0.

Note that the “Leave it when the TA moves less than a 1/4 of a TA Dial in 20 minutes” seems to apply to first three hours. Actually the TA, on a rough case (sensitivity 2 to get a 1/3 dial drop) does not begin to move for quite a while. Then it begins to move. Then it nuls.

So be careful. It is better to have a TA stuck for 20 minutes than to leave a level unflat.

SUMMARY

Since February, 1961, I’ve been teaching auditors close up and far away how to clear.

I have now a pretty good grip on what they can and will do. I have been modifying the tools to fit hands more than to fit cases. They already fit the cases and have since February.

The auditor who can do CCHs and has a fair command of Routines 1 and 2 and who “keeps the Rudiments in” and doesn’t Q and A and who has a good D of P behind him to see that he does, can get wonderful case results with Routines 1 and 2.

Only the auditor who has perfect TRs, a total command of the E-Meter, Perfect Model Session, a good grip on assessing, and whose case is in excellent shape, should attempt SOP Goals—and that right now isn’t two dozen and aside from Peter and Eliz Williams, their two new ACC Clears and a few of their ACC Students, aside from the South African Clear Jean Kennedy and a very few S.A. ACC Students, the rest are right here at Saint Hill. At this moment there are none in America and there will only be one there by July 30th, 1961. There are none in England outside the boundaries of Saint Hill who could clear and only one genned in on Routine Two at HASI London.

So there’s what I’ve found out after an awful lot of work with you guys. I’ve found most of you can do Routine One, some of you can do Routine Two. None save the above named can (not by permission but by actual fact) do Routine Three.

I’ve also found out that all this is very easy to remedy and that your willingness is superb.

Our work is cut out for us, but boy, do we know where we’re going.

We have to get all auditors perfect on the TRs, Model Session, E-Meter, Security Checking, Pre-Hav Assessing and SOP Goals. And it can be done very easily. When we’ve got that we’ll have loads of Clears.

And what do you think that will do to this society?

LRH:jl.bh							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6106C06 SHSpec-7  Routine One, Two and Three

Always check for what happened between sessions if the PC has a different  TA read from the end of one to the beginning of the next session, even after  just a break.  The definition of rudiments is what’s needed to get the PC in  session.  They are nothing more than that.  Don’t use ruds to waste auditing.  Ruds processes are weak.  Let the PC as-is it by telling you about it, but  don’t two way comm it.  If the PC is still dramatizing something, it’s too  deep-seated for ruds anyway.  If needed, you can ask in several ways to find  what it is.  This is not the same as two way comm.  You can run a rudiments  process if it doesn’t clean up when he spots it.

With CCH’s you are auditing out a valence end bringing the PC up.  The  valence will fight for survival, you will get comm lags, etc.  The CCH’s are  not run in model session.  You don’t pick up ARC breaks, etc., because the  person doesn’t easily blow them and can get quite involved in them.

Routine One:  CCH’s and Sec checks

Routine Two:  General run of the Prehav scale, Joburg, and havingness -- all in model session.

PTP’s of LD are assessed for the terminal, which is run on the Prehav scale.

Routine Three: SOP Goals assessment, assess for terminals, run flat on Prehav, with Joburgs interspersed.

6106C05 SHSpec-8  Routine One, Two and Three

An auditing result is determined by:

1. The adequacy of the tool being applied.

Modified by:

2. What auditor’s will use.

Which is modified by:

3. What they can use.    

A good process is one that can be widely applied.  A good procedure is to ask  an auditor what he’s had gain on himself.  Let him run that until he gets  reality (with training) on something else.  He’ll get a result where he  himself believes he can get a result.

If you increase a person’s potential responsibility without letting them  be responsible for what they’ve done, it is vicious.  The person will feel  miserable, which is better than being irresponsible, but they’ll stop getting  case gain because they feel it’s not deserved or safe.  As a PC gets  processed, his reality level on his life and overts comes up.  That’s why sec  check reads change as the person gets new auditing.  The point of doing O/W is  to bring responsibility up, but this is only possible where there is some  responsibility.  The “dead thetan” case won’t read on O/W.  He has total  irresponsibility.  But a person can’t take responsibility for his acts unless  you let him do it and communicate them.

6106C07 SHSpec-9  Points in Assessing

The problem with communicating scientology is that there are no  agreed-upon realities ready-made in words.  If you give a person one of these  concepts and its name and definition, he will recognize the truth of it, but  it will take awhile for him to really grasp it.  and he has to get the concept  first.  This is almost like processing.  People read DMSMH and got an  understanding that changed their physical condition.  But the ideas of  dianetics and scientology haven’t been familiar to Man, so it takes awhile, or  it takes familiarity with them, to grasp them.  You could teach someone the  principles of scientology by teaching him the vocabulary.

You’ve got to get the PTP of long duration off the PC’s case if he has  one, before you can go on with goals processing, because the PTP LD is more  real to the PC than anything else on his case.  His attention is fixed on it.  If the PC has his attention fixed on the hidden standard, you’ve practically  got a computation right there.  It has to be gotten out of the way to get case  gain.  It is always right on the goals chain, or it wouldn’t be a PTP of long  duration, so when you get it out of the way, you’ve got the case flying.  It  has been a mistake not to assess the hidden standard, finding out who had it,  when, and what.  [This is Presession 38 -- a dianetic assist.  See HCOB  23Feb61 “PT Problem and Goals”.] Or a more certain method would be to run the  hidden standard with a terminals assessment by elimination (Whose might it  be?  What might it be?, etc.) This line of questioning is interesting, both to  the PC and casewise, because the hidden standard is the primary source of  individuation for the PC.  It is what makes him different from everyone else.  It is the least well duplicated part of the bank, so it will fire off as an  automaticity, because it is the area that is most out of communication and  most out of control.  The PC could get lots of terminals from this.

The hidden standard is a substitute for the case of the PC.  It is more  real to him than any case or life difficulties the PC may have.  It is a form  of individuation.  The PC is the one with the earache.  This distinguishes him  from others. 

6106C08 SHSpec-10  Q and A Period and Ending an Intensive

[A lot of specific data about running SOP Goals.]

6106C09 SHSpec-11  Reading E-meter Reactions

Auditing latent reads is auditing the analytical mind.  It is the  reactive mind that we are interested in auditing.  The reactive mind is a mind  that acts without inspection on the basis of stimulus.  It puts into action  solutions to problems it fancies must exist, which may never have existed, or  which haven’t existed for billions of years.  Put in any part of the problem,  and the reactive mind goes into forming the solution.  A thetan is trying to  survive, who has no necessity for trying to survive at all, which is the first  idiocy.  So the mind is trying to solve a nonexistent problem.  Then it  addresses itself to the survival of form, the perpetuation of an existing  state, which would take out all the MEST in a sensible state and “garbleize”  it.  The reactive mind is the individual’s accumulated goals for the survival  of forms.  The reason it destroys is to get something to survive.  It creates  to get a form to survive.  The reactive mind is the part of the cycle of  action that will never move, because its keynote is survival of a form.  So it  is trying to make something survive that is already dead: old bodies,  identities, etc.

You could remember it if you weren’t trying so hard to make it survive,  but because of the survival effort, when you try to remember it, you get a  restimulation as if you were still in the period, because all the impulse to  survive has been trapped and rides up to PT.  All of these forms have nothing  to do with PT, but here they are.  So the reactive mind has a starvation for  the other parts of his old games, e.g. the opponents, and it acts without  inspection and very fast.  To get a form to survive, you can’t take time for  inspection.  This leads to such idiocies as people attacking their own planes  or ships in war when they’d gotten used to attacking enemy ones.  The “safe  thing to do” is not to inspect, under battle conditions.  The jam of the time,  not taking time to inspect, results in no-inspection.  When you speed up  things in the physical universe to too great a degree, on the false basis that  you are prone to non-survival, but in the interest of keeping something  surviving, you’ll run into the timeless reactivity of action without  inspection.

So therefore, what you are after is instant reads.  Your auditing target  is the reactive mind, not the PC.  The only thing wrong with the PC is the  reactive mind, and there is no inspection involved there, so he can’t see what  is wrong with him.  If he could see it, it wouldn’t be wrong.  This is also  why the reactive mind is more in control of the auditor than the PC: the  no-inspection factor.  He can’t think on the reactive subjects; you can.  So  if you take his instructions on what to do or handle, you’ll always do the  wrong things.  One of the PC’s goals is to make his reactive mind survive, so  he won’t let you near any part that should be audited.  It dictates to you  that it must survive; it throws you red herrings.  “When you turn around and  look; when you’re running from a [battle that you’re losing], you normally get  speared.  Therefore it’s very very bad to look at the things that are pursuing  you ..., so you mustn’t ... so you had better prevent the auditor from ...  looking at the things that are pursuing you.

There is another obscuring element: withholdingness is the comm bridge  between the PC and the reactive mind.  When a withhold comes out of the  reactive mind, the PC will do what the reactive mind tells him to do, which is  to withhold it.  Withholdingness is part and parcel of survival; it is  protection of forms from attacks and destruction.  It’s a non-duplication too:  you withhold your form from duplicating the form of someone you’ve killed.  This sets the mechanics going for survival: it’s actually prior to the actual  idea of survival.  So the PC gets into withholding thought.  The withholding  of form is super-basic to all sorts of other things, e.g. individuating.  The  PC also withholds his body from destruction.

When the PC gives up a withhold, he’s conquered a dictate of the reactive  mind by being controlled by a being (the auditor), rather than by his bank.  This is the mechanics by which he feels better when he gets the withholds  off.  Because withholds add up to keeping him separated from the human race.  He can always be counted upon to dramatize the withhold when it comes up.  On  the meter, there’s first a tick, then a fall as the PC spots it.  The  secondary action is not to get the withhold off the PC, but to keep the PC  from dramatizing his reactive bank.  So we say, “What was that?” When  withholding, the PC is reactive -- he is dramatizing -- otherwise, he’s  talking to you analytically or at the dictates of the reactive mind.  Early in  the case, auditing the PC is like auditing the light bulb to fix the  generators in the power plant.  The E-meter helps you locate all the parts in  the generator.

If the PC is left with a withhold in session, he’ll ARC break half an  hour later.  What you’re trying to do is to keep the PC from being fooled  about himself.  If you avoid the reactive mind, you’re just doing a Q and A  with the PC.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JUNE 1961
Central Orgs
Franchise
THE RISING NEEDLE: SKIP IT!

Former ACC students will well remember the E-Meter drill in which, among other “reactions”, they were to produce a rising needle on their coach. The time has come to change nomenclature on this one! For practical auditing purposes—such as deciding if a Sec Check question has been cleared, or whether a particular level of the Pre-Hav Scale should be run—A RISING NEEDLE IS NOT CLASSIFIED AS A “REACTION”.

Of the 10 needle actions described in Ron’s new book, E-Meter Essentials, let’s call the following “reactions”, in as much as they are of value to an auditor in deciding what needs to be run on a case, or what needs further work:

ROCK SLAM 
FALL 
THETA BOP 
STUCK 
CHANGE OF NEEDLE CHARACTERISTIC

The following might be called, simply, needle actions, or motions—in that you don’t use them in deciding to do something with a pc:

FREE NEEDLE 
NO REACTION (NUL) 
STAGE FOUR 
RISE BODY 
REACTION

About all a rising needle tells you is that the pc can’t confront, therefore has exceedingly low reality, responsibility, and knowingness on whatever significance it’s rising on. So, skip it! Treat a rising needle, for practical purposes like a Security Check or Assessment, like a nul needle. You needn’t pursue this particular subject any further at this point in the case, because the pc’s knowingness and responsibility on this subject is practically nil. There may very well be further material available on this particular subject after the pc has had some more auditing—but not now. So, let go of it. Skip it! So, it’s putting the Tone Arm up, this rise. All right. That’s why E-Meters are built with Tone Arms that rotate; sometimes they go up! Fine. You don’t need to do a blessed thing about it, and shouldn’t try. Just keep on with your check, assessment, or whatever it is you’re doing. Let your auditing guides be the rock slam, fall, theta bop, chiefly, plus stick and change of pattern.

If it’s a rise with sticks in it, you do find out what’s putting the stick into it. If it were a rising needle with rock slam in it you’d investigate the rock slam. But the rise itself, or a needle that is simply rising, you ignore.

In this way you will save hours and hours of auditing time. Trying to kill a rise by finding out what it’s rising on is attacking the case at its least approachable point—the point responsibility, reality, confrontingness and knowingness are at their lowest, the point when the pc (and the meter!) is least capable of helping you, or himself. Why try to scale a wall where it’s 20 feet high when you can walk through the breaches in it? So gear him in instead where the needle is reacting with rock slam, falls, theta bop, or sticks, where he has some reality and responsibility, where he knows something about it, and can confront it a little. That way he’ll move, and you’ll both win.

LRH:im .rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1961						
by L. Ron Hubbard	                    
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6106C12 SHSpec-12  E-meter Actions, Errors in Auditing

The E-meter only reacts on those things that the PC is aware of or  capable of becoming responsible for.  This responsibility factor becomes a  reality factor, so you can audit what appears on the meter.  Things that don’t  appear are beyond the PC’s zone of responsibility.  Getting new reads on sec  checks is thus a test of the PC’s advance in responsibility.  If no change,  there is some gross outness countering the auditing.  Don’t get trapped by all  the little minor errors.  These gross efforts come from the impulse to make  nothing out of something, which goes back to productivity.  The effort to  produce is one half of the dichotomy.  All strikes are on the other half: the  effort not to produce.  Many people are dedicated to non-production --  no-survival.  This comes about as a reaction to a stuck flow on “Must Survive”  Many operations would go better if just left alone.  Today’s “planned balanced  economies”, reminiscent of Markab, which specialized in this, generally result  in unbalanced messed up economics.  Produce and Non-Produce should be on the  Secondary Prehav scale.  The goal could also be “No Results”.

Here we are talking about continually recurring gross errors, not just  occasional errors.  Anyone will do that.  Don’t attempt total perfection or  you’ll never complete or accomplish anything.  People get so tense about doing  it right that they’ll never get anything done.  A good exercise to cure  perfectionism is to deliberately decide something is finished without the  finishing touches.  When you can do perfect TR’s, metering, etc., you can  relax and just audit with no anxiety communicating to the PC.  You must exude  confidence in order to give people hope, which is a fundamental necessity to  making someone well or better.  Mainly, it has to appear that you are trying  to do something for the PC, not that you are trying to be perfect.

Using instant reads, one gets at all the held down fives in the bank;  using latent reads, one is handling all the PC’s concerns about why the fives were held down.  This is a longer road to clear.  

6106C14 SHSpec-14  Seminar: Withholds

You don’t destroy records when you are pulling withholds, and you don’t  agree with the PC to do this.  If you do, it is as much as if you were telling  him you’ll withhold for him, and he won’t get much gain.

The only liability to getting the PC to where he can’t be influenced by  the reactive mind is that, in a sense, you are auditing him towards a state of  no-effect: total serenity, total no-effect, the way the Lamaist did it.  The  individual must be able to experience to live.  It is possible to plough  someone in on a level and make them look good, but not clear.  This is  education by fixation [see p. 37].  One should be able to do anything on the  Prehav scale.  Repairing his ethics will eradicate his impulse to do hasty  things and get action on a rational basis, as a result of inspection, not  based on inhibition.  This is a new thing on earth in human behavior.
There’s nothing wrong, in theory, with native state processing, as  practiced in 1957 and 1958 -- knowingness deteriorating by postulate to  not-know, to must know, to can’t know (forget), to remember.  This processing  was too simple and of too much generality to be functional.  An OT process,  “Tell me an intention that failed,” “Tell me an intention that succeeded,”  would be a one-button clear process if that could be run (since it’s Axiom 10,  Factor 2).  But it’s too simple to plumb the reactive mind with.  A certain  level of complexity is necessary to resolve cases.  The worse off a person is,  or the clearer they are, the more you need to run the secondary scale (greater  complexity).  How many buttons are there?  There are all the beingnesses ever,  all the doingnesses ever, all the things anyone ever had or could have.  You  can’t force a person to grasp reactively things which are analytically obvious  because it’s reactive and nutty.  A process must have some complexity to be  effective at a reactive level and some simplicity to make it easy to  administer.

If one invalidates the basic agreements and identifications of the MEST  universe, MEST changes characteristics.  For instance, if you stop agreeing  that water runs downhill, and challenge that, it’ll go all gelatinous and  globby.

A security check is running all the not-know off the case that it has run  on everyone and everything for God knows how long.  You are actually running  the native state cycle of sequences, not withholds at all.  Overts consist of  putting not-knows into the third dynamic.  For instance, someone robs a store:  the storekeeper comes in and doesn’t know who did it or when, or when it might  happen again.  [Also not-knowing where the stuff is that was taken.] Then the  storekeeper runs the not-know on the police.  Now the area has a not-know that accumulates in the society, until people can’t trust each  other and can’t produce and the society is aberrated.  Someone feels better  when he gets off the overt of creating ignorance.  Eventually he’ll realize  that this overt worried people.  That’s another overt.  Then, eventually, he  cognites on the not-know overt, and he’ll notice his memory improving, his IQ  going up, as he runs out overts of making people not-know (or be stupid, in  other words).  Sometimes a case will recover totally by getting off one big  overt.  Auditors don’t effectively run Presession (“What question shouldn’t  I ask you?”, etc.  See HCOB 15Dec60) because they aren’t imaginative enough  about all the evil in the world.  It also requires the auditor to create  not-knows about the PC.  It works better to give the auditor a list of mean,  nasty, vicious not-knows someone might have run on the world.  This doesn’t  run a not-know on the auditor.  This is the sec check.  Different sec checks  should be devised for different routines.  Routine three cases need  whole-track lists, otherwise, their whole track memory will get occluded.  Whole track memory depends on some kind of whole track sec check.  This also  answers the question of why PC’s feel better after giving up same withholds  but not others.  And what is a withhold?  It’s running a don’t know or can’t  know on self or others.  When the overt is on someone else, it gives a big  resurge when it comes off.

Messing up time [by lying?] is a different breed of cat.  It’s creating,  for one thing.  All of life is an invented episode.  Writing fiction is done  with the intention to amuse and inform.  The only not-know in it is to keep  the reader from knowing the end before he gets there.  The only aberrating  thing about it, for the writer, is that it’s a creative effort, which can wind  someone up in the soup [Cf. the effect on some people of Step six.] If you  tell a lie to obscure your own guilt, that’s another not-know or false  knowingness, which eventually makes the person feel that all life is a  pretense [Cf. the sociopath.].  Auditing then becomes just a literary  criticism of life, as a romantic episode.

6106C15 SHSpec-15X  Not-Know

There’s a mechanical side and a thought side of boil-off.  one is prone  to worry when the PC boils off, but it is only a matter of concern if the  auditor ceases to audit because of it.  The mechanical definition of boil-off  is a stuck flow.  A lot of stuck flows got parked on the track, and when the  PC hits them, he boils off.  Most of the time, when the PC goes unconscious,  if you kept giving the auditing command, the PC would keep on doing it at  about the same speed or a bit slower as when he was awake, because the PC  isn’t really unconscious.  If he didn’t hear you, there’s no harm done -- it s  not an implant situation.  He comes right through it.  The thought definition  of boil off is that it is the accumulated not-know the PC has run on  everybody.  Unconsciousness is merely the intensification of not-knowingness.  (You could even run a not-know in the course of being “kind” by not telling  people that they’re upsetting or bugging people.  They will make enemies who  eventually hit them, surprising them because no one told them they were  messing people up.) Immanuel Kant introduced not-know into philosophy with his  transcendentalism.  This killed philosophy until scientology came around.  The  Greek philosophies amounted to this:  if you couldn’t lick them, confuse them  with entertainment and philosophy.  This out-creation with philosophy and  entertainment was a very effective means of conquest.  Many philosophies have  been mere dramatizations of Prehav levels, relying for their force on bank  agreement.  By observing what people underline in books you can see that what  people go for is what agrees with their banks.

One gets into this frame of mind as a result of thinking, “Truth is  merely subjective; there is no broad truth.” This is the philosophy of the  only one [solipsism] .  Also General Semantics.  Then there’s Dale Carnegie’s  “1.1-ism”, which tries to communicate with an unreality.  They run a not-know  on people by being nice, and the people sense it, too.  Where a reality is not  present, a not-know is substituted for it.  An unreality is created whenever  you substitute an unknown for a known.  Communism does this well with the iron  curtain.  Or take someone who always says, “I’m fine,” when you ask, “How are  you?” They’re substituting a non-fact for an observable fact, giving you an  unreality that eventually makes then disappear.  Curious phenomena will occur  around someone who is doing this: they eventually do disappear.  But if  there’s a terrific not-know about someone, he persists like mad.  For  instance, the monk, Dharma, who lived 10,000 years ago in India formed the  basis for most Indian religions, but nothing is known about him or what he  said.  The least-known philosopher is someone whose name we don’t even know.  He’s influential in the background of Lao-tse, Confucius, and Buddha.  He is  held in place by the not-know.  This is Dharma, who is not even thought of now  as a person, but as fate.

On a personal level, not-know shows up as boil-off.  An extreme  manifestation is unconsciousness; at a lesser level, it’s death.  Not-know, at  its most extreme, is when a person cannot go unconscious.  We call that  insanity.  Death is a state of beingness, not an action.  Unconsciousness is  lower, well below death.  One can get knocked off and go on knowing what is  happening.  Insanity is where a person cannot not-know the fifteenth  substitute for reality -- a delusory state.  They worry about these things  laying in wait for them.  They’re in a state of combat with the unknowable.  This can go on the tone scale, on a level of not-know, from serenity about the  unknowable on down.  They may seem fairly sane at the top, but they don’t know  what it is they don’t know about and are looking for.  They get down to grief  about not having found out what it is they don’t know about.  The guy will  also be utterly fixed on the track.  If you know what you are unhappy or  bugged about, you are not insane.  Merely wondering -- the fact that you can  wonder why -- demonstrates that you are not insane.  Knowing this, one won’t  be baffled about insanity, for bafflement is just a Q and A with  not-knowingness.  The reason one gets worried about the insane case is a Q and  A of trying to find out what the case doesn’t know.  What he doesn’t know is a  not-know.  If you can speculate about what you don’t know, you will be OK.  You can introduce some sanity into someone who is spinning by getting him to  think of one person who doesn’t think he is insane, because you have  introduced a knowingness into his unknowingness.  Or you could use one  command, “Look around here and find something which is really real to you.” 
6106C16 SHSpec-16X Confront and Havingness

Havingness gets eaten up by valences and consumption circuits until the  PC is clear, or nearly so.  Then it orients him and stays with him stably.  As  long as he has a dominant valence or dominant machinery, havingness gets eaten  up.  Any gain it gives is in ten to twelve commands.  Any more than that is a  waste of time.  ARC straightwire does a lot [for havingness] at first also.  Havingness works by shifting attention but doesn’t as-is the bank’s masses; it  just moves them around.  

[Details on running Routines One and Two, and havingness and confront  processes.]

If a case with a lot of auditing hasn’t had significant change, the  policy is that, regardless of graph, meter read, or anyone’s opinion, you run  Routine One [CCH’s and sec checks].  This is the most rapid way to make the  case change.  It’s just the effective thing to do.  This prevents you from  making a mistake on the case.  The only reason someone gets upset about being  run on CCH’s is that pride enters into processing, which is in itself a sign  of some nuttiness.

6106C19 SHSpec-15  Q and A Period: Auditing Slowdowns

Test for a release: The person should not be reading weirdly on a meter;  the sensitivity knob should be down -- you should get a good drop with  sensitivity zero.  You should get no reaction on the questions, “Do you think  you’ll get any worse?  Does scientology work for you?  How do you feel about  help?  How do you feel about control?”
Every time you find something in the PC struggling for survival, it isn’t  the PC, because he can’t do anything but survive.  It’s a valence.  Every  valence fights for survival.  It can be such a clever valence that it can fool  the auditor.  The Auditor’s Code is there so the valence won’t feel  challenged, so it won’t kick back before you can jump it.  The PC gets most  upset by the auditor’s failure to handle his case.  The valence says, “See the  red herring?” If the auditor complies, the PC will get unmanageable because  he’s lost confidence in the auditor’s control.  The auditor needn’t apologize  for positive, certain control.  That’s how to make valences lose and PC’s  win.  Kindness validates valences, not PCs.  Valences aren’t hard to handle if  you are certain and let it come across.  Auditing weakly gives power to the  PC’s circuits and valences; auditing with certainty validates the PC.

Instant read is within a tenth of a second.

[The “death of the Ego” is the death of the valence.]

6106C20 SHSpec-16  Sec Check Questions.  Mutual Rudiments

The perfect answer to any question is the exact question.  When it is  correctly asked, it is answered.  Say you are trying to lay out serving  equipment in a hotel kitchen.  When you finally spot exactly what you’re  doing, you perceive that you are not arranging machinery but trying to  accomplish some exact result, like trying to get food from A to B.  In asking  the person who’s going to use it what he needs, you are getting a more precise  phrasing of the real question you wanted to ask.  When you have all the data  to define the exact question, you will have the answer.

The borderline between the Reactive Mind and the analytical mind is the  broad Savannah of “I don’t know.” Things get foggy on it; the PC knows  something is there, but sees nothing very clearly.  The auditor’s action in  compartmenting and clarifying the question helps to pinpoint the source of fog  for the PC.  [The exact answer to a problem is the exact problem, when  correctly phrased, or as-ised.  This is why a repetitive look at a problem and  rephrasing of it will cause a resolution.]

We have made a recent discovery of magnitude.  We’ve known that co-audit  teams tended to make less progress than HGC Auditing, but not why.  The answer  is now known.  The first clue was the D of P’s finding auditors’ ruds on PC’s  out even when the auditor found them in.  It turns out that the ruds weren’t  out with the auditor.

It was mutual ruds of the team that were out with others but not the team.  For instance, the pair agree the PC’s family are swine, so it won’t read on  ruds, but someone else who isn’t in on the agreement will find the PC’s out  ruds.  The meter registers on disagreements.  One way to solve it is Formula  13 [failed help and O/W on terminals, alternated.  See HCOB 1Dec60.], cleaning  up all the people who read, or on ruds, substituting “we” for “you”.  Even CCH’s  can do it.

6106C21 SHSpec-17  Seminar at Saint Hill

[Details on running Prehav 13.  It’s a process which combines overt  running with prehav assessment and running of brackets, relative to a list of  charged terminals]

At upper level strata, beingness is higher than doingness, and doingness  is higher than havingness.

To do a can squeeze, get hands relaxedly in your lap, then squeeze them  gently with the hand itself, not clear on up to the shoulders. 

6106C22 SHSpec-18  Running CCH’s

The way the CCH’s are run is 1, 2, 3, 4 over and over and over.  It is a  breach of the auditor’s code, clause 13, to run a process beyond the point  where it is producing change or to stop running one which is producing  change.  The words in the process have very little to do with the process;  they’re run with meat and motion.  They are all done by compulsion if  necessary.  The PC never has an opportunity not to execute the command.  The  consequences of letting a PC out of doing the command are grave.  The CCH’s  run out surgery, shock, etc., as the PC dramatizes.  You should run the  process flat, which means the PC has the same aspect for twenty minutes, no  matter what the aspect is, and no matter how nutty or unconscious (as long as  the PC is doing the command).  Change means such things as somatics, etc.  It  may be necessary to run CCH’s for a few hours before they bite.  You don’t pay  attention to what the PC says; it’s what he does, though if he communicates to  you that something is happening, that’s a change.  Running CCH’s permissively  will also screw up the PC; you must apply control to get communication and  communication to get control.  Irresponsibility denies havingness, so sec  checks also raise havingness.  All O/W running, since it raises  responsibility, results in havingness.  “Prehav” really means “prevent  havingness” scale.  It consists of those things that prevent havingness.  This  is gotten off in Routine 2 [see p. 34 or HCOB 5Jun61]: the fixed reactive  buttons that prevent the PC from having things are gotten out of the road.  On  Routine 3, the PC gets out of the road all those unrealized goals, each of  which has been a defeat, hence a denial of havingness.  So havingness is the  end product of all this.

O/W raises havingness because the individual individuates from things  because he can’t have them.  So he develops overts only on those things he  can’t have.  So when you get the overts off, he can have.  If you could have  the whole universe, it gives you no trouble.  It’s only the things you can’t  have that you have trouble with.  Next time you have a PTP, see what’s in it  and what prevents you from having them.  Individuation from the thing, the  dynamic, the universe, is what brings trouble, because you get into an  obsessive games condition, which adds up to -- you can’t have it and it can’t  have anything to do with you.

The CCH’s knock out individuation from the physical beingness which has  been caused from the PC to his body and (apparently) his body to him.  That’s  why they run out electric shocks, etc.  And you have to let him take more  responsibility or he won’t improve his havingness.  You have to maintain  control, or you’ll show him the body can’t be controlled, so it can continue  to overwhelm the PC.  Also, the PC will become practically unauditable.  Misguided kindness is all that could let you allow the PC to control the  session.  It’s actually a vicious thing to do.  Even if the PC is right in his  advice, don’t follow it.  He’ll gain more from being run wrong, but under your  control, than right under his own.  If you’re going to err, err on the side of  control and toughness, not sweetness and light.  It’s better to end the  process wrongly on the auditor’s determinism than to end it rightly on the  PC’s.  If you let the PC take control, you’re very liable to get an ARC break  a half hour later.  You may not notice that it’s because you lost control,  because of the lag.  But the way to handle it is to spot the point where you  lost control and reassert it.  If the auditor is in control of the session,  auditing takes place; if the auditor is not in control of the session,  reactivity takes place.  If you flinch from auditing, it’s from those times  when you didn’t control the session and came under attack as a result.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 JUNE 1961
Franchise

CCHs AND ROUTINE 1

The criteria on Routine 1 is as follows:

All cases that have had no significant or rapid change over long periods of auditing shall be run on Routine 1, HCO Bulletin of June 5, 1961, regardless of graph, Meter behaviour or objections.

This applies to over half the Scientologists in the world.

So get over the idea the CCHs are for nuts. And get over diffidence in having them run or being run on them.

Routine 1, Routine 2 and Routine 3, HCO Bulletin of June 5, 1961, each one will make Releases. Routines 1, 2 and 3 are choices made for speed. One is faster than another for different pcs. Some pcs release faster on Routine 1 than 2 or 3.

Any case could be run on any one of these routines, from any level, and still make it. The question is “How fast?” One chooses the routine in the interest of greatest effectiveness in the least time.

Having attained Release, a person then goes to Routine 3 inevitably.

Time economy is our criteria. Not necessarily case level.

So keep your “pride” or be run on Routines 2 or 3 to Release at ten times the auditing time—or attain Release via Routine I, if it’s for you, in one-tenth the time.

The D of P may refuse to further audit any pc who:

1. 	Refuses to be run on the process ordered, or:

2. 	Refuses to take a Joburg, or:

3. 	Refuses to abide by the regulations of HGCs regarding alcohol, eating, sleeping, etc.

I don’t want any super-defensive valence getting in people’s road in clearing. CCHs, the degradation of being audited on, compares to the little boy refusing food because it might make him live.

LRH:ph.cden
Copyright © 1961						L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6106C23 SHSpec-19  Q and A Period; CCH’s; Auditing

Many people don’t see objects -- they’ve been looking at facsimiles of  the objects.  When the facsimile as-ises, the wall looks bright.  Such people  tend to have bad depth perception because they never see anything.  They are  easily invalidated because the reason he’s making and looking at facsimiles is  that the physical universe isn’t safe for him.  The auditor begins to be real  as the PC sees that he can duplicate him, so if the auditor indicates [e.g. on  CCH’s 3 or 4] “You didn’t do it,” the auditor ceases to be real, and the PC  will put pictures of him up instead.  Overrunning the process tells the PC  that he was wrong to think he’d got it.  This makes auditing unsafe.  The  purpose of the CCH’s is to make the auditor, the physical universe, and  present time real to the PC, to show him he can observe the auditor, the room,  And PT.  His havingness on other-determinism is very low.  The CCH’s remedy  it; he sees somebody else exists and the universe is here.  You can run CCH’s  wrong by making the PC aware that the auditor and the room are real but  dangerous.  When running a child, take account of the child’s shorter  attention span.  If it’s biting, run it at least an hour before you’d expect  it to flatten.

Exteriorization, as done in 1952-5 was unstable.  LRH found that before a  thetan could get along without a body, he had to be able to have a body, and  people who exteriorize easily generally want nothing to do with one.

Philosophies that strive for peace are a covert operation towards making  people succumb.  Spots of sudden change of pace are spots which brake a  person’s life.  They’ve got upsets in them and advice to take it easy, and  from then on, it goes wrong.  They were asked to confront motionlessness,  which is most difficult to do.  Medicine and psychiatry gave drugs, etc., to  make a person be quiet.  Unless a person can confront motion, he’s dead; he  can’t confront life, can’t work, and will become a criminal.  The natural  consequence of adopting a motionless philosophy is to get religion -- a  peaceful one.  If you enforce no-motion on someone and make him think motion is bad, he’ll get Buddhistic.  Road safety  campaigns make no sense because they emphasize going slowly, less motion, not  keeping unsafe drivers off the roads or putting freight on trains.  The more  you make a population motionless, the higher the crime rate.  T.V. corrupts  the youth because it pins a child motionless, not because of the T.V.  material.

The theory that people get seasick because of motion led LRH to think one should have pictures of very still scenes to counteract this.  He chose some,  thought about it, and started to feel seasick.  He realized that what’s needed  is pictures of motion to accustom them to motion, not motionlessness.  The  cure for motion is motion, not stillness.  Philosophies of motion don’t  necessarily mean no criminality -- e.g. space opera.  If you could keep it up  with no rest, you might manage to be OK.  When you become incapable of  handling the motion of life, you can then start to experience pain.  The  experience of pain comes about because of intolerance of motion.  You can run  motion or no-motion to handle this situation.  Predictable motion is better,  from the PC’s viewpoint, than unpredictable motion, because with unpredictable  motion, he doesn’t know what to confront.  When he gets the idea that it’s bad  not to be able to confront everything at once, he starts to butter all over  the universe, stick on the track, etc.

Also, whenever a person gets hit hard by life, or as soon as he begins a  program to coerce people into working harder, that person will obsessively  start producing.  Production follows defeat (as in Germany, Japan, etc.).  Someone who’s been defeated will produce more bank than someone who’s doing  well.  So in eradicating, on the one hand, a person’s intolerance of motion  and, on the other hand, his failures or defeats, you are causing his bank to  disappear.  [The first can be done by CCH’s], the second, by goals running.  Everything becomes a cure for past failures; every goal is a consequence of  not having done.

We don’t erase the bank; the person gets accustomed to not needing one.  The person himself takes over the automaticities of beingness (identities),  doingness (creation), and havingness.  Most havingness is the result of a  defeat and the whole cure sequence, where nearly everything in the universe is  a cure for past failures.  Every goal also is the result of not having done.  So we get intolerance of motion, feelings of defeat, ability to have without  having defeated anything.  If you can remedy those things for someone, you’ve  produced a new being, who is not the same as an old being who’s never had the  experience.  His knowingness of what’s happened doesn’t leave him, but his  knowledge of the consequences of what he’s done lets him emerge as a veteran  of campaigns unscarred by his battles -- tough and capable.  That which strips  all games from the universe would normally result in motionlessness.  But how  about ending certain games for somebody who doesn’t have the consequence of  ending in motionlessness?  You’ve broadened the person’s view of games he can  play.  This gives him more games, not less.  Play is delusory motion, about  which you’re not supposed to be serious, so you’re not supposed to as-is it.  So a person gets trapped in it because it’s not real.  Play is a dishonest  doingness; work is not a serious activity.  A person can work at a sport and  have fun as his job.  Also, if you don’t just do what you are doing but put an  “I should be doing something else” in, you’ll stick in it.  If one just did  what he did when he did it, he wouldn’t get stuck in it.  Morality is a  now-I’m-supposed-to which makes people not willing to do what they’re doing  when they do wrong, so they never as-is their wrong acts, so they continue to  do them.

It’s a certainty, then, that one gets a persistence of the things he doesn’t  want, or a tanglement of the things he does want.  Then he wonders why he  feels odd.  So auditing is straightening someone out so he has tolerance for  motion and motionlessness and can have what he should have, or not, as the  case might be, as he wishes.  To do that, you have to erase all the oddities  of doingness, all the pain and boredom of motion or no-motion.

The Prehav scale disentangles all the doingnesses.  But if you make the  PC intolerant of motion or be motionless when he can’t, or give him failures  in auditing, or don’t make it duplicative so he can’t have, then you reverse  the process.

Goals are, to a large extent, a “do something else” or a  “Now-I’m-supposed-to”.  If the individual isn’t doing anything, he simply  isn’t doing anything.  There should be no “Now-I’m-supposed-to” superimposed  upon the situation.

6106C26 SHSpec-20  Dealing with Attacks on Scientology

Scientology doesn’t have an Achilles heel, so it’s in a good position to  defend itself.  People do get upset when confronted with a new idea, but new  theories get accepted fairly quickly, e.g.  Harvey on blood circulation,  Socrates on the nature of man.  Proponents of new theories don’t necessarily  get martyred.  The ones that do generally are getting motivators for their  overts as tyrants.  Also, if one continually fails to advance an idea, one may  get suicidal and die for it, e.g.  Christ (and Socrates).  LRH believes in  making an idea effective, not to fail at it and make everybody feel guilty  because they kill you.  It’s not necessary to sacrifice oneself for a new  idea.  That’s just a way to protect old ideas.  Man is a great believer in  no-change, while he obsessively changes everything.  So new ideas are  rejected.  Scientology is over the top, but it is still being fought, because  to the degree that one is right, to that degree he is dangerous.  We threaten  to upset a lot of beliefs and customs.  It’s only safe for us to do it because  we can undo what we do.  For instance, we can run out bad auditing.

The reason there is a question on sec checks about overts on LRH is that,  if one had a lot of overts on Ron and scientology, one could acquire a  forceful, overwhelming valence called scientology.  So this is the first time  anyone has said, “Try it and see.” In the early days, people said we should go  big on aesthetics.  LRH said no.  You can always overwhelm a thetan with  aesthetics, but it’s not desirable to overwhelm a thetan.  If it’s true far  you, it’s true, not because we’ve overwhelmed you.  We’re attacked because we  have no evil motives.  People get frantic because they can’t figure out,  “What’s the Ditch?” If you can make a thetan commit overts against you or set  him up where he can commit the overts and remove any possibility of running  the overts, you can overwhelm him and get him so stamped dawn with a valence  that he can’t even wiggle.  [In other words, you set a person up where he  can’t receive an overt from you (you won’t commit one), and on the other hand,  you set him up where he can commit overts on you and cannot get them run out,  then you’ve done him in good and proper.] Former efforts at this were  entrapments.  It isn’t really an effort towards total freedom either, since it  allows for games.  Man becomes alarmed at the fact of there being this  selfless philosophy that doesn’t demand that one become subjugated and  enslaved by it, and that it doesn’t say that the originator of it must be  carried on an imperishable valence that everyone should bow down to.

When attacked all one needs to do is to take effective actions, not get  frantic.  Just keep up effective pressure, investigate loudly, and don’t feel  rushed about it, let it coast.  When people are in terror, they make  mistakes.  So let them make the mistakes.  For instance, a man called Ettleman  had been hired by the AMA and the APA to attack scientology.  In this case,  which went on for three years, when it finally came to trial, his attorney  didn’t show, so the case was dismissed.  All that can be Zone to an  organization or a person is to harass them to the point where they’re too  worried to do their job.  So keep the reaction to attack to the minimal  effective actions.  Don’t waste time, and keep the show on the road.  The more  you worry about the attacks, the more motion you waste and the less  scientology you get done.  So all the enemy can do is to get negative gain by  reducing your effect.  See if it’s your game before playing it.

(Nothing wastes as much time as the law, because the law has overts  against time.)

If no one anywhere fought scientology, it would be as nothing,  unimportant.  Think of all the philosophies that must have been developed in  the past eleven years.  None of them have been fought.  A sure sign that we  have ignorance and aberration on the run is that there are attacks and  fights.  [The process is biting.]  Start worrying when there are no more  attacks.  Also note that our comm lines are far more rapid and effective than  the enemy’s, and must be kept up.  This alone discourages the enemy.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 JUNE 1961
Franchise Holders
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
ROUTINE ONE

It has been noted that “hour of Joburg” for “hour of CCHs” has been taken to mean you run the CCHs for an hour and then the Joburg Sec Check for an hour. This is very wrong.

If another auditor is giving the Joburg, it should be given in the same day. An auditor less skilled on CCHs could thus be employed for half the auditing day giving Joburgs.

But the CCHs must be run as they are supposed to be run. Run One, Two, Three, Four, One, each one to a temporary flat point (20 minutes of no Auditor-observed change of comm lag or demeanour [not pc’s statements about change or somatics] ), and when one is biting, you flatten that CCH as per the 20 minute test.

If one auditor is doing CCHs and Joburg Sec Check, whenever he has pc temporarily flat on a CCH, he can give a page of Joburg. Probably one-third of the auditing time is best for a Sec Check, rather than one for one in time with CCHs if one auditor is doing both.

A pc can go three days on CCHs without a Sec Check. At a time when a CCH that was unflat but is now temporarily flat, a Sec Check consisting of a couple of pages or more can be given (in any event about five hours worth for fifteen hours of CCHs for one auditor).

If you have two auditors on a case, one giving CCHs, one Sec Checks, this means 2l/2 hours in the morning on CCHs, 2l/2 hours in the afternoon on Sec Checks or vice versa. Some pcs getting Sec Checks in the morning and some pcs getting them in the afternoon would keep all auditors busy.

I hope this helps you to handle Routine One.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :imj .rd 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6106C27 SHSpec-21  CCH’s -- Circuits

The way to bust up machinery on CCH-1 is to vary the pace.  He’ll jump  the command if a machine is doing it.

One effect of the CCH’s is to help the PC find the auditor.  If he goes  on automatic, he doesn’t have an auditor.  Just running the CCH’s will run it  out; varying one’s pace will prevent it from starting.

If you just use intention on the PC and no verbal commands, your  intention may be good, but the PC’s command circuits may be goofed up, and you  may not get the response you expected.  He may not be hooked up the way he  should.  You can have fun with a meter talking to the entities in a body.  You  could start talking to the PC’s circuit, but it hooks in harder and harder.  It hooks in on a drop of havingness, and you are making a comm line talk  across to his circuit.  You’re validating the circuit and lowering [the PC’s]  havingness.

If the PC has a problem and you try to run, “Think of a solution,”  repetitively, the PC caves in.  You are running off the core of an Area of  motion, leaving the motion on automatic.  The PC is not confronting the  actuality of the thing; he’s not confronting what’s going on at all; he’s  confronting a solution to it.  That is, he’s trying to not-is what it is, and  the problem mass moves in on him.  If you get him to spot the mass connected  with the problem, then describe the problem, then spot the mass, it moves  further away.  If you get him to think of solutions, the mass will move in.  Problems of comparable magnitude will also move the problem out.  This occurs  because of confront.  If the PC avoids it, it moves in.  You can also move the  mass out with havingness.  A solution is a stable, no-motion datum amidst a  confusion.

Circuits can be used to get data, to verify answers to calculations,  confirm if they are right or wrong, or to give you tomorrow’s weather.  The  latter takes the increment of time that is tomorrow and inspects it.  This is  possible if you can look with equanimity at tomorrow, at least its  insignificant aspects.  You can predict to the degree that you can confront.  People who can’t confront PT obsessively try to confront tomorrow or  yesterday, but it’s not a real tomorrow, and probably not a real yesterday  either.  The way you go nuts on circuits is to ask yourself, “Who put that  there?” or “Who else put that there and what does it mean?” This gives you a  mystery.  PC’s who don’t control their circuits and haven’t inspected them for  many years or eons have things popping up all the time when you audit them.  Some get auditing answers from their circuits.  The circuits were put up as a  substitute for confronting and are so old and forgotten that now nothing about  them is confronted.  When the PC nears one of them, it tells him what to do or  say.  Since a circuit is just a no-confront, running havingness and confront  improves circuits.  The PC may have originally put a circuit there for  convenience and then come to believe that it was unconfrontable because there  was a circuit there.

You could say to the PC, “We’re going to handle your primary aberration,  so make a picture of it and look at it.  Tell me what you see.” You’d get  amazing answers.  The action of taking a picture of it, then looking is, of  course, an alter-is of confront.  In auditing, you want people to look  directly at things.  Circuits encourage them not to because they think they  can’t confront something.  As you audit a PC, these things go live.  As  havingness drops, the PC gets anxious, keys in circuits to predict, or  confront drops.  Or, as the PC improves, and circuits can be activated as the  PC comes up through them.  So everything goes on a via.  Auditing walks him up  to less and less vias; more and more confidence.  The reason confront isn’t on  the prehav scale is that it isn’t a doingness; it’s an ability.  [Cf p. 22,  where confront is described as an action.] [Also Cf. p. 40, where confront is  defined as subjective havingness, or at least the process is defined as a  subjective havingness process.]

That explains oddities you get running CCH’s.  You’re activating and  knocking out circuits because direct control and communication brings about  continuous shift of circuitry in terms of havingness.  Then, since he’s been  gotten to PT, confronting the auditor, this brings his havingness up.  If you  talked to those circuits, they might well say anything, which is also true of  the PC on CCH’s.  So the less attention you Day to what the PC is saying or  thinking, the better.  Dope off and comm lag indicate things happening to the  PC’s confront and havingness.

Circuits go haywire when they contain the postulate that the thetan is  unable to confront.  Apart from that, they can be useful.

6106C28 SHSpec-22  Raw Meat -- Troubleshooting Cases

[Details on handling raw meat cases -- tests, etc.]

If a PC has persistent out ruds, check for continuous PT overts, at least  at the level of unkind thoughts on automatic.  This is very common.  You can  handle this with Prehav 13.   

6106C29 SHSpec-23  Wrong Target -- Sec Check

Herbie Parkhouse telexes from London: Auditors aren’t getting sec checks  done because it takes two to three hours to get ruds in.  He wants to scrap  model session for processing checks.  This is an unusual solution.  People are now in the same position about auditing  that Ron was in when he started researching life.  There’s been so much  alter-is and counter-create, the truth is obscured.  Naturally in relaying  comm about the simplicities of life, these things get restimulated and people  start looking around corners, when the cop is right on the sidewalk.  There is  no secret about life; it is just surrounded by alter-is and obfuscation’s.

People aren’t doing their jobs because they are so busy doing other  things.  For instance, government is so busy doing the work or charitable  organizations that it has no time to administer justice, protect citizens from  criminals, etc.  In a good government, production rises, people prosper; a  welfare state government attacks producers with taxes.  It’s all off post.  Everything is trying to make you wear its hat.  So in scientology, the person  who is on the ground observes.  Parkhouse, by not observing, caused Ron to  interiorize into his hat.

The analytical mind isn’t really a computing machine; it is the PC.  When  he, or the analytical mind, is attacked by the auditor, you’ll get no auditing  done.  Your target in the reactive mind.  This is why LRH can do in 5 hours  what it took other auditors 25 hours to do.  The difference isn’t that LRH is  good and others are lousy; it is that the other auditors’ reactive minds were  apparently choosing the PC as their randomity, attacking the PC because he was  aberrated.  No.  The target is the reactive mind.

You sit down; you take the E-meter; you say, “Have you ever stolen  anything?” What you really want is for him to recall, ventilate, air the  reactive mind.  You shouldn’t assume he already knows and purposely won’t tell  you.  When you do a sec check, because of the specific question he remembers  it and will ordinarily tell you.  If you get heavy reads and he say’s, “No,”  have him keep looking; let him know there’s something there, but maintain  ARC.  The proper attitude is, “You couldn’t possibly remember this and not  tell me.  Let’s just get the show on the road.” When they look hunted, use a  light touch to get them to tell you.  If you’re suspicious and accusative,  you’re cutting comm with the PC and encouraging him to withhold.  Assume that  if he remembers it, he’ll tell it at once.  It puts him in session that way.  The meter check is “just to make sure we got all of it.” It’s up to the  auditor to create an atmosphere of communication.  You can use some dunnage to  do it.  This approach gets the PC comfortable, relaxed, confident.  His  knowingness comes up; he gets relief.  After all, you are the auditor, not the  E-meter.  The guy gets to where he feels safe.  His anxieties come from  feeling unsafe in life, so your attitude alone can produce a great change in  the PC.  If you’re using the meter and he says, “No,” you don’t assume he  knows and won’t tell you, but that he hasn’t overwhumped the reactive mind.  You’re disappointed, but you assume he can remember.  This builds his  confidence and gets him in a hopeful frame of mind.  doing it this way speeds  it up enormously; gives faster gains.  It’s not that he’s getting more  confident in you.  It’s that he’s getting more confident in his ability to  overwhump his bank.  You get far more off the case, faster, by this method.  You’ll slow it down by making sure he won’t want to tell you and has to be  trapped and beaten into telling you.  Don’t ever assume a games condition in  auditing.  This will also keep the rudiments in, since ruds go out with rough  auditing.  Set yourself up as someone who can be confided in, rather than as a  cop sniffing out the crime.

Never assume a games condition (in auditing or not) if you don’t want  one.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 JUNE 1961
CenOCon

STUDENT SECURITY CHECK

(HCO WW Sec Form 5)

This is a Processing or a Security Check. As a Processing Check it is given in Model Session.

The following Security Check is the only student security check (in addition to the standard Joburg and HCO WW Sec Form 6) to be used in Academies and courses.

HCO WW SEC FORM 5

SCIENTOLOGY STUDENTS’ SECURITY CHECK

(For Academies, ACCs, etc.)

The first few questions below are for a student who has registered, but has not yet started on course, and who has never had a course in Scientology or Dianetics. The whole battery is given to a student actually on course, or who has had a previous course in Scientology, or Dianetics.

Has anyone given, or loaned, you money to help cover your tuition, or expenses, while on this course?
If so: Have you promised them something in return for this? 
If so: What exactly have you committed yourself to?
If so: Do you intend to make good this obligation?

Are you coming on this course in order to get away from someone, or something?

Do you have any goal for being on this course which, if achieved, would result in harm to another person, his possessions, or his reputation?

Are you here in order to get into anything?

Have you promised anyone auditing which you do not intend to give?

Have you read, or had read to you, the course Rules and Regulations? If so: Are there any which you do not intend to comply with?

Are you here to find out whether Scientology works?

Are you here to prove that Scientology can’t help you?

Are you here to prove that you cannot help others with Scientology?

Is there anything, discreditable to you, going on back home which is liable to be found out by reason of your being on this course?

Are you neglecting any responsibilities of yours in order to take this course?

Is there anything important that you are setting aside until after the end of this course?

Do you already know all there is to know about Scientology?

Are you here for any other reason than to become an expert auditor?

Are you coming on this course with the intention of killing off your body?

Are you coming on this course with the intention of spinning, or going insane?

Is any goal that you have for this course harmful to any dynamic?

Are you presently taking tranquilizers, drugs, or medication, of any sort?

Is there anyone you are in communication with that regularly makes a practice of discrediting Scientology, its personnel, or its organizations, to you?

Is anyone counting on you to keep something secret while you are on course?

Are you presently suffering from some bodily, or mental, condition that others have failed to alleviate?

Are you secretly worried about some condition of your body, or your mind?

Are you upset by my questions?

Is there anything about this course, or the Academy, or Scientology, that you are making allowances for?

Is there anything about your conduct as a Scientology student that others should be making allowances for?

Have you done any drinking on class days?

Have you told any other students that your instructor’s data is wrong?

Have you had sex with another student?

Are you trying to get another student to have sex with you?

Have you had sex with a staff member?

Are you trying to get a staff member to have sex with you?

Have you borrowed any organization property and not returned it?

Have you invalidated, or criticized, any auditors to their preclears?

Do you intend to practice Scientology in the field differently from how you have been taught it here?

Have you coughed, or distracted others, during a lecture?

Have you done any self-auditing?

Have you done any unauthorized auditing?

Have you received any unauthorized auditing?

Have you criticized your auditor to others?

Have you been thinking unkind, or critical, thoughts about your preclear? L. Ron Hubbard? Your instructors? Your auditor? Other students? Staff members?

Have you criticized this course, or the organization, verbally, or in writing, to non-Scientologists?

Have you criticized your instructors, or the D of T, to others?

Have you said, or done, anything to make field Scientologists think badly of the central organization, or its staff?

Is there anything here that you feel so uncomfortable about that you are thinking of leaving?

Have you received any medical, dental, or other treatment while on course without permission?

Have you tried to teach Scientology to HGC preclears who are not Scientologists?

Have you been late to any scheduled course periods?

Have you cheated on any course exams?

Have you passed off any other student’s work as your own?

Have you tried to persuade any potential preclear to wait and be audited by you after the course rather than by the HGC?

Have you violated the Auditor’s Code while auditing your preclear?

Have you done anything really stupid with your preclear?

Have you violated the Code of a Scientologist in any way?

Have you been absent from any course period without your instructor’s knowledge or consent?

Are you in disagreement with any of the stable data of Scientology?

Have you been getting less sleep than usual?

Have you been eating less than usual?

Is there anything you are withholding from your auditor because he’s “only a student”?

Have you taken tranquilizers, or drugs, of any sort?

Have you deliberately disobeyed your instructor’s orders, or directions?

Have you unintentionally failed to follow your instructor’s orders, or directions?

Do you have any overdue Infraction Theses?

Have you been assigned any Infraction Theses which you do not intend to do?

Have you tried to break up anyone’s marriage?

Have you secretly violated any course rule, or regulation?

Have you tried to enturbulate the course, or any person connected with it?

Have you taken any other student’s property?

Do you have any other student’s property in your possession?

Have you taken any staff member’s, or HGC pc’s, property?

Do you have any staff member’s, or HGC pc’s, property in your possession?

Have you taken any organization property?

Have you broken, or damaged, anything belonging to the organization, or its staff?

Have you any organization property in your possession?

Have you passed any restricted data of Scientology to unauthorized persons?

Have you tried in any way to give Scientology a bad name?

Have you tried to give any Scientologist a bad name?

Are you a difficult, or unco-operative, student?

Do you have a grudge against any other student, or any staff member?

Have you tried to get any other student removed from this course?

Have you tried to make any staff member lose his job?

Have you told lies about anyone while on this course?

Have you done anything outside of course hours which you shouldn’t have?

Have you been doing less than your best to become an expert auditor?

Are you doing anything which will prevent your becoming an expert Scientologist?

Have you been spending time, which should have been spent in studying Scientology, doing something else?

Are you making any Scientologist guilty of anything?

Have you been doing anything you believe is not right to obtain money for this course?

Have you done anything while on this course that you would hate to have known back home?

Have you been misapplying anything you have been taught in such a way as to make it appear that what you’ve been taught doesn’t work?

Have you been doing anything solely because it is “the instructor’s idea”?

Have you been doing anything solely because it is “L. Ron Hubbard’s idea”?

Have you been putting into practice any method, or datum, that you don’t see the reason for?

Have you done anything that would discredit Ron or Mary Sue Hubbard, or your instructors, by reason of their having trained you?

Is there anything that L. Ron Hubbard, or your instructors, should mistrust you for that you haven’t told them about?

Is there something you’ve been wondering about concerning Scientology, or Scientologists, which you haven’t asked your instructor about?

Are you withholding asking any question because you’re afraid it will sound stupid?

Have you been making a practice of getting other students to answer your questions rather than the instructor? If so, what questions? Why?

Have you been keeping other students from doing their work?

Have you been such a problem to your instructors that you’ve been robbing other students of their fair share of the instructors’ time?

Have you been writing letters home, or elsewhere, criticizing this course? The instructors? Your fellow students?

Do you regularly make a practice of gossiping about the affairs of staff, students, or preclears?

Have you tried out any processes that you’ve dreamed up yourself on staff, students, or preclears?

Have you been testing any squirrel processes on anyone?

Is there any process you are certain would resolve your case, or your pc’s case, which is not being used?

Is there anyone to whom you make a regular practice of discrediting Scientology, its organizations, or its personnel?

Are you in communication with someone who is a much better Scientologist than your instructor?

Are you in communication with someone who understands more about Scientology than L. Ron Hubbard?

Have you ever, while on course, felt that you would not achieve your goals by reason of poor auditing, or poor instructing? If so, who exactly have you made guilty of this?

Have you prevented anyone, including instructors, from achieving goals concerning you, or others, in Scientology?

Have you thought so badly of the central organization for any reason that you would under no circumstances accept a job here on completion of this course?

Are you in fairly regular communication with anyone who has a lot of ARC breaks with L. Ron Hubbard, or the central organizations? If so, what is the nature and frequency of this communication?

Are you in fairly regular communication with any group that is interested in seeing Scientology fail, or its organizations discredited?

Is anyone hostile to Scientology assisting you financially on this course?

Have you run any unauthorized processes on anyone?

Have you permitted anyone to run unauthorized processes on you?

Is anyone here counting on you to keep a secret for him?

Have you any feeling of “injured innocence” at having been asked these questions?

Have you been going to some other person rather than your D of T or instructors to get the “real data” on Scientology?

Have you been critical of the data or quality of tapes?

Have you been critical of the data in or quality of texts on Dianetics and Scientology?

Have you ever been critical of Scientology terminology?

Have you ever written critical messages to persons in Scientology about how they ran things?

Have you ever written and then destroyed critical messages addressed to L. Ron Hubbard?

How do you feel about these questions?

LRH:imj.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1961						
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6106C30 SHSpec-24  Training on TR’s; Talk on Auditing

[Details on running TR’s, CCH’s, and Prehav 13, and Routine 2]

6107C03 SHSpec-26X Routine 1A -- Problems

Routine 1A is problems processing alternated with sec checks.  It is to  handle cases that are too tied up with out ruds to run CCH’s.

What is it that makes a problem so deadly in processing?  A problem is  postulate-counter-postulate, an indecisional proposition because the two sides  are in balance.  One can hardly confront the two data at once; the PC doesn’t  see the amount of confusion on it, and the confusion mounts up around each  side of it.  Thus you get two separate zones of confusion, each side with its  stable datum, because each side has a yes and no about it.  So you don’t as-is  the problem and it persists.  That’s its most basic characteristic.  People  get impatient with problems, so they solve them.  But a problem solved has  been not-ised, not as-ised.  The solution of a problem is, of course, an overt  against a problem.  Everything in the universe is a cure for something else --  a solution.  This is one reason the universe persists.  Cures deteriorate and  solutions become new problems.  Alcohol, a century ago, was curing things.  Even diseases once cured something.  [Cf. sickle cell disease.] The bacteria  that caused disease once cured something.  Take an organization that is hammer  and tongs on the subject of creativeness: the Catholic Church.  They have the  hatchet out on the 2D; they don’t think creation should be done that can be  prevented.  They oppose VD campaigns because they think VD is a good thing, as  a cure for sex.  If you get VD, sex stops; so if sex stops, you get VD.  No  sex = VD because VD = No sex.  Prostitution is also a no-sex proposition, so  it gives a no-sex disease.  Sex is a cure for no bodies, and no bodies is a  cure for sex.  You don’t get a PC whose idea is, “Horses sleep in bed,” who  wasn’t curing something with that idea.  Every aberration he’s got was a cure  for something.  His motionlessness is a cure for having killed so many  people.  If you pick up withholds on killing, he will be able to move again.  Killing, too, was a cure for something -- maybe for hating people.  Hate, in  its turn, was a cure for associating with people whom you might damage.  And  Damaging people was a cure for people being people, etc.  An aberration is a  cure that doesn’t cure, that you don’t understand.

This all goes back to confusion’s and stable data.  If you have two  confusion’s and two stable data opposed to each other, which you don’t  confront, you get an endurance, because you never as-is the thing; you solve  it.  PC’s who go through vias continually on an auditing command have some  problem they’ve never looked at as a problem.  When you run problems of  comparable magnitude, you’ve taken the via of curing the problem off automatic  and sneakily gotten the PC to take a look at the problem.  Certain conditions  that are designed to cure other conditions actually create them.  E.g. a  snake’s venom makes a snake antipathetic, and snakes have venom because people  (and other animals) don’t like them.

The willingness to solve problems but not to as-is them is the basis for  Q and A.  People don’t like getting the question fully duplicated as the  answer.  This is because they are trying to solve some very fundamental  confusion they have.  An effective method of teaching is to try to find the  source of the question.

If you try to cure confusion, it continues.  Duress and punishment are the  results of despairing of solving someone’s problems.  Jails [and mental  hospitals] are the cure for confusion’s about people.  This seems awfully  drastic, but it is born out of despair.  The effect of jails is to merely  educate criminals more into hating people.

There is a way to make a correct and frontal attack on these confusion’s.  They often stem from withholds, so a Joburg will help.  You may note that a PC  may look a bit confused as he tries to find the problem he was solving.  A  problem, remember, is a multiple confusion.  There are two solutions or ideas  involved, each with its own confusion -- an encysted confusion.  So one tries  to back off from it, which only pulls the problem along.  This is why thinking  of a solution makes the problem mass move in.  You can’t really escape your  own ideas.

Thought mass is basically composed of problems.  It endures because it’s  not confronted.  Given enough of this, the PC will be overwhelmed, and will  dramatize being a problem, one which is insoluble.  So you keep worrying about  the PC because the PC is a problem.  A PC who says he has had no gain is  saying, “I’m a problem -- Solve me!” Your chances of doing it are poor.  He’s  got two confusion’s And can’t confront either.  PCs whose needles keep rising  are not-confronting a problem.  You ask, “How are you doing?” The PC says,  “Fine.” The needle rises.  You ask, “What happened?” The PC says, “Nothing.”  It’s discouraging.  They can’t tell you what it is because they can’t confront  it.  CCH’s will saw through this, but slowly.

A slow-gain case is heavy on comm lag, or not quite on the subject when  he’s talking.  The comm lag stems from no-confront; so does the alter-is,  which is a dissociation from the confusion.  You ask the PC if he’s got a  problem.  He gets upset because he can’t confront it and knows he can’t, and  he wants to avoid it altogether.

Phenomena observed in the field stem from problems, on a no-confront or  inverted basis.  In fields of stress or duress, religious cults make their  finest harvest.  They offer an escape from problems.  The reason Alcoholics  Anonymous doesn’t cooperate with scientology is that they have (for their very  existence) a contrary datum: “Alcoholism can’t be cured.” You can’t do  anything about it, so you might as well join A.A.

No matter where you go, you can never get away from yourself.  If you try  to pretend you are not where you are, you get a dispersal of location; you’ll  be buttered all aver the universe.  The guy who permeates everything without  being anywhere is trying to escape his problems, which all carry a  no-confront.  You put motion and action into a thought process, and they  become inextricably tangled up, inextricably, that is, short of scientology  processing.

All this is a prelude to a very simple killer process, for the PC for  whom all life is a problem.  The difficulty for the PC is a series of ridged  problems.  The ridges people have trouble with surrender on this one command,  which is horrendous to run because it moves very slowly at first and turns on  fierce somatics: “Recall a problem.” You must be very careful to get the  question answered on “Recall a problem”; you should ask, “What problem was  that?” and make sure he is not giving you a generality instead of a specific  problem.  The PC will come up with some interesting solutions, which will  suddenly turn awful.  He’ll discover he’s been both sides of various  conflicts, each side to solve losing on the other.  If the PC does a locational on some object he’s used to solve a problem of boredom, he’ll come  uptone to interest.  This is another reason touch assists work. (More details  on running Routine 1A).

6107C04 SHSpec-27X Problems and Solutions

Only LRH could get a simplicity on auditing problems.  Usually when one  tries to look at them, he just gets confused.  The only mistake psychiatry  made about psychosis was to try to understand it, since it’s basically  incomprehensible -- that’s its whale character.  Then they have to use heroic  measures, which fail and leave them no place to turn.  The common denominator  of psychosis is problems, of course.  

When the problems can’t be associated  with the solutions any longer, you get solutions to no-problems, which is  psychosis.  When a psychosis has been objectively described, there’s a missing  datum: what problems is this behavior a solution to?  [Cf.  R.D. Laing and J.  Haley] The lack of this datum makes the psychosis incomprehensible.  You  cannot cure A psychosis by addressing the psychosis, or, more generally, you  can’t cure an aberration by addressing the aberration.  This is because in so doing, you are running the still in the middle of the motion, the stable datum  in the middle of the confusion, the solution.  You’re trying to cure the  solution and not looking at the confusion.  You are looking at the cure, which  won’t move out unless you get the motion off it.  The whirlpool wouldn’t whirl without the motionless center, but the center is motionless only because it  has motion around it.  You should take the whirlpool off the motionless piece,  not the other way around.  

Here you have confusion and the stable datum,  motion and no motion, sound and silence, absolute location and change.  If you  try to get the motionless points out, all you get is new motionless points.  All that is wrong with a thetan is what is wrong at the lower and of the  scale.  At the highest level, a thetan can be motionless; At the lowest level,  he has to be.  It’s a matter of determinism.  At the lower levels,  motionlessness is not determined by postulate, but by the mechanics of  motion.  

If you want to see someone stiffen and go still, stand a fellow up,  shake your hands in front of his face; produce a lot of motion, and say,  “There’s the motion!” At this point, the fellow will sort of freeze, as he  becomes a stable datum.  But this doesn’t work well as a demonstration,  because the observers will Also all go still in a sort of stupidity.  They  won’t confront the motion; they’ll put a barrier up against it and become  still, so the motion will duplicate them, and they will butter themselves all  over the universe and become agitated.  Auditing motionlessness just makes  more motionlessness in the bank.  Stillnesses identify more rapidly than  motion.  In psychosis, the person is being stillness.  The worst example of  this is catatonia.  

There can’t be such a thing as an”average” individual;  there can only be someone who is trying to be a lot of other individuals and  is therefore buttered all over the universe in terms of beingness.  He’ll be  obsessively a still; the next step down is going round the bend.  The  operations this universe uses to try to make one assume the Average are so  numerous that one accents then as normal.  Insanity is the adoption of a  solution to the exclusion of all other solutions in the absence of a problem.

If a person confronts no problems, takes no responsibility for them, and  goes into being a solution, all problems go on automatic; they just go on all  around him.  There can be a million problems, but there’s only one solution:  him.  A psychiatrist is being an obsessive solution also.  He never really  cures anything; he just persists with his ineffective solutions, which just  hold the problem in place.  He isn’t aware that psychosis is a problem.  He’s  handling people who are being obsessive solutions, so he becomes one too.  The psychiatrist is the society’s solution, just as his  solution is shock treatment.  Psychotics don’t realize others have problems or  that they’re being problems to others.  Psychiatry’s research has been a  search for solutions, but they hate solutions and they don’t recognize the  problem.

Man has made the mistake all along the track of not realizing that if  there’s a solution, there must have been a problem.  Look at the “ten”  commandments.  Actually there’s 162 -- pages of them.  These are moral codes.  And “moral codes are a series of solutions to problems which are neither  confronted nor analyzed.” Almost all the bible’s commandments are prompted by  the obsessive crimes of the time.  Several are solutions to VD.  That was a  problem that descended on them that they knew nothing about, so they looked  for solutions.  They already had various areas of no-sex; they had already  prevented true ethicality by inventing immorality with a bunch of new morals.  A lot of religions, also, encourage facing motionlessness, e.g. by getting you  to turn inward, contemplate the stillness within, meditate, face Mecca, etc.  This is the basic operation of the track.

“I believe it’s perfectly all right to do anything you want to to people  as long as you don’t say it’s something else or try to convince people you’re  doing something else ... as long as other people are not ... completely  ploughed under by it.” The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics  gives a lot of lattitude.  The main crime is the entering in of a not-know.  That’s the only real evil there is.

When a person reaches a stage of being an obsessive solution, with total  not-know on what he’s being a solution to, or when one is to being terribly  still, he doesn’t know what motion he’s being still to counteract; obsessive  stillness enters.  The bug factor here is the not-know in all this.  Where you  have someone solving problems, you don’t have an evil.  It’s OK to solve  problems.  But an individual who has put all problems on automatic can’t solve  problems, except with some fantastic liability of cave-in, terror stomach,  etc.  He doesn’t dare solve a problem.  There are gradients of this.  There  are people who can salve a minor problem but not a major one.  They’ll try to  protect you from a problem by preventing you from solving a problem by feeding  you extraneous data.  This is not to confuse you; it’s to protect you.  [E.g.  the pedant who doesn’t want to make a mistake and doesn’t want you to make a  mistake either.]

When you see someone sitting in the middle of a catastrophe, one of two  things is happening.  Either the stuff is avalanching in faster than he can  cope with it but he’s trying to cope, or he doesn’t even know it’s a  catastrophe; he doesn’t even see all the papers all over the floor and the  account book being used far a doormat.  That’s the condition of the thetan  sitting in his bank.  He feels he’s got it all straight and the trouble is all  over there.  Since, you can’t see the clutter, you say, “Well, he’s behaving  oddly.  But that’s not the situation; he’s confronting “no-ly”.  It is all  not-ised.

When you run something in an orderly fashion, you will at once get  something done.  In the first place, you’re giving the PC an orderliness to  confront, and he finds out there’s some motion that can be confronted.  Where  you have individuals who are totally insane, you have no confront of problems,  so Routine 1A won’t work.  It doesn’t go as far south as the CCH’s.  But it  works on most people, including the guy who thinks he’s is such good shape  that he doesn’t need any auditing.  If you run problems on him, he’ll go,  “Hm.... Ridges?  Where did this come from?” The bank starts going solid;  somatics turn on.  He’ll see there were some problems around.  Their masses  start showing up.

This is the first time we’ve had a good cure for this type of mass.  It  bypasses the liability of curing it.  We’re enough on top of the mechanisms of  existence to pull the Overt-Motivator sequence without falling athwart of its  consequences.  Similarly with the problem-solution sequence.  You can thus  solve all the PC’s problems without squashing him, unlike psychiatry, which  also tried to solve all of his problems.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 JULY 1961
Franchise

ROUTINE 1A

Here is the first refinement of the Routines.

It sometimes happens that certain auditors cannot get results with CCHs and it also happens that certain pcs have heavy constant problems that prevent SOP Goals assessment, the problems being hidden standards by which all auditing progress is judged.

It also happens that Problems as a subject is the only reason why cases fail to advance (as in rudiments). Therefore problems are probably why some people clear easily and others don’t.

Considerations about the stable datum and the confusion also lead toward the auditing of problems as such. For a problem consists of two opposed stable data and therefore two confusions.

The definition of a problem is “Two or more postulates in opposition to each other”.

Probably all pcs should be run on Routine One. The Change Scale was aimed at handling alter-is in doing auditing commands. Auditing Problems, you will find, cures alter-isness in a case.

The full rundown on the basic Routine 1A was given to the Sthil Briefing Course Students on July 3, 1961, and the tape of this date should be studied for full data on Routine 1A. Routine 1A can however be used without serious consequences and with great benefit without all its data; at least it will get better results than poorly run CCHs and will get results anyway. Try it.

STEPS

Routine 1A only has two steps—

1. Problems
2. Security Check HCO WW Form 3 or HCO WW processing forms.

The original command was “Recall a problem”. This is the fundamental command. A somewhat better command, since it increases ability and does more than merely as-is track, and since it moves pc off the 1st dynamic, follows:

“What problem could you confront?”

“What problem don’t you have to confront?”

“What problem should another confront?”

“What problem wouldn’t another confront?”

“What problem would be confronted by others?”

“What problem wouldn’t others confront?”

Note: The third question may be “What problem could another confront?” also, whichever checks out on meter.

SEC CHECK

This is followed by a Security Check. The Security Check must be an HCO WW Form Sec Check and not a local version ever. A Sec Check is done with a full command of the new book E-Meter Essentials now being mailed from HCO WW. A Security Check is done (and so are goals) only by INSTANT READ and never by LATENT READ. If the needle falls or reacts within a tenth of a second after the question is asked pursue it, for this is an Instant Read. If it doesn’t fall or react for a second or more and then reacts, do NOT pursue it or do anything about it. This is a LATENT Read. Only use the E-Meter if the pc says “No” or disclaims having done it.

If the pc owns up to a question, don’t refer to the meter. Don’t even look at the meter when asking a Sec question the first time. If the pc then says he hasn’t done it, look at the needle and without looking at the pc ask again. Pc still says “No” or its equivalent and you get an instant read, pursue it with more questions. Never pass Sec Check question that is getting an Instant Read. It’s hot. Always pass them if they only give a latent read. It’s cold or it’s something else. Only use the meter after a pc denies it. Increase sensitivity high, asking question again, before leaving any question which a pc disclaims.

RATIO BETWEEN PROBLEM AND SEC CHECK

Run Problems and Sec Checks one for one in terms of time. But never on the same morning or same afternoon or same evening. Never in the same session. Sec Check mornings, run Problems afternoons. Or vice versa. Or on alternate days. Don’t wait for Problems to flatten before you Sec Check. Problems are a long run. Two different auditors can work on one pc, one at one time of the day, the other auditor at another time of day. The pc may ARC Break if a Problems session is cut off to Sec Check. So Sec Checks are one session, Problems are another session. And spread them apart into different auditing periods.

VALUE OF ROUTINE 1A

Routine 1A should be run on every pc at one time or another when going to or having arrived near clear. It is best run first as it speeds the auditing later, removing PIPs and alteris of commands.. It does not go as far south as the CCHs but almost.

Routine 1A is extremely valuable on any case. It will give you many wins.

I believe at this time, though I have no broad data on it yet, that Routine 1A will speed up cases that are hanging fire or taking a long time to clear. Therefore use
it.

LRH :jl.rd
Copyright © 1961	                    				L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6107C06 SHSpec-26  Routine 1A -- Problems

The cure for Step 6 phenomena or creative processing ill effects is a six  way confront bracket on the pictures and responsibility on pictures.  People  who go solid on Step 6 type processes have an automaticity where, if they  create anything, everything they’ve ever created gets created.  Hence, since  the bank is an individual creation, the bank beefs up.  If you use these  remedies, and you keep these things in mind, it would be safe to do creative  processing.  You can prove this by taking picture A, improving it, then  looking at picture B.  You will find that picture B has also improved.  If you  improve the PC’s ability to perceive, you improve his ability to create.  And  it is only because the PC is doing it all himself that you can clear him.  However, if you improve the PC’s ability to create without improving his  ability to confront, you’ve done him in.  Art school does this; same with  technical schools.  If you make sure the school has only text, diagrams, and  no real objects being studied, you’ll cave the students in.  Everything he  doesn’t like about the subject will eventually come to the fore, because you  are running a can’t have on him.  It’s a games condition; you are fixing it so  he can’t have what he’s being educated in.  The more theory on the mind you  give someone, unaccompanied by an ability or opportunity to confront the  substance of minds, thinkingness, and the beingness of life, the less reality  they will have on it.  So you’d do better to leave them alone in their present  confusion.  All training must be accompanied by confronting, particularly in  the creative fields.  The cure for obsessive create is confront.  If the guy  is creating his own aberrations, it must be that the road out would be  confront.  That would be the secret of clearing.
A mind is an obsessive unknowing creation, into which only a few  important factors enter:

Create

Problems

Confront

Change

Responsibility

Not-know    

Goals prevent the PC from looking at anything.  He’s always looking at tomorrow, not looking at what he’s looking at.  There’s nothing  wrong with having goals, but what you are looking for is the obsessive goal of  the case.  There’s only one of these, and it prevents the PC from looking at  any part of that goal’s chain, because the goal is so obsessive that it  removes his attention from that chain to something that isn’t yet in the  chain.  When you find the terminal that represents that goal, you’ll have  found the terminal they’ve never looked at or inspected but have been.  With  an obsessive goal, the PC isn’t in PT.  He’s down the future track at an  imagined future point, so of course he isn’t confronting where he is.  One of  the PC’s goals leads to the person who most obsessively had that goal, which  is the valence [the PC is in], and of course this is the total no-confront of  the bank all bunched up in that spot.  If you only looked at tomorrow and  never observed the immediacy of the situation, you would eventually have  as-ised any future of it at all.  So it hangs in time 100%.  You’ve never  as-ised any immediacy of the situation, so it is all there on that chain, and  all the future of it is as-ised.  Goals processing undoes this mechanism of  no-confront.  You are taking off all the futures.  If you did goals processing  crudely and peculiarly, you could get the PC totally regressed so that only  some back point of the track has any reality to him, and no present point  does.  If you ARC broke him, didn’t keep him moving on the track, this could  happen -- a right-now-ness of moments on the track.  Those points are on the  goals chain; they’re moments where the PC wished to God he were somewhere  else, but he can’t be somewhere else, so all he’s got left to escape to is a  future.  This solid scene he’s looking at -- no part of it is actually  observed.  It’s a total overwhelm, and he’s got a future there, a future  postulate.  So it stays on the track as a solidity, since he can’t confront  it.  He’ll hit these and bounce into the future.  This could happen quite  early in SOP Goals running.  The more he’s confronted elsewheres than the  unwanted incident, the more they have as-ised, and the more he’s fixed in the  incident where he didn’t want to be.  When you run creative processing, these  points come up easily, because he’s obsessively creating them all the time.

A problem is the least confrontable thing there is, being composed of  unconfrontable confusions.

Some PC’s will run a total irresponsibility on problems of any kind.  They will perceive no connection between having trouble in life and not  confronting problems in their lives.  This is the clue to slow clearing.  Profiles don’t change when PTP’s exist.

A clue to cases is the magnitude of problem the PC comes up with.  It can  drive kids buggy when their parents’ idea of what a problem is is grossly  different from theirs.  You may see someone sitting in the middle of a  disaster of a dramatic or a quiet sort who is worrying about the fact that the  lady next door has bought a new hat.  That’s the level of problem which that  person can confront, and the things connected with the disaster are not  problems.  In fact, they’re not even there.  Someone could say to this lady,  “Why don’t you straighten all this out “ and she’ll think they’re nuts, that  there’s nothing to look at, or if there was something there, there would be  nothing you could do about it.  You could probably do a sanity and ability  test by making a list of problems by dynamics -- a prepared list -- in  gradients of magnitude.  You could then have the test taker just check the  “problems” in each dynamic.  What he checks would tell you where he lives.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 JULY 1961
Issue II
CenOCon

PROCESSING SECURITY CHECK
(HCO WW Sec Form 6)

This is a Processing or a Security Check. As a Processing Check it is given in Model Session.

The following Security Check is the only one permitted on Staff Auditors or Field Auditors, in addition to HCO WW Sec Forms 3, 4 and 5.

No Security Check form may be edited or modified.

(Credit goes to Jan and Dick Halpern for preparing HCO WW Sec Forms 4, 5 and 6.)

HCO WW SEC FORM 6

HGC AUDITOR’S SEC CHECK

This check is suitable for anyone who has done a fair amount of auditing, and, also, for students in professional level courses in the later part of the course.
___________

Have you ever told a preclear what his attitude toward someone or something ought to be?

Have you ever permitted a preclear to take control of the session?

Have you ever alter-ised orders from L. Ron Hubbard concerning your preclear?

Are you hiding anything from the Director of Processing? (Or whatever the appropriate terminal is.)

Have you ever failed to get a preclear to carry out an auditing command?

Have you ever deteriorated a preclear’s case?

When running a Model Session, have you ever omitted, or skimped, Rudiments?

Have you ever lost your temper with a preclear?

Have you ever startled a preclear when he was on a comm lag?

Have you ever audited a preclear late at night, or in the small hours of the morning?

Have you ever, overtly or covertly, got it across to your preclear that he was wrong?

Have you ever alter-ised your instructions from the Director of Processing? (Or whatever the appropriate terminal is.)

Have you ever permitted a preclear to blow session? To blow an intensive?

Have you failed to find out whether your preclear was getting adequate food and rest?

Have you permitted a preclear to have secrets from you?

Have you ever been late for a scheduled auditing session?

Have you ever failed to show up at all for a scheduled auditing session?

Have your sessions frequently run overtime?

Have you ever blamed the pc for running overtime?

Have you frequently ended sessions early?

Have you ever blamed your preclear for his case’s not advancing?

Have you ever blamed the D of P, or L. Ron Hubbard for your preclear’s case not advancing?

Have you ever ignored, forgotten, or failed to put into practice L. Ron Hubbard’s orders regarding your preclear?

Have you ever ignored, forgotten, or failed to put into practice orders from the D of P regarding your preclear?

Have you some sort of hidden standard as to what a preclear should be like?

Do you think that everybody really has the same troubles as you?

Is there any sort of preclear that you are certain you cannot help?

Is there any sort of preclear that you would far rather not help?

Has auditing a preclear ever had a bad effect on you? If so, whom did you make guilty?

Have you ever used the wrong process on a preclear?

When you have made a technical flub, did you hurry on without calling it to the preclear’s notice?

Have you ever justified it to the preclear?

Have you ever shown up, sloppily dressed and badly groomed, to audit a preclear?

Have you had a lot of trouble confronting your preclears?

Have you ever Q-and-A’d with a preclear?

Have you ever failed to flatten a process when it was still biting?

Have you ever jammed a preclear into a one-way flow and left him stuck in it?

Do you really know Model Session cold?
Have you read, understood, and put into use the material in the latest technical bulletins?

Have you ever, while auditing a preclear, sat there worrying about your own problems, making future plans, mocking up pleasure moments, or self auditing?

Have you ever kept on running a process that wasn’t moving the Tone Arm, or changing the preclear in any way?

Have you ever audited badly?

Have you ever failed to help a preclear?

Have you failed to notice when your preclear’s case has changed, and tried to audit the person he was yesterday?

Have you ever gone on a machine when auditing?

When auditing Tone 40, have you failed to place an intention in the preclear’s head on each command and acknowledgement to the best of your ability?

Have you ever, deliberately or carelessly, gone out of communication with your preclear?

Have you ever used a preclear as a guinea pig for some process?

Have you ever used an exercise or drill from some field other than Scientology while auditing a preclear?

Have you ever audited anyone solely because you couldn’t stand him the way he was?

Do you regard auditing as punishment?

Have you ever done anything to a preclear which you would be unwilling to have an auditor do to you?

Have you ever felt that you must solve the preclear’s problems?

Have you ever resented it when a preclear criticized you for something which you hadn’t, in fact, done?

Have you ever argued with a preclear?

Have you ever taken your preclear’s advice while auditing him?

Have you ever asked a preclear to instruct you in auditing while you were auditing that person?

Have you ever failed to get good results with a case?

Do you feel that auditing is too good for psychotics, or cripples, or criminals?

Do you feel you must be kind to preclears?

Have you ever been distressed because of a preclear’s physical or emotional pain under auditing?

Is there any sort of preclear you are afraid you may harm?

Is there any sort of preclear you are afraid may harm you?
Have you ever accepted for auditing a preclear you were fairly sure you couldn’t or wouldn’t help?

Have you ever made sexual advances or had intercourse with a preclear of either sex during an auditing session, or during the course of an intensive?

Have you ever recommended the use of liquor, or drugs, to a preclear “to relax him”, or for any other reason?

Have you ever stolen from a preclear?

Have you ever audited preclears while a staff member for yourself and kept quiet?

Have you ever stolen another auditor’s preclear?

Have you ever stolen a preclear from a Central Org?

Have you ever sought to persuade a preclear that you were a better auditor than his auditor?

Have you ever passed a Central Org preclear to an outside auditor?

Is there any question about the way you audit which you would hate to have the D of P, or L. Ron Hubbard, ask you?

Is there any question about your preclears which you would hate to be asked?

Is there any question the D of P, or L. Ron Hubbard, should have asked you, and hasn’t?

Have you nothing further to learn about auditing?

Have you ever found it hard to become interested in a preclear’s case?

Have you ever been utterly baffled by a case?

When a preclear’s case is not going right, are you certain there must be something wrong with the stable data of Scientology?

Have you failed to learn, understand, and regularly employ the stable data of Scientology?

Do you hope you won’t be found out?

Have you ever avoided receiving auditing yourself?

Have you ever mistrusted your E-Meter?

Is there anything mysterious to you about an E-Meter?

Is there any technical question you are afraid to ask the D of P for fear it would make you look incompetent, or stupid?

Do you think you are an incompetent, or stupid, auditor?

Do you think you audit perfectly at all times?

Have you ever believed a preclear knew more about his own case than you did?

Have you ever made the D of P guilty of anything?
Have you ever justified your actions to a preclear?

Have you ever let a preclear control you?

Have you ever falsified an Auditor’s Report in any way?

Have you ever given the D of P, or L. Ron Hubbard, a false impression about your preclear’s case?

Have you ever failed to get an instruction concerning your preclear clarified, if you did not understand it?

Do you think selling auditing is really a swindle?

Have you ever felt that some item in the Auditor’s Code didn’t really apply to your auditing?

Have you ever done anything weird, or strange, with a preclear?

Have you ever been a squirrel?

Do you feel there is anything wrong with invading a preclear’s privacy?

Do you feel there is anything wrong with having your own privacy invaded?

Have you ever redramatized anything on a preclear?

Have you ever avoided running a standard process on a preclear because you didn’t or wouldn’t like having it run on you?

Have you ever refused to run something on a preclear because you didn’t like it?

Are you avoiding using any standard process because you are not sure of your technique?

Have you ever done a bad assessment?

Have you permitted yourself to get rusty, or unfamiliar, with any standard Scientology process?

Have you forgotten any parts of the Auditor’s Code?

Have you ever had a preclear you felt you had to help?

Have you ever had a preclear you didn’t want to help?

Do you deserve to get good results with cases?

Is there any viewpoint that is absolutely intolerable to you?

Have you ever had a preclear that you couldn’t stand to be, even for an instant?

Is there any case you’ve audited that you still feel badly about?

Have you ever felt that there was something about an auditing room that you were not responsible for?

Have you ever felt that there was something about a preclear’s behavior under auditing that you were not responsible for?
Have you ever pretended you could use an E-Meter when you couldn’t?

Do you believe that any preclear can influence the E-Meter in any mysterious way?

Do you believe that the preclear can control his reactive bank?

Do you believe that the preclear really knows about and understands his reactive bank?

Do you believe you can control a preclear’s reactive bank?

Have you ever made a practice of so much two-way communication with the preclear that you were spending very little auditing time in getting a process run?

Have you ever run a process without feeling that it was your process?

Have you ever decided that the D of P, or L. Ron Hubbard, was the cause of some effect which you produced on a preclear?

Do you dislike auditing?

Have you ever felt that auditing another was harmful to you in any way?

Have you ever felt sorry for yourself while auditing a preclear?

Have you ever felt sorry for a preclear?

Have you ever confused social chit-chat with auditing?

Have you ever left an auditing session without ending it properly for the preclear?

Have you ever felt bound by the Auditor’s Code in your relationships with everyone, in and out of session, 24 hours a day?

Have you ever permitted a preclear to throw you into session outside of regularly scheduled session time?

Have you ever made a practice of evaluating for, or invalidating, a preclear of yours between sessions?

Have you ever deliberately encouraged a preclear to believe that you were clear, or OT, when you had not in fact reached this state?

Have you ever tried to force a preclear to believe he or she was clear?

Have you ever represented yourself to a preclear as being in bad shape?

Have you ever discussed your own case with a preclear you were auditing?

Have you ever blackmailed a preclear by threatening to discontinue his auditing?

Have you ever tried to get special favors from a preclear, beyond the agreed-upon payment or remuneration?

Have you ever promised a preclear something which you were not certain you could fulfill to the letter?

Have you ever promised a preclear something you knew you could not fulfill?
Are you weak in any of the TRs? If so, which? If so, have you failed to make arrangements to be coached up on them?

Is there anything you can get away with that other auditors shouldn’t do?

Have you ever gotten into a games condition with a preclear?

Have you ever deliberately or carelessly given a preclear a command which was impossible for him to execute at that time?

Have you ever used poor judgement in auditing a preclear?

Have you ever felt that you were a liability to the Hubbard Guidance Center (or appropriate terminal) as an auditor?

Is there anything about auditing which you alone in all the world know and understand?

Are you in disagreement with any current practice or theory of Scientology as L. Ron Hubbard has communicated it?

Have you ever taken orders from a preclear as to what you should run on his case?

Have you ever yanked the preclear’s attention off his case by uncalled-for statements or actions?

Have you ever stopped running a process because the preclear said it was flat?

Have you ever stopped running a process because the preclear was tired of it?

Have you ever stopped a session just to talk to a preclear to amuse yourself?

Have you ever stopped running a process because you couldn’t stand the preclear’s somatics?

Have you ever just stopped auditing a preclear without ending a session or anything?

Have you ever walked off from a preclear who was halfway through something?

Have you ever felt you had to have a special auditor in order to hide data gotten from preclears about withholds?

Have you ever felt you would be discredited if you received auditing?

Have you ever advised preclears not be audited?

Have you ever taken a commission for secretly passing a preclear to some auditor?

Have you ever invalidated the caliber of auditing or training in a Central Organization?

Have you ever sought to convince a preclear he would injure his case if he or she went to an HGC?

Have you ever taken money for auditing you did not deliver?

Have you ever taken money from a preclear and handed him over to some student to audit for you?

Have you ever committed sharp practices in auditing?
Have you ever pestered L. Ron Hubbard with questions already to be found in bulletins?

Have you ever sought to prove auditing would not work?

Have you ever done anything to slow down L. Ron Hubbard’s research?

Have you ever wasted auditing time?

What do you wish you hadn’t done?

What about your auditing activities are you trying to forget?

Have you any idea it doesn’t matter whether you get results or not?

Are Scientologists’ or Ron’s goals really false?

Are you upset by this Security Check?

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:imj.jh 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JULY l 961

Central Orgs	
Franchise	
METERING RUDIMENTS

The following question from HASI London, and my answer are of general interest:

“From Academy and HGC London.

Ron from Rosalie = 6/7 = 375L

Re Rudiments: Data you gave me was that falls are all one was concerned with in clearing rudiments.
I have heard all reactions should be taken into consideration—i.e. Falls, Rock Slams, Theta Bops, Sticks.
Mary Sue issued Bulletin of May 9th 1961—saying Falls, Rock Slams, Theta Bops, change of characteristic should be considered. Would you please clarify.
Best
ROS, D of T.”

“Ron from Selwyn = 6/7 = 376L

Rosalie’s query goes for me too. Best SELWYN, D of P.”

------------------

“Ros from Ron Info Selwyn Info MSH
375L2 Regarding the remark that only falls are taken into consideration while doing rudiments. This is misleading. The word ‘FALL’ is often used mistakenly or colloquially for ‘CHANGE OF NEEDLE PATTERN’ because the latter is so clumsy in phrasing. Any instant change of reaction in needle pattern is indicative of charge and so in any metering whether rudiments, assessment, sec checking, one explores and pursues all reactions of the needle which change the pattern of what the needle was just doing a moment before.

On rudiments ‘CHANGE OF PATTERN’, detectable when and only when the sensitivity knob is set for a third of a Dial Drop of the needle, one and one half inches, on the can squeeze test, is explored and cleared. The sensitivity knob is not advanced to see if the reaction is entirely handled when the needle reaction vanishes at one third of a Dial Drop sensitivity setting. Unless this sensitivity setting is also observed in addition to change of needle pattern the auditor will take forever to clean rudiments when it is not necessary. Rudiments exist to run enough to get the pc into session, not to audit the case by rudiments. It will be found that when any charge on PTPs, ARC Breaks, or Withholds or Room is dissipated by rudiments so that it does not produce a fall detectable with the sensitivity set for one third of a Dial Drop or any other change of pattern, the pc will be able to go into session.

As a further note when running Routine One A it is not necessary when doing the problems part of it as a main process to handle in rudiments present time problems.

When doing the Security Check part of Routine One A, PTPs can be handled to some extent. Also one does not try to get all Withholds off in running Routine One A beyond clearing them for a sensitivity knob setting of one third of a Dial Drop as these are being handled by the Security Check.
I hope this clarifies your question and related matters.
Best
RON.”

LRH:imj.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6107C11 SHSpec-27  Problems and Solutions

Just going into session and running “Do fish swim?” would give gain if  there were no PTP’s, ARC breaks, or W/H’s.  This is hard to teach auditors,  though it’s been known since 1955 that if a PTP was present, you’d get no  change in profile, if an ARC break was present, you’d have a depressed graph,  and if a W/H is present, you don’t even have a session.  It’s weird; You’re  trying to hold the PC still so that you can audit him.

A problem is a postulate-counter-postulate resulting in indecision.  Any  time you have a fixed stable postulate, it accumulates, or came about because  of, a confusion.  A problem has at least two stable data (the two opposed  postulates), each surrounded by a confusion, so at a MESTy level, it looks  like a confusion -- counter-confusion situation.  War is one of these.  Twenty  years after World War II, traces of it persist as NATO, the Common Market,  etc.

As for the bank, someone set up some idea that he should oppose to some  other idea.  However, the idea that he set up to oppose the other idea commits  overts against the other idea in that it confuses the other idea.  Then it, in  turn, gets back confusion, and the other idea attacks his idea, so you wind up  with two opposed confusions, which then gather more confusion.  This then goes  down the ages as one aspect of the reactive mind.  Problems have duration;  thus the reactive mind has duration.  How many ways could you take a problem  apart?  As motion, as looking at two things, as getting confusions of  comparable magnitude -- all without adding a new solution.  Solving problems  without being stuck with a new solution has never been done before.  Psychoanalysis, by contrast, lays in a new solution that produces new  confusions, then more solutions.  Thus you get branches and schools of  psychoanalysis.

If someone has to have a solution, he didn’t confront and as-is the  problem.  A solution is always a no-confront; confronting produces a  vanishment of the problem.  If you want something to persist, just don’t  confront it.  This gets us back to the original mechanism of structure in this  universe: preventing solution of the problems of the universe to guarantee the  persistence of the universe.  So anybody who solved problems with regard to  the universe was persona non grata with anyone who was trying to get a total  persistence of the universe.  The problem is that it is impossible to create  and at the same time to say that something will persist.  [Things created tend  to as-is] [So if we want things persisting around us.] if we can’t create,  we’ve got to preserve what was created.  The way to preserve it is to get in  this mechanism of no-confront and solutions that we are now trying to undo in  the reactive mind.  This is the idea that “anyone who solves problems is a  dead duck.  Horrible things will happen to anyone who solves problems.” And  everybody agrees 100%, and everybody does it to everyone, and you get a  physical universe fact that enters the mental field.  [With reference to the  above quote, I think Hubbard means by “solve,” “As-is.”]  This is where  structure and mind take their first divergence.  If you want a shakily  persisting universe to persist forevermore, you’ve got to prevent a solution  [As-ising] of its mysteries.  You’ve got to prevent it from being confronted.  So you say, “Anyone who tries to solve this thing is gonna get it.” This goes  over into PC’s trying to solve their problems from day to day.  The terrors of  having solutions [as-isings] then bring about all these other mechanisms.

The universe poses a lot of problems: why is it here; why does time go  clickety-click, etc.  And a person who could be a tremendous mystery thought  he could guarantee to himself a tremendous persistence.  Obviously, the way to  live was to be mysterious, and if you confronted nothing, you’d live on and  on.  So we developed a whole genus of thetan who had decided not to solve  anything, because to solve something is dangerous.  If you just ask a PC to  solve something repetitively, masses close in on him.  He dramatizes the cure  of the impersistence of universes.

Basically, there’s nothing wrong with solving [as-ising] problems, but  when you’ve got tremendous overts against people who were trying to solve  problems, of course it becomes impossible to solve problems.  The persistence  of the reactive mind is a Q and A’ing with the physical universe.  So you find  that most physical universe principles that affect the mind are in the area of  problems: gravity, being trapped, stillness, etc.  The person gets threatened,  “You solve [as-is] a problem and we’ll put you in jail,” so the fellow has a  problem, doesn’t solve a problem, doesn’t confront the problem, doesn’t create  space between himself and the problem, and of course he gets embedded in a  sort of black basalt of energy.  He “solves” the problem and jails himself!  He knows if you confront a problem, you get confused.

All this is a protective mechanism resulting from an upper-level creative  failure.  The consequences of creating showed up with step six.  So after the  universe was figured out on the basis of, “If you create one, there are  terrible consequences”; therefore it’s impossible to create another one.  So  your havingness would be shot to pieces if you knocked out the one you’ve got,  because you couldn’t create another one.  You’ve already had, earlier on the  track, tremendous problems on the subject of creation.  It isn’t enough to  just create something and say, “That’s it.” You have to agree it’s valuable  and no one can ever create another one like it, etc.  You make something  valuable by protecting it and by never being able to replace it.  These are  all mechanisms of value, by which people try to get you to lay off MEST.  So  everyone is convinced that creation carries penalties and that you have to  protect creations against being as-ised, and you get the problem sequence  going.  We have legends against looking -- Medusa, Pandora, etc.  Another  threat would be, “You realize that if you solved the problem of time, all time  would cease.” Actually, if you could solve the problem of time, the worst that  would happen would be having to put it there for yourself again.  And mass  without time probably wouldn’t entrap anybody, anyhow.

If you told the PC, “Face a solution,” repetitively, he’d get upset.  In  the first place, solutions are the easiest things a thetan does and the  easiest things to create, and he’d practically get his head knocked off with  the confusion surrounding the solutions.  You didn’t have him looking at the  confusions -- only the solutions, so the confusions just get more confused.  Not confronting the confusions, you have no reason why any of the solutions  ever occurred.  If we say, “Look at the confusion,” they haven’t much inkling  where to look.  What’s communicable is the package of confusion + solution  which is the problem.  When he looks at problems, he looks at future solutions  too, so it as-ises things a bit.

You’re not trying to get the fellow to solve or erase problems but to get  him over his horror of problems and the piability of solving things.  You’re  trying to get him to recover from these things which were set up on the very  earliest part of the track.  A person who can’t confront problems hasn’t much  judgment, so this is the clue to judgment.  Judgment can only take place in  the presence of observation.  We can observe synthetically when using mathematics, or when mocking something up.  Judgment is absent in a  person who can’t confront a problem.  The auditor who cannot confront the  problems of the PC won’t see them as problems, won’t handle them, and the PC  won’t make progress.  So this resolves auditing too; the more confrontingness  a person has, the better his judgment.  An auditor with judgment is a valuable  auditor.

So we want to get someone familiar with problems.  We start with reach  and withdraw on the MEST he has problems with.  Any number of processes will  increase the PC’s familiarity with problems.

People go off onto the collection of solutions for which no problems  exist, e.g. decorative knot tying or botany.  Then there are people who will  have nothing to do with problems but are overwhelmed with problems.  Most of  these problems wouldn’t seem like real problems to you, just facts, as he  describes them.  [E.g.  “Tell me a problem.” “Ok... The sidewalk.”] As you  enter the area of problems with a PC, you’ll find him in one of these two  conditions, if it’s a problem he’s never been able to handle:

1. Pc in an obsessive automaticity of solutions

2. Pc totally immersed in the problem as a fact.    
He’ll never be in the center line of, “These are problems,” until he wakes up  to it.  When you run problems on someone, he first starts coming up with  solutions, then, on a gradient, he starts to relate them to the facts, which  for him appear to be problems.  Or he goes into the processing announcing  facts, not solutions.  So it doesn’t seem to you, the auditor, that you are  listening to problems.  It’s not that he hasn’t told you the whole story; The  fact he’s given you is, to him, a problem.  It starts peeling back,  onion-like, until you find eventually there was some problem it was involved  in, usually with an overt in it, and he can see it all and it blows.

The way to get the PC more familiar with problems is to get him to look  at them.  “Recall a problem,” is one way; 6-way confront bracket is another.  The two can be combined with profit.  You can also use, “Recall a PTP.” This  situated him in the time of the problem.  It’s a head-on type of process, with  no alter-is of time.  [For 6-Way Confront, see HCOB 6Jul61 “Routine 1A”]

In view of the fact that the aberration about problems was originated to  protect the universe and creations, you find the early end of a problems run  appearing to run forever, since it was put there to insure persistence.  However, you will notice that the TA is active.  This then starts  deteriorating, and he’ll pass to either side, either facts or solutions or  cognitions.  He can alternate between facts and solutions, too.   

6107C14 SHSpec-29  Checking Ruds and Withholds

To clear somebody at this time, he must be in a body, just so he can be  picked up and audited.  A thetan who has just dropped a body has to get  another one before we can clear him.

When columns A, B, C, and D consistently register low after processing,  you know the PC hasn’t found the auditor.  This is due either to an auditor  who doesn’t impinge, or a PC who can’t tolerate being effect or control.

A case that hangs fire has an automatic not-is, which can wipe out the  needle read.  He’ll tell you all sorts of overts on a sec check but not  consider them bad.  He doesn’t think it’s real.  He knows about it, but it’s  all not-ised.  Don’t get outraged with the auditor who missed it.  He didn’t  really miss it.  All the time you are checking the PC over, you ask about the  auditing, so as to unearth the moment of not-is.  You’ll make it safe by  putting it on a via, e.g.  “Have you ever thought it wouldn’t hold up your  case if you didn’t tell your auditor?” “Did you ever have objections to the  auditing room and just fail to mention it?” “Is there any time in your life  when you felt completely beyond help?” “Did you ever tell your auditor?” These  are tricky questions, but you’re counting on the fact that, during that fifty  hours, something did get brought to view that can be re-examined when  spotted.  It requires a bit of cleverness to spot it.  There’s no sense in  trying this technique before he’s has any auditing; the ground hasn’t been  plowed yet.  He’s been like this all his life and thinks it’s normal.  The  meter registers on disagreement and he doesn’t have any yet. (In fact, you can  use “disagreement” as a broad-sweep ruds question when nothing else will  register.) The “This is normal” is in Dianetics, the Evolution of a Science,  as the “Everyone knows...”  The PC really knows it’s not normal, but the  valence he’s in considers it’s OK.  You could ask, “What is life really like?”  to find out what “normal”is to him.  When we say “It’s below his level of  reality,” we mean he has some specialized compartmented values of existence,  which really have nothing to do with existence.  His level of reality has  nothing to do with other people.  This is his reality, so it doesn’t register  when you ask for differences.  For instance, you ask for critical thoughts; he  says “No”, and it doesn’t register because it’s all justified that he natters  continually.  The disagreement is in total agreement with his reality.  They have everything identified with everything, so there is no  sense in disagreement.  The complexity of disagreement with everything is such  that the disagreement is just the way things should be.  Thus there is no  read.  An automatic not-is is an automatic disagree.  You have to be clever to  unveil it all.  The PC has opted out of life because it was too much, but he  knows he shouldn’t have.  He will perhaps tell you that he has led a calm,  orderly life; that nothing much has happened.  Actually, he just hopes he has  no past.

How do you get him back into the mainstream of life?  The meanest thing  you can do is to ask him, “Have you ever left anyplace?”  He answers.  Then  you hit him with, “Why?” Now you are asking for the points of departure from  the main highway.  You are asking, “What didn’t you confront that you feel you  should have confronted?” Now the meter gets active.

It can be summed up in this way, “Did you ever have anybody demand that  you put your attention on something?” “Have you ever had anybody tell you that  you’re wrong not to have had your attention on something?” That’s the basic  trick.  This comes up on problems.  The basic trick of life: making people  confront is the overt and having to confront is the motivator.  All deaths,  and the whole mechanism of death, comes from unwillingness to confront.  So  when people leave and feel they shouldn’t have left, it is because there was  something there that was too threatening and it keyed in death, so they did a  Q and A on death and opted out of life.  They were running a no-confront on  people, giving people things that couldn’t be confronted.  If you do that, you  get the idea that you can’t confront.  After you get that idea, you can only  leave.  And when you can’t even leave any more, all you can do is to go nuts.  When you get the why of leaving, you can ask if that’s been a problem to him  at any other time.  You could get his PTP that way.  You can ask, “Have you  ever thought of blowing session?” “Why?” What you’ve done here is to walk  around, cleverly using all the buttons that he is using to lie there quietly  unchanged.  The buttons of the prehav scale can be used in this line, e.g.  “prevent”, which has to do with problems.  The surprise element is effective  in all this, so it shouldn’t be rote.  The PC must realize that he is being  interrogated by an intelligence.

Control is associated with intelligence.  The labor - management  situation stems from suspiciousness of cleverness.  When people are un-clever,  they are easily overwhelmed by cleverness.  They can protest it with a  strike.  Labor’s basic yap is against the intelligence of management, but  management is never bright enough to use intelligence as a counter-weapon.  Intelligence is an altitude factor.  This applies very strongly in sec  checking.  You won’t get anywhere operating as a robot.  Similarly with ruds.

If you know there is something wrong because the PC hasn’t responded to  the correct processes, then there has got to be something wrong with  rudiments.  If you can’t get the PC to respond well, it’s not that he is  trying to hide from you consciously.  He is being a dead body up in a gully  covered with leaves, and you’ve got to work around cleverly to communicate  with him so he can be gotten back into life.  The trouble is that he thinks he  is just lying there quietly, and he isn’t.  He is shooting guns and making all  kinds of fuss.  On the other hand, you don’t want to get so helpful that he  comes to rely on you totally and never looks.

6107C18 SHSpec-30  Can’t Have -- Create

In 1952, the Philadelphia Doctorate Course and Scientology 8-8008 were  the basic texts on havingness.  Havingness is a dominant thing; it is a part  of games conditions.  Now we are back to games conditions and its relation to  havingness.  In Scientology 8-8008, we had the principle that the goal of  processing is to remedy the scarcity and abundance of all things.  But all  that we previously had to do this was creative processing, and a lot of people  couldn’t run it.  Now we have come up with a new way to do this and thus clear  someone fast.

There is a new datum on havingness: its relation to create.  After you  create something, you may have it or not; create doesn’t necessarily mean that  you’ll have.  All of auditing could be considered prehavingness, hence the  prehav scale.  The relationship between creating and havingness has to do  with the fundamental formation of the reactive bank and is very important:  What a person can’t have, he creates.  That is the law on which man operates.  It is the most fundamental law of the bank that has yet been discovered.  This  is how the bank is formed.  E.g.  whenever Italy gets beaten, they have a  Renaissance, or like, when you abuse a plant, it blooms.  LRH wanted a ship  and couldn’t buy one, so he started to build one; if a rosebush can’t have a  rose (if you trim it off), it creates roses.  If a shipyard can’t have ships,  it builds ships that wear out in twenty years, so you can’t have the ships  either.  Probably the government punishes everyone for producing in order to  make them produce on a reactive basis.

There’s evidently some cross-relationship that goes further than the O/W  mechanism.  It was described in theory in Scientology 8-8008 plus in the  discussion of games conditions in The Fundamentals of Thought.  Games  conditions concern preventing people from having things.  Things of all sorts  are havingness.  The thetan is only unhappy when he can’t have.  His idea of  quality could be reformed.  If you deny him anything, he’ll try to obtain it  (e.g. the Prohibition).  Now LRH knows how to make a civilization: decide what  would be good things to have and create knuckleheaded bureaus to prevent each  one of them.  The trouble with economics is that it tries to create demand  with supply.  It should use scarcity.  How do you create creation?  Run a  broad can’t have.  The games condition can get so bad that if you insist on  people having something, they don’t want it.  Police action creates crime; BBC  creates rock and roll.

As long as you aren’t in a games condition with the people around you, as  long as you don’t run a can’t have or a must have on them and still have  control, all will be smooth sailing.  It’s supposed to be a good thing on this  planet to run a can’t have, e.g. with strictness.  But this is the way you  create problems.  Problems may appear to be don’t haves, but how did the PC  get into the condition of don’t have?  Actually, don’t have is the last ditch  of can’t have.  Because even with a can’t have, you could materialize what you  don’t have, maybe even build one.  But the way you got into a don’t have was  the overt-motivator sequence.  First you run a can’t have on others, then they  don’t have, then you don’t have.  So if the PC doesn’t have anything, it must  be because he denied it.  If he’s got a low quality of something, he gets it  thus: he can’t have a good one, but nobody wants a bad one, so he’s got a bad  one.  The test of his havingness is that he has it because nobody wants it.  If nobody wants it, he can have it.

Total lack of something doesn’t mean that the thetan is without it.  It’ll still be obsessively created in his reactive bank.  The covert  creativity of the bank is a remedy of havingness.  That’s all it is.

Now say you run a can’t have on somebody on sex; then you find people  running a can’t have on you on the subject of sex, and you’re puzzled.  You’ll  find 2D activities are impossible, so you’re likely to do a flip -- to go off  in some different direction and build up various sorts of 2D activities you  could have.  When these also fail, you end up with them hidden from yourself  but still created in the bank.  So we get the downgrading quality.  The  degrade is on the basis of what he can have.  A common denominator of pcs at  the bottom is the complaint of not being able to feel.  A bit higher, they  complain of not feeling as much as they’d like about things.  That’s a can’t  have on feelings.  Also, the feelings degrade, and go on down the tone scale.  Serenity is impossible, so the thetan becomes enthusiastic, but that’s an  overt, so he goes down to conservatism, but that’s for bank managers, so he  gets bored, but people won’t let you be bored, so ... down to no feelings.  But  of course all these feelings are being mocked up at the back of the bank.

At the first St. Hill ACC, LRH talked about two routes:  experience, and  the auditing route used at that time.  They are now combined, because the  experiential factor is havingness.  Experience is havingness, so all  experience can be restored.  Beingness and doingness can be junior to  havingness.  [But Cf. p. 42, at upper level strata, beingness is higher than  doingness, which is higher than havingness, so maybe LRH is talking about a  lower level stratum here.]  But beingness and doingness operate on the same  can’t have mechanism.  When you hit bottom on your own beingness, you’ll mock  up some very desirable beingness, and you will be that, except that you are  not really being that.  For instance, a kid isn’t permitted to be a pilot and  fly airplanes, so he mocks up being an ace aviator.  A person may end up  settling for a lesser and lesser beingness.  Finally, he is not being much, so  he mocks up a substitute reactive beingness.  Little kids are not permitted to  fly planes, so what do they do?  They become “aviators”.

What confuses people is that, while can’t have produces create at a  reactive level, all this can take place at an analytical level.  Not all can’t  haves trigger the obsessive create, but if you communicate the can’t have in  an unacceptable (can’t have) way, in a good games condition, the guy may well  slip into the reactive create.  Absence of ARC is almost a requisite for a  reactive creation by reason of a can’t have.  If you run a strong can’t have  on war in the interests of peace, war will result.  Keeping the peace is not  done by running a can’t have on war by propaganda, etc.  For instance, at the  outset of World War II, no information was given out about the war; it was not  considered OK to attack the enemy, yet we did get ourselves into it.  When  people run a can’t have on things that do exist, we get a delusory state.  Christian Science does this.  Try running 8-C on a Christian Scientist.  The  insistence of a thetan on Axiom 1 is fantastic.

On some people, if you try to run a think process, they can’t do it.  These people must have an O/W games condition on thoughts, because they can’t  have a thought.  If someone withholds a thought, he’s running a games  condition on you on the subject of “You can’t have it.” This will put him in a  condition where he has less of it.  If you can get off his withholds, i.e. get  him to give you the thought, you’ve stopped him from playing that game  condition, and he’ll feel better.  But why does he have these discreditable things  anyway?  Because they are scarce.  If a thought is scarce, there has been a  cut-down of a thought of activity.  So the person withholds telling you about  actions agains the mores of society because such actions are scarce.  If you  can get hold of one, it’s his jewel -- a scarcity.  He also holds onto it  because he doesn’t want you to have bad thoughts about him.  This is another  games condition.  To handle this, you could run a can’t have process on  thoughts, theoretically:

1. What thought haven’t you permitted another to have?

2. What thought hasn’t another permitted you to have?

You could see another mechanism from another theoretical process.  You  run, “Think of a (say, woman).” At first he gets a generality or nothing, then  he thinks of specific departed women, then dead women, sick women, funerals  too.  You are making him examine the scarcity of women, and it runs backwards  to the point where he could think of a present woman with perfect ease and get  a 3D picture of her.  Whatever it is you find him inverted or nonexistent on,  you develop a process by which you can discharge his propensity for using that  item in a games condition on others and they on him.  Because you are running  out stable data on this, you add a confusion, a problem, or a motion along  with it.  For instance, you could use, “When have you denied another a woman?  When has another denied you a woman?  What problem about women is not present  now?” The “not present now” is because it is the not-is version of problem  confront.  This is a murderous process because it un-not-ises everything  involved.

A games condition is unnatural since, in such a condition, the person  becomes convinced that there is only that game, so they run the can’t have,  and the more they do this, the less they have of it.  Eventually, it  disappears from view, and they have gotten worse, not better.  “Way back,  people wouldn’t clear because they thought it meant losing their game.  When  cleared, they promptly went out and aberrated themselves again to have a  game.  They expressed it as, “I didn’t want to be detached from existence.”  What pinned it down was a scarcity of games.  They thought being aberrated was  the only game going.

The remedy of havingness of games is broadening the PC’s view on the  subject of games.  All you have to do is knock out his fixed attention on  aberrated games, so that he can look around at all the other games.  If you do  this, the PC will blow clear almost at once.

6107C20 SHSpec-32  Games Conditions

A games condition means an agreement of can’t have amongst beings.  It’s  have for self and can’t have for others in a true games condition, but as an  agreement it’s can’t have on all flows.  It’s agreement that nails it in  concrete.  A widespread can’t have agreement gives you lots of mass.  For  instance the Christian prohibition on sex, which is very fundamental as a  can’t create.  Bodies are necessary as favorite vehicles and identities, but  there’s a penalty in the Christian system for creating them.  This results in  a must-must not.  It is in the field of disagreement and can be processed in  various ways.

But how did you get suckered into a position like this, where you could  accumulate motivators like this?  You must have been party to the can’t have  somewhere along the line; you can’t suffer any consequences you had no hand in  creating, and you must have done it by agreement with a lot of others.  With  the disagreement you’re objecting to the game you helped to create in the  first place.  If you get the disagreement off, you get a considerable  resurgence.  You could undercut it by getting all the agreements to have the  game.

A games condition process seeks to isolate the basic agreements on some  kind of game.  “Games condition” is a derogatory term.  It means a package  consisting of a fixated attention, inability to escape coupled with inability  to attack, to the exclusion of other games.  There’s nothing wrong with having  games, but a game condition is unknown, arbitrary, reactive, performed outside  one’s choice, without his consent or will.  It’s a sort of mental doingness  trap.  In it, you’ve got to do things, assume a certain beingness, and have no  communication with anyone not part of the game.  The world thus becomes  massless, timeless, spaceless, and people-less very rapidly.  Most marriages  that go on the rocks are in a games condition, where there’s a total agreement  that neither one can have anything, overlaid with another set of agreements  that are in disagreement with that fundamental can’t have agreement.  Their  tenderest moments are when they’re in disagreement with the basic agreement of  can’t have.  This gives us interesting maxims like, “Hell hath no fury like a  woman scorned,” which reflects the later disagreement.  When two people get  this fixated, the rest of the world ceases to exist.  They just stay with each  other and shut out the rest of the world.

Games conditions can exist on any dynamic.  Wars are an example on the  third or fourth dynamics.  One can find portions of the track where one has  repeatedly gotten into the same game, e.g. defending the capitol by being  part of an interceptor squadron shooting down or being shot down by the enemy  right over the middle of the airport.  This was a games condition because it  was an unknowing fixated activity; it did nothing effective for the society.

The clue to a games condition is that the person is doing a compulsive  confront that makes it necessary for him to assume a compulsive beingness.  In  order to play this game, one must deny a certain havingness.  The US has, in  its last two wars, demonstrated itself to be in a war games condition because  it cannot have the fruits of any of its victories.  In a games condition, no  matter what the person says, he always ends up with no havingness.  So you get  an obsessive beingness and doingness and a can’t havingness.  Everybody has a  few games conditions; few have complete games conditions going.  The latter  are in the spin bin.  When you see one of these games conditions, it defies  all logic because it’s obsessive.  It has nothing to do with the real world.  This is true of all aberration.  It’s out of PT.  The rationale which  rationalizes a games condition has holes in it.  But don’t try to argue  someone out of it; audit him out of it.  You can’t educate someone out of a  games condition because it’s aberrated and he can’t look at it analytically.

The situation of a person who can’t influence his bank with thinkingness is interesting.  The gradient scale of less effectiveness in this regard ends  in no effectiveness.  If you give such a person an auditing command, he  doesn’t do it, and even if he did do it, it would have no effect on the bank.  Such a person breaks auditors’ hearts and gives people loses.  It is of  interest to understand the anatomy of this phenomenon, which exists to some  degree in all cases, since clearing a person means putting him in control of  the bank.  We’ve been working on the question of how a person could get into a  condition where they could not affect the bank since 1954.

The answer is withholds.  The fellow is backing out of life; he’s withholding as part of a games condition; denying something to someone else.  The withhold gives him a can’t reach, a pull-back.  Multiply this by a lot of  instances and you find that eventually the person practically exits from the  dynamics.  But this is really not possible to do, so he inverts on them.  As  far as he’s concerned, his effort is to leave, compounded with the withhold  and not-reach.  Thus you get an ineffectiveness.  You can’t control something  you can’t reach and from which you are withholding yourself.  The mustn’t  reach is really a mustn’t be reached, of course.  This is true especially when  there is punishment involved.  Punishment compounds withholds.  So as we go  downscale on reach, we get:

1. Ineffectiveness

2. Destructiveness (the PC can’t communicate with something well  enough to understand it, so when he does reach, he can only be destructive)

3. Inability even to destroy something.

4. Inability to have any influence at all, of any kind.

5. Inability even to affect his own mind.

Add up all these withholds and can’t haves on all dynamics and you get  someone who’s totally withdrawn, individuated; totally ineffective on his own  bank.  When he runs can’t have on people, he makes them less familiar and more  withdrawn from things.  Then, by the overt-motivator sequence, this reacts on  him, so he stops reaching and starts withholding.  At 100% withhold, or 100% withdraw, he can’t  influence anything, including his thoughts and bank.  If he reads on the  meter, you know something is effecting his bank.  Don’t be amazed if the PC  has never noticed, really, the condition he’s in.  He can’t think or  rationalize on the subject; he will buy wrong why’s on it readily.

So if you run a command that you haven’t tested for read, you are doing  something adventurous, since if it didn’t read, you’re in an area where he’s  still totally ineffective or totally effective.

A PC can be compulsively exterior: the detached case.  Freud could never  help this kind of case.  That’s someone who is backed out of the dynamics and  backed out of his head.  People will tell you they feel detached.  That  indicates a games condition in the area where they feel detached.  Most  homosexuals are detached in this sense.  In any area a person is in a games  condition about, he is detached.  How do you reverse the games condition?  Find something that reads on the E-meter and is therefore something he can  effect, i.e. something real to the PC.  Real means, “Can the PC be effective  in that sphere?” Get the PC’s withholds and can’t have off the subject on a  gradient scale.  You take off the games condition, and the PC can now reach in  the area and regain effectiveness.  It’s basically idiotically simple, but if  you violate that doingness, you don’t get results in auditing.  Say you want  to cure psychosomatics with auditing.  You can find people who are so much the  effect of their psychosomatics, you can have more effect on them than the they  can.  You can make them well, but they don’t know it!  So they never thank you  for getting well.  What you should do to avoid this situation is to assess all  the person’s difficulties, get the best read, get off all the person’s  withholds on the area, get the games conditions in the area cured, and the  difficulty will right itself.  You can eradicate illness and upsets, but you  have to assess them first.  The fact that the PC complains about something all  the time doesn’t prove anything.  It could be a circuit or a mechanism; or it  could be part of some other games condition.  There is a gradient scale of  difficulties.  The PC may have lots of them, but may be effective only in one  area.  That’s where you must start.  That’s been the barriered line on healing  and help.

If you run a command that doesn’t read, the PC is ineffective in the  area.  Therefore it’s auditor vs the PC’s bank, with no help from the PC.  He’ll be ARC breaky, hard to audit because you’re just auditing bank and the  PC isn’t there.  This violates the basic auditing principle: auditor plus PC  is greater than the bank.

6108C03 SHSpec-33  Creation and Goals

The earliest unanswered question in dianetics and scientology is, “Why  does a thetan mock up bad pictures?” It’s remained unanswered all these  years.  You almost never find anyone with a fixed pleasure moment.  Old  validation processing was productive of more grief charges, etc.! [Validation  processing = validation effort processing “This consists of discovering  moments when the preclear is successfully approaching goals; when he is  successfully exerting an effort; when his self-determined effort is winning.”  5110CM01 OCTSER (October Series) Self-determinism -- Effort Processing, plus  Validation Straightwire, “the theory of which was to validate all the good  moments of the preclear’s past by having him recall them (Ability Major 5,  “Ability Straightwire”, page 7).] 

What is this fixation on death, disaster,  and invalidation?

One theoretical possibility is that he’s getting even.  He’s been made to  produce, so he mocks up a bad production.  Mechanically, of course, it’s  something he hasn’t as-ised because it’s unpleasant, etc., but why did he  agree to those mechanics in the first place?  He makes an original agreement,  then revolts against it.  Maybe he’s been made to produce lots of good things,  so he revolts with this mechanism, so when he’s called upon to mock up  something good, he mocks up something bad.  This may happen on a 1.1 level.  This can be seen running pleasure moments, when the PC slips into the badness  of it all.  Assuming that the fellow is in revolt, this can be very overt  (hi-toned) or covert, e.g. not producing but having excuses for failure or  forgetting to do it at all; the latter is a lower harmonic of direct refusal.  Occlusion is this level of revolt, and we let people get away with it.  For  instance, Hitler’s around somewhere, and we allow him to get away with having  forgotten who he’s been.  “I can’t” is a covert “I won’t.” The mechanism is so  lost it has become a way of life, not a revolt any more.  The guy just mocks  up bad pictures and forgets.  Some civilizations on the track were really  production-crazy, e.g.  Arslycus, where the thetans were actively producing,  mocking up matter.  You couldn’t get away; there were entrapment mechanisms.  Production got a bad name because it was production against power of choice  over production.  The bank dramatizes this creation against the wish to  create.  The fellow doesn’t want to mock up the bank, so he mocks up the  bank.  His will to create has been badly overwhelmed, partly because he  overwhelmed others’ will to create.  Arslycus eventually fell apart.  Some  worker invented disintegration so that it could happen.  This was the only  possible response -- to out-create with a new idea something worse than what  was happening to them.

Creation gets a bad name from enforced creation.  There’s another side to  it.  LRH has been unhappiest when he’s produced so much that he gluts the  market.  Others decide they’ve been out-created, and they get unhappy too.  That’s not so upsetting; what’s so upsetting is not having any market for your  creation, no observers, no audience, etc., and not having it wanted.  One does  want one’s creations to be admired.  If you are made to produce when you don’t  want to, or if you think there will be no appreciation of your production, you  will generally produce an overt product.  One can also think that a good  creation in some field will bring one into a state of victimization or some  unpleasant consequence.  In this case, one retreats, saying, “I can’t,” or “I  don’t have any talent,” or “I haven’t been educated.”

In 1948, the answer to “Why does a thetan create a bank?” was that he  creates something with resonance between his own tone and what he creates in  the bank.  This is not the whole story, though.  An individual mocks up, or  doesn’t, in an effort to prevent his will from being overthrown on the subject  of creation.  He gets mechanisms to inhibit creativeness in order to protect  his self-determinism.  These mechanisms are what we run into in processing.  This is why creative processing works, but it is also why some pcs eventually  dreamed up that the bank gets solid.  The mechanism was already there.

Methods of denying creation are the most fundamental thing you’re dealing  with in processing.  We have to figure out what the guy’s afraid of and disarm  it on that angle.  So what is he afraid of?  He’s afraid of being made to do.  (You can substitute “do” for “create” to avoid some mine fields.) He considers  there are bad consequences to doing; he considers that you have to hit a  thetan to get him to create.  This is an old-old consideration; it explains things like the high birth rate amongst the lower classes.  [It  also explains waiting until the last moment to write a paper, and the artistic  temperament and why artists seek out SP’s.] If someone hits you, you’ll make a  picture of it.  This explains to everyone that he’s a victim -- he has been  made to create, and he is following the law that the best way to keep from  being hurt is to create.  This keeps you from being beaten.  The most involved  point in an engram is where the fellow thinks he has mocked up the engram in  full, which should keep him from further injury, then gets hit again by  something else, so he mocks that up too, and then there’s more injury, or  something, which defeats him.  His best answer to a blow was to create.  That  used to get him off the hook.  Then he suffers defeat and an invalidation of  the mechanism of creation as a defense.  Then comes a total not-is of engrams,  which is another defeat, and the disappearance of earlier engrams.  People  with invisible fields have gotten to a chronic state of believing it won’t do  any good to create.

This all sums up to the thetan’s responses to the accumulation of all the  times his choice was overwhelmed.  Someone’s choice is overwhelmed, so he  responds in some way, in a downscale attempt to make his postulates stick,  which he never gives up trying to do.  The basic assumption of a thetan and  the first thing he wants to do, is the communication formula: Axiom 10.  It’s  the most fundamental game in the interrelationship of thetans anyway.  From  there on, he just wants to make his postulates stick.  When he fails to create  an effect, he will still try to create an effect [by mocking stuff up].  Routine 3 (goals processing) is effective because you are looking over all the  powers of choice he has hoped to effect, most of which have failed, and  running out his failed powers of choice.  Running goals is a sneaky way of  getting at what postulates he would like to make stick by asking what  conditions he was trying to bring about.  The bank is the mechanisms of all  sorts that tend to defend his assertions of self, though the effect of these  mechanisms is to make a mess of the PC.  The disintegration of his postulates  is what’s wrong with him.  His reaction to this is surprisingly extreme, but  the bank is still trying to have the effect.  The basic of the chain is an  overt, which is why overts work so well in processing.  Someone who is  obsessively protecting anything has overts on it.  He is still trying to make  his basic postulate of “effect on” stick, however.  Why does he make the  original overt postulate?  He has gotten into a games condition on creation,  that’s why.  He has been creating against someone else, gets a lose on making  nothing of the opponent’s creation, so he overts against it.  Early on the  track, thetans specialized in goofy games and got into forgetting what they  were doing.  So there seems to be something wrong in the field of postulates.  Theoretically, you could run a PC on, “What effect could you actually create?”  This doesn’t work because it is too direct; it goes straight through the mine  field.  To the PC, it seems unreal; he can’t do it.  Modifying it to, “What  decision would it be all right for you to make?” would be more workable.

A thetan must have a feeling that there are motions and confusions he  cannot tolerate, so he avoids them with mechanisms of creation.  If a person’s  tolerance for motion and randomity is raised, his fears of consequences of the  overthrow of his power of choice are reduced.  Most fundamentally, obtaining a  tolerance for motion and catastrophe would wash away the fear of fear.

The creation of a confusion is the last echelon of a postulate.  The last  echelon of a confusion is the creation of a confusion by omission.  So we’re  on safe ground with pcs if we stress creation of confusions, especially by  omissions.  So you could use the process, “If you said nothing, what confusion  would occur?” or, “What not-doingness would create a confusion.?”

Cases that don’t move are the roughest ones.  In catatonia, we have the  last desperate effort of a thetan to make a postulate stick somewhere; it’s a  not-doingness.  There’s probably no such thing as a thetan who’d not trying to  do something.  All thetans are busy, if only trying to do things through  omission.  Thus, in asking for goals, we should ask for failed goals, secret  goals, withheld goals, etc., since that leads straight to old postulates.
A PC can be so confused on the blow/create theory that just being talked  to by the auditor can cause him to create something.  Or below that, he’ll  mock up nothing while in session and get lots of ideas about it out of  session.  Ron handled this with short sessioning.  The PC would hand up his  case right after session.  Then LRH would begin a new session and handle it.  At this level, the PC is on a total reverse: he creates when he’s not supposed  to and doesn’t create when he’s supposed to.

Occlusion is the last answer, the last attempt to create an effect: an  overt of omission.  Here, you could use some far south process as, “What  confusion wouldn’t occur if you forgot?” This might get through to him if he’s on a failed forget.

[So the dwindling spiral of creation or postulates is:

1. Postulate

2. Failed postulate

3. Creation

4. Failed creation

5. Creation of a confusion

6. Creation of a confusion by omission

7. Not-ised creation of a confusion by omission.

A tolerance of confusions, problems, motion, etc, is fine, but failed  postulates is what you are trying to get with goals processing.  You can also  get this effect if you ask a PC what he hopes would happen if he kept on doing  what he was doing.  If he can’t answer, you can undercut it with “What won’t  happen?” What shows up here will be caution, which seems laudatory, but he’ll  begin to realize something will happen too, as you get the not-is off.  You  could run off intentional overts with, “What would (or wouldn’t) be damaged if  you forgot it?” They are both aimed at getting the effect he’s trying to  produce.  Or you could use, “What damage would forgettingness cause?” You’re  running O/W crossed with forgettingness.  Etc.  This is all at a high level of  theory.  It’s a road parallel to the one through the minefield, even if you  can’t get the exact road. 

6108C04 SHSpec-34  Methodology of Auditing -- Not-doingness and Occlusion

It’s impossible to have judgment in auditing if one’s TR’s are out and  one is worried about making mistakes in application of the tech.

On running brackets, a problem may be that the outer legs of the bracket  may not be real to him at first.  Reality on these legs may develop as he runs  the process.  This happens because of the dynamics.  As he is audited, the PC  gains reality on the other dynamics besides the first dynamic.  The PC’s  ability to reach is directly reflected in his ability to conceive of someone else having  an idea or action.  So, as you run the process, the command you started with  can be too narrow and limiting, as the PC’s ideas reach further, and the  commands could need to be enlarged -- more legs could be added.  Each leg of  the command stands as an individuated unit, without interchange among legs;  each, in fact, could be run as an individual command.  In view of the fact  that it doesn’t harm anybody to run an unreality as long as they are moving  towards a reality, it would be OK to run all legs of the bracket from the  outset.  Try to choose a bracket and command wordings all of which fall.  Remember that if you choose a command that restricts the PC, you limit his  gains.  Also, the PC will tend to look at the legs not being run as his  reality comes up.  He will have to withhold himself from those areas, tending  to put them on automatic.

An auditing command can be broadened; it shouldn’t be made more  particular and specific.  If in doubt, take the broadest form and run it from  the outset.  Running one which is too restricted can turn on somatics.  It’s  legitimate to change the targets, flows, etc., but not the basic form.  Don’t  change “how” to “when” or “could” to “would”.  You can drop portions of the  command, too, as long as in so doing you are removing particularization.  When  the PC gets very free on flows, you can drop out the legs and go to the  simplicity of, e.g.  “Get the idea of (verb).”

An aberration is located as a total imprisonment, a total individuation.  Auditing commands resolve the degree of imprisonment and individuation.  As  the degree lessens, you may lose TA on one leg of the process but now have it  elsewhere.  The TA ceases to move when the targets of the process are flat, so  the rule is, before leaving the command, check it out for all variations which  might produce new action.  Remember that the reactive mind is an idiot, so you  could miss something because of a wrong pronoun, or whatever.

The biggest barrier in dissemination is not-doingness and mis-doingness.  There is an old unresolved philosophic question about the value of  not-doingness: “To do or not to do?” Which is better, the active or the  passive life?  If you do, you get into trouble; if you don’t do, you get into  trouble.  There’s confusion on either side.  For instance, LRH had a problem  as a writer:  whether to be super nasty if he was criticized or to be nice and  let himself be criticized, thus protecting his markets and friends.  There are  contradictory lessons in this; of course neither answer is right.  The missing  datum is that they are both overts, longest continuous overt is  not-doingness.  Have you ever noticed the randomity that can be produced by a  missing datum in a problem?  A false datum can cause some confusion, but look  at what a missing datum on the subject of the mind has done!  How about a  missing beingness?  This is a near-ultimate in not-doingness.  The ultimate,  of course, is forgetting.  You’re not only doing nothing; you’re not there to  do it and you’ve forgotten.  This really produces confusion.  A thetan never  ceases to try to have an effect on something, to put Axiom 10 in effect, no  matter how many trillenia have gone by.  You are trying to process someone who  is in the middle of 10,000 continuous overts of omission.  Doing something is  apparently the least damaging type of overt.  Thus withhold seems to be the  more therapeutic side of O/W.  It’s his not-doingness which weighs on his  case.

Doingness and not-doingness are not data of comparable magnitude.  Not-do  is enormously greater.  That’s why people who stop doing, even if what they  have been doing is nasty, crash when they stop; that’s also why men die before  women.  Underneath it all, a thetan knows he’s important to life and knows  it’s an overt not to participate.  The only greater overt is to forget.  This  is still an attempt to create an effect.  So there’s a gradient scale of  effect creation:

1. You do something to have an effect. (Axiom 10)

2. You create an effect by not doing something.

3. You create an effect by being absent.

4. You create an effect by forgetting.    
What degree of randomity could you produce by forgetting a whole lifetime?  Quite a bit.  And it’s an overt; and the fellow realizes it’s an overt.  That’s the reason for whole track occlusion:  the overt of forgetting.  The  law behind all this is that the thetan never ceases to have an effect on those  targets he has chosen, and the only thing that could ever pry him loose from  those fixated effects is something like scientology.  He is imprisoned to the  degree that he is still trying to have a hopeless effect on something.  He is  his own jailer.  Forgetting it prevents it from ever being as-ised.

If O/W can stall a case, how much more can it be stalled by not being  there, the withhold of self?  How much can it be stalled by a withhold from  self and being there, and from doingness and from the subject and from any  knowledge of the subject and from any communication with any beingness of the  subject, etc.?  That’s why the more occluded a case is, the harder it is to  audit.  So you run cases on, “What wouldn’t you mind forgetting?” This gets  off withholds.  Or, as a general pattern for a command, “What confusion  would/could forgettingness create?”

We’ve looked on forgettingness as a sort of passive thing; we’ve looked  on not-doingness as the natural state of beingness.  Seeing them as overts  opens up new zones for processing.

6108C08 SHSpec-35  Forgettingness

The reactive mind is basically that area of occlusion which the PC is  unable to contact and which contains a total identification of all things with  all things and until released into the realm of havingness, continues to react  upon the person, compelling him into actions, dramatizations, and computations  which are not optimum to survival.  We find in the reactive mind all the  residual, not as-ised material which the individual is seeking to avoid.  All  the discreditable things of his existence are then contained in this area.  He  hangs onto them, the knucklehead!  He has various mechanisms of survival  connected with this, one being the justification of the aberrations he has.

Psychology makes the error of saying that one is only able to create by  virtue of one’s reactive mind.  Faculty psychology (c. the 1500’s) was an  attempt to understand perception and the mind.  They didn’t get anywhere  because they dealt with the analytical sphere and got confused by the fact  that men don’t always react rationally.  Behaviorism overlooks the  unpredictabilities of men when they don’t follow the stimulus-response  mechanisms.

Until scientology, a theory about man was too precious not to be  carefully guarded from attack.  Men went to the stake to protect the theory of  faculty psychology.  They threw away case histories to protect the theory of  behaviorism.  The abundance or scarcity of all things applies.  Theories were terribly scarce.  In scientology, we are  looking at an abundance of theories.  What we care about is what works.  Former theorists didn’t care whether their theories were workable or not.  They just felt they should protect the theory.

The cure of a reactive bank is knowingness, because the substance of the  bank is not-knowingness.  There’s a fourth postulate:  remember.  The third  was forget; it is senior.  It’s been stressed that one should run that, rather  than remember.  In order of making, the four postulates are:
0. Native state: potentiality of knowing everything.

1. First postulate: not know

2. Second postulate: He had to know something.

3. Third postulate: He forgot what he knew.

4. Fourth postulate: Remember.    

A thetan does this on any given subject.  When you enter a school, you start  by postulating you know nothing about the subject.  That’s really a request to  find something you don’t know.  In other schools, you’re asked to not-know and  then learn a lot of nonsense.

The only thing that ever blows up a false theory is the workability of a  counter-theory.

We know more about the unpredictable side of man than any other body of  people on earth, so any breakthrough we make in the area is valuable.  The  breakthrough is in the area of forgettingness and confusion.  Man wants things  to be forgotten.  He not only uses forgettingness as a continuous overt act;  he wants forgettingness to occur.  He wants all his evil deeds to be wrapped  in the Stygian darkness of yesteryear.  Man is basically good, so it his deeds  are considered bad, then there’s only one cure for them that he knows: To  forget them.  So, as an auditor, you can ask, “what should be forgotten?”  He’ll recover almost at once a screaming impulse to make something forgotten,  and that is where his volition and the reactive mind cross.  His volition  desires occlusion; back of all his confusion is a knowable volition: he wishes  a forgettingness to occur, and that wish creates a reactive bank.  That is the  postulate that comes ahead of everything: he must forget.  So it can be  reached with, “What should be forgotten?” There’s a danger that this will  become a forgotten point of scientology.  The postulate, “It must be  forgotten,” must be the most forgotten of all postulates, so it must be the  one least able to be as-ised, and thus best suited to accumulate the  concatenation of a bank.

The hidden standard is a cousin to this.  You can handle the hidden  standard by asking what is hidden about it or what should be forgotten about  it -- and it blows.  The PC’s attention frees up and he knows processing works  for him.  You can ask, “What would have to happen for you to know scientology  works?”; strip all the motion out of the needle, and you’ll have a list of  hidden standards.  [More details on running of this.” Any psychosomatic or  livingness difficulty a person has is a difficulty because there’s something  about it he doesn’t want known, and he wants others to forget it.

Compulsive rememberingness brings about forgettingness.  One pulls it in  with the must have on remembering, which postulates the likelihood of  forgetting.  And vice versa: someone who goes off to the South Seas so as to  forget, first tries to forget with women, then with liquor, dope, then death.  But all his urgency to forget keeps it there.  He pushes one button and gets  the other.  This develops an awful confusion, which is then buried with death  and occluded, forming the stimulus response mechanism of the reactive mind, because his power of choice and his postulates are being overwhelmed,  even if it’s him who’s overwhelming them.

Restoration of memory on the whole track is the index by which you can  measure case gain most easily.  If someone doesn’t think he’s lived before,  he’s heavily plowed into forgettingness, while the guy who has only delusory  recall on track is doing a pretended knowingness of the whole track.  This is  a games condition of magnitude.  It’s denying knowingness by giving a false  knowingness.  It’s forgetting and remembering at the same time -- very  confusing and irritating to confront.  The irritation comes from one’s  awareness of the games condition, putting you into the position of being an  unwilling opponent.  If it goes on long enough, your own occlusion is  assisted.  The target is to occlude your track by giving false knowingness  about theirs.

Confusion asks itself to be forgotten because it was never remembered.  That is, it is not-known.  That’s what makes a confusion a confusion. 

6108C11 SHSpec-38  Basics of Auditing -- Matter of Factness

A lot of auditors are doing something besides auditing:  they are  pressing through, introducing something in an effort of make auditing work.  Probably it’s because of LRH saying that the auditor has to make the auditing  work, that he should be on the ball, etc.  A certain apathy about results  creates in itself a “grind atmosphere”.  Desperation or apathy alike are  counter-productive.  LRH audits with no doubt about what he’s doing, no  withdraw, no question about purpose.  His auditing is very matter-of-fact  because he has no doubt that he can help the PC, no doubt about the  effectiveness of the process he’s going to run, no doubt about the fact that  the process is working, so he has a relaxedness about auditing that gives him  results five times as fast because he doesn’t get in his own road.

The reason an auditor doesn’t flatten a process is anxiety to get the job  done, which gets in the way of getting the job done.  LRH doesn’t  artificialize the way he feels about the PC; he keeps it real, unlike other  auditors, whom he heard being stilted and artificial.  Be effective; help the  PC; don’t be hidebound.  This should give faster results more easily.

Not-know and forget would have run out engrams in 1950 if they had been  used then.  This would have avoided a lot of grinding and sweat.  You’d use a  command form which includes as many dynamics as necessary, e.g.  “What should  remain unknown about this to the public / the government / a family / your  superiors, etc.?” The occlusions that auditors were struggling with were the  result of self-motivated efforts to withhold.  The hang-ups in any engrams are  from a desire to make these things [parts of the engram] unknown or  forgotten.  The pretense of knowing about it (dub-in) also blows on the  not-know processing.  Running engrams should not be discounted as of benefit  to the case.  If you get someone clear and stable, they may still find  themselves with an engram there.  It won’t take long to run it, since he’s  clear.  During stabilization, they’re unsnarling track; they are still bumping  into things which can be run.  Using not-know on it makes it run even faster,  since it pops the sticky point into view.

[Application of not-know to Goals processing]

6108C17 SHSpec-41  Rudiments and Valences

An E-meter ceases to register in the presence of an out-rudiment.  This  may fool you into thinking a process is flat.  If you get the rudiments in,  the process will again move the TA and needle.  Keeping rudiments in is the  most important part of auditing.  You can find the rudiment because only the  out rud will move the meter.

[Details on goals running]

A valence is a synthetic beingness, or a beingness which a PC is not but  thinks he is.  It can be a duplicate of any existing beingness, or a synthetic  beingness created by what others have said about the other beingness.  There  is no such thing, really, as one’s own valence”.  “His own valence” is just  himself; he’s either himself or in a valence.  A valence is a package.  A  graph is a picture of a valence, and any change you got was because you  shifted his valence.  This is a very important datum.  The PC will not gain in  any way through any effort to alter the characteristics of a valence he’s in.  The PC will only change if you change the valence as a whole package, because  the PC takes no responsibility for any of the now-I’m-supposed-to’s or the  package of characteristics which is the valence.  All the person can reach is  a knowingness of the identity of the valence.  What does the PC use the  valence for?  Survival, the road out, surmounted by knowingness -- a valence  is a solid knowingness; a body is a solid knowingness.  A valence is an effort  to get someone to know you are there, to get someone to recognize something.  Therefore they are a road out of unwanted areas.  Say a soldier gets hit with  a mortar shell.  He doesn’t want to be there; he’s in the wrong valence.  That  knowingness (valence) is now invalidated and becomes a not-knowingness.  So he  exteriorizes and decides that the only way to fight a war is to be a general  or a war correspondent.  If he can’t be that, he’ll keep on trying, war after  war, life after life.  Finally he gets it together and becomes very successful  at it.  Then he finds all war correspondents being shot for fomenting war.  As  he is shot, he decides he’ll be Mata Hari.  He gets a female body, moves on up  the line, becomes Mata Hari in war after war.  Then eventually he gets  executed for that, etc.  These are all efforts to solve the problem of what to  do in a war.  Every valence picked up is an effort to solve a problem.  Valences are antiquated solutions.  So you can say these identities are  antiquated solutions to confusions.

The goals which go towards beingness are the more definite goals.  They  are the more profitable ones in auditing, because they go toward identity.  A  person is not himself; he is in a different knowingness as soon as he’s in a  valence.  You can fix up a valence’s broken leg, as long as it’s a valence  that isn’t supposed to have a broken leg, which is why you can do assists on  almost anyone.  The only person it will fail on is someone who has a  now-I’m-supposed-to of a valence.  The PC has no control over this.  Any PC is  being dominatedly in a given valence, but may be tortured or upset by other  valences which are only really the concern of the valence he is mainly in.  So  any PC’s troubles are only the troubles of the valence he’s in.  The troubles  are part of the now-I’m-supposed-to’s of this valence.  So there’s no way to  remedy the difficulties on the valence, because they are outside the power of  the PC to touch.  Here you get the oddity of, “Please audit me, but you’d  better not make me well.”  That’s what it looks like.

The valence may have somatics turning on and off as part of the package,  which keep the valence from becoming something else.  The PC will keep the  somatics to prevent himself from becoming an unworkable solution to a future  problem.  Don’t try to take that solution away from the PC, so long as it  seems vital that it be a solution.  What you’ve got to do is to get the PC to  face up to the various factors that make that a valence.  You can’t make a  valence well; you can move a valence.  So any process run at random on a PC  has a very small chance of success.  This pre-selects our bag of tricks to a  small bag.  You must ask yourself, “Is this process going to change,  familiarize, accustom the person to identity, or is it going to handle  environments which make identities vital, or is it going to alter valences?”  If so, it will work and stay working; if not, it won’t.
What makes a valence stick the way it sticks?  Let’s newly define a  psychotic as someone who doesn’t know what’s going on in his environment and  who doesn’t know what is going on inside himself.  It’s all unknown and  unobserved.  Neurosis is when he’s got some idea of what’s happening in his  environment and where he is, but this is overbalanced by unknowingness.  Upscale from that, you know what’s happening where you are, but not what’s  happening inside someone else a few feet away.  You don’t always know what’s  going on with everybody.  That makes a slight unknowingness.  The stuck parts  of your track are the points where you knew what was going on where you were,  but not what was going on around you, because there are points of  disagreement: there was a know facing an unknow.  The unknow can get so  overwhelming that one adopts a valence to solve it.  You pick up a valence  which knows about these things.  Many scientists are solely being valences of  scientists.  They’ve got it confused with the whole track beingness of a  technician.  When you see the level of pretense of a valence, it becomes  spotted for you; it seems artificial.  Anyone who’s identified himself by some  set of tricks has thereby put himself in a valence.  The fact that he’s in a  body is an obvious valence, but it’s the valence that he’s using the body to  be that’s the auditing target.  Just having a body isn’t necessarily a valence  if he’s aware of having a body, not ploughed in below his level of  consciousness.

As an auditing target, a valence is the MIP package a person has composed  to solve the problems of existence which he knows nothing about.  It’s always  easier to pick up a weaker valence than a stronger one, so your logical target  in auditing is the weaker one.

If your PC has a bunch of chronic somatics, they’re part of the valence picture, not part of the PC.  He’s got to have two counter-opposed identities  in order to feel pain. 1957 was when this was worked out.  To have experience,  he’d have to survive; to survive, he has to be something other than himself.  Otherwise, he can’t survive, experience, and live.  You haven’t a chance in  handling this person until he realizes that he can live without the valence.  He’s been in a games condition as a valence against some environment -- which  probably no longer exists.  Women are particularly confused here, because at  the present time, the society is in flux and has no really clear idea of where  women fit in, so women have more problems finding the valence to solve the  problem of situations they’re not really in anyway.  [Identity crisis?]

To straighten out a case, you’ve got to move a valence.  Say a fellow has  a toothache; you’ve got to find out who had a toothache (c. 1950 tech) and  split the valences.  This is more effective than putting him in comm with the  tooth, since it’s not his tooth.  Whatever his difficulties, find out who had it or would do it.  [Cf.  XDN “wants handled” rundown.] You could say, “What beingness would be a  good solution for a tough environment?” You process “who’s” -- valences.  If  you want to cure a toothache, run it back and forth with, “Who would want to  cure a toothache / Who would have a toothache?” and get a terminal, to cure the  toothache.  You already have the goal, of course.  You can also use this  technique for the hidden standard.

For a long time, we had the question, “Should we handle solids or  significances?” The answer is, “Solids,” but the further answer is that you  shouldn’t handle conditions of a valence.  Handle the valence.  This is the  limitation of a touch assist.  Always handle the terminal.  This brings Prehav  13 into the limelight.  [Prehav 13: a process which takes a list of charged  terminals and combines overt running with prehav assessment and running of  brackets on levels assessed out.  See 6106C21 SHSpec-17 or p. 42, these  notes.]  Prehav 13 will also fix up rudiments.

6108C18 SHSpec-42  Control of Attention

You might think of auditing as having hundreds of rules.  As long as you  think of it that way, you aren’t auditing.  These rules are only guideposts.  Back of them, your good heart will carry the day.  You are trying to help the  person out.  All right.  There are certain things his mind will and won’t do.  If that is what your rules are, you’re fine.  Rituals, as developed by  religions, represent their failure to communicate the basic truths.  Here is  what a PC will not do: he will not go into session with his attention fixated  on something else, nor will you have his interest in what you are doing.  All  the rudiments can be covered with, “Is your attention fixated on something?  Is there any reason you won’t talk to me?” Since these questions are a little  too broad, you have the rudiments.  He can have a fixation on a PTP of short  duration, where his attention is fixed on the immediate environment.  In the  PTP LD, the PC also has his attention fixed on something in PT, but he also  has something subjective holding his attention, something very real to him.  When you don’t parallel what the mind is doing with auditing, you fail in  auditing.

The rate of change of attention defines relative pain, and the common  features of every stuck point on the track is a sudden shift of attention.  This has been known since 1950 at least.  The processes being used are  sufficiently strong that no matter what the PC’s attention is fixed on, you  can yank it away, but doing so will result in an ARC break.  Furthermore, his  attention won’t totally come off what it was on, so you will create a new  identification of what he was looking at and what you pull his attention to.

You can, of course, go too far in paralleling the mind and wind up in a Q  and A.  LRH has never seen a case progress when the PC’s attention on PTP’s of  short or long duration isn’t handled.  If you don’t handle attention fixation,  you eventually get an unexpected attention shift that produces an ARC break.  It isn’t the minor flub you make that really causes the ARC break, though it  triggers it.  The ARC break is really caused by yanking the PC’s attention off  his PTP, and you won’t find it by running O/W on the auditor.  “Willing to  talk to the auditor” is the other requirement for the PC to be in session.  If  the PC has an ARC break or a withhold, his willingness is out.  With a  withhold, there’s another factor.  The PC is sitting with a known where he is and an unknown  where the auditor is, so the auditing session is a ridge.  In view of the fact  that the PC’s attention is fixed on the withhold, even if only at a  sub-awareness level, if you audit over it, you’re guilty of an attention  shift.  The attention fix in a withhold is complicated by being an outward fix  with an inward pull to keep it from getting out.

These mechanisms take priority over all of the PC’s considerations and  postulates, so no matter what he says, you can’t go ahead and audit over it.  I order to audit him, you’ve got to be able to put his attention where you  want it.  If there’s a distracting noise outside, it’s a waste of time to ask  if it bothered him.  You can assume it shifted his attention, so ask, “What  were you thinking of when the noise occurred?” until there’s no read and the  PC feels OK about it.

Anything that happens in the auditing session is the auditor’s fault.  If  anything goes wrong in session, it’s never the PC’s fault.  If the auditor  doesn’t tell him how to get his attention off something by some acceptable  gradient, it’s not the PC’s fault if he can’t put it where you want it.  Because you didn’t put his attention on the things it’s on when he comes into  session, you’re slow to take responsibility for taking it off.  But if the PC  doesn’t make gains, it’s the auditor’s fault.

Just as the PC must be gotten to the point where he is at cause over his  life because you can get him to erase all the aberrated points in an auditing  session, there is another cause -- the auditor.  This is in violation of the  idea that the PC is cause of all effects.  So you’ve got to be slippy, because  you are being cause over a section of the PC’s track.  The only way it can  happen is for him to have some willingness to do what you want him to do.  So  his cause must still be there, and your direction of his cause must be  acceptable to him.  Otherwise, he won’t be cause over that section of track  called an auditing session, and if he isn’t cause over it, he’ll make no  gain.  So, to keep him at cause, you audit him with all his attention on the  auditing, not splintered elsewhere.  He must willingly follow your direction  and have a clear view of what he’s doing.  You assume, incorrectly, that the  PC is delicate.  But in fact the only thing you can really do to a PC that’s  bad is not to give him a win, which can only be done by violating his  attention factors.  Auditing in the absence of the PC’s attention is  no-auditing.  How do you keep his attention?  Keep the ruds in.

The earliest method of clearing was highly permissive and very delicate.  It amounts to this repetitive question, “What picture would it be safe to look  at?” The reason it was no longer being done by 1950 was this attention  factor.  It hadn’t been isolated, so it couldn’t be articulated.  Also,  everybody kept dictating what picture the PC should look at.  But you could  clear someone with that process, and it would not be a long route.  You can  speed it up by getting him to use other perceptics, e.g.  “What sound would it  be safe for you to hear?” etc.  People who don’t get any pictures are just  stuck in PT to avoid looking at the disaster just earlier.  But you can work  him around until he can confront the bank.  This approach didn’t run into the  attention problem because it’s so permissive it lets the PC put his attention  where it already is.  It does take gentle, smooth auditing, and it takes quite  awhile.  The “engram necessary to resolve the case” is actually just the  picture the PC is stuck in.  So you are essentially running “What picture  would it be safe to look at?”

Now it goes faster.  You handle his attention, gently unstick it from  PTP’s and ARC breaks, give him wins and confidence, don’t get into games  conditions with him on goals or terminals.  If the session goes awry, it’s  because you missed an attention factor.  Try to get subjective reality on  this.  If the PC says, “Yow!  Yow!  Yow!  ARC break!!”, you say, “What was  your PTP?” 

6108C22 SHSpec-43  PTPs -- Unknownnesses

[Details on goals running]

Normally a PC is ARC breaky because he is being audited over undetected  PTP’s, which he will not-is in order to get auditing.  The auditor should  suspect it, for instance, when auditing an executive.  It is problems alone  which give you this terrific timelessness.  They show up as a sticky meter, an  unchanging graph, slow reaction time, not moving around much in life.  Problems stick and float forward in time, and the guy is stuck in a past  moment.  Another useful definition of “problem” is “unknown”.  A problem is an  accumulation of not-knowingnesses and a consideration of the person as to the  value of the not-knownnesses.  Remember that the thetan is stuck to his bank,  valences, etc., by mystery.  Mystery is the glue of life.  If you want  freedom, you must restore knowledge; if you want slavery, establish  ignorance.  Create not-knows.  So a common denominator of all problems is an  unknown.  A problem cannot exist in the absence of unknowingness.  As the  dianetic axiom puts it, “Randomity can be caused by a missing datum.” [Axiom  105: An unknown datum can produce data of plus or minus randomity.  Axiom 107:  Data of plus or minus randomity depends for its confusion on former plus or  minus randomity or absent data.] Man’s difficulties were getting more and more  involved because of the missing data: a technology about Man, based on the  fundamental missing datum, “What is Man’s nature?” or “What is Man trying to  do?” When the PC runs, “Describe the problem,” he may well be giving lots of 
 aspects of the basic unknown problem.  If you run unknownness on the subject  of problems, you cut through to this central problem rapidly.  A thetan is a  mystery sandwich.

Two way comm is an inquiry of the PC as to what is going on and an  invitation for him to look at it.  It should be limited to such questions as,  “How are you doing?  What’s worrying you?  What is that all about?” Processes  aren’t two way comm.  No process is involved in two way comm except 2wc.  If  you start a process, be sure you flatten it.  This datum has never varied; it  applies to running unknownness of problems.  It’s OK to handle a PTP by asking  what unknown is connected with it.  This runs PTP’s fast.  Use any version of  the odd-numbered postulates: not-know, forget, doubted, pretended.  Don’t use  2wc to handle problems.  You don’t have to be repetitive; get all versions of  not-know off of it.

[More details on running of PTP’s]

Routine 1A consists of everything you can think of in terms of problems  processes.  It gives a total ability to confront problems without being upset  by the unknownness of them.  Man doesn’t like having to confront the unknowns  of life.  It’s hard to do, because there is nothing there to confront.  We’re  back to processing loss when you process unknowns, since a loss is a  not-know.  So someone with lots of problems experiences a sense of loss.  What  is so maddening about a loss is that you don’t know what is happening with  the thing lost.  The PC will misassign causes of loss, too.  Because some  terminal is gone and there is lots of unknownness on it, the guy will go to  the bottom of the Prehav scale and pretend some knowingness and pretend  cause.  The two are closely  associated.  It makes someone who is a real inventor feel strange when he gets  down to the Inventor’s Club and the others “know all about it” and “invented  it two years earlier”.  Someone in that state can’t duplicate; if they were  asked, “What did you invent?”, they’d answer with some irrelevance, so that’s  a good rebuttal.

Pretended knowingness and pretended cause are blood brothers and  continually come up together.  This is at the bottom of the not-know scale  because it is a substitute know.  The way you handle it is not direct.  You go  at it by way of problems.  The guy has had so many problems, he has begun to  substitute false solutions.  Those are the pretended knowingnesses you see on  the case.  So you don’t process the pretended knowingnesses.  You process the  problems, and the PC will fly.  You enter at the level of reality of what a  problem is, and the false solutions and pretended cause fade out.  Flattening  Routine 1A means getting the guy comfortable confronting unknowns.  Then he  won’t be obsessively escaping from them and no longer experiencing a lot of  anxiety about them.  [ Cf.  Alan Watts’ The Wisdom of Insecurity] Jealousy is  basically an inability to confront the unknown.  The sickness one experiences  with it is not because of betrayal.  It is just another aspect of the unknown  of faithful/unfaithful, or “something they know that I don’t,” etc.

Why does a case suddenly dive into the middle of the bank and refuse to  come out?  The guy is unable to not ask why.  There’s an unknown in the  incident.  The guy gets some glimmer of the unknown, and he dives into it.  He  cannot confront an unknown and becomes hectic at the idea that an unknown  exists.  The oddity is that all knowingnesses are invented knowingnesses.  With sn inability to confront the unknown, you eventually get an inability to  confront the known.  Then this goes down to an inability to confront at all,  so any little tiny incident of the day becomes a problem he dwells on.  So  don’t judge by the apparent size of the problem whether he will be stuck on  it.  If he can’t confront the unknown at all, he will be totally glued into  all his unknowns all along the track.

You could run, “What unknown about an auditing session could you  confront / would you rather not confront?” You will solve anybody’s difficulties  with auditing.  You could run it on an old timer who doesn’t much like  auditing anymore or on someone who is having trouble learning to audit, etc.  One old timer would get every PC’s somatic -- because it’s a mystery!  He  instantly snaps terminals with these unknowns.  This process would blow him  out.  It is a very workable, specific process.  It could be used for anyone  who has left off doing some formerly successful activity, or someone who is  having trouble learning something, e.g. a language.  “What is unknown about a  German?” would handle problems with the German language.

The treatment of a condition is an attempt to alter a valence without  addressing the valence, and this just doesn’t work.  So some process addressed  directly at the condition, unless it aimed at solids, like engrams, won’t do  it.  Address the valence; find whose condition it is; handle the terminal  [Cf., again XDN “wants handled” rundown].  Long lists of goals won’t be that  useful, but long lists of valences could be.  Out of this, you could get a  process for PTP’s of long duration: “W/W would have (condition)?  What isn’t  known about that person?  What might you have done to him?  What might you  have withheld from him?” You would strip off valences and get off problems and  O/W at the same time.

If you run lots of not-know, you’ve got to remedy havingness because the whole bank is coming unglued.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MAY 1962
Franchise

Q and A

A great deal has been said about “Q and A-ing” but few auditors know exactly what it is and all auditors have done it without exception up to now.

I have just completed some work that analyses this and some drills which educate an auditor out of it. With a better understanding of it, we can eradicate it. Q and A means ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT A PC’S ANSWER.

A SESSION IN WHICH THE AUDITOR Qs and As IS A SESSION FULL OF ARC BREAKS.

A SESSION WITHOUT Q and A IS A SMOOTH SESSION.

It is vital for all auditors to understand and use this material. The gain for the pc is reduced enormously by Q and A and clearing is not just stopped. It is prevented.

The term “Q and A” means that the exact answer to a question is the question, a factual principle. However, it came to mean that the auditor did what the pc did. An auditor who is “Q and A-ing” is giving session control over to the pc. The pc does something, so the auditor also does something in agreement with the pc. The auditor following only the pc’s lead is giving no auditing and the pc is left on “self audit”.

As nearly all auditors do this, no auditing is the rule of the day. Therefore I studied and observed and finally developed a precision analysis of it, for lack of which auditors, although they understood Q and A, nevertheless “Q’d and A’d”.

THE Qs AND As

There are 3 Qs and As. They are:

1. 	Double questioning.

2. 	Changing because the pc changes.

3. 	Following the pc’s instructions.

The Double Question

This occurs on Rudiment Type questions and is wrong.

This is the chief auditor fault and must be cured.

The auditor asks a question. The pc answers. The auditor asks a question about the answer.

This is not just wrong. It is the primary source of ARC Breaks and out rudiments. It is quite a discovery to get this revealed so simply to an auditor as I know that if it is understood, auditors will do it right.

The commonest example occurs in social concourse. We ask Joe, “How are you?” Joe says, “I’ve been ill.” We say, “What with?” This may go in society but not in an auditing session. To follow this pattern is fatal and can wipe out all gains.

Here is a wrong example: Auditor: “How are you?” PC: “Awful.” Auditor: “What’s wrong?” In auditing you just must never, never, never do this. All auditors have been doing it. And it’s awful in its effect on the pc.

Here is a right example: Auditor: “How are you?” PC: “Awful.” Auditor: “Thank you.” Honest, as strange as this may seem and as much of a strain on your social machinery as you’ll find it, there is no other way to handle it.

And here is how the whole drill must go. Auditor: “Do you have a present time problem?” PC: “Yes” (or anything the pc says). Auditor: “Thank you, I will check that on the meter. (Looks at meter.) Do you have a present time problem? It’s clean.” or “.........It still reacts. Do you have a present time problem? That ......That.” PC: “I had a fight with my wife last night.” Auditor: “Thank you. I will check that on the meter. Do you have a present time problem? That’s clean.”

The way auditors have been handling this is this way, very wrong. Auditor: “Do you have a present time problem?” PC: “I had a fight with my wife last night.” Auditor: “What about?” Flunk! Flunk! Flunk!

The rule is NEVER ASK A QUESTION ABOUT AN ANSWER IN CLEANING ANY RUDIMENT.

If the pc gives you an answer, acknowledge it and check it on the meter. Don’t ever ask a question about the answer the pc gave, no matter what the answer was.

Bluntly you cannot clean rudiments easily so long as you ask a question about a pc’s answer. You cannot expect the pc to feel acknowledged and therefore you invite ARC Breaks. Further, you slow a session down and can wipe out all gain. You can even make the pc worse.

If you want gains in a session never Q and A on rudiments type questions or Form type sec check questions.

Take what the pc said. Ack it. Check it on the meter. If clean, go on. If still reacting, ask another question of a rudiments type.

Apply this rule severely. Never deviate from it.

Many new TR drills are based on this. But you can do it now.

Handle all beginning, middle and end rudiments exactly in this way. You’ll be amazed how rapidly the pc gains if you do and how easily the rudiments go in and stay in.

In Prepchecking you can get deeper into a pc’s bank by using his answer to get him to amplify. But never while using a Rudiment or sec check type question.

Changing because the Pc changes

This is a less common auditor fault but it exists even so.
Changing a process because the pc is changing is a breach of the Auditor’s Code. It is a flagrant Q and A.

Getting change on the pc often invites the auditor to change the process.

Some auditors change the process every time the pc changes.

This is very cruel. It leaves the pc hung in every process run.

It is the mark of the frantic, obsessive alteris auditor. The auditor’s impatience is such that he or she cannot wait to flatten anything but must go on.

The rule of auditing by the tone arm was the method of preventing this.

SO LONG AS YOU HAVE TONE ARM MOTION, CONTINUE THE PROCESS.

CHANGE THE PROCESS ONLY WHEN YOU HAVE RUN OUT ALL TONE ARM MOTION.

Rudiments repair processes are not processes in the full sense of the word. But even here the rule applies if to a limited extent. The rule applies this far: If a pc gets too much tone arm motion in the rudiments, and especially if he or she gets little tone arm motion in the session, you must run Prepchecking on the rudiments questions and do CCHs on the pc. Ordinarily, if you run a rudiments process in getting the rudiments in, you ignore the Tone Arm Motion. Otherwise you’ll never get to the body of the session and will have Q’d and A’d with the pc after all. For you will have let the pc “throw” the session by having out rudiments and will have let the pc avoid the body of the session. So, ignore TA action in handling rudiments unless you are Prepchecking, using each rudiment in turn in the body of the session. When a rudiment is used as a rudiment, ignore TA action. When a rudiment is used in the session body for Prepchecking, pay some attention to TA action to be sure something is happening.

Don’t hang a pc up in a thousand unflat processes. Flatten a process before you change.

Following the Pc’s Instructions

There are “auditors” who look to the pc for all their directions on how to handle their cases.

As aberration is composited of unknowns this results in the pc’s case never being touched. If the pc only is saying what to do, then only the known areas of the pc’s case will get audited.

A pc can be asked for data on what’s been done by other auditors and for data in general on his reactions to processes. To this degree one uses the pc’s data when it is also checked on the meter and from other sources.

I myself have had it bad in this. Auditors have now and then demanded of me as a pc instructions and directions as to how to do certain steps in auditing.

Of course, snapping attention to the auditor is bad enough. But asking a pc what to do, or following the pc’s directions as to what to do is to discard in its entirety session control. And the pc will get worse in that session.

Don’t consider the pc a boob to be ignored, either. It’s the pc’s session. But be competent enough at your craft to know what to do. And don’t hate the pc so much that you take his or her directions as to what to do next. It’s fatal to any session.
SUMMARY

“Q and A” is slanguage. But the whole of auditing results depends upon auditing right and not “Q and A-ing”.

Of all the data above only the first section contains a new discovery. It is an important discovery. The other two sections are old but must be discovered sooner or later by any auditor who wants results.

If you Q and A your pc will not achieve gains from auditing. If you really hate the pc, by all means Q and A, and get the full recoil of it.

A session without ARC Breaks is a marvellous thing to give and to receive. Today we don’t have to use ARC Break processes if we handle our rudiments well and never Q and A.

								L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.rd		                  				
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 DECEMBER 1973

Remimeo
All Auditors
All Levels
Flag Internes
LRH Comms
THE REASON FOR Q AND A

Q and A means “Question and Answer”.

When the term Q and A is used it means one did NOT get an answer to his question. It also means not getting compliance with an order but accepting something else.

Example: Auditor: Do birds fly? Pc: I don’t like birds. Auditor: What don’t you like about birds? FLUNK. It’s a Q and A. The right reply would be an answer to the question asked and the right action would be to get the original question answered. TR 4 (handling origins) can apply here. The moment TR 4 is violated (Ack and return the pc to original Question) and the original unanswered question is not again asked the Auditor just drifts along with the pc. Things get restimulated, nothing gets really handled or run.

In Administration the same thing can happen. The executive gives an order, the junior says or does something else, the executive does not simply TR 4 it and get the original order done, and the result is chaos.

Executive: Phone Mr. Schultz and tell him our printing order will be there this afternoon. Junior: I don’t know his number. Executive: Don’t you have a phone book? Junior: The phone company didn’t send one this year as our bill was overdue. Executive (the fool) goes to Accounts to see what about the phone bill. Mr. Schultz never gets his call. The printing order arrives but Mr. Schultz doesn’t know it ....

Example: Executive: Do target 21 now. Junior: I don’t have any issue files. Executive: What happened to them? Junior: Mimeo goofed. Executive: I’ll go see Mimeo ....

DISPERSAL

Q and A is simply Postulate Aberration.

Aberration is non-straight line by definition.

A sick thetan who is all caved in can’t direct a postulate at anything. When he tries, he lets it wobble around and go elsewhere.

The difference between a Degraded Being and an OT is simply that the DB can’t put out a postulate or intention in a direct line or way and make it hold good.

The insane are a great example of this. They are insane because they have evil intentions. But they can’t even make these stick. They may intend to burn down the house but they usually wind up watering the rug or do some other non sequitur thing. It’s not that they don’t mess things up. The whole point here is that they can’t even properly destroy what they intend to destroy. Even their evil intentions wobble, poor things.
But not all people who Q and A are insane.

When a person is running at effect he Qs and As.

He is confronted by life, he does not confront it.

He is usually a bit blind to things as his ability to look AT is turned back on him by his lack of beam power. Thus he gives the appearance of being unaware.

His emotional feeling is overwhelm.

His mental state is confusion.

He starts for B, winds up at—A.

Other not too well intentioned people can play tricks on a Qer and Aer. When they don’t want to answer or comply they artfully bring about a Q and A.

Example: Bosco does not want to staple the mimeo issue. He knows his senior Qs and As. So we get this. Senior: Staple that issue with the big stapler. Bosco: I hurt my thumb. Q and A Senior: Have you been to see the Medical Officer? Bosco: He wouldn’t look at it. Q and A Senior: I’ll go have a word with him. (Departs.) Bosco gets back to reading “Jesse James Rides Again” humming softly to himself. For HIS trouble is, he Qs and As with the Mest Universe!

BODY Q AND A

Some people Q and A with their bodies. The body is, after all, composed of Mest. It follows the laws of Mest.

One of these laws is Newton’s first law of motion: INERTIA. This is the tendency of a Mest object to remain motionless until acted upon by an exterior force. Or to continue in a line of motion until acted upon by an exterior force.

Well, the main force around that is continually acting on a human body is a thetan, the being himself.

The body will remain at rest (since it is a Mest Object) until acted upon by the thetan that is supposed to be running it.

If that being is an aberrated non-straight line being THE BODY REACTS ON HIM MORE THAN HE REACTS ON THE BODY. Thus he remains motionless or very slow. When the body is in unwanted motion, the being does not deter the motion as the body is acting upon him far more than he is reacting on the body.

As a result, one of the manifestations is Q and A. He wants to pick up a piece of paper. The body inertia has to be overcome to do so. So he does not reach for the paper, he just leaves the hand where it is. This would be no action at all. If he then weakly forces the motion, he finds himself picking up something else like a paper clip, decides he wants that anyway and settles for it. Now he has to invent why he has a paper clip in his hand. His original intention never gets executed.

Some people on medical lines are just there not because of actual illness but because they are just Qing and Aing with their body.

People also Q and A with themselves. They want to stop drinking and can’t. They want to stop or change something about themselves or their body and then disperse off onto something else.

Freud read all sorts of dire and awful things into simple Q and A. He invented intentions the person must have that made him “sublimate”. All Freud succeeded in doing was making the person introspective looking for wrong whys.

The right why was simple—the person could not go in a straight line to an objective and/or could not cease to do something he was compulsively doing.

The very word ABERRATION contains the idea of this—no straight line but a bent one.

THE CURE FOR THIS SORT OF THING (Q and A with a body) IS OBJECTIVE PROCESSES.

And a very willing and bright thetan CAN simply recognize it for what it is—not enough push!

And instead of going to the MO for a slight ache, he just pushes on through.

As the ache is a recoil of body Q and A in a lot of cases, the ache itself goes away as soon as one simply pushes through.

Painters and artists buy the idea they are benefited by aberration. “Be glad you are neurotic” was a trick being played by the late and unlamented psychiatrists on artists.

One paints because he can push into execution what he visualizes. The best painters were the least aberrated.

Greenwich Village or Left Bank artists, when they don’t paint, never suspect it’s because they just can’t overcome hand inertia to push a paint brush!

People live Q and A lives. They never become what they desire to be because they Q and A with life about it.

Schopenhauer, the German philosopher of doom, even had a dirty crack about being able to do things: “Stubbornness is the will taking the place of the intellect.” By this, one is “intellectual” if he Qs and As.

SUMMARY

People who can’t get things done are simply Qing and Aing with people and life.

People who CAN get things done just don’t Q and A.

All great truths are simple.

This is a major one.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder
LRH:nt.jh 
Copyright © 1973 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 NOVEMBER 1973
Issue I
Remimeo
All Levels
Flag Internes
Reissued from

21st ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE
TRAINING DRILLS

NAME:   Anti-Q and A TR.

COMMANDS:   Basically, “Put that (object) on my knee.” (A book, piece of paper, ashtray, etc can be used for object.)

POSITION.   Student and Coach sitting facing each other at a comfortable distance and one at which the Coach can reach the Student’s knee with ease.

PURPOSE:

(a) 	To train Student in getting a Pc to carry out a command using formal communication NOT Tone 40.

(b) 	To enable the Student to maintain his TRs while giving commands.

(c) 	To train the Student to not get upset with a Pc under formal auditing.

MECHANICS:   Coach selects small object (book, ashtray, etc) and holds it in his hand.

TRAINING STRESS:   Student is to get the Coach to place the object that he has in his hand on the knee of the Student. The Student may vary his commands as long as he maintains the Basic Intention (not Tone 40) to get the Coach to place the object on the Student’s knee. The Student is not allowed to use any physical enforcement, only verbal commands. The Coach should try and get the Student to Q and A. He may say anything he wishes to try and get him off the track of getting the command executed. The Student may say what he wishes in order to get the command done, as long as it directly  applies in getting the Coach to place the object on the Student’s knee.

The Coach flunks for:

(a) 	Any communication not directly concerned with getting the command executed.

(b) 	Previous TR.

(c) 	Any upsetness demonstrated by Student.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder
LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1958, 1959, 1973 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 MAY 1965

Remimeo       	Qual & Tech Divs
Sthil Cl VII Course	ALL HATS
Students
Sthil Staff                   	HCO Div
Ethics Hats                   	ALL HATS

PROCESSING

	Since 1950 we have had an iron bound rule that we didn’t leave pcs in trouble just to end a session. 

	For fifteen years we have always continued a session that found the pc in trouble and I myself have audited a pc for nine additional hours, all night long in fact, just to get the pc through. 

	Newer auditors, not trained in the stern school of running engrams, must learn this all over again. 

	It doesn’t matter whether the auditor has had a policy on this or not—one would think that common decency would be enough as to leave a pc in the middle of a secondary or an engram and just coolly end the session is pretty cruel. Some do it because they are startled or afraid and “Rabbit” (run away by ending the session). 

	Auditors who end a process or change it when it has turned on a heavy somatic are likewise ignorant. 

	WHAT TURNS IT ON WILL TURN IT OFF. 

	This is the oldest rule in auditing. 

	Of course people get into secondaries and engrams, go through misemotion and session because things are running out. To end off a process or a session because of the clock is to ignore the real purpose of auditing. The oldest rules we have are

	(a) GET THE PC THROUGH IT. 
	(b) WHAT TURNS IT ON WILL TURN IT OFF. 
	(c) THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY THROUGH. 

	These now are expressed as POLICY. 

	A falsified auditor’s report is also subject to a Court of Ethics. 

	Any auditor violating this policy letter is liable to an immediate Court of Ethics convened within 24 hours of the offence or as soon as is urgently possible. 
	Auditing at all levels works well when it is done by the book. 
	The purpose of Ethics is to open the way for and get in Tech.
	Then we can do our job. 

	THERE IS NO MODERN PROCESS THAT WILL NOT WORK WHEN EXACTLY APPLIED. 

	Therefore in the eyes of Ethics all auditing failures are Ethics failures—PTS, Suppressive Persons as pcs, or non-compliance with tech for auditors. 

	And the first offence an auditor can commit is ceasing to audit when he is most needed by his pc. 

	Hence it is the first most important consideration of Ethics to prevent such occurrences. 

	Then we’ll make happy pcs, Releases and Clears. 

	L RON HUBBARD
LRH:nt:rd
Copyright © 1965
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1969
Issue IV

Dianetic Course
(HCO BULLETIN 21 SEPT 1965 EDITED
FOR USE ON THE DIANETIC COURSE)

THE FIVE GAEs

The five Gross Auditing Errors (GAEs) are:

1. 	Can’t handle and read an E-Meter.

2. 	Doesn’t know and can’t apply Technical data.

3. 	Can’t get and keep a pc in session.

4. 	Can’t complete an auditing cycle.

5. 	Can’t complete a repetitive auditing cycle.

These are the only errors one looks for in straightening up the auditing of an Auditor.

If you look for other reasons, this is itself a gross goof. There are no others.

LRH:cs.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright o1969						Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1968

Remimeo
UPPER INDOC TRS

Following are the Upper Indoc TRs 6 to 9 inclusive.

Number: TR 6

Name: 8—C (Body Control)

Commands: Non-verbal for first half of training session. First half of coaching session, the student silently steers the coach’s body around the room, not touching the walls, quietly starting, changing and stopping the coach’s body. When the student has fully mastered non-verbal 8—C, the student may commence verbal 8—C.

The commands to be used for 8—C are:

“Look at that wall.” “Thank you.”
“Walk over to that wall.” “Thank you.”
“Touch that wall.” “Thank you.”
“Turn around.” “Thank you.”

Position: Student and coach walking side by side; student always on coach’s right, except when turning.

Purpose: First part: To accustom student to moving another body than his own without verbal communication. Second part: To accustom student to moving another body, by and while giving commands, only, and to accustom student to proper commands of 8—C.

Training Stress: Complete, crisp precision of movement and commands. Student, as in any other TR, is flunked for current and preceding TRs. Thus, in this case, the coach flunks the student for every hesitation or nervousness in moving body, for every flub of command, for poor confronting, for bad communication of command, for poor acknowledgement, for poor repetition of command, and for failing to handle origination by coach. Stress that student learns to lead slightly in all the motions of walking around the room or across the room. This will be found to have a great deal to do with confronting. In the first part of the session student is not allowed to walk coach into walls, as walls then become automatic stops and the student is then not stopping the coach’s body but allowing the wall to do it for him.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Camden, New Jersey in October 1953, modified in July 1957 in Washington, D.C., and the commands were modified in HCO Bulletin of 16 November 1965, Issue II.

Number: TR 7

Name: High School Indoc.

Commands: Same as 8—C (control) but with student in physical contact with coach. Student enforcing commands by manual guiding. Coach has only three statements to which student must listen: “Start” to begin coaching session, “Flunk” to call attention to student error, and “That’s it” to end the coaching session. No other remarks by the coach are valid on student. Coach tries in all possible ways, verbal, covert and physical, to stop student from running control on him. If the student falters, comm lags, fumbles a command, or fails to get execution on part of coach, coach says “Flunk” and they start at the beginning of the command cycle in which the error occurred. Coach falldown is not allowed.

Position: Student and coach ambulant. Student handling coach physically.

Purpose: To train student never to be stopped by a person when he gives a command. To train him to run fine control in any circumstances. To teach him to handle rebellious people. To bring about his willingness to handle other people.

Training Stress: Stress is on accuracy of student performance and persistence by student. Start gradually to toughen up resistance of student on a gradient. Don’t kill him off all at once.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, England, in 1956.

Number: TR 8

Name: Tone 40 on an Object.

Commands: “Stand up.” “Thank you.” “Sit down on that chair.” “Thank you.” These are the only commands used.

Position: Student sitting in chair facing chair which has on it an ashtray. Coach sitting in chair facing chair occupied by student and chair occupied by ashtray.

Purpose: To make student clearly achieve Tone 40 commands. To clarify intentions as different from words. To start student on road to handling objects and people with postulates. To obtain obedience not wholly based on spoken commands.

Training Stress: TR 8 is begun with student holding the ashtray which he manually makes execute the commands he gives. Under the heading of training stress is included the various ways and means of getting the student to achieve the goals of this training step. During the early part of this drill, say in the first coaching session, the student should be coached in the basic parts of the drill, one at a time. First, locate the space which includes himself and the ashtray but not more than that much. Second, have him locate the object in that space. Third, have him command the object in the loudest possible voice he can muster. This is called shouting. The coach’s patter would run something like this: “Locate the space.” “Locate the object in that space.” “Command it as loudly as you can.” “Acknowledge it as loudly as you can.” “Command it as loudly as you can.” “Acknowledge it as loudly as you can.” That would complete two cycles of action. When shouting is completed, then have student use a normal tone of voice with a lot of coach attention on the student getting the intention into the object. Next, have the student do the drill while using the wrong commands—i.e., saying “Thank you” while placing in the object the intention to stand up, etc. Next, have the student do the drill silently, putting the intention in the object without even thinking the words of the command or the acknowledgement. The final step in this would be for the coach to say “Start” then anything else he said would not be valid on student with the exception of “Flunk” and “That’s it”. Here, the coach would attempt to distract the student, using any verbal means he could to knock the student off Tone 40. Physical heckling would not be greater than tapping the student on the knee or shoulder to get his attention. When the student can maintain Tone 40 and get a clean intention on the object for each command and for each acknowledgement, the drill is flat.

There are other ways to help the student along. The coach occasionally asks, “Are you willing to be in that ashtray?” When the student has answered, then, “Are you willing for a thought to be there instead of you?” Then continue the drill. The answers are not so important on these two questions as is the fact that the idea is brought to the student’s attention. Another question the coach asks the student is, “Did you really expect that ashtray to comply with that command?”

There is a drill which will greatly increase the student’s reality on what an intention is. The coach can use this drill three or four times during the training on Tone 40 on an Object. As follows: “Think the thought—I am a wild flower.” “Good.” “Think the thought that you are sitting in a chair.” “Good.” “Imagine that thought being in that ashtray.” “Good.” “Imagine that ashtray containing that thought in its substance.” “Good.” “Now get the ashtray thinking that it is an ashtray.” “Good.” “Get the ashtray intending to go on being an ashtray.” “Good.” “Get the ashtray intending to remain where it is.” “Good.” “Have the ashtray end that cycle.” “Good.” “Put in the ashtray the intention to remain where it is.” “Good.” This also helps the student get a reality on placing an intention in something apart from himself. Stress that an intention has nothing to do with words and has nothing to do with the voice, nor is it dependent upon thinking certain words. An intention must be clear and have no counter-intention in it. This training drill, Tone 40 on an Object, usually takes the most time of any drill in Upper Indoc, and time on it is well spent. Objects to be used are ashtrays, preferably heavy, coloured glass ashtrays.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1957 to train students to use intention when auditing.

Number: TR 9

Name: Tone 40 on a Person.

Commands: Same as 8—C (Control). Student runs fine, clear-cut intention and verbal orders on coach. Coach tries to break down Tone 40 of student. Coach commands that are valid are: “Start” to begin, “Flunk” to call attention to student error and that they must return to beginning of cycle, and “That’s it” to take a break or to end the training session. No other statement by coach is valid on student and is only an effort to make student come off Tone 40 or in general be stopped.

Position: Student and coach ambulant. Student in manual contact with coach as needed.

Purpose: To make student able to maintain Tone 40 under any stress or duress.

Training Stress: The exact amount of physical effort must be used by student plus a compelling, unspoken intention. No jerky struggles are allowed, since each jerk is a stop. Student must learn to smoothly increase effort quickly to amount needed to make coach execute. Stress is on exact intention, exact strength needed, exact force necessary, exact Tone 40. Even a slight smile by student can be a flunk. Too much force can be a flunk. Too little force definitely is a flunk. Anything not Tone 40 is a flunk. Here the coach should check very carefully on student’s ability to place an intention in the coach. This can be checked by the coach since the coach will find himself doing the command almost whether or not he wants to if the student is really getting the intention across. After the coach is satisfied with the student’s ability to get the intention across, the coach should then do all he can to break the student off Tone 40, mainly on the basis of surprise and change of pace. Thus the student will be brought to have a greater tolerance of surprise and a quick recovery from surprise.

History: Developed in Washington, D.C., in 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard.

Purpose of these four training drills, TR 6, 7, 8 and 9, is to bring about in the student the willingness and ability to handle and control other people’s bodies, and to cheerfully confront another person while giving that person commands. Also, to maintain a high level of control in any circumstances.

LRH:js.cden 	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1968 	Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L   B U L L E T I N

22 MAY 1971R
REVISED & REISSUED
10 NOVEMBER 1974 AS A BTB
Remimeo
All Check
sheets where	REVISED
UPPER INDOC
TRs ARE DONE
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MAY 1971
SAME TITLE

TR-8 CLARIFICATION

ADDS TO HCOB 7 MAY 68 “UPPER INDOC TR’S” AND ADDS TO EVERY CHECKSHEET AND HAT WHERE THIS BULLETIN APPEARS.

In the early development of TR-8 “TONE 40 ON AN OBJECT” and in the years following, the student was required to lift the object (ashtray) manually to obtain execution of his commands. (HCOB 11 June 57 Training and CCH Processes.)

In later refinements of TR-8 this action was not stated. However, it was not intended that this action fall into disuse.

We will therefore restore this action to TR-8 .

The following is to be added to HCOB 7 May 68 “Upper Indoc TR’s” as the first sentence under TR-8 Training Stress.

“TR-8 is be begun with student holding the Ash Tray which he manually makes execute the commands he gives.”

The Upper Indoc TRs are done TOUGH with all the previous TRs IN.

With the inclusion of this TR-8 data, they are done exactly as per HCOB 7 May 68.

Lt. Comdr. Joan Robertson
Training & Services Aide
Revised & Reissued 
as BTB by Flag Mission 1234
Approved by the Board of Issues
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:MH:AL:JR
Copyright © 1971, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1978
Issue III
Remimeo
AOs
NED Chkshts	DIANETIC CLEAR
Tech/Qual
All C/Ses	
All Auditors	(Ref:	HCOB 12 Sep 78 	URGENT—IMPORTANT, DIANETICS 
HCOs	FORBIDDEN ON CLEARS AND OTs)
Missions				

(This bulletin revises the definition of “Dianetic Clear,” page 113, Technical Dictionary, and the definition of “Keyed-Out Clear,” page 221, Technical Dictionary.)

The state of Clear can be achieved on Dianetics.

I have now determined there is no such thing as Keyed-Out Clear. There is only a Dianetic Clear and he is a Clear.

The state of Dianetic Clear means the pc has erased his Dianetic case or mental image pictures; he has attained the ability to be at cause over mental matter, energy, space and time on the First Dynamic.

When this happens the person is not run further on Dianetics. He can be given Touch or Contact Assists (as can Scn Clears and OTs), and can be given NED for OTs once he is OT III. He is not to be given any Dianetic Auditing Assist nor any Dianetic auditing. (He can, of course, receive any actions on the Assist Summary bulletin, excluding R3RA.)

The Dianetic Clear, on achieving this state, can be audited on Scientology Grades 0-IV. He would not be run on the R3RA section of service facs, however. On completing Grades 0-IV, he is not run on Power, R6EW or the Clearing Course but goes onto OT I, after doing the Solo Auditor Course.

Should a pc being audited on Dianetics originate that he has achieved Dianetic Clear, or if a Dianetic auditor thinks this has occurred with his pc, the folders must be routed to an org C/S who is Clear or above and who can adjudicate.

(NOTE: No auditor or C/S must evaluate for a pc on this nor feed or coax him to any cognition, which is a comm-evable offense. Clears are made through auditing, not by feeding cognitions to pcs. This is important as someone who has not made Clear will not make it on the OT levels.)

Field auditors and missions would route the folders of a pc believed to be Dianetic Clear to the nearest org with a C/S who is Clear, for adjudication and declare of the state.

Such submissions must be handled promptly, so there is no delay put on any individual’s progress up the Bridge.

Once declared, the pc folders must be clearly marked “DIANETIC CLEAR.” The pc may then be C/Sed to receive Scientology auditing, per the above. The pc is not, however, given any further Dianetic auditing.

LRH:dr	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1978	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 APRIL 1979
All C/Ses
NED Auditors
Qual/Tech Staff	C/S Series 106
HCO
KOTs
AUDITING THE DIANETIC CLEAR

(Ref: 	HCOB 1 Dec 78	PROGRAMMING THE
		DIANETIC CLEAR
		FOR HIS NEXT STEP
	HCOB 8 Oct 70	C/S Series 20
		PERSISTENT F/N
	HCOB 19 Apr 72	C/S Series 77
		“QUICKIE” DEFINED)

It has recently come to my attention that some auditors are delivering grades in outrageously short periods of time to Dianetic Clear pcs and only giving Quad Grades to the Dianetic Clear without making full use of the Expanded Grades. Such pcs are being denied the full gains of the grade processes due to Quickie Grades—out-tech.

From this point forward, anyone auditing a pc who is Dianetic Clear or Natural Clear, on the grades, must:

1) 	M9 and starrate HCOB 8 Oct 70 C/S Series 20 PERSISTENT F/N,

2) 	M9 and starrate HCOB 19 Apr 72 C/S Series 77 “QUICKIE” DEFINED and

3) 	Clay demo the consequences of Quickie Grades.

It is the responsibility of the C/S to see that the above checkouts occur without stopping or slowing delivery lines.

These actions will ensure that the Dianetic Clear has the opportunity to attain all the benefits of the grades. In addition to the immediate abilities gained from the grades being properly delivered, having his grades really IN will prevent the pre-OT from running into difficulties on the OT levels.

The grades are a very essential part of the Grade Chart and must not be delivered over a persistent F/N or skimped on in any way. Let’s Keep Scientology Working!

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder

LRH:jk 
Copyright © 1979 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 OCTOBER 1970

Remimeo
C/Ses
C/S Series 20

PERSISTENT F/N

A FLOATING NEEDLE can persist.

This fact tells you at once why you cannot do three major actions in a row in the same ten minutes.

This was the bug behind “Quickie Grades” (0 to IV in one session. This also occurred in Power when it was run all in one day). The auditor would attain a bona fide full dial F/N. The pc was still cogniting, still in a big win. The auditor would “clear the next process command”, he would see an F/N. He would “clear the next process command”, and see an F/N.

BUT IT WAS THE SAME F/N!

Result was that processes 2 and 3 WERE NEVER RUN ON THE CASE.

This is really what is meant by “Quickie Grades”.

In 1958 we got real Releases. You could not kill the F/N for days, weeks.

Several processes had this effect. Today’s real Clear also goes this way. You couldn’t kill the F/N with an axe.

By running a lot of Level Zero processes, for instance, you can get a real swinging unkillable F/N.

It not only gets to the Examiner, it comes in at the start of the next day’s session!

Now if in one session you ran all of Level Zero and went on up to Level One, you would just be auditing a persistent F/N. The pc would get no benefit at all from Level One. He’s still going “Wow” on Level Zero.

If you ran Level Zero with one process that got a big wide floating F/N and then “ran” Level I, II, III and IV, you would have just a Level Zero Release. The pc’s bank was nowhere to be found. So next week he has problems (Level I) or a Service Fac (Level IV) and he is only a Grade Zero yet it says right there in Certs and Awards log he’s a Grade IV. So now we have a “Grade IV” who has Level I, II, III and IV troubles!

A session that tries to go beyond a big dial-wide drifting floating F/N only distracts the pc from his win. BIG WIN.

Any big win (F/N dial-wide, Cog, VGIs) gives you this kind of persistent F/N.

You at least have to let it go until tomorrow and let the pc have his win.

That is what is meant by letting the pc have his win. When you get one of these dial-wide F/Ns, Cog, VGIs WOW you may as well pack it up for the day.

GRADUAL WIDENING

In running a Dianetic chain to basic in triple you will sometimes see in one session a half dial on Flow 1, 3/4 of a dial on Flow 2, a full dial on Flow 3.

Or you may have 4 subjects to two-way comm or prepcheck in one session. First action 1/3 dial F/N. Then no F/N, TA up. Second action l/2 dial F/N. Then no F/N. Third action 3/4 dial F/N. Fourth action full dial-wide floating swinging idling F/N.

You will also notice in the same session-long time for 1st action, shorter, shorter, shorter for the next three actions.

Now you have an F/N that anything you try to clear and run will just F/N WITHOUT AFFECTING THE CASE AT ALL.

If you audit past that you are wasting your time and processes.

You have hit an “unkillable F/N”, properly called a persistent F/N. It’s persistent at least for that day. Do any more and it’s wasted.

If an auditor has never seen this he had better get his TR0 bullbait flat for 2 hours at one unflunked go and his other TRs in and drill out his flubs. For that’s what’s supposed to happen.

F/Ns on pcs audited up to (for that session) a persistent F/N always get to the Examiner.

If you only have a “small F/N” it won’t get to the Examiner. However, on some pcs maybe that’s good enough. May take him several sessions, each one getting a final session F/N a bit wider. Then he gets an F/N that gets to the Examiner. After that, well audited on a continuing basis, the F/N lasts longer and longer.

One day the pc comes into session with a dial-wide floating swinging F/N and anything you say or do does nothing whatever to disturb that F/N.

It’s a real Release man. It may last weeks, months, years.

Tell him to come back when he feels he needs some auditing and chalk up the remaining hours (if sold by the hour) as undelivered. Or if sold by result, chalk up the result.

If the F/N is truly persistent he will have no objections. If it isn’t, he will object. So have him come back tomorrow and carry on whatever you were doing.

SUMMARY

The technical bug back of Quickie Grades or Quickie Power was the Persistent F/N.

This is not to be confused with a Stage 4 (sweep, stick, sweep, stick) or an ARC Broke needle (pc Bad Indicators while F/Ning).

This is not to be used to refuse all further auditing to a pc.

It is to be used to determine when to end a series of major actions in a session.

LRH: rr.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1970 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 APRIL 1972

Remimeo
C/S Series 77

“QUICKIE” DEFINED

The reason an auditor can say he doesn’t “quickie a rundown” (and none ever say they do) is because he has no definition for the word QUICKIE.

The word has been used to designate rundowns that were not completely and fully done.

It is not a slang word.

In the dictionary you will find “Quickie also quicky: something done or made in a hurry. Also: a hurriedly planned and executed program (as of studies).”

What happens in auditing, for instance, is a “Grade Zero Expanded” is “done” by just doing a single flow to its first F/N.

That is obviously “quickie”.

A more subtle one is to do a “PTS Rundown” with no Ethics action to begin and no check for stability, holding gain and not ill a week or two after the RD. Only if both these actions were done would one have a “Complete PTS Rundown” as it would give a PRODUCT = A PC no longer PTS.

So what makes a Quickie “completion” quickie?

Is it length of time? Not necessarily.

Is it fewness of processes? Not necessarily as Power can be done quickie simply by not hanging on for the EP and only going to F/N.

To define COMPLETE gives us the reverse of Quickie.

“COMPLETE: To make whole, entire or perfect; end after satisfying all demands or requirements. “ A Completion is “the act or action of completing, becoming complete or making complete”.

So “completing” something is not a loose term. It means an exact thing. “End after satisfying all demands or requirements” does not mean “doing as little as possible” or “doing what one can call complete without being detected”.

Anything that does not fully satisfy all requirements is QUICKIE.

So “quickie” really means “omitting actions for whatever reason that would satisfy all demands or requirements and doing something less than could be achieved”.

In short a quickie is not doing all the steps and actions that could be done to make a perfect whole.

Standard auditing actions required for ages that auditors cleared each word of each command. Yet when they went quickie they dropped this. When this was dropped, GAINS ON 75% OF ALL PCS LESSENED OR VANISHED. We are right now achieving spectacular wins on pcs just by clearing up commands and words on all lists. We are finding that these pcs did not recover and NEVER BEFORE HAD BEEN IN SESSION even though previously “audited” hundreds of hours.

By omitting an essential action of clearing commands, processing did not work because the pc never understood the auditing commands!

So quickie action did not save any time, did it? It wasted hundreds of hours!

Quickie Programs are those which omit essential steps like Vital lists or 2wcs to get data. FESs for past errors are often omitted.

To slow down the torrent of quickie actions on clearing commands HCO P/L 4 Apr 72 Issue III “Ethics and Study Tech” has Clause 4 “An auditor failing to clear each and every word of every command or list used may be summoned before a Court of Ethics. The charge is OUT TECH.”

Ethics has to enter in after Quickie Tech has gotten in. Because quickie tech is a symptom of out ethics. HCO P/L 3 April 72 (Est O Series 13) “Doing Work” and HCO P/L 4 Apr 72 (Est O Series 14) “Ethics” are vital know-how where a C/S is faced with Quickie actions—or flubby ones that will not cure.

Essential Quickie Tech is simply dishonest. Auditors who do it have their own Ethics out in some way.

To be sure their confront is down.

There are numerous remedies for the quickie impulse. The above mentioned Policy Letters and plain simple TR 0 are standard remedies. TR 0 properly done and completed itself usually cures it.

Quickie study in ‘67 and ‘68 almost destroyed auditing quality. LRH ED 174 Int which really pushes in Study Tech will achieve the primary reason for quickie-the auditor didn’t understand the words himself.

Wherever Quickie tendencies or false stats (the quickest quickie possible) show up, the above P/Ls had better be gotten into full use fast.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH: mes.rd 
Copyright © 1972 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER AD14
Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students

STYLES OF AUDITING

Note 1: Most old-time auditors, particularly Saint Hill Graduates, have been trained at one time or another in these auditing styles. Here they are given names and assigned to Levels so that they can be taught more easily and so that general auditing can be improved.

(Note 2: These have not been written before because I had not determined the results vital to each Level.)

There is a Style of auditing for each class. By Style is meant a method or custom of performing actions.

A Style is not really determined by the process being run so much. A Style is how the auditor addresses his task.

Different processes carry different style requirements perhaps, but that is not the point. Clay Table Healing at Level III can be run with Level I style and still have some gains. But an auditor trained up to the style required at Level III would do a better job not only of CT Healing but of any repetitive process.

Style is how the auditor audits. The real expert can do them all, but only after he can do each one. Style is a mark of Class. It is not individual. In our meaning, it is a distinct way to handle the tools of auditing.

LEVEL ZERO
LISTEN STYLE

At Level 0 the Style is Listen Style Auditing. Here the auditor is expected to listen to the pc. The only skill necessary is listening to another. As soon as it is ascertained that the auditor is listening (not just confronting or ignoring) the auditor can be checked out. The length of time an auditor can listen without tension or strain showing could be a factor. What the pc does is not a factor considered in judging this style. Pcs, however, talk to an auditor who is really listening.

Here we have the highest point that old-time mental therapies reached (when they did reach it), such as psychoanalysis, when they helped anyone. Mostly they were well below this, evaluating, invalidating, interrupting. These three things are what the instructor in this style should try to put across to the HAS student.

Listen Style should not be complicated by expecting more of the auditor than just this: Listen to the pc without evaluating, invalidating or interrupting.

Adding on higher skills like “Is the pc talking interestingly?” or even “Is the pc talking?” is no part of this style. When this auditor gets in trouble and the pc won’t talk or isn’t interested, a higher classed auditor is called in, a new question given by the supervisor, etc.

It really isn’t “Itsa” to be very technical. Itsa is the action of the pc saying, “It’s a this” or “It’s a that.” Getting the pc to Itsa is quite beyond Listen Style auditors where the pc won’t. It’s the supervisor or the question on the blackboard that gets the pc to Itsa.

The ability to listen, learned well, stays with the auditor up through the grades. One doesn’t cease to use it even at Level VI. But one has to learn it somewhere and that’s at Level Zero. So Listen Style Auditing is just listening. It thereafter adds into the other styles.

LEVEL ONE
MUZZLED AUDITING

This could also be called rote style auditing.

Muzzled Auditing has been with us many years. It is the stark total of TRs 0 to 4 and not anything else added.

It is called so because auditors too often added in comments, Qed and Aed, deviated, discussed and otherwise messed up a session. Muzzle meant a “muzzle was put on them”, figuratively speaking, so they would only state the auditing command and ack.

Repetitive Command Auditing, using TRs 0 to 4, at Level One is done completely muzzled.

This could be called Muzzled Repetitive Auditing Style but will be called “Muzzled Style” for the sake of brevity.

It has been a matter of long experience that pcs who didn’t make gains with the partially trained auditor permitted to two-way comm, did make gains the instant the auditor was muzzled: to wit, not permitted to do a thing but run the process, permitted to say nothing but the commands and acknowledge them and handle pc originations by simple acknowledgment without any other question or comment.

At Level One we don’t expect the auditor to do anything but state the command (or ask the question) with no variation, acknowledge the pc’s answer and handle the pc origins by understanding and acknowledging what the pc said.

Those processes used at Level One actually respond best to muzzled auditing and worst to misguided efforts to “Two-Way Comm”.

Listen Style combines with Muzzled Style easily. But watch out that Level One sessions don’t disintegrate to Level Zero.

Crisp, clean repetitive commands, muzzled, given and answered often, are the road out—not pc wanderings.

A pc at this Level is instructed in exactly what is expected of him, exactly what the auditor will do. The pc is even put through a few “do birds fly?” cycles until the pc gets the idea. Then the processing works.

An auditor trying to do Muzzled Repetitive Auditing on a pc who, through past “therapy experience”, is rambling on and on is a sad sight. It means that control is out (or that the pc never got above Level Zero).

It’s the number of commands given and answered in a unit of auditing time that gets gains. To that add the correctly chosen repetitive process and you have a release in short order, using the processes of this Level.
To follow limp Listen Style with crisp, controlled Muzzled Style may be a shock. But they are each the lowest of the two families of auditing styles—Totally Permissive and Totally Controlled. And they are so different each is easy to learn with no confusion. It’s been the lack of difference amongst styles that confuses the student into slopping about. Well, these two are different enough—Listen Style and Muzzled Style—to set anybody straight.

LEVEL TWO
GUIDING STYLE AUDITING

An old-time auditor would have recognized this style under two separate names: (a) Two-Way Comm and (b) Formal Auditing.

We condense these two old styles under one new name: Guiding Style Auditing.

One first guides the pc by “two-way comm” into some subject that has to be handled or into revealing what should be handled and then the auditor handles it with formal repetitive commands.

Guiding Style Auditing becomes feasible only when a student can do Listen Style and Muzzled Style Auditing well.

Formerly the student who couldn’t confront or duplicate a command took refuge in sloppy discussions with the pc and called it auditing or “Two-Way Comm”.

The first thing to know about Guiding Style is that one lets the pc talk and Itsa without chop, but also gets the pc steered into the proper subject and gets the job done with repetitive commands.

We presuppose the auditor at this Level has had enough case gain to be able to occupy the viewpoint of the auditor and therefore to be able to observe the pc. We also presuppose at this Level that the auditor, being able to occupy a viewpoint, is therefore more self-determined, the two things being related. (One can only be self-determined when one can observe the actual situation before one: otherwise a being is delusion-determined or other-determined.)

Thus in Guiding Style Auditing, the auditor is there to find out what’s what from the pc and then apply the needful remedy.

Most of the processes in the Book of Remedies are included in this Level (II). To use those, one has to observe the pc, discover what the pc is doing, and remedy the pc’s case accordingly.

The result for the pc is a far-reaching re-orientation in Life.

Thus the essentials of Guiding Style Auditing consist of Two-Way Comm that steers the pc into revealing a difficulty followed by a repetitive process to handle what has been revealed.

One does expert TRs but one may discuss things with the pc, let the pc talk and in general one audits the pc before one, establishing what that pc needs and then doing it with crisp repetitive auditing, but all the while alert to changes in the pc.

One runs at this Level against Tone Arm Action, paying little or no heed to the needle except as a centering device for TA position. One even establishes what’s to be done by the action of the Tone Arm. (The process of storing up things to run on the pc by seeing what fell when he was running what’s being run, now belongs at this Level (II) and will be re-numbered accordingly.)

At II one expects to handle a lot of chronic PTPs, overts, ARC Breaks with Life (but not session ARC Breaks, that being a needle action, session ARC Breaks being sorted out by a higher classed auditor if they occur).

To get such things done (PTPs, overts and other remedies) in the session the auditor must have a pc “willing to talk to the auditor about his difficulties”. That presupposes we have an auditor at this Level who can ask questions, not repetitive, that guide the pc into talking about the difficulty that needs to be handled.

Great command of TR 4 is the primary difference in TRs from Level I. One understands, when one doesn’t, by asking more questions, and by really acknowledging only when one has really understood it.

Guided comm is the clue to control at this Level. One should easily guide the pc’s comm in and out and around without chopping the pc or wasting session time. As soon as an auditor gets the idea of finite result or, that is to say, a specific and definite result expected, all this is easy. Pc has a PTP. Example: Auditor has to have the idea he is to locate and destimulate the PTP so pc is not bothered about it (and isn’t being driven to do something about it) as the finite result.

The auditor at II is trained to audit the pc before him, get the pc into comm, guide the pc toward data needful to choose a process and then to run the process necessary to resolve that thing found, usually by repetitive command and always by TA.

The Book of Remedies is the key to this Level and this auditing style.

One listens but only to what one has guided the pc into. One runs repetitive commands with good TR 4. And one may search around for quite a while before one is satisfied he has the answer from the pc needful to resolve a certain aspect of the pc’s case.

O/W can be run at Level I. But at Level II one may guide the pc into divulging what the pc considers a real overt act and, having that, then guide the pc through all the reasons it wasn’t an overt and so eventually blow it.

Half-acknowledgment is also taught at Level II—the ways of keeping a pc talking by giving the pc the feeling he is being heard and yet not chopping with overdone TR 2.

Big or multiple acknowledgment is also taught to shut the pc off when the pc is going off the subject.

LEVEL III
ABRIDGED STYLE AUDITING

By Abridged is meant “abbreviated”, shorn of extras. Any not actually needful auditing command is deleted.

For instance, at Level I the auditor always says, when the pc wanders off the subject, “I will repeat the auditing command” and does so. In Abridged Style the auditor omits this when it isn’t necessary and just asks the command again if the pc has forgotten it.

In this style we have shifted from pure rote to a sensible use or omission as needful. We still use repetitive commands expertly, but we don’t use rote that is unnecessary to the situation.

Two-Way Comm comes into its own at Level III. But with heavy use of repetitive commands.

At this Level we have as the primary process, Clay Table Healing. In this an auditor must make sure the commands are followed exactly. No auditing command is ever let go of until that actual command is answered by the pc.

But at the same time, one doesn’t necessarily give every auditing command the process has in its rundown.

In Clay Table Healing one is supposed to make sure the pc is satisfied each time. This is done more often by observation than command. Yet it is done.

We suppose at III that we have an auditor who is in pretty fine shape and can observe. Thus we see the pc is satisfied and don’t mention it. Thus we see when the pc is not certain and so we get something the pc is certain of in answering the question.

On the other hand, one gives all the necessary commands crisply and definitely and gets them executed.

Prepchecking and needle usage is taught at Level III as well as Clay Table Healing. Auditing by List is also taught. In Abridged Style Auditing one may find the pc (being cleaned up on a list question) giving half a dozen answers in a rush. One doesn’t stop the pc from doing so, one half acknowledges, and lets the pc go on. One is in actual fact handling a bigger auditing comm cycle, that is all. The question elicits more than one answer which is really only one answer. And when that answer is given, it is acknowledged.

One sees when a needle is clean without some formula set of questions that invalidate all the pc’s relief. And one sees it isn’t clean by the continued puzzle on the pc’s face.

There are tricks involved here. One asks a question of the pc with the key word in it and notes that the needle doesn’t tremble, and so concludes the question about the word is flat. And so doesn’t check it again. Example: “Has anything else been suppressed?” One eye on pc, one on needle, needle didn’t quiver. Pc looks noncommittal. Auditor says, “All right, on      “ and goes on to next question, eliminating a pc’s possible protest read that can be mistaken for another “suppress”.

In Abridged Style Auditing one sticks to the essentials and drops rote where it impedes case advance. But that doesn’t mean one wanders about. One is even more crisp and thorough with Abridged Style Auditing than in rote.

One is watching what happens and doing exactly enough to achieve the expected result.

By “Abridged” is meant getting the exact job done—the shortest way between two points—with no waste questions.

By now the student should know that he runs a process to achieve an exact result and he gets the process run in a way to achieve that result in the smallest amount of time.

The student is taught to guide rapidly, to have no time for wide excursions.

The processes at this Level are all rat-a-tat-tat processes—CT Healing, Prepchecking, Auditing by List.

Again it’s the number of times the question is answered per unit of auditing time that makes for speed of result.

LEVEL IV
DIRECT STYLE AUDITING

By direct we mean straight, concentrated, intense, applied in a direct manner.

We do not mean direct in the sense of to direct somebody or to guide. We mean it is direct.

By direct, we don’t mean frank or choppy. On the contrary, we put the pc’s attention on his bank and anything we do is calculated only to make that attention more direct.

It could also mean that we are not auditing by vias. We are auditing straight at the things that need to be reached to make somebody clear.

Other than this the auditing attitude is very easy and relaxed.

At Level IV we have Clay Table Clearing and we have Assessment type processes.

These two types of process are both astonishingly direct. They are aimed directly at the Reactive Mind. They are done in a direct manner.

In CT Clearing we have almost total work and Itsa from pcs. From one end of a session to another, we may have only a few auditing commands. For a pc on CT Clearing does almost all the work if he is in session at all.

Thus we have another implication in the word “direct”. The pc is talking directly to the auditor about what he is making and why in CT Clearing. The auditor hardly ever talks at all.

In assessment the auditor is aiming directly at the pc’s bank and wants no pc in front of it thinking, speculating, maundering or Itsaing. Thus this assessment is a very direct action.

All this requires easy, smooth, steel-hand-in-a-velvet-glove control of the pc. It looks easy and relaxed as a style, it is straight as a Toledo blade.

The trick is to be direct in what’s wanted and not deviate. The auditor settles what’s to be done, gives the command and then the pc may work for a long time, the auditor alert, attentive, completely relaxed.

In assessment the auditor often pays no attention to the pc at all, as in ARC Breaks or assessing lists. Indeed, a pc at this level is trained to be quiet during the assessment of a list.

And in CT Clearing an auditor may be quiet for an hour at a stretch.

The tests are: Can the auditor keep the pc quiet while assessing without ARC Breaking the pc? Can the auditor order the pc to do something and then, the pc working on it, can the auditor remain quiet and attentive for an hour, understanding everything and interrupt alertly only when he doesn’t understand and get the pc to make it clearer to him? Again without ARC Breaking the pc.

You could confuse this Direct Style with Listen Style if you merely glanced at a session of CT Clearing. But what a difference. In Listen Style the pc is blundering on and on and on. In Direct Style the pc wanders off the line an inch and starts to Itsa, let us say, with no clay work and after it was obvious to the auditor that this pc had forgotten the clay, you’d see the auditor, quick as a foil, look at the pc, very interestedly and say, “Let’s see that in Clay.” Or the pc doesn’t really give an ability he wants to improve and you’d hear a quiet persuasive auditor voice, “Are you quite certain you want to improve that? Sounds like a goal to me. Just something, some ability you know, you’d like to improve.”

You could call this style One-Way Auditing. When the pc is given his orders, after that it’s all from the pc to the auditor, and all involved with carrying out that auditing instruction. When the auditor is assessing it is all from the auditor to the pc. Only when the assessment action hits a snag like a PTP is there any other auditing style used.

This is a very extreme auditing style. It is straightforward—direct.

But when needful, as in any Level, the styles learned below it are often also employed, but never in the actual actions of getting CT Clearing and Assessment done.

(Note: Level V would be the same style as VI below.)

LEVEL VI
ALL STYLE

So far, we have dealt with simple actions.

Now we have an auditor handling a meter and a pc who Itsa’s and Cognites and gets PTPs and ARC Breaks and Line Charges and Cognites and who finds Items and lists and who must be handled, handled, handled all the way.

As auditing TA for a 2l/2 hour session can go to 79 or 125 divisions (compared to 10 or 15 for the lowest level), the pace of the session is greater. It is this pace that makes perfect ability at each lower level vital when they combine into All Style. For each is now faster.

So, we learn All Style by learning each of the lower styles well, and then observe and apply the style needed every time it is needed, shifting styles as often as once every minute!

The best way to learn All Style is to become expert at each lower style so that one does the style correct for the situation each time the situation requiring that style occurs.

It is less rough than it looks. But it is also very demanding.

Use the wrong style on a situation and you’ve had it. ARC Break! No progress!

Example: Right in the middle of an assessment the needle gets dirty. The auditor can’t continue—or shouldn’t. The auditor, in Direct Style, looks up to see a-puzzled frown. The auditor has to shift to Guiding Style to find out what ails the pc (who probably doesn’t really know), then to Listen Style while the pc cognites on a chronic PTP that just emerged and bothered the pc, then to Direct Style to finish the Assessment that was in progress.

The only way an auditor can get confused by All Style is by not being good at one of the lower level styles.

Careful inspection will show where the student using All Style is slipping. One then gets the student to review that style that was not well learned and practice it a bit.

So All Style, when poorly done, is very easy to remedy for it will be in error on one or more of the lower level styles. And as all these can be independently taught, the whole can be co-ordinated. All Style is hard to do only when one hasn’t mastered one of the lower level styles.

SUMMARY

These are the important Styles of Auditing. There have been others but they are only variations of those given in this HCO Bulletin. Tone 40 Style is the most notable one missing. It remains as a practice style at Level One to teach fearless body handling and to teach one to get his command obeyed. It is no longer used in practice.
As it was necessary to have every result and every process for each Level to finalize Styles of Auditing, I left this until last and here it is.

Please note that none of these Styles violate the auditing comm cycle or the TRs.

								L. RON HUBBARD 

LRH :jw.rd 							
Copyright ©1964 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 OCTOBER 1965

Remimeo
All Students

MUTTER TR

NAME:	Mutter TR.

PURPOSE: 	To perfect muzzled auditing comm cycle.

COMMANDS: 	“Do fish swim?” “Do birds fly?”

POSITION: 	Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

TRAINING STRESS:

1. 	Coach has student give command.

2. 	Coach mutters an unintelligible answer at different times.

3. 	Student acknowledges.

4. 	Coach flunks if student does anything else but acknowledge.

(Note: 	This is the entirety of this Drill. It is not to be confused with any other Training Drill.)

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:ml.cden 
Copyright © 1965 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 DECEMBER 1964

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students
Sthil Co-audit	
SCIENTOLOGY 0

LISTEN STYLE AUDITING

There are two ways to run Listen Style Auditing—1. As a number of teams directly under an auditing supervisor and 2. As an individual auditor. Correct training procedure at Level 0 is to have the auditor do co-audit style until confident and then train him to do the same thing individually.

LISTEN STYLE CO-AUDIT

The Co-audit version is merely to get the student to do auditing without having to assume too much responsibility.

In this version it is really the instructor who is doing the auditing. He starts the session and tells the auditor to give the commands and acknowledge the answers. If this relationship is understood it makes the supervision of a Level 0 group of teams much easier.

The procedure for running a Listen Style Co-audit is as follows:

1. 	Instructor gets the auditors to seat their pcs in their chairs and then sit down.

2. 	He writes up on a board the exact wording of the process to be used.

3. 	He asks students if the room is alright for them to be audited in.

4. 	He tells them what is going to be run in the session (R Factor) and cleans up any questions on the part of pcs (obviously, stress is on getting them able to talk to anyone).

5. 	He tells auditors and pcs that all the auditor is permitted to do is to give the command and acknowledge the answers. If pc says anything that cannot be handled with an acknowledgement the auditor will put out his hand behind him and wait for an instructor.

6. 	He tells the auditors to keep their auditor’s reports.

7. 	Instructor then says “Start of Session”. And tells the auditors to give the command. No goals or rudiments are set or done.

Notes: Students should be taught that before they give an acknowledgement they should understand pc’s answer. They are permitted therefore to ask pc to amplify an answer or to explain a word so that they (the auditors) understand the answer.

If a student puts out his hand the instructor goes to session and without ending it handles what needs handling and then lets session go on. The instructor is careful not to become the pc’s auditor completely as transference will set in and pcs will invent trouble to get more attention. Instructor should have a meter handy so that in the case of an ARC Break he can quickly do an assessment. In doing the ARC Break Assessment he is of course careful not to audit the pc, only to locate and indicate the by-passed charge.

At end of period, Instructor says “Commence ending your sessions.” He waits a bit and then says: “Tell your auditor any gains you’ve made in the session. Auditors write them down.” Waits again and then says “Alright, I’m going to end the session now. End of Session.” Instructor then gives whatever instruction is necessary either to end the period or to get the room ready for the next period or gives a break, etc.

LISTEN STYLE, INDIVIDUAL

This is done exactly the same as the Co-audit version but in this case of course the auditor handles the session. It goes like this:

1. The auditor seats the pc in his or her chair and then sits down across from the pc, knees a few inches from the pc’s. A table is used, or just two chairs, the auditor’s report being kept on a clip board. There is, of course, no meter.

2. The auditor takes the exact auditing command to be used from his text book, bulletin or notes.

3. He asks the pc if it is all right to audit the pc in the room and if not, makes things right by adjusting the room or location of auditing.

4. He tells the pc the purpose of such sessions (Reality Factor) “I want to get you used to talking to another.” “I want to improve your reach,” etc. It’s the auditor’s goal at this level, not the pc’s. Pcs don’t get a chance to have goals in Listen Style as they would set goals they can’t attain at this level and wouldn’t have enough reality on auditing anyway to be sensible about it. So, only an R Factor is used—no goals. The auditor also tells the pc exactly how long the session will be.

5. The auditor tells the pc that all he is going to do is to listen and try to understand the pc, and that all he wants the pc to do is talk on the selected subject the auditor will give him and that if he veers off, the auditor will call it to his attention.

6. The auditor then quickly starts his auditor’s report.

7. The auditor says “Start of Session”.

8. The auditor gives the command from his text, bulletin or notes. The command must have something to do with telling people things or communicating, and may also specify a subject to talk about.

9. Further commands are given only when the pc loses track of the subject and wants to know what it was (see Routines for Level 0 for exact handling of commands).

10. When the pc says something and obviously expects a response, the auditor signifies he has heard, using any normal means.

11. When the pc says something the auditor doesn’t grasp, the auditor asks the pc to repeat it or amplify it so that the auditor does hear it in the fullest sense of the word. (See “The Prompters” below. Only 4 are allowed.)

12. When the pc stops talking, the auditor must adjudicate whether the pc is simply no longer interested in the subject, or has become unwilling to talk about some bit of it. If the auditor believes the pc has stopped because of embarrassment or some similar reason, the auditor has The Prompters, the only things he is allowed to use.

Prompter (a) 	“Have you found something you think would make me think less of you?”

Prompter (b) 	“Is there something you thought of that you think I wouldn’t understand? “

Prompter (c) 	“Have you said something you felt I didn’t understand. If so, tell me again.”

Prompter (d) 	“Have you found something you haven’t understood? If so, tell me about it.”

(The student must know these prompters by heart.) He uses as many as needed, in the sequence given, to start the pc talking again.

The auditor must not start a new subject or process just because the pc can’t bring himself to go on talking. The whole essence of Level 0 is to get the pc up to being willing to talk about anything to anyone. Thus any coaxing is also allowed. Threats are forbidden. (a) (b) (c) or (d) usually handle. These are the commonest reasons people cease talking. Mere forgetting is handled just by reminding the pc of the subject.

13. New Processes (or new subjects in a Routine which are in essence new processes) are started only when the pc has brightened up and become quite able by reason of getting comfortable about the last one. Realizing that the whole target of Level 0 is to get people willing to talk about anything to others, a regained ability on a subject governs when to start a new process. If the auditor can answer to himself this question in the affirmative, then he can go to a new process, “Is this pc able to talk freely to or about (subject of last process)?” If so, it’s all right to select a new question from the same routine or a new Routine (more rarely) and ask it now. But it is never all right to prevent a pc from talking by butting in with a new question. One never asks amplifying questions at Level 0. Commentary type questions are also out. The auditor listens to the question’s answers and only interrupts when he truly hasn’t heard or didn’t grasp some point. No over and over repetitive use of commands is made, of course, as that’s Level One. The Commands are given rarely, same commands, but only to get the pc going again. Staccato repetitive commands and brief pc answers are not for Level 0.

14. Toward the end of the auditing period, the auditor warns, “The session time is about over. We’ll have to be ending shortly.”

15. When the pc has given an extra comment or two, the auditor says, “We’re closing the session now. Time is up. Have you made any gains in this session?”

16. The pc’s answers are quickly noted.

17. The auditor says, “End of Session.”

Note: Pcs of course often keep on talking and make it hard to end a session. End it anyway. If this seems to shock the pc, point out the time the session ended as originally set and say also, “You’ll be getting more auditing and we’ll take that up in the next session.” You’ll always have trouble ending a session if you fail to put in its time in the R Factor (Reality Factor) in 4 above. As the auditor notes the time in his report (see 4 above) he must say, “This session will go until________(hours and minutes) precisely.” Thus he has an out for ending it. An auditor must never run beyond that time set, and must, of course, audit until it is reached. This, by the way, does not just hold good for Level 0. It is very good practice for all levels in regular sessions. The only exception is the assist where one is auditing toward a definite gain. In general auditing one seeks to obtain general gains not sudden momentary spurts.
The auditor, whether in co-audit or individual session at this and the next level, will soon become impressed with this fact: the more he himself says during the session, the less gain the pc gets. Therefore, aside from the above, the auditor does very little in the session and is paid handsomely for it in pc gains.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH :jw.cden 
Copyright © 1964 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  P O L I C Y  L E T T E R

25 JUNE 1970 RB

Remimeo                                        REVISED 11 SEPT 1974
OES
Qual Sec                                 Cancels HCO PL 6 Apr ‘70 Issue II
C&A                                          Scientology Release Attestation
C/Ses                                        Form which referred to cancelled
                                                         (HCO PL 14 Mar ‘68.)

EXPANDED LOWER GRADES

CHART OF ABILITIES GAINED

Ref: C/S Series 93 New Grade Chart

	This chart is used by the examiner when a pc is sent for “Declare?” on a grade. 

	The examiner first checks the pc’s auditing folder to see that every process of a Grade being attested to has been run to true End Phenomena for each process. 

	He then puts the pc on the meter noting TA and needle behaviour. 

	The PC then makes a statement to the examiner which indicates that the pc actually made the end result of a Grade. 

	The examiner gets the pc to state what ability he has attained. 

	The pc may not state the exact wording on the Grade Chart but must attest to the ability gained as written as well.

LEVEL                             			ABILITY GAINED

GROUP PROCESSES                   		Awareness that change is 									available

LIFE REPAIR                       			Awareness of truth and the way
                                  				to personal freedom

ARC STRAIGHTWIRE                  		Knows he/she won’t get any 									worse

DIANETIC CASE COMPLETION		A well and happy human being

GRADE O COMMUNICATIONS  		Ability to communicate freely
RELEASE					with anyone on any subject

GRADE I, PROBLEMS RELEASE		Ability to recognize the source
                                  				of problems and make them 									vanish

GRADE II, RELIEF RELEASE         	Relief from the hostilities and
                                  				sufferings of life

GRADE III, FREEDOM RELEASE 		Freedom from the upsets of the
                                  				past and ability to face the future

GRADE IV, ABILITY RELEASE      	Moving out of fixed conditions 								and gaining abilities to do new 								things

Revised by 
Training & Services Aide

Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

BDCS:LRH:RS:rs	for the
Copyright © 1971, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N 

15  NOVEMBER 1976
ISSUE I
Remimeo
CANCELS BTB 4 JANUARY 1972RB
“0-IV EXPANDED GRADE 
PROCESSES - TRIPLES
PART A ARC STRAIGHTWIRE”

( Revisisions in script. )

O-IV EXPANDED GRADE PROCESSES - QUADS 
PART A 
ARC STRAIGHTWIRE          

	This Bulletin gives a checklist of the Expanded Quad Grade Process Commands.  It is not all the possible processes for this level.  If more are needed to attain full EP for the level,  additional processes can be found in LRH Bulletins, Books, Tapes, PABs and other issues.

	Each process is run to its full End Phenomena of F/N, Cog, VGIs.  Any previously run are rehabbed or completed and and missing flows run.

	A copy of this checklist is placed in the folder of a pc being run on Expanded Grades and the processes checked off with the date each is run to EP.

	On any of these processes where the pc answers only” yes” or that he did it,  find out what it was by asking” What was it?”  This keeps in the itsa line from pc to auditor.  (Reference HCOB 30 June 62.)

	This Bulletin does not replace Source data.

1.	REMEMBER SOMETHING
	Ref:  	Dianetics 55 (page 129 in 1971 Edition)	

	“Remember something.”  Repetitive to EP.				__________

2.	RECALL A TIME
	Ref:   	Staff Auditors Conference of 16 Feb 59 
		(refers to HCOB of 16 Feb 59 HGC 
		processes for those trained in engram 
		running or trained in these processes).
		
	“Recall a time.”  Repetitive to EP.					__________

3.	COMM RECALL PROCESS
	Ref:  	HCOB 20 Oct 59 An Experimental Process.

	“Recall a communication.”  	Repetitive to EP.			__________		

4. 	THE ONLY BASIC AFFINITY PROCESS 
	Ref:	HCOB 20 Oct 59 An Experimental Process. 

	“What would you like to confront?”
					Repetitive to EP.			__________ 

	“What would another like to confront?” 
					Repetitive to EP. 			__________

	“What would others like to confront?” 
					Repetitive to EP.			__________ 

	“What would you like to confront in yourself?”
					Repetitive to EP.			__________

4A. 	EXHAUSTION 
	Ref: 	HCOB 20 Oct 59 An Experimental Process. 

	“Recall exhaustion.” 
					Repetitive to EP.			__________ 

5. 	PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE 
	Ref: 	HCOB 16 Feb 59 HGC Processes for those 
		trained in engram running or trained in 
		these processes. 
		HCOB 16 Feb 59 Staff
		Auditors Conference. 

	“What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?” 

	“What part of the future would you be willing to experience?” 
					Run Alternately to EP.		__________ 

6.	FORGETTING - 6 WAY BRACKET
	Ref: 	HCOB 8 Apr 58 A Pair of Processes. 
		PAB 143. 

	“Recall (or think of) something you wouldn’t mind” 

	Run the bracket in sequence to EP. 

	1.”Forgetting yourself.” 						__________

	2.”Another person forgetting.” 					__________

	3.”Forgetting about another.” 					__________
	4.”Another forgetting about you.” 					__________

	5.”Other people forgetting.” 						__________

	6.”Another person forgetting about another person.”
										__________

7 . 	CAUSE ELEMENTARY STRAIGHTWIRE
	Ref: 	HCOB 9 Mar 60 Expansion of OT-3A Procedure, 
		step two HGC allowed processes.
		HCOB 20 Apr 60 Processes.

	“What would it be all right for another to make forgotten?” 
					Repetitive to EP. 			__________

	“What would it be all right for you to make forgotten?” 
					Repetitive to EP . 			__________

	“What would it be all right for others to make forgotten?” 
					Repetitive to EP . 			__________

	“What would it be alright for you to make forgotten about 
	 yourself ?”
					Repetitive to EP.			__________

8 . 	DUPLICATION STRAIGHTWIRE
	Ref: 	HCOB 9 Mar 60 Expansion of OT-3A Procedure, 
		step two HGC allowed processes

	“What would another permit to have happen again ?” 
					Repetitive to EP. 			__________

	“What would you permit to have happen again ?”
					Repetitive to EP. 			__________

	“What would others permit to have happen again ?” 
					Repetitive to EP.			__________ 

	“What would you permit to have happen to yourself again ?”
					Repetitive to EP.			__________

9.	KNOW TO MYSTERY RECALL PROCESS 
	Ref: 	HCOB 20 Oct 59 An Experimental Process 
		Scn 0-8 Expanded Know to Mystery Scale

	“Recall an unconsciousness.” 	to EP				__________

	“Recall waiting.”             		to EP				__________

	“Recall a mystery.”           		to EP				__________

	“Recall sex.”                 		to EP				__________

	“Recall eating”              		to EP				__________

	“Recall a symbol.”            		to EP				__________

	“Recall thinking.”            		to EP				__________

	“Recall an effort.”           		to EP				__________

	“Recall an emotion.”         		to EP				__________

	“Recall looking.”            		to EP				__________

	“Recall knowing about.”      		to EP				__________

	“Recall not knowing.”        		to EP				__________

	“Recall knowing.”            		to EP				__________

10.	SELF ANALYSIS LISTS
	Ref: 	PAB 46
		Book Self Analysis (Run per instructions in book.)

	List One.                    		to EP				__________

	List Two.                    		to EP				__________

	List Three: 	Time Sense       	to EP				__________

			Sight            		to EP				__________

			Relative Sizes 	to EP				__________

			Sound            		to EP				__________

			Olfactory        	to EP				__________

            		Touch            		to EP				__________

			Personal Emotion 	to EP				__________

			Organic Sensation 	to EP				__________

			Motion Personal 	to EP				__________

			Motion External 	to EP				__________

			Body Position 	to EP				__________

	List Four.                    		to EP				__________

	List Five.                    		to EP				__________
	List Six.                     		to EP				__________

	List Seven.                   		to EP				__________

	List Eight.                   		to EP				__________

	List Nine.                    		to EP				__________

	List Ten.                     		to EP				__________

	List Eleven.                  		to EP				__________

	List Twelve.                  		to EP				__________

11.	ARC STRAIGHTWIRE TRIPLES
	Ref: 	HCOB 27 Sept 68 ARC Straight Wire

	SW 	Fl. 	“Recall a time that was really to you.” 

			“Recall a time someone was in 
			 good communication with you.” 
			“Recall a time someone really 
			 felt affinity for you.” 

			“Recall a time anothor knew 
			 he/she understood you.” 

						to EP				__________ 

	SW.	F2.	“Recall a time you were in good 
			 communication with someone.” 

			“Recall a time you really felt 
			 affinity for someone” 

			“Recall a time you knew you 
			 understood someone.” 

						to EP 				__________

	SW.	 F3. 	“Recall a time that was really  
			 real for others.” 

			“Recall a time another was in 
			 communication with others.” 

			“Recall a time another really 
			 felt affinity for others.” 

						to EP				__________

	SW.	F0.	“Recall a time you were really 
			 real to yourself.”
			“Recall a time you were in good 
			 communication with yourself.”

			“Recall a time you really felt 
			 affinity for yourself.”

			“Recall a time you knew 
			 you understood yourself.”

						to EP				__________

12. 	HAVINGNESS
	Ref: 	HCOB 3 Dec 56 B. Scn - HAA Techniques
		PAB 54

	SWH 	F1. 	“Look around here and find something 
				 that is really real to you.” 

						to EP				__________

	SWH 	F2. 	“Look around here and find something 
				 that would be really real to another.” 

						to EP 				__________

	SWH 	F3. 	“Look around here and find something 
				 that would be really real to others.” 

						to EP 				__________

	SWH 	F0.	“Look around here and find something 
				 that you could make really real to yourself.”

						to EP				__________

Reissued as BTB
by Flag Mission 1234
I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd:  Molly Harlow
Revised by FMO 1689 I/C
for Tr & Serv Aide
Approved by Snr C/S Flag, CS-5
Authorized by AVU
and LRH Pers Com
for the 
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:KU:DM:JE:JG:PD:AL:MH:lf
Copyright © 1973, 1974, 1976
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N 

15  NOVEMBER 1976
ISSUE II
Remimeo
CANCELS BTB 4 JANUARY 1972RB
“0-IV EXPANDED GRADE 
PROCESSES - TRIPLES
PART B GRADE 0 PROCESSES”

( Revisisions in italics )

0-IV EXPANDED GRADE PROCESSES - QUADS 
PART B 
GRADE 0 PROCESSES        

This bulletin gives a checklist of the Expanded Quad Grade Process commands. It is not all the possible processes for this level. If more are needed to attain full EP for this level additional processes can be found in LRH Bulletins, Books, Tapes, PABs and other issues.

Each process is run to its full EP of F/N, Cog, VGIs. Any previously run are rehabbed or completed and any missing flows run. A copy of this checklist is placed in the folder of a pc being run on Expanded Grades and the processes checked off with the date each is run to EP.

On any of these processes where the pc answers only yes or that he did it find out what it was by asking”What was it?” This keeps in the itsa line from the pc to auditor.

This bulletin does not replace Source data.

R2-31 BEINGNESS PROCESSING
Ref: CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY

“Look around the room and discover some object which you don’t mind being present.” 
“Locate something else you don’t mind being present.”

TO NO COMM LAG OR TO EP	_________

“Now see this (room object) here?” 
“All right, what else wouldn’t you mind this (room object) being?”
	TO NO COMM LAG OR TO EP	_________

“Now what wouldn’t you mind your body being?” 
“And now what else wouldn’t you mind your body being?”

	TO NO COMM LAG OR TO EP	_________

“Now let’s find something you wouldn’t mind being.” 
“What else wouldn’t you mind being?”
	TO EP	_________

This process is not Quaded as it would change the process but it is included in this BTB as it is part of Expanded Grade 0.

AXIOM 51 COMM PROCESSING 
Ref: PAB 56, 8 July 1955.

Run on list of charged terminals culled from worksheets.

F-1 	“What wouldn’t _____ mind you communicating with?”

		TO EP	_________

F-2 	“What wouldn’t you mind_____communicating with?”

		TO EP	_________

F-3 	“What wouldn’t others mind_____communicating with?” 	

		TO EP	_________

F-0 	“If you were a_____what wouldn’t you mind yourself 	
	communicating with?”

		TO EP	_________

PAB 54 COMM PROCESS
Ref: PAB 54, 10 Jun 55.

“Think a thought”	TO EP	_________

	Part of the”Think a thought” process is to have the preclear place the thought in various locations after he has thought it. Have his shoe think a thought, have a rug think a thought. This gets the preclear into the practice of placing the thought somewhere. Thus, thoughts are less likely to appear suddenly and magically out of his machinery.

F-1 	“Tell me a thought you would be willing to receive from another.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Tell me a thought another would be willing to receive from you.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Tell me a thought others would be willing to receive from others.”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“Tell me a thought you would be willing to have.”

	TO EP	_________

AN OBVIOUS PROCESS
Ref: HCO B 17 Mar 60 STANDARDIZED SESSIONS

Think about matter	TO EP	_________
Think about energy	TO EP	_________
Think about space	TO EP	_________
Think about time	TO EP	_________
Think about a thetan	TO EP	_________

A BASIC COMM PROCESS
Ref: HCO B 4 May 59 AN AFFINITY PROCESS

F-1 	“Recall a time another communicated to you.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Recall a time you communicated to others.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Recall a time others communicated to others.”	

	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“Recall a time you caused yourself to communicate.”

	TO EP	_________

IN SEQUENCE
Ref: HCO B 2 Mar 1961 NEW PRE-HAVE COMMAND

F-1 	“Recall another’s communication with you.”
	“Recall another’s no-communication with you.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Recall your communication with another.”
	“Recall your no-communicat ion with another.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Recall another’s conmunication with others.”
	“Recall another’s no-communication with others.”

	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“Recall a communication of yours.”
	“Recall a no-communication of yours.”

	TO EP	_________

UNIVERSE PROCESSES
Ref: HCO B 25 Sept 1959 HAS CO-AUDIT
Run: 	The physical universe, a Body, a Mind, a Thetan.

F-1 	“From where could_____ communicate to you?”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“From where could you communicate to_____ ?”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“From where could_____communicate to others?”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“If you were a_____ from where could you communicate?”

	TO EP	_________

LOCATIONAL BODY COMM PROCESS
Ref: HCO B 21 July 59 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

	Run on charged body parts, culled from worksheets or make a list of body parts, assess, and run on reading items.

F-1 	“From where could a _____communicate to you?”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“From where could you communicate to a_____ ?”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“From where could_____communicate to others?”

	TO EP	_________
	
F-0	“If you were a_____ from where could you communicate?”

	TO EP	_________

A CLEARING PROCEDURE
Ref: HCO B 21 July 1959 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

	Assess: Male bodies, Female bodies, Bodies, Matter, Energy, Space, Time.

	Run all reading items in order of reads.

F-1 	“From where could (item) communicate to you?”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“From where could you communicate to (item)?”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“From where could (item) communicate to others?”

	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“If you were a (item) from where could you communicate?”
		
	TO EP	_________

PROCESS S-2 
Ref; HCO B 21 July 1959 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

F-1 	“From where could a victim communicate to you?”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“From where could you communicate to a victim?”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“From where could a victim communicate to another or others?”

	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“If you were a victim from where could you communicate?”

	TO EP	_________

R2-60 HIDDEN KNOWINGNESS (THE HIDDEN COMMUNICATION)
Ref: CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, run per instructions.  
SCIENTOLOGY 0-8 

F-1 	“Spot some communications another has hidden from you.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Spot some communications you have hidden from another.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Spot some communications another has hidden from others.”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“Spot some communications you have hidden from yourself.”

	TO EP	_________

F-1 	“Spot some communications another has protected from you.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Spot some communications you have protected from another.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Spot some communications another has protected from others.”
	TO EP	_________

F-0	“Spot some communications you have protected from yourself.”

	TO EP	_________

F-1 	“Spot some communications of yours another has owned.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Spot some communications of another you have owned.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Spot some communications of another others have owned.”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“Spot some communications you have owned.”

	TO EP	_________

F-1 	“Spot some communications of yours another has inhibited.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Spot some communications of another you have inhibited.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Spot some communications of another others have inhibited.”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“Spot some communications of yours you have inhibited.”

	TO EP	_________

F-1 	“Spot some communications another has enforced on you.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Spot some communications you nave enforced on another.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Spot some communications another has enforced on others.”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“Spot some communications of yours you have enforced on 
	yourself.”

	TO EP	_________

F-1 	“Spot some communications another has desired from you.”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Spot some communications you have desired from another.”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Spot some communications others have desired from others.”

	TO EP	_________
F-0	“Spot some communications of yours you have desired for
	yourself.”

	TO EP	_________

R2-60 CONTINUED
Ref: CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY (Run per instructions, each command to EP)

“Spot some hidden knowingness”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected knowingness”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some owned knowingness”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited knowingness”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced knowingnessl	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired knowingness”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some knowingness people could be 
curious about”	TO EP	_________

R2-60 HIDDEN KNOWINGNESS (KNOW TO MYSTERY)
Ref CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, run per instructions

“Spot some mysteries” 	TO EP	_________
“Spot some hidden sex”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some hidden eating”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some hidden symbols”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some hidden thinking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some hidden efforts”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some hidden emotions”	TO EP 	_________
“Spot some hidden looking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some hidden knowing”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected mysteries”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected sex”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected eating”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected symbols”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected thinking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected efforts”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected emotions”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected looking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some protected knowing”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some owned mysteries”	TO EP 	_________
“Spot some owned sex”	TO EP 	_________
“Spot some owned eating”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some owned symbols”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some owned thinking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some owned efforts”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some owned emotions”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some owned looking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some owned knowing”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited mysteries”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited sex” 	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited eating” 	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited symbols” 	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited thinking” 	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited efforts” 	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited emotions”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited looking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some inhibited knowing”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced mysteries”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced sex”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced eating”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced symbols”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced thinking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced efforts”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced emotions”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced looking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some enforced knowing”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired mysteries”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired sex”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired eating”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired symbols”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired thinking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired efforts”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired emotions”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired looking”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some desired knowing”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious mysteries”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious sex”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious eating”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious symbols”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious thinking”	TO EP 	_________
“Spot some curious efforts”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious emotions”	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious looking” 	TO EP	_________
“Spot some curious knowing”	TO EP	_________

EXPANDED CDEI COMM PROCESS
Ref: HCO B 13 Oct 1959 DEI EXPANDED SCALE
SCIENTOLOGY 0-8 pg. 

	Assess a group of terminals culled from worksheets (or a prepared assessment list by the C/S”Bodies, people, etc.”).

	Run each reading item in the following:
F-1 	“From where could a hidden _____communicate to you?”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“From where could you communicate to a hidden_____ ?”	

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“From where could a hidden_____ communicate to others?”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“If you were a hidden _____ from where could you communicate?”

	TO EP	_________

Repeat above four flows using each of the following in place of”hidden”:

A protected	TO EP	_________
An owned	TO EP	_________
A false	TO EP	_________
A no	TO EP	_________
An unwanted	TO EP	_________
A necessary	TO EP	_________
A desirable	TO EP	_________
An interesting	TO EP	_________
An unknown	TO EP	_________
A known 	TO EP	_________

LOCATIONAL COMM PROCESSES
Ref: HCO B 7 May 1959 NEW PROCESS

F-1 	“From where could another communicate to you?”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“From where could you communicate to another?”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“From where could another communicate to others?”

	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“From where could you communicate?”

	TO EP	_________
OR
	
F-1 	“Find a place from which another could communicate to you.”	

	TO EP	_________
F-2 	“Find a place from which you could communicate to another.”	

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Find a place from which another could communicate to others.”	
	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“Find a place from which could you communicate?”

	TO EP	_________

OR

F-1 	“Recall a place from which another has communicated to you.”	

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“Recall a place from which you have communicated to another.”	

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“Recall a place from which another has communicated to others.”	

	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“Recall a place from which you have communicated?”

	TO EP	_________

REMEDY OF COMM SCARCITY
Ref: 8-8008,”Six Levels of Processing Issue 5”

F-1 	“What wouldn’t another mind you communicating with?”	

	TO EP	_________
	
F-2 	“What wouldn’t you mind another communicating with?”	

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“What wouldn’t another mind others communicating with?”			

	TO EP	_________

F-0 	“What wouldn’t another mind yourself communicating with?”			

	TO EP	_________

GRADE ZERO QUADS  O-O, O-A-OB
Ref: HCO B 11 Dec 64 SCIENTOLOGY 0 PROCESSES
	         26 Dec 64 ROUTINE 0-A EXPANDED				
STEP ONE: AUD-PC CLEARANCE
	
OOF-A1 	“What are you willing for me to talk to you about?”	 
	“What would you like me to tell you about that?”			

	TO EP	_________

OOF-A2 	“What are you willing to talk to me about?”
	“What would you like to tell me about that?”				
	TO EP	_________

OOF-A3 	“What are you willing for me to talk to others about?”
	“What would you like me to tell others about that?”	

	TO EP	_________

OOF-A0 	“What are you willing to tell about yourself?”
	“What would you like to say about that?”

	TO EP	_________
	
STEP TWO: O-O 

OOF-1 	“What are you willing for another to talk to you about?”
	“What would you like him/her to tell you about that?”	

	TO EP	_________

OOF-2 	“What are you willing to talk to another about?”
	“What would you like to tell another about that?”	

	TO EP	_________

OOF-3 	“What are you willing for another to talk to others about?”
	“What would you like him/her/them to tell others about that?”	

	TO EP	_________

OOF-0 	“What are you willing to let yourself talk about?”
	“What would you like to say about that?”

	TO EP	_________

STEP THREE - OA

	Auditor chooses person by making a canned list of people it would be difficult to talk to or listen to and taking each item in turn. (Ref: HCQ B 26.12.64 0-A EXPANDED.) The item being run must read in the command when the command is cleared for O-A and O-B.

OA F-1 	“If could talk to you what would he talk about?” 
	“Alright, if he/she were talking to you about that, what would 
	he/she say exactly?”

		TO EP	_________

OA F-2 	“If you could talk to what would you talk about?” 
	“Alright, if you were tarking to about that, what would you 
	say exactly?” 
	(Pc is expected to speak as though talking to the subject chosen.) 

		TO EP	_________

OA F-3 	(Auditor chooses 2 people who would have difficulty talking to each other)

	“If could talk to what would he/she/they talk about?”
	“Alright, if was talking to about that what would he/she/they say
	exactly?”	

	TO EP	_________

OA F-0	“If you could talk about yourself what would you talk about?”
	“Alright, if you were talking about that what would you say 
	exactly?”

	TO EP	_________

STEP FOUR - OB
(Per HCO B 11.12.64 ZERO PROCESSES)

(Auditor makes a canned list (not from the pc but himself) of everything he can think of that is banned for any reason from conversation or is not generally corlsiderecl acceptable for social communication, See HCO B 11.12.64.)

OB F-1 	“What are you willing to have someone else tell you about _____?” 
	“Who else could he/she say those things to?”

	TO EP	_________

OB F-2 	“What are you willing to tell me about_____?”
	“Who else could you say those things to?”

	TO EP	_________

OB F-3 	“What are you willing to have someone tell others about_____ ?” 
	“Who else could another say those things to?”

	TO EP	_________

OB F-0	“What are you willing to let yourself say about_____?”
	“Who else could you say those things to?”

	TO EP	_________

HAVINGNESS

F-1 	“What solid could another have you understand?”

	TO EP	_________

F-2 	“What solid could you have another understand?”

	TO EP	_________

F-3 	“What solid could others have  others understand?”

	TO EP	_________

F-0	“What solid could you have yourself understand?”

	TO EP	_________

Reissued as BTB
by Flag Mission 1234
I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd:  Molly Harlow
Revised by FMO 1689 I/C
for Tr & Serv Aide
Approved by Snr C/S Flag, CS-5
Authorized by AVU
and LRH Pers Com
for the 
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:KU:DM:JE:JG:PD:AL:MH:lf
Copyright © 1973, 1974, 1976
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 MARCH 1978
Remimeo
Snr HSDC
QUICKIE OBJECTIVES

Ref: 	HCOB 12 Apr 62, 	CCHs PURPOSE
	HCOB 11 Jun 57, 	TRAINING & CCH PROCESSES
	HCOB 3 Feb 59, 	FLATTENING A PROCESS
	CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY
	CONTROL AND THE MECHANICS OF SCS
	HCOB 14 Aug 63, 	LECTURE GRAPHS (No. 5 on
		pg 342 of Tech Vol V)

Recent investigations into the effectiveness of Drug RDs including their rate of repair and re-repair revealed a marked tendency to quickie Objectives.

Failure to run Objectives fully and completely, especially on a case with an extensive drug history can set up the pc for less than optimum gain on Dianetics. A Drug RD without full and complete Objectives is not a Drug RD.

TWO-WAY COMM

The easiest and very out tech way to quickie Objectives is to run some commands and then put the pc on the meter and 2WC to F/N or do some fast “rehab.” But did the Objective process ever get run? What actually F/Ned, the Objective or the 2WC? Any Objectives run this way are invalid.

The tech of Objectives is extensive and still very much in force. They have their own EPs and with these they are fully run to actual change for the pc. Only this is valid handling of Objectives.

CURE

The way to handle auditors who quickie Objectives is a full W/Cing of the subject and a big clay demo of the purpose of Objectives and a big clay demo of what effect Objectives have on running a Drug RD and R3R. Then get the auditor’s own Objectives flattened.

Any Drug RD that needs to be repaired or redone must include a careful study of the Objectives to see if they were honestly run and if the valid Objective EPs on the processes themselves were obtained. Where the Objective was obviously quickied just R-Factor the pc you are going to flatten it and do so. If the EP of an Objective was questionable you can ask the pc what happened and if he F/Ns on a real Objective EP fine, otherwise flatten the process.

A fully completed Drug RD with Objectives sets the stage for the pc to fly up the Grade Chart so do it right the first time.

LRH:JE:nc 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1978 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N 

15  NOVEMBER 1976
ISSUE III
Remimeo
CANCELS BTB 4 JANUARY 1972RB
“0-IV EXPANDED GRADE 
PROCESSES - TRIPLES
PART C GRADE 1 PROCESSES”

( Revisisions in italics )

0-IV EXPANDED GRADE PROCESSES - QUADS 
PART C 
GRADE 1 PROCESSES        

This BTB gives a checklist of the Expanded Quad Grade Process commands. It is not all the possible processes for this level. If more are needed to attain full EP for this level additional processes can be found in LRH Bulletins, Books, Tapes, PABs and other issues.

Each process is run to its full end phenomena of F/N, Cog, VGIs. Any processes previously run are rehabbed or completed and any missing flows run. A copy of this checklist is placed in the folder of a pc being run on Expanded Grades and the processes checked off with the date each is run to EP.

On any of these processes where the pc answers only yes or that he did it find out what it was by asking “What was it?” This keeps in the itsa line from the pc to auditor. (Ref: 30 June 62 HCOB)

THIS BTB DOES NOT REPLACE THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIALS.

LEVEL “I” PROBLEMS

1.	CCH’s I to X

	See Refs:	HCOB   2 Aug  62   CCH ANSWERS
		HCOB   7 Aug  62   CCH’S MORE INFO
		BTB    12 Sep   63   CCH DATA
		HCOB   1 Dec   65   CCH’S

	CCH I:

	“Give me that hand”	

	CCH II:

	Tone 40  8-C

	“You look at that wall.”  “Thankyou.”
	“You walk over to that wall.”  “Thankyou.”
	“You touch that wall.”  “Thankyou.”
	“Turn around.”  “Thankyou.”	
	CCH III:

	Hand Space Mimicry

	“Put your hands against mine, follow them and contribute to their motion.”
	“Did you contribute to their motion?”

	Gradually increase the space between pc and auditor hands per HCOB 12 
Sept 63 CCH DATA.

	On increased distance:

(1)	Use:  “Put your hands facing mine about one inch (or whatever distance is 
	used) away, follow them and contribute to their motion.”	

	NOTE:  When distance increases auditors chair gets moved back, and 
auditors chair is always between pc and door.

	CCH IV:    Ref:  HCOB 1 Dec 65

	Book Mimicry

	(No set commands)

	Repeat CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 through and through until all are FLAT and the pc 
has reached full EP per LRH HCOBs.
			TO EP	_________

	CCH V:    HCOB 11 Jun 57  TRAINING & CCH PROCESSES

	Location by Contact

	“Touch that (room object).”   “Thankyou.”
			TO EP	_________
	
	CCH VI:

	Body Room Contact

	“Touch your (body part).”  “Thankyou.”
	“Touch that (indicated room object).”  “Thankyou.”
			TO EP	_________

	CCH VII:

	Contact By Duplication

	“Touch that table.”  “Thankyou.”
	“Touch your (body part).”  “Thankyou.”
	“Touch that table.”  “Thankyou.”
	“Touch your (same body part).”  “Thankyou.”
	etc.  pc walking.
			TO EP	_________

	CCH VIII:   HCOB 11 Jun 57  TRAINING & CCH PROCESSES
		  PAB 80  “Terrible Trio”

	“Look around the room and tell me what you could have?”
			TO EP	_________

	“Look around the room and tell me what you would permit to remain.”
			TO EP	_________

	“Look around the room and tell me what you could dispense with.”
			TO EP	_________

	CCH IX:   Ref.  HCOB 11 Jun 57  TRAINING & CCH PROCESSES

	Tone 40 - Keep it from going away

	“Look at that (indicated room object).”
	“Walk over to that (indicated room object).”
	“Touch that (indicated room object).”
	“Keep it from going away.”  
	“Did you keep it from going away?” 
			TO EP	_________

	CCH X:   Ref.  HCOB 11 Jun 57  TRAINING & CCH PROCESSES

	Tone 40 - Hold it still

	“Look at that (indicated room object).”
	“Walk over to that (indicated room object).”
	“Touch that (indicated room object).”
	“Hold it still.”  
	“Did you hold it still?”
			TO EP	_________

	R2-67   OBJECTS

	“Locate some objects.”

	Run repetitively.  Pc looks at them and notices what they are.
			TO EP	_________

	3-PART LOCATION PROCESS:

	Ref:  PAB 153  1 Feb 59

	Locational

	“Notice that ______.”  “Thankyou.”
	(Auditor points to object but NOT in pc’s direction.)
			TO EP	_________

	Locational, Body and Room

	“Look at that ______.”  “Thankyou.”
	“Look at your ______ (foot, hand, knee etc.).”  “Thankyou.”
			TO EP	_________

	Run alternatively:
	Objective Show Me

	“Show me that ______.”  “Thankyou.”

	Run above at first, and then alternate with
	
	“Show me your ______ (foot, hand, knee etc.).”  “Thankyou.”
			TO EP	_________

	OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION - R2 - 17

	Ref:  HCOB   4 Feb 59   OP PRO BY DUP
	         BTB    24 Oct  71   OP PRO BY DUP - END PHENOMENA
	         CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY

	Have pc handle and place book on table, bottle on another table.

	“Look at that _____.”  “Walk over to it.”
	“Pick it up.”  “What is it’s colour?”
	“What is it’s temperature?”  “What is it’s weight?”
	“Put it down in exactly the same place.”

	Done alternately with a book and a bottle.
			TO EP	_________

	START, CHANGE, STOP

	Ref:  CLEAR PROCEDURE Issue I
	         HCOB  2 Feb 61 UK CASES DIFFERENT
	         PAB  97
	         HCOB  29 SEP 58

	NOTE:  Keep a solid comm line with pc when giving commands.

	STAND STILL:  (NOTE:  On a very bad off case you can run SCS on an 
object; use same commands.)

	“Now I want you to get your body moving down the room when I so 
	indicate and when I tell you to ‘stand still’, I want you to make that body 
	stand still.  Do you understand that?”  “Good.”

	“Stand still.”
	“Did you make that body stand still?”
	“Thankyou.”

	START

	“I am going to tell you to start.  And when I tell you to start, you start the 
	body in that direction.  Do you understand that?”  
	“Good.”  “Start”
	“Did you start that body?”  “Thankyou.”
			TO FLAT POINT	_________

	STOP

	“I am going to tell you to get the body moving in that direction.  Some
	where along the line I will tell you to stop.  Then you stop the body.  
	Do you understand that?”
	“Good.”  “Get the body moving.”
	“Stop.”  “Did you stop the body?”  
	“Thankyou.”
			TO FLAT POINT	_________

	CHANGE

	“Do you see that spot?”  “Good.”  “We will call that spot A.  Now you 
	stand here.  OK.”  “Now do you see that other spot?”  “Good.”  “We’ll 
	call that spot B.”  “Alright, now when I ask you to change the body, I 
	want you to change the body’s position from A to B.  Do you understand 
	that?” 

	The preclear says he does and the auditor stepping back from the preclear 
	says  “Change.”  The preclear then changes the body’s position.  Similarly 
	in using the various points and combinations of points A, B, C & D, the 
	auditor runs the preclear on change until that particular process seems to be 
	flat or goes to EP.
			TO FLAT POINT	_________

	These steps (as above) are now repeated as they will have unflattened.  
Each is re-flattened in turn and run over and over again.
			TO EP PER ABOVE
			REFERENCES	_________

	CONTROL TRIO:
	Ref:  PAB 137 & PAB 146

1.	“Get the idea of having that (indicated object).”
			TO EP	_________

2.	“Get the idea that it is all right to permit that (indicated object) to continue.”
			TO EP	_________

3.	“Get the idea of making that (indicated object) disappear.”
			TO EP	_________

	GOALS:
	Ref:  PAB 137 & PAB 146

1.	“What are you absolutely sure will happen in the next 2 minutes?”

	Auditor 2 way comms it, to pc certainty and gradually increases span of 
time: 1 hr, 3 days, 1 week, 3 months, 1 year etc.
			TO EP	_________

2.	“Tell me something that you would like to do in the next 2 minutes.
			TO EP	_________
	OR

1.	“Tell me something that you are sure will be there in 2 minutes.” Etc.
			TO EP	_________

2.	“Tell me something that you would like to have in the next 2 minutes.”
			TO EP	_________

	OPENING PROCEDURE SOP 8 - C:
	Ref:  PAB 34.  Creation of Human Ability.

	PART A

1.	Select objects in room, direct pc’s attention to them.

2.	“Do you see that _____?”  “Go over to it and put your hand on it.”
	“Now look at _____.”  “Now walk over and put your hand on it.”

	(This is done with various objects without specifically designating spots 
of a more precise nature than an object until pc is very certain that he is in good 
communication with these objects & the walls & other parts of the room.)

3.	PART A HAS BEEN ENLARGED by the auditor’s selecting exact spots. eg.
	
	“Do you see that ‘black mark’ on the ‘left arm of that chair’?”
	“All right, go over to it and put your finger on it.”  
	“Now take your finger off it.”

4.	Done until the pc has uniform perception of any and all objects in the room.

	PART B

5.	“Find a spot in this room.”  “Go over to it and put your finger on it.”
	“Now let go of it.”

6.	Done until pc freely selecting spots in the room - this means that his 
	perception of the room has become uniform.
			TO EP	_________
	PART C

7.	“Find a spot in the room.”  “Make up your mind when you are going 
	to touch it and then touch it.”  “Make up your mind when you are going 
	to let go of it and then let go.”

8.	Run the process repetitively until all comm lags are reduced and until the 
	pc’s very certain he’s seeing, selecting, and touching the spots and to F/N, 
	Cog, VGIs.  (Check for F/N on the meter.  If no F/N check for unflat or 
	overrun and handle accordingly.)
			TO EP	_________

	HELP PROCESSES:
	Ref:  HCOB  5 May 1960  “HELP”

	2 way comm on help is the first process to clear the help button.
	
	Discuss another helping pc.  Pc helping others.  Others helping others.  
	Pc helping self.  Get the pc’s views on the subject of help.

			F1 TO EP	_________
			F2 TO EP	_________
			F3 TO EP	_________
			F0 TO EP	_________

	ALSO

F1.	“What problem could another’s help be to you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2.	“What problem could your help be to another?”
			TO EP	_________

F3.	“What problem could another’s help be to other’s ?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What problem could helping yourself be to you?”
			TO EP	_________

	OR  (If the pc is inventing answers rather than picking them off the track)

F1.	“What problem has another’s help be to you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2.	“What problem has your help been to another?”
			TO EP	_________

F3.	“What problem has another’s help been to other’s ?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What problem has helping yourself been to you?”
			TO EP	_________

	Another remedy for invention where there is no terminal apparently present:

F1.	“What help of another’s  could you confront?”
	“What help of another’s  would you rather not confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F2.	“What help of yours could another confront?”
	“What help of yours would another rather not confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F3.	“What help from others  could others confront?”
	“What help from others  would others rather not confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What help of yours  could you confront?”
	“What help of yours  would you rather not confront?”
			TO EP	_________

	LOWER DICHOTOMY OF FAILED HELP - OR 
	TWO WAY FAILED HELP:
	Ref:  HCOB  3 Nov 1960  “FAILED HELP”

F1.	“How could another prevent your help?”
	“How could another fail to help you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2.	“How could you prevent another’s help?”
	“How could you fail to help another?”
			TO EP	_________

F3.	“How could others prevent others help?”
	“How could you fail to help others?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“How could you prevent help for yourself?”
	“How could you fail to help yourself?”
			TO EP	_________

	FORMULA 16:
	Ref:  HCOB  10 Nov 60 FORMULA 13.  
	         HCOB  15 Dec 60  PRE-SESSION 37.

F1.	“Who has not intended to help you?”
	“Who has helped you?”
			RUN ALTERNATELY TO EP	_________

F2.	“Who have you intended not to help?”
	“Who have you helped?”
			RUN ALTERNATELY TO EP	_________

F3.	“Who has intended not to help others?”
	“Who has helped others?”
			RUN ALTERNATELY TO EP	_________

F0.	“How have you intended not to help yourself?”
	“How have you helped yourself?”
			RUN ALTERNATELY TO EP	_________

	FORMULA 17:
	Ref:  HCOB  15 Dec 60  PRE-SESSION 37
	         HCOB   3 Nov 60

	This is especially for the person who has been to healers, hypnotists, 
spiritualists, psychologists, ministers, religious family members, etc.  Run on 
charged terminals (general terminals and specific persons connected with pc’s 
past.)

F1. 	“How could a _____ fail to help you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“How could you fail to help a _____?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“How could a _____ fail to help others?”
			TO EP	_________

F0. 	“How could you fail to help yourself regarding a _____?”
			TO EP	_________

	ALSO:	
	
F1. 	“How could a _____help you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“How could you help a _____?”	
			TO EP	_________
	
F3. 	“How could a _____ help others?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“How could you help yourself regarding a _____?”	
			TO EP	_________

FIVE WAY CONCEPT HELP:			
Ref:  HCOB 14 July 1960  CONCEPT HELP 
F1. 	“Think of a _____ helping you.”	
			TO EP	_________
	
F2. 	“Think of you helping a _____.”	
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Think of a _____helping others.”	
			TO EP	_________

F4. 	“Think of others helping a _____.”
			TO EP	_________

F5. 	“Think of a _____ helping a _____.”
			TO EP	_________

	Run on charged (reading) general terminals, culled from the worksheets.		

CONCEPT HELP O/W: 
Ref: HCOB 14 July 1960  CONCEPT HELP 
BTB 30 May 1960  DYN ASSESS ON HELP 

	Run on charged reading terminals (also a confusion, an unconscious person, 
a responsible person, a creative person. HCOB 21 Jul 1960 Some Help Terminals.)

F1. 	“Think of a _____ helping you.”
	“Think of a _____ not helping you.”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Think of helping a _____.”
	“Think of not helping a _____.”		
			TO EP	_________
	
F3. 	“Think of a _____helping others.”
	“Think of a _____not helping others.” 
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“Think of you as a _____ helping yourself.”
	“Think of you as a _____ not helping yourself.”
			TO EP	_________

HELP O/W:
Ref: HCOB 12 May 1960  HELP PROCESSING 
	This lets the pc as-is his failures to help as well as his denials of help.
	
F1. 	“What help has another given you?”
	“What help has another not given you?”	
			TO EP	_________
		
F2. 	“What help have you given another?  “
	“What help have you not given another? “
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What help have others given others?”
	“What help have others not given others?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What help have you given yourself.”
	“What help have you not given yourself.”
			TO EP	_________

FIVE WAY BRACKET ON HELP:
Ref: HCOB 5 Nov 1965  5 WAY BRACKET ON HELP

1. 	“How could you help me?” 

2. 	“How could I help you?”
	
3.	“How could you help another?”	

4. 	“How could another help you?”

5. 	“How could another help another?”

	The above commands are run consecutively as one process - muzzled style.
			TO EP	_________

	RUNNING HELP ON AN ITEM:
	Ref: HCOB 28 July 1958  CLEAR PROCEDURE 
        	HCOB  7 July 1960  THE ASSESSMENT OF HELP

	Run on charged terminals. (Also: Dynamic Assessment of Help, HCOB 
7 July 60 The Assessment of Help. Do an assessment on helping the Dynamics, 
finding the Dynamic on which helping is the least real to the pc, run help on it.)
	
F1. 	“How could a _____ help you?”
			TO EP	_________
	
F2. 	“How could you help a _____?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“How could a _____ help others?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“If you were a _____ how could you help yourself?”
			TO EP	_________

REGIMEN TWO:
Ref: HCOB 26 Aug 1960  REGIMEN TWO 

F1. 	“What motion has helped you?”
	“What motion has not helped you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2.	“What motion have you helped?”
	“What motion have you not helped?”
			TO EP	_________
F3. 	“What motion has helped others?”
	“What motion has not helped others?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What motion have you helped yourself with?”
	“What motion have you not helped yourself with?”
			TO EP	_________

FORMULA 20:
Ref: HCOB 2 Mar 1961  FORMULA 20
	
F1. 	“Who has failed to control you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Who have you failed to control?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Who have others failed to control?”
			TO EP	_________

F-0.	“How have you failed to control yourself?”
			TO EP	_________

	ALSO: 

F1. 	“What has failed to controi you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“What have you failed to control?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What have others failed to control?”
			TO EP	_________

F0. 	“What have you failed to control in yourself?”
			TO EP	_________

	ALSO:		

F1. 	“Who has helped you?”	
			TO EP	_________
	
F2. 	“Who have you helped?”	
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Who has helped others?”	
			TO EP	_________

F0. 	“How have you helped yourself?”	
			TO EP	_________

INVENT PROBLEMS PROCESS:
Ref: HCOB 11 Jan 1959  AN AMUSINGLY EFFECTIVE PROCESS

	Fill in the blank with pc’s worry or malady. Several different items can be 
run; in turn. 

F1. 	“Invent a problem you could have with another for which _____ is the 
	answer.” 
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Invent a problem another could have with you for which _____ is the 
	answer.” 
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Invent a problem another could have with others for which _____ is the 
	answer”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“Invent a problem you could have with yourself for which _____ is the 
	answer.”	
			TO EP	_________

HAS V:
Ref:  HCOB 19 Jan 1961  ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES

F1.	“Get the idea of solving a problem.”
	“Get the idea of not solving a problem.”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Get the idea of another solving a problem.”
	“Get the idea of another not solving a problem.”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Get the idea of others solving a problem.” 
	“Get the idea of others not solving a problem.”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“Get the idea of you solving a problem of your own.”
	“Get the idea of you not solving a problem of your own.”
			TO EP	_________

	The Case Supervisor may add a terminal if the pc complains about lots of 
problems with that terminal.  The commands used would be:

F1.	“Get the idea of solving a problem with (terminal).” 
	“Get the idea of not solving a problem with (terminal).” 
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Get the idea of (terminal) solving a problem with.you.” 
	“Get the idea of (terminal) not solving a problem with you.”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Get the idea of (terminal) solving a problem with others.” 
	“Get the idea of (terminal) not solving a problem with others.”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“Get the idea of solving a problem you gave yourself about (terminal).”
	“Get the idea of not solving a problem you gave yourself about (terminal).”
			TO EP	_________

PRORLEMS PROCESSES FOR PTPs:
Ref: HCOB 16 Dec 1957  PRESENT TIME PROBLEM 
Run on key charged terminal in PTP.

F1. 	“Invent something worse than_____.” 
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Invent something worse for _____ than you.”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Invent something worse for others than _____”
			TO EP	_________
F0.	“Invent something worse for yourself than _____”
			TO EP	_________

	ALSO RUN:	

1. 	“Spot where (key terminal in PTP) is now.” 
	“Spot where you are now.”
			RUN ALTERNATELY TO EP	_________

	PROBLEM OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE:
	Ref: HCOB 16 Dec 1957  PRESENT TIME PROBLEM 
	        HCOB  1 Mar 1958  PROBLEM OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE 

	Run on key charged terminal of problem.

F1. 	“Invent a problem that is of comparable magnitude to _____”
	“How could that be a problem to you?”

	NOTE: The above question can be omitted only if the pc tells you how it 
could be a problem in answering the first question. 

	“Can you conceive yourself figuring on that?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Invent a problem that is of comparable magnitude to you for _____”
	“How could that be a problem to _____?”
	“Can you conceive _____ figuring on that?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Invent a problem that is of comparable magnitude to _____ for others.”
	“How could that be a problem to others?”
	“Can you conceive _____ figuring on that?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“Invent a problem that is of comparable magnitude to _____ for you.”
	“How could that be a problem to you?”
	“Can you conceive yourself figuring on that?”
			TO EP	_________

	31 MAR 60 PROBLEMS PROCESS:
	Ref: HCOB 31 Mar 1960  THE PTP

F1. 	“What problem could you confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“What problem could another confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What problem could others confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What problem about yourself could you confront?”
			TO EP	_________

	ALSO:

F1.	“Tell me a problem with another.”
	“what part of that problem have you been responsible for?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Tell me a problem of another with you.” 
	“What part of that problem has another been responsible for?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Tell me a problem of others with others.”
	“What part of that problem have others been responsible for?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“Tell me a problem with yourself.”
	“What part of that problem have you been responsible for?”
			TO EP	_________

	ALSO: 

F1. 	“What two things can you confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“What two things can another confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What two things can others confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What two things about yourself can you confront?”
			TO EP	_________

	ROUTINE 1A PROBLEMS PROCESS:
	Ref: HCOB 6 July 1961 ROUTINE 1A

F1. 	“What problem could you confront?”
	“What problem don’t you have to confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“What problem could another confront?”
	“What problem wouldn’t another confront?’
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What problem could others confront?”
	“What problem wouldn’t others confront?’
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What problem about yourself could you confront?”
	“What problem about yourself don’t you have to confront?”
			TO EP	_________

	On Flow Two the command may be “What problem could another confront” 
which ever checks out on meter.

	SOLUTION TO SOLUTIONS:	
	Ref: HCOB 3 May 1959  SOLUTION TO SOLUTIONS

F1. 	“What solution could you make stick?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“What solution could another make stick?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What solution could others make stick?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What solution about yourself could you make stick?”
			TO EP	_________

	R2-20 USE OF PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
	Ref:  CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY

	Have pc pick out or pick up room object, have him examine this object until 
he is sure it is real.

F1. 	“What problems could this object be to you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“What problems could this object be to another?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What problems could this object be to others?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What problem have you caused yourself over _____?”
			TO EP	_________

	On each flow the Command is run repetitively until pc is convinced that he 
can create problems at will.

	PROBLEMS INTENSIVE:
	Ref: HCOB 27 Sept 62  PROBLEMS INTENSIVE USE 
	and  TAPE 6110C11 SH Spec 65  PROBLEMS INTENSIVE 
	and  BTB    10 Apr  72  PREPCHECKS 
	and  HCOB 30 July 62  A SMOOTH HGC 25 HR INTENSIVE

 	(a) Pc gives all self determined changes he made this lixetime. (Only self 
determined major changes.)

	“What self determined changes have you made this life?”

	You can vary the question to get all different angles of changes. (per tape 
Problems Intensives.)
	(b) Take the biggest reading change and ask when the prior confusion was.

	(c)  Auditor predates the time of the prior confusion by a month.

	(d) Auditor Prepchecks - “Since _____ (date in stop c) has anything been 
	      (button)?”
			TO EP	_________

	LEVEL ONE QUAD :

	Run 2nd command to bleed all charge off 1st answer.

F1. 	“What problem have you had with someone?” 
	“What solutions have you had for that problem?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“What problem has another had with you?”
	“What solutions has another had for that problem?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What problem has someone had with another?”
	“What solutions have they had for that problem?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What problem have you caused yourself?”
	“What solution have you had for that problem?”
			TO EP	_________

	HAVINGNESS:

1H-F1	Point out something desirable.
			TO EP	_________

1H-F2	Point out something another would find desirable.
			TO EP	_________

1H-F3	Point out something another could get others to desire.
			TO EP	_________

1H-F0	Point out something you would find desirable.
			TO EP	_________

Revised and Re-issued as
BTB by FMO 1234
I/C:  CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd:  Molly Harlow

Revised by
FMO 1689 I/C
for Training and Services Aide

Approved by Snr C/S Flag
and CS-5
and LRH Pers Comm

Authorised by
AVU

for the 
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:DM:KU:JE:DM:JG:PD:MH:AL:dr
Copyright © 1972, 1974, 1976
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MARCH 1974
Remimeo

TWC CHECKSHEETS
TWC, USING WRONG QUESTIONS

Two Way Comm is not an art. It is a science which has exact rules.

Foremost in the rules is:

DON’T USE A LISTING QUESTION IN TWO WAY COMM.

By a “listing question” is meant any question which directly or indirectly calls for items in the pc’s answer.

Use of “who”, “what”, “which” instantly turns a TWC into a listing question.

Listing questions are governed by the rules of Listing and Nulling.

If you use a listing question accidentally in TWC you can get the same bad reactions from a pc that you would get on a wrongly done list.

The reason for pc upsets in TWC is hidden as it is not apparently a listing process, rarely gets the correction a bad list would get.

Asking “who” or “what” or “which” during a TWC after the main question can also turn it into a Listing and Nulling process.

TWC questions MUST be limited to feelings, reactions, significances. They must NEVER ask for terminals or locations.

EXAMPLE: “Who upset you?” in TWC causes the pc to give items. This is a LIST. “What are you upset about?” does the same thing. “Which town were you happiest in?” is also a LISTING question NOT a TWC question. Any of these results in the pc giving items. They are not then nulled or correctly indicated. The pc can get VERY upset just as he would with a wrong list. Yet the session is not a “listing session” so never gets corrected.

EXAMPLE: “How are you doing lately?” is an example of a correct TWC question. It gets off charge and gets no list items. “Are you better these days than you used to be?” “How have you been since the last session?”

“What happened” is different than “What illness”, “What person”, “What town” which are listing questions.

REPAIR

When other things fail to locate the upset of a pc look into TWC processes in the folder and treat them as L&N processes where the pc has answered with items. The relief is magical.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: ntm.rd 	
Copyright © 1974 	
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JULY 1970

Remimeo
C/S Series 14

C/Sing 2 WAY COMM

The C/S is liable to make most of his C/S errors in C/Sing 2 Way Comm.

The reasons for this are

1. 	2 way comm IS auditing.

2. 	The errors that can be made in any auditing can be made in 2 way comm;

3. 	Untrained or poorly trained auditors do not always respect 2 way comm as auditing.

4. 	Errors in 2 way comm become masked since the procedure is loose.

5. 	Earlier C/Ses on the case may have missed the easily missed 2 way comm errors.

RULES OF C/Sing 2 WAY COMM

A. 	The C/S must recognize that 2 way comm is auditing. Therefore it follows all the rules of auditing.

B. 	Any error that occurs in other auditing can occur in 2 way comm auditing. Errors in a 2 way comm session must be carefully looked for as they easily can be masked in the worksheet.

C. 	Auditors must be persuaded by the C/S to make notation of auditing essentials in 2 way comm as of senior importance to pc’s text (which is also made note of in the W/S).

D. 	The questions asked in 2 way comm can be very incorrect just as rote processes can be.

E. 	An auditor must be trained as a 2 way comm auditor (Class II). Otherwise he will Evaluate, Q and A and commit other faults.

F. 	If an ARC Break occurs early in a 2 way comm session and is not handled as such the rest of the session is audited over an ARC Break and can put a pc into a sad effect.

G. 	A pc with a PT problem not being handled in the 2 way comm will get no gain.

H. 	A pc with a W/H in a 2 way comm session will become critical, nattery and/or get a dirty needle.

I. 	Two way comm processes must be flattened to F/N. If an F/N doesn’t occur then the subject didn’t read in the first place or the auditor Qed and Aed or evaluated or changed the subject or the TRs were out or the pc’s ruds were out.

J. 	A two way comm subject chosen must be tested for read in that session before being used for 2 way comm.

 K. 	Improper 2 way comm questions can plunge the pc into an out rud situation not then handled. “Is anything upsetting you?” or any mention of upsets by the auditor is the same as asking for an ARC Break. “Has anything been troubling— worrying you lately?” is the same as asking for a PTP. “Who aren’t you talking to?” is asking for W/Hs.

L. 	The subject of major processes should be kept out of 2 way comm C/Ses, auditors’ questions and 2 way comm assessment lists (ARC Brks, Problems, overts, changes or any major auditing subject, as they are too heavy, being the buttons of the bank).

M. 	The C/S should only let Class II or above auditors do 2 way comm sessions.

N. 	A rud going out in a two way comm session must be put in by the auditor.

O. 	A 2 way comm session should end in an F/N.

P. 	Auditors whose 2 way comm sessions do not end in F/N must be taught to check the subject for read before using, not to Q and A, not to Evaluate and given a refresher on 2 way comm tapes and HCO Bs.

Q. 	In a 2 way comm session that flubs the C/S must be careful to isolate the errors just as in any other auditing session that flubs and put them right.

R. 	A 2 way comm subject that reads on test and doesn’t F/N on 2 way comm must be checked for O/R (if TA went up) and rehabbed by the 1965 Rehab method, or Prepchecked or just continued.

-------------

The whole point to all of this is that a 2 way comm session IS auditing. It is delivered by the auditor, C/Sed and remedied like any other session.

Also it is usually being run on a delicate pc who is more affected by errors than pcs being given other processes.

                                       	L. RON HUBBARD
                                       	Founder
LRH: sb.rd 
Copyright © 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JULY 1960

Fran Hldrs
THE ASSESSMENT OF HELP

You should realize at this stage that we are still feeling around for the most adequate and fastest method of running HELP. Everything which has been given to you thus far is near the mark, and pre-sessioning, model session and flattening help are right on the mark. However there are certain things that make auditors unhappy with running help. Chief amongst these is the fact that it is a tremendously restimulative process when one has not had any run. This means that we had better get the staff theta clearing course or staff co-auditing going fast on a supervised basis.

The second thing is that help does not flatten very easily on a late specific terminal. Of course, this is true of all processes. But help is a peculiar process and is slower on late terminals than other buttons, and here is why.

Help resolves cases because it is the basis of all association, and as you know association leads to identification. And identification is the basis of all mental upsets. The action of help is not aberrative. The failure to help is what does it, or the lack of things to help. However all valences and all identification stem from this button and no other. Now do lights dawn and bells ring? Help is the button which, if run, settles all difficulties with association and identification and all problems of beingness.

Thus there is something peculiar about help which is not true of any other button. Any help run is a gain even (Gawdelpus) if it is left wholly bogged with a half hour comm lag. All bits of help run are chewing away at all tangles of identification. So chew away and to the Dickens with it. Any help run is better than no help run. And because the PC is a bundle of aberrated identifications, any help run untangles some of him. And any help run on any terminal tends to “get at” any other terminal.

So that’s why help run in any old way will sooner or later make the grade. But this is no reason to believe there are not also smart ways to run help.

Any late specific terminal, being so confounded far from basic-basic on the time track, runs tough and endlessly. Therefore as always it is better to run general terminals than to run specific terminals. However in the case of a PTP you can go ahead if you have to and run help on the PTP personnel, but as soon as the edge is off the PTP for Heaven’s sakes shift to the general form of the specific terminals you have been running, and flatten those a lot or a little.

Keep a very close record of what you have run on help as the only precaution you have to take, and when the PC is running toward mest clear check back with help on these terminals and make sure they are flat. When a lot of help has been run on basic material then of course you will find that what ran very arduously before will now run much better. It is almost a waste of time to run specific terminals, but still you must run things that are real to the PC, and if only yesterday was real to him then you are stuck with running the PC on later terminals or even specific terminals.

A much faster way to run help than by sorting out real terminals on an E-Meter (which is still necessary sometimes) is to do an assessment on the PC using help and the dynamics, and finding a button that is entirely off dynamic and that the PC can’t imagine helping. This is a trigger to a case. Unusual results happen very fast.

Another way to go about this is a simple questioning of the PC on the subject of his dislikes. Watch the meter and when you get a silly reaction on a dislike, like a rock slam or a heavy drop or a sudden theta bop, then pick this out, make a general form out of it that registers like the first mention, and run that on the PC. This is a rather loose and sometimes misleading assessment. But remember that all help run leads to untangling all buttons and so it is a perfectly good approach, and as the PC gets run on something he is awful darn sure he ought to be run on he is often very happy and co-operative in this. Whereas on a dynamic assessment he is made intensely curious as he didn’t know he was aberrated on what you found out. In other words just asking the PC what is wrong with him, getting it into a general form that registers on the meter and running Help O/W or concept help on it, is good reasonably fast processing. It is better than assessing for just a terminal that drops or for a specific late terminal that drops.

As a comment it should be noted that help is the last thing that folds up in the dwindling spiral of aberration. About the first thing that folds up is interest. But when it is gone there are still three buttons left on which the person can function. The next one to go is communication. This becomes a contest of overts as in the ARC breaky case. Anybody below this lives his or her life this way. The next one to vanish is control. So don’t be surprised to find somebody around who does plenty of overts and who can’t stand control who can yet be run on help and who can still function in life. When interest, communication, control and help are gone, that’s it. You haven’t got a person left. So beware people who are below help. Beware of them in living. But in auditing when you can’t get HELP to bite at all (and if he can talk to you you can get help to bite) you have nothing left but the CCHs. You can make it on them too but with tremendous investment in hours. And when you’ve got the CCHs flat then you can start running help.

But as I said above I have not yet been able to say the PERFECT way of running help. I am still investigating it like mad and am giving you all the gen as it comes visible. However have patience with me. I have learned that people not only have it twisted a bit, they’ve got it shattered, and that’s the majority of people. So we’re in there slugging away and we’re making clears, and if I get hold of any faster ways to do you’ll be the first to get the gen.

LRH:js.cden							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N

30 MAY 1960
REISSUED 23 JULY 1974 AS BTB
All Auditors
CANCELS 
HCO BULLETIN OF 30 MAY 1960
SAME TITLE

DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT ON HELP

Marilynn Routsong has written the following on how to do a Dynamic Assessment on Help after observing a demonstration by Ron:

Once you have a preclear well pre-sessioned, you are going to enter into a model seasion and run Help and run Help and run Help. Now there are lots of ways of running Help. One extremely valuable way is to clear Halp on the Dynamics. Recalling the rule on running terminals not conditions, you are going to run Help on terminals which he can’t help that have gone out of kilter on the Dynamics. In other words, the PC conceived at some time that he was unable to help a certain terminal and he has misaligned it on the Dynamics. He probably misplaced it to the Dynamic on whioh he felt there was some sort of help or some such - the misplacement will shake out in cognitions as it is being run.

To discover what terminal to run a Dynamic Assessment as follows:

In doing a Dynamic Assessment you are not actually auditing, but looking for a terminal to audit. However, you will be doing 2 way communioation and you will find things blowing off with 2 way comm, so some auditing will occur. If it does, fine! What you can resolve with 2 way communication, by all means, do so. You are looking for the terminal that 1. does not resolve with 2 way communication 2. the PC can conceive no way of helping the terminal, and 3. the terminal is misplaced on the Dynamics. Example - you’ve assessed and ended up with a fish (an actual 5th Dynamic terminal) which the PC cannot conceive of being able to help and which the PC, you discover on careful questioning, really thinks of as a sort of spiritual thing (7th Dynamic). Sounds odd? It is! You will stop being surprised after running a few on your own.

To do a Dynamic Assessment you are going to use an E-Meter. The lead in per the E-Meter is to ask the PC about Help on the various Dynamics. In other words, you put the PC on the E-Meter (model session) and ask him what he thinks about Help on the First Dynamic (or self or whatever terminology is necessary to get tbie idea of the First Dynamic across to the PC) - then you ask what thinks about Help on the Second Dynamic (appropriate terminology) then the Third, Fourth and so on across the Dynamics. As you are asking you observe the E-Meter. You are looking for a change in needle or Tone Arm pattern, as a clue to the misplaced terminal that he cannot help. Now note this - A RISING NEEDLE MEANS YOU HAVE TRIPPED THE TERMINAL YOU ARE LOOKING FOR AND HAVE MISSED IT (GONE PAST IT) AND ARE NOW ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION. To find the terminal again continue to go through the Dynamics as above until you get the one that stops the rise. Question closely on terminals on this Dynanic pertaining to help. Two way communication may clear it off - if so, fine! Or it may be a lock on the one you are looking for - in which case it would not quite fit the conditions of no help conceivable and Dynamically misplaced but there would be charge on it - ie. on a PC the rising needle stopped on Fourth Dynamic. PC was questioned on what he thought of a Fourth Dynamic - PC said people - all races of people. PC was asked about Help on these people - PC was then thinking about brown people and was thinking that Help to brown people always turned out wrong. (betray). However, note - in spite of change action on E-Meter and the fact that it stopped a rise, PC could conceive of trying to help brown people and it was on the right Dynamic - so you blow off on this what you can with 2 way communication, make a mental note that it is probably a lock on the terminal you are looking for.

Now, once you have assessed the Dynamic and in your questioning you have found a “No Help” terminal that is Dynamically misplaced you are going to run some form of Help on the terminal - in spite of the fact that the PC can’t conceive of helping it. Example - PC assessed and discovered to have “sun” on the Eighth Dynamic and he couldn’t conceive of helping a sun. PC was run on “Think of helping a sun” alternated with “Think of not helping a sun” (light form of Help O/W - the usual form of “How have you helped a sun?” “How have you not helped a sun?” would have taxed the PC heavily to answer).

You may expect, comm lags of course and also a sense of relief when the PC gets an answer, to say the least. You will also find the PC being very curious and interested in the terminal. You can expect somatics and the PC will run through bands of forgetfullness, propitiation, destroy, etc., all the way up to free (not compulsive) Help on these terminals. At this time you will find he has a null needle on Help on the terminal and the terminal will be on the correct Dynamic. If you are running a very specific terminal ( ie. PC’s mother, not a mother) the PC may run out of answers. If so, you assess per the E-Meter what the general terminal is for this specific one and run Help on the general one until the needle is null for that general terminal. At any rate, on any specific terminal you run, you also run the general terminal.

Now you may find several terminals that fit the category you are looking for. A bad off case wilI hang up on many or all Dynamics. Then it beoomee a matter of Auditor judgement which one to run. It would probably be best to run the one that shows the greatest action, on the E-Meter.

Let’s say now that you’ve found a terminal, and run it on Help until it is null (by the way, at this point you will find it on the correct Dynamic). The next thing you do is reassess the Dynamics all over again as before. You will find they all assess differently than before as you will have shifted the PC’s bank in running the former terminal. You find another terminal and run Help on it.

In the event you round more than one terminal in the first assessment, you do NOT go to a second terminal without reassessment. After running Help flat (null) on a terminal you always to a complete reassessment.

In doing an assessment you do not question the PC on the Dynamics with an auditing type question as you are not at this time trying to put the PC in session. Example - you would not ask “How could you help yourself?” This is an auditing question. You could say “How about Help on the First Dynamic?” (or other terminology denoting it) or “What do you think about Help on the First Dynamic?”. You just want the PC to be considering Help on these Dynamics. Got the idea? (Of course, once you have assessed the terminal you use an auditing command to run the terminal.)

You asssess, find a terminal he can’t conceive of helping that is Dynamically misplaced, run it null on Help, assess again, find it is null, reassess, and so on until the PC is null on Help across the dynamics and you can’t get a blip on the E-Meter on any sort of discussion of Help on any Dynamic, or any terminal on any Dynamic.

You would only do a Dynamic Assessment on Help once the PC has been well pre-sessioned and the Dynamic Assessment and running Help on the terminal as assessed would be run only in a model session. You are in effect running out failure to help. Failure to help is the basic of aberration. Out of failure to help stems compulsive Help, overt acts, Help - Betray, betrayals, criminality. So you see where you are taking your PC when you run out his failures to help. Yes, you are going to clear him.

Marilynn Routsong 
Org Sec Washington D.C. 
Revised & Reissued 
as BTB by Flag Mission 1234
Approved by the Board of Issues

for the
BDCS:SW:AL:MH:MR:mh	BOARDS OF DIRECTQRS
Copyright © 1960, 1974 	of the 
by L. Ron Hubbard 	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED