SHSBC 45


RUDIMENTS, VALENCES

A lecture given on 17 August 1961

Hello.
Okay, this is 17 August, AD 11 and I had a very nice lecture to give you
today; and I'm not kidding you. I had it all taped and was going to explain
to you all about valences. Instead of that, I'm going to rack up an overt
on auditors.
Because I've just caught you out. Man, have I caught you out. All summer
long we have had one god-awful problem. Why the hell can't you find a goal
on a pc. When it takes me one hour and fifteen minutes to find the goal and
the terminal and it takes Mary Sue about two and a half hours, why can't
you find a goal on a pc?
And now I know why. And I'm going to twirl my long black mustache and look
right down your throat.
There is a phenomenon - that an E-Meter ceases to register in the presence
of an out-rudiment. The E-Meter tone arm will cease to register on any
process you are running when a rudiment goes out. You can be fooled by
thinking a process is flat when actually all that is wrong is that you've
got a rudiment out. The tone arm will cease to move; the needle will cease
to move; everything will cease to move except the rudiment that is out -
that will move.
In other words, if you ask for the rudiment that was out, you'll get a
response on the needle. But all other things in the presence of an
out-rudiment do not move. Now, can you get that real clear?
All right, you've got Mr. Pc, and Mr. Pc is moving very well on the tone
arm and the needle is moving very well and suddenly the tone arm slows down
and stops, and it stays stopped for twenty minutes. So you say the process
is flat. Flat, my hat! A rudiment went out which caused the process no
longer to operate. The only thing which will now operate is the
out-rudiment.
Now, if you get the rudiment off that has gone wrong and you get that
rudiment in promptly and properly, the process will now pick up the motion
of the tone arm and will now, in addition to that, move the needle. You got
that now?
Now, don't make a mistake on this because this is the most important part
of auditing there can be. There is no more important part of auditing than
what I'm telling you right this minute.
A process can appear to be flat just because a rudiment's out. You're
running "How often have you failed to leave something?" And all of a
sudden, why, it's sitting there at 4.0 and it just sits there at 4.0 and it
just doesn't move. And then you say, "Well, that's the end of the process,
ha-ha!" Mmmmm. Rrrrff Aw, you had a rudiment out and the process appeared
to go flat and the process was not flat at all. And the only thing which
will now move the E-Meter is the out-rudiment.
You can find the rudiment, the rudiment now will operate, but it's the only
thing that'll operate the E-Meter. ARC break, present time problem,
something wrong in the environment - these various rudiments, you see, will
move the E-Meter. You flatten that with a rudiments process then you move
back over onto your process. And what do you know, this process that was so
flat, is not flat at all, but it wobbles the tone arm and it lets the
needle fly around and so forth, and there it is.
So, two things have been happening, and this will become more horrible to
you as I go along. I think very often auditors - not just here! I'm not
scolding you here. You're better supervised here than elsewhere - but I'm
talking about auditors elsewhere in other classes, in other areas, in HGCs
and so forth. Here's where your HGC Clears aren't getting made, right here
on this exact point I'm telling you.
These people are leaving Prehav level processes unflat on the pc. That's on
the running of it. Just because they get the rudiments out, then the Prehav
level looks unflat so they assess for a new level. Ah, but the old level
isn't flat, so, of course, the pc doesn't go anyplace. So they just grind
and then they not flatten the next level, you see, and then not flatten the
next level and then not flatten the next level and we just go on grind,
grind, grind, grind. Do you see what can happen here? You got that? Have
you really got that?
Audience:       Yes.
You really see this?
Audience:       Yes.
All right.
The same thing will happen on a Goals Assessment. And I think your
preclear's goals lies in the first hundred and fifty goals the pc gave you
and I think it is knocked out by an ARC break. And I think the pc's goal
has already been given to you, long ago, and now appears to be flat because
it's ARC broken out of existence by some technical flub. Them's hard words.
But I think I could take any person in this unit and in the matter of a few
minutes get the ARC break off by auditing off the auditor who is doing the
assessment and find in the first hundred and fifty or two hundred goals on
the list that one of those goals is still alive and is still sticking and
won't go out.
Interesting. I think I could do it with every person, not only here, but
Australia, America; anybody who's had trouble finding a goal. I think that
is it. I may be wrong because I've not put this immediately to test. I do
know that I could find your goals. But I am pretty sure this is the
phenomena that's getting in your road.
And you know what makes me sure? Because there is something - there is
something in the South African regimen of Goals Assessment that hasn't been
in any other unit or course. And what is it? I made sure that they had
every student there checking the rudiments on every other student's pc,
regularly and continuously. Isn't that right? And it aren't been done
since. So the answer must be rudiments. There is the one difference, and
that's why I think that is the difference. Follow me?
Seem logical?
Audience: Yes.
That if everybody, every twenty-four hours or something like that, was
getting rudiments checked by another auditor on his pc, and that they were
always finding them out, and that this isn't now being done anyplace - a
piece of the lineup has been knocked out.
If the Director of Processing of a Central Organization does not, every
single day, check the rudiments on every pc in the shop, he's a
knucklehead. Well, he's a friend of mine, but he's still a knucklehead.
Because, in the first place, the pc very often doesn't go live for the
auditor easily on the rudiment where he will go live for another person on
the rudiment.
And you can sit there and you can say to the pc, "Do you have an ARC break,
present time problem? Is it all right if I audit you?" and so forth. "Have
you got a withhold?" and so on. And they're all apparently null. And then
somebody else walks in on the thing and says, "You got a present time
problem, a withhold, an ARC break?" Ka-wooww! They're all live.
You should have seen Richard Halpern's face one day when I took one of his
pcs and found every rudiment falling off the pin. "But!" he said to me
plaintively. "But," he said to me, "I just checked those fifteen minutes
ago and they were all in." And it's true, he didn't get a fall on them
fifteen minutes before. Isn't that interesting?
All right, two auditors should always audit as a team. Auditors shouldn't
be out in the brush country of lower south Slobovia, upper north Manitowoc,
Wisconsin, auditing by themselves. Anyway, auditors ought to audit in
pairs. Wolves should run in packs, auditors should go in pairs. Oh, I
didn't mean there was any comparison between the two. I didn't say mice!
Anyway, auditing in pairs - should check the rudiments on each other's pcs,
every session. Sounds arduous, doesn't it? Sounds like an awful lot of
administration, doesn't it? Sounds like an awful lot of people falling over
an awful lot of chairs and so forth.
Well, actually you don't have to do it very formally in an auditing
session. You can almost lean the guy up against the mantlepiece, prop the
meter on the mantlepiece and say, "All right, take ahold of the cans. Now,
do you have an ARC break with your auditor? Do you have - been audited with
a present time problem? Is it all right if you're audited in that auditing
room? Do you have any withholds from the auditor or anybody else including
me?" And so forth. Fall. Fall. Fall.
Well, you don't do anything about them. You say, "Joe. Joe. Get on the
ball. The rudiments are out on your pc."
"Well, which one?"
"All of them."
"Oh, no!"
You know, that kind of response.
It's a new look. The soothing drone of the auditor's voice has not got the
PC into a super control where he mustn't be out of order. Get the idea?
That was in the South African lineup. And Jean, I'm sure, did it.
As a matter of fact, she had two cases that were banging her head in. And
she finally, herself in person, went in and they've been running null on
present time problems.
"Do you have a present time problem?"
"Oh, no, no, no.
And they did it all the weeks of the course. And she extended the course
over a week just to make sure that it was better. And she grabbed hold of
the meter on them and she found both of them had such fabulous present time
problems that each one of them broke down and wept the second she put her
finger on the present time problem.
Ah, they'd been audited. But she was saying Routine 1 does not work, you
see, and something else is going on here. We must be doing something, you
know? Yeah, they were running a Routine 1, but it should have been picked
up during the Security Checking. But it wasn't picked up in the rudiments
on the Security Check, don't you see? And so those people had actually gone
six and seven weeks without anybody probing in to find out if there was
something wrong with the PT problem. And there was something wrong with the
PT problem, and that comprised almost 50 percent of her class. Do I make an
impression on you?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Out of kindness to the pc and yourself, for heaven sakes, start
cross-checking rudiments. Ka-now! See? Start cross-checking rudiments. By
which I mean, get somebody else to check the rudiments on your pc. You
check them perfectly soundly and run your sessions just as before, but
always get somebody else to cross-check the rudiments on a pc. You got it?
And do it often; do it frequently! If not every session, at least every
couple of sessions, for heaven sakes. See?
Now, I'll tell you what you do with these endless goals lists. I could tell
you what you do in a colloquial marine fashion, but I'm not going to tell
you that.
You get you-self, the auditor, off of the case. That is to say you go on
auditing a case, but just get any charge that you may have built up on this
case with your Goals Assessment, off. Run yourself on the Prehav Scale. We
don't care how, see? In other words, get that - get that flat and then take
the original goals list. The original, and find out if any of them are
still alive and work it over and find out if there's been an ARC break
around any of these goals and so forth. Get slippy about it. I'm tired of
giving you a mechanical robot activity, it's time you graduated up into
body class Il - half human, half robot. Okay?
Now, let's just work over that original list and let's find out what is
there.
You know, I know at least one person who probably is spooked because Mary
Sue, operating I think with another auditor, shook that down in a part of
an afternoon. And I think this pc doesn't trust his goal or terminal,
because it was that easy, it was that fast, you see? It was that quick. And
everybody else takes so long. Well, of course, it must be something wrong
with that particular terminal and goal. No, there's nothing wrong with that
terminal and goal, nothing at all. They were running just dandy.
There might be an unflat level someplace on the past run, but that would be
about the only thing. Actually, a past run has been a little bit lengthy,
so I would suspect there was a rudiment out on the run not on the
assessment, and I'd check that over very carefully. But get your rudiments
checked. Get your rudiments checked well, get them crisscrossed, get
somebody else to check the rudiments on your pc and that's going to speed
up all this nonsense about assessment. And don't be so anxious to rub out
goals. You're trying to find a goal, you're not trying to erase all the
fellow's goals.
Now, it doesn't take very long to find a goal on a pc. Just disabuse
yourself from that - it just doesn't. Williams was almost staggered into
the - . Who was the - the wife - the wife of Lot that went into a pillar of
salt out of frozen shock from watching Sodom and Gomorrah go boom, or
something. I've forgotten. It's some fairy tale. And anyway, he turned in -
he went to Australia and he started his course and everything was running
all along, and he practically turned into a pillar of salt from shock at
the length of time it was taking these goals to be assessed. Because it
never happened to him in Aus - in South Africa. Well, I was riding him
awful close. And we were - and that was the missing factor, and I'm sure it
hasn't been done since.
The American ACC managed to go all the way its length with tremendous gains
- tremendous gains. A great deal of instruction took place, everything was
fine, all the students happy, and without one single goal being found in
six weeks. A record, man! Well, they weren't cross-checking rudiments,
that's for sure.
So, put that in as part of your auditing rundown, because it is a missing
piece. When we had all these gains and got all this stuff whizzing and
going down in South Africa here in this spring, that was part of the
rundown - is everybody was checking everybody else's rudiments. Isn't that
right? How often did they do it?
Female voice: We did it every two days.
Every two days they checked the other fellow's pc's rudiments. I'm sure it
hasn't been done since.
You get these little tiny pieces of stuff that get left out of the pudding,
you know? It's a beautiful pudding - it's a beautiful pudding except nobody
put any yeast in it or anything. See, it just lies there like a pancake.
All right, that was part of the rundown. Rudiments out means Goals
Assessment not done.
Now, I've given you some other tricky ways of getting around Goals
Assessment. There's a lot of - this hasn't been in vain by a long ways
because you've learned a lot of tricky ways of getting goals and all that
sort of thing. You know more about that now and I've had to dig up a lot
more about that and that's had to be articulated from one end to the other.
But I am sure, just as sure as I'm sitting here and just as sure as there's
a body in this chair - I'm pretty sure of that - that it is simply a matter
of you get the rudiments out maybe on one or two goals. Just as slightly as
that, you see? You're going on down the line erasing goals and you get the
rudiments out on a goal and then out on another goal, and maybe one of
those goals was it. You see? And you get the rudiments out. And then maybe
on the remainder of the list, why, of course, they all null with a great
speed because the pc is chopped up or ARC broke or got a PT problem. You've
got in other words, an inoperative E-Meter on the subject of goals. It'd be
very operative on the subject of rudiments but it's very inoperative on the
subject of goals.
Now, if this isn't correct and if this doesn't bear fruit, I will find out
why. Don't worry. But I'm pretty sure that this is it. And what makes me
sure is it is the one piece of stuff that was missing from the South
African course. That was missing. And it's now missing here at Saint Hill.
And it's now missing in Australia, I'm sure. And it certainly was missing
over in Washington, I am sure. See? It's the missing item. Somebody else
looking over your shoulder and checking the rudiments on the pc
repetitively and often, making sure that those things are in. Okay?
You have a whiz at it here. And you go back over that goals list that was
first given to you, or that you first got, and you cover that list again
after you have gotten any possibility of an ARC break off or a present time
problem off or anything else off or any anxiety off or having - finding
one's goal as a present time problem off. You got it? Just get all of those
things straight, as straight, as straight, as straight, even if you have to
run yourself on the Prehav Scale, don't you see, on - off the pc. And I'm
sure that you're going to find the goal was in the first couple of hundred.
You hear me?
All right, I'm pretty sure this is the case because, you see, I'm not
having the trouble you're having in finding goals and terminals. I'm just
not having this trouble and it's just something that has got me saying,
"What? How? How are they managing this? What has entered into this?"
Well, now here's another oddity: I get goals and terminals without checking
the rudiments. Hm! You've seen me do it - repetitively. But you can assign
that to altitude, because I'm in no uncertain toned voice when I'm getting
off goals and terminals. "Is it this, is it that, is it the other thing?"
You know, bang, bang, bang-bang-bang-bang, so on. There's a great deal of
certainty concerning this. And also it doesn't seem to be very important. I
don't make it very important. But I've even said to the fellow, "Well, do
you have ARC breaks and that sort of thing?"
And the guy said, "Oh, yes, yes, yeah, yeah."
"Do you have any overts on me?"
"Oh, yes, something like that."
"Well, skip it."
So, that is an invalidative part of this analysis. But I think if you look
this over very, very carefully, I think you will find that that will
deliver into your paws. I think you have slid over the goal and I think,
long since, it's in the background. Because you're also doing something
else which is wrong, as wrong, as wrong. You are asking for more goals
before you go over the goals list at the beginning of every session, see?
I never want any more goals off the pc. I got enough after he's given me -
after I've gotten writer's cramp writing fifty or sixty of the things: I
got enough goals. It's almost by postulate one of those is going to be it,
you know? I should be careful saying that because you'll think I mean it.
But I just sort of look him over, you know, and, "Hm-hm-hm. One of these is
it. One of these is it. Must be."
But then, there is this factor: is I've actually never known a pc to lie to
me. When I ask them for something, they deliver. See, which is all I mean
by altitude.
I say, "What were your childhood goals?"
"Burrhm."
"Thank you."
"Burrhm."
"Thank you."
"Burrhm."
"Thank you."
"Burrhm."
"Thank you. All right, that's good. Now, what are your antisocial goals?
You know, like burning down the town or something like this."
"Burrhm."
"Thank you."
"Burrhm."
"Thank you."
"Burrhm."
"Thank you. All right. Now, what artistic professional goals did you ever
have?"
"Well, Burrhm."
"That's it."
"Burrhp."
"That's it. Oh, that's enough, to hell with the rest of them."
I don't want him to have an artistic goal anyhow. And then I say, "All
right. Now, what withheld goals do you have that you just wouldn't ever
dare tell anybody about?"
"Burrhm."
"Thank you."
"Burrhm."
"Thank you."
"Burrhm."
"Thank you."
I wind up with a list of thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty -
something of this character. That's it, I don't look over more goals.
Now, the difference is that because everybody was chewed away from this we
had more methodology invented than was actually being employed originally
on Goals Assessments. And the original Goals Assessment, it was quite odd
that the one goal you made fall there actually will continue to fall.
That's quite a discovery, but it's true. But you don't even have to do it.
There's one goal there going to fall more than the rest of them, and
that'll continue to fall unless you get an ARC break in the road. You
understand?
Of course, this thing - altitude is one factor, but only one factor of
holding a pc in session while you are doing a Goals Assessment. And you can
hold him in session like he felt he was cast in concrete, you know? It just
doesn't ever occur to him to have a present time problem or an ARC break.
That's about the - that's the real secret of auditing.
If you yourself are sufficiently matter of fact, sufficiently relaxed,
sufficiently in control of the situation and know your business well
enough, there is never any doubt enters your pc's mind from one end of the
session to the other but what he should be sitting there getting audited.
But if there's a bunch of doubts around, then you've got to keep your
rudiments clean, clean, clean.
So just as they have a large forty-seven foot wastebasket at Times Square;
it's "cast your ballot here for a clean New York" - I think that's awfully
cute - forty-seven foot wastebasket. That's just what Times Square wants. I
can see it now. It was so outrageous that a bunch of businessmen have now
chipped in to make a park and a grass plot and so forth there, and so on.
But just with that type of corny, corny, corny advertising we should hang
up little signs all over HGCs and classes and so forth: "Keep your
rudiments clean for a Clear." Pretty corny, but it's true.
Now, the amount of importance which you are giving an assessment is quite
interesting. But a person can be assessed straight through to Clear by
Assessment by Elimination, providing the rudiments are all in. If you use
the other data which I have now dug up and given you. That is, get all the
not-knows out about it and find out why he had the goal and so forth.
Another - another side of the coin - an entirely different side of the
coin.
Okay? You had enough hell for one day? You mean you haven't?
Female voice: Did you say hell or help?
Just hell.
Go back over and check it, and I think you'll find it's true, that your
pc's goal long - occurred a long time ago for running. I think so. This
would be the only way that you possibly have missed somewhere.
There's the other road and the other road is you can assess a pc straight
through to Clear. You get rid of all of his goals, he comes out at the
other end; you get rid of all of his terminals and so forth, and he comes
out at the other end and that's, that's it. That can happen, too.
Apparently, they're practically two different processes.
And now I will give you the lecture I was going to give you today. All
right?
Audience: Hm-hm.
Well, this is an important lecture. It summates the findings of a great
many of years and particularly a great many of the findings of this summer.
And the name of this lecture is "Valences." And I should start it with a
definition of a valence.
There are several types of valences. In some other old PAB you'll find them
classified into various types. But a valence is a synthetic beingness, at
best, or it is a beingness - what the pc is not but is pretending to be or
thinks he is.
Now, that beingness could have been created for him by a duplication of an
existing beingness or a synthetic, which was a proper term, beingness built
up by the descriptions of somebody else. That just as Horatio Alger, Jr.
built up a synthetic beingness called "Local Boy Makes Good by Hanging on
the Coattails of Rich Man" (which was his total motif), a synthetic
beingness could be created which everybody would believe in and try to
become. Or, Mama can run Papa down so continuously that Junior never, under
any circumstances, ever meets Papa or sees Papa but becomes the synthetic
beingness of Papa. All of which is an interesting thing.
One of the basics of this, by the way, is the first lecture of the first
congress I ever gave in England. That - there's a tape on this. It's what
you think the other fellow is, not what he is, that is the other fellow's -
your trouble with the other fellow.
Now, this is a valence. A valence is, then, an artificial beingness of some
kind or another. But with that we don't have, factually, "own valence."
There is no such thing as one's own valence. This was thrashed out in 1950
and went loose through the middle of the fifties and people refer to it,
and I may have even said it a few times - his own valence so forth. But it
is not correct - it is just not correct. Because a person's own valence is
silliness. That is a silly statement, because a person is himself or in a
valence. You see, it's one or the other. He is either himself or in a
valence.
Now, a valence is a package. And one of the earliest observations
concerning this when I started to come to grips with this thing we now call
a profile or a graph, I analyzed it from all sides and came to just one
conclusion regarding it. And that is that it was a picture of a valence and
that is all that graph is - it's a picture of a valence. And any change
that you got on a pc was because you shifted his valence.
Now, you've already read that years ago. It's an old datum but now it
merges up into first order of importance. Pardon me, it shoulders its way
up through other data to stand on top as a king-of-the-mountain datum.
That's a picture of a valence and you're never going to get another picture
until you've done something about valences on the person. And this boils
down to this didactic statement which can now be made, which makes this a
very important lecture: The pc will not gain in any way, shape or form
through any effort to alter the characteristics of a valence.
Swallow that one, because it's a very important statement and it's a very
factual statement. A pc will not change in any way by reason of processes
which seek to alter the characteristics of the valence he is in.
He's in the valence of an ogre. All right, you're going to change the
characteristics of the ogre and this is going to make a better pc. No-no.
No-no, no-no. The pc will alter only if you change the valence as a whole
package.
And why is this? It's because the pc cannot take any responsibility
whatsoever for any of the package of characteristics known as a valence.
They are somebody else's. And he takes no responsibility for any of these
now-I'm-supposed-to's that go and make up this package called a valence.
A streetcar conductor, of course, as a valence, has a number of
now-I'm-supposed-to's, right? There he is ding-donging up and down the
line, letting on the passengers and taking first crack at the nickels and
sixpences. And after that the company gets what's left. And whatever it is
that the streetcar conductor is doing, he's got a now-I'm-supposed-to. He's
supposed to get up in the morning; he is supposed to go to work; he is
supposed to see the passengers on and off; and he is supposed to collect
the fares and make change. You see, now-I'm-supposed-to's,
now-I'm-supposed-to's. He's supposed to wear a cap; he's supposed to wear a
uniform. You get the idea? I am supposed to, I am supposed to, I am
supposed to.
All right. Now, somebody gets into the valence of a streetcar conductor and
all of these now-I'm-supposed-to's, are now the now-I'm-supposed-to's of a
streetcar conductor, they're not anything that can be touched or reached by
the person. All the person could reach is the knowingness or identity
called a streetcar conductor.
Now, let's get down and find out what use does a thetan make of a valence.
This is the only use he makes of a valence. Survival. The road out. The
modus operandi of getting on in life surmounted by knowingness. Valence is
a solid knowingness; a body is a solid knowingness.
You see a streetcar conductor, you "know" he is a streetcar conductor, so
therefore all valences are knowingnesses. They're an effort to get somebody
else to "know" that you're there and efforts to get somebody else to
"recognize" something. And therefore they are a road out. They are a road
out of unwanted areas.
This fellow is slogging around in the mud firing off Mannlichers, Lebels,
Lee-Enfields, Springfields, Garand Mark-1s or whatever other asinine thing
the infantry is supposed to do. And just as he catches the trench mortar in
the midriff, he discovers he does not want to be there. He is in the wrong
valence called "a soldier." Wrong valence. That knowingness is now
invalidated, it must become a "not knowingness." So he exteriorizes and he
says the only way to fight a war is as a general. Obvious, isn't it? So his
next lifetime he's going be a general.
I'll give you a big joke on me with regard to this sort of thing. I always
said that in the event of another war, I'd be a war correspondent. I'd be
sitting there with a blonde on each knee and a bottle of whiskey in front
of me and a typewriter - real tough picture, you know? I used to tell my
friends this around New York City. And I'd - we'd hear the horns go and
then I would lean over and say, "Sit over on the settee a moment, honey."
And I would pound out on the typewriter, "Our brave boys, today, went over
the top," you see, and put it on the wires to Associated Press. But some of
my friends had bad luck in the Ethiopian - ha - war and so on. So, when the
war came along I didn't do that. But nevertheless, that's just an example.
You know, the trench mortar catches him in the midriff and he says, "In the
next war," he says, "I had better be a war correspondent because the last
war correspondent I saw was in that nice thick dugout eight miles to the
rear of the front lines." You got the idea? He says, "That's the thing to
be," you see? ''That's dandy."
So the next war comes along, and he tries to be this thing and he can't be
this thing, so he's very unhappy about the whole thing. He can't be this
war correspondent but he tries. And how he will go on a long cycle of
tryingnesses if this is really one of these plowed-in sort of valence
pictures, not as - not just a joke as mine was. And he's trying like mad
and he'll go war after war, you know, life after life, and somehow or
another he'll eventually familiarize himself enough with the tools of the
trade. And sure enough a war comes along. And so help me Pete he gets to
sit in this dugout and pound out this deathless line, "Our brave boys,
today, went over the top," see, while he's sitting there.
All right, that's fine. That's fine. He goes along like that; is very
successful. Time goes on, you see? And they have run out of war criminals
by a few lifetimes later, you see? They've run out of war criminals
utterly. They've hanged everybody, you see? And they find out they can no
longer charge presidents, ki