Thank you.

Well, this is the demonstration period, 12 November, First Melbourne ACC. Now, let's see. What will I do to you?

Thank you very much! Before I… have you got it today? This is what, 13th November... 12th, thank you! You know, you are so close to the international dateline, you keep loosing date.

Who wants to be a victim?

Ok, 12th of November, first Melbourne ACC, first lecture. And this lecture, this one you are not gonna forget for some time! I am even having a bad time trying to get needles and tone arm and so forth, haven’t you? All right, have you got a reality now that there is a little jam-de-di-jam? Hm? [“Yes!”] There’s something to be known about this? Is that right? Do you think there is maybe, maybe something more to be known about this? Yes, do you think so?

Female voice: I do.

All right, today I am going to talk to you about the Rule of the Weak Valence. And that is highly technical and that is something very, very new. It hasn’t appeared before but you find the foreshadows of it in Dianetics, Modern Science of Mental Health under “allies”. And that’s the first shadow of this, it’s the Rule of the Weak Valence.

Aw, look at those — look at those hands go up there. I'm sure all the cases in the room that are ripe just put their hands up.

Now let’s take a look at the communication formula, which is cause-distance-effect. Cause is source point. Cause is source point. Effect is receipt point. Right? [“Yes!”]

Well, we wouldn't want any case that was originating to that degree. Let's see, who's originated the least? Who has originated the least here? Yeah, let's see. Everybody's quaking in his boots now. I got practically everybody.

Now that gets confused in people’s minds with the cycle of action. So any cause point can be confused with a creation point. Right? And any effect point can be confused with a destroyed or destruction point. Right? But basically all cases are hung up on their overts not on their motivators. That which he had done on any and all dynamics which you considered discreditable, is what hung you up. And that is a cup full of catchoo. That, that’s a hard one to front up to. It’s so hard to front up to, that people don’t blow clear, slush! Because they’ll tell you consistently that it was what happened to them that counted.

Frank. Now, somebody hand me an E-Meter. LRH: Now what we're interested in here Frank, is simply giving a demonstration — sit down — of how you do an assessment on ... This is an assessment on straight — Dynamic Straightwire type of assessment, the old Dynamic Straightwire.

Now they are not responsible for what happened to them, isn’t that right? They’re not responsible for that but they’re all responsible for what they did to others. Right? Now why is it? Why is it, if this is the case, that anybody ever gets slipped over to the receipt point of the comm formula?

I'm simply going to run over some of the chatter.

Well, mechanically it works like this: They outflow and outflow and outflow, then finally they become the cause of their own effect. In other words they become the effect of their own cause. Which ever way you wanna say it. Now here is cause, here is distance and here is effect. And they keep going from cause over the distance to effect, cause over the distance to effect, cause over the distance to effect, cause over the distance to effect, and the next thing you know, they slip and they get over here into effect. See, they slide down their own comm lines. Got the idea? And they wind up on the receipt point.

Squeeze the cans, would you? That's good enough. Thank you.

Now did you ever hear in an European restaurant the waiter say, “Thank you“, when he puts the plate before you? That’s just about the wildest thing you ever listened to. The waiter comes along and he puts your food down in front of you and he says, “Thank you!“ And I can discombobulate these fellows most dreadfully. They, when they put the plate down just before it touches the table and they have the chance to go through with their routine, I say, “Thank you!“, with a good tone 40, you know? And it almost knocks them silly and for an instant, I am sure that those fellows had a confusion between me and them. Now they had actually put food down on the tables traditionally over such a period of time that they have to be the receipt point of what they caused.

Yeah, you're sure reading low, aren't you?

They are slipping down their own comm line, so they acknowledge what they did themselves. They give themselves their own acknowledgments. That’s a very silly, silly situation and you’d say, okay, but... didn’t have much bearing on cases. Well, brother, it has every bearing on cases because it explains valences.

Thought I'd noticed that.

And this is what a valence is. It’s the thing or receipt point, which is been targeted by the cause point sufficiently that who ever is the cause point has slipped into the receipt point.

[to audience] All right, see where he's reading? He's reading at 2.0, and he shouldn't ought to was reading at 2.0, see?

I’ve been looking at this in terms of victim. Victim is of course a destroyed or threatened with destruction receipt point. That is all. That’s all a victim is. Somebody who having been at receipt point has been targeted from a cause point, victim.

[to pc] That'll teach you to read at 2.0.

Of course the rationale behind victim is totally vicious. Being a victim is the last hope that your disability will be duplicated, so that you slaughter the cause point. Because the cause point duplicates you at receipt point. In other words you object to being treated so or used as an effect. You object to being an effect, you see. So instead of saying you object, you appear wounded or hurt in some fashion and the automatics of duplication bring about the same hurt and so forth in the cause point. You got the idea?

PC: That's right.

You might as well stop feeling sorry for the fellow that’s going down the street on crutches. Because I absolutely assure you, that at a whole track look, nothing ever happened to him that put him on crutches. See, he himself – he didn’t do it to himself either, he mocked himself up on crutches, hoping to get at something that was cause point, hoping that it would then wind up on crutches, got the idea? It’s just a way of getting, getting his own back. Got that? That’s mighty cruel to state it that way but the truth of the matter is, his difficulties are caused by his overts. And that’s one of his overts. See, being wounded, being upset and so forth is an overt because he hopes the observer will in turn get around to effect point and be wounded or upset. Got the idea? Hence we have the anatomy of the overt act.

LRH: All right. Was it okay that I called on you?

And the anatomy of the overt act is not very complicated. The main thing you’ve got to figure out is, who is the victim? And you run this process very much, that’s one of the first things the pc comes up against. ”Now, wait a minute – victim, victim, let’s see, was I the victim because I was pretending to be wounded or was I the victim because I wounded somebody and then he convinced me that I ought to appear wounded? Now let’s see, which way am I the victim?“ [laughter] It is rather fabulous, rather fabulous, you look at it, and of course it really all blows up in smoke that there are no victims. But it’s a great apparency. But anything you see anybody doing or any condition you see anybody in could be heartlessly, rudely and cruelly, undoubtlessly with those adjectives but nevertheless truly a version of axiom 10: Production of an effect. Anything you see is an effort to produce an effect.

PC: Not really, no.

Anything! Oh, you get out of here, you see an ambulance and it’s picking up dead bodies all over the street and so forth, you say, oh boy, they, em, out of mishmash there, that’s certainly no effort to produce an effect. Those people lie on earth stone dead and so forth, they’re certainly not… oh, the devil they are!

LRH: That's right.

You go back far enough on the track and you’ll find little arguments of this character: “You’re wounded!“ - “No, I am not wounded!“ – “Well look, there is a bullet through your body!“ – “Oh there is a bullet through my body? I didn’t know I was wounded. Oh, there is a bullet through my body.“ – “And I see that proofs you are wounded. Ah, okay, now you have to lie down.“ and so on. “Oh, I don’t have to lie down, I… just because I have a hole through my body.“ You’ll actually run into quote...well, I, just like locks, on the whole track way back when. See, before all this became so obsessive. Big arguments about who’s dead. [Laughter]

That's right but it's not a bad reaction. It wasn't really okay.

Which one is the victim? Well of course as soon as the fellow is a victim he decides he will be a victim because he gets a back at the fellow, that’s arguing at him to being a victim, don’t you see? The only reason he gets wounded is so that he can produce an effect on the fellow wounding him. I am afraid that’s a fact. That is the whole truth of the matter. But the rule of the weakest valence is this: That that apparent effect point which most easily receives an inflow will become the basic valence you must remove from the preclear. Think this over!

PC: No, it wasn't.

Cause-distance-effect. Cause point is emanative, ah, if you just draw, draw a little circle there with emanations coming out of it, like if it was an electric light bulb or something like that in a comic strip, you know. That’s cause. Now draw a line and now draw a point and now draw arrows going into the point, like if it was an electric light bulb, pulling light in, not shedding it out. Got that? You see that now, that’s cause-distance-effect. And that effect point which you drew is the weakest valence.

LRH: Made you a target.

You’ll actually have the least mind. The mind itself is a sort of a buffer. It will be pulled out into practically nothing. Now that’s the easiest thing to communicate to because all you have to do is practically open your mouth, the communication arrives there with no volition on your part whatsoever. It pulls the communication in just like a magnet, see? Of course that’s basically the most overt overt act that is on the track. To mock up one of these super comm line sponges. You got a person, who’s not necessarily a person who’s terribly bad off or otherwise; but you will get a person occasionally who will only listen and never originate. You got that?

PC: Yeah, a victim.

You’ve seen people, they’ll only listen and they’ll never originate, say anything at all. Now if you reduce that down to the point where they appear to be highly introspective about anything you said and hardly even agreed with you at all, they sort of pulled your comm line straight in. You know, dog lying on the side walk wounded, inevitably people walking by, say: „You poor fellow, what happened to you?“ And he just lies there wounded, you know. Got the idea? That’s a communication automaticity. Now that’s a minimum of effort required from the cause point to reach the receipt point. It’s almost as if this receipt point has provided a bus there at cause point, with no effort on the part of cause point and the words are going to be trolleyed right on down the distance line, straight through to receipt point and taken care of right there. You know like banks, or something. Banks! Save your money, save your money and they just take your money and take your money and take your money – and governments and so on. And they take your money and take your money and take your money and take your money and take your money and it actually gets to a point where all you do is, you have put out a coin, you know, and if you let go of the coin, it wouldn’t fall to the ground. [laughter] Get the idea?

LRH: Yeah.

Well, that’s one of these super vacuum receipt points. Now that receipt point of course is the least emanative point. So it offers no resistance to a communication. Now this mechanism is mechanical, it is below the level of the rationale of who is the victim and all that sort of a thing. This is simply a mechanical arrangement that is set up and you get these receipt points, you see, that just seem to sponge up anything that comes their way at all. You’ll find there the parasites of the society – well, those are just total spunges. See, they’re the parasites, they’re the alcoholics, they’re the officials, [laughter] they’re just – slush slush, got the idea? They never emanate anything.

There's — yeah, it's falling a little bit now. It's just doing a little bit of a fall here, nothing to amount to anything.

You are not one of these people because you emanate. See, you can put out too. All these people really can’t put out. Odd things will happen with these people, you give them… They, they learn something, you understand, see, they learn the house is burning down and you come by an hour or two later and say, “Good God, the house burnt down!“ and he says, he says, “Yes, I knew that.“ And you say: “Why didn’t you tell me?“ Oh, you know, just a brand new idea. Tell somebody something, you know. You’ve seen this, you’ve seen this.

Who's dead? That's right. That's what I like to see.

Now let’s go further than that and let’s take something which seems to absorb. I’ll have to bring down this goddess Cali I bought in India and I mean to show you and so on, something that absorbs anything put in its direction, such as a black screen or something like that. This is why I mentioned Cali, she’s black, destruction and so forth, a symbol that is really interesting. And here is a black screen that never lets anything out that comes into it, never. Nothing ever gets out of it, it only goes in. And you get a pc and he’s sitting there and my God, he can’t see anything, you know, everything is just flying in, everything is just flying in like mad. “I just don’t understand what that screen is”, you know – there he sits, fixed. “I don’t understand what that screen is? What is it, you know?” Well, actually it’s something that has steadily, currently, constantly, habitually demanded his attention to such a degree that he now can’t even see what it was that was demanding his attention. Got that?

Who's dead?

Well, that’s the weakest valence. That’s what he’s looking at, that is the weakest valence. Now basically the rule of the weakest valence is in order to establish the case, the person... let me say that again. In order to establish the person, you split off the weakest valence. Not the strongest valences. You wonder why every time you try to run a strong valence off the case, nothing happens, see, nothing happens.

PC: Oh, when ...

Fellow says: „Oh, my father was a tower, he used to come in the house and he said, ‘Oh, where’s the whisky, and no more whisky? I either scream or the walls fall down’ and so on, it’s a terrible person and it’s undoubtedly, if I could get rid of this valence I’ll be all right!“ Ah, the hell with it! How can he possibly get in the valence? The valence is emanating everything off of it. You got it?

LRH: That's it.

Now this is the anatomy of the dwindling spiral. People don’t go into the strong valences, they go into the weak valence. Let’s look over the mechanics of it, it’s too easy to go into the weak valence, it’s so easy, you just relax and you’ll – swat, got the idea? The weakest valence would be the most inflowing valence. In the preclear’s opinion. Now the very easiest thing, person, anything to talk to, address or anything like that would be something he would consider assisted his communication lines. Assisted the inflow, it says: Oh, you’re going to say something, shlush, grabs the words right out of his mouth. Boom! Bubble! Spash!

PC: ... when you said that, I got my grandfather.

Now a person has to be pretty darn bad off during the period that these snaps happen. Now me talking to you at this moment could no more establish for me or for you valence shifts then the man on the moon. See, you can sit in a chair, you can look, you can talk, you can understand, what’s going on and so on. I can stand here and talk, I am alert and so on. We get the engram of valence shift because valence shifts occur because the overt act motivator sequence when somebody sets himself up as a victim at a very low level of reception, in other words, near unconsciousness or unconsciousness or death.

LRH: Your grandfather?

Now the number of needles right here that are banging and theta-bopping as you try to set somebody up to get his tone arm on the clear reading at his or her sex is amazing and you noticed the number of theta-bops you are getting. Oh, man, did you ever had a dead body answer back? [laughter]

PC: Yeah.

Furthermore there are so many mysteries of what happened to it. See, there the guy lies, there’s not a mark on him and he is stone dead. Everything is present, cash is in his pockets, everything is in the apartment that should be there, except one sauce pan. See, and you say, you kind of ask him, “look, why are you dead, what you’re dead about?” [laughter] He doesn’t say a word. Get it? Well, that’s a real weak valence but not everybody is weak valence of course as a dead body, very far from it. Most of the weak valences I think you’ll find are composed of allies that took care of you, when you were sick. Or you took care of them when they were sick, or vice-versa or back and right or something and...overt...who’s…who’s the victim or that sort of a thing. The big question of ”Who’s the victim?“ comes up there. To establish who’s the weakest valence you simply ask the person that you’re processing, “Who’s the weakest person you know?“ I could ask you now, you can (mumbles). “In this lifetime, who is the weakest person you ever knew?“ Come on and answer it for yourself! “Who is the weakest person you ever knew in this lifetime?“ Here you go. Do you remember one? [“Yes!”] Ha? Now… Who actually got the facsimile of that person right inside their skulls? Did anybody here get the facsimile of the person you found right inside your skull? There’s one, there’s one. Now that’s the weakest valence to be run with the valence splitter. Just change your case around, just psh… sh… sh…

LRH: What sort of a man was your grandfather?

And the rest of you, didn’t think of anybody at all? You didn’t think of anybody at all! You did think of somebody? [“Yeah.”] You didn’t find anything sitting in the middle of your skull? [“No.”] Well, All right, you don’t have to have it sitting in the middle of your skull, where was it? [Somebody answers.] Oh, all right, good. Now look-a-here! You were up against in trying to clear somebody merely the problem of eradicating the bank, you understand?

PC: Oh, about my size.

But in making OT or trying to rehabilitate the ability of the person to postulate, to handle and be at cause over matter, energy, space, time, life, forms and so forth, you understand? And now you add this up to what I just told you. An OT has horsepower, doesn’t he? Had to be an emanating horsepower, wouldn’t he? Right? Well, the trick is this, the bulk of the people you process will simply sit there with the characteristics of the weakest valence and process the weakest valence. And they don’t get processed at all. And the reason they do not suddenly come up the vine and develop tremendous horsepower all over the place is a simple reason. It’s just because they go on being this weakest valence, got it? Because the weakest valence doesn’t have any horsepower. That’s what’s the matter with it!

LRH: Uh-huh. Okay.

The more he outflows the more he inflows. It is a short circuit. Now when a person takes over a valence, they take over a package of characteristics. It’s a package of characteristics. Take over grandma’s valence, all right, grandma did not like oat meal, grandma could paint a little bit, grandma detested oil fumes, grandma was hypercritical of young girls, got the idea?

PC: I suspected I was in his valence a long time ago.

And just any characteristics you see on a APA or an OCA profile, any characteristics you see. Grandma sat at a certain point on that profile. And the person that is sitting in grandma’s valence, will answer their idea of where grandma sat on that profile. It’s almost as if you gave the profile to grandma to do and then gave the profile to the person who was in grandma’s valence to do – of course it wouldn’t be quite the same because it’s only the person’s opinion of the other person’s valence, you see – you get something like the same picture on the profile. And the picture on one of those OCA or APA profiles is a picture of a valence. That’s the sneaker about those profiles. Basically those profiles are not an indication, not an indication at all, of a person shifting up or down; when they change, they are an indication of valences sliding out and in, you get it?

LRH: You what?

As long as you’re in the human level of processing, see, and we are not in this class, you see, we are not on that level, we are not going at the same targets, we are not doing the same thing. As long as you are in that, any shift that you get, will be as a reason having shifted these valences. So don’t expect somebody coming up progressively, tick-e-di-tick, tick-e-di-tick, tick-e-di-tick. They don’t at all.

PC: Huh? I suspected I might have been in his valence a long time ago.

If you in processing graduate them to higher and higher valences, then you get better and better pictures of the profile. Got the idea? But they don’t do a gradient of their own ability because their own ability is never in question. It’s all there a hundred percent, their own ability is – it has never waned from the moment they decided to mock up the whole ruddy universe.

LRH: Yeah.

But I assure you, that the Mr. and Mrs. Weak that they picked up down the line, couldn’t mock up the ruddy universe, right? Because every valence is the product of a succession of victim tricks. And one of the first of the victim tricks is: I am weak! Poor weak little me, big strong you and poor little me.

Well, I'll tell you something. I'm on your side.

And in an effort to flip this valence over to cause point, see, BIG-THETAN! –exclamation point – comes along, he is picking his teeth with a thunderbolt, you know. [laughter] And there’s a little sneaker that couldn’t even vaguely been hurt by a thunderbolt, you know, thunderbolts go straight through him, not even part his hair.

PC: Good.

See, he says, “Oh, you hurt me.“ And BIG-THETAN! – exclamation point – says, “Hurt you, how could I?“ „Wah… You just did. See, I can’t wheel around any thunderbolts, not like you.“ (Sniff), “these go right into me and stay there because I am weak. I can’t resist them and therefore you are a bully for shoving them at me.“ – “Oh, I didn’t shove any thunderbolts at you!” – “Oh, I don’t know what’s this thunderbolt doing through my chest.“ And THETAN! – exclamation point – walks off and he says, “you know”, and he says, “I must be some kind of a weak variety of thetan.” [laughter] “I don’t remember putting a thunderbolt through his chest, he must kind of have just sucked the thunderbolt out of me. Now he did that!” [laughter]

LRH: If they suddenly leap out of their chairs and jump you, I'll stop them.

A person being the weak little thetan and so forth, why, he goes over behind a rock and laughs like hell and picks his teeth with a thunderbolt. [laughter]

PC: Okay.

But a synthetic thing has been created. A valence has been created which was weak and couldn’t emanate thunderbolts and which at least one thetan came to believe. See, it’s an invented thing.

LRH: Now listen. Let's start an assessment here. Okay?

Now people for various reasons and explanations start wearing these invented valences and then you run into more and more invented valences and then people start believing in these things and they believe that they’re them and they believe that this is right and good conduct, that much restrained, and they... next thing you know, why, you run into nothing but an universe full of synthetic valences and there isn’t a real person in the lot. Got the idea?

PC: All right.

All right, so don’t you walk up to somebody, sit down in the auditing chair and say now, “You can’t do very much here, it says on the meter”, and “You were having a hard time“, and “We will improve you now by processing you”, and so on. Well, it’s only indirectly true. See, what you are confronting there is a synthetic thing, it’s a valence, “synthetic valence”, had an old proper terminology, but it’s just, it’s just a dreamed up thing. Any valence is just a dreamed up thing and it’s the power cut down. That’s why, see, process the thetan, don’t process the bank because what can you do for a weak valence, nothing.

LRH: All right. Start.

Now you can process the preclear so if to shed a valence or change a valence or mock up a new valence and so forth. That’s an entirely different proposition.

[to audience] Now, we're going to just do — jump up the line here and the second he mentioned "Grandfather" he fell even further. See, he's now below 2.0. See?

But the road to OT depends on the shifting of valences and that’s why you heard me hitting this so hard and probably was a kind of incomprehensible for you first, why I kept talking about create-survive-destroy and then and in the next minute I was talking about valences and, eh… you know, it just fairly didn’t make very much sense. But the road to OT must [lead?] through a shift of valences.

A pattern assessment by dynamics — there isn't any set patter. You just know your dynamics and you just call them off, that's all. See?

Now you got two processes that shift valences like mad. The shot gun, case pretty well off, starts shifting valences around, just on, oh… “get the i...”… or “think of entering the mind”, “think of not entering the mind” and so forth, you get a shift around. Some of you have run this, haven’t you? Kind of beefy isn’t it? Yeah, what you did, just sort of shooting valences off in all directions and, and squaring things around and running out the basic reasons why a person got into valences in the first place. Well, that’s not necessarily the cure-all but it certainly gets somebody whizzing on this subject, see, they get someplace on this, I think.

PC: Mm-hm.

Furthermore, auditor should never have a compulsion to being somebody else’s [word not understandable] when are auditing them. You’ll find, I think, after you have run this for a while, I think right now some of you could tell me this is the true, that in spite of the fact that you have run out an obsessive desire to audit people, you are now more interested in auditing, is that true? [“Yeah!”] Yeah, it’s an interesting fact, you know, it’s a… it’s a graduation from, “had to”, to “able to”, you know.

LRH: And you can say anything. We could say anything like, "What do you think about yourself?" you know, and "What do you think about sex?" "What do you think about children?" "What do you think about ..." you know?

Now the public at large out there is basically on the reverse kick which is why you loose them on a co-audit all the time. The reverse kick is: “mustn’t”. See, “mustn’t invade, that’s mine. Impolite.” As a matter of fact, it doesn’t matter if you run over people with a car in England today, doesn’t matter if you stamp on them in a street, kick them in the shins or doesn’t matter if you cost them their jobs or drown them in the channel, none of those things matter, just don’t appear to invade their privacy with any direct communication and you are a very polite person and well accepted socially. They’re on a stuck flow backwards. You could always tell a freer country than others. Accents are basically no more and no less than degree of withhold of communication. Then you could actually plot out where countries sit on their general social level by the degree that they outflow or what part of their face or in front of their face they speak from. You know, those that are speaking way back in the back of their ‘eads. Wow, they’re pretty rough, cap on knees [?]. That’s about the only thing that really [word not understandable] like that. That’s obsessive separation or individuation, you see, that’s obsessive not enter the other fellow’s mind. But it doesn’t matter whether people are on the obsessive “don’t invade the privacy” or obsessive “invade the privacy”, in either case it’s obsessive and not under the control of the individual. So that process of mind is most beneficial for the auditor but it also runs out all the whole track psychiatry and it’s got a lot of side panels one way or the other. But also it starts taking the lid off of weak valences.

PC: Mm-hm.

The one that really slaughters the weak valence and moves tone arms all over the dog-gone place is a dynamic assessment, assessment by dynamics and then look for the weakest valence on that dynamic which seems to be the most susceptible to change. The dynamic that reads a little different than all of the dynamics and then find the weakest possible thing there. It’s apparently – you will very often find that it’ll be registered as the most mindless thing. See, things got the least mind. Well, therefore it will have the least mass, therefore will read the silliest on tone arms. You get your negative tone arm when somebody is retreated into a weak valence. We all of a sudden haven’t any mind at all, therefore no responsibility, and they can’t outflow at all, it is just inflows. See, and the poor pc gets parked that way. Actually, we were examinating a pc yesterday who does not have “victim” flat. And the only reason that arm is low is just because “victim” isn’t flat and that is all. Because in running “victim” this pc has flipped from cause over distance to effect at some point of the victim chain. And it’s just a temporary situation and he is flipped over into a weak valence. That’s all.

LRH: Anything like that, it doesn't matter much. To an old-time Scientologist, you'd probably say, "First, Second, Third," you know, simple as that.

All you have to do is discover this weak valence, split it and let it go or continue to process the victim. The process that turned it on, you understand? Now somebody can go into a bedpost as the weakest valence. Now if you try to figure out why it’s the weakest valence and argue about the fact that the pc thinks it’s the weakest valence you gonna be in trouble on this assessment from here on out. Because it’s just like it’s the pc’s opinion whether or not he’s done a discreditable act, see, it’s his opinion that makes it an overt, just as that. So it’s his opinion that makes it the weakest valence.

[to pc] That's what we're going to do with you right now. Okay?

PC: Yeah.

Now, eh… I know of a weak valence that was a very bobautious [?] aunt and nobody ever considered her a weak valence in the family, as a matter of fact, she was lying all over the family like, I don’t know, like somebody open in the front door and throwing handfuls of marbles all over the floor, you know [mumbles]. But for some peculiar reason to the pc this was a total inflow valence. And the pc, for God’s sake, picked up all the symptoms of her husband that she married later on. Since that husband would be the closest thing to that valence, you see!

LRH: We're just going to ignore that we already found your grandfather.

So we had a pc with a bunch of somatics that nobody could identify because they weren’t even the somatics of the weakest valence, they were the somatics of the husband of the weakest valence. These are pretty weird considerations, that the pc then must have considered “husband” to be a very weak category. So therefore the husband of the weakest familial valence was weaker than the familial valence. So that was a weaker valence yet. Got the idea? He just skidded from bad to worse. You got it?

PC: Yeah.

Now you can find these right in current lifetime. When they are registering badly on a tone arm and in earlier stages of processing, when they’re registering too low, while the person is in some kind of a weak valence, we don’t care what predisposition there was in the person’s live, now you can clear this needle down and this tone arm down with overts. The tone arm can – clang – go out on down with overts and it keeps right on going down with overts. You’re finally saying, “Hey, I have got...!” What you have done in fact is to plow up the weakest valence. There it is.

LRH: And carry on this other. Okay, here we go. What do you think about yourself?

You’ve just sunk down to what the pc thinks it ought to read on the meter. It’s actually a total no responsibility valence. So it doesn’t read anywhere on the tone arm. Because it pulls in everything, it apparently is totally mindless. You can ask the pc: “What or who thinks the least?” And he very often will come up with the weakest valence. You can ask the pc for just the weakest valence and very often the pc just gives it to you. Who is the weakest person you’ve known in this lifetime? You see.

PC: Oh, I'm not the best friend I have, to myself

Now, if you wonna get it for the whole track, you’d have to get into describe the weakest object or thing and so forth, based on a dynamic assessment. See. You can get it with two-way-comm for this lifetime and run it without a meter. If you wanna get it for the whole track, then you gonna have to do the old dynamic straight wire type of assessment. Get that change of needle read. When the person’s sitting there and on everything – it can get this bad – on everything, why, he does a stage four, see, that is all his needle does, see, everything it does is ... [shows], well, when you mention the fifth dynamic, animals, see, the needle does this ... [shows] and you mention material objects, the second time you mention material objects, the needle was right back doing this… [shows]

LRH: Hm?

Now you can go over the list of dynamics and parts of the dynamics over and over and each time you come somewhere into the vicinity of the fifth dynamic and so forth, needle goes up… [shows] That’s a different needle, I don’t care if it comes out of the case and ties a bow in itself, see, it’s merely a different needle, you’re looking for a different needle, not a stuck needle or dropping needle or a high needle or any... you are just looking for a needle that registers differently from everything else. And the way you establish whether or not it’s a different needle, is, you can reestablish the pattern by asking about other dynamics, you can ask about, you know, you’re getting the needle… [shows]... and so on. Yeah, it was the standard pattern, and you got it finally on the fifth dynamic to come up here… [shows]

PC: Not the best friend I have to myself

Now the question is: Do you go back to the first dynamic and say, „Well, how about yourself and so forth, do you consider yourself a weak person?“ and something like that, which would be an idiotic question, but you could ask them and the needle finally settles down, and the needle finally settles down. Goes back to it’s original pattern. You go up that fifth dynamic, you get a change. Maybe you find two dynamics that will register different. Sort out to one that registered more different than the other. See that?

LRH: You're not, huh? All right.

Very often two or three dynamics will be identified and they’re all the same thing to the pc. But sorting out the weakest valence... you take them off the case, the reason he can’t throw thunderbolts anymore, you see, it’s gonna all sorts of rationale, “it’s nicer to be powerless.” “If I really got active somebody would get hurt, so I better remain inactive.” All kinds of explanations, you see, „Well, people have always liked me better, people have always liked me better when I was quiet and well behaved and therefore, I’ll be quiet and well behaved. Well, what’s quiet and well behaved? Well, obviously being quiet and well behaved is being a stick drifting down with the river.” I don’t know what’s quiet and well behaved about a stick but that’s what he’s being, he’s being a stick. He seems to think that the stick inflows, he thinks all sorts of things about a stick, you’d… you’d never think about sticks, but that’s his case. See, and up to the time when you get up on top, you’ve got just the silly ones, in some other directions that he wouldn’t understand at all, you know. Got the idea?

[to audience] The needle — just still; it stopped this and just went absolutely still. The question is, "Who does the pc think he is?" and he says, "myself," you know. You're right there on the valence button. Right?

So there are these wild differences in cases as to the consideration of what’s a victim, consideration of what’s a weak valence, consideration of what real weakness would be, consideration of what the weakest thing or [word not understandable] is, consideration of what the safest thing would be, all of these things, you see.

PC: Yeah.

Running out the weak valence, hah, there are just tons of processes, I mean you should use, you know tremendous numbers of processes that’d be successful on this – supposing it said, on the whole track assessment, the weakest valence is a coconut. All right, it’s a coconut, that’s what the pc says, so that’s what the E-Meter says, everybody agrees on this and so on, well, you could do more confounded things with this weak valence you could shake a stick at. One of the things that you could do with it, one of the crueler things we’ll come up with later, would be, “What type of a coconut wouldn’t you mind creating?“ See, “would you be willing to create?” Got the idea? “What part of a coconut would you be willing to create? – Thank you! – What part of a coconut would you be willing to create? – Thank you!“ Pull on this way. Decayed coconuts start falling all around him. That’ll be one thing.

LRH: Okay. Now what do you think about sex? PC: Oh, good pastime. LRH: Mm-hm. All right. How about children? PC: Yeah. Pretty good. LRH: Pretty good. Pretty good.

You could say: „From where could you communicate to a coconut?“ see, that’s another one. Somewhat linked to your process to some degree, not quite as violent, smoother, and so forth. Or you could just tackle it head on with a valence splitter, and this is the one I would recommend at this time. Which is, “Think of a difference between yourself and a coconut. – Think of a similarity between yourself and a coconut. – Think of a difference between yourself and a coconut. – Think of a similarity between yourself and a coconut.“

[to audience] On sex we got a single dive, and on children it just steadied again. See, I don't yet know what the characteristic of the needle is for all.

You’ll find that the first commands on a weak valence just don’t do a thing. Of that one, you know. He knows he is separate, separateness is a total automaticity on it. He knows he’s directly identified with it. Identification is a total automaticity. He never had a question as easy to answer, oh, it’s an easy question on a weak valence, “Of course, so and so and so and so“, you ask him the other question, “Well, so and so and so and so“. He will tell you after a dozen questions, “so, and nothing is happening, nothing is happening at all, you know”, and “What’s the difference between yourself and a coconut?“ – “Well, so and so… (mumbles)“ – “What’s the similarity between yourself and a coconut?“ – “Well, da… da… da… da, it’s so easy. What is this lung doing coming out of my chest?“ [laughter]. And it gets lesser and lesser and harder and harder and easier and easier the more automatic and less automatic and goes back and forth and it may even [word not understandable] on that particular command.

See, I don't yet know what the characteristic is. Although the characteristic of the needle when I was first doing this was just a — just a wobble ...

And now you can run that on a specific terminal or general terminal. You could run it on an executioner. Of course the weakest terminal around an execution is usually the block, you know, or the gallows or something of that sort. People are always picking on the executioner as the valence they must be in, hell no, they are not the valence the executioner’s using, they are in the valence of the vault or something. Try!

PC: Mm-hm.

All right, one fellow one time had an awful lot of trouble with valences because he couldn’t quite make up his mind whether he was a man or a woman and he went back to an execution where he was hanged and he had his total attention fixed on a young, very good looking girl in the crowd. And then he moved straight out of that execution and the second they hanged him, he blew out of his head, blew into her head because she fainted, you know. And then that was very pathetic, so he moved up and pretended that he had died from the young girl who was lying there fainting.

LRH: ... like this. Now, "self" and "children" have stopped it cold.

Okay, this is a slippy one. I remember Dick one time running a case, who was somebody being beaten and then that girl was this and that and everything else you could think of and Dick always could tell what was the next valence coming up because he was telegraphed that there was a dog in the engram of something like that, while the pc, long before she mentioned the dog, you see, would start going, you know, scratch her, or you know… [laughter] And Dick would say, “Is there a dog in the incident?” – “Oh, yes, yes, how’d you know? – Wwh!” [imitates a dog] [laughter] – Oh, they go into these things and you’ll find weak valences then on the perimeter of engrams and they move out of that perimeter and they move over into the engram, you see, and it gets worse before it gets better sometimes, all sorts of things occur, a lot of phenomena occur. The difference/similarity process is the smoothest valence splitter. It takes quite a little while sometimes but it’s a very smooth one and if you can pick up any low needle on the weakest valence and then run a valence splitter on it, you’ll ping the needle up, I am sure, much faster than any other single that way you could do it. Okay?

PC: Yeah, I believe that one too.

Now, have you learned anything in this hour?

LRH: All right. Now how about groups?

[“Yes!”]

PC: Yep. Groups are all right.

Okay, use it!

LRH: Groups are okay. What about groups?

Thank you!

PC: Oh, a little bit of fear on them. I find it hard to get up and talk to a group of people a bit.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: They're okay.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: I can mix with them all right.

LRH: Mm-hm.

[to audience] Well, we got a swing down, and then steadied. Apparently the constant needle characteristic is just a kind of a swing like this, and that apparently then means we're nowhere, see, for this particular assessment. See a needle doing that, that doesn't mean we're — if it's doing this apparently, why, we're not on anything significant. So it's got to do something else. The only other thing it's done so far that's very, very marked is "self," it froze, and then it freed up again, and then on "children" it froze. Got the idea? So, we've had two freezes. "Groups?" It's just sort of returned to this. Got it?

Audience: Yes.

LRH: All right.

[to pc] Now, it's all right if I give those directions, isn't it?

PC: Sure it is.

LRH: All right. After all, we're not plumbing your psyche very hard, not with a well — oil well drill, anyways.

PC: -Good.

LRH: Okay. Now, how about mankind?

PC: Well, I get the whole of mankind, and oh, Europeans, Chinese, that's ... Oh, even Americans — the whole works.

LRH: Hm?

[to audience] What did he say?

[to pc] All right. Now, have you committed an overt act against me?

PC: No.

LRH: No. All right. Have I done anything wrong to you?

PC: No.

LRH: That's right. Okay. Now what do you think of animals?

PC: All right. Dogs, birds.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: Okay.

LRH: All right. How about plants?

PC: Oh, they're okay. I don't like gardening though.

LRH: Yeah. All right. And how about fish? PC: Yeah, okay.

LRH: Hm? Fish?

PC: Yeah, all right.

LRH: Fish? Fish!

[to audience] Fish, just freezes this needle just, pang!

On everything else we get this little idle of just a drop of a — drop of a division or a half a division and then a full division and so forth, just an idling needle and so forth. But now we've had, self, children, and fish. See?

[to pc] Okay?

PC: Yep.

LRH: All right. Do you feel I'm exposing you to view?

PC: No, I was just thinking to myself — I was a diver in the navy; I was just wondering why I was trying to be a fish.

LRH: You were a diver in the navy?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Well, what do you know.

Okay. All right. We got it made here. Here we go. All right. Now, how about the physical universe?

PC: Oh, okay.

LRH: How about water?

PC: You tell me.

LRH: Naw, same little idle needle. Fish. Boom! Okay. Okay. That's all right, it's all right. Do you like to eat fish?

PC: Yep.

LRH: Yeah. You eat much fish?

PC: Oh, I don't know, twice a week.

LRH: Yeah, all right. Okay. All right, see how that needle sticks when you say "fish"?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Look at that needle. Now you're off of it again.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Because you are looking at it ...

PC: I just blew it off

LRH: ... now it drops. Now I'll say, "fish." Fish. Think about fish. There it is. Boom!

That's pretty good.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right, we're getting someplace.

PC: Good.

LRH: All right, how about matter? Energy? Space? Time? Time? Time?

PC: I've been running on that today.

LRH: You've been running on it today?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: It's just faintly different than anybody and anything else here, just faintly different.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: It's hardly worth bothering with. That's a beefy process. What were you running on time?

PC: "Think of something I might have done to time."

LRH: Yeah?

That's all right, our boy's still here. All right. The reason I questioned that is it's not a terminal.

PC: Yeah, I couldn't get it out.

LRH: That's right. Well, it's not a terminal. It's not a good thing to run. Not a terminal. It doesn't have any mass. If you want your high success you get a mass terminal that preferably can receive, send and relay communication. Definition of a terminal: something that can receive, send and relay communication. Of course, that could be a rock as far as that's concerned.

PC: No, I was getting a bit of mass with "time" actually. I was getting a — getting weird "time," each time they checked on it.

LRH: Yeah. I don't want to criticize them. Nobody's ruined you. But you had time tied in with yourself, didn't you?

PC: Oh, yeah, I had a lot of trouble with time.

LRH: That was mostly tied in with you, wasn't it?

PC: Yeah, sure, it was all tied in with me.

LRH: Yeah, it was all tied in with me. I get you.

PC: Yeah, I was trying to stop it.

LRH: Yet it's kind of freed off of it. You feel better after you ran it?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Yeah, well, of course, auditing is what you get away with. But don't you let me catch you picking any terminal like, "From where could you communicate to thinkingness?"

Or, "From where could you communicate to abjectness?" See, "From where could you communicate to a significance?"

Boy, this is for the birds, birds, birds, you understand?

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: [to audience] If it hasn't got any mass, you're nowhere. Pc's nowhere. Because the basic thing you're trying to get off the case first crack out of the box is a location. If it hasn't got mass, it hasn't got one.

That's what's wrong with "Conceive a static." See, you can see the thetan hasn't got any location. Got the idea?

So, until you get a person unpinned from all of these locations, you run terminals, you hear? Mass terminals. Things with mass connected with them.

And the less adjectives you put on them the better off you're going to be. We occasionally have a specialized adjective process, you understand, you know, some specialized process like "a person with difficulties" or something like that, that's the same way as saying "victim." That's a "significant terminal." Slightly significant terminal.

Well, I got one the other day from South Africa. Hah! Ds of Ps don't think we ever check them over.

Actually, when I was all — running on myself, and all by myself, I occasionally didn't get a chance to check the D of P's profiles, you know. And I'd just check over the summary sheet and let it go. But now we got a Technical Division at HCO WW, why, they all get checked. And when they're out of line or when they're particularly good or particularly bad, why, instantly, why, the Technical Division calls it to my attention.

And guess what? Guess what one came through with the other day? A communication process being run "From where could you communicate to a little boy with German measles?" And that was being run as a general terminal!

And the one thing that a general terminal must do is to be able to run some distance on the track. And how — how much time do you think was being run on that terminal, "a little boy with German measles"? Maybe ...

PC: Two?

LRH: [to audience] Maybe five or six days out of seven or eight lifetimes! See? Just no time area at all, so it couldn't possibly have been a German measle that was the button on the case. See? If the auditor had looked around just a little further, probably found out it was the bedstead or something.

[to pc] All right I didn't mean to digress all that time. Am I ARC breaking you with all this?

PC: No, that's all right.

LRH: Oh, it is all right, isn't it?

PC: Sure.

LRH: All right.

Now, let's take up-I'm not saying your auditor was doing wrong. Your auditor is doing all right. You got some benefit from it and she got away with it.

PC: Sure.

LRH: And it did good because it gave me a chance to tell these characters, "If I ever hear of you getting out of here running anything quite like that, I'll shoot them!"

They'll be out-thunderbolted even if they make OT!

All right, let's get on with it, huh?

And let's talk about thetans. What about thetans?

PC: Oh, they're all right, good game.

LRH: Good. How about God?

PC: Oh, I used to have a bit of trouble, a fair bit of fear on that.

LRH: Yeah?

PC: None now. None now.

LRH: How about idols?

PC: Yeah, I was run on "help on an idol" once.

LRH: Yeah?

PC: On a Buddha.

LRH: Yeah, it did all right.

PC: Yeah, I cleared that up.

LRH: That was the auditor's evaluation though, wasn't it?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Do you think it fell on the meter?

PC: Oh, at that time it might have.

LRH: Might have. It doesn't fall now. The auditor probably did a good job.

PC: Yeah, he probably finished it off

LRH: Okay.

PC: Whatever.

LRH: And how about the devil? He's a god, too.

[to audience] Isn't the devil a Christian god? I lose track.

PC: That's the opposition.

LRH: Oh, that's the opposition? Okay.

Okay. Well, now you mind if I give them a summary?

PC: All right.

LRH: Am I chopping you up here?

PC: No. That's ...

LRH: [to audience] Look-a-here, this needle has had just a little variation, you see, just little tiny falls like this, and they're sometimes great and sometimes small. And the different needle is a stuck, see? That's the different characteristic, see?

Now, you could run a case where the needle would be stuck, and you all of a sudden mention "fish" see, or something like that, and it moves, but the rest of the time it's stuck. So, that's a changed needle, you get the idea?

Audience: Yes.

LRH: This particular needle, we've got "self," "children," and "fish" all froze the needle.

Now, it's my task to separate out which one of these is different from the other two. And when I do we're going to have it. See?

Oh, this "self" you understand is pretty equivocal. I mean because naturally a person considers "himself" the weak valence. Got the idea?

PC: Hm.

LRH: [to pc] Okay. Now, let's just check this over again, shall we? I'm giving you a bad time here but I see you're probably more comfortable now by far than you were when you first came up. Isn't that right?

PC: That's right. That's right. I've even looked at them.

LRH: Hm?

PC: That's right, I've even looked at them now.

LRH: Oh, you — good. All right. That-a-boy. That-a-boy. Now, we're going to take up three of these, now, and you anticipated me. You know I'm going to ask you about "self," don't you?

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Mm-hm. Because it froze right there — "self." Now, what's better, "self" or "children"? How about "children"?

PC: Oh, children are easier, I think.

LRH: "Children" easier than "self" — and what's this got to do with "fish"?

PC: I don't know. I don't know, don't get anything there.

LRH: Hm? (pause)

All right. I think it's "children" but ...

[to audience] Now, here's a trick with an E-Meter. I'm going to crank up this sensitivity, see, because the movements I'm getting now are so microscopic. And cranking up your sensitivity is just like putting a magnifying glass on your meter.

Mostly your sensitivity should be set down here so that only when the pc goes over something that's really sharp, shocky or emotional, do you get a movement of the needle. Got the idea?

And you shouldn't have a needle flopping all over the place while you're trying to audit somebody. You cut that sensitivity right straight on down here, you understand, until you get it so that your needle is practically motionless except when he goes over a toboggan slide, see. Got the idea?

Audience: Yes.

LRH: And this sensitivity button has no more significance than just a magnifying glass and that's all it is. Don't think of it as anything else.

Also, people who are real batty are so agitated, they're in a total rock slam. You will see rock slams on some pcs but, tssh, psychotics very often, particularly manic-depressives and so forth, they just run this way: ta-tat-tat-tat-tat-ta-bop-bop-bop-bop-bop-bop and boy, you've just got to crank that sensitivity right down to practically nothing and stop that needle. See?

Now, when you ask them questions, the question you want will actually — will be the only one that gives the needle motion.

You get the thing? Audience: Yes.

LRH: Well, that's the use of this sensitivity thing. It doesn't really much change the position of the needle here and the tone arm. It doesn't change the position of the tone arm enough to bother with. Not a significant change. It does somewhat but ... Do you get it?

Audience: Yeah.

LRH: All right, so, in this case, I'm going to crank this thing way up till this thing slaps all over the place, and we're going to go over these three things again.

[to pc] What do you think about yourself, Frank?

PC: Oh, okay now.

LRH: Hm?

PC: Mm, I used to think I was a bit self-conscious.

LRH: Mm-hm. All right. What do you think about children?

PC: Okay, I've got four of them.

LRH: Mm-hm. Mm-hm. All right, and what do you think about fish?

PC: Okay.

LRH: What about fish?

PC: I don't know. What about 'em?

LRH: Yeah, what about 'em?

PC: I don't know.

LRH: All right, how about children?

PC: Oh, they're okay.

LRH: What about children? Would it be better if you were a child?

PC: Oh, I could be stuck back there. I hopped out of the body, actually abandoned this body about six months; and changed my mind and came back in again.

LRH: Right. All right, now you tell me what sort of a children are we talking about here? Is it a girl children? Hm? A girl child?

PC: I don't know.

LRH: No. Is it a boy child? (pause) Mm-hm.

PC: Does that — does that mean, "yes," does it?

LRH: Huh?

PC: That smile mean "yes," does it?

LRH: Yeah. And — or is it a baby?

PC: Hm, could be.

LRH: Or is it an unborn baby?

PC: Could be, too.

LRH: Unborn baby?

PC: Hm, maybe.

LRH: Mm-hm. Or a boy child? (pause) A little boy.

PC: I don't know.

LRH: Mm-hm. Little girl? Little girl, hm? (pause)

Little boy? Little girl? Little boy? Which?

PC: I don't know, I'm watching your face to see.

LRH: You're trying to find out from me, huh? PC: Yeah.

LRH: Well, we just lost ourself some tone arm. You got that?

PC: Hm.

LRH: We're going down for the count here. So, we must be approaching a weak valence of some kind or another. You got it? That's hot. Because as soon as I started into this "children" — I've sorted out now "self" and "fish" — and it's "children." Now I'm trying to find out what kind of a "children."

The second I started sorting this out, why, we lost about, oh, about a third of a mark on the tone arm. See that?

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: It gives you an idea that as soon as you start to sink toward the weak valence, why, of course you start to sink down toward the reading of the weak valence, you understand? You got that?

Audience: Yes.

LRH: [to pc] Well, let's go over this again, Frank, and let's see if we can find some more about this. Shall we?

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: All right. Which is the strongest, a little girl or a little boy?

PC: Girl, I'd say.

LRH: Yes, isn't that interesting.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Yeah.

PC: So now you're looking for boys, huh?

LRH: Little boy. Huh? Well, how will we phrase this? You describe it. You describe this terminal "a little boy." What would you call it?

PC: A baby.

LRH: A baby?

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: A boy baby?

PC: Mm, I get a picture of just a baby.

LRH: Mm-hm. How old a baby?

PC: About three months.

LRH: Well, would you describe it as a boy baby?

PC: No, I just look at it and get a baby.

LRH: Mm. You don't describe it as a boy baby or a girl baby?

PC: No.

LRH: Mm-hm. Very interesting. A baby?

PC: Uh-huh.

LRH: Hm. That's why I'm having trouble picking it out. It's neuter. Got it.

PC: Yeah, I'm not sure, it's just a baby.

LRH: [to audience] All right. Now we've got a terminal on this case and it started going right on down south here, see, on the Dynamic Straightwire and it turned down below this point.

Well, actually, there's how much has been lost. We're losing more here, see.

PC: Hm.

LRH: We've got a baby. Now that would be hotter than a firecracker because of course it's a beginning of cycle, and this tells me that there's some inversion involved here.

Before we started running this though, I'd have to ask the pc a few questions concerning babies and so on.

[to pc] May I? PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: All right. What's the best condition a baby could be in?

PC: Good health.

LRH: Mm-hm. Good. That's a reasonable answer.

PC: Thanks.

LRH: When I snap my fingers a condition will flash. What is the best condition a baby should be in?

PC: Bloody Hell!

LRH: Hm?

PC: Dead!

LRH: That's right.

[to audience] Now, there we got a slip on a cycle of action. You got it?

Audience: Yes.

LRH: Here's something that should be at create and I've already watched this little theta bop developing here on children, and I — when I sat down I asked him, "Who was dead?" because he was theta bopping as a characteristic of the needle.

Well, the only thing that tame — tamed down ... Now, you understand, that a needle goes on reading the terminal all the time! You understand? Except when you get on the terminal and then it changes. Got that? See, the thing could be going, dah-dah-dah-dah, that — this is all reading — in this particular case — this is all reading "baby," see. This is all reading baby, baby, baby. And you ask about birds and God and everything else, you still to some degree are reading "baby." Right up to the moment when you come down and read "baby," and it goes pang!

Now, you called its characteristic, therefore it changed the reading of the needle. Do you understand this?

Audience: Yes.

LRH: Well, that's how you — how you look with one of these things, see.

All right, now the proper process on this, you've just had an infinite number of processes, some fast, some slow, some otherwise. Somebody running "time" on him — that's a misdemeanor, infraction sheet, and so forth. Even if your Instructors told you to.

Now, here's the idea of how we would start this. Now, I'm going to start this and I'm going to — and start it only because I intend for it to be carried on. Okay? I'm not going to run it very long.

[to pc] Is it okay if I run this for a very short time, Frank?

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Hm?

PC: Sure.

LRH: Just to let you get a look at it.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right. How you doing?

PC: Good.

LRH: Now, have I done anything wrong?

PC: No.

LRH: You done anything wrong?

PC: No.

LRH: By golly, he's right. Okay. Well, is it all right if I audit you for about ten or fifteen minutes, huh?

PC: Yeah, sure.

LRH: Would that be okay?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: And — be all right if I audit you on this particular terminal that we've just been fooling around with?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Okay?

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: All right. Now the thing we're going to run ... You're going to worry because you're running a process and it isn't flat, and so forth. Well, so what.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: So what, I don't think it will damage you any. You don't think so either? Now, I'm going to ask you ... What's the matter?

PC: I just had a look, making sure I didn't think so.

LRH: Hm?

PC: Just had a look.

LRH: Okay. All right. Now, we're going to run Valence Differentiation, that's the proper technical name of this process, which is "Think ..." just a Think Process, you know.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Just those two questions, one after the other. Okay? Anything wrong with that? You feel a little embarrassed running that?

PC: No, I just thought it was amusing.

LRH: All right.

PC: Got a similarity.

LRH: Yeah?

PC: Little hair ...

LRH: All right, here we go!

PC: ... similarity, little hair.

LRH: Similarity and difference. All right?

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Okay. Here's the first question. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Okay. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Oh, I lost that command then.

LRH: Hm?

PC: I lost that command then.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good. How are you doing?

PC: I'm getting mainly differences between a baby's body and my body.

LRH: All right. Real easy to do?

PC: Yeah, well, I feel I'm — this is not there the right way.

LRH: Hm?

PC: I feel a bit coming off but I feel I'm not doing it the right way.

LRH: Yeah, well, how are you doing it wrong?

PC: Well, the difference between myself I'm just not a body, but I'm — I'm definitely picking this body as me.

LRH: Yeah, well, does anything in the auditing command prevent you from doing that?

PC: No.

LRH: That's right. Do you think you're answering the audit — .

PC: Oh, yeah, I can be a body if I like.

LRH: All right. Do you think there's anything in the auditing command you're not doing?

PC: No.

LRH: You think you're doing it all right?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. All right. At first it ran real easy, didn't it?

PC: Yeah, it did.

LRH: Brrrrrrr. Hm? Right? PC: Yeah. Very easy.

LRH: All right, we've got it made here. Shall we carry on with it?

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: All right. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Oh, I lost that one.

LRH: Good. I'll repeat it. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. All right. Now tell me, has — somewhere along the line you got mixed up on this? You didn't know whether it was yourself or the baby or what you were talking about?

PC: No I didn't get mixed up, I got a bit of a confusion on "difference" and I get — every now and then I get a dead baby.

LRH: You get a dead baby?

PC: Yeah. And ...

LRH: Oh yeah. What do you know. All right. Think you're getting anywhere?

PC: Sure. Terrific.

LRH: Terrific.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: All right, that-a-boy. All right, here we go.

Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. That was similarity, wasn't it?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Hm? All right.

PC: And I nearly made a mistake and said — I saw this blooming pram.

LRH: All right. Okay. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. What's the matter?

PC: Oh, that time around I had to grab something and say, well, the baby's back there and I'm here.

LRH: Uh-huh. All right. Okay.

PC: I had to grab something quick.

LRH: All right. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yep.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. What's going on?

PC: Oh, I'm getting a baby being born here.

LRH: Oh yeah?

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: All right. Okay. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah. LRH: Good.

PC: I'm just about closing terminals with a little baby here.

LRH: Oh, yeah. All right. Good. Okay. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good. Think of a ... What's the matter?

PC: I've been getting this, a few times, oh, the baby with little hair and me with a little hair.

LRH: Oh, yeah.

PC: I got a baby's head just being born then.

LRH: All right. Very good. All right. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yep.

LRH: Good. What? You just suddenly feel a feeling of relief or something?

PC: Yeah, that was good.

LRH: All right. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: -Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yep.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right. How you doing now?

PC: I snapped terminals from here, and then I wondered why I belched. Then the minute I wondered that, I went — rrraaaw.

LRH: Yeah?

PC: Yeah, you know, trying to get back from a baby's body ...

LRH: Oh, yeah.

PC: ... from the difference.

LRH: All right. All right. Here's the next command. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Ah, I lost that one.

LRH: Hm?

PC: I lost that command.

LRH: All right. I'll repeat the auditing command. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yep.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right. What was that one?

PC: This last one?

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: I chased back then looking at what I was doing a few minutes ago.

LRH: Oh, yeah.

PC: I lost — when I laughed, it was because I — I have a lot of trouble with my — my feet — my toes curling up.

LRH: Oh, yes.

PC: And I've been annoyed about this for a long time in Scientology, why I curl my toes up inside my shoes.

LRH: Oh?

PC: That was the similarity I got.

LRH: Oh, all right. Okay.

All right, here's the next one. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yep.

LRH: All right. How are you doing now?

PC: Good.

LRH: Okay, is it all right with you if we run this for another couple of minutes and then close it down as — for the moment?

PC: Yeah, good.

LRH: Huh? All right. Here's the next one. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Now, how are you doing?

PC: Good.

LRH: All right. I'll give you just two more if that's all right with you.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: All right. Think of a similarity between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Think of a difference between yourself and a baby.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right now, Frank, how you doing?

PC: Pretty good.

LRH: Doing pretty good, huh?

PC: Was pretty tough going there.

LRH: It was rough.

PC: Oh, I'll say.

LRH: Yes sir. Well, do you think this is applicable?

PC: Hm?

LRH: Did you think this was applicable?

PC: That's right.

LRH: You thought it was right on the button, huh?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right. That-a-boy. Well, let's see here, see what we got here.

[to audience] Factually, he's gained back, through the running of this thing, why he's down from a third to a quarter, to give you some idea how long it takes to flatten one of these things. He's gone down about a sixth of a whole tone, and this last fifteen minutes of run, you understand, was — maybe not quite a sixth, it's just sneaking down very easily, and you'd expect it to probably dive here and come back here and settle down. But it's still on the downside. Do you understand? But, of course, fifteen minutes a run is just nothing. Although I'm sure that we've taken a lot of the automaticities of it off. Haven't we?

PC: Hm. I feel once — once I bust through a bit of this confusion ...

LRH: Oh, yeah.

PC: ... it will go much faster.

LRH: All right. Now, it's all right with youthen if we call this a session?

PC: Yeah. Good.

LRH: All right. Anything you want to say before we end this session?

PC: No, it's just amazing. LRH: All right.

PC: I say, "No" and then I was going to say something.

LRH: You what?

PC: I said, "No" and then I was going to say something.

LRH: All right. Say something.

PC: It's just amazing how hard it is to stop snapping terminals.

LRH: Yeah, isn't it?

PC: Yeah, you can say that again.

PC: Good.

LRH: Don't you?

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: And thank you very much. End of session.

PC: Yeah. Thank you.

LRH: You betcha.

PC: Thank you.

LRH: Thanks a lot, Frank.

PC: All right.

LRH: Yeah.

PC: You get a similarity ...

LRH: Yeah.

PC: ... and then a difference ...

LRH: All right.

PC: ... and get it glued up, and ...

LRH: Yeah, that's right.

Okay, well you've actually helped me out here in giving a demonstration quite a bit and I think we really got someplace.

Okay, now there is an assessment, demonstration of an Assessment by Dynamics.

Complicated, isn't it?

Audience: No.

Can't you think of some complications to add on to it?

Now, look, your Instructors are going to be very upset if you can't think of a lot of complications for it.

Actually, it's terribly simple, but on these terrible simplicities very often, why, the thing flies off. You say, "Well, how many parts of a dynamic are there? How many parts of a dynamic should we ask about?" Something like that. Those are perfectly legitimate questions.

But they are answered this way. They're answered this way, "How many parts of life are there?" Well, now, you start adding up how many parts there are and that's how many parts you ask about.

Now, you've only got one little liability in asking about this, one little liability in Dynamic Straightwire.

I'll tell you a funny story on your chief Instructor, with your permission of course. All right, that's — that's fine.

Works like this. The one valence in the world he didn't think he ever had anything to do with was the one that ran with a crash. He probably never thought about this valence. He probably never had any slightest suspicion. He could take the valence and leave it alone and so on. And I never saw any-body's face quite so bedazzled and surprised and so forth as when, in London, a long time ago, when somebody found this particular valence.

Tell them which one it was.

Male voice: It's probably occluded by now.

Come on. Which one was it?

Male voice: I don't know!

Listen to that. It was run out. "A matador." Me!

Yeah. Look it. Look at it. It's still flat.

The auditor's reports with regard to this had to do with an occlusion on a valence. It didn't get run very long. They dive out of sight. Now listen ... Male voice: Oh, I remember now. Yeah!

Yeah! Yeah! You ...

For instance he could leave them alone before but he just never thought about them somehow. Now, I ask him about them again and the thing has been pretty well flattened off and erased, so he just wouldn't think about it. Don't you get the idea? There's two sides to this thing.

Well, you can get in the same boat as long as you've got any weak valences kicking around that are upset valences or something like that. When you're doing a Dynamic Straightwire, watch it that you don't skip some portion of the dynamics because you'll inevitably skip — before you've had them run on you and sorted out — you'll inevitably skip the part that ought to be run on you. Got the idea?

You don't always obsessively run on the pc what you think is wrong with you. That isn't the way it goes. That's not true.

What you obsessively forget to run on the pc is what's wrong with you. Got it?

Audience: Yes.

So, only then are you going to get into any confusion on about how many parts are there of the dynamics and how many parts should you ask about.

As far as reading needles are concerned — as far as reading needles is concerned, why, you're reading the different needle, and the different needle may mean a stuck needle, a rising needle, a theta bopping needle, a needle that suddenly goes tone [stage] four. Different — be a different needle.

And usually the characteristic that the pc has when he sits down and takes the cans, not always, but is usually the characteristic you'll get on all the dynamics, except the one that's buttoned, and that's going to change the look of a needle. All of a sudden it's going to start doing something else.

Now, don't you ever tell any student that it "always theta bops" or "it always does this or it always does that" when you find them, because it's not true.

All it does is something different than the pattern. You got that? Audience: Yes.

When you do that Dynamic Assessment, you'll find the weakest terminal every time.

Okay, we've run overtime.

Thank you very much.

Good night.