Thank you.

Today we're going to cover - let's see, is there anybody here to cover it with?

Female voice: Yes.

Ah, now I've got a good R on you.

Today we're going to cover types of cases - types of cases.

Historically and very briefly, an announcement of this subject matter - types of cases - in any other field of human study could go on for a year or six worth of lectures. Why? Didn't have any common denominator of cases. They didn't understand what cases were. So, they had categories and charts which were so complicated and so tremendously significant that not even their originators understood them.

Now, such a chart is the Kraepelin chart, originated in Germany. And people think that I use that as a gag. It's not a gag. I mean there actually is such a chart. And it's categories of cases. It was imported - or rather exported abroad and imported into the United States particularly, was rewritten there and made even more complicated. But even in its original version, this thing just covers pages and pages and pages with great Germanic thoroughness - pages and pages of types and classes of cases. And everything had a nice little box and apparently you could fit everything into these case types. And they just went on by the page, you see. And then you came to the end of it and it said "unclassified."

Well, if you've ever - if you've ever had any experience with filing, you find out the most fatal thing you can do is to permit a miscellaneous file to exist in a filing system because everything arrives in the miscellaneous file. And that is what happened to the Kraepelin chart.

I've forgotten its spelling since actually, I'm talking to you about data I knew before this one, but I think it's K-r-a-e-p-l-i-n - is the chart I'm speaking of.

Now, that is where we first hear of classifications like paranoid or paranoia, schizophrenia, and so forth, in a classification chart. Now, these terms existed elsewhere, but the first time they'd ever been pulled together, I think, was in that chart. I can tell you that it's no wonder that it took the nineteenth century psychiatrist about twelve years to (quote) learn his business (Hah). Somebody says to you about Scientology is "briefly trained" or something like that, well there issomething to be said for training, there is something to be said for training, which is to the point. And actually a great deal of the old-time psychiatrist's training consisted of sitting alongside of a rated, or a properly degreed psychiatrist, observing patients.

And right at this present moment if you were to go for psychiatric treatment, as a gag, just to go for psychiatric treatment to some social mental health clinic, you would have an appointment allright, and there'd be the psychiatrist sitting at his desk, the chances are there'd be several students sitting alongside the wall, and must suppose the isness of communication, huh?

Communication is. Communication happens. Now you can figure out a lot of consequences when there's too little communication. You'll either get things identified or differentiated if you get too little communication. You'll get the same things exactly if you get too much communication. You'll be different if you get too much communication, see? It can go either way on the same considerations. But these are considerations of communication.

"Oh, no, no, no, no, no! No, when a person is transferred to Walnut Lodge they have to be a schizophrenic because Walnut Lodge only handles schizophrenics." Isn't this fascinating? I mean, this is - this is just classification rampant.

Do you notice that that is dispersed from an observation of the person? Dispersed to such an extent that observation no longer has anything to do with the patient. It has to do with what cell he's in or something like this, you see? Had nothing to do with that. Well, when you can't cure something and you don't understand something, then you get into these things of endless classification of one kind or another.

There's no order in the classification, it's all disorder. Any case becomes its own type or class. You see?

Well, the reason we don't have to spend too much time on types of cases in any Scientology dissertation is that we are, factually, merely studying the reaction of people on the ARC Tone Scale plus the phenomenon of must-reach, can't-reach, must-withdraw, can't-withdraw - which is the phenomena - all of that phenomena is the phenomena of insanity, it's a sensation sort of insanity. Plus the additional factor of valences and circuits - and you could say also machinery, but this does not play as great a part. Because where you find circuits, ordinarily you'll find machinery and where you find machinery you find circuits, and you're much more interested in circuits than machinery.

Now, a person's valence condition, circuitry condition or machinery condition, if you want to include it, are still very germane to the ARC Tone Scale. People above certain levels do not have circuit manifestations or machinery manifestations, ordinarily. You can find them but they're not obeying them. See, they're not the controlling influence, you might say. So it's still a question of the ARC Tone Scale.

All right. A little bit further into this, havingness is a factor, but it is again a factor of the ARC Tone Scale. As we go down scale and the reality factor decreases on the Reality Scale measured right alongside of the ARC Tone Scale - we see, of course, that if a person has no reality, he can't have. You see, if there's nothing to have, of course, he can't have. So this, again, is the ARC Tone Scale, isn't it?

And this simply leaves us one major peculiarity known as insanity. And this again is influenced by the ARC Tone Scale, but "insanity", (quote) (unquote) - whatever it means, - we classify as merely something below 2.0. Anything below 2.0 - where the person is totally below 2.0 we can classify as insane, providing he has a must-reach, can't-reach, must-withdraw, can't-withdraw fixation on something, which gives him a certain eerie sensation.

Now if you personally want to know what that sensation is that we refer to as insanity, all you need to do is walk over to a wall and get the idea that you can't reach it but you must reach it, that you can't withdraw from it but you must withdraw from it. And if you can get just half of that - that you must reach it but you can't reach it, you will get some shadow of this strange sensation.

Any thetan can make this one: Where is being made for the individual he is accidentally stuck in just that one, he is irrational, must escape, can't escape, must approach, can't approach, you get the idea? So that if you take anybody with a condition that he is trapped in a mass of energy, or in mass such as a body, put him in a cobndition where he must escape and can't escape, must reach and can't reach, you'ld have somebody that was up the spout. You'ld have a straight-jacket case. In other words you could synthetically produce it in the environment - this sensation. It's kind of a sensation. It's a fixedness. And,

Now,bsessively into things. In other words, one agreed to be part of the eight dynamics and then elected himself out.

Well, sometimes you get a pc on some downward action of that: He's elected himself out; he's trying to elect himself back in; he's now electing himself out again. You got the idea?

So the sequence of joining, leaving, joining, leaving, joining, leaving, joining, leaving, joining, leaving could be said to be a picture of existence. It is basically a picture of agreement. By agreement we simply mean an individual agrees or contracts to be part of the human race, let us say, and then decides that the contract must not be binding, and elects himself out of the human race. Fine. Having done this, he has, of course, denied himself.

And this is the only possible aberration: He's denied himself. In other words, he made a postulate, then he said it wasn't true.

Now, you'll get pcs who are denying themselves so consistently that every time they get into good shape, they pu

after all, what is that but a definition of total fixedness?

Now, that can occur as a point, and an individual can actually be pulled down scale from that point so that he no longer experiences a sensation. It's very easy to get rid of that sensation, you see. But he can be downscale on the ARC triangle and not have that sensation and, therefore, appear to be, Ha! sane. Do you understand?

When he's totally fixated on something he can't think about anything else. And you very often, yourself, have been in a circumstance where life has handed you a hot brick and expected you to juggle it. And if anybody else had come in while you were juggling this particular hot brick and tried to distract your attention by telling you the barn was on fire or your mail had just arrived - and you would have given them short shrift. You see? They were diverting a totally fixed attention. You see this?

Well, while they're trying to divert this totally fixed attention it just puts too much strain on the individual. He blows up.

Now, if you give such a person a shock and withdraw his attention violently, you can always bring him down scale from insanity. Now, just think it over for a moment and the whole idea of shock - as introduced by the ancient Greek and as still dramatized two thousand twenty-three hundred years later - is simply taking an individual who is totally fixed and then violently yanking his attention off what it's fixed on, leaving him at least unfixed, but dispersed. Now, he's no longer going to react the way he was reacting, isn't that so? But he's worse off. And to come back up scale he, unfortunately, has to get his attention on what he had his attention on all over again and pass through that.

Now, there's what shock does. And that's what insanity, for our purposes, is, so that you can see a person insane for a second, a minute, ten minutes, a half an hour or twenty years. And all it means, you might say, is violently fixed attention which can't be withdrawn on something from which the person must withdraw but can't withdraw, so that all other data of life are irrelevant to this person.

Now to some degree this fixedness is insanity. Now, you have and anybody sane has the power of fixing upon something, and if you didn't have, you wouldn't be able to concentrate. So you might say this is the primary manifestation that a sane person can do that goes totally insane.

So what happens? It becomes totally other-determined. You, yourself, if you get into such a condition, are determining to some degree your attention. Right? You're determining to some degree, no matter how slight, your attention, your concentration, you can withdraw it, you can't and so forth.

Now, because we are talking about life at large - and Scientology is something that has to do with life at large - you will find that a person's ability to fix his attention on the facts of Scientology get mixed up with his already fixed attention on life. Don't you see? And as he gains and goes up scale, he finds himself more and more capable of concentrating on what he wants to concentrate on or concentrating on a part of Scientology that he wants to concentrate on.

As a matter of fact, some psychiatrists know that the insane will fixate on anything and particularly on mental studies. Insane fixate on these things very easily.

Just like the story I told you about having a little project that was going to help this country and having somebody come along and tell me that I had to audit him because he was the savior of this country. And he was completely batty and it made me feel batty too, you see, for a moment, because we were both doing the same thing. Except - except I was doing something, you see, and he was merely spinning on the subject. Get the idea?

All right. Now, we look over this - we look over this and we find, then, that the fixation of attention is not only the common denominator of insanity but is the common denominator of the ARC Tone Scale. But the inability to withdraw attention goes out as the person goes down scale and is particularly and peculiarly missing below 2.0 on the Tone Scale. The ability to withdraw attention from anything, the ability to put attention on anything, are peculiarly misdirected and undirected, you might say.

So, what are we really discussing? We're really discussing other-determinism, self- determinism and pan-determinism. It's as easy as that.

Now, what do we mean by other-determinism? Well, someday he'll be - someday you'll be in session - if this has never happened to you - and certainly you'll see a pc do this. And you'll be getting down the track to where the engrams are getting hotter and hotter and warmer and warmer and much hotter and much hotter and you're not quite so sure you want to be there. And at this moment you're liable to see your hand go sideways.

And you look at your hand going sideways and you say, "Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute!"

And the auditor will say, "What's happening?"

And "Well, I don't know, something's got my hand over here."

You'll look at it and nothing has got your hand. See? There's some undetermined force is moving your hand for you. It's very spooky. Very spooky. Something is determining your body's circumstances and motions and you're not! And, of course, you're into a pit of physiological insanity; if you want to be crude about it. That's all. You've just hit a point of track where the attention is so demanded and fixated and messed up and is so other-determined that anything that happens you have nothing to do with. See? Nothing occurs that you have anything to do with right at that point.

All of a sudden, why, words start rattling off and you know, people start talking to you and people that aren 't there and corpses show up much more solid than the body of the auditor. Almost anything can happen at this point. Only trouble is this - the self-determinism is not missing because you are determined into the session, you see, on your own determinism, And you are following it through and somebody is helping you go through such an area and you get through it quite successfully.

There's hardly a person alive that doesn't have such a zone on the track.

That doesn't necessarily mean the hand. I processed somebody one time and they kept strangling - a demonstration process. I'he person kept strangling, strangling, you know, and every time the person would start guh-gooh-gooh-gooh, you know, and cough and so forth - just running through a picture - I noticed that the hands were coming up. And after we'd run through it a couple of times the person actually started to strangle herself. She was trying to strangle herself. They weren't her hands. You know?

Now, to show you how easy it is to clip this - I really don't know how anybody ever stays insane. This is the facts of the case. Because you go, "whofff" and it's gone, if you go, "whofff," at the right point. It's a very hard thing to maintain, like psychosomatic illnesses are very difficult to maintain.

So this person - hands strangling her and so forth, and I said, "Whose hands are they, there in the incident?" Something like that.

And the person said, "Well, Oh Ho! They're the murderer's."

Well, that's it - self-determinism gone. See? The self-determinism of the hands versus the pc made the pc other-determined. Get the idea? The only self- determinism there was the murderer's hands. They were determining the whole action. So from the pc's point of view, other-determinism was total and rampant, because none of the pc's determinism was prevailing in the least degree. The second this was called to the pc's attention, all the person had to do was notice it to inject enough self-determinism of self, you see, into the thing to blow the whole thing up. Now, the hands were the determining factor.

And where the environment is thoroughly determining, there is always an instant where, from the pc's viewpoint, the whole works is other-determined. It might be just a split instant that goes by. It might be just thoughts that go by, but can be expressed, and anyone, sooner or later, running into engrams and so forth will express it physiologically - physiological other-determinism with which the pc has nothing to do.

So down below 2.0 we are operating almost exclusively with other-determinism. No self-determinism on the part of the pc. This is just a almost arbitrary divisional point because, believe me, a person at 2.2 is not totally self-determined, let me assure you. But the edge is off of it. But below 2.0 it's all pretty well other-determined. The individual is the perfect nineteenth-cantury psychology text-book subject. Everything is action-reaction.

"Why do we think? We think because the brain is moving."

"Why do we eat? We eat because the stomach dictates to us to eat."

"Why do we sleep? We sleep because something in the body dictates to us to sleep." "Why do we go to school? Because somebody told us to go to school."

See, they had this whole world worked out as below 2.0. Nobody could determine any action. Associative thought was one of the wildest ideas. It said - it didn't say (because they didn't even know about it) - "Low on the Tone Scale an individual's thoughts are motivated by preceding thoughts, and very low on the Tone Scale we expect this circuitry reaction to occur continuously, and this is what we know as associative thought."

ven though all bodies you see around are in that line. So it gets down to a point of where it's very important what you eat and very important how you eat it. And you get the most amazing diets recommended and so on. And all you have to do is look over the main diet of a decade that was recommended by practitioners for about ten decades and see the disparity amongst those diets and to see the contradictions amongst those diets- to understand utterly that none of them knew what they were doing. And yet there was something about dietary.

You feed somebody husk-polished rice long enough and he starts missing certain elements in his diet and bad things start happening to his teeth and so forth. So there was something to know about that. But because they really didn't know these things, they just did anything that came to their mind.

Somebody would sit down, "Well, pigs' bladders, yes, fried pigs' bladders-fried pigs' bladders taken at about five A.M., with steaming-with steaming milk, with dill-with dill iividual's thoughts are motivated by preceding thoughts. And very low on the Tone Scale, we expect this circuitry reaction to occur con~inuously. Aud this is what we know as associative thought."

No, they said, "Everybody, when they think, think what they think because the thoughts that they have just thunk suggest to them the thoughts which they are now thinking." This was called idiot psychology. Freud fell into this trap. He kept talking about association, association, association. "An individual associates this which associates that which causes him to think something else." And this was all very happy and cheerful.

But what kept throwing these poor boys - I feel for them, I've known a few of them - is people kept thinking independent thoughts, which threw the whole thing out the window. While the person's telephone was telling him to think about the telephone, he independently - not because he even saw the day outside - wished it were a nice day so he could go for a walk. See - unmotivated thought. Well, therefore, his behavior pattern wouldn't be - robotwise, "tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, click, click, click, click, click, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick. He-hu-hello. How are you? Ah, so and so and so and so and so and so. So and so and so. You say this, that makes me say that.

Thank you very much. Goodbye. Ata-ataata. Click, click, click, click, switch."

Now, while the phone rang - while the phone rang, some circuit could even introduce itself into a psycho's head, you see?

"Bells, bells, bells, bells, bells." This is all he thinks about, see. Phone rings, he says, "Bells." That's all that happens. He doesn't answer the phone.

So they said, "Well everything then is associative." Well, brother, that's not association! Let me call to your attention, that's about as solid an identification as you can get. That all bells are all bells and when a bell rings that is all bells.

You'll see some punch-drunk fighter, once in a while. And somebody rings a doorbell and he promptly gets up on his knees. You know? Rolls over in bed and gets up on his knees. Starts staggering toward his corner. It was a bell. All bells are all bells. A

Now, it took Pavlov to use identification without actually naming identification. You see, he didn't ever go into total identification, what you could do with it. He evidently never discovered that if you got a dog to slaver when you rang a bell, and expect food just because a bell was rung, that the dog had also made some other identifications. And he never explored these other identifications which is quite interesting, because if he'd explored these other identifications he would have found out that the only reason the dog did it was not associative reasoning or association or anything like it. He just would have found other-determinism, thud!

And that the dog was not just associating bell with food, and so slavered, but the dog would also associate and identify white tables with bells. That he would also identify anything that had been in the original scene of training with anything that was in the original scene of training and that he'd reached a point of total identification.

Therefore, as we look over association and differentiation we don't have all the answers to cases, because independant thoughts, or totally disassociated circuits can suddenly cut in, and even a mad man is prone to unpatterned reaction. So, while this individual is busy going through the engram something happens in his vicinity that causes another one to key in, and he alters his pattern. Right away we have a new type of case. So it would be impossible to classify all cases except on this basis of fixation of attention.

Now when attention fixates we first drop away from total pan-determinism - an ability to determine the course or not determine the course of anything, as the case may be. A pan-determined case is held up by a robber - obviously the proper way to not be held up by a robber is to be the robber and not hold up the other person.

ntiation would bring about a total sanity. See? Yet he had the data and the experimental findings right in front of him from which he could've drawn these very simple conclusions. And as I say, as far as I know-and this, again, might not be true- he did not make these conclusions.

Now; therefore - therefore, a political Wave of enthusiasm, finding that it was unable to get people to espouse the reason of their cause, no matter how reasonable that cause was and finding out that they failed very often to get people in a reasonable state of mind about communism, then figured out how to get people unreasonable enough to espouse communism, you see? And this became the goal of brainwashing.

So they were able then to do an A = A = A = A. And when thoroughly done, evidently by people coached by Pavlov, this was almost 100 percent effective. But it was-had to be done by people who were trained by Pavlov.

When we got as far away as China and got practitioners who had merely, you know, read it in the textbook and the other person.

That's......that's just purely textbook, isn't it?

As a matter of fact, I'll give you a shadow of how that might be. Somebody walks up, sticks a gun in your ribs and says, "Hand over the cash." And if we said, "What are you doing on my beat!" or "Don't you realize that I have this neighborhood nailed down?" You're liable to get a very embarrassed stammer on the part of the robber. You see? We've bitten off a bit of his beingness, haven't we, when we said, "What are you doing interfering with your fellow robbers?" Well, if we just went that far we would be dealing with pan-determinism.

Well, of course, when we really speak of top scale pan-determinism we mean, really - something, by the way, that you will find out that you have done from time to time along your life track. We've just gotten in the other fellow's head and walked him away. See? We just walked the body elsewhere - pan-determinism. We determine not only the actions of body A, but also determine the actions of body B.

Now, the ability to do this, of course, requires that one have a rather cavalier attitude toward privacy. Privacy, invasion of, does not happen to enter our minds at the total top of pan-determinism. The ideas of privacy and the invasion of, do not particularly occur or apply.

Now, there's a process that falls between pan-determinism and self-determinism which is quite interesting. I wouldn't say that it's very workable below 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, on down. So that doesn't make it a very useful process for Homo Sap as you walk into him and meet him in the flesh, very much in the flesh. But it is useful to know. Just as an example, "What privacy could you invade?" would be the process. And you try to run that on somebody below - below 3.0 on the Tone Scale and he says, "Whoa, I don't know, this is getting awful unreal to me, it's - Oooh. . ." and he just flounders, you see. Or he just glibly says, "Oh, I could invade his privacy and I could invade that privacy and I could invade the other privacy and da-da-da-da-da-da-da," we get the usual unreal reaction.

By the way, there is a reaction to processing, you know. You give a person a process that's totally over his head and what does he do? He just rattles it off and bingity- bang and it hasn't anything to do with the price of suds at all.

"Notice that wall?"

"Yeah, that's a - I notice that wall, notice that wall. Walk over to that wall. Yeah, it's da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-duh-duh- it doesn't look real to me. It's all right, I can go on forever."

Every once in a while an auditor says, "Well, you know, he's in pretty good shape, he can do 8-C very easily."

Do it very easily on the auditor's determinism! That's about all that he could do with 8-C. The process is too high for the pc. Don't you see? But he does it glibly, because the auditor's determinism is operative on the pc.

So this process of "What privacy could you invade?" would cut in at the line when the individual had already gotten ideas of individuation. Now, it required ideas of individuation. "I am Mike." You see? "I am not Oswald." See? To get into self- determinism. Now, after that he at least determines everything Mike-ish and refrains from determining things called Oswald-isms. Get the idea?

So, as we go down scale even further, we get into Homo Sap and then we get down where he sometimes determines himself and sometimes doesn't. And we get down below that and he - Homo Sap even dreams of being other-determined. He thinks if he practices and learns driving and if he does a good job of learning and practicing driving, pretty soon he doesn't have to drive. What's been trained will now drive.

And that's the bulk of your drivers on the highway at the moment.

Now below - when self-determinism runs out - below this level we have total other- determinism. Now, these are extreme points.

First, we have pan-determinism. We see tremendous examples of pan-determinism around. And there are people who have - there are many people, in fact there - most people have some zone of attention in which they're still pan-determined to some degree. See. So it doesn't all fade out and the individual just doesn't all go bad, jerk, and then go into the next class and go jerk and the next class, you get - like that.

No.

But the individual extreme case on self-determinism would be - he couldn't conceive of being anybody else. Well, this is somebody who couldn't act. You ask him to take a part or something like that and he'll state, "No. I - how could I do that?" You know. "That doesn't seem feasible. That just doesn't seem possible."

And you say, "Well can't you go out there and make a talk and be the farmer in this skit and make a talk and make like a farmer...?"

"No, I . . ."

Just above that, he tries it but flubs totally. You know, he falls all over his feet and chews the heroine's hat instead of the straw he's supposed to, and so forth. You know?

Below that, we get a person not moving unless the volition is somebody else's volition. See? There must be other-volition, not only somebody else's but something else.

The individual sits by a fire until the fire burns him and then he moves away from the fire if he gets burned. You see? You get the idea? But it's really the fire that moves him away. Got the idea?

The individual would be driving and he actually wouldn't be able to move the car unless a green light flashed in front of him. This is bad enough that if you were to take a green-lighted flashlight and simply go to somebody sitting at the curb and shine a green-lighted flashlight in him, he'd actually momentarily experience an impulse to let off the brake and let the car in gear. Green light has just occurred. In other words, you could train it on responses.

Now, we're getting down almost to Pavlovism, you see. Now, we're getting into the field where he should have come up to investigating. We're just into the top borders of this field. Other-determinism - individual never takes an action unless it is otherwise motivated.

Now, otherwise motivated, lower down, becomes what everyone recognizes in the field of mental healing. They have recognized this for thousands of years. The toughest case, and that it requires physical - absolute physical handling in order to bring about any motion or volition on the person's - apparent volition on the person's part. That's - they call that catatonia.

It was one of the few names which had any visible application, and that was a very easy one because a catatonic simply lies there and does absolutely nothing. That's a total catatonic. That's an easy one to recognize. They could walk through the ward this person hasn't moved for the last couple of months so this person's catatonic.

You see? Easy one. So that classification is correct.

But that's total physical other-determinism required to bring about any motion on the part of the individual. Do you see that? In other words, if we wanted this person to move - it wouldn't be good enough to furnish motivation like saying, "There's a snake under your bed so you had better get off of it," and have him move. No, you'd actually have to use your hands and beams and building jacks and so forth to get this person to sit up. You get the idea? You'd actually have to apply leverage to the body.

Now, within that range you have all cases. And as you vary around these factors of pan-determinism, self-determinism and other-determinism, you'll see them going on a gradient scale on south from the top of the scale on down to the bottom of the scale. And you'll see that as we add in, then, various significances - now we start pouring the significances to it, we get all kinds of different kinds of engrams which cause this. And we get all kinds of reactions which are different, one from another reaction and so forth, but these are merely significances. And you shouldn't ever let a significance get you get you off the main track.

And the main track is, then, that a person's volition is at the top pan-determined, in the middle ground self-determined, and at the - toward the lower scale other- determined. You'll see, then, why CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 are the lower-scale processes, because they furnish known other-determinism.

Now, you ask a pc to do a thinkingness process la-di-da-di-da who is on total other- determinism and he never changes. Well, because he never does the process! Oh, but something is thinking a thought someplace. Yeah, I know, but it isn't doing anything. Get the idea? So the thinkingness processes don't fit in this lower band at all. Why? Because we're mainly getting on down toward semblance of MEST. MEST doesn't think. It's all a machine-operated proposition.

So, looking at this, recognizing it, you'd say any case can be fitted on some ratio of pan-determinism to self-determinism to other-determinism, and that would establish some position between 40.0 and minus 8.0. That would determine a position, see?

Now, that sounds all very complex, but you can go terribly astray by reading a bunch of significances into the case. Because all you're telling us is how he came to be pinned at that point on the Tone Scale. That's the significance of it. That's how he came to be pinned there. That's it.

Now, why he came to be pinned there has to do with fixation of attention, ability to reach, inability to withdraw - this sort of thing, these mechanics.

Now, when we say reach and withdraw we're talking about communicate and not- communicate, aren't we?

So, there are three indexes which give us the clue to any case. And as we inspect the case, we look for these three indexes: his level of actual affinity, his level of actual reality, and his actual level of communication. These three things all go together, neat as a pigeon pie - all three of them. They go hand in glove. We can diagnose two from any one of them.

The most visible of these is communication. So we take communication index as reality index as affinity index. A person's ability to communicate. Now when we say "communicate" we mean the communication formula, don't we, in its entirety - which is: cause, distance, effect. And again, cause-prime, distance-prime, effect- prime, you see. Back to the two-way flow of communication, capability of, with duplication at either end, and intention.

Now we're talking about something very precise here. We say to Joe, we say, "How are you, Joe?"

And he says, "I don't think it's cooked yet." Well, that's certainly - he answered up, but duplication factor was all missing.

Now, there's something to do with reality. And as you begin to plumb into the depths of cases, you will discover that reality is the most hidden factor that you will have anything to do with. And that is the one that always fools the auditor. He can learn communication perfectly, but he never learns, until he himself is shocked a few times by it, what some of these communication manifestations wind up in the subject of reality.

He'll know somebody quite well. He'll realize through his studies there must be something wrong with this fellow because his communication factor is so peculiar. It won't occur to him this has much to do with reality, until one day he'll catch the other fellow out on this fellow's level of reality. And it will be so incredible and so mismatched that we won't have a clue as to what he's talking about except as it matches up on a Reality Scale.

And he's liable to be going along and he considers it perfectly logical that pitchforks at all times should be polished with olive oil - and this is fine. Pitchforks should be polished with olive oil. All right, that's great, that's great. We never go to this degree: "What is a pitchfork?" and have the fellow hand us a chair. See? We almost never ask this additional question. We take, on the grounds of our reality, that his reality is all right.

One fine day, we're explaining to some electrician that came in to fix the lights - we're explaining to him that we want an outlet or something over - over in the corner over there. And we say we want it just that way. And we want it in the corner and the easiest way to get to it is there. And the next thing you know, why, he's down someplace rooting around the basement. And we wonder what he's doing down there. We think, "Well, it's electrician business, you know, he knows his business and so on." Pretty soon we find him up around the attic and so forth and he's fooling around up in the loft, and he's chewing things up up there one way or the other We say, "Well, he's looking for a lead or something like that. And there's nothing very reprehensible about that."

But a couple of days later we notice we haven't got any outlet yet. And he says, "Well, you can't put one in that house."

"Why can't you put one in that house?"

"Well, we - you can't put an outlet in that house, that's all, for the excellent reason that you can't put one in."

And we get another electrician and he puts us in an outlet in the same place and it's all all right.

We never take the additional step of finding out why it was impossible to get an outlet in that place. The reason we don't take it is we long ago wearied of trying to get a response on the total identification point of a person. Because you can ask them and ask them and ask them about this total identification point and the answers you get make no sense to you, or they are not answered or something else is answered, or if the actual answer comes to you, we figure out he didn't understand this and we skip it. You see this? We're so at war with somebody else's reality that we never bother, really, to take a square look at it. Therefore, auditors make mistakes in this particular direction.

We'd probably find the reason he couldn't put an outlet on there is you had a black baseboard. Well, that's it, You go in and you look at the black baseboard and it's not a black baseboard at all. It's brown. And it just doesn't make sense. As we try to add it up, things start going kind of creak.

We're at war with the other fellow's ideas of reality even when we can appreciate his affinity and observe his communication. We go to war with his reality. Why is that? Because reality is basically the product of all our agreement. And we find somebody that far out of agreement - he tends to shatter our environment because we're looking, to some degree, to him to keep this universe mocked up - foolishly or otherwise.

I often wonder what it would really look like if a lot of these fellows were all together and started to mock it up the way they thought it ought to look. The truth of the matter is they go out of existence as far as we're concerned. They actually move out of this universe to some degree. They are not mocking it up the same way.

Something else is occurring.

This all adds up to the Reality Scale then, doesn't it? Well, we're not talking about an extreme case when we talk about somebody that's got a mismatched reality. That's not an extreme case at all.

Hit a fellow over the head with a spanner and then hand it to him and ask him what you've got in your hand. I don't think you're going to get a sensible reply, I really don't. I don't think you're going to get a sensible description of the spanner. And even a couple of days later, he's not liable to see a spanner when he looks at the thing.

The example is - example is, watch a workman. He hurts himself with a tool. A couple of days later, ask him to find the tool. One of two things occurs. It will either be something he is now pressing to his bosom and keeping there all the time or it'll be lying right on his workbench and he can't see it at all. And he'll pass over it a half a dozen times and it's just not there. And you watch this fellow look for a hammer that, to him, is not there. And you'll get an idea that his reality is different than your reality because the hammer doesn't exist to him. It is not that - explanation, explanation, explanation, you see. It isn't something wrong with his eyesight or it isn't so. . . It's just not there. There's a very simple explanation.

What is he doing with it, though, to make it not there? Well, he's obviously putting it there and then not-ising it. He's wiping it out after he put it there.

Now, types of cases then produce only these difficulties to the auditor. The attention the person is capable of placing upon anything can be so poor that the individual can place no attention on auditing - himself. That's a very difficult case, then, isn't it?

Well, that will cover almost any kind of a case you want to look at, that's on the 2.0. He's more or less in difficulty on the placement of attention. He's having so much difficulty on the placement of attention that he's very difficult to audit.

Just above this his attention may be so automatic that, again, you don't have his attention but you think you do. He's a sort of a machine response. This individual, however - to an auditor who's getting along in practice and has a lot of experience - is not very difficult to detect. An auditor knows what a comm lag is after he's been processing people. This person never has a comm lag, never does the process either. But he apparently does and you could be fooled, you see.

But above that level, individual - he's doing the process. He benefits directly from some simple process.

And above that level you can do almost anything with the person and they just come up smiling. You know, they get gains. Anything you run on them, you get gains.

But how about the person who'd be all the way down, almost in a total dub-in, other- determinism and so forth? You can process the person, get them over rheumatism, heal their broken legs. You can do anything that you can do. It just happens to be another body there.

Now, this person is the one totally favored by hypnotists. The person is totally irresponsible, therefore, any healing that is done is done on the hypnotist's responsibility.

You can go better than that. If you're in good shape, all you do is make a postulate at them and something happens. I mean, they have no counter postulate of any kind. Well, they're just a vegetable, you might say, vegetable life. They move around, they apparently work or not work and things fall to pieces in their vicinity and they're - they fool you. They fool you like mad as a case.

There's not a person here that won't run into this case sooner or later and go chomping along saying, "My, my! Hurrah, hurrah! Aren't we making wonderful responses because the person's sciatica already disappeared and so forth." And then find out to your amazement, a few weeks later, the person says he never got any better. Well, that's absolutely right. His sciatica got better. The individual was never contacted in the auditing and the individual doesn't really have any say in it, wouldn't have been able to resist the processing, wouldn't actually have been able to get it unless somebody had given him a shove in the direction of it. You see?

And you're just working with pure clay, only there's something you never realized once you've realized that. There's something else to realize there. Why didn't you just go ahead and straighten him all the way up as a body? If you're forming or fashioning a body or straightening a body out, well, why don't you just do it? I mean, why bother to process anybody as a thetan? I mean, just mold him up and make a few postulates and move his pictures around and straighten him all up and so forth and put him on a shelf as a waxwork exhibit or something. You get the idea. It's within your power to do that.

You tell him to run an engram. Why, you kind of mock up the engram for him to run and he kind of runs it all through. And basically you say, "Well, that made you feel better, didn't it?"

And he says, "It's supposed to make me feel better. It's supposed to make me feel better. I feel better. Yes, that's fine." You'd be fooled by this case.

Every once in a while you see some child and you say, "Well, I can straighten this child out and, fine, and don't I have a wonderful grip on processing with this child?" Maybe this child's pretty spinny and you find out you've just been remaking a body and the child has never been consulted in the processing at all. You've just been making a body all over again, that's all. That's it.

Well, it's not very mysterious, not very mysterious at all. There's no mystery concerning it. It's just that the individual is a totally other-determined being. You furnish the other-determinism, naturally you're going to get someplace.

Now, above that level we have a slight contest. "No-o-o-o, I don't want to get well. Nyahh, I want to chop things up one way or the other." And his goals are going south while yours are going north. These are the trouble you have with people.

And you say, "Nothing I do can please him." Man, that's certainly so right! He is not capable of being pleased. And that whole band up there above 2.0 carries that characteristic. And you're trying to satisfy somebody, you're trying to please somebody, you're trying to make somebody happy. This person is not satisfied, cannot be happy and that's his affinity level.

Person's reality is actually the only thing that you have to hand to tap and immediately and directly improve.

Now, why can you improve reality? Because that is always your link, no matter how strange it may seem in the pc. If he's in the samc universe vou are in, it's because of agreements on the subject of reality. Whatever his communication and affinity factors might be, you nevertheless still have a common meeting ground to some slight degree with the preclear in this zone of reality. So you can actually touch his reality better even if you recognize it more poorly than any other factor in the case.

So you can always improve somebody's reality. That you can always do. And if you know this and if you do improve people's reality and if you do work on this particular structure, it is necessary first to be able to observe what a reality is without blowing your stack and protesting it all over the place and supposing it had to be something else.

You must be able to look at a reality and say, "That's that person's - must be that person's reality." This is his affinity level. Can't be pleased, nothing ever is pleasing in any way, shape or form. Look at his communica tion level. He never answers up the questions, he always has lags, twists, curves, no duplication on the subject and so forth. Well, that gives us our accurate estimate of what the reality of the person is.

So we pick up that person's reality where we can pick it up and we improve that person's reality. And the other factors follow through because they are just built into auditing - communication and affinity are built into auditing. Reality is not. That has to be found and can be changed and regulated.

Types of cases then boil down to just this: is the degree of reality the individual is capable of attaining. That's about all you can say about a case - just to be a blunt package statement - to give reality he's capable of attaining.

Individual who is terrifically high on the scale is very frightening to have around for an entirely different reason. That's up in the middle ranges. His self-determinism permits him to create for himself almost any kind of an atmosphere or reality he cares to have.

You know? He says, "Well, I feel gloomy today," and he feels gloomy. That's it. Or he says, "Well, isn't it a lovely day and I feel happy." It's a lovely day and he's happy.

It's as - almost as simple as that, you see. He creates his own environment, you might say. He might have contests against the creation of his own environment and so forth, but he's always making it one way or the other.

But this isn't the fellow that is terrifying to have around. The fellow that is terrifying to have around is clear up to the top of the scale.

And it's very weird that people in general are so reverted or obverted or something of the sort that they fear wrong way to. They think the quiet person who doesn't give any trouble, he's the nice one to have around. Yet he's the one who always sets the house on fire - if we've got to have people always setting houses on fire. And they say the person at the top of the scale who's just dreaming it all up in all directions and so on, he's really dangerous to have around. Well, this is not true. It's an exact reverse look.

Fellow at the bottom of the scale is the most dangerous person you could possibly have in your vicinity. Fellow at the top of the scale is usually - because he's pan- determined on all dynamics - he's probably the safest person to have around. He just simply, sometimes gets more active than other people. But he can create a reality that you can have too. And that's very, very remarkable.

He gets up to a point where he mocks up pound notes and you see the pound notes. But if he can mock up the pound notes he doesn't palm them off on you. The thing is a self-limiting, self-governing set of mechanisms, actually.

As far as case types are concerned, there is just one case type. And that is a thetan going down scale into a gradient scale of advanced difficulties with affinity, reality and communication. And out of this gradient scale we get an apparency of many case types. But when we add particular engrams making people in particular ways, then we get an enormous new number of case - apparent case types. And then it flies out the window if we don't know anything about it at all. There's apparently one case type per person and we - that's it.

This is something to remember when you're looking at somebody. Affinity, reality, communication - these factors established will give you entrance to the case, will let you classify the case, will let you predict the case and let you straighten it out.

Unless you yourself are too greatly at war with his reality to recognize that that is his reality, you will succeed every time with such cases and they won't fool you and run up a bunch of failures on you.

Thank you. Thank you.