What's happening there? You're running through the actual circuitry of the guy's own bank. And it is a map. So you could see very easily if you put a command into one part of the person's bank, it's liable to come out anything.

I want to give you here, on - what is the date? The eleventh of July, is it?

Let's supposing you put the command "Walk" into one part of his bank. It's just as likely to register "Don't walk." And we get what we call an inversion. The only thing that will go through the various circuits and motivate muscles is the command "Don't walk." We say "Walk" and all it does is restimulate "Don't walk." See this?

Male voice: Right.

So, monitoring a body out here at a distance is complicated to the degree that the body may not be responding on the same line. If you get real smart about this, you could simply tell the waitress, "Don't you dare come over to this table" and they come right over. Not necessarily complete positive/negative, "Come over to this table" may mean "Powder my nose." See, all kinds of complications could occur.

Nineteen fifty-five. I want to give you here the curriculum of the HCA Course, as it has been designed, redesigned and refined.

In dancing, it's a great oddity, if the dance instructor were to watch, occasionally say, "Now you put your right foot forward. Now you put your right foot forward." And the dancing instructor sets the example and puts his or her right foot forward, to find the person then getting rigid without putting his right foot forward.

Actually, the HCA Course has been teaching, for a great many months, something it called the Six Basic Steps. And this is very interesting because the Six Basic Steps actually have never been-well, they haven't been for some months - six. They've been seven.

And the early days of instruction would be quite routine, quite ordinary. The person doesn't do it right away, so it takes a little coaxing, a little coaxing. What are you doing? You're running out the reversal here. The very fact that he's supposed to put his right foot forward means "stick," see? When we get "Walk," we get "Don't walk." We say "Walk," we get "Don't walk."

Now, this is a remarkable fact, but I'm not going to ball you up with what had been the seven. I'm going to sail straight in here and give you what are the modern auditing procedures.

Now, the oddity is, you take a person that would be very hard to teach how to dance, you say, "Put your right foot forward" and you're liable to get him tossing his head, you know. Well, just as easily, you say, "Put your right foot forward" and the person begins to talk!

Now, in the next to the last paragraph of the last article - article eight of Ability Major, issued mid-July 1955, you will discover several steps listed. These are the indoctrination week steps, and those steps you should know very, very well.

Now look at that as simply stimulus-response machinery going into action. You can monitor a body. The only thing that would kick back against you monitoring a body would be the fact, is the body monitorable?

You would be surprised that it would take anybody a week to learn these steps. "We've just had somebody going through this and it would take a week, but the truth of the matter is these things have to be practically second nature before anybody can proceed along these lines. These steps are, very roughly, getting the auditor into communication with the preclear. Now, you get that as a different procedure than getting the preclear into communication with the auditor, see that? Getting the auditor into communication with the preclear.

To make that a little more plain, it is very easy for you, let us say, to run a steam engine. But what about a steam engine that doesn't have any fire in the boiler?

All right. So the first week of the Indoctrination Course is spent getting the auditor into communication with the preclear. And the basic steps which you find-have you got that. Jack, by the way, that Ability Major? I'll read these off to you just exactly as they appear, and you will see that they are very elementary, but the odd part of it is they are so elementary that people look at them and say, "Oh yes, of course" and don't learn them.

Now, let's say it's very easy for you to start a car and drive a car.

And then the person moves into the HCA Course and starts co-auditing and there's a confusion somewhere and the Instructor gets complaints and he says, "I don't like Joe because Joe is not a good auditor."

Well, what about a car that doesn't have a crankcase, no gas in the tank, battery dead? Get the idea?

Now, why is he saying this? He's saying this for this reason only: Joe is not into communication with the preclear. That's the only thing that has happened, the only thing that is wrong.

So there could be impediments to your monitoring a body which would have nothing to do with your own strength and power.

It isn't that Joe has a bad idea of Scientology, it isn't that he doesn't know his processes, it's just that he has never learned to get into communication with a preclear. That's why we spend a week on this and, thereafter, auditing in the course works. But if we don't have that basic indoctrination, the auditing doesn't work.

Of course, you always feel-thetan gets real cocky, he feels "Why, I ought to be good enough," so I just simply say, "Whooh!" and the person's monitorable then, go ahead and monitor them. Still haven't done anything for the individual.

Now, you see that's very, very important the first week. The other thing which happens in the first week is, under the guidance of a professional auditor, we have some reality on one's own case. In other words, a professional auditor gives some auditing during the first week so as to deliver a reality on one's own case that Scientology can do something to one's own case. And those are the goals of the first week.

You're trying to do something for an individual, that's the first and foremost thing you must learn. This individual is not a body, this individual is a thetan-something without space, without mass, without time, without wavelength and that is what you are working with. A person is as bad off as he believes that he is mass, energy, space or time. He's just that bad off-direct and exact coordination.

Doesn't seem like very much goals, because here are these steps, these exact rudiments: one, awareness of the auditor, the auditing room, that an auditing session is in progress. That's the first essential to a session, absolutely essential. The preclear must have awareness of the auditor, the auditing room, that an auditing session is in progress. Well, now the odd part of it is, in teaching auditors this, we go at it in the reverse. We've got to teach the auditor to be aware of a preclear, see that?

How do you return his beingness to him as a thetan? You restore what we call his self-determinism, which in Scientology of these later months has become pan-determinism, which is the willingness to monitor two or more identities, whether or not opposed. Perfect willingness to monitor the French army and the German army, which are fighting violently together at the same time. Perfectly willing to monitor both sides at the same time.

Now, do you know there's many an auditor sits there and he says, "All right. Give me some more things you wouldn't mind forgetting." And the preclear says, "Well. .. Say!"

You have an opponent, he is fighting you bitterly, and your perfect willingness and cognizance and knowledge that this opponent is fighting you and yet a perfect willingness to monitor his fighting of you. What would happen if you got perfectly willing about that opponent fighting you? A fascinating thing would occur: the fight would cease, the conflict would cease.

And the auditor says, "Now come, come. Give me some more things you wouldn't mind forgetting."

Most all men are involved with fighting themselves. This is all they are fighting. They will tell you, "I'm out here fighting the universe, I'm fighting God, I'm fighting space, fighting time, I'm fighting my job." If they're fighting anything, the first thing they'll be fighting is themselves.

And the preclear goes "Dahhh."

You can just say that as a broad statement about any person. You just look at this person and you say, "Well, he's fighting himself." It's something like saying, "Well, I'm looking at a person." I mean, same level of truth. I'm just looking at somebody, "Well, he's fighting himself."

What did he try to do? He tried to tell the auditor that he had just discovered the fundamental erroneous principle of his existence and he had just now cognited on this and here is the only audience present, one auditor.

This is a great oddity. The restraints and denials which you put upon you are the only things which aberrate you. So therefore we can say with great smug truth that you did it all yourself. We can say that very smugly that "you did it all yourself."

And the auditor says, "Huh?"you know. Goes right on-impatient-he's got to run that process.

The only trouble is, you did it by misownership. That doesn't say how you did it by yourself. You said you did things that other people did. You said you didn't do things which you did, which is the denial of self and which then gives you energy masses which fight you.

That auditor is not aware of that preclear. And do you know that the majority of cases that are spoiled and have to be picked up by another auditor-in other words, an auditor spoils a case for himself and then this case has to be picked up by another auditor - is spoiled simply because the auditor did not look at the preclear and see that the preclear had something to say. Just as easy as that.

See you're still doing it, but how are you doing it? You're doing it by misownership.

Sometimes the preclear doesn't know he has something to say. And that's the real sign of a good auditor: he all of a sudden knows the preclear has something to say and the preclear doesn't know it yet. He said, "Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting."

You're saying, "The deeds which I do, I don't do." This makes them perpetual. "The deeds which I didn't do, I am saying I did do. I am guilty of my grandfather's death." You weren't even there. You didn't have anything to do with it at all, therefore it stays in restimulation. It stays extant.

And the preclear starts going like this... [laughter]

Remember, the individual himself is the only being who is checking himself. Understand this very clearly because, otherwise, auditing would never work!

And the auditor at this point realizes the preclear has something to say!

You would have to have Grandpa and Grandma and Papa and Mama and the US Government and the income tax bureau and the Federal Boys Institute and everybody else present. The generals of the armies-you'd have to get all the personnel there ever was all the way back down the track. You understand that?

Now, do you know that the dramatization of hand-talking (the terrific dramatization of the Italian, for instance, or other hot-country people, of hand-talking) is a physical communication and it lies just below the level of verbal communication. And just before an individual has something to articulate verbally, a very sharp auditor will know it, because no matter how slightly, there will be some small tremor on the part of the individual.

You'd just have to get everybody in the whole world around an individual before you could do anything for him. You would have to get anybody who ever thought a thought about this person to change his mind concerning that person. You see that? If this other thing weren't true. But it happens that this other thing is true: that an individual did it all himself.

It may be the Italian: "Oh, I feel stupendo, wonderful, magnifico this morning. Wonderful world!" see?

And how did he do it by himself? He did it by himself very, very simply. He misowned or miscalled the actual authors of all the deeds which are in restimulation. If a deed is in restimulation, he must be miscalling the authorship of the deed.

Or it may be the Englishman's ... [deep breath] which is a big gesture for an Englishman. [laughter]

The army really did chew him up during the war. The army put him into bad condition. And he's saying, "All right. I did it myself. I put myself into bad condition." And so he stays in bad condition.

You'll find most conversation has these two levels going on at once. But the odd part of it is, is before a communication comes up to the verbal level, it ordinarily is in the form of a solid or action level. So an auditor always knows when a preclear has something to say and sometimes the preclear doesn't even know he has something to say. And the auditor says to him, "What happened? What went on? What went on just then?"

So he put himself into bad condition because he didn't want to report to duty-another case-he didn't want to report to duty and go and get shot up. He showed some small reluctance to getting small pieces of lead through his anatomy and so he wound himself up in sick bay. He turned himself in to the hospital. And thereafter he's saying, "Look what the army did to me." He's sick! And he says, "Look what the army did to me." And he's still sick, isn't he? Well then, you know immediately that the army couldn't have done it to him.

And the preclear says, "Did something go on just then? Oh, yes. Yeah, something. Oh yes. I was just remembering all those times my mother beat me. Yes, yes. It's very sad, except - I don't know, there's something wrong with it somehow or another. It kind of, it... I don't know, it-uh-uh, ahem ... Of course there's that time I beat my mother. Yes! [sigh]" And then the preclear didn't even know he had it to say.

You see that clearly? Very simple. But remember that the reverse is true. He's saying, "Well, I did it to myself. I wanted to be sick, I wanted to get out of fighting, I wanted to goldbrick and I did it to myself and this is how I got that way and this is how sick I am." And you look at him, he's sick, isn't he? He didn't do it to himself, the army did it to him. Get both conditions, hm? Both conditions.

In other words, this is a little bit of forced cognition on the part of the auditor. The auditor looks at the preclear and knows the preclear has something to say and, by asking him what he has to say, all of a sudden causes the preclear to cognite. And the preclear all of a sudden realizes he had something to say.

But remember that above both of these conditions, he still did it to himself. He did doing it to himself on this via of misauthorship or misownership. You see that clearly? Therefore if some of these points are straightened out with an individual, his self-determinism begins to increase. But let's look at pan-determinism.

Therefore an auditor who knows this and who does this can get a preclear cogniting, bang, bang bang bang and the preclear never cognited on anything before.

This doesn't happen to an individual who is perfectly willing to run the army or himself, because he can't misown something. How can a person who owns everything misown anything? Not possible then, is it? A person who is capable, willing or able to determine the course of anything is therefore incapable of misowning anything.

You know, the rain was coming down and he didn't even cognite it was wet. But if somebody had said to him, just as an example, "Boy, look at this weather." [pause]

Now, if you just got that principle, if you see that principle clearly, you can see anything that is wrong with an individual because it's contained right there.

"It's wet!"

An individual is as sick as he has taken sides. An individual is as sick as he is partisan. The Roman Catholic Church is as sick as it will not be the Protestant Church. The Baptists are as sick as they will not be Methodists.

See? Now, this same mechanism is used, therefore the auditor has to be aware of the preclear.

The Communists are as sick as they will not be the Catholics. The Republicans are as sick as they will not be Democrats. And when I say sick, I mean non-self-determined.

Just being aware of Scientology and yourself is not enough in an auditing session. So we get this first rule again: Awareness of an auditor, the auditing room and that an auditing session in progress. Now, this is what's wrong with "coffee shop auditing." There isn't an agreement that a session is in progress and no real awareness that a session is in progress, because no agreement has been reached that a session is in progress, you know?

You could say, "Sickness-non-self-determined. Aberrated- non-self-determined."

You keep asking this person questions, but he's aware that he's drinking coffee, not aware that a session is in progress. And therefore the auditing doesn't have any bite, punch, and very often will simply throw somebody into his bank somewhat.

The only way you can get a via into the line is to become a unit individual. That puts a via in the line, doesn't it? You can handle all of it, so you're being John Doe. Now, if you put a via into the line just to this degree, you have God. Here we have God. And you're saying, "He is a special identity that's going to punish me and he is everything." Drrrrrrh. You're going to get sick. Cinch. Cinch.

Another thing is that a session is in progress-is a corollary to this, you have to tell a preclear that a session is over. So we use this "End of session." In "coffee shop auditing" very few people ever say "End of session."

You're going to get equally sick if you turn around and say, "Now I am God and I'm going to punish that little squirt down there," see? An individual then has to have some unity with allness, everywhere, in order to retain some balance unto himself. See that?

All right. Let's take number two. Number two is two-way communication on a casual basis. You won't learn all there is to know about that for a year. I can just guarantee that. But you have to learn a lot about it in the indoctrination week and you have to practice it an awful lot during the HCA Course.

He has to be something of himself and something of God. It isn't God in him or him in God. Therefore we get the oldest process, I guess, that any kid uses, and that's Beingness Processing.

What is this two-way communication on a casual basis, what is it? Take Book and Bottle, old Dirty 30 as the process - Opening Procedure by Duplication, its correct name.

A kid can be a choo-choo train and he wouldn't be too shocked to be Christ or God. Now, we catch him twenty years later and we say to him, "All right"-auditing session, see-saying, "All right. Now be God."

We have a person going from the book to the bottle and doing the same duplicative maneuver over and over and over and over and over and over and we find out, with auditor number one, nothing happens. Preclear gets unhappy.

"Dzzzaaa." Can't do it.

What's occurring? Well, the auditor is simply not being aware of the preclear's desire to communicate and no two-way communication is carrying on.

Who can he be? Well, we only found him twenty years later, you know, he's only about twenty now, so who can he be? He can be John Doe. Well, let's catch him about twenty years later, now. Can he be John Doe? He can't be John Doe anymore. See this oddity which is occurring here? In other words, when you say he's losing his ability to be-when he's losing his ability to be, he is losing his pan-determinism. And as fast as he loses this pan-determinism, the less, then, he can take responsibility for, the less he is actually owning correctly and the more he's misowning it.

Well, to give you the idea of what we're trying to reach, we could do Book and Bottle with 100 percent conversation - 100 percent. In other words, we never gave Book and Bottle commands at all, you know? No Opening Procedure by Duplication commands. We wouldn't say, "Now, did you see that book? All right. Walk over to it." We just never use those commands.

If he were totally pan-determined, he couldn't misown anything. He could say at will, "The Germans own it and Bill owns it and everybody owns it and I own it" and it'd all equally be correct. See that? It'd all be equally true, uniformly.

What we'd say: "Well, now there is this-how do you feel about this process now? Well, is that so? It reminds you of your grandmother. Well, that's fine. Yap, yap,yap, yap,yak, yak, yak, yak, yak." Get the idea? That wouldn't be two-way communication about the process or on the subject of the process, it'd just be random two-way communication. That's one extreme.

Why? Because he himself knows it isn't true. So we would get the state of aberration or the state of being Homo sapiens or less, simply as that state of "convincedness" of ownership and identity.

The other extreme is no communication on the process at all, just commands. "Do you see that book? All right. Walk over to it," see. "Pick it up." So on.

If you sit in the auditing chair and know-oh, a terrific conviction-that you are not that preclear, you're going to wind up restimulated. That I promise. Can't promise anything else except that: you'll wind up restimulated.

Just go on with these auditing commands and the preclear picks it up and he reels and he says, "Ohhh!"

You sit there saying, "Oh boy, I'm glad I didn't have a mother like that-ha!" Hrff! Or "I'm glad I didn't belong to that church." Brrr. Of course it's perfectly all right for you to say that, you know, "I'm glad I didn't have a mother like that," realizing it would have been totally possible for you to have had a mother like that. Never restimulate you.

And the auditor says, "All right. What is its temperature?" Honest, the preclear winds up after a while perfectly willing to kill the auditor.

You're perfectly willing to have a mother like that, that you can comment like you look at a play, on it, but if you're totally convinced and deadly serious that it'd be a very, very dangerous thing for you to have had a mother like that, you'll get restimulated. In other words, you're not willing to be the preclear and be yourself.

Actually, do you know-do you know that it's perfectly simple and easy to run this Opening Procedure by Duplication with two-way communication without your preclear ever getting upset or blowing a session on it? Well now, that's just exactly how much two-way communication you would use.

Now, it's a very good thing that we are not operative in the field of psychiatry. We do not operate in that field. We have nothing to do with that field.

The revolt begins, the process works, the revolt ends and the process continues. Bad two-way communication (none or too much) might cause, either one, the auditing session to end - right there. Preclear not even pick up his hat, just walk out and say, "Hell with you!" I've had it happen, I've seen it happen, so forth. And when this happens it's an error in two-way communication.

But if you were working with insane persons, you would get this great oddity: a tremendous unwillingness to be that insane person. Person out of control, uncontrollable one way or the other, mad. And we keep facing this all during auditing sessions when we're tired and disappointed or upset or anything else, we would be facing there, "insane people, insane people, insane people," you know?

Now, although British auditors are ordinarily very, very good auditors-we got one over here, we made a citizen out of him in a hurry. He made a number of mistakes which are evidently being made in Great Britain and the preclear blew the session on Think a Thought. "Think a thought. Think a thought. Think a thought."

And sooner or later it's liable to sneak up on us. We're liable to find one that we're not willing to be. By no stretch of the imagination would we be this gibbering thing sitting there slobbering all over itself and mouthing obscenities. And right at that moment we're done! We're done as a healer because we found something we're not willing to be. And at that moment restimulation can set in.

This auditor was not introducing enough two-way communication with the preclear in order to bring about an even affinity, reality, communication. See, no triangle. And the preclear blew the session. And the auditor followed the preclear out into the street while the preclear was getting into her car, still saying to the preclear, "Think another thought." The preclear left, has never been seen again. Now, what was the error there?

Now, let's look at this as a parallel of life. It tells you that somewhere back on the track you must have run into something you weren't willing to be-and I mean dead unwilling to be. Just not for anything would you be that thing! Bye-bye. There went your pan-determinism, which immediately got, in its more narrow sense, self-determinism. "Well, I can determine the course of myself but I'm not going to determine the course of those damn Germans." You know, this philosophy. When a nation is pushed to war, it inevitably winds up at the end of that war lower in tone than it was at the beginning of that war. That's just the way it works.

The error was simply no two-way communication. The moment the preclear started to look upset, the auditor should have said, "What is happening?"

There's no reason for it to have to have a reason to fight, see? But it says, "Oh, these Germans are real bad, these people are real bad, they're real bad. We can't be like them, we can't be like them." And we get the other mechanism: we get an enforced "Be like them."

"Oh, it's turning on my migraines."

We finally wind up to where we feel forced to be them, because we've resisted them so hard. In other words, we've caved in. "Walk" has become "Don't walk." We've resisted walking so hard that we're now not walking. We've resisted not walking so hard that we're now walking. It's an oddity.

"Oh, is that so? Had migraines for a long time? Is that so? Well, that's very interesting. Well now, what-what did you do just then?"

But that is not a cure for anything. That is an obsession and an obsessiveness and that is all it is. That's without determinism. We're simply working like a bunch of robots or machines.

"Well, I thought a thought."

Now, what ensues here, then, in all this processing? We're just simply, one way or the other, asking the individual to be more, control more, be willing to reach further, that's all. That's all we're asking him to do. So we come to these nine processes.

"Well, did you think the thought?"

A thetan can see what he can be and he can be what he can see. That is an old saw-London, 1952. A thetan can be what he can see, he can see what he can be.

"Well, I don't know. Who cares who thought-boy this is a horrible migraine!"

Now "seeingness" is not terribly important. After all, it depends on space and mass and flows or basically an idea, but that's kind of the entrance point, right there.

"Oh boy, they can sure be pretty bad, can't they?" auditor says.

Unfortunately for a lot of things-I didn't say "a lot of people"-for a lot of things it is not an entrance point. An entrance point is far south from there for these cases. But I'm afraid that they're out of sight for ordinary routine purposes of living and certainly for ordinary routine pieces of auditing, they are out of sight. Something for you to realize, there.

"Now-well, what thought did you just think that did this?"

It's not that you have a case level which is impossible for you to reach. There is no such thing. But you would have to start reaching it by the various laws of necromancy and spiritualism. You'd make them well by shifting over into their heads and deteriorating the mass yourself in some fashion and then flipping out and coaxing them into some kind of a communication or reaching in and pulling them out of their heads, which is a possibility. Or doing a mass-the Atomic Energy Commission seems to have some idea (not the Atomic Energy Commission, it doesn't have that idea at all) but the governments who employ atomic energy seem to have the mission of clearing everybody. Boom!

"Owl"

All right. Now-all right, that's another way now, but you see, that's clearing against self-determinism. So theoretically it wouldn't be very workable would it? Yet there are downscale measures.

"Well, hey, that's interesting, every time you try to think this thought, you get that pain, huh?"

You could take somebody and put him over here where he is not in total conflict, where he is at ease, where he can breathe, where the pressures of life are not hitting him continually and you will see him revive up to a level of where he can operate. You see that?

"Yeah, that's right! Hey, that's real curious. When I think this thought ..."

When you start going south-let's take a nervous breakdown or nervous collapse and we discover that one of the easy ways to handle this is not auditing as such. That's not an easy way to handle it. The easiest way to handle it is to give the person less conflict with existence and let them have some quiet for a while and they come out of it.

"Well, what thought are you thinking?"

Eventually, one day, quite by accident, they'll open up an eye and there will be no saber-toothed tiger about ready to claw their throat out. So a couple of days later they'll carefully open the eye again, they'll find out there's nothing there but the bottom of the bed. So about a day later they'll open their eye and there's nothing there but a chair [sigh]. About that time they say, "Huh, chair. Not even anybody sitting in it. Yeah, what do you know, huh. Chair. [sigh] And it isn't going to hit me. Do you know that's something to think about. A chair. Yeah. It's not in motion. And the bottom of the bed, it's not in motion either."

"Ow! Uh-uh-uh-uh [sigh], that women are all alike."

The person sees a vase sitting there. The vase, by the way, is full of flowers. They don't see the flowers, they just see a vase there. They say, "What do you know, a vase. It's not broken. What do you know. Look at that. It's not broken. Ah, well. Feel a little better this morning."

Now, you see, your pc didn't blow the session. What would have happened if you'd just gone on saying, "Think a thought," see? Oooh! Because when there is no two-way communication, there's only one person present, as far as the preclear is concerned: the preclear. And only one person present as far as the auditor is concerned and that's the auditor. So, we don't have two people and we don't have an auditing session.

The only thing wrong with institutions, by the way, which take on people who have nervous breakdowns is they keep picking on them-they keep doing things. They keep moving them around and putting them in things and restraining them and they're always in action. They get an environment in action against the individual! And that's a lot of malarkey. You don't want anything to do with it at all. If you possibly could do so, what you want to do is take somebody out where there's a lot of space of some kind or another and also some shelter that he can't tear up, one way or the other. And if you just let him sit under those conditions for a while, he would snap back to battery eventually or he'd die, but it'd still be on his own determinism.

Each one has a viewpoint of only one person being present. And the preclear has been one person present, many times, in his or her living room or bedroom, with this migraine headache and has not been able to handle it and has immediately run out and found a doctor or an aspirin or a drink of whiskey or a glass of tea. They have numerous applications for a migraine and so forth, but why did they run out? Well, they couldn't handle it themselves. So you must conceive that any time a preclear blows the session that the preclear must conceive that he was there all by himself, incapable of handling the process or the thought which was occurring.

So here we have about the basic level of entrance of a case, is give them a rest in some space, without anybody nagging at them at all. That's basic entrance. That's how far south you can go. You can't go any further south than that because they go out of complete visibility below that point, because they're dead.

See, the preclear must have believed this-must have believed he was alone. Now, if you look in The Original Thesis, you will find out that preclear plus auditor equals more thought versus the engram than preclear versus engram. Preclear versus engram, the engram greater than preclear, see. Preclear plus auditor versus engram, that's greater than the engram. And how do you bring this equation into being? Two-way communication.

If they're ever going to recover-this is something that you should know and something that I-. This is not a subject-on the subject of insanity, not a talk on that, but there is something you should know, because someday we're going to have every institution there is in this whole country. Now , we certainly better know something about it.

So, therefore you have to know the optimum amount of two-way communication in which to engage. You could engage in so much two-way communication that no processing would get done at all, except two-way communication. But if that is the case, remember, for heaven's sakes, to do two-way communication, not "analytic," huh, communication. There's no such thing as psychoanalytic communication, see. It just doesn't exist. It is either total evaluation by the analyst or total free association by the patient. You see that as not two-way communication? Well, that's just dead wrong. It's a wonder the analyst ever made any headway at all or stayed alive at all, just with that flaw. So we have to know this two-way communication on a casual basis.

Although it seems to pose a considerable problem, although the problem seems to be desperately urgent, remember, there's one thing wrong with all these people: it's all been too urgent. Got that? You just look at a person who's insane, whether he's in apathy, lying still, drooling, screaming, no matter what he's doing, it's all been too urgent. It's all emergency and if you go feeding them more emergency, you'll just knock them flat again. So if you run an institution, just see there's a minimum of emergency anywhere. A minimum of action.

All right. Let's take up three, the delivery of the question. You would be amazed how many ways there are to deliver a question.

It's actually the easiest thing in the world to run an institution. You just have to have enough space-you segregate people along the lines of who are the people here who aren't going to harm each other. And who are the people that would mildly and who are the people that definitely would. And we just take a division along this line and we give them as much space as is possibly available within that framework and then we give them all kinds of quiet. See, and we give them no emergencies. We don't have alarm bells going, we don't have attendants coming in and out and slapping doors. We don't have people walking up and down halls and all of this kind of thing. We don't have examinations, madly-people being there. And we certainly don't attempt treatment. Get that last. It's terribly important.

You could say [slurred], ""Well, give me another thought."

Now, our subject is not the subject of the insane, but there is, to all intents and purposes, the only workable solution for insanity which we have in the shot-locker right now. There are possibly a lot better solutions, but they just don't happen to be here and now. So you take what you do know here and now.

Or you could say, "Well [sigh], give me another thought."

We do know that none of the extant "solutions" which are being used are workable, simply by viewing the statistics-this is not an opinion of mine, it's just the statistics-that where these things are used we don't get recovery. So there's this low level of insane, the insane person who has decided to die and he's not changed his mind. And as long as there's urgency in his environment at all, he'll just keep on deciding to die because he can't tolerate any more motion.

Or you could say [antagonistic], "Give me another thought."

All right. Therefore and thereby, to all intents and purposes, the lowest point south that you're going to go in your steps is step number one, which is called Locational Processing.

The dominant type of auditor, "Give me another thought!"

And you just do this with the guy. I don't care if he's sane, I don't care if he's exteriorized or anything else. Let's do this trick. Let's have him locate some things. And by this we don't mean walk over to them. He doesn't walk over to them and touch them. He doesn't go into action. There is no action going on in this process. We just have him locate some things.

Or you could say [apathetic], "Well, you might as well give me another thought-do anything for you anyhow."

We ask him questions like "How many walls have we got here? How many ceilings and floors? How many chairs in the room? And are there any pictures in the room?" And this sounds like something you'd use on a psycho, but it's not a psycho process. Don't get yourself confused there. It is the process which lies immediately below Two-way Communication and is a faster process than in Two-way Communication, because if you keep it up long enough, the person will start to talk to you. Now that's why and where you use it.

That auditing question must be given in such a way as to bring about a state of mind on the part of the preclear that you, the auditor, are interested in him.

Now, you've already, as I've said, you've got to know these other things I was talking to you about: about a session in progress and all that sort of thing, but the funny part of it is your preclear may not know a session is in progress in some cases. He maybe had a bad time for a couple of weeks and is upset emotionally and yet he's getting auditing, and work out all right. Well, let's be quiet about the whole thing, let's just, you know, be calm about it and let's have him locate some things in the room. And you'll find out that he'll go into two-way communication faster than if you ask him questions directly. Why?

Now, the funny part of it is, you don't have to be interested in him at all if you know exactly how to give the auditing question. You don't have to get in there and sweat and strain and interiorize into his brain. You can be perfectly casual about it, perfectly casual. Don't run on the old Shakespearean adage that, in order to act, you must feel the totality of the part. That is not true. The actor who feels the totality of the part does not act. He's not acting, he's living. And it doesn't get across to an audience and it doesn't communicate well at all because it's serious, it's too real, it's too solid.

Because the whole environment is putting its attention on him, its attention on him and telling him, "By the way, put your attention on yourself, put your attention on yourself," see? And you come along with two-way communication and you say, "Well, now how long have you had this condition?" See, it's just more urgency, more "Put the attention on yourself."

There's a very interesting story told about a very famous stage actress, I think it was Sarah Bernhardt, and the last scene is expressed by one hand. And she has this hand which is just outside the curtain and it does an expression of great grief. (This was quite a thing, this was back about 1918.) And the substance of the play was that she, in the play, receives a telegram from the War Department saying she, the play actress in the play, has just lost her husband in battle in World War I. And the audiences of New York were going wild about this-what grief, what pathos, what bathos, fascinating, wonderful, terrific-until, if I remember the story straight, one evening she went through the act and the audience booed her. They booed her. She had just received a telegram from the War Department telling her of the death of her son, in battle.

So let's get his attention off of himself, huh? And let's ask him if they've got a floor here, see? And he'll play the same trick that he'd play if he were given a rest. He'll open one eye after a few days and say, "Look there's a bottom of the bed. There's no lion at the bottom of the bed." In other words, get him oriented a little bit.

Now, you would say offhand, "Listen," you would say, "that must have been real then, she must really have been able to have expressed that." Quite the contrary, she did not express it. It was real.

Well, now, the truth of the matter is that you couldn't possibly go wrong if you started every session on every preclear in this fashion. You couldn't go wrong. Ask him to locate some things. Well, now of course, you have to ask him to locate some things in a way where he won't be insulted. Let me assure you that the preclear who can be insulted by an auditing question is having a very hard time of it-very protective. Person that can be insulted, it merely means he's very protective of self-tells you he's having a hard time, anyhow. So, just ask him to locate some things and don't expect him to say, "Yes!" The fact that he turned his-you ask him if there's a rocking chair in the room, he turned his head over toward the rocking chair. That's your answer. Now, you got that clearly? That's your answer. He actually looked at the rocking chair or he flicked his eyeballs in its direction. Or he sat right there and kept on staring at you.

So there is a certain amount of detachment present on the part of the auditor that delivers this. So if you ever go to feeling like there's something wrong with - a rather detached, not total-participant feeling in your auditing, you feel rather happy about the whole thing and the preclear's saying there, "Boohoo," you know, and you say sympathetically, "Well, that is too bad." You could think to yourself at the same time, because you're not telegraphing your thoughts, there is no telegraph machine set up between you and the preclear-you could think, well, in a little while you will think it is very, very funny, somebody kicking the bucket in this fashion. And there's the preclear crying and upset and so forth.

How do you know he didn't notice the rocking chair? Don't keep nagging him about that rocking chair. Don't keep nagging him about it. Say, "Is it in motion?" or something like that.

The funny part of it is, you remain in control of the situation as long as you yourself are not upset and as long as you yourself can express, a la acting, a proper respect for his grief, a proper participation in his grief.

You've asked him, "Is there a rocking chair in the room?" He's looking right at you and he didn't give any sign that he saw it. And you say, "Is it in motion?"

Now that is a very narrow Hne, isn't it? We could go out on the basis of just a total insincerity, "Yeah. Well, what's so sad about your dog dying?" Youknow, this kind of an attitude, to "Oh, you poor fellow. It reminds me of my dog too," and the auditor starts to cry along with the preclear.

He's liable to do something odd on a question like this, he's liable to say, "Nuh-uh." Probably shake his head, something.

Now, somewhere in between these two extremes we find a mean whereby the auditor maintains the control of the situation, maintains interest in and affinity with the preclear and delivers that auditing question and puts into the two-way communication he's indulging in at the same time-just enough, not too much, not too little-just enough and the auditor himself does not entirely, wholly, participate in the grief or emotional response of the preclear. Not because it's bad, it's just because the auditor doesn't have to.

It's a great oddity, because he actually saw the thing from behind himself or had a feeling it was there or he noticed it when he came in and so forth. He's sure there's a rocking chair there.

You notice that interiorization into a body brings about less control of that body, therefore total interiorization into the session brings about less control in the session. So we have to know how to deliver the auditing question, there's quite a bit to know on that one subject. All right And we get four, communication lag. And that is a technical point. It's the length of time between the asking of the question and receiving of a direct answer to that question, no matter what intervenes. And that's a communication lag. And it's quite interesting how many kinds of communication lag there are. There is also a process lag. How long does it take for a process to flatten? Understand that as a type of communication lag, which we call a process lag. It might take, as it did with one-Problems and Solutions-took on one preclear, what was it Julia?

Well, you just keep this up until he's eventually, actually looking at the thing. He seems to be picking up an interest in the environment, and the clue: when he starts to answer you verbally.

Female voice: Seventy hours.

"Yeah," he says.

Seventy hours. Now, that was a process lag-seventy hours. Really got someplace with this preclear, though. But just this one process for seventy hours before the preclear could actually get easy, confident responses to the question. That's process lag. Well, look at the other lag and we get the length of time just between the answer of one question and the flattening of that one question.

All right. Now, it has to go that progressive pattern, though. You'll have the fellow who comes in, you say, "Are there any chairs in the...?"

So when you say, "Flatten the process," you don't mean flatten the question. See, there's two different things: flatten the question and flatten the process. So we have to know this about communication lag and understand how many kinds of communication lag there are. Now, the odd part of it is, there also is another little hidden lag that a good auditor gets to recognize and that little hidden lag is the acknowledgment lag. It's also a communication lag.

"Oh, don't be silly, there's all kinds of chairs in the room." He didn't see them. He's around, he's just yapping.

But it's how long does it take for the preclear to have it soak into his thick skull that his statement has been acknowledged. And when I say that, "thick skull," I mean it. Because a preclear ordinarily will go many hours of auditing before he finds out that you the auditor have acknowledged a single one of his replies.

He gives you a lot of talk. Particularly, "What do you mean, asking me if there are chairs in the room? Of course there are chairs in the room. Do you think I'm crazy? You think I'm blind or something? I came in here to get helped. I'm not crazy. You think-zzzz." You know? "Chairs that are in the room." Duhhh.

And you're sitting there very confidently. You're saying "Okay." You're saying "Very well" and so on and you think the preclear is getting it. Preclear-you can shock him into getting it by saying "Did you hear me acknowledge that?"

Well, the thing to say is say, "Oh, I know you're not. I know you're not crazy."

Preclear says, kind of dimly, he'll say, you know, "Huh?" Kind of embarrassed.

"There any walls in the room? What would you do if I asked you that?"

If you do that two or three times in the course of an hour's auditing, the preclear will eventually be built up to the point of where he is receiving the acknowledgment. Now that's a hidden lag, you see? Because he doesn't respond to the acknowledgment. You just have to be aware that it's there.

"Of course there are walls in the room. Nonsense!" So on.

Now, Gene, one day, got ahold of an old lady who was going on and on and on at the fastest rate you ever heard of, a compulsive communication lag. And this person, he suddenly realized, had never received an acknowledgment in her life and she was torturing her fellow preclear (they were both being audited)-her husband-just by yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap.

You can go on and the next thing you know, he comes uptone and you do something like this: "Well, is there a ceiling here?"

And finally Gene realized that this compulsive lag would go on until she recognized somebody acknowledged it. So he got right in front of her and he tracked with her eyes, right in front of her, and he held up his finger and got her looking at his finger and when she finally looked at his finger he said, "Good!" and she shut up.

"Yeah."

The first acknowledgment she had ever received probably, probably since she was a little girl. Interesting, huh? So that's just all a part of communication and you must know that about this lag.

He actually will come uptone on a closer gradient than that. Instead of, "Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap. Of course there are chairs in the room. Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap," he'll actually [pause]-and he won't answer you at all.

Now, five is the acknowledgment of the question, which I've just been talking about.

Remember this: that Locational Processing is not two-way communication. It's the introduction and invitation to two-way communication.

And six, the duplication of that exact question.

So you run it till you get somebody in two-way communication and when he's gotten in two-way communication, talk about his present time problems. Don't talk about his past problems.

Now, I'll tell you why this type of processing, which we're doing today, was never done in the past, is a human being can't do it. Let's get that very clear: a human being can't do a repetitive-question process. A person who is dead in his head, doesn't know Scientology, is running off stimulus-response and so forth, will just-all the wheels will come loose and just blow up if you ask him to sit there and say, time after time after time after time, the same question.

Why don't you talk about his past problems? Because that's Straightwire and that's a step above. So you don't talk about that one, see. Don't talk about past problems, talk about present time problems. Talk about-you know, what he's there for.

Now, we're talking about the auditor. The auditor isn't being audited. And he says ... Julia just said seventy hours on one process and of course that had two questions. That could be varied a little bit with a discussion of the question, of sharpening it up somewhat for the preclear. "Some problems? Well, I don't know. Problems, you know. Well,how about a problem you know." Suggest a problem to him. "Can you think of a problem in connection with anything in particular-your father, something like that?" You know, coaching, just saying, "Oh come on, give me anything," as an auditor will occasionally do. Well, now, there was this little bit of variation which went on occasionally, but-the usual thing: "All right. Give me another problem you could be to yourself."

It's an odd thing, but you'll probably find the Registrar if you're taking a preclear in a Center or something like that-you'll probably find the Registrar has gone all through this and frankly gotten noplace. Asked the person about goals in auditing-has, in other words, started a lot of processes just trying to get some information down there. Very often, the preclear is not up to them-comm lag about them and so forth. The preclear doesn't have to be crazy not to be up to this, see, just lagging, still lagging on this. And you start talking about present time problems-his main present time problem is, "What goals do I have in auditing?" You know, first time it ever occurred to him that he might have goals in auditing. Up to that moment he has just wanted to be audited, see?

Just sitting there, repeating that question, repeating that question, repeating that question, repeating that question, is beyond the powers of Homo sapiens. Therefore an auditor has to be at least Homo novis. Honest, his neurons and synapses just fly apart. He just as-ises the words. They will suddenly cease to exist in his bank.

So you get into a discussion with the preclear and let the preclear originate some communications to you and you answer these communications and you originate some to the preclear, but don't get off into an obsessive communication lag.

If you ask somebody to sit down (give you an example of this) and repeat his name-this is one of the oldest mystic processes I know of, by the way. This is a very old process. I first ran into this process when I was fifteen, in India. You sit down and say your name.

Now, I almost slapped an auditor's ears one day when I learned that a preclear that I had managed to get into two-way communication-I audited this preclear a very short space of time, but I managed to get this preclear into two-way communication at the end of about six or seven hours of auditing.

A very, very wise man who was a very good friend of mine had me do this one day. And he said this to me. He said, "Now, you just sit right there." He said, "Oh," he says, "you want to know something-you want to know something about the mysteries. Then sit in that chair and repeat your name."

Now, this is fantastic for me to take this long, but I never saw such an obsessive comm lag in my life. "Brrr. Cha-cha-chat-chat-chat, chung. Brum-a-rum. Chow, chow, chow, chow. Yap, yap, yap, yар, уар, уар, уар, уар, уар, yap, yap, yap, yap!" In the first afternoon I audited her, in four hours I got in three auditing questions. Zrrr. But remember, I got them in. And I got them answered. Actually, this preclear was really not up to two-way communication or an auditing question, but this was when we didn't have some of these little ideas. And this auditor comes to me and says, "Well, I certainly helped her a great deal because I let her talk for three days and three nights to me to tell me all of her problems." Yeah. Boom!

And so I did. I sat-I've never used the name since, by the way-Ronald. I sat there and said, "Ronald, Ronald, Ronald, Ronald, Ronald, Ronald..."

This person does that all the time anyhow. That wasn't auditing. That was just an obsessive comm lag, that's all. That's all that preclear was doing-that was all the auditor was listening to. Preclear was not under direction by the auditor. There was no session in progress. Well, the auditor had just blown up three days and three nights of her time, that's all, of her own time.

Once in a while, why, he would drift through the room and "Keep it up," he'd say.

If by these basic steps that we're going over right now, if we had had them, the auditor would have asked the preclear to notice something and then kept on at her, one way or the other, to notice this and notice that and so forth until this obsessive comm lag tapered off and quit. And then the preclear started to answer the auditor. And then we could have gotten into two-way communication, see this?

"Ronald, Ronald . .." All of a sudden, "Who the hell am I? Who am I? How did I get here!"

So we got two-way communication entered in this fashion and talking about the present time problem, we get the very, very next step.

I was actually exteriorizing a little bit. I suddenly remembered feeling like this when I was two and three and four-feeling like this very vividly: "Where am I from? What am I doing here? What am I anyhow?"

Now, we're calling this a step now. We have to call this a step because it's so doggone vital in processing. I think it's R2-22, isn't it? Problems and Solutions. Problems and Solutions. Two-way Communication, Problems and Solutions-what's it doing there?

Well, let's take any word-that, of course, is taking a person's identity and throwing it into a cocked hat-that's the end of his identity. After that, he will never really totally feel an identity if he really keeps this up for as many hours as you should do it, which is the basic of Repeater Technique, old-time Repeater Technique.

Well, it's doing it there because, by golly, if your preclear has a scarcity of problems, he'll just go on being a problem to you, an auditor. He has a scarcity of solutions, he's not going to give you any, and you just stopped right there in your tracks, as far as new cognitions or anything are concerned.

All right. Now, if we sit down and say, just over and over, "Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting. Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting. Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting"-and the fact is, it's being acknowledged all the time. Well, communication just tears up mass and throws it away. And if you're saying this on a-an auditor will put it on a machine and the machine will tear up. And put it back on the machine and the machine will tear up. And he put it back on a machine basis, the machine-he's just sitting there as a machine, he's saying "I'm just an auditing machine," you know.

So we just use it, just as it's given in Creation of Human Ability or as it's developed, one way or the other: "Some solutions you could be to yourself." "Some problems you could be to yourself." It's equally important to run both of them, problems and solutions.

"Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting. All right. That's fine. Thank you." "Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting. Now, that's good, that's fine. How do you feel about that now? Well, that's fine." "Well, give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting. Good. Fine." "Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting. Good." "Give me something else you wouldn't mind forgetting. Good."

The oddity is you could change the thinking ability of a person by-start asking him for solutions.

"Well, give me something else you wouldn't mind forgetting. Good." "Give me something else you wouldn't mind forgetting. Good." "Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting. Good." "Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting."

Now, by the way, you don't ask them to give a problem and then have them give a solution to that problem-don't do that. Just ask them for a lot of problems and you get kind of - process seems to be a little bit flat, go on over and ask them for a whole bunch of solutions, one after the other. And the process seems to be a little bit flat, ask them for some more problems.

He's varying it around just so the preclear will continue to get the question, but the fact of the matter is forgetting, forgetting, forgetting-"What is this thing called forgetting?"

How long can you keep this up? Julia just told you, seventy hours we ran a test on it. We were getting there though. We were really getting there-changing this guy's aspects all over the place.

He's actually restimulated a tremendous number of forgetters in his own bank and he'll start to go "Dzzz." The first thing you know, he will actually forget the process that he's running on the preclear. And the next question will be, "Well, give me some things you aren't hiding." You see how this is? This works out just flatly and consistently. He just can't help but change the process. Why? Because the old process disappeared. A machine won't do it. That's the secret of it: a machine can't run a process. And we realize that Homo sapiens is very, very much a machine creature.

Here's an oddity: This individual had had hundreds of hours of auditing previously, none of which had been effective on his case!

Now, you cannot erase a thetan. So you ask the question each time newly, you ask it interestedly, and it just doesn't ever erase, that's all. It doesn't ever repeat itself out and an individual doesn't go into a set of jitters simply because he's had to duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate.

And we just started moving in with Problems and Solutions as a very basic process and we chewed at it for seventy hours and we got a change of case.

Time itself is made out of no-duplication. So if you're depending entirely on the mechanical aspects of time-you see if you really did duplicate everything, the first moment of time would still be in the process of getting as-ised. You'd create time and then you'd as-is it, if you perfectly duplicated it, you see. And you'd create it and you'd as-is it. You'd create it and as-is it, and you never would have any time. You'd keep as-ising the postulate.

All right. Your next problem in auditing, after a remedy of Problems and Solutions (I'm not trying to tell you all there is to do on these processes, I'm just trying to give you their stack up, why they are that way), is Straightwire.

You say, "Now there will be time. Now there will be time." And if you got a perfect duplicate, you see, if you duplicated this perfectly, you'd-wouldn't have the time you'd just started out with. You see what would happen? "Now there will be time. Well, let's see now. All right. Now there will be - duhh!” Gone. Right after, you'd have no time. So therefore you must be able to be able to articulate a thing over and over and over again, each time freshly, each time newly - you a thetan, not you a machine.

Now we can examine the past. Now, there's a whole bunch of processes that have been given out, such as, Think a Thought, Consequences and all kinds of other processes which went in between Problems and Solutions, and Straightwire-that's where those other things belong.

Therefore an effort to teach a psychoanalyst, to duplicate, would not be impossible, but you'd practically have to do it with a shotgun. You would get the most awful arguments you ever heard of. The fellow would say, "You ..." He's not cognizant of the basic principles of this sort of thing, he's actually not studying them. You're just trying to teach him one thing. You're trying to teach him that he must keep on asking this question over and over and over again. See, he must keep on asking that question. "Well, why? I mean ..." He can give you all kinds of reasons, rationale and he'd say, "Well, I don't find anything in Breuer's writings about this." He'd give you all sorts of things.

You'll have to know this type of process. But it isn't even-on long examination, isn't even vaguely as workable as Problems and Solutions, and Straightwire. It's a tremendous amount to know about that little sandwich of processes right in there, which are Think a Thought, Consequences, Hiding, all kinds of things up and down and back and forth and around and around, see? Tremendous number of processes on the Think a Thought level. Oh yeah, guys have broken cases on it and so forth, but here's the oddity: they are not anywhere near as effective as Problems and Solutions, and Straightwire.

He'd say, "Well, Sigmund Freud did this once." That's their old, old stock standby. They'll tell you, "Well, it's all old, it's all been done before."

Problems and Solutions, and Straightwire are actually-make a dwarf out of these other processes, this other package. It's a small package compared to Problems and Solutions. You should know this type of process should exist, so examine it. But it's not as important as Straightwire.

All this is squirm, squirm, move sideways, get out of your road. "I cannot duplicate," it's saying, all the way along the line, because a person who cannot duplicate is a person who is running on machines. And a person who is running on machines can't duplicate, because the one thing a machine can't do is duplicate.

Now, what's Straightwire? Just written a whole magazine here on Straightwire. There's more modern data on Straightwire than any other process you could name.

That's why Opening Procedure by Duplication just takes a person's machinery and tears it up in little shreds and throws it away. And the person exteriorizes eventually. Why? Because the only thing that's left is himself. That's the total modus operandi of that process. So the duplication of the exact question is something that an individual has to learn very sharply.

There are certain Straightwire Processes which are fantastically effective and which we will be using in Hubbard Guidance Center. We'll be using them because we've got to produce results in Hubbard Guidance Center. We've just got to produce results.

Now, the indoctrination week, concluded, should bring home a cognizance of these points, an understanding of and an ability to use them, also some reality on one's own case level. This is quite important.

All right. And what kind of a process would be the basic process of Straightwire? Well, the most basic process we were using-we have used it already, you've heard of it: "Something you wouldn't mind forgetting. Something you wouldn't mind remembering," of which "Something you wouldn't mind forgetting" is the more important.

Do you know that there are people around who are practicing Dianetics or Scientology on whom it has never worked? It's not possible. How could an individual practice something on which he himself has no reality?

The most important-"Something you wouldn't mind forgetting" because the person is automatically forgetting.

Well, the answer to it is he doesn't practice it. He practices the word, not the science. See, he says he's practicing Dianetics, but he doesn't practice Dianetics. He will introduce enough curves into it, all of which are an effort to escape these various points, that it won't be Dianetics.

So, we have to run some of this, but there are some other Straightwire Processes which seem to be fantastically workable, such as "Recall a moment of blackness" for the black case.

Then somebody goes to this person and they get-engram run on them or something of the sort and when they get all through with the engram being run on them, they feel worse. And then they go around telling people, "Dianetics doesn't work."

He's an almost impossible case to shake up. This is the only thing I know of that I could really count on today to shake his case up and change his visio tremendously and vigorously.

This is an inaccurate statement. The statement is "Dianetics audited by A on me does not work."

I could really change his visio with, "Recall a moment of blackness. Recall a moment of blackness. Recall a moment of blackness. Recall a moment of blackness."

Now, we'll discover this oddity, then, if we trace it back: "Audited by A on me." Oh!

Now, the only trouble is the process normally is not run long enough. Furthermore, it would have a tendency to bog a preclear who was running it, who wasn't in the other levels yet. See, if you said, "Recall a moment of blackness," and "Recall a moment of blackness," as a process on somebody who hadn't come up yet through the other levels of Problems and Solutions, you know, and below that, Two-way Communication, and below that, Location, you'd probably have an awful sick puppy on your hands.

Has Dianetics ever had any reality to A? And the answer is no. He has never experienced anything as a result thereof, any betterment or, really, any worsening. There is no experience back of this, there is no reality, there is no agreement with this. So, of course, that is the other part in the indoctrination week.

Because these Straightwire Processes are beefy processes, and why anybody in psychoanalysis never realized this I don't know. But why didn't they take these neurotics out and simply execute them? They might as well have, as to give them a Straightwire Process which was not repetitive. That's why we're not even a cousin to psychoanalysis.

The oddity is also, and I'll go into that immediately, is that these processes of which we are teaching are the processes which work. But these processes are not all uniformly workable on all cases.

See, you're not doing psychoanalysis. That's one of the things an auditor always hangs up on. Straightwire is not a psychoanalytic process. You're not discovering hidden meanings so that you can go over them. You're just asking the person to remember.

Now, let's just look at this and we'll see that somebody sitting in the chair, he's doing Straightwire, having Straightwire done-it isn't

And your next process above that process is the Opening Procedure of 8-C, which there is no need to stress particularly. And the next process, which is, again, Locational Processing, but realize what a difference-realize what a difference. Locational Processing and Opening Procedure of 8-C.

working. What's the matter? It's just too high a process, that's all. Just too high a process for the case. And how do we detect that?

Now we're exercising the preclear. We're putting him up to a sharp trot. We're putting him over to the walls and around and around and around. You'll find out that they will develop, then, communication lags and so forth and do various things. Very many people could simply go through it because you would be monitoring their bodies.

Well, there's a great oddity about communication lag, very great oddity about communication lag, if you please. When it is absent, one of two things has occurred, if it is absent-the preclear isn't doing the process at all but is just running on a machine response, or the process is flat.

All right. Let's go up a little higher. We get Opening Procedure by Duplication - good old Book and Bottle, Dirty 30, whatever you want to call it, Opening Procedure by Duplication.

How do you know which one is happening? The reality level of the preclear. That's the only way you know. Requires a little sensitivity, then. So there is a way of knowing where to hit a case.

We go upstairs from that and we get Remedy of Havingness. And Remedy of Havingness is quite important. A thetan must be able to tolerate masses. If he can't tolerate masses, he can't live here.

You could be running a case on 8-C and find the person simply walking around with no communication lag of any kind and getting no benefit or change out of the process. That is the test: There's no communication lag? No benefit or change out of the process. That means you're running the preclear.

Now there's a Straightwire Process way back downscale again which I didn't mention, but it's the remedy of a thetan's spaces and it is a perfect butchery. This is one of the most violent processes I ever knew of. But you'll find out that if you can't remedy a person's havingness, it's because this Straightwire Process has not been run on him. The Straightwire Process of "Recall a moment of space." Easy, huh? "Recall a moment of space." A guy cannot move around, an individual cannot move around masses-he can't move around masses if he hasn't got any space to move them around in. And if he's terrified of space in any of its forms, above him, below him, in front and behind, too much or too little space, or space in general, he can't remedy havingness. He can't make mock-ups, either. And the odd part of it is, if you want somebody to watch engrams go up in smoke, this is the fastest way to tear engrams to pieces I know of without causing the preclear any great illness or discomfort - "Recall a moment of space."

Do you know that you can run a person's machinery?

So we get up here to Remedy of Havingness. Remedy of Havingness certainly will work by this time. And it works in this fashion today. We have him shove it into his body or shove it into himself, either way.

You know, I can stand here, I can make somebody coming by on the street there probably turn into the alley and wonder what he was doing there and walk out again. It is no difficulty in monitoring somebody's machines and you as an auditor, no longer floundering around in a stimulus-response mechanism, you have some understanding of this. You already have moved out of Homo sap level. Let's take a good look at this. Of course you can monitor somebody's machines. You can walk a body all over a room.

Now it's a funny thing, here's a thetan, a single dot out here someplace, and we tell him mock-up a mass and shove it into himself. So he goes ahead and does so, but he's a single spot. The second he is somewhere else, of course he isn't himself in that spot at all, is he? Well, that just plain, ordinary, gets the thetan completely over the idea that he is a single unit.

You say, "Walk here, walk there, do this, do that," just as neat-without anything happening. Why? Well, the body doesn't need exercise particularly. You're trying to do something for a thetan. And this thetan's recovery depends exclusively upon your returning unto him a little of his self-determinism. And if we cannot return some self-determinism to the thetan, the guy, the individual, then we are not going to achieve any betterment of the case.

Anybody who thinks he's a single unit is kind of contracted. He's capable of any viewpoint and he could name any viewpoint himself and he certainly had better learn how. And he learns it in Remedy of Havingness.

Supposing we did give this body some exercise-you know, we walked it around. Very often an auditor does not know he's doing this. Well, one of these days you will suddenly cognite yourself, "You know, I'm making that body walk around and touch walls and do all this-there's nobody there, nobody home. It's-a lot of this is in the colloquial patter of the populace, you know - "Nobody home" - that make you feel very odd the first time you really know this.

And the odd part of it is, he'll be sitting there in a spot in space, he'll be sitting there just as nice as you please. He knows he doesn't have any masses around him. We tell him to mock-up a mass and shove it into himself-not pull it (get the distinction here), shove it into himself. And the first thing you know, he is somewhere else and that spot he was occupying did have some mass connected with it that he was not aware of at all.

You're liable to go down and walk waitresses up and down restaurants and then you will hit somebody who's really got zip, you know, or hit somebody with a tremendous number of engrams in restimulation, something where commands don't go in smoothly. And you will say to this person-which is quite common-you will say to this person, "All right, let's walk over here." You're walking the person over to your table so the person will take your order. And they don't walk, they go back in the kitchen.

In other words, he was packing some old tin cans or spare chains or something of the sort right where he was and he never suspected it until we started to remedy his havingness.

And you say, "Well, I failed" and then you will cease to be interested to some degree. You haven't answered this question, "Is that body controllable-by anybody? By anything?" Because very often a body works this way: it's running on a stack of engrams, engram-type machinery, and you feed it a command here and it comes out there. I can give you numerous processes. Ridge Running-it's an old process that used to do interesting things like this: you just ask the fellow to say "Walk" as long as he-he has his eyes closed and you have him say "Walk" as long as he can see white. See?

This will get him out of a theta body and it'll take care of all the various problems that an auditor runs into with relationship to the individual.

And then the second it goes black on him you have him say "Don't walk" and it'll turn white again.

Now, there are many ramifications and much to learn about this that your Instructors know full well, but that is the basic process, Remedy of Havingness.

And then you have him say, "Don't walk" as long as it stays white, but the second it turns black, you tell him "Walk" again. Get the idea, see? You reverse the command every time it turns black and you run it as long as the command is white.

Now, there's actually another process, called Spotting Spots. If we run Route 1 simply under the heading of Spotting Spots, we find that everything in Route 1 contained in the Creation of Human Ability is really Spotting Spots, one way or another. It's various ways of Spotting Spots. But you'd certainly better have the preclear spot some spots just for the hell of it. So we've got an extra process in there. Now, if you add these up, you have a gradient scale of the return of pan-determinism. It's an oddity that it is a return of pan-determinism, because we don't discuss it very much on the road up. We could though.

By the way, people exteriorize on this, but when he gets all through with this, he has experienced a great oddity: he has sort of walked through a bank of certain dimensions. And latterly, in running the process-if the case isn't too bad off, jammed up or something of the sort-you get the oddest phenomenon. A person goes out about five or six light-years in his own bank, see? And then comes back on the "Don't walk"-five or six light-years and he's back in his head again. And then he goes out thataway for a thousand yards and then he's back here, so on.

Now, there's another process which could fit in almost any place above Straightwire, that an auditor should know, which is not one of the basic processes, but he should know because it kind of runs through all of them. Just the thing that stands behind all of them. We're trying to increase the individual's beingness, so you should know something about Beingness Processing, "What could you be?" You know, I've had a preclear comm lag for an hour and a half on that question. And the usual auditor, by golly, wouldn't have said anything about it.

In other words, you could use "move" or "don't move," any action command, to produce this phenomenon. It's the same phenomenon. You run the positive as long as it's white, and you change when it goes black and run the negative. Run the negative as long as it's white, and when it goes black or gets too dark gray, change and run the positive and you'll get this type of phenomena.

He would have said, "Okay. Well, what can you be?"

And the person would have said, "Oh, I don't know. I could be myself."

And the auditor probably would have bought this and said, "It isn't a very good process for this preclear and we'll just skip it." Because this had just happened to the preclear before I took over the case. The case was not making good progress, so I took over the case and I says, "All right. Now "Tell me something which you can really be." And one hour and a half later we found out that this preclear could be just one thing, something this preclear had never been in this lifetime, could be a girl who served soup in Kresge's.

Now, don't ask me why, but this is all this person could possibly be on this Earth and this was not even vaguely related to anything this preclear was. And when we finally worked it up, we found four or five things that this person could be and then eight or ten and more and more and more and more things, till all of a sudden this person started to bloom, really started to get well.

So running as a slender golden thread through all of these processes are increased beingness. So you'd better know the basic process, whether you ever use it or not, you'd better know it, which is, "What can you be? Something else you can be?" Because this is another type of process than any of these other processes, so it is itself. This is asking the person to fling himself into one role or another or into life and be part of life-stop thinking about it, let's be part of it. You see how this is? All right.