Haven't the least idea what I'm talking to you about tonight, but according to my watch, it's the 31st of November. Can that be true?

We have the main subject here in this basic auditor's course - this is not a basic auditing course; this is a basic auditor's course, coaching course - and we have here as our main subject (what do you know), auditing.

How did it ever get to be the 31st of November?

Now, that sounds a little bit strange but, actually, it's not strange, since there's a great deal to know about this subject of auditing, all of which is very fundamental and much of which is completely bypassed, overpassed, neglected and not connected with at all, by a great many auditors. And failing to hit these very fundamental bits and principles, the advance of Scientology thereby is enormously held back.

Female voice: It's the 1st of December.

Now, you think that's a brutal statement, but we will just start from there. Lack of knowledge of certain of these basic principles are holding back Scientology. How? By creating failed cases and slow-moving cases.

Is it the 1st of December?

Now, it is very often the case when an auditor has a slow-moving case that he looks for another process, and he shouldn't be looking for another process, because that's probably not why the case is moving slowly. The first thing that he should suspect is that there is something fundamental, extremely fundamental, which is awry in the handling of the case itself. Person to person, as a personality, as an individual, there is something awry. ARC has not been established.

Female voice: First of December.

The next thing that he should suspect - and he should suspect this until he is on very firm ground - is that he himself may have a fundamental or two that he himself has neglected to assimilate and use. There are fundamentals about auditing below the level of auditing which are more important than auditing. Even though these things are very simple, even though they are apparently something that just everybody knows, and so on, they are very, very often neglected and overlooked.

It is?

Now, I will give you a very, very sharp example of this. I happen to know a preclear who runs smoothly, easily, performs any and all command; given a proper process, will clean it up in a matter of a few minutes. This is one of these demon preclears -can run anything, does run anything; see, exteriorize and so forth.

Female voice: I only just found out myself.

Not long ago this preclear got into the hands of an auditor and got loused up. Now, how did this preclear - how could this preclear possibly be loused up? This preclear could run everything. Well, he couldn't run the misauditing that he was being given.

Is that right?

Well, was this misauditing really - really rough? I mean, was it really tough misauditing? Was it flagrant breaches of the Auditor's Code and all that sort of thing? Did these enter into it? No. There was something very, very fundamental missing in the auditor's education. He didn't know a certain aspect of existence which goes as follows: We have a scale. At the top of the scale there's Knowingness, just below this there is Not-knowingness, and just below that there is Understandingness.

Audience: Mm-hm. Sure.

Understanding means something exists to be understood. So something must already have been invented so that we could have something to understand. That's why understanding comes at that point on the scale. Know, Not-know, Understand and below that, on a dwindling spiral, ARC, until we get to the bottom of this, and we have Unconsciousness.

No kidding? This Earth time fouls one up something abominably.

Now, that's all there is to that scale. There isn't any embroidery work, no Mechlin lace, no frills, nothing. If you just look at that scale right there, with just those things on it, you will see a scale in its purity which will mean a great deal and make a great deal plain right in auditing.

You must realize at this time we are trying to settle down the Six Levels of Processing into a highly static form. Our goal in this particular case is to level out these processes in such a way that we won't have to touch this for some time to come. The Six Basic Processes were stable for a very, very long time; and then when we started cutting loose from them, however, we went straight up and straight south and around and about and changed things about and changed things considerably.

At the top we have Knowingness. Therefore, it tells us at once that the preclear who is cogniting, who has suddenly come into a new piece of knowingness about existence, is in pretty darn good state at that moment. Right? So therefore we could even change a process at that moment. But it has to be big. He has to be sure of it. It has to be Knowingness.

Now, why would we ever change a process in the first place? And that's what I want to talk to you about tonight. Why would we change processes? We would find more workable processes; that's why we would change processes.

Now, if he merely understands his father and mother, where is he? "Oh, I - I suddenly understand my father and mother." That's not really a good cognition. It's an understanding cognition, it is a knowingness about something. And therefore we would think for a moment or two before we changed our process on "Oh, I see what Father was all about." You get the idea? We would think for a moment or two, because it goes Know, and then that little postulate Not-know, and then Understand. So it's a little bit lower.

But when we find more workable processes, what happens? Immediately that we discover something that we consider more workable here, there and everywhere, what else do we discover? We also discover eight hundred and sixty-five auditors that can't make it work. Instantly, you see. We discover five or six hundred that probably could make it work and eight or nine hundred that can't. And therefore, we have to say to that process, "Bye-bye. It was nice to have you around," and we tip our hat to it, and that's that.

And therefore you would handle this more gently. You'd maybe run it a little bit further, and it'll turn up into some knowingness. Some knowingness on the subject would have something to do with a far more general picture. A knowingness must apply more broadly to the dynamics than an understandingness. An understandingness generally applies to one part of one dynamic, and a knowingness generally applies to at least a few dynamics. All right.

So we get this thing called a gradient scale of workability from the standpoint of the auditors themselves. I start running somebody on a process, and I am running the process. I don't run anything else and don't let the auditor interfere with the preclear, you might say, and I don't let the preclear's case interfere with the process. I never do this.

Now, when we look this over, we see what we mean by a cognition. A cognition is something that is pretty darn sweeping. It is knowingness; it is not knowingness about something, which is understandingness. So we look at this understandingness, and we find out that changing a process at a moment of minor understandingness would be a risky thing to do, because it's below the level of a broad knowingness.

If I'm running a process, that's just too bad. Preclear is comm lagging and cogniting and so forth, that's just too bad. I mean, his case can pop up there every once in a while, and I say, "That's fine," and "How interesting," and slap it back down again and go on running the process.

Now, you see these things, you work with them. It's something like how red is a red bicycle? You and I know that a red bicycle - a red bicycle that is very red is a really red bicycle, see? We know that. We can talk about it. We could measure it in angstrom units and go through a large chemical formulary and describe all of the colors of red and their reflective incidences and the ingredients which go into paint to make these colors red, and we could go through an enormous category, but it still wouldn't have gotten around this one fact: How red is a red bicycle? It's real red. Well, you and I understand that, but when we get it down to a system or put it down to MEST, we understand it less well.

It's very, very remarkable, but this works. After a while a case goes into apathy, and we have a Clear. Maybe this has more to do with it than we think.

Do you know that the chemist or the color expert who has finally figured out how red that red bicycle is, is probably unable to see. He's probably got glasses about that thick. All right.

All right. Having run this process one way or the other and very often having had it run on myself, I decided this is a pretty good process. It's not very often that happens, but it does happen every now and then.

So we understand what an understandingness is. See, that's easy to understand. We don't have to go any further on it. We do know what a knowingness is. This person has a certain knowingness on a certain level. We can understand what that is, and as such, in an auditing session we so adjudicate it.

These far south processes I have an awful hard time testing. Maybe I'm farther south than they are, but for some peculiar reason I don't have any trouble with them. And somebody tells me do this or do that and so forth, and I do that and that's fine. So I say, well, of course, just like everybody else, I can do this process. And just like me, everybody else can do this process too. That's a natural consequence, isn't it? And it naturally follows, so therefore it's a very basic process.

Now, very often the auditor is making a slight error. He says this preclear got a cognition. All this preclear did was understand why Mama went into rages. Well, you could call it a cognition. You could play around with the idea of shifting the process or something at that point. With some two-way comm you probably could put it on the shelf, but it'd need a little assistance, you see?

Such as - such a thing as, "All right. Now, be out of this universe. Mock up a universe. That's fine. Populate it. Solidify it. Start its time track going," you know. Easy process. "All right. Find another universe of comparable magnitude to that universe."

And the preclear might be way up Tone Scale to understand something about Mama. Certainly the preclear has come up Tone Scale on the subject of Mama; certainly this has occurred. Very well. Very well.

Simple. Nothing to this. But for some reason or other, we always find somebody dragging his heels that can't do this.

We know the preclear is fairly high, but he isn't on a subject of knowingness. The actuality is that if he knew Mama, Mama would never again bother him. You got that? Just never again. There's - this kind of a gap could be envisioned between: It's quite one thing to be able to understand Mama and put up with her, and quite another thing to know the subject of Mamas, because you certainly never worry about them afterwards, you see? There's a difference between this understandingness and this knowingness.

Well, then about the next chaps that have any crack at this process, whatever it is, is the - usually, if an ACC is going forward - it'll be the ACC student. And he has a fine time with it one way or the other, and he complains about it bitterly or thinks it's fine. And we patch up the various broken hearts and cases that result occasionally from such a process and keep going.

Now, let's go down just below understandingness, and we find the component parts of understandingness. We find understandingness from there on down, till we get clear to stupidity. But it is better understood as it goes lower if broken down into its component parts: affinity, reality and communication.

And the next people that have a crack at it, and the first people that do have, when an ACC course is not running, are the staff auditors. And these poor chaps are - they have cases and these cases are saying, "Bitterness, bitterness, bitterness," you know, "It's all bad over there. Nothing is happening. Too much happens." They're saying various human things, you see. And they're pounding on the staff auditor to get the show on the road and so forth, and there sits a new process.

It's pretty hard to measure understandingness after it drops a little bit above obvious understandingness, you see? It gets a little difficult to measure, so we want three more yardsticks, and those three are interdependent upon one another. Now, the reason we throw them in there is because they are yardsticks and also because by using them, we can promote understanding. We can actually bring it about.

Well, the staff auditor is torn between running something he has had work on cases, which quite often is - his main test of it is, it worked on his case. And he then is torn between doing this and sailing forthrightly ahead with the preclear and running this process. And devil take the engrams, havingness or anything else, we just run it on out.

So we have these three points, and we have this dwindling triangle, you might say, which goes down to practically nonexistent understandingness, which is stupidity. You could have stupidity about something, which would be above stupidity. But do you know there's a point below stupidity, and that point is unconsciousness. And we have embraced all gradients on the scale when we get to unconsciousness; we embraced all gradients.

Well, this is all very well when we are interested in further south processes. When we have a process series and when we are working on things which appertain to Level One, this is all right. See, this is fine. Then the staff auditor can take the process, process almost any preclear who walks in and get some sort of result with it. But when we're running higher echelon processes, this isn't so easy, such as "Match-terminal the MEST universe with the next adjacent Psi Universe, 81." This is not so easy to do.

Unconsciousness is a sort of waitingness. It is the last way to handle waitingness, for a thetan. He doesn't go any further south than unconsciousness. He doesn't have a death. That's as far south as you can get, then, would be a complete oblivion. But that complete oblivion is the unconsciousness which you see somebody enter into when he is unconscious.

Preclears seldom have a reality. They know that this universe is the only universe there is, they know that they are the only person who is alive, and they know that robots are much more reasonable and easy to work with than human beings. They know these things; these are set things with them, and such processes disturb these considerations. And of course, we don't want to disturb any of a preclear's basic considerations in such a way as to give him a forthright lose. We don't want him to lose right off the bat, so we have to run a gradient scale to these things.

Now, unconsciousness, oddly enough, has its own gradient scale. There is an unconsciousness by reason of anesthetics. And an individual, actually, under anesthesia knows pretty well what's going on. But there's an unconsciousness below that. There's an unconsciousness to a point where the individual does not know, as a thetan, what is going on. And that is about as close as you can come to an absolute, and that is the bottom of that scale.

So the higher-level processes then have a tendency not to get spread around the way these lower-level processes do. We actually have a considerable number of processes which have been developed over the past few years which are terrifically high. Every once in a while somebody looks at me and says, "How do you run an Operating Thetan?"

So there is a bottom of the scale, and there is a top of the scale. Now, the funny part of it is, is the bottom of the scale is approached more or less on the basis of, as the bottom of the scale is approached, a dimming out of the intellect, the IQ, the good personality traits and so forth. And these dim out, and they get dimmer and dimmer and dimmer, and the final bottom of it is for the fellow to be unconscious. See that?

And if I've got a little time I'll tell him but it's just not general information. I mean, there s hardly anybody knows this particular bracket of process. It's a complete span that lies above, you might say, what you would ordinarily consider a human Clear. It's a stunt. He has to work on his abilities.

When he is unconscious, he has no agreement, therefore no reality. He has no communication, and in addition to that, he has no affinity. A fellow in a terrible rage might, to you, seem to be an individual without affinity. But believe me, an individual in a terrible rage has far more affinity present than an individual who is unconscious. Please see that, and you will see what is wrong with sodium pentothal and all these other brackets like hypnotism and so forth. Do you see that? They're downscale.

And right now, by the way, I'm working on a process of how do you get somebody to mock up live forms that walk up and down the street and that people tip their hats to and are polite to? It's an interesting thing, and it'll probably take a long time to work this out.

You take a subject who has been hypnotized or who has been given a great many drugs or something and you start bringing him upscale, and he goes into rage. Well, that's not the moment for you to smack him in the face and push him down again. The fellow is coming up through anger and rage and will go above those points because there are other way-stops.

I'm working on another one much more germane to the situation, which you might find much more interesting, and that is processes which immediately and intimately restore abilities. We take some specific ability which the preclear has once had - let s say he once was able to play the clavichord. If he could play the clavichord someplace down the track, there is no reason why he couldn't play the piano. He should be able to play it. I'm sure that he could still find in some museum and get photostat copies of clavichord music. He could probably even read the music and so forth. But he has lost this ability. How do we restore it to him immediately in such a way that he can suddenly wish off on the body he now has, the ability to play a piano? How do we take somebody and turn him into an expert linguist? How do we get him to speak German, French, Spanish, Italian and so forth? Well, he undoubtedly knows these things on the backtrack. How do we rehabilitate this information, restore to him abilities which he already has?

But when we get to these other way-stops - when we get the original Tone Scale, when we get the various points on the subzero Tone Scale, we are getting far more specific than we actually need to be for elementary auditing knowledge, and we're actually getting more specific than an auditor should be in his basic understanding of this subject. He shouldn't introduce all of those interpoints until he understands the skeleton of that scale. Because the skeleton of that Tone Scale will tell him practically anything he wants to know at any given moment about the behavior of his preclear. And it will certainly tell him whether he's winning or losing.

And that, by the way, is my primary target in research at this moment. It is not the furthest south case. The case that is furthest south ceased to be of a great deal of interest to me personally the day when I found - this sounds awful - the day when I found that I wasn't having any trouble with them.

This case was a pianola, we used to call them, and the auditor in question was utterly baffled in running the case and could not end sessions on this case. Get to the end of the session, couldn't end the session; case wouldn't let him end the session. Arguments, upsets.

People keep coming up to me and saying, "We're still having trouble with black Vs." And I say, "Yes, yes. That's very interesting," acknowledge their communication. But it doesn't make too much sense to me for this reason, for this reason - haven't had any difficulty changing a case for a long time.

And do you know why those upsets came about? It's because the auditor, under very close questioning, did not have a good grip on the fact that Knowingness is at the top of the scale and Unconsciousness is at the bottom of the scale and had thought the preclear was more "restful" because he was less energetic and thought therefore that was the time to end the process.

But we do get them on staff. We do find people that won't sit still long enough to be changed. We have people that walk around in small circles and scream. We have people that sit there and complain and complain about how nothing is doing them any good and so forth. And we have to coach them up.

This auditor had been auditing I don't know how many preclears without ever understanding that his mission and goal was to raise the ARC of the preclear. Lord knows how many preclears this auditor must have dumped into limbo. You know, they walked out of the session saying, "Where's the door?" He didn't understand that a preclear who is groggy is a preclear who is low on ARC.

Well, almost on a spur of the moment we pick up processes which will reach, more definitely, into these specific cases and more broadly into these cases, and right now Level One is in such a state of flux. We are trying to settle it down and select out processes which will reach rather deeply and widely into this bottom-level case and get it moving. That is a problem right now. It's not my problem, it is a problem of a group and it is a problem of the HGC staff right here at this moment and auditors who are around and about the place.

And I went over it carefully, patiently - and for a guy that's commanded men awfully gently, hrumph - and I finally got it through his head that when the preclear started to get dopey on him and fog on him, that an auditing booboo must have occurred, or the preclear hit something that was too rough for him to handle for his state of case. One or the other has happened.

This is - we're still testing; we're still testing. When we get all through testing and we more or less have made up our mind to this thing, then we will have Issue 6 or 7 of SLP and hope that it is the one that rides along.

Either the preclear has pitched into it and it's too rough for him, therefore he starts toward unconsciousness - and they go fast, believe me; that is not a route in distance or time. And the other one is that the auditor had pulled some sort of an error, and the error was then followed by the anaten of the preclear. But the error was not the anaten and was not to be found in the anaten, and the anaten wasn't the error. The error had occurred before the unconsciousness (analytical attenuation - our coined word, anaten) occurred. The error occurred before the unconsciousness took place, and the unconsciousness was the last word of warning the preclear could give. He says, "It's all wrong."

But we're not paupers on processes that get cases moving. That's what I want to talk to you about this evening. We have a considerable wealth of processes which move cases. You always have R2-45.* You have various other things which more or less move a case along the line.

And I said to the auditor, "Well then, how would you get somebody out of this?"

I dare say that the most broadly workable technique of which I have any great cognizance, as far as a far-south case is concerned, is two-way communication, properly done. This is quite remarkable. It, however, requires a considerable skill on the part of the auditor. And where we concede that all auditors have this skill, then we would merely say, "Two-way communication is what you ought to run on these far-south preclears until they get to moving." See, we'd say that very bluntly. But unfortunately, the facts of the case are - is by the time we run clear on out to Istanbul or someplace where an auditor is sitting there and he reads about this two-way communication (he's never been trained on it, particularly; his own communication level is rather down) - not so workable.

"Oh," he'd say, "you have to continue running the process. You've said that many times."

We go even further out and get to South Kensington, we are liable to find an auditor or two who would like something more spectacular than can be done with two-way communication. Two-way communication, we concede, has this liability: it is a grind. It is rather nerve-racking to sit there talking to a post. We don't quite know what this chap thinks he is, but he certainly thinks he's something else than what we think he is, and there's a bit of disagreement there somewhere. And he has definite blocks on his goal lines and things like this.

Bzzzzzhh.

And it's a very, very funny thing. A very clever auditor can talk to this chap for a while - not just yak-yak-yak, you know. It's got to be the old two-way communication, just right, fishing up the acknowledgments, making sure that the preclear knows he has been acknowledged, making a great deal out of the preclear's origin of a communication.

"You're going to run a process on an unconscious preclear?"

Preclear finally says, "It's foggy today" - origin of communication.

"Oh well, he wasn't very unconscious. He was just doped off."

Now, a person who isn't trained in this would say, "Well, the preclear finally said, 'It's foggy today.' It's not significant at all." As a matter of fact, it's terrifically significant. This is the first communication the preclear has originated in session, see. So boy, do we make a lot out of that, you know.

"How is he going to register on this? Do you realize that he may have sunk below the point where you started the session?"

And we get this preclear talking. He suddenly changes his consideration, little wheels and gears - he probably is using those things to think with - and these little wheels and gears go click. And he says, "Do you know, I might possibly be able to say something else along this line which would be equally startling and prone to admiration?"

"Oh well, of course. They always do, don't they?"

And he finally thinks for a long time and he says, "I'm sitting here." You know something like this, something brilliant. But the guy has originated a communication.

Rrrrrrr. He meant his always did. But it's not true. If a preclear cannot wind up a session more alert than he started the session, there was something wrong with the auditing. We just say, "alert." We're just talking about a better understandingness, a better ARC, a better consciousness.

Now, we have to find out what kind of communications people will originate and steer the conversation in that direction and get them to know they're originating it, and it's rather neat to do this.

Now, let's look at this thing called unconsciousness at the bottom of the scale and realize as we go upscale we must then being approach - approaching higher and higher consciousness, we mean he is more and more alert, that's all. We don't mean he is getting into the consciousness with a cosmic consciousness which is the square root of blah. We simply mean he's waking up. Did you ever see anybody wake up? Well, that's how a preclear gets conscious. You know, they wake up.

Give you some sort of an idea of this: I processed the head of one of the largest and most important committees in the Congress of the United States, and when they get up that high, boy, are they nuts. The motto of the judiciary, of course, in all lands is "Stop that motion." And if you don't believe me, look at the normal action of police. A police solution is always "stop."

Preclear walks in at the beginning of the intensive, he's feeling for the door. He's feeling for the chair. You really don't find him feeling for the door or feeling for the chair unless you know how to look, and it's that he misgauges everything just slightly, you know? She puts her purse down and then moves it a couple of times to get it in the right place, you know? You get the inaccuracies. They're minor, but they're there to be observed.

How do we clear up traffic? We stop it. How do we keep burglaries from occurring? We stop burglars. Any way you could think of to stop things would be that.

And at the end of the intensive, a precision of motion, positiveness, placingness and so forth ought to be present. If you only knew this, you see, you would see at once that your preclear was bettered. He was more precise, he was more competent. And it will show up on the rather lengthy method of the intelligence test, it will show up on behavior tests, and it will show up in piloting airplanes and so forth.

Now, the judiciary has gone below stop, and they simply wait. And it's very interesting how long they can wait. Dickens spoke of a case that was in chancery - people got born into this case, and they died out of it, and it had been going for ages and ages and ages.

But do you need these gross tests to discover whether or not you're assisting the preclear? You don't need these gross, huge systems to tell you whether or not you're benefiting the preclear, not for a moment. If you merely know that stupidity - one of the symptoms of stupidity is an unknownness of time and place, and is a definition of stupidity - stupidity could have several definitions, but the mechanical definition is an unknownness of time and place. And therefore competence would be a knownness of time and place, wouldn't it? That's what competence is.

Well, you take some chap who is intimately concerned with the judiciary - laughingly so-called, because it has some meaning like "justice" - and we start to process this chap, and we know we're processing a low-toned case. We just hear who the fellow is and we say, "Oh, no. This could happen to me," you know?

What would you think of a bomber who pulled a stick of bombs an hour before he got on the target, but instead of pulling the stick and drop the bombs, which is what he intended to do, he let down his wheels? You'd say he wasn't very competent. Now, the bomber who pulls the stick of bombs at the moment he is on the target, and it is the bomb stick, he's competent.

And sure enough, this was the state of the case. Had automatic recalls which gave him "yesterday." He always got "yesterday."

Well, it's unfortunate that his competence would be dedicated and devoted to such an activity, but at the same time, he is doing a precision placement, isn't he?

You say, "Can you recall something real?"

Well, let's look much more thoroughly at that. What about Miss Malaprop, the lady who always says the exact wrong thing at the wrong time to the wrong people? You ever known such a person?

He'll say, "Yes. Yesterday."

Female voice: Yes.

"Well, what part of yesterday was real to you?"

They just can't ever seem to say, "How are you, Mr. Smith?" you know. Nothing simple like that. It's always something else, and it is always a little bit offbeat. That is just the placement of the communication, isn't it? Time, place, person. The right communication in the right place to the right person would be competence in communication, wouldn't it?

"Oh, why, yesterday about this same time of day."

Well, after this person has made enough communication boo-boos, they stop talking. You see, it goes downscale. It's not that they have learned better than to talk. They're just going downscale on communication, that's all.

"Well now, can you recall something else that was real?"

And after a while, if you looked at them, they wouldn't be very conscious. You would come in the door, and you'd slam it and so forth, and rack around the house and so forth. And this person - you've been home an hour, you know, and this person looks at you and says, "Oh, are you home?" Get the idea? Well, that is where the awareness fits in.

"Ah, yes, yes. Yes. Yesterday."

Now, an auditor who sees his preclear all of a sudden go "Duuhh, hmm" he's dealing with something. It's time for him to get in there with some two-way comm. It isn't time for him to change the process. It's time for him to find out if there's any auditing to patch up. It's time for him to get in there with some two-way communication one way or the other. I don't care if he talks about fish and goats.

You say, "Well, can you recall some particular point, some moment of time in yesterday?"

Every once in a while an auditor says to me, "This two-way comm is all right, but it's too complicated. I never can think of anything to say to the preclear."

"Oh, yes. Yesterday."

I say, "Well, you just thought of a horrible thing to say to me, didn't you?"

You say, "Well, can you recall a time when you were younger than you are now? and..."

He cognited. "Yes, I did, ha-ha!"

"Yesterday."

"All right. You can probably think of equally nasty things to say to a preclear."

You can imagine how some chap, some auditor who knows that he better remedy this chap's havingness, and he's started out on the recall line to do so - you say, "Remember something real" to somebody over and over, and they will make havingness out of it, actually. They will alter-is (remember) the not-is of forget and get a knowingness which they consider havingness. And you make them do this operation lots of times, and they'll have more havingness.

Now, where you have communication, which is two-way communication, you're going to get a rise in tone. Where you have a slump on the part of the preclear into anaten, a relaxation of attention, his alertness is dropping, he is not being as sharp or as smart as he was before, there is probably something wrong.

And I was going to run this on him, but I finally just - daahh. So what?

Now, by the mechanics of auditing you can expect the attention to the environment to introvert when you are running a subjective process. Have you got that? You can expect, as you start to run a subjective process, that his attention for the environment will introvert. Now the question is, is it less alert?

So I got him to talking about his epiglootis. And here was a fascinating man. His conversational powers were bounded on the north by epiglootis, on the south by epiglootis, and on the east and the west by superepiglootis. And this was the extent of his conversational powers, is what was wrong with him.

See, from the environment to his subjective bank is not necessarily a drop of consciousness. But did he shift from the environment to his - see, he's examining whether or not his mother's universe and his universe are entangled or separated or what, see? And he's examining this, and his attention goes off the environment and goes onto the bank.

And he sounded so proud of it. He sounded so proud of it that, by two-way communication, I actually got this chap to dig up other things he could be proud of, which is to say I got him talking about other ills he might have, too. And you know, he just got prouder and prouder and happier and happier.

That will make him appear, from an outside viewpoint, to be less alert, as long as we say "less alert to the environment." You see, we have to classify it. He was not alert at all to his bank and his mother's universe. He was restraining this in some fashion, so he was not alert at all to that a moment before you started auditing him. And now right after you started auditing him, and addressed his mother's universe, we find him less alert to the environment and more alert to his mother's universe. You get where the shift of attention has gone?

I introduced the question into it that it might not be possible, someplace in his anatomy that he might have some hitherto unsuspected bacteria which was gently and carefully carving away upon his bone structure or on his tendons or something of the sort. There might be some other illness in his life that he didn't suspect.

Well, the question is not whether he's shifted his attention in to out, or out to in; that isn't the question. The question is whether or not there's less alertness to that attention. Is he less capable of exerting attention? That's the question you have to answer, so that the auditor has a very, very nice adjudicative principle.

And he got to thinking about this, and he just had a wonderful time. His level of pride and dignity there was coming up all the time.

He sits there and he watches the preclear, and as far as the preclear is concerned - remember, he's a thetan; he isn't a body. Now, is the thetan less or more alert? We get the answer to this in the thing called communication lag. As lags lengthen, the thetan is going downhill. Something for you to remember, see? He's going downhill.

Now, you think I'm merely being facetious, but I found the associated data to what he fixedly was talking about and made him talk through and beyond what he was talking about and broadened his view in the line of associated data, which is always a very reliable method.

Well, you can permit him to go downhill a little ways, if you know enough to bring him back uphill. But supposing we had a preclear, and it was rather late in the evening, and we ask him, "All right. Now, 'Are pumpkins red or green?"' Whatever our auditing question was, you know, "Are pumpkins red or green? Good. Fine."

This chap is talking 100 percent about how horrible the air force is. Get him to admit that the army is horrible too. And then get him to admit that the navy has its faults. And then get him to admit that as we go out along these lines, military services of other countries might equally be in a mess. And he is broadening his scope. We are unfixing his attention by making him talk about data of comparable magnitude to his sphere of interest.

You say, "Are pumpkins red or green?"

And when you know this little trick, you could practically talk a guy well. You make him talk himself well. Up to that point, if you didn't know that trick and if you weren't willing to get in there with a steering oar, and if you weren't willing to navigate the shoals and channels with a very firm hand on the helm, you would have free association. And it's very difficult sometimes to get somebody to tell the difference between a very expertly carried on two-way communication by an auditor and a free association.

And he says, "That's right. They're red."

We make the original mistake: Let the guy talk. That's what we say: we say, "Let him talk." Uh-uh. If he's talking too much, shut him up, and it's an upstride on the case.

And you say, "Good. Are pumpkins red or green?"

How can we shut him up? We acknowledge what he said. How do we acknowledge what he said? We get him to find out that we acknowledged what he said. And this in itself might be a great jump in the case itself. We don't ever let a fellow go on and talk and talk and talk and talk and let his mind wander around to this and that.

And he'd say, "Well, pumpkins are red."

In the first place, it might work for a few hours that he would feel better, but certainly after a couple of sessions of this sort of thing, he'll start to talk himself under. And after a great deal of talk, he actually could worsen his case by free association. Don't doubt this for a minute, because they very often do worsen their cases.

And you say, "Well, are pumpkins red or green?"

Here's where free association had an accidental: It's the analyst's ability to get that obsessively communicating person aware of the fact that the analyst has heard what the fellow said. See? And some analysts had this, and some analysts didn't have that, so we had all kinds of oddities there. One chap, everything was fine. Another chap, couldn't get to first base.

And he says ... (silence)

We can take this accident out of auditing. In the first place, we're not going to let anybody free associate. We're going to talk with him. We're not going to talk to him, and we certainly are not going to be talked to.

Now, we know that something is a little less alert here. Is it the bank or the preclear? Let's just take a look at this, see.

One poor auditor, who is a very lovely lady, has had a very rough time of it with me, from time to time, because she comes in and says very proudly that she has just done thus and so. And she operates amongst people who are quite famous, and is occasionally dismayed that after I've acknowledged that she's done this, I ask her why the hell didn't she audit the person?

He finally says, "Oh, I don't know. I guess they're kind of pink."

And she says, "But I was."

You say, "Well, fine. Are pumpkins red or green?" And we get a little bit longer comm lag.

"No, you weren't. Now, when next time you see this person, do so-and-so and so-and-so."

Now, it's just about time for you as an auditor to get very alert. It's late in the evening. It's approaching ten o'clock. You know, your preclear can go diving on down the Tone Scale on the gayest little toboggan ride you ever saw in your life and wind up out. He's comm lagging on something. You've asked him the question the third time, and his comm lag was longer. And you ask him the fourth time, and his comm lag was longer. And you ask him the fifth time, and if his comm lag didn't shorten that time, you've got a problem on your hands, auditor, because that comm lag is not going to shorten.

Now, this person has called me long distance across some of the larger stretches of the world to tell me, "What do you know, that was what was wrong." But she should have known it sitting right there talking to the person.

The tiredness and the accumulated fatigues of the day, perhaps hunger, lack of food, all sorts of oddities may have entered into this session while it was in progress. And the worst thing you think you could do is not flatten the comm lag. Hm-hm, that isn't the worst thing you can do. The worst thing you can do is mess up a preclear.

The first time she got bawled out thoroughly was she let a very, very famous personality talk to her for three days and three nights - without stopping. And she said it did her so much good; did her so much good. She had to have somebody to talk to.

If you were auditing the process only - not only in an extreme situation like this but in many other situations, you're going to make mistakes. And you're never auditing a process; you're auditing a preclear. And these days we interlard all processes with two-way communication. And when do we use it? That is the big mystery. We use it when the preclear starts downscale, and we bring him back upscale again with it.

Well, why didn't she get a maid or the butler or somebody and talk to them, you know? Why talk to an auditor? Three days and three nights. It did her so much good.

We say, "Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah. You just come out of that little boil-off, and you sit up there, be a good little preclear, huh. We don't allow no skidding around here. We don't allow no anatening. What did I do wrong?" That's an awfully sort of a not-promotive-of-ARC question, but the very funny part of it is, if the preclear went anaten, it's an awfully good one to ask.

So I said to the auditor, "Next - I know this preclear," I said, "already. And the next time you get this preclear in that kind of a situation, if you can't get in something that sounds like auditing at least once every hour, you're losing." And got this auditor to go back and acknowledge firmly what the preclear had just said.

Not "What have I done wrong now," of course. But you can ask him, "What have I - what have we done here? What's wrong? Has anything gone wrong with the session?"

Preclear would say, "Gabbledy-gabble, yak-yak, yakety-yakety-yak."

"No," he'll say - polite preclear. "No, no" - grog, grog. "No, nothing's gone wrong. Nothing."

And the auditor would say, "That's fine!"

He'll be really rather sure. "Just look it over for a moment there. Has anything really gone wrong there, or is everything all right with the session and..."

And the preclear said, "Yakety-yakety. . ."

"Oh, there's nothing really wrong except, when you dropped your ashtray a couple of minutes ago, why, it had a funny feeling on me." Or "You've asked the last twenty questions without any kind of a break, and it just doesn't seem to me like you're very interested." Something's gone off.

And the auditor said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a minute."

Well, why bother to categorize how many things have gone off when all you have to do is ask the preclear? And that's a whole subject in itself. So we'll go back and take a look at this other - these other factors. And these factors start at the top with Knowingness, and they wind up at the bottom with Unconsciousness. Your preclear is a thetan. He is just so alert.

And of course, this grande dame of high society - of course, anybody saying "whoa" to her or "wait a minute," this was quite startling, and this stopped her flow and arrested her attention.

Now, there are some little oddities that come in this, and one of the oddities is this: A thetan is very close to being unconscious if he doesn't know he's a thetan. If he doesn't know he is a being separate from a body, I'd say he was practically snoring. See? He's really right there at a deep yawn, at least.

And the auditor at this time said, "I said, 'Fine.' You know, you said so-and-so and so-and-so, and I said, 'Fine.' I said, 'That's fine."'

And one of the manifestations of his coming awake is quite curious. He starts to have nightmares. A thetan trying to have nightmares is something very remarkable to observe. The reason he has nightmares is not very disturbing. He starts to come awake himself while the body is asleep. He isn't differentiating between the body and himself. He has the body and himself still entangled, but to some slight degree he's got a differentiation going here. He's being audited, you see, and he's a little more aware of the fact that he is himself and the body is a body.

She did that, and this grande dame sank back and said, "Whew! Well." Changed her whole case. First time she had ever been cognizant of anybody acknowledging her for years.

So he goes to sleep at night, and lo and behold, do we have a very relaxed thetan? No! What the hell is a thetan doing going to sleep at night? Just ask that question. That's a - dduuuhhh. To get rest? Huh! "Thetan needed rest." These are asininities, see? What's he doing going to sleep?

We've had this happen often, you see. We've had this happen often with preclears, so we know this works. The obsessive outflow isn't the preclear talking. It is a machine the preclear finally had to set up to go on saying what the preclear had already said without acknowledgments, you see? So the preclear said it once and didn't get it acknowledged, and then he goes on talking and doesn't get it acknowledged and doesn't get it acknowledged.

Well, he's doing - going to sleep is because his anchor point is the body, and the body keeps him located. And when the body goes to sleep, he's no longer located. And the reason he dreams and has nightmares is very cute. He's trying to put up enough mock-ups via his own machinery to get himself located again.

One would almost say that those things which haven't been acknowledged certainly persist, and they persist until they're acknowledged. So the mechanical aspect of acknowledgment is something a fellow ought to understand.

Believe me, honest, I tell you, this is the total significance of that circumstance. You'll have that circumstance reported to you over and over and over and over, so you might as well know the answer to it. It's one of these really - real fundamental things.

Do you know that if you were to say to the preclear, "How glad I am to see you. I am very glad you are here. I'm very glad you are here. Did you hear me?"

The thetan starts to wake up. He doesn't go to sleep anymore, of course. And so the body goes to sleep, and he starts waking up, and his answer is to have nightmares so that he can get enough mock-ups around so he can orient himself. Sure, these are horrible nightmares. Sure, these are awful. You ask him what his acceptance level is as a thetan. You just take the area of the body in which he's normally situated, and you give it havingness and find out the things it accepts, and you will be flabbergasted.

"(mumble) - what?"

The idea of a piece of used sewer pipe would be as delicious as a lollipop to this thetan. See, his deterioration of havingness is quite marked, and we see this thing turn on. We see these various mechanisms occur as the preclear is being audited.

"I am very glad you are here. I am happy to see you. I am very happy to see you."

But the preclear is asleep if he's interiorized, more or less. He's depending on the wakefulness of the body and its alertness, and we start to wake him up by auditing. Then how are you going to tell at any given moment if he isn't just boiling off or if he isn't just waking up through a boil-off?.

Now, you'd think this would be a crazy preclear that would have to be talked to this way. Oh, no. It's somebody who floats in on the gay wings of the social machinery, you know. And they say, "How are you?" and "I'm very happy to be here," and they sit down. "Well, we're all set for a session now. Yakety-yakety-yakety-yakety-yak. "

Boy, I tell you, you could get awful philosophical about this. This is one of the most complicated questions that you ever heard of. This question is so complicated that Bergson would have gone mad trying to answer it. But fortunately, we're not this completely involved.

You say, "I am glad you're here."

The preclear, as he sits down, is a unit. He is a unit beingness. And the sleepiness of the preclear or the anaten of the preclear is marked by such things as misplacements, inabilities to talk to you - the standard things you look for in a preclear, that you recognize.

And they say, "Yakety-yakety-yak."

You say, "What's your name?"

And you say, "I am glad you are here. I'm glad you arrived for the session. Thank you for coming for the session."

And he says, "I feel fine."

They say, "Mmm - what's he talking about?"

See, the wrong remark and the wrong answer, wrong time. And we then place our preclear rather accurately about where he sits. We know he's kind of out of communication, therefore, we know that he's not very capable of liking things. We know that he's practically spun in on two or three lines, therefore, he's probably not exteriorized.

And you say, "Thank you for coming for the session. I'm glad you are here."

We can add all these things up. And one of the finest things in the world to do is to gather experience on simplicities, not complexities. And if you gather experience on just these simplicities of how well is he communicating, you eventually get your preclears taped. You've got the preclear, then, standardized. You're looking at a standardized package; you're not looking at something else and then looking at some kind of a standard.

(sigh) "Yes. Well, ha, yes. Yes, as a matter of fact."

I'll give you an idea. I do quite a bit of photography one way or the other. If you want to learn a camera, you don't use several brands of film, because you'll be studying the film, not the camera, you see? You take - I don't care whether it's bad or good - you take one brand of film and shoot pictures with that one brand of film and get it developed and printed in one drugstore, one chemist, one laboratory.

This will work more often than you think - more often than you think.

Whether it's bad or good, we don't care - whether the finishing is. We'll learn to use the camera, because the other things are being held standard. Do you see that? We'll know, then, whether or not we're taking pictures or not taking pictures with a camera.

Now, if you were to run this technique on this preclear, you would find something fascinating, find something fascinating: "What statement wouldn't you mind hearing?"

As soon as we start taking pictures with the film too - you see, we take eight brands of film. We're going to test all of these films and the cameras, only we're not going to pay any attention to the kind of film that we put in the camera, we're going to learn to use the camera by using them.

Now, these people with their shut-off sonics turn them on with that command. And it's an interestingly simple command - that is "What statement." You're not talking about sound; go a little bit downhill. At least let them sit in the symbol band.

And then we have these things developed all over town in various laboratories that do various things and great differences and so forth. And we find out we don't know anything about the camera. Therefore, we kind of say to ourselves, "Well, I can't understand this camera."

And you say, "What statement wouldn't you mind hearing?"

Well, this is foolish, because you weren't studying the camera. You were studying films and laboratories at the same time. So the place to start in is on one of these simplicities, is how awake is the preclear?

And he will tell you from what person and so on. And he will inevitably come up, if he's having any trouble with his case, with statements such as this, Mama: "You're a nice little girl, and I'm very glad you're here." From Papa: "You're a nice little girl. I am happy you are my daughter."

And listen, he ought to be - this is one of these complicated things, see - he ought to be just a little more awake in any given instant of the session than he was in any past instant of the session. You knew how awake he was when he walked in and sat down. Therefore, you will know whether or not his communication, his affinity and reality, are better for progressing moments of the session.

And this goes with the preclear, wow! Now, these - these are the acknowledgments they're waiting for. You approximate any of those as an auditor, and you will get an immediate result in the preclear. So two-way communication has an awful lot to be known about it.

If they are better - you see, you're looking at the preclear as a package. We're not going to separate him out now as a thetan. We're not going to pull him apart and say, "Well, this is behaving one way and the other behaving the other way." We know all these complicated factors exist. So we're just going to take this package that we call a preclear, and we're just going to look at him. And as we audit him, we're going to find out whether or not he appears to be more alert, as a thinking being than he was before. And if he is, we're winning. And if he isn't, we did something wrong or we used the wrong process on him.

If you just approximate anything that you believe the preclear is waiting to hear and say it to them, they get into communication. What kind of guesswork, though, does that take on your part, hm? Well, not really any. There's the mechanics of two-way communication itself, and they carry you along a very long distance.

Now, that is reduction to a simplicity, but it is as simple as that. It really is. Your preclear that sat there and went "nyar-vroomph" and at the end of twenty-five hours didn't think very much had happened was absolutely right. Something happened to his havingness. Something happened to his - more important - his attention. Something must have happened here to knock him down during this period.

Now, supposing you wanted to turn actual two-way communication into a thoroughgoing repetitive-type technique? You would patch up various significant origins and acknowledgments on the track.

Now, the good old days, when we were having people boil off like mad, I actually went and tested boil-off on pcs and got records on boil-off. And do you know that not one single preclear was ever found to benefit from any boil-off?. This is a complete misconcept, that if we make them unconscious for a period of time - one was made unconscious, by the way, for 300 hours. He was run in boil-off of 300 hours from various periods (that was the accumulated amount of time), and he was no better at the end of this period than at the beginning. Has no therapeutic value.

"What statement wouldn't you mind hearing?" and "What statement wouldn't you mind stating?" are very interesting. But you know, you don't have to carry along a duplicative-type question on a low-level preclear. You can handle any concept in Dianetics and Scientology on a two-way communication basis. You throw it on the table and talk it over with the preclear. That is sort of the way it is.

Similarly, nothing else has any therapeutic value that does not immediately promote his consciousness. If we can't promote his consciousness, we're not promoting the preclear.

Preclear has some sort of an inkling that this or that might not or might be true in life, and he has sort of adventured it, you throw it on the table, too, and you talk about it for a short time, you're liable to get a terrific upsurge.

The goal of auditing is to raise the ARC of the preclear. Is this nebulous? No. Let's go back and look at this fundamental scale, this terribly fundamental scale. At the top there's Knowingness, below that there's Not-know, and below that there's Understand. Not-know is a postulate, so it's the ability to make postulates.

Now, this chap who is the head of the judiciary committee could run only two-way communication, but he couldn't run two-way communication until I looked him straight in the eye and said, "Do you know that I heard you say that?" And he looked like he'd just been caught guilty of chicken thievery.

We're not interested, really, in the horribly complicated mechanics of any of that beyond this one fact: ARC are co-related, and ARC equal understanding. Understanding is the combination of ARC. Knowingness isn't the combination of ARC, you understand. Understandingness is the combination of ARC, because you understand something, you understand something. And when you just know, you know, that's all. Follow this?

I said, "I heard you say that."

So then understanding is compartmentable. And the compartmentable factor is the triangle, and that triangle is the ARC triangle. And if it's real big, if there's lots of affinity and lots of reality and lots of communication on the line, you say, "Mm-hm. In good shape."

This is something he never intended to have happen. First place, he was talking way back in - about two feet back of his head. He was two feet in front of it, and he was talking two feet behind it, just hoping that as he made statements, nobody would notice. He was running "hiding" on sound, "hiding" on meaning and significance. He was a master of obscurity of statement.

Now, this is no time to go worrying about whether or not a compulsive outflow or something of the sort is present. Just don't worry about that. Communication is communication. Of course, it has its parts, but we understand communication. We know some guy who is rattling away at a mad rate and never gives us a chance to say a word in reply is not communicating; he's doing something else.

See, he was trying to obfuscate the whole issue that he was communicating, and I finally brought him up gently and gradually into the admission of the fact that he was communicating, that a communication was going on, that he was talking to somebody, that somebody was listening to him and so on. And this all by itself was a tremendous case gain.

All right. ARC. And at the bottom of that scale is unconsciousness. And as we raise our pc up the scale toward knowingness, he is simply getting more conscious. And as we drop him down the scale, he's getting less conscious.

Now, you say you can't make any case gain in an hour and a half with somebody who can't even run any Straightwire at all. That was the total length of time I processed this chap, and he lost his chronic somatics. I processed him an hour and a half, and I ran him on Two-way Communication only, on a discussion of what other diseases might be chewing on him.

Funny part of it is, the more unconscious he gets, the more time enters into the situation, waitingness enters into the situation. The mechanism of unconsciousness is simply another way of waiting so you won't know about it. That's what unconsciousness is, "you won't know about it."

I broadened his view and lifted his attention off by showing him there was something else of a tasty nature to look at, such as he might have cancer of the brain, who knew? X-ray machines can't look into the brain. He might have cancer of the brain? Might have. You know, this interested him terrifically.

All right. Now, what are we stressing this simplicity for? Because I'm afraid it needs stressing here and there. It answers the most fantastic number of questions. It answers, for instance, this question that this auditor was up against: "How do I end a session?"

If you'd listened to this, you would have thought maybe I was evaluating for him or something, when I would occasionally come up with a suggestion. Oh, but really, I was just originating the same kind of communication he was originating.

He'd say, "Well, I kind of get the process flat, but the preclear is still groggy."

He'd say, "Well, I don't know. Maybe some of these horrible things which are occurring - maybe these horrible pains I am getting when I wake up in the morning, you know, maybe they really mean something else that's much worse."

We find the preclear was always groggy when a process was run on him. That's because there didn't seem to be any interest in whether or not the process did anything or not, you see? There was no two-way comm. The preclear could volunteer some information. It wouldn't be picked up. You were liable to get another remark on the part of the auditor.

And I said, "Well, you probably at the same time when you wake up in the morning have a kind of a fuzzy feeling in your head. Is that right?"

The preclear - here was one boo-boo that I picked up that preceded the first anaten the preclear had had, and this boo-boo was just exactly this: It was a break on two-way communication, and a real simple break that you wouldn't think was a break at all.

"Oh, yes. Yes." The man drunk like a fish all the time, you know. Of course, he always had a hangover. And I'd say, "Well, something like that, you know, could betoken - could betoken a much more serious neurological condition. You know that nerves rot, don't you?"

The preclear said, in essence, "I think Mother didn't treat me too badly after all."

"Oh, yes - do they? Is that right?" you know.

And the auditor said, "Well, we all come to realize things about Mother sooner or later."

Well, that would have been a dizzy-sounding auditing session, but actually, it was working all the way. His comm lags, his actual acknowledgments were there. He was in there closer and closer. He was much less hostile about life and so forth and people. As a matter of fact, I think he finished it up feeling rather benign about the whole thing. He could have a whole walking menagerie of ills. Wonderful, encouraged him; there was some hope. He could rot clean away.

Now, this doesn't sound like very much, does it? There was no acknowledgment. The auditor didn't say, "Good. Yes." He didn't receive the communication. He batted it back to the preclear, see? He made another comment. You got the idea, huh?

Now, as we look over - as we look over the low-level processes, then, let me assure you, we already have one. Well, what's its trouble?

Preclear originated a communication, which was a bit of understandingness, and the auditor didn't say, "Well, fine," or anything like that - "Good." He didn't say, "I have received that." He gave a counter-communication. And we found out this auditor did that all the time. But that was why the preclear was anaten, not because the process was not working. The process wasn't making the preclear anaten, because the preclear couldn't say anything. A countercomment drove the preclear down. Get the idea?

Well, I don't have too much time with some pcs, and if I'm merely picking one out of the hat to run, I always pick this one out of the hat: Two-way Communication, you know, and then steer it around in some direction, broaden his span of attention wherever it's fixed (that's the secret of it; if you find it's fixed someplace, broaden it), and just accept that tone level for the pc. It doesn't matter where he's fixed.

Audience: Yes.

He's fixed on effort, work, or maybe he's at the south side of work: "I work so hard, and nobody ever appreciates it," or something like this. Broaden his span of attention on the thing. Call to his mind that nobody ever probably thanked all those poor slaves that worked those pyramids and, you know, get his attention off and around and moved around. You're really not telling him things of any great magnitude. You're saying some tiny gradient sometimes of what he just said, see, only you just come upscale a little bit more.

Now, this is very, very curious, then, that the first moment of analytical attenuation which was demonstrated by the preclear was preceded - and the auditor I was talking to about this and trying to explain it to him was very fighty with me right up to that point. He wasn't being brash; he was merely saying, "But I can't understand how you could possibly believe that I did anything wrong with the preclear. I obeyed the Auditor's Code. I ran exactly the right process," so on.

He just got through moving a tremendous number of boxes. Well, you suggest that it might have been stones. You see, you have to be careful not to outflow against him too much more than he's outflowing against you, which puts comm lags on the thing.

And we checked up to find exactly the moment when the preclear started to deteriorate, and we found out that it was a lack of an acknowledgment, see? It was just as fundamental as this: The communication line went out. And the auditor did not notice that the preclear had gone unconscious because of the auditing and had assumed that something horrible had reached up out of the depths and dregs of the case and had pulled the preclear down.

But you know, if you sat there and looked at a preclear long enough, he'd finally originate a communication. That's the other thing that an auditor really has to know to run it. If you just sit there and look at him long enough, it's sometimes very trying on him. He gets upset, he gets nervous, he gets - so on.

So we get to the next thing that the preclear decided. And the preclear decided this very, very glibly. Preclear decided that in view of the fact that the auditor always consulted him laboriously about the process to be run and always took the process that the preclear offered - and other conduct bore this out - that the auditor in this case expected the preclear to be responsible for his own case, and that the auditor was taking no responsibility for the case.

Now, a pc, he keeps presenting you with some sort of a problem. We know a pc right now who has squiggles in front of her eyes. It's fascinating what you do about squiggles in front of somebody's eyes. That's fascinating. What do you do about squiggles in front of somebody's eyes? You're not going to sit up here and run a process that's going to eradicate these squiggles, are you? And yet the pc keeps talking to you about them and keeps mentioning them. All right.

They never got a chance to run any process the auditor decided on.

Now, we just question her. "Are you sure they're not squaggles?" You get the idea? "Have you ever had - have you ever had a condition where your sight was slightly blurred? Oh, you have?" You see, "Isn't that interesting. Well, did you ever have any - did you ever really get your eyes upset? Have you ever had any disease in your eyes or anything like that?" you know, anything you want to say.

The auditor didn't decide when to end sessions except by postulate.

And then they all of a sudden start to give. And believe me, they will discuss this subject with you for maybe fifteen, twenty minutes. And then all of a sudden it's an exhausted subject as far as they're concerned, and they go off of it, and we never hear any more about these squiggles. Maybe they're still seeing them, but they don't interest them. You get the idea?

"Well," he'd say, "I'm giving you warning" - I think that's a wonderful thing to use to a half-anaten preclear - " I'm giving you warning that I'm going to end the session shortly." You got any idea what the word warning kicks up in the bank? "And I give you fair warning if I..." you know, every fight up and down the line. "I'm warning you that I'm going to end this session."

All right. So we do have a process; we do. It has a liability, however, of requiring skill. It can too easily become free association. It can too easily become some sort of an evaluative technique, which is exactly the reverse of free association. It is the person talking to the patient, and the patient never gets a chance to say anything, see. All right. It's too easy for it to degenerate into something and have no plan.

Anyway, having done that, there wasn't any ending of the session. The preclear, you know, stayed groggy, and the comm lag stayed there, and the process wouldn't flatten, and the preclear stayed groggy and got more groggy.

Well, the plan of two-way communication rather goes this way: You know that you're at liberty to discuss any point or knowingness in the entire field of Dianetics and Scientology. You can just throw it on the table and start talking about it, and you're going to get some kind of a result from the preclear. That's an interesting thing, because you're talking about their case.

And you just kept running the process and doing everything right, but you couldn't end the session.

Now, we take some fixed problem of the preclear, and by any mechanism whereby he invents problems or tells you lies or any other mechanism, we get him to get some attention fixation of comparable magnitude. What else might he fix his attention on, we are almost asking him. "What else might you fix your attention on that would be just as bad as this horrible case of wifosis you have, huh? What - what else? What else would be as bad as that?"

Well, the auditor had an awful time with this because I kept saying, "All you do is throw in some two-way comm. You start discussing the situation."

And if you ask him too bluntly, you kind of shatter his ARC. But you can broaden his attention. He's telling you - he's telling you that his lungs have been in terrible shape for a very long time, and you ask him if it's ever affected his heart. Get the idea?

And the auditor didn't get it that if you added some C onto this triangle, the preclear would come upscale, which would of course make him less groggy, and he would therefore be totally capable of being reasonable about ending the session. You get that?

What is the exact mechanical operation under what you're doing? You're asking him to broaden on a gradient scale his fixation of attention. In other words, we don't ask him to unfix it, ever. We just simply ask him to fix his attention on some other things too.

But the auditor didn't follow that procedure. Having ground the process out to the last horrible click, but having made it obvious during the entire ending period of the session that it was an overt act on the part of the preclear because the auditor wanted to end the session. You get how this would be? The preclear, of course, just kept going downscale and getting more and more and more and more anaten.

"Could those lungs ever affect your heart? Do you ever have heart trouble?"

Now, you'd think that somebody would look this over very carefully, but I found out, much to my surprise, that the auditor did not clearly know this basic fundamental: that Knowingness is at the top and Unconsciousness is at the bottom. And as the preclear approaches Unconsciousness, he's, of course, running out of affinity, reality (which is agreement) and communication.

Now, many a doctor does this sort of instinctively. He's in there doing a diagnosis, and he's tapping and doing all sorts of things. It's quite interesting. I don't know, he may feel that he knows what he's doing, and he may only be diagnosing. But it's very often true that the chap does have this as an immediate result: the patient feels better.

Some communication which contained affinity and agreement would, of course, raise him up. So the preclear felt a little groggy toward the end of session. All the auditor had to do was talk with him about it, and he would have come right out of it.

The doctor thinks, "Well, it's on the basis that he was diagnosed, and he is now - his mind is at ease concerning it." Well, his mind would be much more at ease concerning it if the medical doctor had discovered whether or not any other area in that vicinity was also affected.

Now, you get this fundamental - this fundamental scale. The preclear is operating on it. He is behaving according to it. He does not diverge from it. There aren't sudden wild variables that enter in. The preclear is either more alert at the end of two hours of your auditing than he was at the beginningjust as you see him, you understand; no factors of extroversion-introversion or anything else connected with it. He's just more alert, just as a human being, than he was at the beginning of session or you didn't do him any good. Fantastic, but true.

If I were doing a diagnostic-type auditing, see, and the chap were complaining about his shoulder, we would wind up with the possibility that actually - we were talking about his left shoulder - that his right big toe was possibly being affected by the same condition. And in other words, we would just broaden his attention out, as far as the body is concerned.

Now, quite often a preclear is doing something fantastic, and we get a variation of his conduct in a session. We have a preclear who is sitting in front of us. And we start to audit the preclear, and the very instant that we start to audit the preclear, the preclear seems to absolutely collapse as far as we're concerned. We see this occasionally. What happens when we do that?

Then we would ask him whether or not other members of his family or associates are ever affected this way, just to find out whether or not we have an epidemic. And the chap would go away, and in a large number of cases, why, he would just feel fine. But of course, it'd take about a half an hour or an hour to do this type of diagnosis.

This is not a very hard thing to explain. The preclear is actually objecting to being audited, and the social machinery is agreeing. And once in a while we get this wild one, but it's about the only departure. Right there at the beginning of the session the preclear turns on a whole bunch of somatics and so forth.

We would impress him that we were diagnosing by having a lot of shiny things around that we did things with and clattered occasionally but none of which resembled operational instruments, you understand. I mean, we'd have meters, and we'd have small weighing machines.

What are you going to do about something like that? Is there any other reason behind this? Yes. Simply working with the agreement of the social machinery and not the agreement of the preclear won't do this in its entirety. This preclear had to be acutely ill and wasn't talking. There had to be something very fundamentally physically wrong with this preclear to get any behavior of this character. And anything that happens there from there on in terms of somatics with this peculiar preclear is upscale.

And we'd say, "All right. Now, your shoulder feels bad. Now, how about your hand? How about your hand? Your hand ever feel bad at all? Have you ever had any trouble with your hand? Well, all right. Now, put your hand on this little machine here now." And you'd carefully read the scale.

So you want to know how bad off this preclear was? This preclear was a social machine. You start to wake the preclear up (snap), and they turn on somatics, and they go on upscale. They will also occasionally get groggy and go through a period of grogginess and so forth.

You could do a diagnosis. You would become - you'd become absolutely fabulous to people because so many people would walk in the door and walk out well.

But just because there is this case that is better off in agony than they were totally numb - this preclear, by the way, that turns on the somatics when you get them into session and so forth, usually was an anesthetic case, anesthesia, a numbness of a body or area. And you start to make it liver, and the somatic is liver than the area was.

Now, you're treating somebody, mind, let us say - let us use this horrible sort of comparison, because the second we say, "treating the mind," we think of minds full of diseases and all sorts of things. Minds are - if minds are full of anything, they're only full of disabilities.

If you want to check this over with the preclear, you've asked the preclear, "All right. Do your - body have any numb areas?"

So let's take a look at this. And the chap starts talking about his disabilities, what he can't do. Well, let's find out how whipped he really is. That's the direction he's usually trying to go. Now, that sounds funny, but a preclear will sit there and talk to you about it very glibly. "I can't play a piano, either, you know. Can't ride a horse, you know. Can't ride a horse or play a piano or..."

And the preclear said, "Oh, well, nothing much. My left side, of course, is totally numb all the time."

Very often they can't eat, either. Yeah, having an awful hard time eating. And you'll find some preclears that will take the greatest satisfaction in these things if you just start talking about it. And that's the preclear you ought to run it on. Preclear isn't really in-session, having a rough time, doubtful of the auditor, asks you lots of questions concerning your experience as an auditor.

Well, when that left side starts to turn on, you will get somatics, do you see, in the preclear - hm? So that you do have an appearance there of the preclear going downscale when they're going upscale.

Kick their shins when they do something like this, you know. I do. I mean, it's just literally - they say, "Now, have you ever had a case like mine?" and so forth.

Well, it doesn't matter if that little variation works. You still check your auditing. You still check as to whether or not we haven't busted this thing high, wide and handsome. And the preclear who is being audited by social agreement and not by their own agreement will thereby start out on the right foot. You'll get them to agree to be audited before you're through, and have a session running, and this situation will remedy itself, if you tried to find out.

I look at them right between the eyes, and I say, "A case like yours? Well, what sort of a case is yours?"

They went anaten or they got somatics the second you started auditing them, then the best thing that you can do is to find out if there is anything wrong between auditor-preclear, session and the ARC which prevails on the subject of auditing. The second you try to check this up, you will immediately discover that there was something wrong.

"Hm, is that right? Well, I don't know. I might have had cases like yours. Any other members of your family have cases like yours?"

Maybe one of the things that was wrong was simply that the preclear was acutely well - acutely paralyzed, you might say, from the knees down and didn't tell you. You're going to find out some more information right there. Your omission in that case was not knowing enough about your preclear.

And here we go. In other words, just let's broaden this scope, and let's get it off of that subject. And you'll find out that once they find they can - here's the whole secret of it - once they can find they can communicate with more things than the things they're communicating about or with or at, they then feel that they no longer obsessively have to hold on to that thing, you see?

Now, the other point - the other point is - oh, let me finish off this one point. Here is this scale. It goes Know, Not-know, Understand, and then down at the bottom is the harmonic on the Not-know, which is Unconsciousness. And that is all up and down the scale, marked with points and degrees of ARC. And that's one of these stable scales.

There is no such thing as an abundance of communication; it's an unattainable, on any subject. When you learn that real well, you know two-way communication. You see?

I found out originally that in research and investigation, whenever I diverged from the basic Axioms of Dianetics which were laid down - the dynamic principle is survive, the purpose of the mind is to pose and resolve problems, these various, very fundamental axioms - when I went astray from these various fundamental axioms, an interesting thing always occurred: I was wrong. I neglected some of these fundamentals, I was wrong. I kept these fundamentals in mind, I was right.

You say, "Well, there's such a thing as too much communication with the tires of a lorry," you know.

Well, this is one of these stable data of the auditor; this scale is a stable datum. And whatever else you know, if it violates this stable datum, it's wrong, not this scale. Get the idea? If the preclear apparently violates this stable datum, the preclear is wrong, stable datum isn't. You see that?

Well, for a body, there is. What are you doing processing a body? Aha. To a thetan, he might just love the idea of thousands, millions, billions of bodies in intimate communication with the tires of lorries on the underside.

You can stake the case on that scale. You can say, "Well, it runs Know, Not-know, Understand, ARC, on down to total Unconsciousness and the degrees of it are so-and-so. And this preclear is behaving peculiarly and erratically and is changing valences, and that has nothing to do with this scale." Nah-ah-ah-ah. It has everything to do with that scale. And if you figure out the relation of the preclear's conduct to this stable datum, this scale, you'll all of a sudden understand the preclear yourself. All right.

You process the thetan, you'll find out that you're usually processing something which at least reacts on a lower tone level, quite ordinarily, than the body. And this is the case you have trouble with, the case that's - is, as a thetan, much lower on the Tone Scale than the body. And you get this case, and he hangs fire and nothing he thinks has any effect at all on anything that happens. You got that?

The other thing is two-way communication. Somebody says, "Two-way communication is very difficult to use. It's very difficult to think of things to say to the preclear. It's very difficult to remember things to talk about," and so forth. One is having a social difficulty there, not an auditing difficulty. Please make the distinction. Because if you introduce other subjects than auditing the preclear and the preclear's life, very often, you're going to find out that you're off the entire subject of what the preclear is thinking about. You know? So it's not an appropriate communication. It hasn't any agreement with the circumstances and the time. You get your agreement factor by having your communication agree with what is going on.

Now, that is the toughest case there is. There is no tougher case than that. You can process this fellow forever. For instance, if you think hard at your shoulder that you have a pain there, you, being in pretty good shape, probably can bring a pain there, see? I did it just now, hurts like hell. All right. Now, an effectiveness of postulate is what I'm talking about, see?

And the preclear is too often hounded by the auditor - too often hounded - by this one thing: "How do you feel?" An auditor must realize this thing about havingness and not-havingness. A preclear's havingness can be cut to ribbons; and when it's cut to ribbons, his anaten increases. He gets more unconscious when he's losing havingness. If you're running processes on him which are making him lose havingness, he will become unconscious.

You say, "Boy, what a terrific pain I've got there, you know. Just got a pain there, that's all there is to it." In other words, when you think something, something happens. You got it?

So run processes on your preclear which give him havingness if he tends to get a little blinky the moment that you ask him how he feels and how does it seem to him now, because these are as-ising processes. These are processes which rob him.

Well, the case you have trouble with, when it thinks something, nothing happens. And in the next-to-the-last paragraph of his twenty-eighth lecture, Sigmund Freud mentions this case as totally uncurable. "Not to be cured by us," he says. He calls it a level of detachment.

You say, "Well, that ordinary social convention of 'How do you feel?' you mean that upsets a preclear? Huh! Couldn't be." Oh, yes it does, because he looks himself over to some degree, and he as-ises some of him.

That's the case, level of detachment; the person is detached from life. In other words, what we could say is this individual makes a postulate and nothing occurs. He gives an order, nothing happens. Get the idea? He says, "Ridge move," no ridge moves.

You can say, "How is it going?" You can say, "What are you doing?" You can say, "How are you doing it?" You can say almost anything you want to say except, "How does it seem to you now? How do you feel? How are you?"

And when he gets down totally to a point of where he's absolutely convinced nothing will ever occur, you've got yourself an interesting state of affairs. You have somebody who will bring the body on a kind of a stimulus-response mechanism into the auditing session. But then you run concepts, you do this, you do that, you do something else. You ask them to run problems. You ask them to do this, that, anything, and nothing happens as a result of this. You actually don't even stir the case up.

He'll become very tired of that. You know why? Because it's as-ising what little havingness he has. And you make yourself a quarter of an inch of gain, and then you ask him, "How do you feel?" and you'll lose half an inch. See? You're not winning. Most preclears are a critical problem in havingness.

You could ask this chap with complete impunity to repeat after you "It's a boy. It's a boy. It's a boy." You know what would happen to almost anybody? They'd go - any male would go, almost - well, some high percentage, would go immediately into the birth engram, see? Repeater technique doesn't work on this person. That's the person who has no change, and that's the person that you worry about, and that's the person whose case you are trying to crack on these low levels. So open thine ears, and we will give you the hot dope here - at least, warm dope.

Now, what does this have to do with the scale? It just is that the preclear has a consideration that he has to have just so much to get along. There are some fellows that believe they have to have a million bucks before they can possibly eat their breakfast comfortably, and there are other chaps who have just a wonderful time of it if they've got a couple of bob in their pockets. And they think, "Boy, this is really fine," and they really enjoy their breakfast.

Do you understand this as the individual who, as a thetan, dead in his head, can say, "My right foot is gangrenous. It hurts. It's going to hell," anything he wanted to say, and there would be absolutely no consequence whatsoever of his having made the statement? You got that?

These are differences of considerations, aren't they? That's all they are. So one preclear believes he has to have eighty-five stone, and another preclear believes he has to have at least a couple of ounces of havingness in order to feel comfortable this morning.

So that he believes there is no consequence to any of his actions in life, and he goes out and he does the damnedest things. He goes out, and he runs through crosswalks with cars, and he robs aged ladies and kicks babies off parapets, and anything and everything you could think of he does, because there's no consequence. That is the state of mind into which he has developed himself: There's going to be no consequence.

But the funny part of it is, is once having made this consideration, they then obey it and respond to it, and they've lost the basic consideration. You can change it around, but they will now respond to it.

So you ask this individual, "What would happen if you got mad?"

So you cut this fellow down below eighty-five stone, he's lost. He thinks he's lost a lot of havingness, and he'll start going anaten on you. And you cut down this other fellow's two ounces, and he'll start going anaten on you. You see this?

Oh, he can run this by the hour. There's only one thing he knows, is that there's no consequences to anything. So he can behave the way he wants to. You have your insane person, your criminal, these fall into that classification - your homosexual. There is no consequence to their action. That is the action back of their actions. They say, "I don't affect anything."

Male voice: Mm.

They could stand there with a sawed-off shotgun and - fully loaded - and pull both barrels at your chest, see the bullets go in out of those barrels, see you drop to the floor, dead and blown to pieces, and they would not think anything had occurred.

So when they start going anaten, one of the things that is happening is that they're losing some of their communication terminal - reality. Something is being lost there. Now, maybe they just lost an auditor because you made a boo-boo. But again, this is explanation of anaten by havingness.

And the police are going to do something with these guys? You know, somebody is going to pass a law to make these people more law-abiding? They can't.

When your preclear starts to finish up the session and he's groggy, you start talking with him. Preferably start talking with him about how he is doing things, what he conceives these things to mean, you know? That's real tricky. Throw some meaningness in there, get some more significance in there one way or the other.

Well now, at a little higher level than this - not your criminal, criminal is not a type - he is merely a fellow who has picked the third dynamic out for his randomity. An atheist is another kind of criminal in another age. He has picked out God for his randomity. You see, he's not a criminal, though; he's a heretic.

"Well, what do you suppose that really amounts to, you know? What could that mean? What does that mean to you?" not "How does it seem to you?" Because you've got to make him go twist, twist, crick, crick, and he'll have a little more havingness. You get the idea?

All right. So you could pick out almost anything for one's randomity, you see, and have no consequence in action because of this thing. One knows that he cannot create an effect. And let's go back and look at the first of The Factors and find that there, and that hasn't moved any, and it's right where it was. Prime purpose - prime purpose, cause to effect. That's the way it is. That's the way you get universes, everything.

And if worst came to worst and you'd run his havingness clean out through the bottom - as for lord's sakes I hope you never do - you still have some processes to fall back on.

And we find out that this individual can stand at cause-point and scream like hell, and nobody will ever hear him. He could fire off rockets, he could shoot cannon, he could distill the most insidious poison in the world and put it in a chute down toward the effect-point, but there's only one thing he knows: It will never reach the effect-point. Get the idea?

He very often will fall out of the ability or not be able to do the thing of mocking up a mass and pulling it in on himself or pushing it in on himself. Very often he can't give himself havingness. You could run him too low or he could be too low so that he couldn't do this. But you can always ask him to remember something real. Not the full next-to-the-last list, just "Recall something real." And I've seen preclears do this in the worst shape you ever heard of, and it does remedy havingness in a moment of extremity.

So when an individual believes that he no longer can reach an effect-point on this cause, distance, effect line, you have then a case who hangs up in processing. His postulates don't work, is one way of expressing it. When he says something, it never arrives.

Of course, it alter-ises a not-is, and that will create mass. They're not just pulling in old facsimiles, they're actually creating new mass. They have to alter-is (remember) the not-is of forget in order to get the isness of known, you see? And it actually does remedy havingness. You can keep it up for quite some time, and your preclear is not upset by it. Very often it will communicate.

Now, does two-way communication seem to make a little difference to you now?

Now, if you are running Separateness and your preclear starts to go anaten or suddenly starts to pull back or move in some peculiar fashion, you will conceive that he has lost some havingness. He pulled out of an engram. He didn't spot some separateness in it. He pushed some energy around and, by heat loss, lost some havingness. You better stand by to remedy havingness whenever you're running anything that might upset the preclear's havingness.

Audience: Mm-hm.

How do you run havingness? There are many ways to do it. The time to run havingness is when the preclear is still able to run it, not when you get him down to the extremity of remembering something real.

You see what this is?

All right. Do you see that there is a basic fundamental by which to compare the results, by which to compare other data on a case, that you, trying to convince some auditor that he ought to become a better auditor, could show him rather easily and keep him from getting involved in thousands of data? Just make sure he knows this one fundamental spectrum, you might say, of the preclear, and he will come out in the clear, and his auditing will better.

You say to this lady, and she's going, "Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap," see? And you say, "Bzzzzt-whoa, whoa, whoa, that's fine. Good. Whoa, whoa, whoa, I heard you."

And it's up to us to make sure that everybody is auditing just about as well as anybody possibly could, because only in that way are we going to make forward progress. Okay?

"Huuhhh!"

Audience: Yeah.

What happens there? This individual actually realizes that they have set some words in motion which did register on another living being, and you shortly afterwards will start to become alive and become real to this person. Do we see this?

Thank you.

With two-way communication, we establish the other thing: that they can receive a thought. Now, it goes both ways. The individual who cannot cause any effects is the most surprised person in the world when he gets over to E prime. When he is over there, he says, "What's going on? What could possibly have happened? I can't be an effect."

Audience: Thank you.

He's very surprised, you see. He can't cause anything, he can't be an effect.

One of the ways he keeps from being an effect is not to cause anything, and he's got this all worked out. And he'll hang fire on this beautiful little equation till the end of time. He can't cause anything, therefore he never reaches any other effect, and therefore nothing ever reaches him. So on two-way communication you show him at once that you can say something that interests him.

He's struck by this as being very, very fantastic. He doesn't believe there's any such thing. Nobody could possibly talk to him about anything that would interest him. He knows this. Any interest in the thing, he generally knows more than anybody else in the whole world, anyway, and he hasn't got any reason to listen to anybody. They have nothing to tell him.

This is quite often his computation. It's fantastic, because it's a highly aberrated computation. You mean, somebody else isn't going to invent - will never invent something that you then won't know about? Uh-uh. You see, that's an impossibility; that's an impossibility. You mean, there's a writer down here writing in a book, and every word he writes in that book you're going to know all about before you ever read that book? Uh-uh. See, it's really not going to happen that way, not on a two-way communication basis.

So this chap believes implicitly that there is really no real fun to living, but he'll go on living, anyhow. He'll sort of humor himself. There's nothing to have an effect on him; there is nothing he can cause an effect upon. And you've got a hang-fire case. His postulates don't work. Other people's postulates, too, don't work on him. They go off in other vias.

See, you say, "Put your hand on your head," and he crosses his legs. Get the idea? He does not reach, and he is not reached, and that is your case.

Now, instead of plowing around with a bunch of figure-figure processes one way or the other or trying to get him to do this or trying to get him to do that, let's just look right bluntly, right straight in the face, this situation: This individual's postulates do not work. Furthermore, no consequence ever occurs to him. He's gotten himself nulled down to a point of where he gets no consequence for his acts or anything of the sort. Therefore, his level of responsibility for the society is very poor.

That is the extreme of this case. That is the extreme case that psychoanalysis couldn't help. That is the extreme case that will walk in and sit down. A person who is not in this extremity can be run on any of the processes in SLP Issue 5 - a person who is not in that extremity, and that person will get better.

So how do we remedy this one thing? First way to remedy it is two-way communication. The individual says things and you hear them. This is a great surprise to him, but he finds out at length that it's true, you did hear him. And you say things that he hears. Fantastic! But once you've established this fact, the individual discovers he can cause an effect. So we've disabused him of his most basic computation, and we demonstrate to him that he can be an effect without necessarily dying in his tracks.

So that's how two-way communication works, and that is the first edge in on one of these chaps. If you know exactly what you're doing and know exactly what's wrong with him - and that is exactly what's wrong with him - you can then solve him.

Now, you can give him things to do which produce interesting results on him. There are many things you can give him to do. I have told you some recently about telling lies. Have him tell lies about the environment, invent problems about the environment - various other things you can give him to do.

But there is one technique which is not a new technique, but which is not in general use, and which is a very fascinating one. It's a possibility with this technique that you'd drive him immediately into apathy, but we conceive that you've already stirred him up and got him going with two-way communication. And then we would concede that you knew your case wasn't in too bad an ARC with you, and then we would start to run him on something like this: "What would obey you?" And we would ask it as a repetitive question.

Asking it as a repetitive question might almost drive him mad. Duplication is too close to communication. But you could ask him this, and he's liable to have a line charge, he's liable to go into apathy, he's liable to do almost anything. But the point is, you will be running the technique which is most intimate to his state of case. See, that is right on the button.

Now, the other side of it is "What wouldn't you mind obeying?" He'll find out there are a lot of things that can order him around and he wouldn't mind it at all. And you get him to discover those two things.

If you took then this detached case, if you took then this case which has always been called the failed case, in any psychotherapy, if you took this case that is the hang-fire case that is a long time in processing with us, and if you observed this fact in this case, if you would yourself get some reality on it - this fellow makes a postulate, and nothing happens; you make a postulate, and nothing happens. So the common denominator of the case seems to be "nothing happens" or "always too much happens, and it's the wrong thing." Equally, you see.

All right. We would look at this case, and we would say right away we have something here with which to work. This individual, on a two-way communication basis, must discover that what he is saying is being heard, and he must discover that he can hear what you are saying. That's the first thing that you'd have to establish with this case.

And you would establish it. I don't care by talking about what or anything, you'd just establish those two things: that there was a C-E line in both directions, see? He gets the acknowledgment, you see; he gets your acknowledgment, he does hear what you originated. He can originate something, which you then respond to. This you establish, on whatever subject we don't care.

But having established that, we then would get him to - if we were in extremis with this case - to address the one pin in the case that must be solved before you can run any figure-figure technique, before you can do anything else with the case at all, and that's simply - well, you can get him to tell lies, you can get him to do a lot of things, you understand? But if you were right up against it on there and you were hitting the one technique that would be right to battery on this one point, is "What would obey you?"

You don't ask him to make a test of it. You just ask him, "What would obey you? And what else would obey you?" Now we turn around the other way to, and we ask him what he wouldn't mind obeying. And we'd run it as repetitive questions. We'd run it with good two-way communication. We'd run it in such a way as to get him cognizant of his own command over the universe in general.

And when you've rehabilitated that command somewhat, then you can run any figure-figure process, then you can run any computational process. You can run any idea, no matter how abstruse or - and get the result with the preclear. You could have him examine all of these ideas.

But to ask somebody to run something who has not immediately learned that he can cause an effect and an effect can be caused on him is, of course, going to result in a failure, no matter how tricky it is, no matter how well thought out it is or anything of the sort. There is the center of these cases.

And I want you to look this over, and next time I see you, I'm going to ask you if you've run into anybody like this and if you have had any kind of a conversation with anybody whose postulates did not produce an immediate effect on life. See if you can't integrate this a little bit and see what this detached case is of Sigmund Freud. See what this "nothing happens" or "too much happens always," - this highly automatic case of Dianetics and Scientology-and see if you can't just trace it back to this: His postulates don't work, and postulates don't work on him. Get yourself some reality on this, and then we can go on from there.