Thank you.

Thank you All right.

This is our second lecture on processes.

Today we're going to take up the subject of processes, which in English is processes.

The theory of processing I have to a marked degree given you on the first lecture. But let's look at the attitude of the preclear. Let's just take a look at a pc.

I finally gave it up, you know. I used to come over here and I would pronounce all the key words. I never could quite go "theta." But I used to pronounce all the words in English, you see. And then I'd go back over and I'd try to pronounce them in American. And halfway through a congress or something like that I'd find myself talking about "processing" in America and over here "processing." So I finally just figured out, well, we'll do it all in Martian and call it "processing."

Now, fellow walks in, he says, "Scientology, that's very fine. I heard it did a lot of good for somebody. I sure would like to have some and so forth. I sure would like to have this processing," and so on and so on. "You process me. It's all right with me if you process me. It's okay. I mean, I'll sit down and I'll hold still and then you do something."

The main thing - the main thing that you should know about processes is that they won't do anything for anybody anyplace. That's the first thing you should know about them. You can write one down in a book and you can put the book on the auditor's chair and you can go away and you can come back hours later and nothing has happened.

And then you do something - you, the auditor. That's what he expects to have happen. That you are going to take out a pair of shears, needle and thread, bullet mold, you know, and a - and a sculptor's hammer and a chisel, you know, and a pot of paint and you're going to remake him somehow or another. And without any effort on his part at all, why, he's going to turn around and walk out the front door in perfect condition. That's his attitude basically, today.

But do you know that this one point, this one point, is the most overlooked point in all auditing. People talk about the process doing something for somebody. Now, I will admit that the processes of Scientology are clever. I will admit that they are sheer genius. I thought them up myself.

What he buys - if you try to advertise to him in some fashion that he should come in

Basically, researchwise, technologically and for other reasons, they do represent in vignette, you might say, the totality of information about the mind. And it is quite wonderful that a process can be run on an HAS Co-audit Course very like a wound- up doll and can get very interesting and good results. You see, this is - this is tremendous, and today even more than any other time in the history of Dianetics and Scientology, we have to say bluntly and squarely that the process doesn't do anything. See, we have to say that even more so, because today it looks even more that it does something.

• is irresponsibility. If you tell him he was responsible for a cockeyed thing, he's just going to go straight up in smoke. You're going to say, "Well, you had something to do with getting yourself into bad shape, you know." By and large, the majority of the public in any land today will say, "Oh no, no, no, no, no, no."

Now, what does do something? All the process is, is the postulate on which a series of errors have accumulated, which postulate has become an effect-point in the pc rather than a cause-point. And all the process does is reverse effect-point to cause- point.

You ask any child, "What have you done to your mother?" Just ask some child this someday, see, "What have you done to your mother?"

As the pc himself does the process each time, he more and more closely approaches cause-point. But, of course, what is wrong with him is that this particular postulate - even though he made it and agreed to it originally - see, he's the source of all the trouble - has become an effect-point. And he is just totally overwhelmed by this postulate. The postulate is no longer at cause in the pc, but in the pc is total effect.Now, let's look at this in terms of determinisms. The postulate is no longer self- determined in the pc but is other-determined in the pc. You got the idea? Now all you have to do, then, is reverse effect to cause or -which is the same way of saying it - other-determinism to self-determinism. And that is what a process is. It, however, is simply a thought; it is inactive, it is inert.

"Oh I didn't do this, so on, so on. I just - I didn't do anything, and so on. And no, I did not da-da and dudly-yup-yup..."

I know it was very clever and its very witty and we wouldn't get anyplace if we didn't have the exact postulates which have become aberrated in man. You see, if we didn't have those we wouldn't get anyplace. That's true, but it is after all, an inert postulate. It was the action concerning the postulate that got the individual in trouble. The complications which built up on this postulate were the things that got the people into the shape they're in. You get the idea?

The little kid has just had a rough experience. He's had a very extreme experience. He's just died. He's picked up another body and he's trying to get it functional. He isn't well oriented. His possessions are all gone. He depended on his possessions and environment to give him his memory so now he can't remember because he doesn't have anything to look at. He can't confront any of that because he doesn't have the body from which to confront it. As far as space is concerned, the center of a head is not very much space. He didn't have any good idea of space. It's all unreal. He died. He got another body. He's trying to get this new body to work. He's trying to find out about the new environment. He's half hopeful and half terrified. Bad shape! Most little kids are in bad shape. It's quite remarkable that their death rate isn't higherthan it is. And I think it's just - the only thing that keeps them going is the hope of growing up. They have something to look forward to.

The postulate is then neither a doingness nor a villain. See? I had a lot of people say, "Oh, boy that's villainy," and they start blaming it and blaming it and blaming it and, "If I'd just never thought something like this and if I'd never agreed to it, why, I'd just be in beautiful. . . ." Oh, I don't know. He probably would have found something else. He undoubtedly would have found some other idea to get mucked up with, you see?

And my little children the other day were - ran through about three, four days of a phase of pestering me with this burning question, "Daddy, how do I grow up? How do I do this thing? How do I get big? How do I grow? What's this all about?"

Because in the normal course of cause and effect, in the normal course of trying to stay self-determined amongst a million other-determinisms, the individual, no matter what he tried to do anywhere, would eventually have gotten pretty lost. It was pretty inevitable that he got lost. It isn't - we can say, "Well, it's his fault," or "It's other people's fault," and so on. Well, it's nobody's fault. It's a universe.

Well, I gave them some good answers and they skipped it. I said, "Well if you just eat your cereal and - and got your sleep and got some exercise and so forth, why, you'll grow up and there's nothing very much that you can do about it. It will happen."

Now, when a universe is constructed, you get a tremendous number of first dynamics, but you get a much larger number, from any viewed first dynamic, of other dynamics. Right? You see? See, to the individual it appears, you see, that he only has one viewpoint and he is surrounded by an almost infinite number of other- determinisms. You get the idea?

But childhood illnesses are whole track - usually whole track experience something or other, that get into very acute restimulation. There actually is a particle that passes around called a germ which the individual recognizes and remakes and so forth, and it's all very complicated. Disease is a very complicated subject because it's basically based on the fact that you can't confront it. Now, I think maybe the germ is an invention of a not-confront. And people can't really basically confront sick people so they get contagion of sickness and so forth. It can be explained in numbers of ways.

Well, one of the basic sources of aberration is the basic aberration of quantitative versus qualitative. Actually a thetan has no business dealing with quantity.

We're not much interested in - in this particular factor, beyond - you can find measles as an exact experience that gets into restimulation. It's an old whole track experience. And you can trace most of these basic (quote) childhood illnesses (unquote) down to just regular implants. And they're all jammed up and grouped and the child is in a bad shape. And - and you ask him - you ask him, "Have you done anything to anybody?" And you'll just get gobbledygook. Now there's a direct coordination.

Quantitative ideas are all very poor, and you'll find most of them are at the heart of aberration.

Now, I'm not saying children are insane. As a matter of fact they process rather rapidly, as a matter of fact, because they come out of it. There's nothing wrong with them except reorientation and they have a tremendous willingness to get oriented again. And this great willingness to get oriented again - you know, and they have something to look forward to, growing up and all that - makes them very easy processing targets.

The individual feels poor because he has one pound and he knows somebody else is rich because the other person has a million pounds. Well, we can see through this - the fellow with one pound might be well, the fellow with the million pounds might be sick. You see, he's not necessarily richer or poorer just because there is a quantity involved.

Nevertheless, the condition in which you find them, regardless of whether it's easy or hard to process them, brings this about: you can't help but comparing them to people you run into in sanitariums. Except those people have no hope, can only look forward to death and they know nothing can be done about it too. Basically as you glanced at them, from one to the other, you see similarities of condition. But the ease with which you can relieve a child's condition and the difficulties with which you relieve a psycho's condition, basically depend on the factor - the psycho has no place to go, you see, and the child does. You have a resilience in a child. A child isn't basically insane, he is simply in a rather insane condition. You see? He's disoriented, you might say. A child has a reason to be disoriented and a psycho, aside from his own crimes, doesn't have any reason to be that disoriented.

I've known a fellow who had millions of dollars who was the poorest man I ever met. He couldn't have anything. He actually couldn't bring himself to buy anything. And furthermore, his affairs were always so involved that he couldn't have any money.

Now a psycho - a psychotic-asked what he has done to anybody, will either give you gobbledygook like, "Oh, I destroyed the world yesterday," or something like this or gives you a whole bunch of bunk. He doesn't know what he's saying.

And I was always buying him breakfast or supper or something of the sort.

Or bring it down and say, "Well, what have you done to your nurse today? Just what have you done to the floor attendant today?"

Now, it's quantity. And the first error of quantity is one, not a million. We go toward "one" as being the basic error of quantity. Now this is a - is a difficulty, because this universe is a "two" universe. This universe has as its basic digit, you might say, two. There aren't any "ones" in this universe to amount to anything. There are two.

"Oh nothing, nothing. Oh no, I never did anything." Well, maybe they just picked up a bucket and hit the floor attendant over the head with it, you see?

I think it was old dymaxion geometry that - Buckminster Fuller who first demonstrated this with enormous skill. He really overwhelmed me. I was quite interested. He showed conclusively that no mass structure of the universe could exist as a single digit.

"Now what did you do to the floor attendant?"

We hear of flying saucers. Flying saucers are supposed to show up and disappear and so forth. Personally, I think it's the Panamanian government or something like that, trying to frighten everybody. But anyway... Because I know personally, to my personal knowledge the last five saucers that I had in my command were surveyed. Anyway..... (laughing)..... Anyway, these saucers actually run by attempting single unit in a double unit universe. All you have to do is separate the inside of the saucer from the universe and it will do all sorts of weird things. And I won't bother to go into that any further but somebody who has a penchant for theory of equations, so forth, can work it out rather easily.

They say, "Oh nothing, nothing. Oh, oh, no, no, no, ah-da-dum.. . ." back up, back up. No confront.

All you have to do is isolate something and then make it try to gain somewhere or something else and you have propulsion. This is very simple. It's so simple that they won't discover it for another few hundred years here on earth, probably. Anyway, - well not unless they can use it in war. They'd discover it at once if they could use it in war.

Now you take somebody who is injured, who's just been through an accident, and pull this stupid trick - this is really a stupid trick. Police are always pulling this trick. They always come around at the point of lost reality and say, "What happened?" You know?

The thing I'm getting at is simply this, The universe, we have agreed, is evidently impossible to inhabit as a single unit. That's....that's just it. I mean, it's - everything in this universe is two or more - two or some multiple.

And psychology, which is an operation that was invented in the nineteenth century, it's - hardly could be called a science because - let me just expose this one to you a little bit. They use the fact that the witnesses of an accident never tell the same story one to the next to demonstrate that man can never observe anything, see?

Let's take chemistry and we get electrons and protons. And every time - every time we get something that tries to stand totally alone, utterly and completely alone, we usually get a collapse. There is nothing in this universe that is standing utterly and totally alone. No power of any kind is ever generated by a single terminal.

Now, they picked the lowest point of reality. Everybody's trying to prevent this thing from happening. Nobody wants to confront an accident. Nobody wants to see these bodies strewn around or all this nice machinery smashed up, you see? Nobody really wants to see any of these things. And they go around and they ask somebody about this thing which nobody can confront, "What happened?" And the individuals, of course, can't tell them what happened or tell them all differently. See, it's just that they choose a low point of reality and then demonstrate that nobody can confront or observe anything, you see? See, it's like taking somebody into the undertaker's back room, showing him a dead body and saying, "You see? That proves conclusively that nobody can live."

Now, you see power in this universe is derived from the laws of this universe which, of course, are postulates which we've helped to make or agreed upon, and so on.

Now, let's look at this condition, however, of the observers of an accident. Now let's take the participants of this particular accident and let's ask them "What did you do?" And they immediately tell you what they didn't do. Or they could have flipped and they simply go off on to an obsessive 'all the things they didn't do but they tell you they did do them'. You don't get a straight story.

And these postulates decree at once that no power shall exist in the presence of a single terminal. And if you take an electric motor and remove the second terminal in it, you're not going to get a running motor - that's all. That's it.

Where people are unable to confront or are not oriented, where their familiarity is poor, and where they have been very definitely at effect - as with a child in death, as with a psycho in various experiences he's had that's just convinced him he's total effect and he isn't cause at all (he's just trying to find some new way to be cause), in an accident where a person has actually been bashed in - we get a common denominator. The common denominator to all those three things is: They didn't do anything to anybody. See, there's no real reason for this condition to have happened. This is based on this - now, you could say this is responsibility and you would be right, but this is a limited view - Nobody's willing to have any of those things occur.

Power is usually derived from trying to keep two terminals separated and being able to fix them in space. Two terminals that think they ought to be together are separated and the randomity which occurs, occurs between them trying to stay apart and get together. Now that's about the way a motor runs. Now, that's power. We're not too interested in power or electrical flows. We're more - much more interested in postulates. But an electrical particle, or a mass, is of course a postulate.

A psycho isn't willing to be crazy. The child isn't willing to have lost a body and find himself in a total new environment that's totally strange and find himself with a body that he can't defend himself with. No little baby can do very much about people that bang him around the walls of the room - a defenseless condition.

A lot of Scientologists don't ever, ever totally connect this one. I've seen them do it. They say, "Ah, yes. Well, I'll think 'terminal' and then a terminal will appear" Oh boy! That's the old magic universe. That was how they got everybody fouled up in the magic parts of the track. You'll run a pc into one of these one time where everybody is being fooled by everybody.

A person in an accident - he was not willing to have an accident. The willingness, the power of choice, has been violated here - thoroughly violated. And the individual will not admit any causative relation to the experience, or, in a higher identification, will not admit any causative action of any kind. He was unwilling to have it happen, so he does not want to be bad cause and says that he wasn't cause.

And the way you make a postulate which results in a terminal is simply to make a terminal. You get the idea? There's no via of "I now will think that I will mock up a postulate and one ought to appear from someplace." I'm sorry, but there's nothing going to happen unless you put the terminal there. There is no great god called Throgmagog that walks up with a terminal and places it out there simply because you have decided that one should be there.

And this is the basic lie that gets him into trouble. That is the lie that gets him into trouble right across the boards. He wasn't willing to have it happen so he says he had no part in it. And the only answer to that is he must be the effect of all of it - if he couldn't have caused any of it. Well, he was part of it, wasn't he? Well, that's obvious. He's demonstrating it with a broken leg and the little child is demonstrating it with a child's body and the psycho is demonstrating it by being in a spinbin. And this is demonstrated conclusively that he's part of this.

These people have decision mixed up with postulate. All right. You can decide a terminal should be there, but you're going to wait till the end of time for one to appear unless you or somebody you are in communication with puts it there. It's got to be placed there.

But if he says, "Under no circumstances was I causative in this," he is saying, "I'm not willing to have had any of this occur", he then only leaves one door open, and that's effect. Because it's a two-pole universe. If you're not cause you're an effect. That's it. It's as simple as that.

The whole idea of deity is making a postulate and then waiting for somebody to make it happen. Do you follow this easily, huh?

Now, an individual who is at pan-determinism would see clearly where he was at cause and where he was at effect. He would see this very clearly. But as we go on down the line, we find there's only one point of the cause-distance-effect line, only one point of it that has to be stressed, and that's cause. The pc must be placed at cause because that's one place he won't go. He'll go to effect.

A fellow says, "Well, a great giant will now appear in the room. You know, he says this, "A great giant will now appear in the room." And then he waits for somebody to cart this big giant up and put it in the room, you see. Well there's no big giant going to occur in the room unless he puts the big giant in the room. That's it!

Now we walk up to this pc and we say, "All right. Now I'm going to give you a little processing."

So postulates get down to the lazy end of the scale, you see. And the individual says, "Well, a postulate is a thought." No. Time, space, energy, particles, anything that you want to think of, form, anything else is a postutlate. One conceives the isness of it to materialize it. In other words, he says it is there, it is there. He doesn't think a thought, you see, and then do something over here to make the thought come true. Got the idea? Postulates cover all the isness there is.

"Ah, that's fine," he says, "well," he says, "break out the paper and - and the paint and the chisel and the hammer and all of the other things necessary to remake me and go ahead and carpenter away." And he sits there and he just lets you carpenter away. And the funny part of it is, particularly with old Dianetics, you actually could recarpenter his engram bank into a brand-new pattern. You know, you could take illnesses away from him and so forth.

Now there was a very brilliant, highly influential woman called Mary Baker Eddy, lived in the nineteenth century. Mary Baker Eddy said, "All is mind. All is infinite mind. And all is thought. And all sickness is the result of thinking wrong thoughts and you've got to go on thinking right thoughts." This is a tremendous oversimplification of Christian Science, but I'll show you where this leads to.

But the pc simply sat there in the condition that he was in in all of his worst points, which is, he was never causative! He expects things to make him. He doesn't expect to make anything. He sits there without taking any responsibility for the session.

The idea was that thought was thought and that was the end of it. Mass didn't exist! At least this is the way the Christian Scientist learned it. Mass didn't exist but was just a sort of an illusion or a delusion that people thought was there, so it was there. Now, you get the little curve that's on this line? You see? This is the wonderfulest package of not-is you ever ran into. It's not for nothing that you find or found more Christian Scientists, per religious denomination, in insane asylums than any other religious denomination. Very interesting. They have a higher incidence of insanity in Christian Science.

Now the funny part of it is, he's willing to be audited. Given this - that he's willing to be audited - we say, "Well now, what do we do from this point?" Well, we move him up on a gradient scale and we overwhump him without his ever noticing it. We show him that he was causative. And we take him off of all these abandoned, unrecognized cause-points, you see, and we take him over and we put him into a point where he can view from a causative point again. See, all these points he's abandoned, we put him back on them.

Now, we're not dead against Christian Science. I'm just showing you how you can go astray. I mean, we have nothing to do with Christian Science. You can just go madly astray this way. You can say, "Ah, I get it! A person thinks thoughts!" You see. "So these walls and floor and the sky and the space and the sea, that's all just an illusion. Somebody's been fooling us." That's pretty non sequitur when you stop thinking about this, it's. . . If all this is an illusion, then they're saying it isn't. Illusion is a downgraded isness, isn't it? That's all an illusion is.

Now, the funny part of it is, that if an individual beingness - there's beingness, doingness and havingness. These are quite remarkable. The two greatest processes of all time as a steady grind for almost any level of case, of course, are these two processes of 8-C, which is the isness of walls, and Havingness, which is to say possession of walls or possession of objects. The two great, processes were 8-C and Havingness. These will go on for a very long time. That's merely, though, recognition of isness, isn't it?

All right. What's an illusion?

Now, every once in a while you get a pc - I say every once in a while, it's very frequently - you get a pc that doesn't improve on 8-C or you get a pc that doesn't improve on Havingness. Now there's various ways to handle havingness. There's old Third Rail, there's various types of Havingness. And you could get in there and handle havingness on him, somehow or another, probably. But there's these two processes - leave on automatic - putting the pc at cause-point. We just hope the individual, while we're running 8-C, will wake up and recognize that he is causative for putting his hand on the wall. So, we hope that this will happen. We don't tell him to have this happen. And in Havingness, why, we just hope that he will recognize that he could cause himself to have things. We hope he'll recognize this. We leave those two points on automatic!

Now on cases that simply walk in and sit down and say, "All right, re-tailor me. Get out your pencil and paper and draw the plan of how you want me. Then get out your hammer and chisel and start remaking me. And it's all up to you and I will - I'll be a very good pc."

There's a mad difference between anything like Christian Science and Scientology.

Every once in a while you see an HGC auditor. You say, "He was a very good preclear." And the auditor will practically froth! This is - this is the one thing they hate to have around: a good pc who just sits there obediently and does everything, and you go on and on and nothing ever happens, you know, but they're very good, they're very obedient. They do all the commands. They're well trained; almost impossible to do anything for. Because this is not a special case, by the way. The processes you have now undercut this case in spite of himself.

Christian Science says, "All is infinite mind, and matter and so forth, is an illusion." It really isn't. You see?

But he comes in. He sits down, says, "You do it." Why does he say, "You do it"? He says, "You do it" because the thing wrong with him is he's obsessively at effect- points. So of course he looks at you and he says, "You do it." You're just another cause-point in the society, you see. Now your job is to get this individual up to a point where he can assume a cause-point.

Well, we get over into Scientology and start taking a look around and we find something entirely new to the concept of philosophy. And of course, this would have absolutely cracked the skull of Plato. Plato probably would have sat on his veranda or whatever he was using to contemplate the universe - if he ever did - bright man.

Now, you could say this in another way - that he could take responsibility for things. Well, the first thing he's got to take responsibility for is being at a cause-point. That which is never confronted or that point which is never occupied, never as-ises.

Beingness, those things a person will not under any circumstances be, of course are downscale from confront. He won't even confront these things.

Oh, man. You would have been there all night, all the next day. You'd have probably been denounced as a great heretic. You'd have probably been denounced as something so wild, so fanciful, that not even the Stoics would have had anything to do with you. You probably would have been considered heretical and much too theoretical for Greek philosophy. Yeah, I can see it now.

Now, as you look this over in an auditing session, the more the pc is obsessively being an effect and the less willing he is to be cause, the more difficult his case will be. Now, that is how you assess a difficult case. That is how you assess one. You find out - one of the first things that you want to know is what's this individual willing to cause? What is he willing to have had, you see, and cause? What causative point was he willing to occupy?

Well, of course, they invert on causative points and they get down to a point, finally, where they only want to be bad cause. They've decided now that they're bad cause and they vary between never being able to be good cause and having to be bad cause. You get criminals, by the way. The criminal - no thetan, without a lot of other-determinism, would ever willingly be only bad cause. But he gets into a circumstance where the other-determinism assigns bad cause, bad cause, bad cause, and eventually, why, he says, "Well I am bad cause and anything I do will be bad." Then after a while he obsessively tries to be this thing and as-is it. And if he could just be a criminal long enough and hard enough and do enough horrible things and take no responsibility for any of them, then, somehow or another, he would have processed himself out straight.

Now he's liable, in processing, to get up a - to a much higher level. He not only realizes the wall is, but he realizes that it is dependent entirely for its source and existence upon his saying that it is. You see? And this gets to be the neatest, horribly difficult to confront postulate of the whole cockeyed works, because it not only is but it is there with total responsibility.

A lot of people regard life as processing. And if they can occupy certain despicable, low-level or upsetting goals, then they think they can as-is these things, you see, and make it all all right again. A psycho trying to run his engram - that's a dramatizing psychotic - he just goes through a cyclic action. He goes through - he does this, then he does that, then he does this, then he does that, then he says that. Then he goes back to the beginning and he does it all over again, you see. It never wears out because he isn't doing it on his own determinism. He's just doing it obsessively. Other-determinism tells him to go through the cyclic action. You'll find these people around. They're running through one engram and that is a dramatizing psycho.

And when you can get somebody to confront an isness with total responsibility, philosophy walks out the window - so does religion. I'm afraid, so does war and taxes.

Now, the computing psycho is a fellow who is doing something different. He is obeying the thinkingness of a circuit. And this circuit is something he must not, he dare not be and he has become. And he just goes and he computes, computes, computes and figures, figures, figures, figures and all the answers are all wrong. But both of these conditions stem totally from an unwillingness to be the thing, and an unwillingness to take any responsibility, and an unwillingness to be cause. And these are all the same thing, practically.

A person's domestic difficulties, the itch he contracted, almost anything you can think of; starts walking away the moment that he starts entering in upon this one proposition. That which is, is.

Your Mr. Pc that sits down in the chair and tells you - you say, "Well what have you done to the human race?"

Now, it's all very well to say, "Well, that which is, is." That's the statement with total irresponsibility.

"Oh, I was a saint once and I've only been a saint toward the human race and I've only done good."

Now reversewise you wouldn't even use a word to describe the isness of a wall. And it's rather wonderful that in Scientology we can describe things which can't be described. And we do this all the time. You don't realize to what degree we do this. We describe the undescribable. That probably is the greatest development of Dianetics and Scientology, is the language of observation. It's been developed inside the subject.

"Well, what good have you done?"

Now, people could never discuss these things philosophically before. They went off and developed tremendous resounding polysyllables that had tremendous vias with great abstruse and obtuse meanings. And if you memorized this tremendous vocabulary of vias you had it made. You notice most of Dianetics and Scientology is just in plain run-of-the-mill words.

"Well, I can't rightly put it - my finger on it, but I've done a lot of good for people. I'm trying to do a lot of good for people because. . ."

Now, as we go along these words develop more punch. They take on special connotations, but the specialness of the connotation is owing to the simplicity that we attach to it rather than the complexity.

"Well, what good do you want to do for people?" "Well - well, I just want to do some good for people."

When we say communication, we do not mean, as they mean in engineering, a series of electronic formulas from integral calculus. You just say, "Communication - do you know the formula of communication?"

"Now, how would you go about doing any good for people? Can you think of a good action to do for people?"

Walk in on some place like Ma Bell, big electronics laboratory. You walk in on what the engineers call Ma Bell, and you say, "What is the formula of communication?" And some fellow will go off, "The formula of communication. Well, that all depends on what you mean by communication. Uh, what, uh - speaking of communic--. Of course, you're talking probably about electronic brains or something like that. And uh, as, uh, the formula as it's known is dy/dx and so on and you go on to. . . Of course, you've got to get a slide rule out here in order to get this.

"Well, no but. . ." See he's still got some lurking notion.

Or he'd look at you bluntly and say, "Well, I must say that that is a very iriteresting question." He's liable to look at you and say, "Well, what the hell is it?"

But you say, "Well have you ever done anything bad to anybody, anyplace at any time?"

Well, we have a good idea what communication is. We know what it is.

"Oh no!" That's the one thing he's certain of!

Similarly, we can communicate what a wall is or a mass or a space. You see, it is a wall or a mass or a space. Well, we can tell you where it came from. And people have been trying to find that out for a very, very long time.

What defeats all police action is the murderer can be standing there with the victim's blood still dripping off the knife, and say, "He made me do it", is about the most he will say. It's all motivated. The whole thing is motivated and so forth. But actually, caught red-handed, it's only rarely that such an individual says anything. Even if he just committed the murder, he's liable to say, "Well, I've always been a good boy and I've always done the best in the best of all possible ways and I mean nothing but well for my fellow man. And here he is standing straddle of a bleeding corpse.

But to foist this off on you - to foist this off on you and simply say, "That is the way it is. If you don't answer up this way on an examination paper you're dead, you're dead, finished," that would be a very dirty trick. Because that would just be to make you the effect of the most affected thing there is, which is simply isness. See?

See? He's never done anything bad! There it is.

Think of the number of times somebody has come around to you and pounded it home, practically with a jackhammer, that this was the way it was and this was the way it was going to be. Well, what's this person doing? He's demonstrating an isness with an overwhelmingness, isn't he? He's making you the effect of an isness. He's saying, "This is the way conditions are. And if you don't take it this way, then you've had it."

Why did he kill the man? Because he cannot be responsible for any bad action. So bad actions overwhelm him to the degree that he performs nothing else but bad actions. We are not dealing with a man. We are not dealing with a living being. We are dealing with an automaton that operates off of a script. You see, experience in life says, "You're supposed to do this, so when you get in this circumstance, why, this is what you do. And if in this circumstance is a place where you pick up the knife off the dresser and stab the guy in the stomach, that's what you do." Get the idea? The motivation might have been 1655, and it's 1960. Doesn't make any difference. He sees no difference in the time track. "When a knife is on the dresser, which has a pearl handle, you pick it up and stab the baby. That is what you do. Yes."

Well, fortunately, the one thing you cannot describe this way and have it turn into black magic is just what I've been talking to you about. But some cognition on your part is necessary, otherwise, you tend to remain at the effect-point of this statement about isness. Any postulate - any postulate which has been called truth - it's sufficiently agreed upon to be known as truth, you see - any postulate sufficiently agreed upon is truth. I told you the other day, there are only a couple of basic truths, that's the first two Axioms. They are. They are true. They're as close to an absolute as we can get. Anything else is, we've agreed upon it enough, well, we've got it.

The funny part of it is, the individual can explain it all away, how he's only total effect, even while he's got the blade in the baby, you see. He'll explain it all away and explain how he's just being total effect.

But you'll notice that a wall, as the result of a postulate, or that the wall is postulated by a person or being or you, is very fundamental as a truth. It is sufficiently fundamental as a truth that it can be uttered. And because you are so much at the effect end of this thing, for a little while, you don't come out in the clear about it.

About the only way you ever get a soldier to kill other soldiers is to train him in such a way as to convince him utterly that he could never cause anything. They consider it a symptom of a decadent society that a tremendous percentage of troops in combat, during the last couple of wars, had not discharged their weapons. They hold a gun and they don't fire it. Well, some of these guys are good Joes and some of them are strictly fruitcake, you see. The GI Joe that won't fire his gun says, "Well I just don't believe in killing the guy that's all." It's a perfectly rational decision, see. He doesn't want to be bad cause, as far as that's concerned. He doesn't see any point in the thing.

You could just accept it as a theoretical or intellectual concept and say, "I make that wall? Oh, I don't know." But look, I've at least got you making the wall. See. I've at least got you looking at the wall and guessing that maybe, knck, maybe. See this?

Now, if somebody can convince him that if he doesn't kill somebody then something else will happen and so on, and eventually it appears to him that an emergency has arrived where he had to kill somebody, he probably will. But casual killing? No. He wouldn't go in for it.

So we are coming up. So if we ever hit truth on the most agreed upon agreement, on the button, knck, it tends to resolve it. And a person ceases to be the total effect of it, simply because total effect means that he can't even understand it. He's below it. If he understands it, he's at least getting up even with it somewhere.

Now there's the other fellow who can't do anything else. He says, "Left, right, left, right. I'm the soldier. I present arms. I put - I put the ramrod underneath the barrel and then pour some charge and then I slam down the knife and then I pull the trigger. And then I - I put the butt of the gun down, and I put the charge into the - into the muzzle. And I put the ramrod down, and I put the ramrod out, and I put it underneath the barrel. And lift up the thing on my shoulder and then I fire it. And then I put the ramrod down..." This is a professional soldier, see.

Processing puts you above it.

You ask him, "Did you kill anybody?"

Now, to walk out here and say to some man, "See that wall? Now, I'm going to tell you something for your own good. And if you don't believe it, I'm going to beat hell out of you." To be polite about it. "That wall is. It exists. And I want you to realize that it exists," and so forth and keep shoving it in on him to this degree. I'm afraid you're not going to make a friend. No, because your attitude is devoid of much understanding and there's certainly no ARC to carry it along and he doesn't know what you're talking about. He doesn't have any channeled approach to the subject at all.

"No, never. No, I was just a sergeant. That's what I did." He took no responsibility for any of this action.

But what do you know. You can take somebody and run a process called 8-C and get him to go around tapping walls and he gradually - Oh, at what a gradient scale - it'd he a gradient scale that a flea could make totally loaded. Because 8-C works on almost anybody. And he takes this - he takes this gradient scale and it's so gradual that as he walks over and hits that wall and walks through this space and hits that wall and walks over and hits another wall and he just keeps going like this - it starts to dawn on him that it is. And you get all sorts of ideas discharging off this one idea that the wall is. And that's all you're processing him on - is the wall is.

You get somebody - almost anybody on the whole track has been in this position one way or the other, where he's standing there with weapons and he's told to fire them. And he goes ahead and he shoots them. And the guy's going wog. He actually did cause a tremendous amount of destruction, but he can't spot the exact cause of this amount of destruction. He didn't himself cause it. Did the gun cause it? Did the sergeant cause it? Was it the captain who caused it? Or was it international relations that caused it? Or was it the interspacial rivalry between these two galactic empires that caused it? Or what was it that caused it? He doesn't know what caused it so what cause can he be? Almost anybody's been in this position somewhere on the track and he's almost gone wog as a result of it. It wasn't how thoroughly he got shot in that war; it's how he could never figure out who did it. Do you see this? This is a different view.

Now, because you make him touch it, you are putting him on a little bit of a via, true, because it's you that's making him touch it. But you're putting him into position of being cause toward it. Now, what is it you've got? You've got him on a reach. See this? You've got him on a reach to it. Now, all you're processing directly is exactly what I've been talking to you about. The process, the commands of 8-C, and so forth, would not work at all if it weren't for just what I told you about and if it weren't for the fact that you were making him touch the wall and that doingness had been added to the actual theory.

Now I'm not saying it's sane to be a bad soldier and fire your rifle in the air. I'm not saying it's insane or sane, either one. It is just an example of being rather bad cause. The truth of the matter is, no war ever solved anything. Very little destruction ever solves anything. And the individual who goes in for this sort of thing unwillingly, of course, is unwilling to be cause.

Unless we add the presence of the auditor, unless we add the actuality of the action, our pc doesn't climb upstairs very rapidly. So we get one of the most effective processes there is, which is 8-C. 8-C has dragged an awful lot of people out of the doldrums, dragged an awful lot of people up the line. It's a great process. It's one of the great processes.

And the funny part of it is there's very few thetans, if any, on the whole track have been willingly bad cause. If they've understood at all what was going on, they would try to adjudicate it on the basis of the optimum good for the most dynamics. They try to do this, you see. But then they get overwhelmed and then they themselves say, "Well, I was not cause," and then "There was no cause and I was just the effect," and all we get preserved is the effect. The fellow can't be cause so he is the effect. So he gets sick, so he can't do anything, and basically he can't take any responsibility for anything.

Now when we Tone 40 8-C, we're going even further on the line. But it isn't always necessary to Tone 40 8-C; 8-C is not Tone 40 8-C.

And that's where we come in - his unwillingness.

And you take somebody who is so lost that when he thinks of a wall he says to you, "Well, that reminds me.. ." Any wall immediately restimulates a forgottenness of having stormed Acre and gotten a bunch of Greek fire in his puss. See, and a wall - flng. Now, what's he doing? He says, "Floor mmung. See, mmung. Oh! Space, mrnm-mm-m. Space, ruff ruff-ruff-rr. See, this little square inch in front of my nose is absolutely intolerable."

Now, an individual goes along just so long being willing, and then somebody starts working him over about being unwilling. And then he starts working somebody else over about being unwilling and the next thing you know, he's unwilling. And then he has to do it anyway. And we get this condition known as unwilling cause.

And you say, "Well, how about the rest of the space in the room?" And he'll vomit. I'm being quite blunt. That's what will happen with a psycho.

Well, the person wasn't willing to be cause and yet he was cause and, well, what does it all add up to? Well, it all adds up to the fact that he can't figure it out, so he sits down and he says to you, "Go ahead. Break out your hammer and chisel and remake me. And I'm taking no responsibility for any part of it. I think it's awfully nice of you to recarpenter the corpse here."

The gradient scale of taking people into larger and larger spaces was an early one, but actually has been used in France. Dianetics has been taught in France for some time. It's also been in Germany for some time. There was something developed out of this and they really got to going someplace. They also had another one that they took out of Dianetics which is they dressed up people in the costume and surroundings of the life they were stuck in and let them work it out. Quite clever.

The worst case is spotted by Sigmund Freud in his twenty-eighth lecture. He calls it the detached person. Most homos are such a case. A confirmed or very bad off homo will very often give you a great deal of trouble. He is not even vaguely participating in being a body, much less being a session. You see, he's not - he's not even in the body. He has - he has an - zero, negative responsibility on anything that's going on. He's just sitting there, you know. He's way off someplace and he may have some very odd views of what's going on in processing. The only way I ever get to these fellows is find out what he's really thinking. If he can establish anything about that, he's established a beingness of some kind or another.

But taking somebody outside - this is something for you to realize. This is part of an auditor's kit that I'm telling you right now. This individual has been lying in this small room, sick with the epiglootis, or whatever else he thought he had to have to get past his examinations or something, and he's very ill and he's been lying in this small room and he's been there for days and days and weeks and weeks and weeks. And you're going to process him. Well it's all right for him to process him on the room.

"What do you really think about this?"

And it's all right for you to do an awful lot of things. But do you know it would really be quite efficacious if you ran an old process called "Take a Walk." Just got him into a little bit larger space.

He'd say, "Well, I think it's awful silly, don't you?" You know? "It's awful silly, but somebody told me it was necessary so I'm sitting here. Not going to do any good, of course."

Now, the gradient scale of it is not really "Take a Walk." It's to put him in a larger room. And the tremendous tiredness which he will experience is just giving him a little more space and a greater remoteness of wall.

But he's way off someplace. See, he's not a participant. He cannot confront anything. He's backed off and he's doing a negative confront. He's doing a negative confront and an almost total not-is. His willingness is absolutely zero.

You take him out of his room into a larger room, he will start to experience tiredness. If you did that every day and gave him a little more space every day and gradient scaled him up the line a little bit more and a little bit more, well, the individual would snap out of it. It's quite interesting. lt's something for you to know, because what you're doing is giving him a gradient scale of larger spaces to confront And don't give it to him with such steep doses that he finds them unconfrontable and you've got it made.

He may tell you, "Well, I'm just fine. I - I'm just willing to be processed. I'm sitting here." That's just because he's afraid of you. He's afraid not to be processed. He's not willing to be processed. Willingness is very low.

Now, this is - this is interesting. You let a puppy out of a box that he's been shipped in and just watch his reaction sometimes as he gets his anchor points back out. It's quite interesting. You should wonder why an animal who was caged up for a long time in one environment will stay around that environment afterwards. He will, you know. That is the basic premise of domestication. Works on husbands, wives, cats.

Well, what do we do about all this? Here's the case the person doesn't even know enough to know he's being processed. See, he's crazy or he's unconscious. What do we do about such a case? Obviously that's negative willingness. Here's the person that's resisting everything we do. Here's ...

Now, what is this? The individual has gotten out of the habit, you might say, or has become disconnected from, the idea of muchness in terms of mass or space. It isn't a matter of conditioning, because we're not talking about an unknown thing now. It's a matter of familiarity. The individual has been so unfamiliar with larger spaces, so unfamiliar with larger masses, so unfamiliar with quantities, large quantities, that he's lost the knack of confronting them. See, he's dropped off. His familiarity is too poor now.

Well, I'll tell you something. You will always win on the people who walked in and were at least willing to sit there and let you carpenter them. See? Let you do this; let you process them. You can always get someplace with this person who was willing to sit still. Where you start running into difficulties is the person who is unwilling to be there, unwilling to be better and who is - as a common denominator - unwilling.

So we suddenly give him a great big space. Oh, just take somebody whose favorite habitat is - favorite habitat is Times Square, 45th Street and 7th Avenue, something like that. Just take him and grab him by the scruff of the neck and drop him out in the middle of Arizona and say to him suddenly, "Look at all that space!" And he'd probably go mad.

Now, this character takes some doing. But we'll find that the CCHs have a tendency to straighten him out. He eventually begins to confront his auditor. To the degree that he can confront his auditor and communicate with his auditor, to that degree will he begin to participate. And his participation is what we look for in the CCHs. It's the goal of the CCHs really - is participation in the communication which is occurring. We consider those processes working or well on the road or flat to the degree that the individual is contributing to the action going on.

Works that way with masses. I remember taking somebody from the East Coast of the United States to the West Coast. And as you go, you run in, first, into some little lumps of soil on the eastern seaboard that they call mountains. And then you go a little bit further and you run into the Appalachians. And then you go a little -long distance across the Plains and you start running into the Rockies. You run into the Rockies - they're not terribly impressive, the Rockies, because you're already up so high when you're looking at them, but it's impressive enough to somebody that's used to molehills, you know. And then you run into the Cascades. And the Cascades leap up from sea level and they are tremendous mountains. And it's a gradient scale.

Now you find these people are a long way south. But the fellow who won't even - who just sits there and fights you just on "Give me that hand," you know. Just fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, dat-dat-dat. Gets pretty grim after a while. You're just seeing total unwillingness. Well, please know what you're looking at when you're looking at this total unwillingness. You're looking at total effect. You're looking at a person who could not admit, in any degree, being cause of anything. He doesn't even know who's talking to him!

It's very interesting to take an Easterner and start rolling them West and showing them these larger and larger mountains, you know? And they've just about got it made up that that's just about the biggest doggonedest set of mountains that they ever saw in their lives, you see, and they've got the ultimate - now they've got the absolute ultimate and then show them the Cascades, you see. And they say, "Oh, no!" You see? There's some mountains out there that are standing 14,950 feet above sea level, you see, and they're all snow-covered and they really rear off the plain.

Now, that's something you'll have to learn for yourself. You won't believe it at first. Fellow is sitting there. He's calling you by name. He's simply telling you how he doesn't want to be processed because he doesn't think it's the thing to do. That - you just take the social apparency. If because he knows your name and can speak up your name when you appear in his vicinity - you suppose that he, therefore, recognizes you and has some reality on you. Oh, brother! He has no reality on you.

They're a lot of mass. Well, this is a problem in masses.

The easiest thing a thetan does is play a game. And processing, at least, looks like a game. It's about the easiest thing they do. It's quite remarkable. An individual who will protest against participation in such a game -well now, listen, you've been trained to believe that everybody has his power of choice and everybody has his own rights. This society for a long time has been going along - any Earth society has been going along for a long time stressing rights and how everybody has rights. Then some psycho appears who isn't, you see, and he starts dramatizing about his rights and we get all sorts of conflicting actions and opinions and the end product is that everybody's rights disappear and it all becomes total duress. It's how we start a slave society going, you see?

Well, you start this same trip and they get more and more engrossed in space. They don't believe this much space. And the unreality starts caving in on them. The country just isn't real. Because you get out into the Middle West and you just look and look and look - as on many other continents - and you see nothing but the curvature of the horizon, you see. And you go to that horizon and you see nothing but the distant horizon beyond you, you See? And you're just not likely to run out of space for a long time.

Now, this individual doesn't want to be processed. He tells you this. He doesn't want to be processed, you see. "It's not for me, you know, it's for little Junior. No, I don't need anything like this," or "I wouldn't need some-thing like this," you know. You've been trained to believe that this person has a right to tell you this. Well, please take a separation at this moment from the human race. It's not true. The individual who won't be is most in need of it.

Well of course, with fast airplanes and that sort of thing, you can do this thing in Africa or Australia or even in Europe rather rapidly. But the space in the absence of fast travel gets terribly impressive and people get feeling awfully unreal about all of this, The country just really doesn't exist. It just isn't quite there. It's not believable.

Perfect willingness to do any auditing command thrown in his direction by any kind of decent, halfway decent auditing, is almost a test of sanity. Now, true enough an auditor can throw a pc. This is right. He can, by not accepting any of the preclear's answers, by disobeying various sections and parts of the Auditor's Code. He can almost prevent the preclear from doing any process. But we're talking now about auditing, not a bunch of ARC break clowning, you see? And an individual who will not do processes or who will not be audited or something of the sort, you may as well right now, if you haven't already, jettison your ideas of the rights of man in this particular line, because it's one of the diagnostic points.

You take drivers and tear them off across that much space and they have accidents. They're used to driving around their little pueblo or something down in Mexico and you take them on the - on the highway between this - their little pueblo and Mexico City and that highway is long and flat and straight. And the straightest best parts of it are the source of the most accidents. The best roads are the source of the most accidents. Because they've got the most spaces in them. And the people can't tolerate those spaces.

Your continued experience with some individual who (quote) "will not be processed," if you - if you take a look at it and you keep tabs on it and watch what's going on, will demonstrate to you conclusively that you are dealing with somebody who is down in some order of sanity and reality. Some suborder - it's south!

Now these reactions to space, reactions to mass, reactions to time all form a tremendous number of processes.

Now it's a terrible thing for us, as Scientologists, to say this thing, you see. Because we apparently are saying, "Well, that's - a fellow won't be processed, he's crazy!" See? And it makes a beautiful argument, you see. We could use it. And it sounds just like propaganda. But it's not propaganda; it's not an argument. It's true! The fellow who will not be processed is nuts! That's it! It's your best diagnosis.

Now, what are you doing? The process is nothing unless you are increasing the familiarity of the person with that thing you are processing toward, and putting the person right along with it more at cause over that thing than he has been.

You go in and you see Granny sitting in the chair and you've been processing her - her daughter, the wife of the family, her daughter, you know. And old Granny sitting in the chair and she's saying, "Well, these so - called Scientologists," and so on. "What nonsense is all this," and so forth and so on. You're looking at a nut!

So, a process does these two things: increases his familiarity and puts him at cause. A process which doesn't do those two things is worthless, useless, and actually should be discouraged by you.

Recognize it as such!

Hypnotism is such a process. Hypnotism is a process that discourages familiarity, introverts, closes out and fogs in. And of course, it has accompanying drop in reality, drop in communication, drop in anything.

In this - I got a letter the other day from some clown. He runs a turkey farm someplace. And God help those turkeys! This individual says, "You're - the literature that was doing my wife so much harm is going to be reported to my attorneys. And we're returning it. And if we ever receive another page of it, why, I will at once go to our attorneys," and so forth. And do you know what he was objecting to? He was objecting to the essay, "Is It Possible to Be Happy?" He has his wife in some sort of a turkey cage. She's not to receive any literature.

Somebody who has been taught hypnotism is liable to tell you that you can cure stammering easily with hypnotism. Well, I don't know. He'll tell you this. And maybe you can fix the fellow up so that he doesn't even know enough to stammer anymore, just put him on a total machine. But this is quite remarkable. It's quite wonderful to see the drop, the real drop, over the next few days in the ability to live on the part of a person who has been hypnotized. It's very, very steep, it's very recognizable.

Well, she must have reached. The name got there somehow because that literature never goes out to people who don't reach. See? It's the test of: is a name in Central Files? Should be, usually is. Is a name in Central files of a Central Organization? Did the person originate a communication to the Central Organization? See, that's the test. We find out there's no reason to keep a name around unless they did. Lists that suddenly come in from nowhere, they don't get added into the mailing list and so forth. We sound them out. We give them a chance and if they don't do anything about it, why, we don't pay any more attention to it.

Now, that's the reverse process. You're making him less familiar and less responsible. You're showing a hypnotized person less. You've got his space jammed up more. You're certainly got him at effect. And you're pushing him in.

Now, what does this - what is this? What is this? We're looking at slave orientation. We're looking at duress. And we're looking definitely at bad cause.

Now, this is quite interesting - quite interesting to look over processing and recognize that it's based, first and foremost, on a postulate - the reversal of the postulate. You see, the person's got the postulate, is the total effect of the postulate and isn't familiar with it, doesn't even know he's got this postulate, you see? So you just increase his familiarity with it which you can do in a lecture. And sometimes a person listening to a lecture all of a sudden gets a tremendous cognition. You know. Bing! You know. Wow! You know. Bang! Well, he's just been submerged below a recognition of something, you see? And he comes suddenly into a recognition of the thing. Well, he's already started on his line.

The fellow who says, "Well, you've got to punish the multitude and you've got to kick people in the head and you've got to use the whip and the sword to keep them down and you've got to step on them every time they try to get up and somehow or another you've got to control this." I don't know why they call it control, but it's certainly not control. This fellow that's going on and on in this wise, this fellow that's trying to create a slave society and so forth, he's nuts! The poor guy is stark, staring mad. I don't care whether his name is Nero or Trujillo. I don't care what his name is. The guy's crazy! And his end result is war, death, famine, casualty, disease, destruction. That's his end product.

Now, the next thing is the individual in his ability to confront the isness of something, you might say, or conceive the isness of something, gets more and more at cause-point over it and so his responsibility picks up and he eventually comes up into responsibility for creation of it. Now, that doesn't matter whether it's a wall or a thought or an idea. It doesn't matter what it is but he recognizes creation of it. And this is - this is quite normally covered by a very sloppy word: cognition.

These are the great Napoleons in history, See, Hitler, Napoleon - what did they do? They're bad cause. In fact, they're such bad cause that there's a modern fad going on that nobody must be in charge of anything. You see, they're the harmonic of control, the mockery - the lower harmonic - the mockery of control. They aren't control at all. They couldn't control anything. They're terror on the subject of control as such, that they have to kill everybody. That - they know how to control people, they have to kill everybody. That's the best way to control people.

Cognitions come out of the bank. They're manufactured by the individual, so forth. But what they mean, basically, is an increased understanding. And it's no longer a sloppy word if you understand that a cognition merely means he voices an increased understanding of something.

You want to control a thetan? Well, don't kill his body! So help me, you can't even find him afterwards.

You want to beware of one of these pcs that never says, "Well what do you know." You know, he's sitting there being processed and - or walking around being processed and he says, "Well," he says, "say, what do you know! You know, for a long time so-and-so and so on." Beware of a pc that doesn't do that. He's not getting anyplace. In other words, the understanding factor isn't coming up so his communication factor isn't changing.

Now, where you have a pc, then, who is merely irresponsible, who just sits there and says, "You do it all," this is easy. All you have to do is graduate him up the gradient scale of cause, just like any other pc and even the worst ones. You see? Even the pcs worse than this. But all you have to do is just graduate him up the gradient scale of cause over isness. Reverse him from effect to cause, that's all, and let him confront what is. Simple as that. That's all you have to do with this man and he'll - or this woman or this child or anybody and they get well. But, how about the fellow that just is totally unwilling to even sit there in a chair and have you do anything with - "Rrrrrrrr." Well, there's only one step further down, they lie rigid in a bed for years in catatonia - unwilling.

Communication factor depends basically upon willingness to confront, the isness of. And that's what communication depends on.

Willingness is the common denominator of all ability. No ability is ever lost anyplace. You have at this moment every ability that you are willing to exert. The reason you're not still talking Greek or Arabic is you're not willing to talk Greek or Arabic.

A person can communicate with things that he's willing to confront and that he'll admit the isness of. And the less he is willing to confront it, the less he's willing to admit the isness of it, the more out of communication it is and you get this thing known as reality. That is the exact manufacturing point of the factor we call reality.

You know the penalty for talking Arabic. You lived a whole life, maybe, as an Arab and you knew what happened - you got killed! That's what happens to you when you talk Arabic. Obvious. Well, you just aren't willing to talk Arabic, that's all.

Now, responsibility comes about for willingness to have a number of attitudes toward the isness. That may be just a little bit strange to you. But it's just willingness to have created it, willingness to destroy it, willingness to go on having it be there, willingness to create another one like it, willingness to move it around, willingness to give it away, willingness to receive it. You see, these all fall into this package word - responsibility. Total responsibility would include perhaps innumerable attitudes, all of which a person would be willing to have.

Now, you're liable to go around in some intellectual little daze and say to somebody, "Well, why don't you teach me some Arabic?" And somebody slips you a couple of words in Arabic and - and you say, "Boy, come again. I just don't get it," you know. You kind of expressed a little phony willingness to learn something about this, but you just don't make it, You know?

Now, willingness - willingness is one of your basic keynotes. If a person believes that a wall isn't, while he is standing there facing it, you could say he has a low reality on it, right? You could also say he is unwilling to communicate with it. Right?

You find people around all the time that say, "You know I'd really like to understand

Now, the communication with the wall is the approach of the auditor or the communication with the thought or the postulate which is aberrative.

Russian. I'd just love to talk and understand Russian." Well, if they'd love to talk and understand Russian, why is it that they don't talk and understand Russian?

Communication. Communication is the common denominator of all processes.

Now if, as an E-Meter might demonstrate, they fluently talked and understood Russian four lives ago, why aren't they still talking Russian? Why can't they still talk the thing? Well, it's the punishment factor.

People will self-audit. They self-audit on the simple mechanism of setting up a circuit to audit them, or they are auditing a circuit, because it's a "two" universe.

The isness of Russian isn't! It's very remarkable, they no longer have - they no longer have Russians around them, they no longer have Russian buildings, literature, thought, cookery, wolves and samovars. And so they, of course, having no isness, have no communication. That's why they don't talk Russian.

You see, it's a "two" universe because you're going to have communication in the universe, then there's got to be communication from and to. So if there's going to be any communication in the universe or any reality or therefore any universe at all, you've got to have a from and to. So naturally you have a two-pole universe.

But look, Russia is still extant. Russian books are still extant. Why aren't they there? Well, they're obviously unwilling to be there. In fact, I believe so many people have had such bad times that they finally - the Western powers - finally erected an iron curtain. They wouldn't let anybody go to Russia.

Everything falls under two poles.

Now, obviously there's an unwillingness to communicate. The ability to communicate has not deteriorated. We could go into this a lot more, how ability does not deteriorate. It doesn't deteriorate. But willingness to exert it deteriorates - very definitely!

Now, when an individual has been more and more removed from this universe and considered himself more and more an isolated single pole, things of course are less and less real and he has approached more and more of an impossibility until he's gotten to a point where, Zzzt - "what wall, what everything?" You see.

So there's this individual sitting there being a mentally retarded child in this life. He's just not willing to be bright. His total willingness is a mentally retarded child. His willingness is totally wrapped up in being a mentally retarded child, that's it! Now this is not a subject with which to blame him. This is merely a recognition of the state he's in. This fellow is dumb. He cannot speak to somebody else, he cannot speak at all. Well, he has the ability to speak, but it is not exerted. Why not? He's unwilling to.

Now, individuation is another factor in processing. And individuation means different than - conceiving differences. Now to communicate you have to conceive some slight difference. But as you obsessively walk away from something and have to communicate with it while being unwilling to communicate with it, you more and more grip on to this thing called individuation. You're more and more one, in other words. You are different than. Get the idea? You're different than it. And you - it says, "Well, you're the same as me." And you maybe insist then and you say, "No, no, no! I'm different than you. No, my name is Joe and your name is Bill!"

Now you think maybe we're shaving some straws here and cutting things up, but if you want to produce some of the more interesting comm lags in individuals, just start asking them what they're willing to say,

The reason husbands and wives get along well, when they get along well, usually depends upon their ability to recognize and take responsibility for the differences on the communication line. There are differences on the communication line. A woman is a woman and a man is a man. And when they get along badly they're not willing to take responsibility for the differences on the communication line, but are trying desperately to differentiate between themselves and be more and more each one himself or herself. So, look, a woman begins to doubt she's a woman and then has to insist that she is a woman. The man, because of the environment and ideas and so forth, begins to believe that he's less a man and begins to insist that he's more of a man.

Now let's pick out Papa. This is an old, old, old process. It doesn't necessarily undercut cause. As a matter of fact, the Overt-Withhold Straightwire Processes exceed the workability of this particular process. But it's a very good process, upper scale.

For instance, some college kid, some little child, having to puff on a big bulldog pipe, you know. Puff; puff; puff on a big pipe, you know. And drink up everything he can get his hands on, you know, to be a man. Be a man. Be a man. Be a... I can tell you any kid that has to do that never got a pat on the back from his pop, that's all. All he needed was a little assurance once in a while. "Yes, son. You're a boy." You know.

And you say, "What are you willing to say to your father?" "What are you willing to say to your father?" would be the - would have been the proper way - that was not the basic way this was phrased. "What are you willing to say to Father?" or "What would you be willing to say to Father?" And the individual will produce some of the fanciest comm lags you ever didn't listen to. They're very interesting comm lags.

That's all it took.

"What could I say to Father? Oh, that's different. Yeah, I could say a lot of things to Father. Uh... can't think of any right now, but I could say a lot of things to Father." You see?

And a little girl - little girl that's subjected all the time to, "Oh! I wish you'd been a boy. If you'd just been a boy, why, it'd been so much better, and so forth. And you know, I always wanted a boy," one of the parents is saying, and so on, see. After a while, it gets rocky. See. She has to assert the individuation which shouldn't have to be asserted at all but is actually quite apparent. It becomes less and less apparent to her and she becomes more and more different. We don't care what she becomes different than. She certainly becomes different. She obsessively becomes different.

But you undercut this one by saying, "What are you wiliing - what would you be willing to say to Father? Absolutely, what would you be willing to say to Father?"

She's got to be an individual. She's got to be herself. You see. And she moves right on out and the individuation gets so sharp after a while that the person is no longer capable of any communication. They've moved right on out of the firmament, you might say.

Or you ask somebody - you ask somebody that has some difficulty with speech, in any way, You just ask, "What are you willing to say? What would it be absolutely all right with you, really correct and all right with you, to say? Is there anything at all that would be all right for you to say?"

Now, the way out is the way through. This is an old maxim of processing. The way out is the way through. More about that later. But the individual has actually got to come back into communication before, on their own determinism, they can go out of communication.

The individual will run into this willingness factor, but he runs into it head-on, you see, "Well, well, whoa. Well, that's different, you know. What have I got to say? Or what could I say? Or - but what am I willing to say - oh, that's a different thing. Not a single blessed thing and that's for sure. Everything I say is unwillingly spoken."

Individuation is that action of asserting that other things are other-determined or that all other things are other-determinism.

An individual recognizes this thing. That is self restraint. An individual wills and wishes himself into stupidity. He wills and wishes himself into irresponsibility, into being an effect, into blaming everything else and self-determinism. He pushes himself into that. He puts the lid on anything he can do or any capability he has. And he sits there and just holds the lid on. Because he says, "Well, it's just too dangerous for me to be cause. I can't figure out what would cause anything and I'm awful confused about the whole thing and the best thing to do is just to sit here and not cause anything and not answer up to any cause. That's the best way to handle the police anyway."

Individual is saying, "Well, my wife is other-determinism." The man is saying, "Wife is other-determinism." The woman is saying, "Well, my husband is other- determinism." Now, we've got more and more other-determinism entering in and we have the dwindling spiral. The dwindling spiral is based on this, "Got to be a separate thing," which finally becomes, "I've got to be just a one-thing." You see? And as soon as an individual is totally a "one" thing, he's - begins to go out of communication with the isness of it all because he conceives the great differentness and the total difference in his irresponsibility for the environment around him.

Once in a while you, as the auditor, will get confused with a police interrogation and so forth. It's quite interesting. Everybody's got police on the track for some reason or other.

Actually, the reason the universe is visible is because of this exact mechanism I've just been describing. The reason it's visible and goes on and on and on and on and on is more or less based on this obsessive individuation of the individual.

The individual becomes - the second he's asked a question - becomes totally unwilling to really answer it. And the whole auditing session is under duress. And the individual is so under duress, he's so unwilling to improve and so forth, that it's a wonderful tribute to Scientology that he does anyhow. You can even overcome his unwillingness factor to a large degree. Mostly because it's a totally false factor. Just like loss of ability is totally false, so is unwillingness totally false.

They invent gods. If man didn't have a god in any given period, he'd invent one because he's got to have somebody to assign the responsibility for as one of the handy mechanisms of preventing things from being as-ised. Cross up the ownership, you see, and so forth, and - so he won't take the total responsibility for the thing and so on. He dreams this up.

The reasons why an individual becomes unwilling to do and be and have are usually so fallacious that they simply amount to something like revenge. "I'll show my mother and father that they didn't do a good job. I'll just be a dumb idiot, I will," see. It's, well . . .

But this gets to be too bad of a thing after a while and an individual can no longer survive. He can no longer survive because he can't survive alone. That's the blunt part of it. If he's going to be part of this universe and live in this universe, he's certainly going to live with others! That's for true! And the less he understands this, why, the more difficulties he gets into. Finally he becomes the total effect of the whole universe.

This also comes under the heading of setting an example. A person who is being terribly, terribly good, and terribly, terrible quiet, and never causing anything and so forth, is quite often so upset about everybody else's motion and causation and action, that they are simply taking the easiest way to convince them that the best thing to do is not to do. And they sit still and are very quiet and good. You see?

Now, you find this individual and of course he's backed away from so many communication lines, he's taken so little responsibility for anything, that it's necessary for us to get him familiar with thoughts, terminals; and gradually walk him back in to a point where he is causative over these on his own determinism rather than some automatic obsessive 'got to be cause', 'got to be different', you know.

They've got themselves under wraps. It's quite wonderful to take one of these quiet, good pcs and start taking the lid off.

Move it up so that he takes over the automaticity of causation, increases familiarity.

I remember, she must have been about eighty, We were processing a dear, dear, dear old lady, She was about eighty, I think. And the engram necessary to resolve the case was being the captain of a raw, rough, pirate spaceship. And they wouldn't do what she said, so she set them an example and didn't do anything. She hadn't been doing anything for all the millennia since. But you should have heard some of the language that started coming off this girl. The things that she was unwilling to say had all gone on automatic.

And the whole thing boils down to the fact that you actually pilot him into greater familiarity and greater communication with the net result that you wind up with a greater reality.

Now, willingness then - willingness then, in processing and in processes, always operates as a subtle thread through everything you do, Cause and causation always operates as a subtle undercurrent to everything that is done. Responsibility operates as a subtle undercurrent.

When you do this, you have somebody who can confront and who is oddly enough - and I suppose quite by accident, but very true - he is more social, he is more capable, he is a better asset of the society, he's somebody to know, he's somebody to talk to. Before then, he was just a ball of flesh rolling about out of contact with everything.

And these are the powerhouses - these are the powerhouses. And in terms of power, they rank like this: cause, get the pc at cause. That is the most important one.

Now, there are the exact end goals of processing.

Everything, more or less, follows in its wake. But so intimate to it and so easily lost and forgotten about is responsibility. Cause, responsibility, and the next one down the line that you can tap and have something to do with - and you will note - is willingness. Not terribly workable in processes, but it is always present as a factor.

A process never does, by itself; anything. It has to be applied to a pc. It has to be directed. And it has to have an end goal and result.

Willingness, violation of', is the source of most ARC breaks to such a degree that you could say an ARC break is violation of willingness. An individual runs that way. He doesn't run on a stop of communication, a stop of affinity, a stop of reality. He just runs on a - an interrupted willingness, a violated willingness. He was willing and you inferred he wasn't willing or you made him unwilling and he calls this an ARC break.

And when a process is handled by the auditor and is used by the auditor and it's intelligently applied by an auditor, you get tremendous gains that you will never contact on such a thing as just wound-up doll - repeat it, repeat it, repeat it and hope something happened.

All right. There's -there are some very, very high-scale things. Now, two of those things are almost a concept - the willingness and responsibility. They cover a great deal. They're almost concepts, they're so high. They aren't directly applicable to all processes but they are present and underlie all processes.

Thank you. Thank you.

Now, what is the most on cause, responsibility and willingness? What's the most factor that is reachable by the auditor? What is a governing factor that governs these three things, that tests them, that can be improved, that can be exercised and so forth? And that is communication. So by using communication you tend to recover cause, responsibility and willingness. You certainly accomplish change and because of the ARC triangle you naturally cover, or recover, something of affinity. With masses and the general isness of things, you of course do something for reality, and we're right down to the fundamentals of processing right there.

Improve the pc's causativeness. Improve the pc's responsibility, Improve, and do not violate, the pc's willingness, with improvements in his communication, and you've got auditing!

Now, there are very many diagnostic things that have gone by. I don't think that - I don't think there's very much in the human mind - it sounds very audacious, but I don't think there's very much in the human mind that hasn't been examined in Dianetics and Scientology. We're not confronting very many mysteries. We know what man's been through, we know what he's composed of, we know what he responds to and we know what makes him tick. We've got it pretty well taped as far as auditing results are concerned. I don't think very many cases could get out from under us.

I remember a drunken bum that was totally unwilling to do anything, be anything or talk to anybody and so forth. And in two hours I saw an auditor get this individual into session. It's quite interesting. He was a drunken bum. He - his idea of - his idea

• all psychotherapy was somebody kicked your head in a - in a prison. I don't know what this all added up to or something of the sort. But an auditor is simply doing something to him. He's unwilling to sit there, unwilling to be there and so on.

Oh, I saw this guy get into session. It was quite remarkable. The auditor just kept arguing with him about help and finally the (quote) "pc" admitted that he could get the auditor to help him by finding a bottle and getting a couple of babes - and to be absolutely factual, I mean, in his direct quote - and go out on an awful toot. And that would help him! And he actually did break down and admit that the practitioner could help him. And his case was about nine-tenths in flinders right about the moment they had set up a willingness. Help is the best button of setting up willingnesses of one kind or another if you're going to set up willingness directly.

We get - numerous arrangements exist in Scientology, There are numerous buttons, the key buttons and so forth. These things all start with change. The worse off a person is, the less he'll change. Process can be processed directly at this. "What are you willing to change? What are you unwilling to change?" Something of that sort.

But unwilling is always a negative approach. Irresponsibility is a negative approach. No communication is a negative approach. And although you will find uses for these negative approaches here and there, they do not carry the whole distance. You always have to have a causative approach, because - that's because the cause button is sitting in there so strongly. The worse off a case is, the less he'll change. The worse off he is, the more he needs to change and the less he can. Quite interesting.

When a person can be brought into communication, a person can be brought into confrontingness. When he's brought into confrontingness he can be brought into causation, responsibility, willingness, he'll change and numerous other listed - already covered - things will occur in the case.

Processes, then, are good processes which do these things and processes are bad processes which don't do these things. But basically this is what the auditor is trying to do, whatever process he's trying to use.

The process is the method by which you achieve the goals of improving the causation, the responsibility, the willingness and of course the affinity and reality of the preclear.

Thank you. Thank you.

Well I'm glad you're all doing so well. You need hardly any directions. Now you've only got a few processes here left to go. And you have one, two, three, four, five - no, that one you got flat - six, seven - six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve - you've only got thirteen unflat processes now. And you'll have fifteen before course end.

Is this, by the way, getting to any of you? Do you feel the odd effects of this? I doubt it. Do you really? Any of you feel anything odd about one of these processes being unflat? You do? Well, I don't see much response from most of you. You're probably afraid to say so because your Instructors will bite you. But the truth - the truth back of this is that these are very arduous, very high-scale processes, and just by flattening all of them in a row you'd make a tremendous case gain. But Overt- Withhold Straightwire and various things run - various buttons run under Overt- Withhold Straightwire, Dynamic Straightwire, Engram Straightwire undo practically any process that you have done.

If you were to run Overt-Withhold now on a fellow student you would undo all of the processes that you have ever had left unflat. Interesting, isn't it?

Female voice: In what way, Ron?

Very simple. Where did they happen? They happened in an auditing chair, didn't they? And you just - you just basically would run a lock. A lock called auditing sessions, don't you see? And once you got all the auditing sessions out, you would retain what gain you had already gotten through the auditing, but you would knock out the isness of the auditing itself, that's all. And the only thing that leaves auditing unflat is the isness of the auditing itself. The thing was not carried through to a total fruition. So, it just drops back to the improvement that was reached. That's about it.

It's quite interesting. You are running a toughest - the toughest process right now, and you should be having a ball with it, in Engram Straightwire. Right?

We had a case in the 5th London ACC that got parked on the time track in an engram. And this engram didn't get flat. And this person was run on a twenty-five- hour intensive - staff member - just a few days ago. And they simply ran this...The whole intensive wasn't on this by a long way. But some portion of the twenty-five hours was simply Engram Straightwire on the engram which had been run for, I think, thirty-five to forty hours in the ACC. And in just these few hours on this intensive the thing went totally flat and kicked out and that was it. Yet this person's engram was in so solidly, the person was crying practically every night dramatizing the grief section of the engram. Overt-Withhold run on the personnel involved in the engram as they were located, kicked the thing out totally and flattened it. This is a way of handling engrams. And this is superior to and in advance of just straight engram running.

You get your reach and withdraw phenomena with regard to that person and the engram would start to blow up in smoke and you'd cure their psychosomatic. This makes practically a magician out of you.

And I want to point it up at this moment that's why you've got three days on this particular process. See, we're not asking you to do this as the only process you do. Because to get a case into a shape where it could run this it may very well be necessary to sort them out with Dynamic Straightwire - sort them out with Overt- Withhold on present time people, you know, and do a lot of preparatory work. Or, for that matter, it may be necessary to go back to your CCHs and just bring them up to a point where they'll sit still.

So, there are lower processes than this, but this is not necessarily only for cases in good shape. You can take some pretty bad off cases and find the engram necessary to resolve the case - even find them running with a lot of dub-in and still use Overt- Withhold Straightwire and bring them out clean as a wolf's tooth.

Which is quite, quite fascinating that we've made this much advance. That we are teaching this on an HPA, BScn course is fantastic. I mean this is fantastic. We are teaching you way above any level that any student has been taught here for nine years on HCA/HPA, BScn. That shows either I have a lot of confidence in you or you're going to fall on your heads, either one or the other

Now, you'll find, however, that given some preparation, reality, on the part of the case, the case will sit still, follow a subjective command - because, you see, some cases are incapable of following a subjective command, you know. You tell them one thing and they do something else, you know. And they won't run even Overt- Withhold Straightwire, see. Most people will, but there are cases that won't. You'd have to do things like 8-C, CCH 3, 4, and so forth. Finally they're objective - you can see whether or not the pc is complying with the auditing command. And being able to observe that, you eventually get them over into a willingness to do auditing commands. Then you'd run this. But until a person could run a spoken command, which they then do subjectively or mentally - until a person could run that, your Engram Straightwire is not going to work. But after a person is able to follow out a spoken command, why, they can run Engram Straightwire.

Of course, you pitch some people in over their heads and they're going to scream like banshees and you're going to have a ball. But this is not nearly as tough on a pc as some processes. You'll still get some screamers and so forth. You'll run prematurely on this and the guy will decide to go faster than the auditor and be running something else and doing something more than and - and flub it once in a while. But all you would have to do is back cut it and get the person to do one of the lower processes and bring him back to it and clean it up and you've got it made. This is - this makes for very fast clearing. What we're teaching you to do here is theta clearing. And this, plus, then, more or less routine engram running - but after a person has run Engram Straightwire, doing routine engram running is nothing. I mean that it's just nothing. It's very easy.

You'll be able to make yourself some Theta Clears and that's what we need right now, so that's the way we want you to go. Okay?

Audience: Yes. All right.

Good night.

Audience: Good night.