Well, I hope you survived the last lecture.

Hi today. Did you survive last night?

I was told there were some people — some people that had their buttons pushed.

Audience: Yeah!

Look, you can tell me. Of course, in most cases I know already.

I understand there were people falling on their faces, is that right?

Well, you still got a congress?

Audience: Yeah!

Audience: Yes.

Oh, that's terrible. Hate to see effects produced like that. It's very bad, very bad.

Glad you came?

Your general state of processes today actually leave the one that you were running rather in the dust. It's a tremendous process and so on, but we're way out in advance of it. That's why that particular process is relegated to PE Co-audit and for large groups and so on. And I feel I should tell you its limitations. It does have limitations because sometimes the preclear interprets it to be more communication. He doesn't run out old communication, he adds on new communication, don't you see?

Audience: Yes.

And he just starts stacking the bank up, you might say. And if a person isn't making good progress with it, there are two things wrong. He is not in-session. He's not in-session. That is to say, he's unwilling to talk to the auditor. And boy, when they're unwilling to talk to the auditor, don't audit them. Get them in- session. That's a nice tip right here. And the people that read high on those meters, they're just unwilling to talk to the auditor. That's something for you to remember.

All right. Oh, say that louder. You glad you came?

Definition of in-session: Interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor. And unless those conditions exist, you don't get any auditing done.

Audience: Yes!

Person who's sitting there, withhold, withhold, withhold, withhold, withhold, see — total individuation. And finally, the more he's audited ... He knows — he knows that auditor can look right straight inside and read all of his pictures. He knows that. And he knows that if those pictures get read, kkkkkkkk! that's it — he's had it. He's done some terrible crime! Actually the crimes that people have done that they withhold from auditors are so laughable, ordinarily. Something like they strangled a kitten when they were two, you know. In their married life, four years ago, they winked at a man.

That's better. That's better. Got to wind me up here just a little bit, you know.

Crime! Crime rampant. Send for the O-Gay-Pay-Oo and J. Edgar Hoover, see. FBI and the state police and the local gendarmes and so on, will be right there with a big net.

Now, was that last lecture much too technical for you?

Other people hold to their bosoms the fact that they know they're crazy. And the person who mustn't find it out is the auditor. And of course, that's nonsense. First person to find that out is the auditor.

Audience: No.

You say to a pc now — you say, „From where could you communicate to a mother?“ And the pc says, „Well ... Now don't tell me.“ After about a half an hour of this, if an auditor's worth his salt, he knows. But the reason the pc can't answer it rapidly is because he's afraid if he does the auditor will find out he's crazy. But of course, a person who is trying to hold it to himself as a secret that he's crazy, isn't. Because truly crazy people have no responsibility for being crazy! The only crazy people to a crazy person is the auditor and all the other people. He's the only sane person left on Earth, which is a unique position.

It wasn't, huh?

The only people who are absolutely convinced, without a shadow of a doubt — no grays, all just black and white — that they're absolutely sane, are in institutions. They're inside looking out. For instance — by the way, they're the only important people on Earth, too. I don't know if you knew that.

Audience: No.

Very often you walk up to a janitor and you say, „Hey, where's room 24?“ or something like this, you know. You should be very careful talking to janitors that way. They're much more important than corporation presidents! Infinitely more important. There isn't a waiter in a restaurant that isn't more important than the governor general. And the most important thing in the world is, of course, something like an ant or a mayfly. Boy, are they important! Wow!

Just pushed a few buttons. All right.

Sometimes, because of pressure of business and that sort of thing — and factually, it's almost impossible for me to get my work done. Nobody could do my job, you know. That's not possible. One day somebody said, „By golly, God probably couldn't hold down your post,“ you know, being sarcastic, you know, but being mean. And I thought it over and I said, „I think you're right.“

Tell you why. I'd like to release for the first time at this congress the solution to a problem which you will find as far back as Book One and which is probably the main thing that keeps a profile or your graph on tests and so forth right where it is. Keeps your personality pegged there whether you like it or not.

But the only reason, you see, I can do my work at all is because I'm not important, see. It's kind of a reverse look — I'm not important. I'm probably the least important person in Scientology. Must be! Obvious, for the excellent reason nobody ever asks me how I feel. Nobody ever asks me, „Is it too much work for you to do this?“ They never ask me that, you know. They just load it on the desk. See, they give it to me amongst lectures, so on. They never say, „Can you do this?“ They work on a total certainty that, „Oh, well, that's Ron. He'll do it.“ So I am obviously the least important person in Scientology.

I'd like to tell you about that because it's brand-new material, brand-new discoveries. It's not very complicated and I would like to release it right here in Australia.

If I were important at all, why, things would be different. They'd be totally different. We wouldn't be anyplace, because you have to get in there and pitch, you know? You can't count how tired you get or how many bugs are flying around through the epiglottis. You can't count that you need a vacation or anything like this. You've just got to keep the show on the road and other people's necessities are much greater than your own. So they're important, you see? I don't necessarily say that's a sane attitude simply because I have it. It's just I'm hung with it and that's it.

Well, the subject is valences. Valences.

But if you want to find some important people — real important people you have to go to some place like India. And you have to find an untouchable. And although they're, supposedly by everybody, supposed to be the least important people on Earth, actually they're much more important.

This is not a very esoteric subject. It's an awfully common one. There is no such thing as „your own valence.“

I've looked into the skull of an ant, though, carrying a burden of a leaf or something like this and, man, did he think he was important! Wow! You sort of put a little beam on him and direct him to go elsewhere, you know. The immediate reaction you get is, „You realize that if you interfere with me, the Earth will probably stop turning upon its axis! Do you realize that? Do you realize the sun will probably fall out of the sky if something happens to me?“

Every once in a while we fall into the liability of using the phrase. There's just you. And you don't become a valence until you're picked up and worn by somebody else.

It's only the little people who are terribly important, and only the real crazy ones. A person can get so important that he never draws another sane breath as long as he lives. That's a — odd commentary, but very true. And basically it's because importance itself is what swells up and makes a reactive bank. Importance. You might say solidity equals importance and nonsolidity equals unimportance. It's quite remarkable.

Now, let's say we had a mama who was very, very critical and every time we tried to create something she destroyed it. Or let's say that every time we tried to originate something she said, „No, no!“ And every time that we tried to be ourselves, why, we get „overwhumped.“ (That's a Scientology technical term.) Every time we tried to be ourselves somebody else says, „No, no, no! Be somebody else.“

Importance is a — is a tremendous factor in dealing with people. And every once in a while you get a pc sitting in the chair that you can't audit and doesn't seem to get anyplace and so on. Well, he's just doing everything wrong and upside down and so forth because he's too important to be talked to. And the importances that he assigns to some of the most innocent phenomena would shock the rest of us. And they just can't give out and tell the auditor anything.

Well, I've just been talking to you about social values. And when you at last became convinced that your values or your ways of looking at things were totally wrong, then you had a choice. You either just ceased to exist or you grabbed a valence that was apparently acceptable. And that's what kept you from being you when you ceased to be you.

Now, under modern processing it's rather easy to break through this particular barrier. But „From where could you communicate to something?“ and so on, doesn't happen to be a process which itself immediately breaks this barrier of importance and withhold and so on. It doesn't break down underneath — before that process. Therefore, a great many people in co-audit units — some percentage which hasn't been established but is probably less than 50 percent — well, considerably less, maybe only 20 percent, 25, something like that, not been established but something on that order — sitting there not in-session. And when they're not in-session, naturally they're being addressed by mechanical auditing and so forth and the person isn't really interested in their case and so forth and they're not in-session and they start to run a communication process, they just add communication onto the bank and do something else. They never do the command straight.

And most of the profiles which you answer up and most of the tests which you answer up is a valence or a composite of valences which you borrowed at some time or another that you thought were acceptable, and those you mark on the scoreboard.

It isn't a matter of „From where could I communicate to a cat?“ It would be: First they have to find a cat. And then they have to find out whether or not the cat is an acceptable cat to them. And then they have to find out whether or not they would dare be in the vicinity of the cat. And then having established this fact, they have to choose whether or not it's going to be verbal communication or done by Morse code or something. And having chosen this, they then totally neglect to find a location and simply say they've answered the question. It's very interesting looking into a pc's mind and finding out what he really does do with an auditing command.

Until you change a preclear's valence, you don't change the pc.

The more they're withholding, the more superimportant they are as a person, the more nyeahh they're doing the auditing command. That you can count on. And the crazier they are, the more important they are and the more important are the crimes which they must be withholding.

If auditing could shed valences easily, you could change a graph, the responses of a pc to life, his ability to handle his environment, with great ease. If you could change his valences!

And I'll let you in on something: If you can't tell a Scientologist what you've been up to in your life, you'll never be able to tell anybody. Scientologists, you know, have a reputation, oddly enough, amongst humans. They do! They have a reputation. This would be rather odd because I'm sure nobody has — it would have to be me that would scout down some odd factor like this — have to go around and ask non-Scientologists who are vaguely associated with Scientology what they think of Scientologists. And they have very definite opinions, oddly enough. They consider them very easy to get along with, very understanding, (you'll laugh at this one) not at all critical, and that they can be trusted. And that's what people who are around Scientologists normally think of Scientologists, no matter what they're telling the Scientologist!

If you could keep pulling valences off of him until you dug him up — and when you got him dug up you'd find you had quite a person. And that's the person that'll register high on a graph and stay there.

Normally, they'll tell the Scientologist, „Well, you shouldn't be interested in such things and when I was young, I was interested in the affairs of the world, too, but I got over that. It's a rather adolescent idea. Here we are — here we are in this tremendous morass, quietly sinking down, nobody's troubling anything, and you come along and offer somebody a rope. Huh! How come you're so good that you can't sink in a morass, too?“

There are many ways of defining or looking at Clear. But technically, the best way of looking at Clear is not in terms of a bunch of mechanics. It'd just be whether or not the person had become himself. Then you'd say he'd be Clear.

But in spite of what they tell Scientologists, they do have amongst themselves a definite opinion of the character of a Scientologist, which I consider is rather remarkable.

Now, if hi — that self which was uncovered, unblended, straightened out, was then improved to a point where he could, you know, relax and say, „Well, I dare reach as myself to a considerable distance and I dare actually progress,“ and so forth, you'd have an OT.

I've plucked this out of the mouths of boardinghouse operators, you know, and out of restaurant keepers and out of non- Scientologist staff in organizations and other perimeter people, you know. And they all seem to have just about the same opinion. There must be some truth in it.

That's a very simple way of looking at Clear. Just sweep away these mechanical ideas and say, „Well, we've gotten the fellow to be himself, unimpeded by superimpressed personalities.“

And if a person can't tell a Scientologist about it, he's had it! God help you if you told a psychiatrist about it! A psychiatrist receiving a piece of information concerning the fact that four years ago the wife had winked at another man: „Ah,“ he'd say, „Ah. Mmmm. Freudian connotation, it means definite sex starvation. It means a suppressed bearing on the libido. I think — wouldn't be any chance of you having a libidoectomy, would there? Well, no, I thought not, I thought not. I didn't think you could afford 20,000 pounds. So the best thing for you to do, Mrs. White, is to go out and have affair with another man and that will discharge this compulsion to be faithful.“ Really, I shouldn't — I shouldn't be sarcastic or say mean things about psychiatrists, I really shouldn't be.

Now, you ever hear of the „old school tie“?

Once upon a time when the US was busy getting disentangled from England — this is something very funny about that, you know. I've now started a backflash on the line and I keep telling — I tried about a year ago to make a joke out of this and tell some people over in England, „You know if you don't watch it, you're going to become an American colony, you know.“ And they don't think it's funny! That's right. And they stand there and tell me, „Well, it might not be a bad thing, you know. It might not be too bad, you see,“ and so forth, and get very reasonable about the whole thing. It might be happening — who knows?

Audience: Yeah.

Anyway, America is under a tremendous mental healing onslaught these days. And the best thing that you can say about it — it's a mental healing onslaught that has as its byword, „Nobody can do anything about the mind. So therefore, anybody who tries to do anything for it or about it, you see, has to do it according to the statutes.“ And you say, „Well, that's very interesting, let's see now, according to statutes, so on, just ... Now, do you mean that you're supposed to do something for the...“

That's a valence.

„Oh, no! No, no. No. No, no, no. No, no. The reason we use electric shock is it's lawful.“

There are even fellows who have been sent to Oxford (it's not „Oxford“ you know, it's „Oxford“) — there have been fellows sent to „Oxford“...

There's one state in the United States — Michigan — where a medical doctor, if he did not electric shock the patient, could be arrested as it's against the law not to. Yeah, you know, total plan.

It's very amusing. My little kids are now going to school in England, and all the words they knew from America, they still pronounce with an American accent. And all of the words they have learned, the brand-new ones in England — darnedest mishmash you ever heard!

But those boys are in much worse shape — much worse shape than anybody else is. Think of having to stay in there and pitch knowing darn well you had no answers; knowing darn well the statistics were totally against your ever doing anything for anybody and having to say for the benefit of the state legislature, „Oh yes, we do a great deal to help these people. We do a great deal to help these people,“ and knowing positively and definitely through personal practice and experience that it never did anything to help anybody, but only worsened cases. A man who is in that one — he is withholding failures! And they withhold failures and withhold failures, and it is so common and ordinary to go down in the padded cells and find psychiatrists and attendants — former attendants of the asylum in them, that — it's a grim business.

These Oxfordian graduates have very often simply gone to Oxford to get a valence. Factually, they have that. That's part of the curriculum. They're supposed to — they're supposed to pick up a tone and behavior. Now, it's nothing really against Oxford. It's just the fact that that's part of the business.

And once upon a time there was this big battle up in the northern lakes. And somebody, I think it was Oliver Hazard Perry or some such great naval hero said — after they'd whipped a British vessel, he says, „Don't cheer, boys, the poor devils are dying.“ You know, that sort of thing — very touching sentiment. I think we should adopt that sentiment.

Well, it already means they must have had some kind of a lousy valence to want the next one superimposed on it.

Matter of fact, a lot of you miss the boat entirely — you do, with psychiatry and so forth. You feel these fellows are — are all evil and they're not — they're merely spun in. And you actually avoid them or cease to try to overwhump them or cease to try to do something for them. Do you know that a large percentage of them — all a psychiatrist would have to hear is that, „I want to help your wife and family. We're not so much interested in you, but we would be very, very happy to help your wife and family.“ And you think that's — sounds very funny. Give them a little literature or something like that. Oh, you'd have his wife and family under processing right now.

And that's the fate of somebody who loses himself. He gets a valence over the top of that and he doesn't like that one, so he gets another valence over the top of that one because he doesn't like that one, and he gets a valence over the top of the next one because he doesn't like — and he doesn't like that one, so he gets another valence. And you've got some sort of a mysterious series of concentric spheres here — just valence after valence after valence — package personalities, each one of these. Each one is a package personality. Its reactions are so-and-so and such-and-such.

I gave a lecture to a series of psychiatrists in Washington, DC many years ago. There were twenty-one of the leading psychiatrists of that whole district, and eighteen of them offered me their wives for processing. Pathetic! You see, when it comes to something they really want to have happen, they know they've got to go to somebody else, no matter what they're telling the public.

You can always expect somebody who has attended Oxford — just to get the tone — to, in the face of emergencies, say „There is none.“ Immediate response. That's what that valence says. It says, „There are no emergencies,“ see?

So, therefore I'm not being supercritical. I'm just trying to give you some facts in the case. That's a soft field. They're not tough and hard and all in agreement and presenting a united front and so forth. They're just a sort of an idea peoples got and you try to enter or penetrate that particular sphere of action or influence and so forth and they just fold up, quick.

Roof falls in. The floor goes out from under him and he's supposed to say something like, „Bit of a disturbance, what?“

We caused a fantastic amount of upset in Washington, DC by officially sending a representative from the HASI over to the American Psychiatric Association just to find out if they were being ethical according to our codes. And boy, they were sending us literature for months. They were trying to prove to us that they had a code of ethics and that they did do something ethical and so on. And then they went and rewrote the medical code of mental healing, and we've been responsible for a complete rewrite of those codes in the United States.

He's supposed to have responsibilities in certain directions and be irresponsible in other directions. He's supposed to be made happy by certain things and unhappy by other things. And he gets a whole carload lot of „now-I'm-supposed-to's.“ And at any given stimuli or any given stimulus he has a pat response. And you can play on him like a player piano, you know. Put the roller in and start pumping the pedals. And you'll play the same tune every time!

But they don't dare adopt the Code of a Scientologist! They don't dare, because it has a horrible line in it. And that has to say by charging people for doing things and not charging them for not doing things. And if that single line could be enforced upon all healing, we would have it made. We'd be the only gainers. If we absolutely made it law that a practitioner could not charge for no results — if he got no results, he could make no charge — and if that sort of thing became general, people would have to break down and admit they weren't doing anything. Because you'd have every patient who was disgruntled and upset and had been cut to ribbons and chopped up and charged to death and so forth, you'd have them right back on their necks.

Now, to a slave master, that person is very safe to have around because he's totally predictable and will never step over the edge at all of the demarked lines.

We get a very small amount of this in Dianetics and Scientology. And one of the reasons why organizational activities have to exist in Dianetics and Scientology — left to my own devices, taking no real responsibility on the line, I could just tell all of you, „Well, just go ahead and do what you please and have a good time, and push the gospel through and that's it,“ and that sort of thing. But I found out that here and there Scientology gets into bad hands. And it gets into the hands of somebody who cannot be audited. Because the person who Just has the little tiny secret about having winked at a man four years ago or been found in the wrong bed or something of that sort — this person gets up to a sane enough point where they don't care. And they find out that they patch this up most easily by exposing it and getting the two-way comm out of the road and so forth.

Therefore, you can do almost anything with him or get him to agree to almost anything. You can put anything across on him just playing it on the right buttons.

It's quite — it's quite pathetic, by the way, that there's many a husband — many a husband very, very angry at his wife when his wife has done nothing. He is angry at his wife simply because he is guilty of overt acts against his wife. Sounds utterly incredible, doesn't it? See, he then dreams up motivators. He dreams up reasons why he did these overt acts. And those reasons why are not true at all.

And I wouldn't say that a society that is trying to be free, a society that is trying to be independent, a society where each individual is worth something, and particularly in Australia where there aren't too many people, that such a mechanism is totally necessary. I think it'd be safe to have people be themselves.

And vice versa. There's many a wife who is just furiously angry with the husband — privately, covertly, down at 1.1, you know, on the subject — who is simply angry because she has done something to the husband. It's something like you beat a dog and then you have to get mad at the dog because you beat the dog. See? It's some kind of rationale that explains, then, that the dog bit you or something of the sort. The dog was lying on the hearth rug wagging his tail as you came in, you walked over and kicked him in the head. Now, to explain why you kicked him in the head, you have to dream up some rationale about how the dog looked like he was going to bite you or it was really a bad breed of dog or the dog had thought some overt thoughts against you.

Of course, I sometimes feel very lonely in this opinion. But it is — it's safe to have people be themselves.

But any one of us, even the best of us, occasionally find ourselves outside the pale slightly. You know, we do something that isn't agreed upon as being perfect optimum conduct. In view of the fact that nobody in Western civilization has ever defined optimum conduct, we can find ourselves outside very easily. You know, an American is found in America eating with his fork in his right hand and an Englishman is found in England eating with his fork in his left hand, you see. Eating with his fork in his right hand, his left hand, who's supposed to eat with what fork where? One fork is the other and so on. It's not right conduct, you see? You just change countries and it becomes wrong conduct. Get the idea? And manners and customs and the ways we regard things and so on, we just shift a boundary or go over to another race or something of the sort.

Of course, it takes a certain amount of nerve to actually get in and unbale the valences to see what's there. And you nearly always, even in taking a couple of valences off, find a better guy.

I remember — when I was in my teens I had the — the pleasure of being able to wander around enough to become rather conversant with about twelve different races, most of them aboriginal and apparently much lower levels of civilization — by which we mean simply that they are not mechanically civilized, that's all we mean by that — twelve different races. And I became struck with the idea that they were so different, that each had such different ideas about right conduct, that there couldn't be any meeting ground amongst them but that there must be some common denominator in their existence. And the common denominator that was finally isolated by me was survival. They were all trying to survive. That we could bet. And they were united on this one common denominator. But there was hardly anything in any one of those races that was considered survival that wasn't considered nonsurvival. elsewhere.

And when you take them all off, you find a powerhouse. When we say, „Man is basically good“ — we also mean women — we mean that when you get him dug up, or her dug up, that she'll try to follow or he'll try to follow the optimum solution in given circumstances.

As I remember vividly, as a young man about seventeen, getting into severe trouble with a Japanese host — I didn't make a pass at his daughter. He almost never forgave me. And don't think that didn't have me grogged for a while. I was being a good boy.

Only valences keep people pinned down to one dynamic or two dynamics. Because a valence can't be expansive. A valence is a narrowing and a blunting.

Well now, let's just don't break it down to races. When we get as far away from established codes of good conduct — when we get as far away from this individually, we also separate in terms of what is good conduct. And practically every person on Earth has some slight difference from everybody else on Earth on the subject of what's good or bad conduct. Every person has his own opinion of what's good conduct. Every person has his own opinion of what's bad conduct and they only apparently amalgamate into a racial idea country by country. Every person in that country has just a little shading different than everybody else. There's some slightly different opinion.

What's an optimum private to an army? The perfect private? Well, that's a valence that the sergeants dearly work on. And did you ever hear the sergeants work on it. Any slightest deviation from the perfect private, any direction to be a decent guy, any initiative, any idea of advancing along certain lines practically or getting something done obviously, boy, they're in there with brickbats. „Get back into line. Get those anchor points back. Be a private. Be a private,“ you know.

Now, you owe most of your aberrated condition to the fact — I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be — I didn't mean to be complimentary. You got a case, too. Anything that you think is wrong or nonoptimum about you occurs because of your surprises in the past at discovering something you were doing was not considered to be good or optimum or acceptable by some person that you were living close to. You were going ahead and doing what you thought was the right thing. And you found out, much to your amazement, it was the wrong thing.

And after many, many, many years of that sort of thing, a fellow comes out of the army, goes into civilian life and it takes him a long, long time to stop being a private. And he finds himself saluting or treating everybody like he'd like to treat sergeants.

These slight differences of opinion on what was correct and what was incorrect, by the way, start all the rows that occur in marriages. Now, I'll give you an extreme example. A little boy comes in, there's — his mommy's got a typewriter sitting on a table and it's got white keys, so he says, „Isn't that nice, now I'll help Mommy and I'll take a lead pencil and I'll do the right thing and I'll color all the keys of the typewriter,“ you see — or the piano, „color them all black,“ you know. And he gets licked for it. He has an awful time trying to straighten this out, you know? It just isn't quite right. He didn't know he was doing wrong and then he found out he was doing wrong.

There's nothing wrong with armies. Armies are a good thing — in history books! Armies today, of course, are so deadly outmoded that I wonder that any politician has the cheek to appropriate any appropriation for them, to tell you the truth.

And that is the cycle of practically all conduct everyplace. You thought you were doing right and you found out you were doing wrong. Well, who are all these people that set up all these laws of what's wrong? I don't know, we set them up ourselves. We decide what is wrong conduct and what is right conduct, and there's no general agreement. And you can't go open up the Code Napoleon, you know, and read down — „Right conduct. Wife fails to speak to one at breakfast — improper conduct,“ you know. See? You'll find in some other family — wife speaks at breakfast — wrong conduct. And there's no security, you might say, on what we are doing and whether or not we're doing it right or otherwise. And it makes an insecurity.

Of course, it's typically political, you see, that after armies have ceased to be any value whatsoever, why, then they have to have big standing armies, you know?

People go on doing jobs in offices and with organizations and so forth, and they think they're doing right. They — by their 'own lights and their own values, why, they think they're doing right. And then all of a sudden they find out it's all wrong and it's a great shock to them. And they find out these things are all wrong just two or three times, and after that they feel insecure. They're not quite sure, because they have been invalidated. Their sense of values has been invalidated. And they get to a point where what they think — when they get pretty bad off along this line, they get to a point of what they think must not become public property because it might be wrong conduct.

Appropriations for shotguns and rifles and machine guns these days are something like appropriations for bows and arrows. They just might as well make appropriations for bows and arrows.

And you'll get some of the weirdest opinions of what one shouldn't tell the auditor! And don't always think that when you're trying to get something out of a pc that it is some crime that has to do with rape, murder and arson. It's probably got something to do with not wearing the right dress or something to do with — something to do with not having been appreciative of something.

By the way, they dug out the War Department in the United States the other day. They were getting rid of some of the supersecret files and they found one of the supersecret war devices of World War II was the bow and arrow. Actually — they'd been developing bows and arrows for use by commandos and they had labeled it „supersecret.“ And from that day to this, bows and arrows had been supersecret to the US Army.

Or they just can't be audited by the auditor and the auditor is a very bad auditor and he ARC breaks them all the time and he's very bad and it's all bad over there and so forth. You come to dig this out, you'll find out that the basis of all this reaction to this auditor is the fact they can't talk to the auditor! Well, the reason they can't talk to the auditor is not necessarily because the auditor — don't take the easy way — reminds them of some other person they could never talk to. That's the easy way out.

But you take a fellow who is made to be a general and he's worked over usually in some democratic body to be the perfect general. And you always know what a general will do. The parliament or the senators or whoever it is, they know what a general will do. He's a safe general. That's because he's in the valence of a general.

It usually hinges on something as definite and as present time as this: They sat down and they said, „My, what an ugly looking specimen of human being.“ See, said something like this. They thought this, you see, and... „He reminds me of Uncle Charlie and I bet he's twice as dumb.“ You know? That's an overt act! It tended to individuate the individual. And this overt act is the reason the auditor's a bad fellow. Got the idea?

And then they rail at him in wartime because he retreats at the wrong places and goes the wrong directions and never adapts the army to the situation and loses things left and right and gets his equipment chopped up and so forth and somehow or another muddles through at Lord knows how many casualties.

And you're sitting there and the tone arm is sitting at about 4.5 or 5.0 — as the auditor — and you just can't get this pc to talk and it's high arm and then you don't seem to get any facts out of the case and just can't seem to break it down and case making no progress and so forth. Don't be so quick to blame it on your skill in handing out processes. And don't be so quick to blame it on the process! We've had processes that worked for years and years and years.

And then they say, oh, they are very upset about this. Ah yeah, well, they — they've got to have a person there before he can lead anything. And when they have a valence called a general there who has the exact responses that you're supposed to get from a general, of course, they don't get any leadership.

For instance, this ACC is only going to specialize on how do you administer a process and get sessions started. That takes a lot of know-how. And I think that's the best thing I can do for Scientology in Australia, rather than give them a whole bunch of new processes. I'll give them a bunch of new processes too, but let's get the address to the case that makes the case run! Let's show them how to get these cases and shake them out and run them! Let's get some Clears down here, see. That's going to be done by auditing skill, and that's the best thing that I think we can teach people in this ACC that's coming up.

And in a time of emergency there's nobody there. But that's true of valences — there's nobody there. In this society at this time you have more unhaunted bodies! But a valence, you might say, is a packaged series of responses. A valence likes spinach, dislikes beefsteak; likes green hats, dislikes white hats; thinks plump women are too plump, thin women are too thin — whatever the valence thinks, that is what is thought. And there can be no flexibility on the subject.

But you, in addressing this case, don't at once suppose that because it's got a high E-Meter arm and because the fellow won't talk and the process doesn't seem to be getting anyplace and all that sort of thing — don't be so quick to blame yourself or — and don't be so quick to think it is some fantastically high crime! It'll be some little thing that doesn't amount to anything. You say, „How could a person go through absolute torture and have nightmares and lie awake nights for fear somebody would find this out? How could anybody be worried about this?“ That's usually what happens.

And the way you change a pc's reactions around, actually, is to give him enough wins that he begins to believe that he might amount to something and doesn't need all these packaged responses. He believes, at last, that he himself is capable of making up his mind to the various situations which he confronts in life. And you've got a real, live person. You haven't got a wound-up doll.

But in this — just the general run of these things, the reason processing takes so long is because when you don't start a session — when you haven't got a pc in-session (interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor), the processes have to break down these little bits and pieces of things. They have to break down the unfrankness of the person. You're waiting for the process to do it. And good golly, that takes forever. You can just go a hundred hours just pooom — just waiting for the person to finally get up high-toned enough in spite of the withhold and everything, they suddenly say, „You know, I thought you were a bad auditor at first,“ or something like this, you know. It's quite remarkable, but boy, that's an awful waste of time and it's an awful waste of Clears to go at it this way, to break it down with a process.

Now, of course, in this machine age, the country is almost totally populated with people who are hard up against machines. And they get so used to running machines, you know. You press the right buttons and hoods go up and boots open and motors start and — maybe.

There's only one exception to this sort of thing. If you can't take a person down on the tone arm practically at once by getting them to get frank with you and tell you what the score is about all this, if you can't break that down almost at once toward Clear for that person's sex and if the person has been going on for years and years and years of processing without any gain or reality on Scientology, only then do you say, „This person has something in his past which is this lifetime and which if discovered would put him in prison.“ Or „This person has been doing something consistently and continually that he can't tell one person in particular — a Scientologist.“ And that would be overt acts against Scientology in general.

And they get so used to machinery that they think people ought to be all machinery, too. And they get very upset when somebody goes off the line.

This person has been in there kicking the show to pieces very often, while saying, „Well, we're supporting it all,“ and so forth. And it leads directly and immediately back to a criminal background or criminal activities. We have found this over a period of years.

As a matter of fact, a friend of mine one time (old science fiction writer, Paul Ernst) wrote a story one time called „He Didn't Like Soup.“ Possibly you've heard of me mentioning this before. But „He Didn't Like Soup“ was the name of the story.

But I have never yet, around the world, ever heard of a Scientologist calling for the police. Somebody robbed a cashbox once in an organization, and I — we had him by the ear practically and I had to plead with the whole staff! They were saying, „Oh, no, Ron, don't send him to jail,“ and so forth, „we can straighten him out. We can audit this person — now we know this person's so unreasonable recently. Don't turn him over to the cops.“

This fellow goes way ahead into a supermachine age society, you see, that's all assembly line and the belts run and supersocialism — nobody ever gets paid, you know. They're supposed to appear here and do this and their jobs are that and they're supposed to respond this way and that way and, you know, it's just all mechanical doll sort of thing. And this guy gets shot ahead in time and gets into this society. Must have been an Australian — he still had some individuality left.

Scientologists are against law and order by superduress. They think law and order should come about by improved cases. And they're right! They're right. Putting people in prison doesn't stop criminality; it increases it. Nobody'd let me put that person in prison. I didn't want to very hard myself, so I just skipped the whole thing. Actually, they were picked up a week later for impersonating an officer. I don't know, their luck must have gone bad.

And they get hold of him and they put him in this mess hall and — to feed him, you see — and the great big conveyer belts are coming along with huge plates of soup on them, you know. And of course, everybody when his plate of soup comes by, he goes... and puts the soup down in front of him, you know.

But you only find — you only find that these nonmoving cases that just never move and nothing ever happens and that go on for years with hundreds or thousands of hours of auditing — the only way that can happen is just if they ever did talk to a Scientologist they'd have had it. Because even a Scientologist, they feel, would do something to them for what they were doing. It's usually magnified in the person's mind but it's usually not very good.

Well, this guy is standing there and his plate of soup comes up on the conveyor belt and he says, „Sniff-sniff” He didn't take it off the conveyor belt!

We've found out, for instance, that every major push or area upset that we have ever had was occasioned by such a personality — no gain in auditing over years and years and years until we've begun to recognize that fact. It's the first question we ask. Has the person ever gotten any benefits from auditing? How long has he been around? So forth.

And of course, it goes to the end of the conveyor belt and it goes down with a clank, grinds to bits and stops the whole conveyor-belt system.

Well nowadays we don't get violent on the subject but we are apt to reach out and grab that person and sit him down and have a little talk with him on an E-Meter, and bust that tone arm down anyway.

Well, nothing like this — nothing as individual as this had happened in that society for so long, they didn't even have fuses left, you see. And of course, this shorts out all the fuses in all the power plants in the city. Eventually it's all traced back — the total ruination of that whole machine society is traced back to the fact that he didn't like soup!

We are our own best forces of law and order. And all unlawful activities actually stem from aberration, not from differences of opinion. They stem from obsessive individuation from their fellow man. And somebody was very right when he said that the criminal is antisocial, because he's obsessively individuated. And a person who is totally individuated from an auditing session is not necessarily criminal, but he's got some overt acts that you've got to get off, otherwise he continues to be individuated. And he's so individuated, in other words, he's so „only one“ — of course an auditor has no part in the session at all. And he's really sitting there self-auditing the whole time. No matter what the auditor's saying, that person can't be put under control, for instance. And you say to the person, you know, „All right, take your right hand and touch the top of your head.“ No sir! He's liable to take his right hand and sit on it. He'll do something else!

Well, thinking in these terms, a machine age has a tendency to devaluate the individual likes and dislikes of people. And they want them all the same, and they want them all squared up. And the only way you can do that is to package up valences and say, „This is the optimum person and you must be this person and you mustn't be any other person and you must have no other opinion but this person's opinion and this is the person you are!“ And then they use various mechanisms to do this.

You try to run something like old Start-Change-Stop on him, old SCS, something like that — boy, they practically fly out the windows. They must be different! They must be different to such a degree that they cannot communicate with anybody. And you try to run a communication process on a person like that and they start going pretty wobbly. They put new communications on the line.

Well, families start working on this. And after a person has lost too many times, he can be convinced that he himself can't win, but that some other packaged identity can win. Therefore, he buys the packaged identity that's being offered to him.

They do strange and weird things with communication. Communication to them, in the first place, is not explicit or expressed. It doesn't mean anything to them. You might as well say, „Where could you abracadabra to a mother?“ Communication isn't possible. Communication is something they put on a machine over here which talks. They never talk. That'd be fatal.

And the way you get a thetan to do this is just overtly give him loses, loses, loses. Make him guilty of this and guilty of that and guilty of other breaches and guilty of something else, and invent more things for him to be guilty of.

What society at large faces is the realization not so much that people are people — society faces a necessity to realize that anybody who is, originally was trying to do what they thought was best.

By the way, I almost brought down to you today — and then I thought, „Well, I won't give her that much swelled head“ — the goddess of destruction, Kali, that was being worshiped at a mad rate in India when I was there just a few days ago. The festival of the goddess Kali. So I picked up one of them. And — worship of destruction. And they explain to you lots of ways why you have to worship destruction, but all it adds up to is the fact that their tremendous impulse toward creation that we were talking about yesterday gives automatic impulse toward destruction. And probably today this is one of the most powerful gods of India — the goddess Kali, the destroyer.

It — if you try to break down somebody that you've had a violent argument with, you'll find out the argument was preceded by considerable effort on their part to do what they thought was best. That idea might have been quite aberrated, but they thought it was doing the best. And if you ever want to know the person you've been the angriest with in your life, it's the person that you tried most to help and failed. And you're doing what you thought was best and they never accepted your help and they never got better, and boy, you wind up willing to kill them! And that's how a society falls apart.

She, by the way, although I tagged a couple of people there in India with this fact — I said, „That used to be the goddess of the thuggee, didn't it? You know, the killer, the fellow who went down the highway and killed off all the pedestrians.“

Everybody thinks that everybody else's standard of conduct must be much different than their own. There must be great differences here somewhere or another. And they consider the other people so different than them that if they do one tiny little thing which seems to be against the social custom, they become to that degree unauditable. Because that's the basic upset in the bank in the first place. And if they've thought a bad thought about the auditor, you don't get them over the ARC break, they just go on ARC breaking. They keep on saying, „Oh, you're doing all wrong and I can't sit here and I can't listen to that woman any longer, and I'm not going to answer another single question. Go ahead and talk, I'm not going to answer you one.“

„Oh, well, yes, but actually she is the Divine Mother.“ And, you know, „He's a westerner, he doesn't know his business, so we'll give him a bunch of business.“ And they worship — they worship Kali.

It's a horrible fact that almost nobody suffers from anything ever done to them. The basic aberration is denial of self, invalidation of self — the most fundamental aberration. It doesn't mean there aren't aberrations on other dynamics, but that's the most fundamental one.

Now, Kali, of course, is a sort of a tailor-made valence itself. And it's the goddess of a criminal. And most gods — made-up gods of this character — are simply tailor-made valences of some kind or another.

Now, when this person has — has done something to somebody else, he is his own worst critic. And he goes along that way for a long distance. And as long as he's relatively sane — relatively sane — why, he is rather critical of himself Feels a little degraded, feels like he quite — hadn't quite played the game. He did somebody in one way or the other. He was responsible for something that he shouldn't have been responsible for. And he better not let other people find it out because he's really not quite as good as they are and all of that sort of thing, you know? That sort of thing runs through his mind.

Very often they try to trap thetans. They put up images and so forth that should be worshiped, you know, and they say, „A thetan ought to pick up one of these images,“ and so on. And after a while you've got a body. So, that's one of the trickiest methods of interiorization: to make a thetan have overt acts against bodies until he himself becomes one. It gives him a package of things to be and do.

Until you get the immediate crimes out of the road, they don't audit. You're asking processing to dredge up these crimes and wash them out unexposed and undiscussed. Processing can wash them out unexposed and undiscussed. It is possible, but it takes an awful long time.

Now, to free somebody along the line and restore to him his own judgment is not really as adventurous as you think because it's only when he is totally degraded that he does the wrong things, the bad things, and reacts with destruction and evil, and worships, you might say, the goddess Kali.

So much so — well, it used to be said — auditors in the US did a series of — I was processing a bunch of people and they did a series whereby I was taking regular HGC pcs and running them for five hours, and the other HGC pcs were being run for twenty-five hours by their auditors, and we were getting the same results. And they thought, „Boy, this is something,“ you know. Well, it might have been better insight or faster skill or closer „prosepah.“ I don't care what that was, I do know my subject.

A person has to be in pretty good shape to be pretty good. That's always true.

But — but, it did work out this way — I found out those people couldn't withhold information from me. They'd sit down in the auditing chair and they'd say, „Well, I'm going to withhold this from Ron,“ you know. Pow! And they'd just hand it to me, basically because they rather favored the idea that I would find out anyhow and they might as well cut their throats now as later.

Now, a valence is not the formless thing that you would think it was. It actually has form and mass. It has series of pictures that belong to it. It has whole series of tailor-made postulates, „now-I'm-supposed-to,“ that belong to it and so forth. It's a personality more or less complete. And preclears buy these things. They buy them off of Papa and they buy the valence off of Mama, and they buy it with the old school tie, and they buy it with how to be a good second lieutenant, although I never met one.

So, I never had pcs that were otherwise than in-session. And these other auditors doing thoroughly as good a job, the pc wasn't in-session so they weren't making the same gains in the same amount of time. It took them five times as long to make a gain as it did me. Well, that was just mainly — the main factor was, the pc that I had was in-session.

The valence is the profile response that most people react up to. And it's a truism that you are not really auditing the pc, you are auditing a valence. And if you just audit the valence and never, never, never address the problem of separating the pc out of these valences, of course, all you do is improve the valence.

You say, „Well, confidence has something to do with this.“ No, it isn't confidence; it's lack of overts. And the pc sits down in the auditing chair and all of a sudden spills all of his overts.

You just take a few „now-I'm-supposed-to's“ off the valence. And the pc says, „Well, I feel better.“

Girl says, „Well...”

Very often you get somebody who's very obsessed on the subject of a valence — boy, he really is the valence! — and just as he starts to get audited out of the valence you will notice that you're auditing him and he's auditing something else. You ever notice that? What you're saying really doesn't address itself to him. You're addressing it to him, and he's addressing it to that. And as he's — you'll ask him what he's got there and he'll say, „Well, I don't know. There's some sort of a mass or something that's kind of coming off here. And it's doing very well with the process.“

You say, „Well, what goals do you have — what do you want to accomplish? What do you want to get done in the session?“ so forth.

He's actually improving or auditing a valence. So that it is a tremendous advantage to have a process that strips valences.

„Well...”

Well, one of the first processes that abruptly stripped valences was, of course, a process which knocked out individuation.

„What goals do you want in this session?“ I say.

Now, what's „individuation“? Well, individuation means „I'm different from everybody“ — the differences between self and others. And when these differences are tremendous, the person, of course, cannot associate with or communicate with other people, no matter how important they are.

„Well... Well, I might as well tell you now. I've been married before and I've never been divorced, and I'm married again and if my husband found out he'd kill me!“

In other words, individuation, when it occurs, usually occurs because of valences, if you can understand that.

I say, „Fine, now you've got that out of the road, what are your goals for this session?“

The pc already has lost himself into another valence, and this valence he knew was very different than all other valences. So he's individuated himself around. Where as a matter of fact, a pc in perfectly good shape can go and sit down alongside the railroad track and talk to the tramps — he'd go down and talk to them, talk about tramping and so forth, and he doesn't get all soiled. It's not degrading. Then he can go up and talk to the bank presidents, you see. It doesn't make any difference. He can communicate — communicate with most anybody without terrific liabilities. It's only a valence that has terrific liabilities.

And they say, „Yeah, what do you know. I did tell him. Lightning didn't strike. Ceiling's still there.“

Now, a person wearing an old school tie talking to a person who has no old school tie is, of course, being degraded. A valence can lose out, you see, but the pc has a hard time losing out. It actually takes a long time to aberrate a pc. Took a long, long time to get somebody aberrated. Don't ever think they got aberrated in this life — they didn't. They've been working on it for a while.

That was the way it was. And yet somebody else would have fished around with that for a long time without very much happening. Just the fact that they figured I would find out — and as a matter of fact, I'm pretty good at finding out.

Now, separation and identification are, of course, things of more or less comparable magnitude. What's identification? Well, if I think I'm this microphone or if I think I'm that table, I have identified myself with the microphone or table. Okay?

You finally — if you've seen enough people, you can look at a person twenty feet away and you say, „That boy's got a charge on him and the charge is right now, and there's something wrong right here.“ And you'd say, „Well, that's it.“

Now, you can do this sometime on a postulate. You can say, „Well, I am that automobile. What's wrong with me? Ah! Now I am myself,“ back off, and you can say, „You know, that thing's got a busted crankshaft.”

As a matter of fact you can touch a person in the arm and tell whether or not he's had — got an overt against you. There's a lot of little tricks, once you learn. And people who are superindividuated from other people are particularly noticeable, and it's some sorrow to me to see some of the great leaders of the world so individuated from everybody else that I've got my ideas of what they've been up to.

„Now, you don't have to do it that stupidly mechanically to find out and pervade an automobile. You don't have to go into the valence of the automobile. It is just a method of finding out about it.”

Now, there are various ways of running sessions. You'll find out that a session that starts on an emergency basis is one of the most successful sessions. Then you really see Scientology working with great rapidity. There is no thought of withholding. Somebody has been hurt. Somebody is in trouble. Somebody is right on the edge of something. And boy, they give right now and they obey the auditing command because they're under duress, heavy duress. And you see Scientology pull them right out of the hole.

You know, you — a good mechanic can kind of be an automobile. That's right — it's right, you ask them. Yeah, they wouldn't really consider it a funny question if you said, „How does a motor with bad valves feel?“ Before they'd think about it, „Well, it feels kind of gappy and gritty.“

And one of the most spectacular things to do is to give somebody an assist immediately after they're injured. You have some trouble holding them in-session sometimes. Something on the order of — oh, somebody's been banged by an automobile fender.

But your ability to pervade your environment is, of course, a greater ability than your ability to communicate with your environment. Your ability to experience is greater than your ability to confront.

For some reason or other I never see many accidents. They tell me lots of accidents happen in the world and I just never seem to see them. I'm never around when they happen. I don't know why. I feel rather — rather fortunate or something of this sort, when once in a blue moon I can go around the block the other way anti find an accident and actually administer some processing and observe some actions and reactions and that sort of thing.

If you merely go around confronting the environment and say, „Well, I'll be brave and look at that wall,“ why, that's pretty brave.

But I've had a person who has been hit by the fender of a car while on a crosswalk recover almost at once from practically what must have been a broken hip. You know, „Touch the hip, touch the fender of the car.“ Cop comes along and says, „Sir, we'll have to call for an ambulance.“

But for you to say, „Well, I can be that wall,“ boy, that's adventurous. Because if we're busily in a valence, we know Mama could never be a wall. We know that.

„Sir, you had better get out of here. I'm a doctor taking care of this. Now, touch the hip, touch the fender, touch the hip, touch the fender, touch the pavement, touch the fender, touch the hip, touch the fender. Yes, that's right.“

But how did we get a valence in the first place? We tried to keep separate from somebody else. And we said, „Under no circumstances or conditions will I ever, ever, ever be that other person. Never! Never! Never?“

And the guy — grog, grog, you know. Pick up their hand and make them do the — touch the fender, touch the — bang! you know. The somatic comes off in an awful hurry. Boom! All of a sudden they say, „Boy, that's pretty sore.“

And you work on that hard enough, you know — separate! separate! „Over there, Satan,“ you know. And next thing you know you run out of separateness. You do! And you're the same thing.

You say, „Yeah, touch the fender, touch the hip. All right, that's good. Now here's my card. Officer, you'd better send for an ambulance if you are going to.“

People tend to become what they resist. Why?

In order to do things like that you have to control the whole environment. It isn't enough just to audit the pc. But you can do some very spectacular things at the moment of impact. You can patch up kids' aches and pains and so forth. There's nothing — nothing better than simply making them go to the point where they were injured and touch it — touch that exact location. Boy, the somatic flies off like mad!

Well, I gave you the answer yesterday. They won't create the other person, ever! Because it's a bad person. Never create the other person; we don't want that kind of person in the world. So, they make that person persist. And they make that personality persist and they make the most objectionable characteristics of that personality persist. And then they said, „I will never be them,“ and they get totally fixated on it. And the trick is, there's no space anyway, really — space is a mechanism that thee and me dream up. And you can run out of it awful fast.

I learned that one day trimming up rosebushes. And I was out of valence — I was way back on the backtrack — thought I was running a doll or something of this sort. And I was trimming up rosebushes without any gloves. Naturally, why — blood, you know. Very heavy, thick thorns of climbing roses, and I just carelessly ripped my hand up, you know. I said, „Well look at that,“ you know. „What's that?“ And reached back and touched the rosebush and felt the somatic turn on and went on down the line, saw the somatic running rather slowly out and got the sudden idea that — first place, the blood was getting on roses and things. So I went back and touched the place where I'd ripped my hand up. You know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. Didn't impress me very much.

And a little later — this was — very great subjective reality occurred on this one because a little later I was kicking over a racing motorcycle — I like to do things like that, stupid of me, but I do — and I was kicking it over and it was very high compression and it almost broke my ankle. I forgot to turn the spark off, you know, and almost broke my ankle. And I touched the starting bar a few times and ran the somatic out a little bit. Rode the bike halfway home and noticed my ankle was hurting.

You can sometimes get down and say, „There's space between me and it. There's space between me and it. There's space between me and it! Space! Oh, damn.“ Because your space depends on your ability to have anchor points out there. And when you keep on saying, „There are no anchor points out there,“ you're saying there's no space out there. So you're saying, when — „I won't be that person,“ you're disowning an anchor point. And you're not going to have any space between you and that person. That's the way it winds up and you get a valence. It's very tricky the way this thing works out and very complicated, but actually very simple.

And I said, „There's something wrong here someplace.“ Instead of just postulating it out of the way or doing something effective and efficient, why, I decided there might be some better way of going about this. So, I took the motorcycle back — well, I got home and wrapped my ankle up because it was beginning to swell. Took the motorcycle back to the place it had been at the moment I tried to start it and got kicked, and finished out the touch assist on the exact place and it ran out in another five minutes, swelling in the ankle went down and so forth.

A person says, „I'm incapable and unable of being that person. I will not be that person. I'm incapable of it. I'm unable.“ And it all shortens down to the fact „I'm incapable; I'm unable.“ And faced with (quote) „evil characteristics“ and so forth, a person tends to exclude those out of his own area of understanding and therefore they very often persist much better than good characteristics to him. And he goes into valences.

The exact location of something happening and an immediate address to an injury gives you Scientology at the ne plus ultra. It isn't that it won't run out otherwise. You don't always have to be in the same location, it just takes a little more time because you have to run out the difference of location. And if you've made the same location, of course, the difference of location is missing in the run and you've got it.

Well, let it be enough that you have seen boys going around being girls. Well, what's that but a snap between a guy and a girl?

It's like present lifetime seems to have greater reality on it than the last life. You see? In the last life, „Well, where was I? I don't know,“ and so on. And you get things, you got a picture, so it must have been, and that sort of thing. The present lifetime you're still around in the same environment that you were around in since birth, you see. You're actually processing in the same area of experience. So processing the same area of experience can be quite important.

And you've all occasionally seen girls going around being boys. Well now, what's that? That's a twist-up somehow or another on valences.

But basically, basically a person is willing to go into session when they're under heavy duress and emergency, but there is no reason to put a preclear under duress and emergency just to get processes run. Some auditors believe it is necessary; I never did.

A much more obvious and humorous one: It is very often remarked that „Englishmen resemble their dogs.“ I don't believe that's true, by the way. I believe the dogs resemble the Englishmen.

It's only necessary to get him in-session. Get him willing to talk to the auditor, willing to run the process, willing to obey the auditing command. And the only way he really gets there is to be interested in his own case and not withholding things from the auditor. You see, the reason they're not interested in their own case is they're so worried that the auditor may ask them that exact question which exposes all.

It's remarkable. You can go down to Hyde Park and watch it if you don't believe it.

So auditing exists in areas of free communication. And in the absence of free and optimum communication you get very slow progress. Scientology will still do the job, but it's very, very slow progress as compared to the progress that you get when communication is free and when you keep it patched up and keep it running smoothly. It's not processing that lies between lots of Clears and very few Clears. It's just that — not processes and technology — it's just that know-how: that know-how of how to get to a case; that know-how of how to audit the case, not audit the withholds of the case from you; that know-how of being able to break it down, establish an area of few communication and get the thing on the road in a hurry. You do that, you got lots of Clears, and if you don't do that, why, poor show. And conversely, you can't live around people that you're totally out of communication with without feeling very bitter about them.

Valences — valence characteristics have snapped back and forth one way or the other. And trying to maintain an obsessive difference puts identification or similarity totally on automatic.

If you want a happy environment, well, you'll just have to have an environment that you can be in communication with. So it works not only in sessions, but in life.

In other words, one never takes any responsibility for the similarities and runs out all the differences.

In the next lecture, I'll talk to you about this factor of individuation, because I think I've got it pretty well whipped, and show you you can even do more than I have told you about it.

Says, „I'm different. I'm a good boy; he's a bad boy.“ Yeah, well one never says, „I'm a bad boy, too,“ you know? Never says, „He's a good boy, too,“ you see? And this thing gets unbalanced — very unbalanced.

Thank you.

One says, „I'm different, different, different, different, different. Check over the number of ways I am different than Joe. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.“ And one forgets that basically one has trem — as many similarities to Joe as he has differences from Joe and never runs out, as-ises or does anything to those identifications, those similarities. And lets those sit there and so valences can snap. And those are the exact mechanics back of the thing.

It's very wrong for one to make an absolute villain out of anybody. There are no absolute villains.

You go around and talk to the villains and they all say, well, they did it out of the best possible intentions. It's amazing! Your jaw would drop to go and talk to a confirmed killer and find out, well, he just had to do it and the reasons why were all totally justified and nobody seems to understand him. Well, that's his corrupted, twisted, valenced version of „why he did it.“ And that's very, very confusing to us.

We say, „Well then, a person's good intentions lead him into criminality,“ and so forth. No, they weren't his own intentions at all — they were criminal intentions. He was a valence. He no longer had control of the situation or he would have done quite differently than he did.

But the final analysis is ... Some people don't like to hear me run down psychiatrists — they've never been to them. They don't. And one of the things they're trying to do is protect me, really, kind of, from doing some kind of a snap into that much grogginess. Of course, I don't mind being a psychiatrist. I'm certainly not one.

And as a matter of fact, it's very amusing to go around and talk to psychiatrists and feel what it'd be like to be guilty of that many overt acts. It's kind of weird.

But I don't have to be different, you see? And I don't have to be like them, and this problem doesn't come up. But every person as a little child is asked to make up his mind — asked to make up his mind whether he's going to be like Papa or like Mama or dislike Papa or unlike Mama.

And I've seen girls around — poor things — they couldn't cook, couldn't sew, couldn't do anything around the house and couldn't work outside and couldn't hold down a job, merely because they „wouldn't be like Mother!“ And Mother unfortunately could cook, sew, work outside, hold down a job. Now, the poor kid's had it! Maybe Mother had lots of ability in a very nasty sort of way. And the little kid had to make up their mind, „I don't want to be like that. I don't want to be this mean to people. And therefore I must discard all those abilities that's Mama.“

And you very often find that Mama did have some nasty characteristics and the child, in trying to avoid those nasty characteristics, has decided not to have any of the good characteristics at all.

All right, this poor little kid grows up, the years go on, gets married and all of a sudden snapped! Still can't cook, sew or anything, but has picked up some kind of semipackage of all the nasty characteristics, and can't work either. And then all of a sudden reforms totally and can cook and sew and work outside and do everything and is nasty to everybody.

And the pathetic part of it is, is this person knows this is wrong. This person doesn't feel right. And you ask most people who are having a hard time, „What would you like to be?“ And the usual response is, „I'd like to be myself.“ It's sort of on the order, „If anybody ever dug me up... If I could ever dig me up... The things I'm doing aren't me — who are they?“

Well, that's very easy to find out on an E-Meter. You can find out who they're being.

And what you do is assess them for this — lifetime valences they've adopted by finding the greatest needle reaction on broad classes, like men, women, go up the dynamics, sort out all the possibles by broad classes and find some class that reacts on the needle more than others. And then that class which reacts more than others, narrow that class down and you'll find the valence which is the most difficult valence of the case to do anything with.

You just narrow it right on down. You could actually exploit the thing I'll give you a better example of how you do it: eight dynamics. And you just take — run the dynamics describing what each dynamic is, not necessarily calling them first dynamic, second dynamic and so forth. Describe each dynamic in turn and find out which one of these seems to fall differently than the rest. And maybe you find suddenly that it's the fifth dynamic „living things.“ „Man“ doesn't fall, nothing else falls, but „living things.“

And you'll find out somebody's being a tree. And you just narrow the thing down. You've got living things out of eight possible choices, now you narrow down that one choice by dividing it up into classes: birds, beasts, fish, you know — vegetable matter, animals, whatever it is. And you'll get one of these drop better and if you're real clever on the E-Meter you'll come down and find nut. the person's being a juniper tree! That's factually, factually — I'm giving you an actual case.

Another actual case that fell on the fifth dynamic one time was a dog The only companion of this little girl had been a dog and the dog hated all dogs. And if you don't think that wasn't a puzzle! She couldn't possibly be a dog because she hated dogs. Yeah, but she was being a dog hating dogs. Got the idea? Yet she was being herself somewhat, but being a dog, but she hated dogs. She couldn't explain this. But some processing knocked out the valence.

And there are numerous ways to get rid of a valence once you've got the thing nailed down.

Some of the older ways is „How could you help a dog?“ you see — whatever the valence you found. „How could you help a dog? How could the dog help you?“ That would be one of the very old ways of doing this.

You could go around a five-way bracket, numerous questions. And the person, in finding out how he could help something and how it could help him and so forth, would tend to individuate from this thing and you'd get a separation of valences.

That's one of the oldest very good „valence splitters,“ we've called them.

There are many others earlier than that, but that one was so good and is so good today that it's the first one actually that you'd consider a very effective valence splitter.

You locate this valence, you find out what it is, you find out who this person is being. It doesn't matter what you find out — he's being a traffic cop, she's being a — she's being a waitress in a hotel, or — we don't care what it is. Then we run this valence on Help: „How could you help a waitress in a hotel? How could a waitress in a hotel help you? How could other people help a waitress in a hotel? How could a waitress in a hotel help other people?“ and so forth. You do get a valence change. That does change a valence and that was the first very, very effective one. And that was sufficiently effective that it led in — well, it's less than 50 percent of the cases — to what you might call a MEST Clear. It was that good — that good. It did clear off these valences and all the auditor had to do was get in and slug, slug, slug and pick up the next valence and run it and pick up the next valence and run it and finally they'd come down to the first time the person ducked his own identity and assumed another identity, and we call that the Rock.

In other words, we eventually found the first time on the track that this happened. But it wasn't for everybody, this series of processes — it still left a lot of people cold.

Help worked on them, but the accompanying process to get rid of the rest of the bank, called Step 6, made the bank more solid and more uncomfortable. And so it wasn't for everybody.

And from that time — that was 1957, late fall when I first broke this out — and from that time on forward, why there have been many advances on this particular lineup and we've been ... We found out something about MEST Clears, by the way, that a MEST Clear still has it in his power to postulate himself into an aberrated condition. That's what happens to MEST Clears.

Person gets cleared up to a certain point — they can postulate, but they haven't learned yet that they can postulate. You get the idea? And before they learn that they can make postulates or make statements, make thoughts, make goals, make dreams, so forth and make these things stick, before they really find this out, they sometimes — this is not in all cases, but in some cases, why, they'll make invalidative postulates.

And they'll say, „Well, I'm not so good. I still have a bank,“ — they got one!

Those that are just on the brink, they can postulate themselves right downhill again rapidly. They never get as bad off as they were, but they can dump themselves over the edge from Clear.

Now, Theta Clear, of course, is more what we're angling for. This is a much more important thing because a Theta Clear is himself and doesn't even have to depend on a body to be himself And that you'd kind of define without any further mechanical ramifications, you'd say, „Well, this person has a body, is living, is identified by a body and is known as a body but doesn't actually have to depend totally upon the characteristic of a body to himself have a personality, ideas or thoughts.“

Got the idea? He knows he is doing the living. He isn't a servant of the lamp or the body, you know. Whether he can go in and out of his head like a dog in and out of a doghouse or something, that's — that's beside the point!

Now, that state is again achieved by the separation of valences and I have found this basic thing about valences: Valences occur because of obsessive separation from — on all dynamics. Obsessive separation.

Person says, „Mustn't-mustn't-mustn't.“ And leave the identification on automatic.

Now, it can go reversewise. A person says, „I am this valence. I am this valence. I am a good boy. Every night before I go to bed I will say, 'I am a good boy“' or „I am a good girl. Every night before I go to sleep, I'll say, 'I am a good girl' twenty times and I'll eventually be a good girl, and I'll be the girl that Mama wants me to be,“ and so forth. And the next thing you know, why, they're out robbing banks. How did that happen?

Well, they went on an obsessive identification. So separation and identification are the two opposites. One is either separate from or identified with or on the verge of becoming either one about the whole universe.

Identification. You look in Book One, Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health you'll see A=A=A=A. Well, that is the story of valences. Anything equals anything.

In other words, „I equal a body.“ See? That's an identification.

„I am Mother.“ See? That's identification.

It's not a correct statement. I don't care if a thetan has a body that has babies, that thetan is not a mother! Look it over for a minute. That thetan is being a mother. Slight difference.

Many a man gets very upset about being a family man because he has to say all the time, „I am a father. I am a father. I am a father. I am a father,“ you know. It's borne down on him completely and continually, „I am a father.“ He's not a father, he's being a father. His role is that of father and he is trying to say he is totally identified with this thing called a father.

Now, if he didn't like his own father, you see, he'll say, „I don't want to be a father,“ and oh, oh, well, here we go, you know. Confusion, confusion, confusion.

But there's those two opposites: separateness and identification. There's a simple process that takes care of that state.

You do the assessment — this is brand — new, never been released, there's not even an HCOB out on it. You find the thing the person is obsessively identifying himself with — the person or thing he is obsessively being — and you will find the thing that he really doesn't want to be, which he is being. Therefore he hates himself or he dislikes himself or he feels degraded. And you find this thing, whatever it is, and then you run a very simple process on it and, of course, a very obvious process on it. You knock out this obsessive „got to be different from it“ that is keeping him in it.

And it runs like this: You say any wording which adds up to, „Tell me something different from this object. Tell me something the same as this object.“ — „Tell me something you do differently from your father“ or „Tell me something you are different in — any difference.“ Any way you want to phrase it. And I'm not giving you any pat command because I want you to understand it.

„Now, tell me something the same as _______. Tell me something different from _______. Tell me something the same as _______. Tell me something different from _______.“ Got the idea?

You could say, „Tell me something that you are different from your father in,“ you see? „Tell me something that you are the same as your father.“

Get the idea? Difference-similarity; difference-similarity; difference-similarity.

Identification is composed of difference and sameness, and by getting both of these plowed out on alternate commands, you can make valences go zzzuppp. And they separate out and all of a sudden the fellow says, „Oh, do I feel degraded.“

You say, „What's the matter?“

„Well, I don't feel like I'm my father anymore.“

[Editor's Note: This small section of the original recording was damaged. Fortunately, another recording of this section of the lecture was located and has been restored to preserve the full text of the lecture.]

You say, „Oh, you feel very, very degraded, do you? Now, why do you feel degraded?“

„Well, I just feel degraded, that's all. I feel like a little kid.“

You've found the point where he lost himself and became the other fellow. You just run the process a while longer and he will at least get back the same morale he had when he was a little kid.

Now, we've got to go a little further than this and find out somebody else he's busily being and chase it down on a new assessment and then run „same“ and „different.“

„Tell me something that's the same as _______. Tell me something different from _______,“ until we get this next valence straightened out. Now we do another assessment and „same“ and „difference“ and we get that, so on.

Now, this particular type of process to an old-time auditor would seem to violate havingness. The individual is losing something, isn't he? He's losing valences; he's losing package responses. And that would seem to be an actual loss.

No, the only valences you'll want and the only valences you'll take off are the things where he's so different from everything else that he can't have anything. And every time you take off a valence or improve the condition of the pc, you improve his havingness because the only way you can have anything is to kind of be able to be it.

For instance, if you're obsessively different from a wall, you certainly can't have the wall. And if you're a valence that can't have walls, you can never have walls. And the thing to do is to take off the valence that can't have walls and even though you've lost the valence, you've got walls now.

It's quite remarkable to find that valences do separate on something as easy as this. There's a great oddity about this: This is specially forbidden in old-time Buddhism. A Buddhist must never think of similarities and identities or separatenesses. He's not supposed to think separatenesses.

Boy, don't tell me some of these religions got into a trap, because that one was certainly a trap. If a person never thinks of separatenesses and never thinks of identities, he certainly can never get out of a valence, can he? And yet that was forbidden in this ancient religion.

But here we have ways and means, then, of finding the person. And the person became somebody else because he himself could no longer be himself because he conceived that he had to be separate from or he had to be the same as. And if you run out both sides of that, of course, you run out the valence.

This is rather terrific — this is rather terrific processing and you'll want to try it out. It takes an E-Meter. It takes something that you run down. It's something that can be done in the HGC. The HGC will be doing that here in Melbourne very shortly — this week.

You have to trace it out and find exactly what the thing is and then get all the reasons why, you might say, the fellow couldn't be it and had to be it. And the second that's all off, he breathes a sigh of relief and becomes that much more himself

Of course, it takes some nerve to do this because somebody sitting there well provided for with a fairly successful valence sometimes feels like he's taking his valence in his hands! And here we go.

One of the more difficult factors in running this just comes up against that. Whenever a person moves out of a valence, he moves into a feeling of degradation for the first few little times that he's tentatively being more himself

All the degradation there is on a case is on self. And it starts coming off the second they start getting rid of valences.

That's one of the reasons you hate to see people go away, because you see somebody go away and you instantly feel that you're kind of degraded. Did you ever notice that? Well, that same sensation of loss will overtake a person for a few commands after he starts to lose Papa.

You know, he hated Papa's guts. If he'd — and yet, there goes Papa, you know, and — not too sure that's a good thing, you know. Because a little boy needs Papa! And then there goes the valence.

Well, I hope that information is of some use to you. And I wanted to have some new material to give you here at this congress so I carefully kept that one suppressed from the time I have learned it and handed it over to you.

You won't think it's very good until you watch a pc's face start changing — „Well! Came in Papa in one session and went out Mama.“

Well, thank you very much, and I'll be talking to you shortly.

[End of Lecture]