Что ж, держу пари, что кому-то любопытно, почему все стулья стоят таким образом.

Good evening.

Ну, в этот час я собираюсь провести процессинг.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And here we move into the evening of the second day of the congress. Is it?

Я собираюсь провести невозможный процесс. Я собираюсь провести совершенно невозможный процесс, который никто из присутствующих не сможет выполнить, и тогда я выиграю, а вы проиг...

Audience: Yes!

Нет, это старый стиль одитинга, я имею в виду, знаете, когда преклир проигрывает, то одитор может выиграть. Это старый стиль.

All right.

Знаете, давным-давно, давным-давно, во времена курса «Дианетического одитора Хаббарда». Помните? Одитор садится на стул, знаете, и говорит преклиру: «Ложитесь сюда. Ложитесь сюда. Да, так. Так. Хорошо. Закройте глаза. Закройте глаза. Хорошо. Так, мы будем проходить... мы будем проходить рождение. Да. Я знаю, просто лежите здесь. Хорошо. Просто... Нет, не о чем беспокоиться, не о чем беспокоиться. Я просто инстинктивно чувствую, это то, что следует пройти. Хорошо. Сейчас соматическая лента пойдёт назад, к началу рождения. (Щёлк!) Вы там? Хорошо. Давайте получим первую фразу. Хорошо. Повторите её. Повторите её. Так. Ещё раз. Ещё раз. Как дела? Никак? Ну что ж, слушайте, слушайте, вот что я вам скажу. Садитесь, садитесь на стул вот здесь. Я... Правильно, я сам провёл несколько тяжёлых часов. Теперь продолжайте, пройдите это».

Well, this evening - this evening I would like to start out on this evening's lecture by getting down to business on this thing called Training Drills. And I'd just like to skip and skimp and skid over these Training Drills and CCH drills, not in the hope that you learn anything from them, but just so you'll get the idea that they're terribly difficult. Actually I gave you a session, a group session, in the last two hours of this afternoon that might have seemed to you different than other Group Processing I had given you. Seemed just a little different, didn't it? A couple of people around, they thought they'd do another command or think something else and they didn't.

Я не хотел никого обидеть. Даже это было намного лучше, чем «Садитесь сюда. Начинайте говорить» - два года спустя он всё ещё говорит; то, что осталось от него. Психо-анализм.

Well, of course, I'm not the expert on this. I'm not the expert on this. The people who gave the group intensives are the expert on this. But that's actually Tone 40. And the only reason I modified it at all was - just at the beginning there and took it off of Tone 40 a bit - was to get a few acknowledgments through, get you used to the idea.

Ну что ж, сегодня... сегодня мы далеко ушли от этого, и наш групповой процессинг ушёл так же далеко. Так, у нас тут довольно много людей, и есть четыре или пять человек, которые работают в зале, но я хочу попросить вас, чтобы вы сотрудничали со мной и выполняли команды одитинга так, как они Даются.

But Tone 40 is, of course, indescribable. It is something that has to be experienced by an auditor. Now, at first you say, „Well, that's easy; it's just a high-toned - you know, you just audit high-toned and you ignore everything the preclear says and does.“ And of course Article 16 of the Code of the Auditor - that goes by the boards; there's no two-way communication there.

И принимая во внимание тот факт, что некоторые из вас получали очень хорошие групповые интенсивы, мне совсем не придется рассматривать этот предмет.

Article 16, if you remember, says remain in two-way communication with the preclear. And of course Tone 40 violates that, doesn't it?

Now, something's very odd. I will give you a drill you can practice at home and you will know what it is after you've done it for a few hours. To describe it to you just as such really is not feasible, because it is, you see. And for once we're auditing above verbal. And therefore if you audited above verbal you certainly wouldn't describe above verbal. Would you?

Well, what's very fascinating is that we have managed to articulate in Dianetics and Scientology and verbalize existence. This is a rather fantastic thing.

Somebody who was an expert on semantics said to me, one day, he said, „That's impossible.“

And I said, „I know it. That's why I did it.“

But there is one thing which does not verbalize, and that is Tone 40. We could just... I could stand up here and say, „Well, Tone 40 is so and so and so,“ and read Science of Survival. You could learn something about it in Science of Survival. Look it up, read it up... . Of course, serenity, you've known people in serenity before.

But it fortunately is not beyond the bounds of experience. You can experience it as a preclear. And you can certainly experience it as an auditor. So it is not describable, but it is experienceable. That's quite interesting. And in view of the fact that it is very easily experienceable and really rather easily assumed - after you've killed yourself a few times - there isn't any real reason to go at it and chew it up and describe it and formulize it and lay it all out cold on the table and so forth, because there's a Training Drill that communicates what it is to you. And that Training Drill is called Tone 40 on an Object. And we'll get around to that in due time.

The essence of modern auditing is intention. People wonder what an intention is. Well, intention is the command factor, as much as anything else. If you intend something to happen, it happens - if you intend it to happen.

Somebody came around one day, and he said, „You know, after you've given the command with full intention, shouldn't you have a signal to tell the fellow?“

If you have full intention on an auditing command, I assure you of something - that the preclear does it. Now, it's more than just knowing the preclear is going to do it. Your intention itself puts it straight across. Well, the only reason I start out this dissertation - having already covered that dirty word control - the only reason I start out the dissertation on the Training Drills and CCH which we are now embarked upon with Tone 40 on an Object is that it as a drill imparts to auditing a rather new flavor. A British auditor said, „You've finally told us where to audit from.“

Now, there's an old method we used to use whereby we took the preclear on the Tone Scale - we matched the tone as an auditor - and we audited him. If he was a preclear in grief we found out we got along just fine if we sort of said, „Well, (sniff!) go over it again. (sniff! sniff!)“

That was an old system. And we sort of pulled out of that and said: Well, an auditor's a rather disciplined individual, and he gives his commands in an orderly way, and he acknowledges what the preclear says, and he does this and that and the other thing. And we came up a bit Tone Scale - up a bit with our auditing, but we didn't expect to land at this new level.

Now, I don't pretend that a lot of auditors who are doing (quote) „Tone 40“ (unquote) auditing are auditing at Tone 40. They are maybe hitting 22.0 or 20.0 or 18.0 or something of that nature.

At the ultimate if you with full intention from Tone 40 were to tell your chair to rise in the air, there it would go! Do you see that?

Well, we don't have to get that extreme to have this work.

Tone 40 on an Object is a very interesting process, which we will take up later. The essence of it is very simple. All you do is tell an ashtray, preferably not a clear and invisible one but a colored ashtray, to sit down. You thank it for having sat down. You tell it to stand up. And you'll thank it for having stood up. And because you're not quite to Tone 40, you use your hand to make it obey you. And after you've done this drill for a little while you will say, „Now, wait a minute. Intention is not the words.“ So there's a part of Tone 40 on an Object, while we're doing this, by which we just say gobbledygook, you know? We say, „Gobbledygook; gobbledygook; gobbledygook; gobbledygook.“ You see, anything like that. Or we say, „Psst.“ Or somebody says, „Eeny-meeny miny-moe.“ Verbalization is not the intention. The intention is the carrier wave which takes the verbalization along with it.

So we've stopped counting totally on telling auditors that they must speak clearly - they must intend clearly, now. And if they intend clearly, how they speak doesn't matter. If you do a Tone 40 intention, you can give an apathetic command. It wouldn't make any difference at all. You know, sound apathetic. Give a Tone 40 intention and say, „(Sigh) Sit down.“ It wouldn't matter.

Now, just how high and how far Tone 40 goes has very little bearing on case. For a long time we said, „Well, that auditor couldn't audit well because his case was in bad shape.“ We don't care what kind of shape his case is in now. He can do it or he can't; and it's just as open and shut as that. He can do it or he cannot. And if he drills long enough at it he can do it; so QED.

Now, here's something very peculiar. Somebody who has been drilled thoroughly in this and who has been practiced considerably in auditing gets to a very interesting state. He walks out and he says to a waitress, „Bring me a steak,“ and he gets a steak. His intention is sufficiently clear that handling of Homo sap becomes one of the easier things he should do.

And anybody who's worried about people and who studies and drills up on these various Training Drills, all by himself will discover with great subjective reality that auditing does not end in the auditing room, but how does one live without it? It's a livingness proposition.

For instance, I thought I was slipping here last night. It was quite late and I said thank you to a elevator boy. He opened the door for me and said something or other and I thanked him. I said, „Thank you.“ And I threw a thank you at him, you see, with his intention to receive it and so forth. And he just stood there and - you know, getting ready to shut the door. And so I walked out of the car and I turned the corner, and all of a sudden he stepped out of the car and he said to me, „Good night!“ How much circuit did that thank you have to soak through! Well, I didn't particularly intend to impress this man, I wasn't auditing him. And our mission and goal isn't to make every human being into a puppet.

Funny part of it is that you can take a preclear and get an acknowledgment through to him or get a command through to him; just one acknowledgment or one command. You're liable to change his case just like that!

Well, a bunch of people going irresponsibly through the society giving people orders and thank-you's and that sort of thing and having these people wake up and say, „Hey, what do you know - a world!“ It'd be very damaging.

The psychological department of the Bide-A-Wee Social Agency, which runs up in Silver Spring in a state near here that is a traitor to the Confederacy... Never joined the Confederacy, you know. Us Southerners have never forgiven it. Even us Northerners think it should. And us Westerners know we got founded because as a result of. Very important state up here - Maryland. And this state - this state has a social agency with well Marxist-trained people running it.

By the way, I'm sorry. I meant... I meant to keep sweet-tempered and Tone 40 all the way through this congress. And... But I read this in the paper last night and I'm sure you did too. Some people had a little two-and-a-half-year-old girl and they'd given her an intelligence test and she was so bright that the people were then not going to be permitted to adopt any other children.

The people who were realizing her and her IQ were not associated in the minds of the - hah! - psychologists. See, they didn't think then that another child put in that atmosphere would increase in IQ or change in any way. And we know that a decent home life and that sort of thing can markedly affect children's IQs. If we can change them, then, there must be other things, such as mother's love and that sort of thing that can change an IQ. There must be other things.

Psychologist, because it best... I was going to say because it best suited the Kremlin. That's unfair. I know two psychologists in the United States who are not members of the Communist Party! They died before it was formed. I'm going to keep it hightoned, now, I give you my word.

But they wouldn't let this couple adopt another child because their first child was too bright and the new child coming into that atmosphere would have probably been made unhappy. One of the former staff members of the FC went out to get a job out in - as they sometimes refer to it - the outside world, and went over to Skiplanger's... uh... Klipinger's. They publish a libel sheet, a slander sheet of some kind or another, here. I don't know, it has to do with senator's wives; I don't know what they publish. But this organization gave her an intelligence test before they would take her into employ. And she came back and the personnel director was saying, „Tsk-tsk-tsk-tsktsktsh-tsk. We really hate to employ you, you know. You're too bright for the position.“

This is gorgeous, you know. I don't know what they think they're pulling by telling people they're too bright or could be too bright, or something like that. I suppose their idea of brightness ... It'll get worked around by the slave mongers yet, where brightness will be defined as „that ability to tell how bad it's going to be.“ That probably will be intelligence. At least that seems to be the trend.

But an individual, an individual who is in communication with the environment around him, can recognize the factors of the environment; he can observe; he can find out what's going on. And if he is capable of outflowing a high-toned intention, command and so forth, then he's also capable of communicating with those things in the universe which are not in too bad a condition. Don't you see? Out-in.

So I just wanted to tell you this so you wouldn't think you were going to go totally out of communication with your entire neighborhood. You go around and buy the morning paper and you say, „Give me the paper,“ and „Thank you,“ in a good Tone 40 way - not like that, I'm not trying to blast you out. And the next thing you know, in the next couple of days, why, the grocery man that you bought the paper from, he's saying, „Hello, how are you?“ you know? „Nice to see you.“ People are liable to get into communication with people in your vicinity.

Of course, we know that would be bad. We know that there's nothing but badness there to be communicated with. Psychology has proved... I'm going to keep this on a high tone.

But there you see a new hope that has nothing to do with auditing at all. If a strata of the society suddenly came up here that the rest of the society would then get in communication with, boy, we'd have it made.

So don't think of all of these Training Drills as entirely and completely dependent upon auditing. And don't think of auditing as a profession which cools down overheated skulls.

Somebody wrote me one time, said apologetically, „I'm sorry I haven't been doing very much for you. I meant to when I left HCA class, but I came back and the accounting business which I had kept increasing in volume and is now consulting with other accounting businesses, and we're in the organizational business of accounting. And, of course, we use Scientology in this all the time, but I'm awfully sorry I've failed you because I'm not auditing professionally.“

That's quite interesting. It's quite interesting to watch the curve of success of Scientologists. Well, nothing, nothing curves it up faster than these Training Drills I'm talking about right now. They don't leave very much to the imagination on how to handle people.

If you're talking to somebody who is a pretty comm-laggy sort of a fellow (you know, you say, “Good morning,” and he says, „Don't want any“), and you have to do business with this fellow; it's rather interesting to be able to talk to him in such a way that he will not comm lag on you and will answer your questions rather directly and then go off and do what you asked him to do. It's very interesting. It makes it possible for a successful sphere to operate even on Earth today.

Therefore, the stress on this was at first auditing, because it does make a crackerjack auditor. All of the auditing drills we have now are all pointed - were pointed - at the direction of auditing. And they have all emerged into a training series on how to communicate and control and own things and have things and do things, you see? And it's just as though we had opened up a brand-new door that we didn't have any intention of doing.

Now, a person who doesn't know how to audit well couldn't talk to this comm-laggy fellow that said he didn't want any. In the first place you'd flip him if you didn't throw a comm bridge into your conversation. He's liable just to, „Whoow, what's happened here?“ and go completely out of communication, you see?

You talk to people all the time without - well, I'm sure not you, but other people - who would not respond to anything less than an auditing technique. And if you give them something else beside auditing in your communication with them, they go thuuuuh, wobble-wobble, and they don't know which way they're going.

Now, of course, lots of you, being auditors - you being an auditor or you knowing something about it - may have a subjective reality on this from your own viewpoint. But you've got to be outside watching an auditor or two work on the public before you really get a full objective reality on this.

I'll give you an idea how things can change. There's another Training Drill called High School Indoc, which teaches mayhem. Its whole thing is to demonstrate that mayhem is feasible, possible and legal.

High School Indoc is very important because most people when they start to audit, they come out of the swamp and they say, „Well... look at the wall.“

They have a certain diffidence about all this. Well, you take somebody that's been in Scientology for a little while and he's run through High School Indoc and he says to this fellow, „Look at the wall.“ And the fellow who is a Scientologist goes over - clank!

„Now, walk over to the wall.“ There's the... there's the essence of the thing. He gets over his diffidence about touching things. Well, after all, touching is merely communication. The person must have been diffident about communication. Let me tell you, us old guys in Dianetics were practically licked when the preclear said, „No, I won't run it!“ You see? There he was lying on the couch suffering, and we said, „Go over it again.“ And he said, „I won't!“

Well, you could persuade and plead and so forth and so on. Well, there isn't any way we knew of then to give the engram a tap on that side and slide it through.

But this person wouldn't have us licked today because we wouldn't be running engrams on him until he could follow orders. See, we just wouldn't be running engrams on him. We just wouldn't be running a subjective process that we couldn't watch ourselves with great ease.

All right. We take this High School Indoc. Well, you run into somebody in a bar and he's abusive. You walk in and he's abusive, rrrr-rrrr-rrrr-rrrrrrrr. The only answer we had in the past was if he took a poke at us was to take a poke at him. You get the idea? That was the closest man came to contact with each other - a good, swift uppercut.

But I saw something fantastic in a restaurant in London. A little pint-sized girlauditor. It was a German restaurant. There was a fellow going „Rrrr-rrrr-rrrr-rrr. Rrrrrrrr.“ And she turned around and saw that he was finished with dinner and took him by the shoulder and said, „Get up, turned him around”. Said, „See the door?“ He said, „Yeah.“ He didn't have another word to say. He felt very cheerful. He probably - being in a sleepwalking state, he probably never realized that he'd been mad. But maybe he went outside and woke up, who knows? Now, there's an oddity.

Originally over in London, why, you'd see a couple of Scientologists - British are very polite - and one would open the door for the other outside of the headquarters and so on. Open the door, you know, and then follow through, you know - not touching him. Now, why, two Scientologists walk along and they walk toward this door and one takes the other by the shoulder and puts him through the thing. You see it all the time. I mean, you've gotten to think of this as totally ordinary.

Those of you who have seen High School Indoc, have been through it and so on, you think this is very ordinary. It's not ordinary! Not out in the society! No sir, not a bit. Not ordinary at all. People are still going this way, you know, „Oh, excuse me.“

We're getting as bad as the Japanese who go „Hss-hss-hss.“ You know what all that hissing is about, by the way? You know it's not an outflow hiss. You knew that. It's a hss-hss-hss. It's an inflow hiss. And they mean by it, „I withhold my foul breath from your face.“

Well, auditors even breathe on each other these days.

Well, what brings about such changes? Just Training Drills like High School Indoc, with which nearly all of us are familiar.

But what brings about reality in any of these things? Well, the funny part of it is, is you could talk all day and all night to somebody in an actual auditing session, telling him - you know, prodding him along, coaching him and so forth. We did this years ago. We used to take tapes of people auditing and then analyze the tape and then put them into a new session and so on. Just groove them anyway we could, and explain how it is to them, give them examples and so on. Boy, that's the slow way.

What I've done here is take auditing apart into its various parts, which is to say take human relations apart into their various, tiny, fragmentary parts. Then you teach a person to do all the parts, and then progressively teach him to do two or three of the parts at once. And the next thing you know it's - there he is, see? And it's this type of synthetic drill which has made it possible for us to come up to a level and which made it possible for us to venture into this - well, from 1950 viewpoint - impossible height of auditing. We could have talked about this and probably did, all day and all night, back in 1950, about how an auditor should audit from a high-toned level, and that sort of thing.

But what was it? What did it look like? And how could anybody be taught to do it? Well, there are ten Training Drills. Deceptive because there's Training 0, which you did the other night and got a... just a little taste of; just hardly any. Confronting somebody doesn't get tough until about the second hour, then it starts.

These first ten drills also have some alternate drills or accompanying drills. They're training... like Training 5B, which is another Training Drill. For somebody coming through later, the first basic Training Drills teach a person to do the most important steps; and these others are sort of putting the parsley on it, you know?

There's Training 13, for instance, which is called Fishing a Cognition. That's how you fish a cognition out of somebody. Well, it can be phrased as a drill and it can be done as a drill. But this is not as important as being able to sit and confront somebody and audit them, you see? Therefore it takes a secondary importance.

Well now, the development of these drills began many, many years ago really. We worked them out and we did pieces of them, we set examples and so on. But they didn't get specialized until the middle of '56, and then it was just the communication end of it, which was 0 to 6 - Training 0 to 6.

Training 0 is simply confront somebody.

Training 1 is Dear Alice. And getting a phrase or statement or remark across to a person, regardless of the tone, but getting it across to the person is the goal of Training 1.

And then Training 2 is how to acknowledge. How to acknowledge a statement that has been made or an action that has been executed - how to acknowledge.

Training 3 is repetitive question. Then how to handle originations.

And, finally, how to put these together in a nonverbal fashion.

Well, these are quite elementary. A person ordinarily goes all the way up through - those I've just described constitute the Communication Course because those are the steps of communication. And they constitute no more and no less than the communication formula, and take the various parts of the communication formula in Scientology, which are important, and show a person that he can use each one of them. And then he gets a little practice using them all and the next thing you know he's doing a good job.

Well, we move then rather rapidly up toward Tone 40 when we get into the upper - what we call Upper Indoctrination - the upper steps. Now we get - as one of the Training Drills, the first one of those, we get Plain 8-C which is just plain 8-C. People in Scientology say, „It could not possibly seem adventurous to give direct orders to a body, telling it to walk around the room and touch the walls. That's just nonsense. I mean, easiest thing anybody ever did.“

But if you thought a little bit you could remember back to a day when this would have been a rough one for you to do. So we have to look at it from a student's viewpoint. A student comes in and he takes a look at this and he says, „You know, that's not quite as easy as it sounds.“ That's just verbal. That's just verbal; we just give him the orders and we hope he executes them.

Now, we move upstairs from this and we get into a much beefier sort of thing. Now is the first time that a coach gets his revenge - a Training Drill called High School Indoctrination. That was its name, is its name, and all of this training, all it consists of is somebody who will not do, in an orderly and decent fashion, 8-C. The coach gets a chance to abreact all of the boo-boos and nonsense that have been pulled on him by preclears. Very, very healthy to run that side of it as a coach. But that isn't what we're teaching people to do.

And there the coach, in this particular case, and the auditor are, you might say, at tooth points. The only thing that's not allowed in there by modern rules is that the coach must not lie down on the floor. Anything else goes. The one reason why is because 8-C by definition is something that is run on a person who can stand up. That is actually today what we say is the necessary basis of running an 8-C process: the person must be willing to stand up. And that is the basis of running it. We have processes that undercut this.

But we move up into that bracket and actually we have seen, then, all of and the last of what you might call „yak-auditing.“ „Interchange. We're all human beings here together. Let's discuss it all.“ Not really communication. But a person knows, then, these basic rules and we have a new style of auditing which surmounts this. But we have always had to some degree this yak, conversational, relatively informal - a lot of them excuse it by saying it's high ARC auditing; it isn't.

And we have two distinct auditing styles. And one of those auditing styles is just yak. But it isn't careless yak. It actually follows through all those early Training Drills. Pc originates something, says, „My God, my mother-in-law has just appeared in the middle of the room:” Or „I am eight feet back of my head,“ such as happened to some of you here at the last group auditing session. Now, he originates and the auditor takes it up and discusses it, understands it and acknowledges it and goes on about his auditing.

Now, just as we leave High School Indoc, we get into this breed of cat known as Tone 40. And we get Tone 40 on an Object and Tone 40 on a Person as the two upper drills there. And these things are fascinating drills. They're very fascinating.

A person can tell whether or not he's doing Tone 40 on an Object and is his severest critic. It really doesn't need much of a coach except somebody to stand there saying, „Come on, let's give it - give it the orders from Tone 40 now. Let's Tone 40 it now.“ And, you know, nag, nag. Or give him an idea, „Let's just stand there and put intentions into it; stop

talking to that ashtray.“ And we're up there to what I was talking about at the beginning of the lecture.

We're doing this ordering MEST objects around. Bodies are an awful lot of MEST; and a person has to be able to order MEST around in order to get much anywhere with a body. But he gets the intention across; gets the intention across into that ashtray until he's completely surprised that it didn't stand up all by himself. Well, a person knows whether or not he can do it, and nobody can fake it. And that is the experience line.

Now, we do that to a person on an 8-C level. And we walk the person around giving the commands with the intention at this tone of auditing. And do you know that it's a very, very interesting thing to find a good coach at Tone 40 on a Person. That's very fascinating. You can always find willing, ambitious coaches at High School Indoc. See, where the auditor says, „No, I don't want to walk over to that...“ I mean the preclear, you know, the coach, „No, I won't touch the wall, no. Make me! Your shoe's untied.“

The auditor in this case says, „Oh, it is?“

The coach says, „Flunk.“

The auditor running the coach in this is very, very - at High School Indoc - he's very, very prone to backflow, and so forth. The coach says to him, „You know, you're doing a pretty good job.“

And the auditor says, „Thank you.“

And the coach says, „Flunk!“

Well, you can always find people who will wrassle around and resist and dig in their heels and walk too fast and walk too slow. But it is a little rougher to do a good job of coaching at Tone 40 on a Person, if the individual has successfully passed and has really mastered Tone 40 on an Object.

Why?

Because the body just simply goes on and does the commands. See that? I mean, that's the difference. A person auditing from Tone 40 says, „Look at that wall.“ There he goes. „Look at the wall. Walk over to the wall.“ You really have to put on the brakes. You know, you have to resist.

The place to learn Tone 40 on a Person is in Tone 40 on an Object. Because I see people go into session all the time when the auditor is doing a good job of Tone 40 on a Person. They just go zzzp and into session.

That's interesting, isn't it?

It means that a thetan is willing to respond to that high a tone no matter what low tone he himself is in. That's all it means.

These are processes which are addressed to the thetan. Nearly every preclear a person has ever had was a computer and a valence. Anybody out in the society could be characterized as a computer and a valence. The computer is his IQ and the valence is his personality that he borrowed off somebody else. Computer and a valence. These things are both artificial and neither one of them are under his control.

Now, a thetan does have and has mocked up on the whole track a personality of his own. And he is an individual. But out in the society he's never being the individual he intended to be at all. He's in one of these things where „I can't face it, so I'll be it,“ you know? Obsessive closure.

Well now, an individual then is behaving along behavior patterns, quite ordinarily, which have nothing to do with his own desires. He's just walking through life on a behavior pattern he never heard of. See, he's never heard of it, he just does it. It's now-I'm-supposed-to, you know? A car skids a little bit and a little tape goes across and says, „Now I'm supposed to scream.” - „Aaah!“ See? And he sees a table. And someone sits him down at the table and he gets down at the table and a little tape goes across and says. „Now I'm supposed to eat.“

He's taking orders all the time - orders which really aren't .. haven't any decent intention in them at all. Orders which probably have nothing to do with the present reality. They might have a lot to do with 1775 or something, but they have nothing to do with 1957. And the orders are all backtrack orders. Well, his thinkingness, his intelligence, is mocked up as a computer. It's like he has an adding machine or something, you know, and he says, „Let's see now, the multiplication table ...“ I told somebody, one time, „You know, it's possible to derive all multiplication. Are you aware of that?“

And he says, „It is?“

I said, „Yeah. You can take addition or even on your fingers and derive the whole of the multiplication table.“

„No...“

And I said, „Well, where did you get the idea you couldn't?“

„Well,“ he says, „I memorized the multiplication table.“

And I said, „Well, you did. Well, how much is six times seven?“ And he says, „Forty-two.“

I said, „That's pretty good. Now,“ I says, „I want you to add up six sevens.“ I got him to do this a few times on eight times nine and other things like this, you know. And I finally - my parting question on the thing is, „How much is six times seven?“

And he says, „Uh...“

Well, believe it or not, he was in better shape counting on his fingers than he was listening to a machine out here. At least he was doing the multiplication! And if I could break down his machinery, believe me, life was in the process of doing so!

And here's somebody years out of school. You say, „How much is six times seven?“

He says, „Yaah-ahh-uuh - I don't know; it's been a long time.“

And don't think the Internal Revenue doesn't depend on this exclusively. They sent me a bill the other day; I sent it back. Unfortunately somebody paid it by accident somewhere along the channels and so forth. But the fact is they said my addition was wrong. I just think they have a stamp there. The addition on the Internal Revenue form wasn't wrong; and actually there's a little follow-up going through giving the proper addition on the thing and requesting the check be refunded. They just count on it. In other words, they have somebody - every fifteenth return they stamp on it, „Multiplication and addition incorrect,“ see? And nobody down there can add or subtract either.

Anyway, here's an idea of a computer. In other words, husband leaves wife; answer is suicide. See? You know, one of these computers. See, it figures out the proper answer to all routine situations. And that's his IQ.

So his valence is somebody else he's forgotten he ever knew - that's his personality And his intelligence is a computer that's giving him wrong answers. Neither machine can stand up to anything like a high-toned approach. These machines are pitched around .5 or 1.1 or - the highest level machine anybody ever had was at about 2.0. That's a pretty high-level machine; I'm being optimistic there. And you start whamming into the case from a high tone and the machines go da-da-da-da-da-du! And the thetan has to wake up and say, „What's happening? What's happening? What's happening? Did somebody talk to me?“

You're auditing straight past his machinery. Every once in a while his machinery says, „I will not go on!“

And the auditor says... And the guy does, unless the auditor himself has been dead drunk and stood on his head.

But that is the situation. That is what one faces in preclears. And that's what one faces in training and processing - is the necessity to bypass all this. The next time you take a pass through the Communication Course and the lower Training Drills, having now understood and run the Tone 40 on an Object - see you go through them all again - you find out all of a sudden that those difficulties which you had previously in trying to get an intention across to somebody have just gone; they've just melted away. You see, you have to have the communication formula in order to know what to have an intention about. So it's absolutely necessary to take these things twice over. Hit them both.

So the ladder one climbs these days in training, no matter how it's done... It might only be a copy of The Student Manual, which will be out in a month or so and which is... which are all the facts of Scientology. No opinions or data or theory; it's just fact, fact, fact. You know, scales and processes and axioms. You know, all the pertinent data is all that's in that book. Doesn't matter if he's only going through something like that, he would still be able to follow this track upwards. Of course, it is best followed under a very; very good Instructor.

Actually, the student starts down here and comes up through the Comm Course and comes up through Upper Indoc and says, „I've arrived.“

Yes, he has. He's arrived at Training 9, ready for Training 0. And he comes up through the next ten drills and he hits Training 9 again. He says, „Where did I think I was when I was there?“

And you say, „You're here now.“

Well, usually he's in pretty good shape. But if he's not he can always go up this one, hit Training 9 again. And if he adventured up this staircase, I don't know where he would get to because Valhalla's plumbing is all busted.

What we have here is a trail, a staircase, a series of levels which have no absolute height. And all levels reached via that are better than the lower levels a person's passed through.

Here is a new look. Here is a new thing to do. Here is a new thing at which to practice. The best way to do it is at the Academy or the ACC, something like that. But you could do it at home, fool around with it. Get so snarled up that you have to be instructed on it probably. But it's something new for you to do. And it is yours. And it is well described. And I will take these steps up in detail in the next hour.

Thank you.