Today there are a couple of new techniques. I have started nearly every speech that way for many months. Fortunately, the situation is under control — under my control, anyway — and I am going to try to put it under your control.

The line of advance of Dianetic processing has been, actually, very consistent. Dianetics took off from the knowledge of modern medicine — in some cases, I think, from well in advance of the knowledge of modern medicine, because I wasn’t burdened down with a bunch of postulates about how “he didn’t come to me soon enough” and so forth.

It is with considerable glee that I can announce to you that the number of hours you will be spending sweating over a hot brain has been markedly decreased. It may be decreased, in the average cases, to as little as ten hours. In some cases it may be decreased, as far as you are concerned, to a little indoctrination before and a few hours of auditing after.

I had already assumed that modern medicine could do something for somebody. That was a mistake. Modern medicine can do something for somebody as long as they use biochemistry: penicillin, Aureomycin, sulfa, quinine and so on, and they can put somebody out of pain with the various sedatives.

It still takes an auditor, though, for several reasons. One of the best reasons is the innate and cussed impersistence of a human being trying to help himself. But we have even got a solution to that.

They need to be coached up enormously before they are on the ball with obstetrics because they aren’t getting healthy babies born, and that is the purpose of obstetrics. Somebody ought to tell them about Dianetics, because we have got too many cases now of babies born Dianetics-wise that have just come up beaming and beautiful. I would bet you that if you took a maternity ward with a hundred women in it and one baby that had been born with Preventive Dianetics very definitely in mind, I could pick out the mother and the baby at a glance.

We left the first echelon of Dianetics behind us about three or four months ago. I don’t know the exact moment, but it came with the identification of the life static in a workable form of definition. That was quite a jump. What you have been watching since is the scramble to catch up with that definition.

Maybe you haven’t had much to do with maternity wards. It is a pretty grim business. The last one I went through, over 50 percent of the women there had been damaged needlessly and were showing it very markedly. About a third of them had heavy postpartum neuroses, and one a postpartum psychosis. It was a fascinating business.

It can be proven very easily that we are dealing for the first time in mathematical or physical history with what could be called a true static. That is of great interest perhaps to a mathematician and it is certainly of great interest to a nuclear physicist, but it is of much more interest to you.

We shouldn’t have this in this society. This is our society; it is yours and mine. It doesn’t belong to anybody else any more than it does to us — something we are liable to forget when we are fighting a minority action. That minority action is getting stronger and stronger and it is becoming less and less of a minority action.

The identity of life energy and the identity of thought in the descriptive form, with the phenomena which will demonstrate this descriptive form to be the case — that was quite a jump. It made a big difference in things.

So, if we want to see the next generation snapping into it — healthier, a lot of these diseases prevented — we can just take off from right there on obstetrics.

We have traveled, at this moment, clear on through the second echelon, and that was simply the application of this “energy,” when identified, to techniques of application for the rehabilitation of human beings.

The next level of medicine is orthopedics: the patching-up of bones. And the next is emergency surgery.

The third echelon of this is already knocking at the door. Whether that third echelon is caught up with now or two thousand years from now, I don’t know at this moment. But I do know this: We wouldn’t have to have another confounded thing from here on beyond what we have.

I knew these techniques fairly well, and I say it quite honestly because they aren’t very hard to learn.

In addition, we have a package in which this is enclosed: Handbook for Preclears. This package, running in short editions and available to you in the field, will pick up the successive small points which may follow or refine out of this. So we are not going to have a disorderly advance.

We didn’t have any babies born on our corvettes but we sure had everything else, and I objected to men being at sea for six weeks without any further medical attention. The naval Bureau of Medicine and Surgery gives the captain of a corvette all of the textbooks he thinks he needs on the subject. They don’t limit him; you can go up to a hospital and say “I am skipper of the so-and-so” and they will hand you practically anything you want, at least during wartime.

We have this thing codified into fifteen acts. Parts of those acts may change. Their general sequence probably will not change.

We had no doctor, and I was on ship for a long time as the only one. The pharmacist’s mate was generally a kid who had come in and been made third class because they didn’t have any hospital apprentices to promote immediately; he was made third class and then he was made second class because there weren’t enough second-class men. And then he was promoted to first class immediately afterwards so that he could go to sea because the law said that he had to be a first class in order to go to sea on a solitary post as the one pharmacist’s mate on a ship.

The new points, the new buttons, the new slots in the chart, or maybe a new column on the chart, can be issued. But an overall basic understanding of this subject will make it possible for you to follow through with any preclear. Just by checking every new issue of the book you will find probably a couple of points changed.

But those kids had manuals and a lot of them had brains. I have seen some very remarkable things.

For instance, right now this book lacks two things: one is the “approval” button and the other is the column on the chart, and they are really both the same thing. There are several other little minor improvements that have come out — after all, this book was published over ten days ago!

As far as medicine is concerned, then, Dianetics was begun with the assumption that more was known than was known, that results were better than they are, because I know that the results that were achieved medically on my corvettes were better than the average results turned out by hospitals. Why? Because we didn’t know any better.

But the point I am trying to make is that part of my struggle was to achieve a codification of the subject to such a degree that merely by changing some minor part of procedure here and there from time to time, it could be kept up-to-date. That means that one of the goals announced in the earliest publications on Dianetics has been achieved: a rendition of technique on a level of simplicity — very easy to understand — and a marked reduction (by about eighty thousand percent) of the amount of time an auditor has to spend on a case.

Now, in addition to that, the navy is very careful in its indoctrination of what is to be done for what. Their manuals and so forth are very well adhered to; they do not issue a new drug without putting out a rather comprehensive proposition. The navy in many ways, like any large organization, may be a bit bureaucratic, but it nevertheless gives you information when you ask for it and tries to do a good job of it.

So, an auditor is actually able to stand by on a case with a minimum of indoctrination and handle, through this book, a very large number of preclears. And an auditor is supplied with some randomity. He is talking to Susie Glutz and Jones and Bill and so forth, and he can generally talk to them on the other end of a telephone or he can give them fifteen minutes in his office and he can straighten this and that out for them. And there are various ways that he can get his money for having done so, if it continues to be the case that auditors have to eat.

So Dianetics — as far as a process was concerned, not a philosophy — came out with the understanding that much could be done for the human body on the structural side of the ledger. I just give you that slight background because that was the viewpoint: a lot can be done structurally. You can stick a fellow full of needles and so forth. We hornswoggled people out of being seasick and everything else. We figured out a lot of things.

We also have something, then, which cuts down restimulation for the auditor. Sometimes an auditor who does a lot of auditing is something like a horse on a treadmill. He gets up the last couple of sessions with the last preclear he had, and he is just barely keeping ahead of himself. His own case does not have a chance to proceed. But if you don’t have to step in there very much, listening to lots of phrases and situations and sob stories and that sort of thing, your own case can get up on top and stay up on top, particularly since you can resolve a case fast enough now so that it doesn’t have a chance to slump.

It was a misapprehension, because a review of this sort of thing demonstrates that an awful lot of these cases recovered on the mental side of the ledger, not just on the physical side of the ledger. This is interesting, but true.

You could, for instance, tell Mr. Doakes that if he would just go up to a summer resort — Leaky Boat Lake or something — and apply himself for a few days to this book, he could come back and the little wife probably wouldn’t bother him anymore. You can, in other words, do an environmental separation on a relatively short-time basis, according to what I have found, and be able to achieve results with your preclear instead of crawling uphill one inch and having the family throw him back five inches. That still takes a little arranging.

We went into this technique of application, then, with the understanding, in its first development, that structure had something to do with it — that you could go in from the structural side and achieve some results. In other words, we advanced, from what was generally known and accepted, a little bit higher.

I have been looking for a long time for the magic button — the very, very magic button. I came up with twelve buttons.

In a reevaluation of what wasn’t known, we found that we had been too optimistic. So we started backing up. We got a little bit higher than structure and we found out there actually wasn’t too much known in that area, so the first postulates of the first handbook stress function. It was the first graduation from an age-old belief that structure has a lot to do with it. We went over into the field of function, but we did so in the misapprehension of stimulusresponse activity — an automatic stimulus-response mechanism.

Effort Processing, Emotional Processing and Thought Processing are evidently the three areas of action that the auditor must address. There evidently are no more, unless somebody stands up and swoops down from Valhalla or somebody brings in a new technique whereby you strike two sparks off the left-hand sword and the preclear grows nine feet tall. But it would be just about as miraculous as that.

Now, a person low on the tone scale does operate this way. This was Dianetics low on the tone scale and growing: stimulus-response mechanism — the engram, the key-in from the environment and the operation against the mind of the individual.

An auditor can take this book and hand it to his preclear; he can even run a little evening schoolwork for his preclears. They can come in a couple of times a week or something like that, or he can have several classes. People can come in and study what they are supposed to do or catch up on indoctrination in it, or he can just turn it loose and trust to luck and try to instruct them little by little here and there.

Nothing, by the way, alters that situation. An individual who is low on the tone scale operates that way. You can still run that sort of thing.

There is a book simpler than this which is going to be written. This book is for the boys who can read and write without moving their lips and everything. The simpler one will be an effort to put these same techniques within the comprehension of an eight- or nine-year-old child. That is going to be quite a little trick; and I imagine you will probably be using it on the bulk of your preclears, so I will try to keep from making examples about little turtles and cute things in it.

The next few discoveries, which came just in time to get included in the first handbook, had to do with handling emotion — secondaries. We found out that blowing a secondary has quite a marked effect on an individual. So we said, to quote the first line of the chapter on emotion, “Emotion is a theta quantity” — not known, but it does something.

But we have in this book fifteen acts. It coordinates with the book Advanced Procedure and Axioms. This is more up-to-date. Advanced Procedure was written some weeks before this book was.

We graduated up the line from there and we went into the fact, after that book was published, that Straightwire is very often effective. We were thus up into our first echelon of thought.

Now, it has been a considerable struggle with you who have been out in the field. With all of the new techniques, we have had to surmount the barrier of how to relay them to you. How could we get them to you? How could we be absolutely sure that you were going to be able to handle these things at the other end of the line? We have found by experience that it is pretty difficult to take a procedure as complex as Effort Processing and put it down in a book or in a few pages and send it to somebody and have him understand the whole thing. Therefore we have a basic technique.

The next line of advance was handling thought much better, as represented in the technique of Lock Scanning. You can handle thought very rapidly by Lock Scanning, and this was a big jump.

The text on Advanced Procedure is the best one available at this moment. It will be some little time before another text on Advanced Procedure comes out.

We began to examine thought on that echelon and we found out, after we had summed up these various levels, that the upper level is self determinism and that an individual who falls for a stimulus-response mechanism is low on the tone scale and is not very self-determined. Fairly high above that level you discover self-determinism. The upper level, as far as we can reach it, is self-determinism.

A few hours of Effort Processing is worth running a thousand engrams out of a case. It is quite remarkable, since it exhausts the basic action difficulty with a case.

Now, this gives us a package that is in three echelons. If we look at them backwards — that is to say, as they developed — we can see they consist of structure, which is action or effort; the next echelon is emotion, or the mechanisms of stimulus-response; and the next echelon is just ordinary, run-of-the-mill thought. Then there is self-determined thought above that, but we will just take thought as one package; there are actually two steps in thought. This is the line of advance in Dianetics.

So, I want you to know — and know you know — Effort Processing, Emotional Processing and Thought Processing as delineated. Then, as new techniques develop they can be written up as addenda and special sheets sent you to bring your own books up-to-date, or the books can be changed for each new issue with short issues and an instruction line can be written up to send to you on any small alteration which has taken place.

The advance of Dianetics has paralleled the advance from structure on up to thought.

It would rather astonish you that the general line of operation has now made, really, a complete circle. We are back at 1938 on the word survive. We find out, on my investigation, that there is quite a bit more to be learned about this word survive. There is a tremendous amount to be learned. We are actually taking off from there again, but now we have a bridge built and we have a tremendous amount of phenomena. There are over two hundred new phenomena concerning the human mind which have been uncovered in Dianetics in the short time of twenty years, and that is probably more phenomena than has ever before been uncovered about the human mind in any period.

Now, the new third echelon, which has not taken place and which may or may not take place, would have to do with the identification of the overall control of the body, because it is very interesting that these self-determined postulates themselves are actually dependent on former structural action. We already can identify the fact that there is a prime thought which rides along with the individual all the way through: the prime thought “to be.” There is an upper-level action taking place there.

It all came up on finding one button. The second I found that one “survive” button, the rest of this stuff started to unwind so fast, it was as though it were in a deep vat someplace with a spring cover on it, and the second that I released the safety catch it exploded. It has been there waiting for a long time. If I did anything, it was just to say “Well, that must be the button,” and spring the catch. Out of all of this has proceeded a technique which now is actively capable of producing miracles almost at will.

Since you learned about Postulate Processing, you may have gone around thinking to yourself a little bit, “Well, I shouldn’t make this postulate and I shouldn’t make that postulate, and I should do this and that in regard to this.” What is telling you not to make that postulate? That is the boss. That would be the boss mechanism. Something else must be making the postulate.

This, so far, is very general. I will be much more specific about these things later on.

So we are just to that degree inside the third echelon, and that is the borderline. What we are talking about now is what we will call the second echelon of processing; this includes effort, emotion and thought, and believe me, we can handle all three. That is the first thing you should know — that there are three subdivisions. And you should know how those subdivisions are interactive.

Now, we have had one level we were going out on which was wrong. We can help every case when we get them into communication and so on. We can help every case and we know that. But this is an Achilles’ heel. It is an Achilles’ heel because it denies the auditor the cooperation of the preclear to some degree. The preclear thinks, “Well, if you can do this for me, then I don’t have to work.”

There is a drawing in Hand book for Preclears that shows “I,” and then the motor-response mechanism, with the glandular switchboard in between.

You can even go to the extent now of saying “In most cases this works. In most cases like yours it works. Of course, some intelligence and some persistence is required on the part of the preclear, and then in most cases it works.”

“I” puts out an order and it evidently is translated into the physical universe by means of a glandular reaction of some sort. Your thought is an intention which translates into an emotion which goes into the switchboard of the body as an effort.

Come off this it-helps-everybody stuff. It hasn’t done us any good from the beginning. Let’s not go back and “fall for the same woman” again. There is no point in it.

Your intention and the thought stemming from the intention may go into the motor switchboard immediately or it may simply be filed as something nice that you imagined.

The actuality is that the general intelligence of the individual in the world was grossly overestimated — and I mean grossly. Those characters on the radio that write radio scripts and say “Well, we have to aim these at a twelve-year-old intelligence” are probably doing the same thing. Let’s try to shoot Dianetics at two years of age — people who just barely can talk — and I am afraid we will hit the average public level. I notice a lot of people don’t listen to the radio; it is too complicated for them. That is why we have to have a simplified book and so forth.

And there is a reverse mechanism of the physical universe or your environment hitting on the motor level, kicking back up into the glandular level and then kicking back up into the thought level.

But in the main, these tenets produce entirely new lines and a plan of advance for Dianetics into the society with a lot less trouble and, I hope, a great deal more effectiveness.

There are those three steps and, believe me, that is very simple. That is how thought gets to be action and how action can kick back and become thought, via emotion.

Now, one of these lines is the miracle. What is a miracle? You take a miracle apart and you will find out that a miracle is something which people consider hasn’t been done — it is out of the ordinary. But it is more than that. A miracle is “from can’t to can.” And if you specialize on only “can’t to can” you are all set. By that I mean black and white: he can’t see, he can see; he can’t walk, he can walk; he can’t get out of bed, now he walks; he can’t hear, he can hear — black and white, black and white.

We also know pretty well what emotion is; it is pretty simple. With an emotional curve you can certainly manhandle the devil out of emotion; you really can. By running emotional curves on an individual you can get some of the doggonedest things. It is a very simple mechanism. The change from one level on the tone scale to the other is the emotional curve.

And don’t try it on any 100 percent. If the fellow is giving you trouble after you have spent ten, twelve, fifteen hours of your time on him, get another one — because you will succeed in saving the fellow only if you desert his case early enough to permit you to go next door or down the block or someplace else and perform a miracle. Then the boy you were having trouble with, of course, recovers.

We find that the mind is engaged in the estimation of effort. The resolution of problems, the posing of problems, the observations connected with problems and their solution, have to do with that central button, “estimation of effort.”

If you go ahead and slug, slug, slug on the idea that it has got to help every case, you will have everybody walking up to you not only with his jaw out but with you addressed to that postulate. And you won’t give up on a case. In other words, you are kept down the tone scale with regard to your preclears. That postulate keeps you down there.

The effort could be parked as a future effort or it could be an immediate effort or it could merely be an estimated effort to relay by communication to somebody else. Your problems resolve on these estimations of effort.

You can take them up on a basis like “Well, we help as many as we can. It helps most — helps quite a few. Oh, work on you? I don’t know. I’m working on quite a few cases these days. Well, sure, sure. Well, if you’re willing to work hard on it, all right. Here’s the book. Goodbye. Call me up on Tuesday.” If he doesn’t recover, you say, “Well, so what?”

Emotion takes place in direct ratio to the correctness of the estimation of effort, correctness being a gradient scale. If you were estimating your efforts just beautifully in all directions, you would be happy. But if you were estimating them incorrectly you would go down into the misemotional band. That is the connection between emotion and thought and that is the connection between emotion and action. On one side it can be balked by counter-actions or it can be interrupted by new intentions.

We took in ten cases of arthritis the first of December — volunteer cases. Two of them dropped out almost immediately. One of them looked at the auditor and found the auditor had dirty fingernails or something of the sort and said, “Well, I don’t want to go back to that place,” and the other one just disappeared. (I don’t think that Postulate Processing or Effort Processing was used to make the preclear disappear; I think she is actually in existence someplace. )

You walk up to a drawer, you put your hands on the two knobs of the drawer and it slides open very easily. How much pressure did you have to estimate to put on the handles of that drawer? How much pull did it require for you to slide that drawer open? How much residual tension did there have to be in your body in order for you to stand up straight while you opened that drawer? All of these are various estimates of effort. If the drawer slides open easily, you are perfectly cheerful and your tone does not change at all; you go on and pick up what is in the drawer. That, because it stimulates a thought or something of the sort, might change your tone — if you want it to. But as you open up this drawer your tone would stay along a level.

But seven showed very, very marked improvement; one of them didn’t show very much. This was according to the report I had on the tenth of December. I don’t know what has happened to these people since. They had had ten days in which they had been in the Foundation, each one of them two or three days or something like that.

However, if you reach up to the drawer and start to open the drawer and you haven’t estimated the amount of grip that these two fingers have and they slide off the knob, that is that much of a drop; you become just a little bit annoyed and you grab hold of it again and hold it more solidly. You probably hold it more solidly than you have to. A miscalculation of effort in one direction causes you to miscalculate a little bit in the other direction.

One of the eight, however, was an almost instantaneous remission. The girl couldn’t walk up and down stairs. Her doctor came down to the Foundation and took a look at this girl. She went up the stairs to the lecture hall like a gazelle (I wondered who the stunned-looking individual was, sitting in the back row) and after the lecture she went down the stairs like a gazelle. I think they gave the doctor oxygen or something; they brought him around. This was a nearly instantaneous remission.

If you open the drawer and as you start to open it one side of it sticks — it won’t move — you struggle with it, you might cuss at it a bit, and you go down the tone scale with regard to that drawer. If the drawer won’t open at all, where do you wind up? You say, “Well, I didn’t want it anyhow.” That is apathy.

The percentage — including those others who left — on this series of cases was 10 percent. How much work on the part of the auditor? I would say, roughly, probably four, five, maybe six hours. No other work was done — no book, nothing like that. That is very interesting.

So, there is your range of the tone scale. This is interesting phenomena, and by the way, this is phenomena which had hitherto been unobserved and unstated. You can actually take an unsuspecting individual and put him at an action which you have triggered to go wrong, such as a sticky drawer with slippery handles and so forth, and watch this individual’s tone as he starts to handle this drawer. Don’t set it up as though it is an experiment; set it up as though something valuable that he is supposed to have is in that drawer. And then fix it up eventually so the drawer won’t open at all. Don’t help him out, but watch him go down the tone scale. You will see him at every step on the tone scale as he goes down.

On that line you say, “Well, 10 percent of the cases of arthritis — most of these 10 percent could probably be helped.” Then you turn out a miracle: “can’t to can.”

This has to do with the fellow’s estimation of effort, doesn’t it? But what is the drawer doing? The drawer is doing something; the drawer is the environment, so the drawer is imposing upon him a counter-effort. Even if the drawer opens with great smoothness there is still a countereffort in that drawer. Do you see how that would be? But if it opens very roughly, there is a bad counter-effort in the drawer — that is to say, a counter-effort in the drawer which inhibits one’s emotional response.

Maybe three or four more of the rest of those cases have come through — maybe they have, maybe they haven’t.

So, there is effort and counter-effort. There is a person trying to make an effort come out and the effort not coming out. The effort which opposes an individual’s efforts we refer to always as counter-effort. That is the language. That is counter-effort; it could also be called, for your understanding, environmental effort.

We are going to try to set up a long series of blind cases, and we might take 10 percent of them and do something for their sight — ten out of a hundred, maybe.

Every moment of a lifetime has, contained in it, counter-efforts. There are the balances and imbalances of exterior and interior atmosphere: There is fifteen pounds per square inch playing all over your body and there is fifteen pounds per square inch inside your body to balance the fifteen pounds per square inch outside your body. When you go up in an airplane, your ears pop; that is just the fact that the pressure has dropped to thirteen pounds per square inch outside of your body and stayed at fifteen pounds inside, or something like that, so your ears have to adjust to it. The Eustachian tube is doing that, but also your whole body is doing that and every cell is doing that.

One miracle sight recovery is front-page news in America.

Then there is gravity. You always have gravity. The first fellow who gets into a spaceship somewhere between here and the moon at zero gravity is going to have an interesting time; we actually don’t know quite what is going to happen to this individual emotionally because he has a certain stability in his gravity. You use gravity; gravity doesn’t use you, but it can use you.

We say, “Well, we do it quite a bit of the time. Help you? Well, I don’t know if we have time, but if you want to work hard . . .”

The last time you went down the stairs and didn’t estimate that there was one more step, gravity gave you quite a shock. The last time you went down stairs and thought there was one more and there wasn’t, that gave you quite a shock too. That would be gravity on a misaligned counter-effort — in other words, gravity at non optimum. When you fall out of an airplane and fall five thousand feet and splatter, that is non optimum gravity doing it.

A little girl came down here from Indiana; she was bedridden, paralyzed from the waist down and so forth. She got nine hours of Effort Processing and nothing but Effort Processing. She is showing quite marked improvement. Her case was cracked.

So, we have this environmental effort. And the conflict with it is composed of these categories: your effort to remain at rest or to remain in a state of motion — your effort to remain at rest or accomplish motion, to put it more aptly — and the environment’s effort to remain at rest or remain in a state of motion. And that is all the conflicts there are in an action category. That is all the conflicts there are — your effort to remain still when something is trying to move you, and your effort to remain in motion when something is trying to change you or influence you.

I don’t know whether this little girl is actually walking yet or not, but I know she is standing. That was the last report I had, several weeks ago. It takes a little while for a number of years of paralysis to go by the boards. Rehabilitation on that might be slow.

There are actually start, stop and change as three categories, but change is just a combination of start and stop. Nevertheless we will list them as three categories.

But the main point is there are polio cases amongst children, which are badly crippled and in bed. You can go around as an auditor (it doesn’t matter much whether you use just straight Effort Processing or process it on thought or something of the sort) and persuade somebody to sit there and read the child the questions and so on. You just make somebody work with the child for a while. You could actually go around and spot whatever children were in bed from polio in your neighborhood, and even put a little ad in the paper: “Request for volunteers to read to polio cases.” You would get lots of them. You could then pick out some of these people that don’t look to be in too bad a shape and turn a copy of Handbook for Preclears over to them and have them read it to the children and keep in touch with you as the auditor.

You make a physical effort to remain at a state of rest, to remain in a state of motion or to change. And the counter-effort would be that effort from the environment which inhibits your remaining at a state of rest when you want to, inhibits your remaining in motion or inhibits your changing. Counter-effort would be the effort which you would have to overcome or handle, but do not necessarily overcome or handle, in the environment around you.

Maybe two of these children in your whole area — New York City — are walking at the end of a month. That is a pretty good percentage! I wouldn’t worry about it. The chances are, maybe 40 or 50 percent of them will be, eventually. The joker is that if you kept at it and if these other children found out that 2 percent or 8 percent or 10 percent were walking, they would start to walk too, so you would eventually get 100 percent. But you don’t get 100 percent in any way, shape or form by telling people you will get 100 percent.

Now, emotion is a translator medium. It demonstrates how much activity is necessary to address the situation. It is a monitor, a meter, on the way the body should run in a certain situation. If it is running low on the tone scale, that means that the conflict between countereffort and effort is getting tremendous.

Say, “Well, it does some very interesting things.” Don’t try to give anybody much of a sales talk on it. “It just does some interesting things. On a large number of cases like yours, it helps out.”

Emotion goes down from zero upset — no upset, no conflict, in other words — to all conflict. When it is all conflict you are dead, and when it is zero conflict and you have all these conflicts completely resolved in that degree, you have taken off for Valhalla or someplace in body.

Now, if you would go out into the field with this book and a knowledge of Effort Processing and grab yourself ten assorted cases of the “can’t to can” variety and produce a miracle in the community, we would probably be having to hire the Royal Light Horse Infantry to keep people off the backs of our necks. You know that. This circumvents newspapers and the purchase money for news stories. This circumvents directives, if any, from the AMA. This circumvents all these interesting letters that we keep getting from all over the field where some psychiatrist has just spread some entheta about me. It circumvents all of the entheta lines.

Those would be your extremes, bottom and top, on this tone scale. And in the mean, in between, you have all of these descending reactions. We had this in “Ten Lecture Notes.” They were worked out, just empirically, before this was fully known. They give you a person’s responses between action and counter-action — that is, effort and counter-effort.

Let’s audit old Mr. Jones. He has been sitting on the porch in a wheelchair for many a day now, and people come home from work and see him sitting on the porch in his wheelchair and they know him. They think it is a nice thing to know somebody who is ill like that and to be nice to him (be good and sympathetic and keep him real sick!).

Anger is an emotion which is trying to hold everything still. For instance, an angry person, if you try to walk away from him, wants you to come back. If you try to stay near him, he wants you to go away. It is destruction because it is no-motion that he is trying to accomplish. The angry person is trying to destroy — hammer, pound, yell, scream or do anything he can think of in the line of effort to cause zero counter- effort . Zero counter- effort is what he is trying to accomplish, because zero counter-effort is death. The angry person destroys.

They say, “Well, how are you this evening, Mr. Jones?”

The way you destroy and the only way you can destroy anything is to cause motion to cease to exist in it. Zero motion is death.

“Well, gettin’ along pretty bad. Arthritis is pretty bad, you know.”

When you come down to 1.1, you have fear.

One day they walk home from work and there is Mr. Jones sweeping off the front porch. “What happened to you?”

Now, there is a little demonstration that goes along with this. Let’s take anger’s reaction to counter-effort. We have an angry person and an environmental effort which comes along and hits this angry person. Actually, if this succeeds in doing much motion around the angry person, he will move up and stop it. But the counter-effort in motion, hitting an angry person, causes him to try to hold it.

“Oh, some feller came around here; he said he was an auditor or an editor or somethin’, and I read me a book and I’m well!”

That comes out this way in Effort Processing: If you get an individual who is at anger on his intentional level and he is struck by something, you will find him holding that right there. He is holding the motion. His physical body is actually damping out the motion. He will hold anything in suspension that is in the body. He will try to stop everything in the body. That is where you get calcium deposits; there is depository illness at 1.5. It is holding motion right still. If a person is at 1.5 on the tone scale he will have depository illnesses, and that is all there is to it. You can handle these chronic somatics in two ways: you can drive him down the tone scale or you can pull him up.

Right away the community tries not to believe in Mr. Jones. But they won’t be able to disbelieve him because just disbelieving in somebody doesn’t make him disappear. So you can see this would be an interesting line of advance.

Now, as he drops down the tone scale to fear, when motion hits him he has a tendency to go with the motion a little bit; he is undecided whether to flee or not. It is an indecisive state. When motion hits someone in that band it will cause a motion, but it causes the motion in this way: The countereffort hits a person who is afraid or at 1.1 on the band — he moves away a bit and he will be ready to flee; but as soon as this counter-motion goes away, he will make sure that it is not going to be there and then come back.

We had a blind man over at the Foundation, and the auditor wanted to turn on the fellow’s sight. He charged into the case like the light horse brigade and ran the preclear right straight to the incident and the fellow all of a sudden said, “If I run this I’ll see again!” And he came up to present time.

The little boy who goes whistling past the graveyard stops often and looks for the ghosts. He is ready to flee but he doesn’t quite. He sure would if there were anything there. In other words, any time a counter-action appeared in the environment, he would flee. This is covert hostility. That is why covert hostility is there. Motion comes along and the person says, “Well, yes, I’m here. I’ve been put back.” There is where you get propitiation and so forth.

It is all right that the auditor didn’t turn that fellow’s sight on. So what? There are lots of blind men. We aren’t going to run out of fodder.

This person is so low on the tone scale that he will go with motion. So there is a certain level there where you get sympathy; in this whole band you get sympathy. The counter-action is going in one direction and you can actually get a person at that point of the tone scale where he can watch that counter-action and start going the same way himself. Have you ever observed that? You may have observed it particularly amongst human beings where one gets nervous and shaky and somebody else gets nervous and shaky too.

That is a very valuable lesson. It says that when you are turning on sight like that you had certainly better run sympathy, approval and regret — approval for being blind, approval from the person he is carrying the blindness for and regret for what he had done. And the way you get up a grief charge (we can add this as an admonition, having noticed it before with running sympathy, blame and regret) is just to run it until it blows, until a submarine compartment door couldn’t keep it back.

It happens that sympathy can occur on any band of the tone scale, but we must then define our words a little more correctly. We would say that sympathy, as a word, is that which we assign from 1.1 to 0.5 on the tone scale. It is an interchange of misemotion; that we will call sympathy.

Don’t pay any attention to the fact that the preclear is going to cry. He looks like he is going to cry — don’t get interested in the fact that he is going to cry. Don’t get all quivery and say “Oh, boy! Here I get that secondary!” No, just insist he run some more sympathy and some more regret and some more desire for approval and so on, and the next thing you know, the case bears all the signs of Vesuvius about to erupt. You keep on processing the incidental stuff and all of a sudden the case goes bang in your face or suddenly the incident just keys out.

But the society appreciates sympathy differently. When they think of sympathy they think of somebody all gimping along and everybody is sympathetic toward him; when there is a loss in the family, people are sympathetic and so forth.

In other words, these techniques are insidious in that they can go in from the bottom of the case and blow it apart without your having to be very challenging about it. Therefore let us take a lesson from these techniques themselves and go at the promulgation and dissemination of Dianetics more or less in the same way. Let’s be very insidious.

What they are arguing about on the rest of the band is merely coaction. Somebody is happy so somebody else gets happy; that would be coaction or co-emotional response, rather than sympathy. So let’s be more precise in our words since the society was not sufficiently precise before us.

It would be very interesting if a community suddenly found several sight recoveries on its hands, three or four polio cases snapped to, or four or five arthritis cases recovered. Wouldn’t that be interesting? What would people do?

Now, grief on the tone scale is very interesting. You can do anything you want with a person in grief — anything you want. Motion hits them and they just go where the motion says. That is grief.

I will tell you one of the things they would do: They would say, “What is the matter with these newspapers that they don’t carry stories on this stuff? That’s interesting!”

But apathy is something else; the person isn’t even there. The motion comes in, the countermotion in the environment comes in, and the person isn’t there. Apathy — the motion goes through.

Another thing they would say to themselves is “We have wronged Dianetics.”

This case, by the way, may be running on a vivacious sort of a manic’ or something of the sort, where they appear pepped up every once in a while and so forth. But you can take an apathy case — let’s say a girl — and put her in a chair. She sits in the chair and if she is a real apathy case and you were to come along and pick up the back end of the chair and tip it, the girl would go right off on the floor. In other words, the emotion goes through. They sort of feel like anything goes through them. Their whole virtue is that they can endure, and “endure” is apathy. So if you want to cure an apathy case get them to run some “endure” out. Get them to run anybody who endured and themselves enduring and everything they have to endure and every time they thought they had to endure and all the things they have endured and so forth, and you will find that they are coming up the tone scale. An apathy case is busy enduring.

You are going to develop, if you do that, a national emotional curve on Dianetics — sympathy and contribution. Everybody who has been very mean to it suddenly runs into the bright and smiling face of some little child that is walking who didn’t before. This person is going to say, “Was I wrong!” He will come right down to about 1.0 on the tone scale — contribution, sympathy and so forth. Just after we do this, don’t let the sympathy kill you!

Do you see how motion fits with emotion? Very simple, isn’t it?

But you see how this might be possible.

Now, the person in grief has a tendency to be a little sodden on the apathy edge of the grief band. But on the upper edge — if we take this experiment with the chair — if they are sitting in the chair and you pick up the chair and dump them, they have a slight tendency to come up and stand. They just stand and then sort of adjust themselves a little bit — particularly if you adjust them. You can pick up a person’s hand if he is in grief and put it up to wipe his eyes and he will go on wiping his eyes.

We made another mistake: We have been willing to apply this to everything it would help. A sixteen-inch gun will kill rabbits — it will. We have been killing too many rabbits.

Let’s take a person who is in fear: You come along and pick up the back of the chair he is sitting in and start to dump it, and this person catalyzes the reaction. He does it quicker than you want him to; he comes right up. Then as soon as you aren’t watching, he will sit back down again.

If you use this gun on its proper game, you are going to have remarkable regeneration. As a matter of fact, Dianetics, whether you realize it or not, is undergoing a very active regeneration throughout the country. Any time I can climb on an airplane and have the fellow sitting next to me tell me that he spent all last night talking about some subject called “dynamics” or something of the sort, I know something is going on.

If he is in the lower band — the little lower band just below fear — he won’t even question you as to why you did it.

I said, “Was it Dianetics?”

In apathy, by the way, the first remark is generally “Oh, that’s all right.” They haven’t got any conception of why you have dumped them on the floor. They say, “That’s all right.”

And he said, “Yes!” and he told me all about this and about various things, and he told me “This guy Hubbard, evidently, is a terror!” or something of the sort. He told me all about it.

A person in fear won’t even ask you. But about two or three minutes later they will say, “You know that last book you wrote? I was talking to a fellow the other day — a good friend. He’s all in favor of this. He’s very authoritative and so forth. ‘My,’ he said, ‘it was terrible!”’

I broke out my typewriter (I got tired of listening to him after a while; he had a layman’s opinion on the subject) to catch up a little bit on some work. I ran a piece of stationery into the thing and it said “Hubbard Dianetic Foundation” across the top.

Now take anger: The person is sitting there in the chair and you come along and pick up the back of the chair. He will sit there and hold — he is not going to be moved.

He got interested. “Say,” he said, “what kind of a — do you know this fellow Hubbard?”

We go up the band a little bit and get to 2.0. This person is sitting there and you come along and start to reach for the chair. The person at 2.0 is usually very alert; he will just guide your hand off. If you touched the back of the chair and started up, he would take a relatively selfdetermined action to come up and prevent you from dumping him off on the floor. The handling of motion by a person at 2.0 is, as it comes in, to change it and get right rid of it. At 2.0 is where we find “Anything you say to me I’ll say right back to you; I will show you” — pugnacious echoing. Echoing is what it is, because any motion that comes in he will put back out again.

And I said, “Yes.”

As you come well up the band, you will find that an individual starts taking the motion, looking it over — quick glance — to find out if he can use it or not and then dumping it, using it or doing anything he wants to it.

“Well, I know a fellow who knows a girl who used to be Hubbard’s secretary....”

So, there is emotion against motion, and there is emotion plotted against action. Do you understand that? You must understand that because you must be able to look at a human being for about two seconds and know where he is on the tone scale before he even talks. After he talks, you have the Chart of Attitudes and you have the chart in Science of Survival. But you must know where people are on the tone scale if you are going to do some fast action for them, because there are specific things that you do for specific levels of the tone scale now. It has gotten awfully precise, like carpentry or something.

We went on and after a while I reached the signature on the letter. This fellow got a bit upset and confused.

It is fabulous to watch the consistency of human beings on this thing. You sit down at your desk and offer this person a cigarette and he takes the cigarette rather mechanically, although he doesn’t smoke. That person is down there around grief or the upper band of apathy.

The point is that there is evidently a cycle through which a subject has to go. For instance, it was years before relativity was accepted. Einstein was called every dirty name you could think of, for a while. (I am not comparing myself to him — he produced an atom bomb.) They were awfully mean to him and then the whole field of mathematics went into propitiation with regard to him.

If you give him a cigarette and he doesn’t react to it for a considerable little space of time and so forth, he is in apathy. That motion can go right on through him anyhow — ”It doesn’t matter. Nothing matters.”

Until about 1932 there were twelve men in the United States who were regarded with some awe — who regarded themselves with some awe — because they understood something about Einstein. It was propitiation, more or less, because I tried to talk to one of these boys once. I wanted to run an article in the college newspaper with regard to Einstein’s theory of relativity as discussed by a certain professor who was one of the twelve men in the United States who knew something about the theory of relativity. He became very angry at the idea that anybody else could know something about the theory of relativity; that anybody could communicate it through a newspaper or say anything about it in any way was very upsetting to him. But he spoke with such sympathy about the whole thing that today, knowing some of these mechanisms, I wonder if he wasn’t among the toughest doubters at the first issuance of that theory.

A person who is angry will see you start to offer him a cigarette or even see your hand move, guess your intention and stop you. He will stop you from talking, he will stop you from acting, he will stop you from moving. Generally the people around individuals who are in chronic anger have been held to motionlessness and are finally pushed right down to the bottom of the tone scale, because the angry person demands no-motion and, by the way, demands no emotional response except complete stop. The angry person says, “You must do this and you must do that.” Go ahead, just try and do these things; the second you start to do either one of them you have to do something else.

Some people have been awfully mean to us. Now let’s knock them down the emotional curve. The way you do it is to define a miracle and then turn them out, because you can turn out a certain percentage of miracles. The lame aren’t good enough — you want somebody who can’t walk. The blind are fine, but don’t get people blind in just one eye; you want a seeing-eye-dog type of blindness. And if you follow out that line of advance you will then, as a third-, fifth- or tenth-echelon reaction, help all the others.

A little child who is around an angry person is in apathy very badly, quite often. You will find these children very sick. If he wants to run outdoors and play, that is what he mustn’t do. If he doesn’t want to run outdoors and play, he has to run outdoors and play. But the 1.5 won’t let the child get up and put on his shoes and start outdoors and play because he can’t go outdoors. It looks like there is a lot of reasoning behind it, and there is a terrific amount of rationalization as to why they mustn’t, but the whole end goal at 1.5 on the tone scale is to just stop the motion. Obey, act — only God help you if you move!

The hard way to do it is try to help everybody. The hard way to do it is try to hit every case. The tough way to go about it is try to make people happier and more successful. It is not “can’t to can,” that’s all. I mean, it just isn’t that direct division. So there are people who are happier: there are a lot of people in this world who don’t want people any happier. But the public as a whole is educated into believing that a miracle is a desirable and a strange thing. We can turn them out. Let’s turn them out.

Now, as you come up the tone scale these other manifestations are there. But you can watch people. You can watch them as they walk, you can watch the way they sit. You can suddenly realize how they are handling motion, and right away you will pick them up. And that will be right across the boards for you, and you know what to run if you are doing something fast for them.

Now, the first time you turn out a miracle you will probably go into it rather doubtfully in spite of the fact it says in the book you must be inexorable in your approach. If you realize that some small percentage of these cases will snap to on a minimal address to the case, you won’t be straining at it and trying to hang yourself up — your whole proposition and your whole life — on whether or not this one person who can’t see sees again, because he is a part of the whole pattern of all blind people.

So, there is motion as it impinges on emotion; there is that bridge right there.

Let’s take it mathematically: All the blind of the world exist as a set. They exist as individuals and each one is valuable as an individual, but the problem is to take apart this set of blind people. You take apart this puzzle of blind people. You understand that? You don’t do it by taking every blind man, one after the other as they come up the line, and hanging yourself up with the solution of his case. That is not the way you do it, any more than you can make a nation sane by processing every individual in it to sanity. It takes too long. So consider blindness as a set, a puzzle, and figure out how to solve the whole puzzle. And the way you solve the whole puzzle is to just pass through a case without promising the case very much.

There is another little gimmick which, unless you have looked at Handbook for Preclears, you haven’t heard of yet. It is not in Advanced Procedure and Axioms. There is emotion and there is counter-emotion; and you guessed it, there is thought and counter-thought. Effort-countereffort, emotion-counter-emotion, thought-counter-thought — those are the six categories of life manifestation in the physical universe, and that is evidently all there are. It is that neat.

Say, “Well, in a certain number of cases it happens. If the person works hard, if he cooperates with the auditor, it’ll happen. It doesn’t require any faith and belief, particularly; we don’t care about that. But if the fellow works hard and is cooperative, why, we can do something for him.”

It is very interesting: You take an individual and tell him to start running counter-thought and he will pick up more stuff in less time than any quantity of earlier styles of processing will do; it just pours in by the bucketful.

Then just start down your cases and don’t spend very much time on any one of them. All of a sudden, bang! — you will get one there, one there and one there. They were all ready to blow anyhow. Someone could have come along with last week’s techniques and blown them. Undoubtedly, by the way — and all kidding aside — they probably would have blown with last year’s techniques. They were all ready to go.

Counter-thought: He thinks a thought and somebody else thinks an opposite thought. How does it fit with his thoughts? It isn’t necessarily that these counter-thoughts are opposed to the individual.

All of a sudden it starts word of mouth all over: “Dianetics is turning on people’s sight.” Everybody who is blind, who really wants some help and objects to being blind and isn’t basing-all the approval of his life upon being blind, will be on the other end of a telephone, as far as you are concerned. His case will blow that much easier. But if his case doesn’t blow, you say, “Oh, well, give it a little time; try it again. It works in most of the cases. It isn’t a failure in your case, it’s just — probably you just didn’t work hard enough.” Make him cause of his own sight recovery, and keep going.

What happens to a person with a low-tone-scale crew if he agrees with them all the time? What happens to a salesman who goes out and sees Blitz and Company and Smog and Company in Los Angeles and so on? He goes around and the fellow says, “I like golf,” and the salesman according to his instruction book has to say “I like golf too. How is your golf game, Mr. Snide?” He has to continually agree. This is counter-thought, but where is it on the tone scale? If you plot counter-thought on the tone scale, having to agree with everything that somebody says puts you on the tone scale pretty low unless you are agreeing on a level of natural or logical action.

Take the little children who are sick in bed and handle it the same way.

For instance, you see that weights and balances act in a certain way, and the professor shows you that weights and balances act in a certain way, and you come along and you say, “Weights and balances act that way. Yeah, I agree with that.” You are not agreeing with somebody; you are not agreeing with his mode of presentation. You are agreeing with a physical-universe fact. You are just observing that fact. You look at that fact and there is the fact.

But you can become very emotionally involved with one individual and say “I’m going to make this guy,” not “I’m going to make blind men,” but “I’m going to make this guy see again.” And you have just cut yourself down that much. When you get through with that case and you have suddenly discovered that you didn’t get very far with the case — that he is merely happier or something of the sort and his sight did not recover — don’t you then go into a failure cycle. A failure cycle is nothing to be afraid of and in this case it is completely stupid. Why should you go into a failure cycle because you failed to turn on the eyesight of a man? It has been two thousand years since there have been any of these real routine miracles!

But if you go along agreeing with everybody you meet — if you just try that for twenty-four hours — I guarantee that you will go out the bottom, because this is sympathy on ARC level. You act as they act and it gets to be pretty grim.

Let’s set up shop and undo three specific problems. I know you have a lot of preclears that are hanging on your skirts and so forth. Give them the book and tell them to give you a call, and you go to work on blindness, arthritis “can’ts” and children in bed with the aftereffects of polio. Just work on those categories. Don’t take children that have been all chewed up by surgery. You can make them better off but they are not spectacular.

That is why salesmen crack up. Nearly all of the hot boys that go out selling and do a great job for the first few years eventually head for ulcers and migraines and everything else. They start to drink — anything — to snap themselves out of this. They don’t know what is holding them in there; it is counter-thought.

You can establish, then, the fact that Dianetics can turn on miracles. And if it can turn on miracles, the miracles exist and you haven’t bothered to publicize them. You don’t worry about publicizing; they will make their own publicity. The next thing you know, the cases that you wouldn’t have been able to crack — merely because the fellow was saying “Oh, I’ve got to have this,” or something of the sort — will start cracking. You will have tackled three problems simultaneously.

Also, a good salesman hits counter-emotion. Any emotion he finds in his environment he will agree with. He finds the boss mad at democracy and he will get mad at democracy. He uses that type of counter-emotion; he agrees with any level of the tone scale in which he finds his potential buyer. And by the way, he really sells them too. But if he keeps it up too terribly long, he will practically polish himself off.

Dear old Franklin D. Roosevelt built up a tremendous national sympathy complex on the aftereffects of polio. Actually if the truth be known, numerically, polio is not even serious compared to tuberculosis, heart trouble and any number of other illnesses, because there are not very many of these cases.

A good salesman will even go into the level of effort and counter-effort so that he will be the effort for every counter-effort. At the risk of making you blush, that is generally the way they sell a lot of orders in New York City — using girl salesmen.

If you wanted to help the set called “all children,” you would be going in on the basis of straightening out their poor, befuddled little heads on the subject of “Should I obey?” or “Am I myself?” or “Where am I going?” or “What’s my name?” and setting them up so that the strong ones in the society would become strong. That would be the efficient way to take care of the set of children. But we are already taking care of the set called children if we suddenly start getting polio kids on their feet. If we can get a few polio cases on their feet, then somebody is going to pay some attention to Dianetics as far as children are concerned.

Golf is a typical example of that. The salesman goes out and plays golf with somebody in order to sell him. He plays golf, not because he wants to play golf, but because the fellow he is trying to sell likes to play golf and he agrees with this fellow he is trying to sell. So he is putting out an effort to match up the counter-effort.

And you will have not only resolved the bulk of the cases of polio aftereffects (and believe me, there are plenty of those that are walking; they are around, though they are very unhappy about it) just by specializing in the miracle side of this, but you also will resolve the whole set of children.

That gets pretty grim because he is putting himself on the tone scale at the level of every individual he is trying to sell, and some of those people might be as badly off as “normal.”

“If it does this much for polio... they say it does something in education. I’m having trouble with little Johnny — he tore all the wallpaper off the wall day before yesterday. I’ll take Johnny down to see that man.”

So, counter-thought merely means the thought — the opposing thought. It can come before or after your own thought. It is just the environmental thought — however voiced, however written, however felt.

They bring Johnny down to see that man. You say, “Hello, Johnny. How are you? Would you wait outside?” And you turn around and say, “Well, now, let’s find out what’s wrong with you, madam.”

If somebody thinks we are going into mysticism, it is just about as mystic — this whole thing — as the fact that a table is full of holes, which it isn’t. (By the way, it actually is, but that datum comes out of nuclear physics, not mysticism.)

A tremendous hurdle has been overcome, a tremendous hurdle. It would have taken tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of auditors to have carried the ball.

Now, you can extrapolate this further up and say, “Well, then there is ESP and there are these other various things.” That is in the field of para-Dianetics. If you want to investigate that on thought and counter thought and so forth you might get somewhere, but believe me, you don’t have to do that to get action from a preclear on counter-thought. You just start running “Run all the times when somebody else thought something different than what you thought.” Of course, you are running anger if you do that, because that is completely opposite.

We need more auditors. We haven’t got anywhere near enough. But by golly, for the first time, this handful of us can knock an impact into the society that will be too rough for the society to try to throw anything back on. Anybody trying to stop Dianetics from expanding on a miracle line would have an interesting time of it. They would have to go around and see all the neighbors of every person who had had a miracle recovery and say, “Now, you know this isn’t true. Mr. Jones doesn’t exist.” That can’t be done, can it?

“Run all the times when somebody got afraid at the things you thought.”

I am not saying that everybody is against Dianetics. That is a very paranoid reaction and it doesn’t happen to be true. One girl went up to the hospital the other day to get herself a shot of penicillin. The doctor asked her name, occupation and so forth, so she gave it and it immediately connected her with Dianetics. He said, “You know, that’s an interesting thing. I’ve been keeping an eye on that. We’ve had a lot of fights up here in the staff meetings at the hospital. Several of us have come to the conclusion there must be definitely something in it.”

“Run all the times when somebody expressed grief at the things you thought. And get the counter-thought — get what they thought about it.”

If people attack something hard enough, there is almost always an automatic response in another part of the people to defend it.

“Run all the times when it didn’t matter what you thought” — complete apathy.

For instance, my family — maybe forty or fifty people — are scattered all over the United States. There are aunts and uncles and all of this sort of thing besides my parents — a lot of people. I was the baby of the family — I always was — and when I first came out with Dianetics they were very tolerant: “Well, that’s interesting, Ronald. Very interesting, Ronald.” Since the newspaper publicity has hit, these people are pulling 100 percent for me with no further information.

Just run counter-thought — just run their thoughts on this line — and you will get a lot of action out of a case.

I don’t know what percentage of the society is for an underdog, but there is that reaction and we can take advantage of it.

Some individuals can only do this one, and that is about as light as you can get.

So, the method of dissemination of Dianetics — how we go about the handling of this book in relation to preclears — is also the question of how we get preclears, and for those of us who are still low enough on the tone scale to have to eat, how we get money for processing. There are three possible answers; actually there are many more, possibly and probably, but there are three which have come up which make it rather easy to do this. I want to tell you about these three methods and I want you to think them over, and I definitely want your opinion with regard to them.

Now, let’s take emotion. Emotion is a little bit stickier. There are two bands to emotion: the one which goes into thought and the one which goes into action or effort. The bottom band is communicable, and that is what causes mass hysteria.

You people from the field have been out there fighting the battle, not in the front-line trench — that is the Foundation — but way out in those lonely bastions which are way off on the horizon, and in the observation posts and so forth that are, many of them, far behind the enemy lines.

One girl in the factory says “Nyahh!” — she has seen a mouse. Then 560 women say “Nyahh!” and they don’t know why, and they all dash outside.

So, we have, then, a certain amount of advance to talk to you about. And I have some very definite additions to give you with regard to Dianetics in general, and I want some very definite opinions from you.

Somebody walks down the street in a southern town and he sees a white girl with a black man and he gets very emotional. All of a sudden the whole town is in a total uproar. That is mass hysteria.

One of the things that is going to monitor this book is your reaction in the field, which you will collect from your preclears. When you find that you are constantly explaining one point — not your opinion of it, but when you explain one point over and over and over again and you say, “I’ve explained this for the last time!” — you put that on a good, standard, brief report back to the Foundation: “I have explained this point about Dianetics too many times.” You say what the point is, give what your general explanation is that has been found acceptable on that and shoot it in. This way we will be able to keep the book highly informative for your preclears.

Only let us not make the mistake which was made in the past of calling it hysteria, because it isn’t there on the tone scale. Hysteria sort of says that it is fear and upset and so forth. That just happens to be very easy to communicate, because that is where this mechanism apparently came from. Man is a pack animal. So are deer and other herd animals and so on. The leader all of a sudden sees something that gives him a jolt and you see the whole herd go alert simultaneously. He doesn’t whistle or spit or anything. They aren’t watching him — they have their backs to him, grazing and so forth.

Don’t expect this book to be perfect. It was tested on written sheets — handwritten, some of them — to individuals. It needs a very thorough mauling. But oddly enough I have already seen this book, as it is, turn off one chronic somatic — sinusitis — by the time the person reached the end of the Second Act.

This was a very handy thing as man came up the generations: The leader turns a corner with great self-confidence and runs smack into the teeth of a mammoth. It would actually build up on the genetic facsimile line that the fellow in advance would very often be injured and the others would see it and so on. Therefore it gets into the lower band.

Another case I just heard about had lost another somatic, and had evidently gotten along beautifully. This person knew nothing about Dianetics; he had read the book up to about Act Three and suddenly snapped to.

If anything broadcasts, it is not thought but emotion. We know emotion broadcasts. It is more solid than a radio wave.

Since the book has been issued, a few copies of it have been handed out in various places. I have seen one person to whom this book was given and for whom I knew former techniques and processes didn’t do anything, and this person is way up the tone scale.

Counter-emotion, then, can be at apathy. An individual is walking along, happy and cheerful; then he comes into a crowd of people and they are all sitting around in apathy. After a while he goes into apathy too. The counter-emotion gets him.

In other words, the printed copy is living up to the expectations contained in the handwritten copy. That does not say — and I am not trying to sell you the idea — that this book is perfection. But I am giving you the idea that it can be handed out just as it is to your preclears and it will work just as it is.

An individual is perfectly happy, free and cheerful. He has just learned about a death — maybe a member of the family — but he doesn’t feel bad about it at all. Then he suddenly walks into the house and everybody is crying, and he slides right down into grief.

As the book works better for your preclears, it will require from you less work. And that is the ratio we are adjusting. We are adjusting how much time — time being money when you are investing in lots of cases — you as an auditor have to invest in the case. And right now it balances out; the equation is balanced. You as the auditor with what you know, together with this book in the hands of the preclear, make one hundred. What you know of Advanced Procedure, and this book in the hands of the preclear, with you working as an auditor on the preclear, is one hundred.

This can happen with fear, anger and on up the tone scale.

What we are trying to do from here on out is save minutes or hours of your time as an auditor by improving the book. We can then run up the number of cases which you as an individual can handle. Maybe with this book, at the beginning, you might only be able to handle five or ten cases, depending on your own speed of operation. We will build it up to a lot more.

The same thing happens in a crew of men. The top man in a crew is in a certain tone level emotionally, and the whole crew will be this way. A ship, for instance, has a tendency to feel that all the way down to its last rivet, and it all acts that way.

When you will have to be in a much higher level of operation depends exclusively upon how long it takes us to produce the number of miracles necessary to put the society at 1.0 with regard to Dianetics. I would say five or ten such cases to a town would adequately do it. Twenty miracles in one area — say, Wichita — might suffice for the whole nation, also, because word of mouth is very peculiar; it runs fast.

This is very interesting. Take a ship where the bulk of the upper strata are pretty jumpy about the situation and so forth: you can look down on number one gun and you can see the boys down there getting jumpy too.

Newspapers love to tell you they are necessary to the community life. They do have some value — they carry classified ads and help you keep lost your lost wallet. They whet your appetite for various types of automobiles and so forth. They give you an instantaneous sort of a thing. But I have never received a major piece of news from a newspaper. I have yet to receive a major piece of news from a newspaper. Somebody has always stopped me and told me.

Of course, you can say “Well, this happened because of the sound-power phones, l and this happened because of this and happened because of that,” but believe me, it happens.

I walked out of a little cigar store on Eighth Avenue in New York and a bum was standing there; he had just had access to a radio and he stopped me and said, “Pearl Harbor is being bombed!” I imagine that the number of people who were at radios at that moment was not too many, but the amount of news which suddenly spread from those radios by word of mouth was tremendous.

Now, you start running counter-emotion on the various band levels of the tone scale for an individual and you can eventually coax him into feeling it. The lower a person is on the tone scale, the more trouble you are going to have in putting across counter-emotion.

People have calculated it takes twenty-four hours for a joke to get from New York to San Francisco. Some argue with them and say it takes thirty-six. But the rate of travel on hot news or hot interest is very fast.

In apathy the individual can endure. You ask him to run counter emotion and he says, “Well, doesn’t bother me. Goes on by. Oh, no, there couldn’t be any such thing as counter-emotion — I don’t understand what you’re talking about. You mean I go into the valence of the other person and feel that sort of thing? I feel their anger, right?”

So we are not going to worry about the newspapers.

“No, no. As you’re standing there, can you feel the emotion of the other person? Very simple.”

I think I have given you a quick brace on what we can expect.

They say, “Oh, you mean am I going into their valence?”

I expect something else to happen. Each individual one of you, ever since you came into Dianetics, has wanted to see your own case snap to. Let them snap, because they will snap now. I know they will.

“No. Nope. You’re standing there and you feel an emanation. Here is a pinpoint — that’s you — and here is the other person. Now, we’ll pretend he is a light bulb and it throws out rays and they hit you. Now, we want you to feel those emotional responses. This other person is angry and we want you to feel that anger coming at you.”

“Oh,” the person says, “you mean I go into their valence.”

You have a hard time explaining it unless you tell him to run “endure,” and then he knows what you mean.

Now, you can coax somebody into feeling the counter-emotion of an individual they love very much. Maybe they can’t find it for a little while, but all of a sudden they will find a time when it was different from what it is normally, and then they will feel counter-emotion. You can just coax them into finally feeling counter-emotion.

You don’t have to coax anybody into feeling counter-effort, by the way. You can demonstrate it.

Counter-emotion has some interesting manifestations. But you should know what we mean by it. It comes from another human being, a life form or any part of any dynamic, and you can feel an emanation from that somehow or other. I don’t care whether you call it “atmosphere”; sometimes you just start calling it “atmosphere” and an individual understands it better.

Actually, any dynamic gives an atmosphere to an individual. We don’t care how this is sensed — whether the person is seeing it, feeling it, hearing it or how he is receiving it. He may try to analyze how he is receiving it, but it is always the same thing. (He isn’t seeing or feeling it, by the way.)

The upper part of this emotional band, however, is all on the subject of thought; emotion is in between thought and effort. Thought does not have impact value of its own, but thought, by monitoring an individual’s own emotion, can have an impact value. And thought, by being transmitted to another individual and entering into his emotional system, can have an impact value.

So these are the methods of communication of emotion. But individuals communicate with individuals more or less with some emotion connected. Pure communication by thought, no matter how done, would be without emotion.

Individuals are quite often very happy to work in the physical sciences because they don’t have to have anything to do with anything that has a very strong counter-emotion. They duck on such a thing.

The only real liability to an individual in auditing is not counter thought but counter-emotion. Some auditors, for instance, are scared to run grief; they just won’t run grief off a preclear, and that is that. They just don’t want any of it. They know that a counter-emotion will hit them on it.

What are people afraid of? The auditor is not afraid that the preclear is going to get up off the couch and hit him over the head with a brickbat. And he is not really going to be terribly afraid, unless he has a bad engram on the subject, that the preclear has thoughts about him.

By the way, there is a whole psychotherapy that has to do with a psychiatric psychosis where the psychiatrist says, “Now, you’re thinking about me, aren’t you? You’re doubting me, aren’t you?” And they are only happy when they can get the patient to think or doubt or something.

But what are people in the world at large afraid of? When I say “afraid,” that is right on that hysterical band, isn’t it? What don’t they want to face in the society around them? Nine times out of ten, when you say “Well, you don’t like the feel of somebody being angry. What don’t you like about somebody being angry?” they give you a lot of explanation about it, but what it is, is that they don’t like the “feel” of it. And they don’t like the feel of somebody being scared.

It has been said that dogs can smell people who are scared. You know as auditors that you can smell somebody who is scared, because people get very scared sometimes. But there is something more than that; it is just an impact.

[All available recordings of this lecture end abruptly as this point. We have been unable to locate any recording or transcript for the few minutes of lecture that are missing.]