Now I want to give you the therapy portion of Technique 80.

Tonight I would like to give you the therapy that goes along with Technique 80. So far in these lectures I've talked to you about theory. Well, this technique combines understanding with actual mechanical running. You can just take a preclear and start him with this technique, but he won't get too much out of it. He has to understand what his goal is.

The running of engrams, secondaries, and lock scanning, etc. does not apply in Technique 80. In this technique we are not trying to achieve understanding; we are trying to achieve possession.

Now, if you take any individual or any group of people and you start to work with them and you don't tell them what you're trying to do, they don't do very well; you know, like the government does. Of course, the government doesn't know what it's trying to do. But you as the auditor should know what you're trying to do with Technique 80.

It isn’t necessary for you to put anything on a time track and nail it down hard merely to possess a certain portion of your body.

You're trying to make it possible for this person to be cause on all dynamics. How high you get him up is up to you. Believe me, if you got him up to two, the second dynamic – one and two – you'd have Superman. If you got him to one, two and three and nobody else was using Technique 80, why, you very probably have – oh, I don't know – governor of the state or the president or somebody. I mean, somebody who would just sort of automatically step into that position.

As I have said before, the theta-body (that is to say, the thought-body, or thought-beingness of an individual) has at remote and obscure points along the time track been treated to make it susceptible to implantation.

Don't think you're starting out here with anything light; it's not light. But oddly enough, the technique itself is almost like light processing. There isn't any heavy running of engrams, there isn't any heavy running of secondaries. You should know the techniques of thought, emotion and effort, but it's not necessary for you to get into the beginning of a heavy incident and run it through, because that's not what you're aiming for.

Actually, this was a very routine and mechanical procedure that was followed out with a grim persistency and consistency, which (to me today) is very frightening, for we’ll get someone all cleared, and then somebody will start objecting, and in a few hundred years or so, they will start this all over again. But at least we will take a breather along the line.

What you're trying to do is locate the points of unresolved incident that impede a person from being, and on the other hand, impede him from not being. And, by the way, it might be a new thought to you that somebody could be impeded from not being. Well, it's quite a thought. You ever a little kid and have to brush your teeth, and so on? Well, the little kid wants to be dirty, and he is impeded from being dirty. Well, that's a perfectly good ambition; he wants to be dirty. So?

So, here the body (the theta-body) has actually been made susceptible to an implantation of a personality.

All right. Here's somebody who knows very well that if he becomes a sergeant in the army he's going to lose all his friends who are privates. And so he is trying to not be a sergeant – goes up on the bulletin board anyway. Well, that's upsetting to him – very upsetting. Of course, that type of incident of which I am speaking now is very light, it's very mild, but it's almost funny, the mildness of this-lifetime incidents which impede not-beingness and beingness. It's almost funny; they're just nothing, really.

Actually, these implantation’s are very sharp. There is one here, just within the shoulder, that goes up along that side of the face. One out here - in the wider body, and one out here in the stomach. In addition, there is one in the middle. This little spot that shows up in the middle of a PC’s forehead (shows up as a somatic) actually is one of these susceptibility implants. You tell a person to move center, and if they move center, they quite often feel that spot in the middle of their forehead. They are in their center beingness. Well, you can move a person through all these points of beingness.

If you take some preclear, he's been run over by trucks and thrown off buildings and so forth – terrific casualties have occurred to him. And incidents, heavy physical-pain incidents – they're not what's wrong with him. But here he is, he's got a bad leg and, oh, his eyesight is all bad and he feels horrible and so forth.

I might tell you one more thing about this - there are 2 items there in the middle of a human being. One of them is the “genetic line governing center.” That is the line that reaches back here on earth to the beach, the sea, and so on. That is the line that the zoologists are so interested in, and what the fellow who draws “Pogo” did so well on in “LIFE” magazine a couple of weeks ago. I think the fellows name was Glob, and when Glob came out of the sea he spent half a million years just sitting on the beach thinking about it. What Glob would be, his personality, and all the things that happened to him are on record in this center genetic- body in the middle of the being.

And you say, "Well, gee, we'll have to run out all those incidents in order to make him capable of being – we'll have to run all those heavy incidents."

That may sound a little bit wild to you, but that is the genetic center - the emanation point. The Greek for instance, believed that very thoroughly. And according to the E-meter and according to results, he seems to have been right. The resident being of the evolutionary body which developed here on earth is in the stomach or solar plexus, not in the head.

No. This technique doesn't care about heavy incidents at all. It wants to know why these incidents are hung up in maybes, and that's all this technique wants to know.

Now up the line, back of that and much earlier, goes this enormously long line, up to 60 trillion years or more, and that is the theta-body proper. That is who you are. You are a tenant of this genetic or center being body, which can become very confused. Anyway, here is your theta line that comes along, going through the most weird and complex adventures imaginable. And over here on earth is this genetic line. A little tiny time span that only occupies probably three and a half billion years, if that.

It's going to resolve those maybes. And you will find that the real maybes – the real maybes – are very light. There isn't anything very heavy about them. But the fellow has come up against something which has made him halt in a decision between two heavy incidents.

Now this genetic body goes along here and gets all developed, and you come in all of a sudden and take it over. That happens by the way, just before birth, and if you audit this, instantly your PC goes way up in tone. Now that I’ve told you all this and you have it committed to heart; this is just something that you avoid in Technique 80. You don’t use it. . . but it’s there.

Now, you take the "Handbook for Preclears". There's a Chart of Attitudes in there. Across the top of the Chart of Attitudes you have such things as "I am," "I know," "cause," "everyone," "owns everything"; and there should be two additional columns on it – "freedom" and – forgotten what the other column is.

Now what you want in Technique 80 is first to discover the overt acts and dependencies on the first dynamic. I would like to give you a little more data on that. A fellow can commit anovert act against himself. This is very easy, because he confuses his body with himself. A PERSON IS NOT HIS BODY. A person’s beingness is who the person is, and he just happens to have this body. I just mention this to show you how many sources of body you have here. Lots of them. Lots of bodies and control centers, etc. and so you start to worry about, “Who am I? or Where am I?” and you can get completely lost in all this business of implants and entities. So once you have resolved overt acts and dependencies on the first dynamic, you have resolved those and what the person has done to himself, more or less.

Female voice: "Win and lose."

Sometimes you have to use a gunshot, just hit for anything to resolve one of these big maybes that I told you about in the last lecture. You start in then, with making the individual locate his point of emanation, and then point out to him that anytime he senses that he is emanating from a point, he is standing off from that point and looking at it. You see how that is?

Yes, that's right: "win and lose." Very silly, I was trying to read the Chart of Attitudes and it isn't printed on there.

You say, “Now, where are you being?” He will say, “Right there, Ya, right there.”

Well, anyway, you take those top bands. Now, you take these bottom bands. If a fellow has decided finally – "I don't know," he says; "I just know not, that's all, I'm ..." or if he's decided "Well, I'm dead," that's not very aberrative. But don't get him between "I know" and "I know not."

You say, “Where are you deciding from, that it is right there?”

Fellow says, "I know. No, I don't, I know not. Oh, well, I think I know, but I'm not sure I know not," and he goes this way, bing, bing, bing – rrrrrr.

“Oh, I’m deciding that from the middle of the head. No, I couldn’t be right there if I’m deciding that from the middle of my head.”

And, you'll find one, two, three or four circumstances in the present lifetime which are sufficient to aberrate the case very thoroughly and inhibit very strongly a state of beingness for the individual. One, two, three or four or five; hardly more than that, usually just one. And it has to do with the fact he received a motion and then he tried to use the motion and then he said, "I won't use this motion." And that's the indecision. You see, that's basically the only indecision there is. "I've received a motion. Now, shall I or shall – I'm going to ... No, I won't use that motion." It's that cycle of action. "Something has happened to me here and I'm going to do something, but I'm not going to do it." And he promptly goes into a maybe.

“Well, how do you decide you are in the middle of your head?” “Well that’s easy, it’s back here.”

And you may think you have to take the whole case to pieces to find one of these things. The weird part of it is, is the preclear will give you everything necessary to resolve his case, usually in this technique, in the first session certainly, and certainly within three or four sessions. They'll tell you everything you need to know.

Just do that process with a person for a short time. First they will get very bewildered, and then they will say, “Where can I possibly be? Where am I? I’m lost.”

The incidents are right there; they'll tell you all about them. They will no more than sit down and they'll tell you this incident. And you say to yourself, "This can't possibly be what's wrong with this case because this is too simple." And so, you take this incident and you put it aside and you say, "Well, we'll park that over here and we'll go in for something – we'll go in for blood over here."

The truth of the matter is, all that you are demonstrating to them is - that they are not a geographic location in their body. The first thing then, is to recognize you are not your body as affected. You are not your body; you are you. Well, where are you? Well, you are a point of beingness that has neither time nor space. So, how can you even exist in that fashion? Simple. All right, you are just you. You sort of get the PC reconciled to this fact that he can be anyplace.

No, no. They tell you about it. But the reason you haven't picked up this incident the first moment it showed up is a very simple reason: You didn't pick up the combination of incidents. He gave you one end of the incident, and it was up to you to guess the other end of the incident. But once you know how to guess the other end of the incident, it ceases to be a riddle and becomes a very scientific problem.

Now the next thing we want to know is such a question as this: “Well now, let’s see, what is the chronic emotion of your body? What is your chronic emotion?”

The preclear will always give you the wrong side. And he'll give you the side that's in view as far as he's concerned. He says, "You see this? Well, this is what's wrong with me." He'll tell you, and that isn't what's wrong with him. There's an incident down here which matches this incident, which actually is locked together solid, and it won't let this incident resolve. And here's this incident over here. And why won't it resolve? Because there's a maybe right here.

The guy will think for a minute and he will say, “Well I don’t know. I don’t get angry very much. I don’t get this way very much, I, I guess I’m . . . I guess I just can’t decide what the chronic . . .”

Now, here's incident one. All right, this is an early incident. Now, the first thing that happens on this first incident – it's injurious, the preclear recovers from it. There was some impulse in this incident to use force or do something. There's a little unresolved decision right in that incident.

“That’s it!” you say “That’s it! Run the concept of Not being able to decide.” What he will do is reach around and try to describe something to you, and when he describes it, he names it. Only he names something that he doesn’t think he is describing.

Now, the next thing that happens to him that is aberrative regarding this incident may happen to him any time during the next lifetime. It can be five minutes from then, five years from then or fifty years from then. This incident could coast in just sort of a little annoying little spin sort of a thing. Every once in a while he'd kind of think about it; it wouldn't amount to anything. He'd go on being effective in life, until one day something happens.

The fellow says, “Oh, I don’t know, it seems as if, well life just isn’t that important to me that I would think of such a thing.”

One day he says, "Here is a motion," and something confronts him about this motion. And the second he's confronted with something that requires him to use this motion, he says, "Well, here I ..." There it is – maybe.

You say, “All right, run the concept through your whole body, that life is not important. Run it from your center beingness into your entire body - that life is not important - get the feeling that life is not important.”

So, what's happened is he comes along here, along the track, and way up here – all of a sudden here's another incident. There's force involved in this incident one way or the other. And he says right there, "I'm wrong. I ... Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. I. . . maybe I. . . But it couldn't because it didn't; I mean, it – but, on the other hand, if I had have ..." What happens is, is this incident moves over – this one moves over – and we get them locked together.

The fellow tries and says, “I can’t get it in my body.” “Fine. Well where can you get it?”

What is computation? Computation is the resolution of problems. Computation is taking the maybes out of existence. So long as you can remove maybes by the process of comparing data and get a situation which balances out yes or no, you are thinking smoothly. But the second that you get a proposition where "maybe it's yes, maybe it's no" – zong.

“Just in my right thumb.”

Well, now, you see this in thought all the time. I mean, people do this with a thought – well, a person has a thought and then he has another thought and then the two thoughts are in conflict. Or he goes up and somebody tells him one thing, and then he goes over here and somebody tells him another thing. And then he gets hung up on a big maybe here in the middle, so he starts thinking about it all the time and he can't think about it all the time, so he eventually kind of goes into apathy about the whole subject.

You say, “OK. Let’s run between you and your right thumb - life is not important - run that feeling with your right thumb.”

Well, that would be different. What I'm talking to you about here is force, effort – good heavy effort. There's effort in both of these incidents, effort in both of them, so that it is a maybe which is hung up with effort in it.

He will run it for a while, and oddly enough it will change on him. You will say, “What is going on?”

Now, oddly enough, you will find that this effort here has a lot of locks in it; they're little locks. It's all wound up. There are a lot of maybes, maybes, maybes. In other words, this thing can wind into the whole life pattern; it could just pervade all computation. It can become compulsive, obsessive, inhibitive, all sorts of strange things. It gets to be a mess.

He will say, “I don’t know. I guess it’s - you gotta take things easy - except that it is my whole hand.”

If a man has this sort of a situation happen to him (as everyone has), he eventually – if you took a look at his brains – mind, rather – and had all of his facsimiles, it would look like an alarm clock some kid had taken apart. It's just all snarled up.

“OK, run that with your whole hand. You gotta take things easy - run that with your whole hand.”

Now, there's the computational view. I'll give you a – give you an example. A little kid, he's two years old. Somebody comes in and steps on him – bang. Didn't hurt him very bad, but stepped on him. He's lying on the floor. When he's twenty, the person who stepped on him jostles him a little bit and he hauls off and hits him. Two incidents, both containing physical force.

The fellow runs it. In other words, he gets this concept, he gets it consistently enough and identifies it as a concept, and it will blow.

It just won't work out. He shouldn't hit this other person; he knows he shouldn't hit this other person. The other person didn't do anything, they just jostled him. Well, now, from twenty on, you'll find this man worrying about this. Down in a substratum he's thinking about it all the time.

Then you say, “Now, what’s with that hand?” “Well, it feels pretty cheerful.”

But what's he tell you when you ask him as an auditor "What happened to you in your life?" Supposing this was his uncle George. And he says, "Oh, I'm a wreck because my uncle George did so many bad things to me. All he did was do bad things to me. You know, when I was a little kid I remember going into the store and I had ten cents. And he said I couldn't buy any candy. And another time I wanted to go for a ride in the car, and so on, and he kept my – he kept telling my mother that she ought to punish me. And the whole trouble with my life is George and the horrible way which he acted toward me. And I understand that when I was a little baby, why, he was awful mean and brutal to me.

“All right, run that with your hand - it feels pretty cheerful.”

You start to run him, and the first incident he'll present you is Uncle George stepping on him. Is that the incident you want? No! He's not going to tell you this other incident. And the other incident is his hauling off and hitting George. And George – he's a young man of twenty by this time and his uncle George is pretty old. And yet here he is, Uncle George jostles him a little bit, restimulates this thing, and he hauls off and hits Uncle George – bang! See? "I shouldn't be hitting Uncle George, I ..." Well, Uncle George never worried him much up to that time. But to hear him talk afterwards, you'd think that Uncle George was the – well, he was the devil incarnate.

Now about this time he will probably get a somatic someplace. Probably over here someplace, and you say: “All right, what is the concept?”

This is what is known as justification – justification. He's justifying, and he justifies by presenting you with motions like this, so that he won't have to face this one. He don't want to face that one. No, that was hitting Uncle George. Oh no, no, no!

He comes back with, “Nothing much. What do you mean - concept of a somatic?” “Well, what is the thought, the thought of the somatic?”

Well, you ask him about it, he'll tell you about it. Maybe he's forgotten it, by the way, and maybe not. But if you ask him about it, he'll say, "Yes, well, I did. I hit Uncle George once. I hit him and I felt kind of bad about it, but that hasn't got anything to do with it." Oh, yeah?

He says, “It doesn’t have a thought. You know life can be pretty doggone upsetting when you have a somatic like this.”

You say, "Well, it hasn't got anything to do with it, but let's run it anyway – hmm? Shall we just go through this? Just scan this, very ... ?"

“All right, run that feeling - that life can be pretty upsetting.” The fellow does so, “Why, it goes away!”

"Well, it hasn't got anything to do about it."

You say, “All right, now what is the next sensation to be run at that point where you had the somatic?”

"Well, how about just scanning through it just once?"

You will get another one, another one, and another . . . Here is what is happening - in each one of these cases you are going up the tone scale with each concept. You will start down here, anywhere from apathy on up. And you just keep bringing him up the tone scale; and this isn’t just running ARC to the body. You could run love, love, love - all you want to without getting any action on the body, for the excellent reason that love is way up here, and there are parts of the body that are way down here.

"Well, I tell you, it's got nothing to do with it!" He'll get frantic after a while. And you'll finally take him by the scruff of the neck and you shove him into the front end of the incident and you run him through a few times. And finally he says, "You know, that's funny. My back hurts."

You manage it like this - treat the parts of the body as though they were PCs. Did you ever come up to a PC who was in apathy and say, “Come on old boy, cheer up!”? He won’t have anything to do with you. Well, here is this right foot that has been feeling put upon and stood on all these years, and it doesn’t like it at all, and you say, “Love, love, love, and everything is fine and everything is cheerful.” And the right foot says, “Oh nuts!” You can actually get the right foot saying, “Oh nuts” too.

"Well, what are you doing now?" you say.

The thing to do is to pick it up as low on the band as it is, and start it up the tone scale. Now you aren’t worrying about going back down the time track to it. Why go back down the time track to something that’s there? Why do that? There is no sense in it. It is sitting right there, and it is evidently sitting somewhere near the spot where it is held up, or you wouldn’t be able to get it that easily. So you just run it as a concept, and you bring it on up the tone scale as a concept, and it is a very simple proposition.

"Well, it's this incident. I tell you what the incident that's really wrong with me – I'm lying on the floor and Uncle George comes in and steps on me.

Run a hand, then run two hands, then run the arm, two arms, run the legs, run the center of the body, run the whole body If you can. But run it in these various concepts - and each time you get a concept, YOU GET THAT FEELING. Make the person describe that feeling in words, and get that feeling, and then run that feeling with that part of the body. Then you will find that he comes up the tone scale and he has another feeling on the same area, and another one, and you are running him up the tone scale with that part of the body.

You say, "Run hitting Uncle George." You see? You see the complete mechanical justification? He's giving you this one all the time, and all he's really trying to say to himself, and he's never even able to say this, is "I had a perfect right to hit Uncle George, because look what he did to me.

You see, down here on the tone scale is effect, at zero that is complete effect; and up here at forty is cause. So you can’t ask a PC to suddenly be cause, since he feels all subdivided. Parts of him are dragging back and other parts of him are low down on the tone scale and this and that, and he is not the least bit integrated. Here he is, he is all over the tone scale with the various split ups, etc. He is just all over the tone scale with the various parts of his body. Well, let’s even him up. Just bring his various parts all up the tone scale, and you will find it is possible for him to be cause on the first dynamic. That is the essence of this technique.

The first thing that you get into when you try to stop a fight between two little kids is this: "He hit me first."

You will find that he will yawn, and that he will do all sorts of things, and all of a sudden, some PC from whom you haven’t gotten much in the way of overt acts or dependencies will run one of these feelings, and he will all of a sudden start telling you the whole computation on the case.

Well, actually, it's as simple as that; simple as that.

If he has one of these (down feelings) it is on an overt act or dependency reason. He starts running one of these feelings and a picture shows up, or a facsimile shows. Well, he may want to run this whole memory or facsimile out. Now, if it is a physical pain engram that happened to him, it is not even vaguely important. It means there is a time when he was too dependent, or a time when he was too overt.

If you find somebody hating, snarling and writhing about somebody else, find out what they did to that person. If you find a preclear who wants to do nothing but run engrams about how horrible some member of his family is, how much he was abused by his mother and all he'll do is run these engrams about his mother: his mother did this to him, his mother did that to him, his mother did something else to him, his mother did . . . You know, you could waste a long, long time without resolving that case – lot of time you could waste. Because the fact that he's presenting you with all of these incidents and so forth – just look at that in interpersonal relationships, around in life or on the therapy couch, look at it either way, simply that he's saying, "I was justified, I was justified, I was justified, I was justified." It doesn't matter whether he says "So this teacher grabbed me by the back of the neck and slapped my face and so forth. And I was expelled from school. And this and that happened to me, and – and, boy ... Just boil it all down to this: "I'm justified, I'm justified, I'm justified."

So, when you get a physical pain engram, you find out why it is hung up in a maybe. You know that he tried to use it sometime or another, and you know that it is the reason he is so mad at Uncle George. Uncle George did this to him, etc. So every once in a while, while you are running this technique, a section of life will show up. Don’t worry too much about running that section of life, just blow it on the overt act or dependency line. That’s all.

And it's your job as an auditor to find out just this datum as your opening wedge in 80, just this datum: justified in doing what?

Now you run the body one way and then the other way, etc. - and you are running it with this In view: Since you think that you are the body, you think that you can be aberrated. Well, you can’t be. I would like to see someone catch the central point of emanation, put it In a box, and do something to it to make it aberrated. THE CENTRALNESS OF YOU, THE CORE OF YOU, THE YOU THAT IS YOU, IS ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE OF BEING ABERRATED.

Now, it may take an E-Meter to find it. Actually, they have a tendency to sort of look at an E-Meter and they say, "All right, I'll take hold of the cans" – sort of like "Let's make a little pact here, that you don't ask me any of these questions that are really hot."

Also, it is cause, even though its power might not seem to be very great to you. It is cause. It is never anywhere but way up here at cause on the tone scale. That is something that you have got to remember in running this technique.

And you say, "Well, now, let's see. What happened to you?" and so forth.

You get a somatic - it is some sort or weird cross computation because of these circuits and various other things. “You” wouldn’t give yourself a somatic. So there is some kind of a line up here that is wrong. And it is merely wrong because there is an overt act or a dependency which is crossed up, and there are two motions that are crossed. Two motions - and you can’t resolve those.

And he says, "Well, so, my younger brother kept hitting me over the head with a brickbat and he hit me over the head with a hammer and did this and he did that and did this and did that."

So you as “You,” are sort of standing there looking at this computation, and you ask yourself what you should do about it- This just goes on and on, “What can I do about this computation that keeps running?”

"Come on," you say, "now what did you do to your younger brother?"

What it is, is an overt act plus an act done to the PC, or something like that. But “You” isn’t involved in that, or abberated by it- it is merely that “You” isn’t able to fight its way through this computation. But “You” even have the sense all the time that you’ve got that computation, to clean it up and clear it away, get it off the road. You know that.

"Nothing." The needle will go wheww!

What you are doing now is trying to run up-scale and get up to the level of cause with every part of the body, which cleans up the 1st Dynamic. It may take you quite a while to do it, or it may take a very short time- The point is, that when it is done, you are a unity with “You,” and you should be completely unaware of the body. You are not trying to achieve awareness of this body; you are trying to achieve complete unawareness. You are trying to achieve it to the point where YOU are willing to use this body of yours for anything.

And you say, "Well, now, you're sure you never did anything to him?"

You could drive this body as no slave driver ever drove a slave. When you are capable of doing that, you are all right on the 1st Dynamic. When you can work for 36 hours at a stretch, and all of a sudden the body is just going like this, (drooping tired) and you say, “Come on, let’s go.” and the body says, “All right.”

"Oh no, no, no, no." Whewww!

Because you see, “You” have the particularly beautiful virtue of never getting tired. But your body does get tired; however, if “You” is sufficiently causative, your body won’t even get tired.

You say, "Well now, what about it? Can't you just give us just a little inkling, maybe?"

And furthermore, all these endless incidents: they are interesting and an auditor should know what they are, and he should know where they exist, and he should know how they act, and what they affect, and he should know of this thought-injection mechanism that is used, and all that sort of thing. Technique 80 by-passes them.

"No. Hah. Well, of course, there was that business about the kiddie car, but that – that was nothing, that was nothing."

Sure you have an implant over here, and it gives you rheumatism. That is fine, but the “You” that is you wouldn’t keep it unless there was a big maybe riding there. So, what is the overt act or dependency that makes that maybe? In other words, you are sort of tricked into paying attention to a maybe, and then and only then can you have a pain. Because it makes you abandon that part of your body, and you say, “Maybe it doesn’t belong to me, since it hurts it couldn’t possibly belong to me. I wouldn’t hurt myself; this is silly, so it doesn’t belong to me.” Your ability to take over your body then, is your ability to process the various parts of the body. You ask yourself sometime, “How do I feel?” Ask yourself right now, “How do I feel?” Well, in Technique 80 that is the feeling you run first. Simple, isn’t it?

"Well, what did happen?"

Now, there are various questions - take your Chart of Attitudes - this technique is simplicity itself. Just ask the fellow: How he feels? or How this feels? or How that feels? or What is the concept of it? or What is the feeling? something of that sort, on any part of the body. You get an answer, and you run that.

"Well, I ... Well, I don't know. You see, I was never sure – my mother said I was, but I – I was never sure that I did knock him off of the kiddie car."

After you have run it, you will find it is a little higher on the tone scale. Run that, and you will find it is a little higher in tone. Run that, and you will find it too is a little higher in tone, so you run that, and all you are doing is establishing ARC, ARC, ARC, with that part of the body, right on up to the top of the tone scale.

"Knocked him off of what kiddie car?"

You will find, oddly enough, that when you have done that to the right foot and then to the left foot, and then you come back to the right foot the next day, that the right foot has bogged down. You say, “God, am I going to have to do that all over again?” What you are doing is running through successive waves of Not Beingness. And you can count on running through many such successive waves of Not Beingness on each dynamic. But it is rather rapid when it comes to a final showdown. It is rapid because you are not going to waste a lot of time running thought, emotion, and effort.

"Well, little kiddie car down the street that I brought in. And, of course, it fractured his skull and he was in the hospital for about six months, and he's never been quite right since. But ...

You find an effort, a facsimile that is hung up, that is offering itself to be run; Just by asking the body for its feeling in the area where that exists, you are putting the fellow right square on the line where he will tell you about the overt act. And if you are running him with an E- meter, he will tell you: “Oh, I’ve got this awful pain now, right in my . . .”

Now, you'll get this type of interplay in any case and it follows some very, very definite rules. It follows some very definite rules.

You say, “All right, who did you kick?”

Any time a person is protesting about a motion having happened to him – and this is a hard and fast rule, by the way: Any time a person is protesting about a motion that has happened to him, you can be assured that he has tried to use this motion and has hung himself up in a maybe, or he is merely telling you about a lock on that situation. One or the other.

He says, “Nobody, nobody, that is except my grandmother.” You say, “That’s fine, let’s go on to the next incident.”

Now, any time he gets one of these computational things that won't resolve, his mind is neither peaceful nor clear and his beingness is impeded on all fronts. You can be sure that if he's protesting about any motion of any kind – that something that's happened to him, if he's protesting about that motion – or actually if he's protesting about any motion on any dynamic violently, you know very well that he's guilty as sin of having tried to use that motion and found out it was the wrong motion to use.

Very often it will blow just that fast. This is how you kick things out of restimulation. This is a technique that kicks them out, not one that runs them out. It’s a different thing. Just by asking the body how it feels, say from the Chart of Attitudes: “I am and I am not - To be and Not to be.” You have various parts of the body hung up in various places on the Chart of Attitudes.

In processing a case, if you will follow that thing through, you will see a case start to fall apart in front of you.

So you say, “Are your feet being?” The feet say, “No.” You say, “What is the feeling of “Not Being” as far as the feet are concerned?” Very often a terrific wave of sympathy will turn up. The most unlooked for things will suddenly blow into view when we start a communication line.

I dare say there are people who have run for a couple of hundred hours – as much as that, maybe; maybe many more. Nearly all the auditing was merely their justification. They were just running justification, justification, justification.

But what do we know about ARC? In order to get into ARC with an individual, you have to be able to approximate his ARC to some degree; unless you as the auditor are being cause, and you are just taking him over completely. So this is a method of stringing the line to the existing ARC, and then raising it up.

And they're not going to run out of justification – as long as you leave untapped – the incident that they are trying to justify. So, "What are you trying to justify?"

The point of beingness which is YOU, is way up here at the top. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have quite the horsepower at the beginning to just go “WHOOSH!” Maybe some of them can just suddenly say, “I AM” and go off like a rocket from there. It could be, it could be - I’d never put any postulate in to the contrary, even though it isn’t true.

You know the religious world tells you "Repent, ye sinners." They tell you, "You're all sinners." And everybody says, "Yup, yup, we're sinners all right. It's a good thing the fellow up there on the altar doesn't just know how much." But what's sin?

So here is your scale of Beingness and Not Beingness, and you will find out very often that your PC is going to “BE” at many points on that Chart of Attitudes with many parts of himself. When you get the 1st Dynamic processed on this, you will find out that the body will work for you. It is a very interesting question with Technique 80, to ask the feet, “Why won’t you work for me; what are you afraid will happen?” You are likely to get back the feeling, “Work, that would be bad.” Just run that feeling of not desiring to work, or tiredness, or whatever it is.

Well, they seldom bother to explain that; they make a big plaque or something of the sort and they say, "Sin is one, two (not putting a dollar in the collection plate), sin," down the line, they give you a nice long list of sins. Well, there's no reason to list it. A sin is misusing a counter-effort you have received. That's all a sin is. Because every time you do, badly, it'll wind you up in this squirrel-up.

So that is your first step, or rather the finishing step of the 1st Dynamic.

It makes computation, then, very difficult, very difficult, because everything a person is thinking goes over and under and around this and so forth.

That is Dynamic One - the parts of the body. By just carrying through with the above; and this isn’t the old effort processing technique. Let’s not get confused with that. With effort we just asked to feel alive in the foot, “How does your left foot feel about it? Your right foot? Your right hand? Your left hand? And soon, by distracting the person’s attention we got the somatic in on him, and then we ran the somatic out. Technique 80 doesn’t do that.

You remember the cartoons of Rube Goldberg about the little man takes off his hat which knocks lever which throws basketball and so forth? Well, that's the kind of diagram you'd have to draw to get somebody's thinking apparatus if he's got one of these things badly in view.

This technique runs by concepts, and by getting those concepts when these somatics turn up. The arrival of a somatic is your sign that there is an overt act waiting to be run. So if the feeling and the concept don’t reduce, you know that there is an overt act with the somatic. Find that overt act, and just clip it out. It will usually just come out as a lock. Because if he is holding on to the overt act, then there is another overt act that makes him hang on to this one. You just find them; you find the right one - the right lock - and all of a sudden the puzzle lust falls apart. And you don’t run the incident; you get there by running these concepts. You run the whole body clear up to the top of the tone scale.

Now, that's the first thing for you to remember on this. Actually, it's an overt-act proposition, and you know about overt acts.

Now you go to the 2nd Dynamic. How do you run the 2nd Dynamic? Well, you run it with kids, you run it with future, you run it in any way, shape, or form which to the PC is pertinent to the 2nd Dynamic.

If you refuse to commit an overt act, or if you commit one and are very sorry for it, you will then be unable to remain yourself, but will do, to some degree, a life continuum for the thing you hit.

You could consider this as going out on a crusade to clear the whole world. You say, “Now I’m going to clear me” then this Dynamic, then that one, etc.!’ But your first step is this: you are clearing these various Dynamics with relation to YOU. Get that as a proviso (qualification, condition, or restriction). You are clearing dynamics 1 through 8 in relationship to you. You clear from 2 on in relationship to you and your body. That is the difference. You could consider this, that after you get the first one cleared up then you are going to go into the 2nd one, then you are going to go into the 3rd one, then the 4th, and so on, until you get them all cleared up. Maybe somebody can do it that other way, but right now the best way to do it is to clear YOU with regard to the dynamics.

You say, "Bang! I regret it." That means that you go right around here, and that is not beingness on other dynamics; that is being an effect, not a cause.

It may surprise you that this business of requiring photons for sight is one of the most interesting of aberrations. You see, you put out a radar, sight-wave beam, and you see on that beam. And the implant is so strong that when you close your eyes you say, “Well, I can’t see, because the photons aren’t coming in.” Somebody turns the lights off, and you can’t see. Nonsense!

There's two ways that this sort of overt act happens to you. One, you're cause and you go along and you're just fine. And you receive a motion of some sort or other, and you've got that back here, and you've never worried about this motion before. But you're being cause. And one day you decide to be cause with violence, so you pick up this motion and you go wham! with it. But just as it's going, you say, "Snnnff!" but it's too late. And you spend the next thirty, fifty or five thousand years trying to pull back this instant of time, which keeps you there on the time track.

Have some of you ever found yourselves while lying there on a couch with your eyes closed, looking at the room? If eyes closed, looking at the room? If you did, you probably stopped right then and said, “No, I haven’t got my eyes open, I’m not supposed to do that.” The fact is, that is the way you do see; you put out a beam and you get it back. Bats hear that way. All of your attention units that have anything to do with seeing are parked there, right behind the optic nerve or the eyes. They sit there and when something comes over the optic nerve, they are supposed to see. Oh that’s cute, that’s very cute. I’d like to get my hands on the guy that did this one the first time.

Well, therefore, the first entrance into a case with Technique 80 is simply to find out what the fellow is protesting about. And then, of course, "methinks the preclear doth protest too much." And what you get is a justification and you turn that around and find the overt act. Then run the overt act out and you'll find out you don't have to exhaust this thing very much; you just run it just a little bit and it'll unbalance.

If you don’t believe that by the way . . . is there anyone here that would like to have a horrible headache? Well, all you have to do is just run the bunched up feeling of attention units back of the optic nerve. Just run that bunched up feeling, and you are off to the races. But if you do run that, run it all the way out, because very often when people half-run that, they go blind and things like that.

He'll try to run the earlier one, then try to run the later one and so on; they're all snarled up. You've got a perfect picture of a person trying to run an incident. He's going around and around, first in one, then in the other, first in one, then in the other. They're usually almost to the character of locks. It'll blow; it'll blow.

Blindness is just getting those two groups of attention units off to the side, so that they can’t see through the optic nerve. That is hysterical blindness; nothing much to it. If you are going to resolve a case of blindness, just run the attention units which should be standing behind the optic nerve, and then see what the overt act is . . . blind men usually have burned somebody’s eyes out, or think that they have. They will never suspect this, but you ask them about it. It will show up on the E-meter, and you start to run it. Boy, do they protest, but if you run it, their sight should turn on.

Now, there's another reason why a person will protest: if somebody has tried one way or the other to make him an effect, and this person has worked on him to make him an effect, make him an effect, make him an effect – by being nice to him. And they've practically taken over his whole anatomy just by being nice to him. And eventually he'll get to the point where he'll realize that he no longer owns himself. The ownership of self has moved out from underneath him, and so at this time he says, "I'm just tired of this," so he'll begin to say that this person who is doing nice things for him is doing bad things for him. And there's a big maybe. He's gotten to the point where he realizes that all of these nice things, these nice things, these nice things, for him and his hands and his stomach and his clothes and his time and so on – somebody is being so nice to him. You can't protest against that; I mean, it's just something you can't protest against.

Technique 80 then, concerns itself with the parts of the body and the dynamics as they influence you, and the dependency situation. And you just run, run, and run on the first and then out into the environment, and so forth.

And the guy will finally, if he's ever going to save himself, he suddenly – he suddenly hauls off and says, "Oh, you're hurting me, you're injuring me," and he'll try to do something to the person or do something to himself. And he'll get hung up in that maybe. And that is another kind of a maybe: the protest against nice things.

The way you know that a person has come up the line a little bit on Technique 80 is very interesting. It’s when he stops seeing by photons, and realizes that he is seeing by something other than photons. Some of you can do this right now, only you don’t realize that you can do it. You can look at something and feel it. You look at this board, and you get the board, and don’t think for a minute that it is because photons are bouncing off of it. It is because you are throwing out a feeling beam, and it hits something and gets bounced back.

There's the fellow's protest against himself of having slugged, hurt, injured, with thought, emotion or effort – some other being (you know, overt act), which hangs him up in a maybe. But you're only interested in the maybe characteristic of that, you see. He's hung up in a maybe by doing this overt act or his thought of doing it or an emotion that is overt, or a real effort that's overt. He's hung up in that line or he's hung up over here on a dependency line. He's been made very dependent, very dependent.

One PC looked at a milk carton; you know how those milk cartons are covered with wax, and are cold, etc. He was running on some of this and he looked at the milk carton, and he inadvertently looked at it so hard that he pushed his face up against it. He didn’t like that wet, cold, waxy, greasy sensation at all.

Continually in this society, you'll find a sixteen, seventeen, eighteen year – old kid is in a high state of revolt. "Papa, Mama – they're no good anymore; they're old-fashioned. They can't understand. They wouldn't be able to understand a woman of the world" (or a man of the world, as the case may be). "They don't have a person's best interests ..."

Did you ever look at a real rough piece of lumber and say, “That’s bad!”? You don’t like that rough piece of lumber, that’s splintery. You might say, “It’s because I might get splinters in me.” No. it’s not. it’s because it doesn’t feel very good.

All they're – all the kid is trying to do there in his teens is simply break this: "You're helping me, you're helping me, you're helping me. I've got to do something about it because I'm getting owned, owned, owned. And I don't own myself anymore. And I'm getting worried about it, so I've got to protest, and I'll find anything to protest against." And the kid, at that stage, will have the doggonedest things wrong with his parents. Oh, he just has terrific numbers of things. The parents have done this and done that, and done this and that to him. And actually, what he can't face is the fact that his mother fed him every day.

Now why is it that a little kid likes his dolls when he is very young, and later on he doesn’t? It is because his beingness has been driven out of those dolls. He looks at the doll actually, and he puts himself into the doll, and he feels doll. That is what a doll Is to him. And so is all of his environment: the doll, the floor, the ceiling, the picture, the table - all these things are live entities. Why are they live entities? He looks at them and he invests them with himself. The whole world is a very bright world, for he has it all invested - completely. And the days are all beautiful days. Why? Because he makes them that way. After a while he has done something damaging to the day; so he thinks from then on that it is damaged, and he doesn’t invest in it anymore. It is as simple as that.

One preclear had a very bad set of teeth, and the bad set of teeth was just in protest of having been fed very well, very long. He knew his mother was tired. His mother would cook special things for him. He'd plead with his mother not to. And his mother would cook special things for him and so forth, and he'd eat them and so forth. And he finally got down to a point where he didn't want to have anything more to do with this, so he got bad teeth. And all of his toothaches went by the boards the second this computation was clipped.

All of the dynamics will operate this way. You have a feelingness out into the environment. There is an actual drawing back on these peripheries as a person goes on getting older and older and he draws back further and further, until finally he exists only on this little spark. He has drawn back on dependencies and on overt acts. He has done overt acts or almost done them: thought, effort, emotion - overt act or dependence; and he has just done these things, and done these things.

Interesting, isn't it?

Finally, here he is sitting way back here not even investing in his own body. With many people you can actually touch the back of their hand, and it will feel dead to you. Many people have areas of anesthesia on their bodies.

In other words, you can have suffered any quantity of damage. Actually, personally, you can have suffered any quantity of damage without having anything very bad take place – just damage, as far as damage is concerned. The engram that hangs up is the engram you tried to use and couldn't use and restrained yourself from using; you hung yourself up with it – or somebody was too nice to you too long.

A doctor is always fascinated by this. They get the patient there in bed with a nice long needle . . . “Don’t feel it, do you? No? Good, there is an anesthetized area nurse, write that down.” The patient turns over and there is blood all over the bed, but that’s all right. There is anesthesia which is very, very intimate to you; it’s in your body. There are many and various ways to undo this anesthesia which are more complex than this Technique 80 method, and TECHNIQUE 88 does it even more rapidly. (For your information, almost all homo-sapiens have 1 or 2 areas of anesthesia on their body.) TECHNIQUE 88 is dynamite, and Technique 80 is your prelude and lead, up to the use of TECHNIQUE 88.

And by the way, if any of you have ever had the experience of trying to help somebody else, you know that it invariably backfires. Sooner or later, sooner or later in trying to help somebody you'll wind up with a backfire.

You are doing with Technique 80, an expansion of beingness, and an expansion of feelingness and of livingness into yourself and all the dynamics on out. Technique 80 makes it possible by these simple mechanisms to invest in (anyway that you please) any of the dynamics, or to invest in all of them. It gives you a high level of beingness with you in a body and all right with the world, as far as you are concerned there in the body.

Hm?

TECHNIQUE 88 sweeps up and audits with hammer and tongs, the methods that were used in the past to make you have a body. It audits those out, and blows you out of the body.

Female voice: I don't agree with you.

But Technique 80 is very good here, and some people are so conservative and so forth, that they think they ought to have their bodies. Most people have their fingerprints on record if they have been in the armed forces, and they think that this sort of thing should attach them to the society one way or another.

Oh, it'll work out in the long run.

People have a responsibility about having a body. They think they have agreed to have one, and that is one of the tricks. But Technique 80 should not be put into any wild classification or any wild category at all. Whether or not you believe that you could be able to do without a body at great ease is beside the point, as far as Technique 80 is concerned. Technique 80 is an extension of beingness, and it works in that direction.

Well, I tell you, whenever you find a preclear whose mom and pop are "no good," suspect then one of two things: They've been very nice to him or he's done an overt act against them. Those are the two things you suspect.

Now, there is another little sub-trick on Technique 80 that I will tell you about. And that is - when an incident shows up, burn it down. It is very interesting. You are the disintegrator ray. I told you about going over and over these incidents. Why do they erase? They erase just because you are burning them up. You aren’t rubbing them out; there is nothing of MEST there to rub out. So you are just burning them up. There is no reason that you can’t build up speed and - ZAP!

Now, isn't that strange? Doesn't it sound to you, as I tell you that, irrational? It's perfectly rational, but doesn't it sound to you irrational that a person would get to a point of where he will tell you "My father beat me every day" (his father never laid a hand on him)? "My father beat me every day, and this happened and that happened and other things happened," and so on. Not a word of truth in it. What did happen: his father was too nice to him too long. Because, you see, there's a way of being nice to people which actually is a very insidious way of taking them over. You know, you just interrupt their initiative enough so that they keep getting grooved along your will.

Fact of the matter is, you should take a light look that is completely inconsequential, and practice on it for a while. Just say, “Well, how do I burn this up?” Get a visio, a visio of something and find out how you make the visio go. You will get the trick rather easily, and it will then develop on up the line.

It actually is a nice impulse; there isn't anything mean about it really, but it ruins the self-determination of the person to whom it is done. And that is what they're protesting against. They no longer are owned by themselves but owned by somebody else.

But of course, there is an implant on the track that tells you that you shouldn’t do this: “It is bad to burn things up like this, you shouldn’t do this. If you didn’t have facsimiles you wouldn’t have any experiences, so you have to have facsimiles. If you didn’t have any experiences you couldn’t remember how police can get so tough, and you wouldn’t remember enough to get facsimiles to do all that labor for us. You have to have facsimiles, and they are very valuable. So therefore, let’s all study eidetic (vivid, but unreal) psychology, because the facsimile is the only important thing. Beingness is not important, only the facsimile is important. So therefore, you have to have pictures of everything you have ever seen, been, felt or heard. Do not go running up and down the time track through time taking a look in person, it just isn’t done.”

In either case, a person will become owned by somebody else – in either case. In other words, if you injure a dynamic badly, you have a definite commitment with yourself to continue the existence of that dynamic. That's the overt act, that's life continuum, of which we already know.

Is there anybody here, by the way, that every time he tries to go down the time track to return to another place, just finds that he just sort of sits and looks at himself sitting where he is sitting? I mean, he never quite gets out of present time when he starts to look at something. He says, “I’m going back to the time I was sitting in the chair there, and scan all that out.” He doesn’t seem to place, and he looks at himself sitting in the chair and runs it a couple of times and it is gone. But what he is actually doing is he dubs himself in as sitting in the chair, and then dubs-in the incident that happened to him, and then says, “Now I will run it out.” So he rubs it out, runs out what he has dubbed-in, and says, “Now I feel better.”

All right, life continuum, the overt act, is simply your moving out of yourself, your disownment of yourself. And you go over and try to be this dynamic and say, "I'm awful sorry, dynamic, I didn't mean to do that. I will be you." "You bum over there," – that's you, see that? You just change it completely. And that's a very bad situation. Or the fellow just works so that people are nice to him and nice to him and nice to him; he'll finally blow up in their faces. And then he says, "I'm awful ashamed for having blown up and I realize I don't have any cause to blow up, and, gee, you've been nice to me all this time so there must be some reason why I'm mad." And what he doesn't realize is that he is being owned, little piece by little piece, first his left finger and his right finger and his left foot and his right ear, until he's all owned over here. And he doesn't like that, and that's what he's blowing up against. His lack of comprehension of it winds up in a computational snarl like that. All right.

Well, a facsimile is a little different than that. A facsimile is pretty “SOLID.” Somebody else would love for you to have facsimiles, but you don’t need any. The fewer facsimiles that you have, the faster you can think. The fewer facsimiles that you have, the better off you are.

Now, the reason why it is very, very nice to resolve this very early in the case in Technique 80 is because the case will play all sorts of tricks on you with the additional technique, unless you resolve the overt act and the protest against dependency.

And yet, the moment you start to rub out the whole bank - if you should say, “I’m going to take all of my memory banks, and I am going to wipe them all out.” You would then say, “No, no, no, no that is me. Ya, all those memory banks are me. See? I don’t exist anywhere, so those memories are me, and if I wiped out any of those memories, of course I would be gone. Yes, I need these.” You get people that have this so badly, that locks won’t blow.

You could say, then, that there's an overt act and a dependency – those two things. If you resolve those (very easy to resolve, they're right there in sight; it doesn't take long), you're then free to get on the road, because for the first time you're processing the preclear's first dynamic. Unless you get these overt acts and these dependencies out of the road, what you're trying to process with Technique 80 will be somebody else.

The principal reason why locks won’t blow on some PCs is that they have got to have these memory banks, because their memories are them. It is not them at all, for they are a vital spark of beingness. That vital spark of beingness happens to be cause, and it happens to know, and it can know anything it wants to know- instantly. It is a wonderful little gimmick, and it is the one that does all of your thinking for you anyhow.

And that's very disappointing; you've got a preclear there on the couch and you're processing this preclear and you want this preclear to own himself and then finally get out along the line of the rest of the dynamics. And this is all going to be fine, except you worked for fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety, a hundred hours and all this time you've been processing Grandma. Well, all you've done is rehabilitate the valence of Grandma's ownership of the preclear. Well, that isn't getting anyplace.

However, an implant can be put on to you to such a degree, that you have agreed that this and that is the case. So the best thing for you to do is to go back and look at the facsimiles, or go back and remember what you were taught in school, or go back and do something or other. Think it over, think it all out, get into present time again and then say, “I remember it - that is nonsense!”

So it's up to you to resolve the overt act and the dependency problems on the case. And then, for the first time, you've got him enough inside one so that he can carry on from there. And having gotten him that far inside one, you go on to give him possession of the actual physical facts of his own organism.

There is no knowledge that is worth knowing stored in your memory bank. All the knowledge that is worth knowing is outside your memory bank, and is in complete and perfect contact with the beingness that is you. Seems hard to believe, doesn’t it?

The end in view, of course, actually is continually interrupted by new overt acts and new dependencies showing up every time you go out to the new dynamic – the next dynamic, see? So here you are with your preclear and you just get along fine. You get his overt acts and his dependencies very beautifully resolved, and you've got that all nicely resolved, and now we're going into the second dynamic.

But actually, you can understand completely how an automobile drives by being the automobile. You can slide in behind the wheel. Maybe sometime when you were a little kid you could do this; before some grown-up grabbed hold of you and said, “No, no, we have to teach you; now, let’s start in at the beginning, and let’s not run before we can walk. Now if you learn this thoroughly we . . .” Yes, if you learn that thoroughly, they can get you feeling mighty stupid, and can get a lot of work out of you when you grow up.

Now you'll find out that there's new overt acts and new dependencies on the second dynamic. And now you've got to resolve those again, but they again are very easy to resolve.

There have been times in your life when you suddenly looked at something, and you knew it. And then maybe this question came into your mind: “Well, how can I possibly know this, for I have never had access to it?” Well, you were it for a moment - so of course you knew it. The whole business of knowingness is beingness. If you can be something, you certainly know it. And if you can know something, you can certainly be it. There is no trouble with that, but it doesn’t have anything to do with time; not a thing to do with time.

Why doesn't he like children? Why is he terribly over-anxiously concerned about children? – whichever way it is. There'll be an overt act or a dependency involving this "maybe" computation. And you find out he doesn't like children. All right, he doesn't like children. (By the way, an E-Meter really speeds this thing up.) You say, "Do you like boys?"

After you have learned “To Be” along all of the dynamics, expansively all the way out in relationship to you as a body. Then you can start very adequately to be all the dynamics so that the dynamics (all of them) can clear up; so that all the dynamics can come up tone scale. Of course when you finish that project utterly, there will be no universe left. But that is all right, because somebody by that time will have gotten into such shape I am sure, that he can think a couple of thoughts, and there will be one again.

"No."

All this universe is - is a thought. That is why some people get so very careful about unthinking things. They say, ‘I mustn’t unthink this, because something is liable, to disappear around here.” They have the definite feeling, “I mustn’t unthink.” Yo will run into that.

"You don't like boys?"

As you go out along the line with Technique 80, don’t be afraid of skipping around if your PC just starts to head out over something or other, and you know he isn’t quite ready to soar yet. Don’t worry, he will fall on his face. He will come back to where you think he should be, but let’s not have any of this with this technique, where the guy just suddenly says, “To be, to be, to be - I get it - I am I’ve made the postulate - I’m clear!” For if it could happen that fast, there are a lot of guys I know that just wouldn’t be here tonight. No, it just doesn’t happen that fast.

"No, I don't like boys, no. No, particularly little boys. They ... they're bad, they're bad."

And let’s not have this sort of thing - the fellow is sitting there and you say, “What are you doing?” He says, “I’m being.” You will then say, “Brother you went too far, come here, this is where you want to be, right here.” If you find him being very careful about being, that is very interesting.

"All right, what did you do to one?"

But just for your own edification; just to illustrate to yourselves some understanding, you should make this little experiment tonight or tomorrow. Look at a rough surface and be that surface, and then look at a smooth surface and be that surface. Just try it a few times on a few objects and a few things, and all of a surface. Just try it a few times on a few objects and a few things, and all of a sudden you will sense that, “There is more there than you know what of.” That will give you a little touch of reality. Of course that will come in automatically the instant you get the 1st Dynamic cleared up, or halfway clear. You should try it out, for it is quite an experience. You see, you don’t need to be the effect of sight, sound, etc. to be. You can be the sound, or the sight.

"Oh, I didn't do anything to one. Oh no, no, no, no, no. Of course, except that ... Well, I ... I like children."

This unnecessarily complicated world into which you were born this generation has indulged in a little too much randomity. Too many people have selected too many people out for too many kinds of randomity. That is to say, that we have too high a level of individualism. Engrams create individualism. “Dickens” characters are very great individuals - they are walking engrams. All you have to do to take an individual of this character and spin him around and around, is just key him in a little bit stronger. For if he is that individualized, he is on the thin edge.

And you say, "Come on, what did you do?"

Actually, your sense of individuality is much higher than that. As you go up the tone scale you become much more aware that you are you; even though you can be elsewhere. That is something you should realize.

"Oh, well, it wasn't anything really. It was at this tea party. I mean, this little girl was having this tea party, and – yeah, I was invited over there and it was a hot – well, anyway, I dumped his head in the punch bowl, and he got a bad cut in the head."

Another thing here that I should remark on is that all of this is perfectly safe to enter upon, particularly since the ethic value of the individual increases as he goes up the tone scale. He cannot indulge in this technique without going up the tone scale, and as he goes up his ethic level rises. His ability to be cause then is very stable, and it becomes good cause.

All right, run it out. I mean, it's one of these "big, major incidents." And all of a sudden, you'll find out that he – little boys are little boys. And just carry it along like that.

The other thing that I should remark on here is that you are going to hit apathy on the line as you run this technique- And if you hit something that makes you think you have been put in a printing press, and a binding press, etc. - real solid. If you hit a somatic all of a sudden, an incident that is just “Blah,” you can’t move it or anything; don’t think it is some present time activation or something of the sort, or that you have been sailed into by an entity. It is just an apathy incident. Apathy is almost solid matter, and apathy has a timelessness about it.

You'll sometimes find a dependency on a children level. He feels utterly dependent on children. This is a great one, but it's a very simple one. It's usually, a child – as a child, this preclear was taken care of by older children and he's never noted the fact that those children are no longer children now but have grown up. So he's sort of hung there as dependent upon all these kids taking care of him.

Apathy is very tough for some auditors to run, because they won’t recognize it for what it is - it is almost matter- But you just plow on through the thing, you just plow on through it. You don’t have to run it so much with the motion. You just have to run it with the disintigrator- The next thing you know, you have burned up the apathy. But also, don’t be too disappointed if you run into an apathy incident, and run it for 3 weeks, because an apathy incident is so timeless that it takes quite a while to run them sometimes.

And they tuck him in, you see, and they help him to walk and they show him how to run a tricycle, and they do this and they do that and eventually he says, "I'm not going to be owned like this anymore!" And he flares up and says, "You're hurting me." And you'll sometimes resolve the dependency one by finding that it lead into an overt act.

Many of the somatics that go around and pass for 1.5 somatics are actually apathy somatics. When you get the distinguishment between the two they will re apathy somatics. When you get the distinguishment between the two, they will resolve. But if you keep trying to run them as complete wholes, they won’t resolve. All it is, is a complete Not Beingness with a Confusion.

He went in and said to Mama, "She hit me." No, she didn't, but he said so. He'll go in and make up all sorts of stories to protest. So let's get the protest off, then, on the second dynamic.

There will be some nasty somatics, and because they don’t run out right quick, he is stuck in a chronic somatic. Well, the thing might be running out. He may have been running it for the past year or so, but you could speed it up a little bit as an auditor, and he will go through the thing rather rapidly. You are going to run into a feeling of apathy here and there. APATHY IS CREATED IN UNSOLVED PROBLEMS. So you can get an apathy up without running it, and if you find some- body sticking too long in an apathy incident; get him handled without running it.

Now, we take – of course, women for men and men for women come in on the second dynamic. Well, you get a very special kind of interpersonal relation and a very special kind of overt act – very special, highly specialized – when it comes between a man and a woman who are sexual partners. Procreation in this society is practically an overt act in itself. Boy, that's bad. So you just resolve a few overt acts along that line.

There is an apathy about knowingness. There is an implant on the track which, every time a person tries to know, drives him into apathy. To resolve that is very simple - overt acts. Just run all the times the PC tried to keep someone else from knowing. Don’t bother to run the apathy. All of a sudden this shows up, “I’m not to know.” it says, and he is just stuck right there. Don’t bother to run it as a feeling or a concept too much, for it is clear down here on the tone scale, and you will be 3 or 4 weeks running it. Just skip it and say, “Let’s get all the times that you kept somebody from knowing,” because it is an overt act and the guy has a maybe on it; “It wasn’t right to keep people from knowing.” He did anyhow, and after all he was dependent on knowing himself, so he didn’t let the other fellow know, so- there he is.

By the way, you find out that very often they're not very violent, what you're running into, so that you can clear up this dynamic so that you can practice the second part of the technique on that dynamic. Because this is just the half of the technique I'm telling you about here – that's clearing up overt acts and dependencies. You'll find out that they're quite simple to resolve. Something happened to him and he tried to make it happen to somebody else and then he stopped himself from making it happen to somebody else, and he said, "Bang!"

A chain of locks will spring off, and the second that happens the apathy incident should blow, because apathy is at the bottom of the whole Chart of Attitudes. Any time you get one of these concepts that shows up at the bottom of the whole (or any part of) the Chart of Attitudes, you can either run it as a concept way up on the line, or you find the time when the individual on that dynamic, enforced it. See?

So he's hung up with that, and on the second dynamic those can be very interesting.

Take “I am not.” This fellow starts to run it and gets this terrific apathy. His chest feels solid, “Oh, why did I ever start this Technique 80? I’m practically dead.” The auditor, if he is very sadistic, says: “Well, let’s start at the beginning of this incident.” The guy will probably only run it three or four years, if he lives that long.

On the third dynamic, of course, we have the same sort of a situation. Very often his first concepts of a group are in childhood. Why Freud had to stress childhood to the degree that he stressed, I do not know, unless he was hung up there on the track. But he did completely overstress it, because when you think of all the childhoods that you can have, all the adulthoods you've had and all the other experiences you've had, this little section – childhood – isn't very bad.

What you want to do is to spring the overt acts on, “I am not.” How many times has he tried to convince someone that they were not? How many people has he tried to convince that they were not? How many children? How many pets? How many times did he try to convince MEST that it was not? You will find that the other incident will spring with ease.

But you know something about childhood? It's occluded on most people; it disappears from view. And man has an instinctive curiosity, that when something gets buried or hidden from view, he's like a hound dog, he's got to root down there and find it. Whatever it is, he thinks it's there. Well, very often it is there, but quite as often it isn't.

If you are an agile auditor, if you understand this technique, if you run it on the basis of running the feeling long enough to get the overt act or the dependency, you have a very rapid technique. If you are running it with an E-meter it becomes a rapid technique, because then you are spotting, and nobody can lie to you. And they will lie and lie when it comes to telling you what they are justifying. They just won’t tell you about the time they took little Agnes down to the pond and held her under for minutes, and plastered her face around, and broke her left leg. No sir.

The reason childhood gets barred from view, by the way, is a very simple one: everybody owned you and you didn't own yourself, so therefore you don't own your memories. And these memories just sort of disappear along with the rest of you. And your childhood is full of overt acts and full of dependencies, both ways.

So here we go, on a speed run up to the top. To get to the dependencies, the overt acts, and run right up to the top with those; spotting them, spotting them, and spotting them - preferably with an E-meter. Getting them into sight, running them dynamic by dynamic by dynamic, one after the other.

Very often you can spring a whole childhood into view by merely solving a couple of little minor overt acts that happened in childhood.

Technique 80 is just as fast as the auditor is agile. Any auditor will get there someday, so I can’t tell you that it is a fast technique or a slow technique until I see in whose hands it is placed, and with what equipment. With no equipment, it takes longer. If he runs the feelings all by themselves it is going to make it a lot longer, but he might even have a better job of it. But if you are going to run the feeling just long enough to find out what it is, to then run it up the tone scale, to spot it on the E-meter, to knock out the incidents, and on to the next part of the body; it could be a very rapid technique.

I remark one of about a five-year-old girl. She kicked her mother in the stomach, gave her mother a bad stomach ache, and there went childhood. Gone, right there. She just – "Poor Mama," and so on, and she just buried all that. Big overt act. Blew this one into view, and so forth, there came childhood. There it was, all lying out perfectly arranged in order.

So I would say as a conservative estimate that it takes between 20 and 500 hours. I make that precise estimate for you, so that you will know exactly how it will take you to go through Technique 80.

Gives you just exactly the mechanism of how things get buried from view – just exactly. And that is the mechanism of how they get buried from view, too.

I hope that you have at least then, been restimulated by these talks these past three nights. I wrote some nonsensical lines for you - it is really just horseplay, and it contains some real good clues to TECHNIQUE 88.

All right. You go out to the third dynamic, you'll find out that in a gang of kids, in a classroom, something or other, this preclear of yours has done a betrayal – an outright betrayal – one way or the other, of a group, or has hurt the group or has been very villainous on the subject one way or the other, or later on has become so entirely dependent upon the group that he hates the group.

We have at last come into the lower level of our objectives and we will continue in the future, I hope, in a somewhat smoother manner than we have in the past. We have a loaded arsenal of techniques that work, with which to reach our ultimate objective. We have handbooks that work better than an auditor could 2 years ago. We have a lot of technology, and a lot of validation. It is the kind of validation that you don’t even have to write down. People around the country know that Dianetics works.

And you realize with that, that we've moved right straight into the modern economic system?

The old surge of, “Invalidate-O-Invalidate” has died down. The only reason that people try to invalidate us now is that they are kind of scared. With TECHNIQUE 88 coming out. I don’t blame them. I am going to lecture on that the week of 23, June. TECHNIQUE 88 is a horrible awful technique that does the worst thing imaginable to people - it permits them to get along without bodies. You can’t make them work for you anymore. Even worse, it lessens police power, for they can’t put their hands on your body.

Why do people hate people? As far as the third dynamic is concerned it seems inevitable that they would, because the dependency of each on the group has been magnified to be so great. Oh, everybody teaches the kids this, they teach you this, they tell you this all the time: "You're dependent on the group, you're dependent on this social culture, you're dependent on this economic system, you're dependent on it." And then they never bother to tell you that this economic system, without you as individuals, wouldn't mote... – it just wouldn't function.

So don’t tell anybody about TECHNIQUE 88. In the first place they probably wouldn’t believe you; unless they stopped and thought for a moment how often they step in and out of their body every day. If you want to know whether you can get in or out of your body or not - have you ever been out of valence? Have you ever been so thoroughly out of valence in present time that you were sitting there looking at yourself? It can happen, so don’t think there is any difficulty in getting out of your body. Low on the tone scale the real difficulty is staying in. That is why you are worried about it. You are in a complete nervous anxiety state over trying to stay in a MEST body.

At this tone level of the society, they have a little sign they like to hang up in stores: "If you think you're so necessary to existence, go on down to the cemetery and take a look; they thought they were too." You know, cute. In other words, they say, "Here's this group, this mighty group here; it's all – important and you're not important in it."

We can resolve that anxiety with Technique 80, or we can just let you abandon the whole thing with 88. Thank you very much, and I hope to see you again soon, at another series of lectures.

If you don't believe this is what happens, look at the number of votes that get turned in, in a presidential election. Probably very few people here tonight believe that their vote is very important in a presidential election. You say, "Well, that's just one little vote, and it doesn't amount to anything." Oh yes, it does.

Far as the fourth dynamic is concerned, you get some very, very interesting overt acts and some very, very interesting dependencies.

A man fares better because he's a man, because the rest of man helps him. But every degradation of man, as a form, actually lies on the fourth dynamic.

Every time a person himself acts badly, unethically, degrading himself in some fashion, or is degraded, he has immediately the sensation that he is degrading the whole race.

Think of what war does, by the way, on that. Here are the bodies – because the fourth dynamic, as far as we're concerned as we go up these dynamics (we're on Technique 80, which has to do with bodies) – and on the fourth dynamic, out on the battlefield, they throw the corpses around with a wild abandon. Anybody who has been through a war comes out the other end feeling a little bit degraded.

Natural. In the first place, he's lived like a dog; in the second place, he's committed overt acts against other groups, which are antipathetic to the fourth; but most important of all this, he has acted, himself, disgracefully so as to degrade the form and the physical being of man. And that, all by itself, is probably your strongest level. You would say automatically that, well, you don't think very many people would have offenses against the fourth dynamic. Oh yes, every single time you've not acted with a high level of ethic and pride of race and have yourself deteriorated in any degree or become less, you recognize that you were offending on the fourth dynamic. Because you have a certain face to keep as far as the fourth dynamic is concerned, and you consider it a very sacred trust. So look for those degradation points. They are what are important on the fourth dynamic.

Far as the fifth dynamic is concerned, that's very easy. Again you get the overt act and the dependency. There's a lot of dependency on animals but we don't seem to mind it. We don't seem to mind it too much. Where we get it is the overt act.

Now, a person can get so bad – a person can get so bad, so wicked, so... so ... just mean – that they eventually come to a point where they are utterly, mawkishly, stupidly saccharine about animals. But that's the cycle.

You see somebody who is super saccharine on the subject of animals or a type of animal and so on: "What did you do, fellow? What did you do?" Because his sympathy for all those animals, and this and that and so forth, is his protest that he hasn't done anything to them. "Here's this nice kitty. I haven't done anything to cats; look how nice I treat this cat here. I haven't done anything to cats. You see, the cat likes me. Well, I haven't done anything to cats. You know, men are no good, but cats are all right."

Well, the truth of the matter is, every time you get this pushed way over – the sympathy on the line – find out what he did to a cat.

And it's a little act, it won't amount to much, it'll blow rather rapidly. But, boy, will you have trouble getting him to run it.

Now, the thing he did to the cat unfortunately has to be preceded by something a cat did to him to really be a bad louse-up. But usually what the cat did to him was somewhat accidental – didn't amount to much – and he took it out on a cat but that was wrong to take it out on the cat, so he hangs up in a big maybe.

As far as the sixth dynamic is concerned, our concepts of MEST (matter, energy, space and time) do not allow us to recognize what a good, solid overt act against MEST can be.

We build cars that are guaranteed to last upwards to two years. We build houses – well, they'll be all right in fifteen. Oddly enough, we build skyscrapers – fine, proud, sweeping skyscrapers – and they're designed on the engineering blueprints to last twenty-five years.

We're really temporary. Maybe you didn't know that.

What fools them is the Flatiron Building is still there and so is the Woolworth Building. They were built to last a little bit longer. But the Chrysler Building – in another fifteen years, watch out. Somebody will have to go in there with skyhooks and pick that thing up, because it's not – you know, the marble facing on it is about that thick. They got a real thin saw and made real thin slabs, and they glued them on it. Great stuff.

Well, this temporariness permits a deterioration of MEST. Actually, have you ever noticed how a Negro, in particular, down south, where they're pretty close to the soil, personifies MEST? The gatepost and the wagon and the whip and anything around there-a hat. They talk to them, you know? "What'sa mattuh wi' you, hat?" They imbue them with personality. Well, you don't do that very much anymore, because as you go down tone scale you don't do this. Because, actually, all that MEST is, really-you might consider it in the same range and the same band as solid thought. But it's, by aesthetics and other things, molded up by man into being what it is.

And an overt act against MEST: you're going to find that people will treat their MEST very, very badly – very often treat their MEST very, very badly. Car: Well, they go on driving it and driving it and driving it. It knocks and it spits and it snarls and sniffs and jumps, and they just go on driving it, although they really know that if they don't get a little thing fixed on that car that the next thing you know the car is going to start getting a pyramid of things happening to it.

Well, this again will give you an oddity; they have a dependency incident or an overt-act incident – one, two, three, four, five incidents – on the subject of MEST when they do that. And they've got this one on the sixth dynamic.

Now, you say, how would you possibly make an overt act against MEST?

Nothing easier. You could have them way back or just recent and so forth. You know that wrecking a car is a heck of an overt act against a car.

And you say, "Well, I shouldn't have done that," and so forth. But you say very often, "Well, it wasn't a very good car anyway and the insurance will pay for it. I don't want to look at this car. Yeah, well, it's just a car. Doesn't matter." Well, a boy has to get pretty bad off if he gets to a point where he says "Well, this car ..." Little while before that, he liked it. But now he's got to demonstrate that, well, it didn't amount to much, so the overt act can't be very much.

Compare that with your feeling of possessions when you were maybe three, four or five years of age.

What we should have used childhood for, in researching in the field of psychotherapy, was to find out how good things could be, not how bad they can be. And if you find a child: a possession, an object, a piece of MEST – they personify it, they take care of it. Of course, they are very forgetful; they leave the doll out in the rain and so forth once in a while, but actually they don't do it on purpose until they're taught to – until somebody takes their MEST away from them.

The little kid, at first, he doesn't pay too much attention to MEST, he's not very careful about it, but when he has it he likes it. Well, you're not supposed to be too careful about it, but when you have it you like it. And if you like it a lot, well, you kind of take care of it and you keep taking the rag doll to bed, and you take this and that and so on.

Then all of a sudden somebody comes along and says, "Dear, put your doll away."

"Don't wanna."

"Go on, put your doll away."

"Why?"

"Well, if you don't, I'll beat the hell out of you!" (They don't say that.) Well, after that has happened a few times, you see, the child has the idea that it no longer owns this doll, and has moved away from beingness as a doll. So it won't take care of the doll.

And at first, a little kid is delighted with clothes. "Oh gee, clothes." Gets them dirty, not too careful of them, but clothes, gee. Nice frills, ribbons – little girl, you know? Little boy, you give him a Confederate hat, put it on his head, something like that – boy, that's really something. He really likes that.

All right, what happens to him later on? Why does he sort of get a strange idea about hats and frills?

"Dear, why don't you brush your shoes? Take care of your shoes." "Don't walk through the mud puddle." "Don't get anything on your pants." "When you're eating at the table, don't spill things upon your shirt. Mother has to work and slave and wash and wash and work her fingers to the bone so that you can stay clean."

And after a while – and after a while the kid's convinced that he doesn't own any of these clothes. They're not his, so he moves out of the beingness of clothes.

Of course, before he's very old in this aberrated society, he will have moved out of the beingness all the way down the dynamics including his clothes and his own skin. Now, you see, there's the reverse process. Now we're trying to take him and put him back in his own skin and then give him back these things. Well, you go on up the line.

Overt acts against the seventh dynamic are much easier than you suppose – much easier than you suppose. Because, actually, it's an overt act against aesthetics, which is the key on the seventh dynamic. There's where it shows up mainly, because aesthetics are mainly manifested on the seventh dynamic. And so you get this way up the line there, aesthetics.

You've all had your aesthetic values and interests and so on pushed around pretty badly. But there's a dependency and there's an overt act on the seventh dynamic – aesthetics – that you should hit. There's nearly always one there. If the beauty of the world has disappeared for somebody, and he keeps saying so and he keeps saying so, find out where he killed it for somebody else.

And you find that lock and his beauty will turn on again. And I don't know anything else that will turn it on. In other words, if the world is not beautiful to him anymore, find out where he killed it for somebody else.

That is a very, very nice way to get into the seventh dynamic. There are other things on the seventh dynamic if you've been fooling around with mysticism.

And then we get to God. Well, now, I haven't had any conversations lately in that department. I always more or less ran on the theory that you couldn't do much injury to something that was that big and that vast, but you sure can injure yourself in doing something to it. And here again we have the two facets: overt act and dependency. That person who has gone on being dependent on the subject of the eighth dynamic, of course, he gets to a point where he finally says, "There is none! I'm not going to have anything more to do with it. No. No, no. Anything that would own me that thoroughly must be bad; therefore, I'm not going to have anything to do with it, and I'm going to throw it overboard, nearest possible line." And he becomes a professional atheist or any number of things. And oh, he goes through a lot of mad gyrations. But, you see, there's actual overt acts against that dynamic.

Processing an entity one day that had come from the deep, dark vastnesses of Siberia, and had been a perfectly valid being up to the moment when this entity had foolishly robbed a church.

That was an overt act many centuries ago of such great magnitude that it had taken this thing down from any status at all to just zero – sheww! Hit that one – bang! Came right back up again. This, by the way, is in Entity Processing.

Now, there's an overt act of a highly specialized kind, but you start asking the preclear and you'll find out that there are many overt acts against the eighth dynamic- many of them, many of them, many of them.

It depends on what the individual believes the eighth dynamic is. He's told what the eighth dynamic is: "God is everywhere, God is everything, God is in everything, God is outside of everything, and it's in everything, and it watches you, and the watchbirds are watching you, and God is watching you and everybody's keeping his finger on you ...." And the first thing you know, the fellow is going to say to himself, "Hm-mm, there's something wrong with this. I wish I had a little privacy." And this is hard on him.

So if he's accepted this – this concept or this description – which is perfectly true; I mean, God is everywhere; he isn't watching you, you are it. Anyhow, perfectly true, maybe, to him, that God is everywhere and he'll do something which he knows would be very offensive to what his concept of God is. And he knew that God was watching him, so therefore this is an overt act against God.

And do you know you can pick that up out of almost anybody that has ever been infected – I mean, ever studied Christianity.

Now, that is so deeply buried, by the way, that it takes considerable digging sometimes to make your preclear find this one.

The dependency one is easy; everybody knows you depend, depend, depend, depend. But on the other side, that is not as easy to find. When did he do something that was an overt act to God? But it's one that you have to solve on the case or you'll never get him up here where he'll play God. And by the way, that's a terribly hard thing to do – terribly hard thing to do – unless you happen to be completely, ravingly insane and merely are playing God and nothing else, which doesn't count.

Well, as I've shown you this, you go on up the dynamics one right after the other until you have found your overt act and dependencies in the preclear on each one of these dynamics, all up the line. And you don't find very many of them on each dynamic – one, two, three, something like that. You don't have to run them very much, just sweep them a few times, take the charge off of them. All of a sudden he'll recognize them and suddenly begin to compute on the subject.

And there, every time you start this process of 80, your first step is to clear up the dependency and the overt act on the dynamic you're working on. And then you use the second part of the technique.