July 24th, 1958. And I'm going to give you a warning. Beginning about tomorrow, those that haven't asked questions are going to be called on for them. It's your responsibility to integrate this information and it's too much to ask that this much information which has remained relatively obscured for the last few billion, trillion years would be all digestible to you in one fell lump and that you would never have a question about it.

Well, anybody Rockless?

Well, one way this could occur is that you'd feel rather apathetic about it. In view of the fact that concepts are passing through here in these lectures that challenge some of man's most deep-seated convictions, it would be abnormal not to have a question about some of them. It means that you just must be letting it go by and taking everything Ron says without analysis and boy, you start doing that and you'll have a hell of a time for yourself; I'm not kidding you.

This is the ninth lecture, 20th ACC, July 24, 1958.

Even on staff, tell somebody to do something and if they don't start asking me „Why?“ once in a while - which is a thing that would never happen in a military organization, you know? You say to somebody, „Now, let's get those things wrapped up in green paper after this, hm?“ And if somebody in a military organization said, „Why?“ why, of course, he'd be court-martialed and disgraced and they'd shoot him or give him wheel - tie him to a wheel out in the field or something. But that is not the way we work around here.

Our immediate concern here today is to take up the mechanisms and noumena - we don't have much phenomena anymore in Scientology, lots of noumena - of stuck needles, and the anatomy of needles. Dull subject; cover it rather rapidly and then we can get onto a more interesting lecture. So this lecture isn't an hour long, this particular one. Probably break down into two or three lectures.

What we seek is your intelligent participation and what we frown on is your hypnotic never-inspection. And if you don't inspect this stuff, what's it doing? It's just going in as a lock on what you already have of it. See, it's an exploration of you as well as anything else and if you just say, „Well, that's the way it is because Ron says it is,“ why... It's either true or it isn't, you see? And if it isn't true for you, it isn't true.

Now I can cover this thing very rapidly and you can grasp it very quickly and grasping it, undoubtedly be able to locate all the stuck needles you want on any case.

And if somebody on staff doesn't ask me once in a while, „Why do you want it wrapped up in green paper?“ I know they've just sunk into the humdrum apathy of it all and the waves of time are washing over them as they roll in the dirty sand. You get the idea? Now true enough, theoretically, it'd be so clear and concise and so forth, that you pick it up. But it'd be too much to ask that somewhere along the line some point or another didn't go - just went in sideways, you know, and it just didn't fit at all and you just couldn't see how that one went in.

First question you have to ask is „Why is a bracket?“ A bracket describes the potential directions of flow from the preclear to another, from the preclear to himself, from another immediate object or person to itself, to the preclear, from the preclear to somebody else, from somebody else to the preclear, from an object to somebody else, object to person to somebody else, and somebody else to an object to person, and somebody else to somebody else, and here we go.

If no point of this material - if no point ever did this, then we could only assume one thing: that you were either OT or Clear or - hm! awful shape.

Now, how many potential flows there could be on one of these brackets is pretty hard to establish. I had somebody count them up to 153, I think the number was - you know, another to another, and another to himself, and somebody else to the preclear, and so on, then that somebody else who was a somebody else to the preclear, to a somebody else, and then himself on somebody else to himself, you see? Do you get the idea? But the practical number - the practical number is nine. And in a shortened look at it, five can be gotten away with.

Yes, Hal?

And the way a bracket runs, the easiest look at a bracket is actually not in any other terms - not in any other terms but flows.

Male voice: One thing I'm worried about is my auditor judgment. And it's not that I'm so confused about what you say as it is that when I get in session I feel that I've - I haven't got an ounce of judgment left. I don't get... Now, that's typical of swallowing too much data. I know exactly what you're talking about.

Now, when you say a „flow“ you mean a direction, a potential direction.

Male voice: Yeah, because.

And just to go off rapidly on this nine-way bracket:

That's typical of swallowing too much data without inspecting some of it.

How could you help yourself?

Male voice: Is that it?

How could you help me?

Yeah, that's right. That's right. And that is a common course manifestation. Now, one of the ways to handle this, and the way it's usually handled, is somebody puts it on the back burner and see if it works and hopes it'll turn out and become glimmeringly bright as far as they're concerned.

How could I help you?

I told you the other day, I said, „You just get up there to the driver's side of these TRs, see? Get up on the cause side of the TRs.“ Now, how has that worked out?

How could I help myself?

Audience: Very well, Ron.

How could you help another person?

Yeah, very well, sure. Now, I can tell you the same thing, Hal. You just get up on the driver's side of the data. If you just get the idea that you originated all that data, you'd have the truth. See? It would be the truth. You didn't originate the phraseology or presentation or maybe the organization but you certainly did originate this data one way or the other or you wouldn't find yourself living in this universe with these people. Get the idea? So, that by flipping over to the cause side of the thing, you can sometimes let yourself in for some awfully dizzy feelings because you'll go straight through the irresponsibilities and the forgetters. You know? And you'll say - all of a sudden you'll just go blank. You'll just sit there looking at an E-Meter and you just go blank! That's all. There sits the E-Meter and you say, „What the hell is this? And where am I?“ you know? You've backed up to the cause side of the phenomena in somebody else's mind and it stays blank for maybe fifteen, twenty seconds, you know like, „Where am I? What am I doing?“ Well, it's all right. There's nothing wrong with that at all as long as it doesn't upset your pc. Pc wants to know what happened to you or he looking at you strangely or he's out of beat and so forth, you tell him, „Well, I just went blank for a minute.“ He'll understand this. If you don't tell your pc what really did go on, you have got a basic unreality going in the session which will eventually add up to what? An ARC break.

How could I help another person?

You keep lying to your pc. „Oh, I'm doing fine. I've just got your case right in the bracket, (except I'm sitting here being blown out of my chair every couple of seconds).“ Your pc does not appreciate your abandoning responsibility because you're in such bad shape. This he does not appreciate. But equally, he doesn't appreciate your being dishonest with him. And you're expected to stay in there pitching and at the same time not be dishonest about what you are doing.

How could another person help you?

Now, back up to the cause side of the data. And the first thing you know, you will have a grip on the situation which is fantastic. It's not my data. See, here's the whole trick: It's not my data at all. The truth of the matter is that the data has been generated and agreed upon and postulated and wound up and balled up in the long tangles of time that some people laughingly call a time track and all I'm doing is restimulating it, in essence. (That doesn't mean I'm restimulating you.) So much so that every once in a while somebody says, „Well, gee-whiz, if you want to audit a valence, why, you ought to audit Ron.“ Get the idea? „And then you'll feel much better.“ Funny part of it is, they always feel much worse. I wonder why. Well...

How could another person help me?

Male voice: It's prosurvival.

And how could another person help another person?

It's prosurvival. I never did beat any of you up, so forth. You get the idea? And you start going along the line and if you start auditing it out, what you audit out in reality are all of the half-moved-through blocks, see? And then the guy is put back to nowhere, see? But now, you can steady out yourself and as an auditor - much better than a preclear - blow your way through. And when you've done that and come up to the cause side of what you are doing, boy, have you got it made, see? You've got it made.

Now those are just - indicative directions of flow and just rattle off the patterned bracket. Now, that is a patterned bracket.

Takes a little bit of guts to do something like that but it is quite common for a staff auditor. Staff auditor comes up and says, „Ron, I-I-I'm - I haven't got a clue. What is this guy doing?“ And I say, „Well, what's it look like?“ and so on, and I'd say, „Well, it's probably so-and-so and so-and-so, you know?“ And the auditor doesn't inspect it; he just goes back down and he runs it. Next time I say something to him, or something like this, he's liable to go kind of, you know, blank.

If you have any difficulty keeping your finger on the book as you're auditing somebody, you know, and which leg of the bracket are you on now, then you're trying to remember a bunch of words and you don't know what a bracket is. See? Now, I could stand here and figure out a nine-way bracket just by looking at the number of directions of flow there could be in a given space out in front of me. You see? However, I'll let you in on something: I almost never use a nine-way bracket. Preclear's a very complicated preclear, I am liable to go up to twelve, fifteen. If it's a very simple preclear, why, I go down to about five, and I keep track of it by the direction of the flow.

And I watch this. I watch for this and when I find a person doing that and not coming up on the cause side of the data at all, but just drinking it down, I know we got somebody who is insufficiently cause to regenerate the data. And I know they're going to have a hard time. I just usually sometimes get them some auditing, just in general, not on anything, just clean them up just a little bit more, get a little bit more of the Rock off the case. Or plead with them, „Come on now, just sit up there in the driver's seat. Don't put me in the auditing chair.“ And you get a tremendous resurgence of ability and initiative.

Now, if you were auditing somebody with an oscilloscope rather than an E-Meter you would see the actual direction of flow at least away from and toward the preclear. An oscilloscope rigged with a one-hand electrode will actually demonstrate this; you will see its lines going purr-purr-purr-purr this way, and then slow-slow-slow and then stop. Sine wave is just hanging there, you know.

It isn't that what I'm telling you is repressing initiative. It's what I'm telling you is restimulating data for which you have abandoned, to a marked degree, responsibility. Therefore, it's very easy to say, „Well, Ron's responsible for that,“ you see, because you've already abandoned the responsibility for it. Now, the second you begin to assume responsibility for it through the action of auditing, you will blow through a tremendous - a lot of junk, bank and everything else. You get the idea? Sometimes an auditor sitting there'll say, „Well, I just can't say one more command. I'm just going through the floor. I am so tired. I am so weary. The Instructors keep telling me to confront, confront, confront. So what? So what? I'm going mad, mad, mad.“ Well, what's essentially wrong? Somewhere in this session - somewhere in this session he was not in the driver's seat, you see, and he didn't come up to cause-point on the data, and he started to abandon responsibility for that immediate session, for that immediate datum. And as fast as he abandons responsibility for it, he keys himself in on having abandoned responsibility for it, don't you see? And the next thing you know, why, there he is in a mess.

And then you say - that was „How could I help you?“ you see, and then you say, „How could you help me?“ And you get flow-flow-flow-flow-flow-flow-flow-flow-flow-flow-flow-flow- flow-then slow-slow-slow-slow and stop - the other direction.

Well, the way to get out of one of these messes is just get to cause-point on the thing. And you will find astonishingly enough that you are, particularly in this ACC, just about as close to the right thing that you could do in the circumstances as we can easily get to here.

Now, this is an interesting thing, that somebody's thinkingness could be measured electronically as on an E-Meter. It's even more interesting that it could be measured on an oscilloscope. However, an oscilloscope is a rather expensive instrument, it may or may not go out of whack rather easily, but I've never seen one operate long.

But the right thing to do when a pc says he's in trouble is to, of course, give him a hand and find out what kind of trouble he is in and so on. That's the right thing to do.

And as it only tells you two directions of flow according to its scope, then, its usefulness has a small limitation on it.

The right thing to do when somebody executes an auditing command is to answer up and acknowledge the fact that he has. The right thing to do is to get the Rock off the case and knock out the obsessive creativeness, and so forth, and get this fellow so he isn't creating everything under the sun, moon and stars and lousing himself up gorgeously. These are all right things to do.

Nevertheless, for the purpose of locating the Rock, an oscilloscope would be a better instrument by far than the E-Meter if you had trouble adding up the factors which I'm about to give you here, because it would give them there, right there on the scope.

As a result, all you have to do is survey the rightness of what you are doing and by that alone, you assume some of the responsibility back and the blankness goes. Okay?

You would say „barnyards“ and the oscilloscope would be moving, you know; and you would say „vaults“ and the oscilloscope is moving; and then you say „heathen idol“ and the oscilloscope goes dididididididuh-stick.

Male voice: It's better.

Now, here is this mechanism - here's this mechanism here, then, that a flow is arrested. Now, you should understand that a river doesn't only run, it sometimes runs into a dam and stops running. You see that? A river doesn't only run; it also stops running while still potentially a river. Now, that's possibly a very good analogy here.

All right, all right.

You are interested in the dams across the river when you're interested in a stuck needle. You're trying to find out what is damming the river and refusing to let it flow.

Yes?

Now, in view of the fact that electronically, preclearly, a flow runs just so long in one direction and then overruns itself and sticks - the flow itself, and the conflicts and eddies within the flow make its own dam. So you say this river flows south, flows south, flows south, flows south, flows south, and all the time it's doing this it's carrying bits and pieces and chips and weeds and logs and eddies and currents and so forth, and then it flows south; and then there's a big rainstorm after a forest fire and a lot of logs and so forth fall in the river and it thhhhhh - doesn't flow.

Male voice: In the creation of one of these dispersal cases, what is the little tick that gets them over on the high side of the meter?

Now, if you wanted to drive everything back to where it came from with an enormous fire hose, and if you just tipped earth just a little bit, why, the river would clean itself up and all that debris would go elsewhere, see, and it would flow north, flow north, flow north. But first it would flow north this way: flow north, flow north, flow north, flow north, flow north. Well this is the direction of flow: of course, it's north. You know frrruuup, see? Now, in a pc there are seven other major stream directions; it isn't quite as simple as a river; it is more a pattern of rivers, and any one of that pattern can jam by being overrun.

What's the computation there, do you know? How the hell are they created? How is a case like that created?

Do you know why you get tired? All you have to do is flow in one direction - first be troubled by flows, that's the first requisite. Just flow in one direction, flow in one direction, flow in one direction, flow in one direction, flow in one direction, flow in one direction, and after a while if you are troubled with flows, as the hours or days or weeks go by, you start to flow in one direction. And you say, „Ohh-hum. Oh, I'm tired.“ This is a little trick that every housewife should know. You find all of this stuff or a lot of it in Scientology of four, five years ago. There was quite a bit of it around. A lot of study of this, and we are not above profiting by what we already know. Unlike some people believe, we do remember what we have learned and what we learned later did not necessarily invalidate what we learned before.

Male voice: Yes.

Every time you come out with a new technique there are a lot of people think you have changed your mind. Well, that's because they didn't find out what technique you came out with in the first place.

Well, let's look at this. Supposing you had to take care of a dog. And you didn't much care for dogs one way or the other but here was this dog and somebody told you to take care of the dog. And you didn't take care of the dog, so they whipped you and told you you had to take care of the dog. They explained to you how dogs suffered and etc., etc., ad nauseam. And so you took care of the dog a little bit more and then you got sloppy about it, or something like that, and the dog got sick; this is an enforcement too.

That's always an interesting one. Somebody says, „Well, it just changes all the time; changes all the time; changes all the time.“ It's a horrible question to say, „From what?“

And so you said, „Well, I'd better take care of the dog.“ And then you slopped off again and forgot to feed the dog for three days and then whoever was making you take care of the dog gave you hell and threatened you with a beating and bed without supper and all the rest of it, you know? And you've got to take care of the dog. You wind up in a funny frame of mind about the dog. You were doing something without an ARC connected with it that is adequate to the situation. Takes ARC to as-is things, so your actions are now all sticky. You're not looking at them. You're not inspecting them. You're just doing them because you have to do them. You get the idea? And the next thing you know, because of punishment... Punishment, by the way, has to accompany this sort of thing. It has to be physical duress, not of the magnitude of really being spanked. It's physical duress of being put in an electronic disintegrator and made nothing out of in a hurry, or something like that, on the backtrack, see, that starts this sort of thing.

And the fellow says, „Well, what they thought before, of course!“

And after a while you, drifting out in the world by yourself and no longer in those associated confines, you get a dog yourself. And you worry about the dog, see? You worry about the dog. You don't enjoy having a dog. You just worry about a dog, you see? And then let's say something happens to this dog, as dogs ordinarily have things happen to them. That's sort of a fate of dogs. Their life span is much less than that of a man, so by the time they're nine or twelve or fourteen, certainly, the dog kicks the bucket and goes to the happy barking ground and that's that.

„Well, what did they think before? I mean, give me one thing, you know?“ And of course you've got ahold of a guy who hasn't a grip on one single fundamental. So of course he knows it changes all the time because he has no place to start from and no place to arrive at, so he's then free to have any possible opinion.

Now, you don't - you don't acquire another dog. Strangely, you just don't acquire another dog. You're fairly friendly with dogs. Dogs, you can take dogs; you can leave dogs alone. That's sort of your attitude about it all. But dogs aren't something anybody gets very excited about and rather, dogs are something you sort of ignore, maybe.

Now, if you can see your pc as nine potential directions of flow as a practical number, a complicated pc as fifteen or twenty or thirty, and a case that is running rather well (you can find stuck points on the case rather easily, and they free rather easily and so forth) you can see five major directions of flow, and you get somewhat of an idea of what you are doing when you are running the side of a bracket.

You can't quite see why Joe owns one. It seems hard to believe that he'd go to all the trouble of owning a dog. But occasionally little thoughts cross your mind about „Isn't this a funny society with 90 million dogs and cats in it and only 170 million people“ - peanuts.

And we call it „bracket“ from a term taken from artillery. The artillery puts a shell on each side of the emplacement just to make sure. And by asking all of these questions, you for sure make sure that you don't miss a potential stuck point.

And you have now set up, not a super-aberrative situation, but you have now set up a - one leg of a bracket that is stuck. Got that? All right.

The odd part of it is if you ran a flow just question by question by question, you know, not repetitive question but just ran the whole bracket, see, ran the whole bracket, it wouldn't matter how badly stuck the flow was in the beginning, it would eventually free, because your goal is not necessarily to get flows running, but to cure the preclear of this particular flow. And you would never miss if you made a bracket out of it.

Now, somebody comes along - now somebody comes along and puts you on an E-Meter and finds when he says, „Dogs,“ that you get a misbehavior of the meter. If it was a severe thing, you'd get a stick. Don't you see? All right. So much for the anatomy of a ridge.

In other words, you just drop artillery shells all around him, nine shells to be exact, and one of them will blow up the ridge. That's the most practical way of looking at it. There's nine potential dams and if you threw nine shells in, repetitively, one at each potential dam, sooner or later, like artillerymen, you're going to get lucky and hit something.

Now let's take somebody who has been part of an organization that had to be responsible for something and somebody who, although somebody was responsible for him, betrayed him - let's get the rest of the legs in here - and let's get other people who had to be responsible for things but weren't and let's get a police force that's responsible for crime so generates it, and let's get this and let's get that. And the next thing you know, we have an interestingly blocked-up case. Only this time its ridges are on other flows as well as the personal outflow, you see? Well, where everything has had to be responsible for other things and nobody liked being responsible for anything, and everybody sort of abandoned the idea of responsibility after a while, there's only one place to go and that's out. Only there's no „out“ because the total perimeter of the horizon is entirely blocked. There's no place to go, but the direction is out.

Artillery, of course, is the art of scientific luck. And similarly in auditing - in auditing don't just go along using a tool without knowing what it's for or what you're using it on. Please, if you have a big question of what this tool is and a larger question on what you're using it on, it is not smart just to sit there doggo and, you know, just do it because „somebody said so“ because the tool will never be useful to you and your hits will be seldom. And just for improved marksmanship you should be very careful to look over what you are doing and look over your own understanding of it.

Now, if you said, „Get out,“ to this fellow, it wouldn't worry him. By the way, this is one of the tests of these cases; we tell him to „Get out.“ A case that's bad off in this direction is always trying to get out. In a marriage he's always trying to leave the home and that sort of thing. That's common, see? Or he reverses and gets obsessively stuck in the home; can't see why anybody would ever leave a home.

Of course, you are responsible for knowing what goes on in the preclear; you are responsible for that, the preclear is not.

And you get this case, the only direction is out but out is nowhere. And you come along and you say to him, „Get out.“ Well, „get out“ and the action of getting out is not itself what blows him up; it's the how. You've just presented him with the toughest problem of his life, you see? And the „how,“ which means impossible. See? And this impossible hits him. You say, „Get out.“ He gets „impossible,“ see? And he goes deuuuhh. You know, he goes yak-ugh-ugh. He feels bad.

And as long as you make up your mind to that fact, and know what you are being responsible for and how to be responsible for it, you're a good auditor. And if you don't know those two facts, like some artillerymen, you just keep firing and hope, you know? But hope is an awfully bum sight. Hope is a hard sight to raise and lower and you can't throw hope 80 mils right. Get the idea? But you can throw an auditing command 80 mils right when you suddenly see the ridge showing up there.

And he'll tell you he feels bad because somebody told him to get out. That isn't true. He feels bad because it's impossible to get out. Get the idea of this? Now, this case gets so banked up after a while and begins to consider that everything is a barrier. He has all barriers identified with all barriers, you see? If you were to show him an escape route - Lord Dunsany's story of hens and his story of human beings who were kept in a cage and so forth; very exemplary of this sort of thing.

Now, there's some people will slavishly go on and do the safe thing forever on flows because they don't particularly understand what a flow is or what its target is. So you see, in Scientology there is even one that gets you by that, and that is you just give the flow in rotation, each command of the bracket, see, each command of the bracket in rotation one after the other; and then come back to the first command and give one command for each leg of the bracket, see, all the way through again; and one command for each leg of the bracket all the way through again. Now, that is a super-cautious approach but you'll never make a mistake if you do it.

You open the runway, it is smooth walking, the wide horizons reach in all directions, and this person will stand there stupidly and look everywhere but at the road out. You get the idea? It's rather pathetic. You get a total entrapment and this total entrapment computation gives us this case who is riding way high or is riding way low and he can't find even a barrier. Not even the barriers are real. If he could find a barrier, he could cross one maybe, but he can't find one anymore. So he kind of says, „They don't exist and nothing exists and nothing is real.“ The best answer to it all, of course, is just forget the whole thing and not be responsible for anything, and you've got it made. Then you get a president or something. The best thing to do when Sherman Adams is attacked is declare war on Lebanon. It's the best road out.

Now, it's a good thing - it's a good thing to have something that you will never make a mistake on, but if your understanding of this thing called „flows“ and „brackets“ is good, you don't need to be that cautious because you're essentially saying you don't know what you're working with.

Male voice: Sure.

The time when you need that one command each is when you have a consistently stuck needle, and when it's consistently stuck and just freeing up, just a little bit every hour or two, you haven't yet really been able to ascertain which way this thing is flowing, accurately. And one command each way will clear up an awful lot of bric-a-brac.

Second male voice: So be it.

Now, I'm not saying two contradictory things here. I'm saying a rigidly stuck thing is stuck on nine different directions. There are nine dams and one of them is going to come loose before another one, that's for sure, which loosens the needle up just a hair. But you just have to keep banging nine shells in there on nine dams.

That answer your question? You say, „What makes a case like that?“

Now, when we're looking for the Rock, this is the standard condition, but don't get the idea that the only way to run flows on a preclear is one command for each leg of the bracket, then one command for each leg of the bracket and so forth; because you're just excluding from your kit a tremendously interesting lot of tricks with regard to stuck needles. You're just missing it badly.

Male voice: Yes, „Have to be“ as the original enforcement.

Now, it's the easiest thing in the world to stick a needle artificially on most cases, but there are some who are so high and already stuck in so many places that the preclear is dispersing. And you might say there are nine flows and none of them are registering on the preclear, but the preclear is just going straight up a tenth flow which you aren't exploring and that tenth flow is „Let me out of here.“ The motto of it is: „I certainly don't want to communicate to anything else. I certainly don't want anything else to communicate with me. I don't want to communicate with myself. Whatever I'm looking at, I don't want it to communicate with itself, and I don't want other things to communicate with it or me; or it to in any way influence any communication in any direction, so we'll just forget the whole thing and use a balloon.“ You'll find this case going up, up, up, and the needle not sticking. You'll get a rising needle on such a case, almost whatever you ask the case, because anything adds to everything on the case. So you say, „See that wall?“ and you got a rising needle; you just added a wall to the Rock chain. And you say, „How are you?“ and you get a rising needle because you've just added a „How are you?“ to the Rock chain. You get the idea? Well, this case you have to be particularly careful of in running and I'll tell you more about handling this case the second half of this lecture. I'm just telling you about standard cases right now. This case you might say is a „special effects case.“ What the case is a special effects on, however, is the limitations of the E-Meter, rather than that the case does exhibit certain characteristics.

That's correct.

For instance, they won't register on cop lie detectors very easily; you don't get a lie registering on them. In life they're having an awfully - they're very determined to be responsible for things, but they somehow or other never quite get responsible for anything, you know? But they do get responsible for things and then it's demonstrated that they are a responsible party, but the next day they're not being responsible for that thing, and nobody is madder at this situation than themselves, you see? Time has a tendency to go haywire with them; they have a little difficulty holding on to their MEST. You know, here's all kinds of phenomena which could rack up on this rising-needle case. So we're not going to be very specific about the case because you handle it much the same way that you handle these flows, but the flows in that case are masked on the meter. You don't see these; what you see is the rising needle.

Male voice: And then entangling with other...

On all other cases, even the low ones - the low case on the tone arm is easier to work than a high case for this reason: it shows up better on the meter when you get it operating.

That's right.

These flows are of the greatest importance. You could take a case in mediumly poor-good condition and stick him on almost anything by triggering one of these flows and making it run too long in one direction.

Male voice:... enforced responsibilities on other flows.

Now, you just - ask somebody who has a relatively sticky, not free, wrong-reading needle, just ask him some question repetitively like this: „How could your mother help you? How could your mother help you?“ Just pick something out of the blue and pick one of these legs of a bracket, see? We don't care which leg or who you use. Of course, the more significant potential a person has, why, the quicker it'll happen. Just pick anybody and pick any leg and then don't change your mind. See? And, „How could your mother help you? Good. How could your mother help you? Good. How could your mother help you?“ Originally he's doing all right; he isn't doing bad, you know, and he „Oh, she could get me breakfast and she could sew up my shirt. And she could make my bed. And she could tell me she loved me once in a while. And she could..” and so on; he's going along all right.

Right. That's it.

So after you've asked this question - it's an innocent question, isn't it? See, it's an innocent question. It could be very significant on some cases but, „How could your mother help you? How could your mother help you? How could your mother help you? How could your mother help you? How could your mother help you?“ You just sit there and watch that needle. And if the needle was free on the subject after you've gone on a finite number of commands, the needle will start to get less free.

Yes?

And the next thing you know if you absolutely insist on running this one, „How could mother help you? How could your mother help you?“ the needle will freeze. And if you were just too sadistic for words, like a research auditor, you would go on running it, „How could your mother help you? How could your mother help you?“ to find out what happened on the needle. It'll blow up! Something will blow up - just as though you had thrown a little hand grenade into the case, and sometimes you even get an electronic flash.

Male voice: You mentioned something in the lecture when the fellow looks at what he had to do with this lifetime. He says, „Nothing.“ And then he realizes that it was the whole lifetime.

And where you've had an electronic flash occur in a preclear, one of these flows has been overrun either by life or by the auditor. It actually - when I'm talking about an electronic flash I mean pop, you know, boom.

Yeah.

Some fellow goes to sleep that night after the auditing session; as he lies down on the bed, all of a sudden bam-birwwu. Sometimes somebody has had hold of an E-Meter cans and it's actually made holes in the metal with an exploding flash. Get the idea? Well, the total phenomenon and noumena connected with it is a stuck flow overrun by life or an auditor. Thing was already sticky, potentially sticky, you see? There was already a dam there, and then he ran a direction which blew the dam up. And when the dam blows up rather than ebbs away, you get a very startled preclear, and it isn't necessarily therapeutic, in spite of the psychiatric insistence that the only therapy that is allowable by law - you see, a psychiatrist says that he can go to jail if he doesn't electric shock people - is to put enough electric shocks around a thetan to make him think that all of his dams are blowing up and this throws him into apathy so after that he'll be quiet. I think that's the basic goal of psychiatry: to be quiet. I have a different basic goal with regard to psyquietry; I want them to be „psy-quiet“ too.

Male voice:... that he didn't decide to enter into.

Now, where does this enter into what you're doing now? Does it have any entrance point at all? Hm? What is the Rock? The Rock is a nine-plus-way-stuck series of flows. All flows are stuck on the Rock. All flows are stuck. Wouldn't matter which side of the bracket you ask on the Rock on a case, it'd stick. Got that? And the only way to take it apart is just take one command at a crack. As you run the Rock you'll hit various automaticities - automaticities from the preclear to the Rock, automaticities from the Rock to the preclear. There'll be automaticities somewhere on each one of these.

Yeah.

Now, what do we mean: „automaticity“? A whole series of answers which just sort of machine-gun into sight. We say, „How could you help a heathen idol?“ Well, you could bow down to it; you could dust it off; you could throw it on the ground; you could bury it in a hole; you could blow it up in the sky; you could take it to get a ride in an airplane - you could send it KLM. See? And birrrrrr, you see? Only it's faster - now get this - it's faster than I am articulating it, and it's certainly faster than your preclear can articulate.

Male voice: He has no reality, then, on having been forced.

When you run into a Rock, there - you have a choice: you can either ask him several of the same commands that turned on the automaticity and thus clean that thing right now, or you can neglect it and just go on to the next part of the flow. Now, which is best I cannot tell you at this time. I don't know anything wrong with it either way except you rather validate the automaticity.

Well, that's ...

The automaticity will run out in any case and it isn't all that important that you have to pay too much attention to it, but it is sometimes an ARC break with the preclear not to - not to let him handle this thing, because it's suddenly out of control because he'll go into apathy. Something in his bank went out of control and he didn't get a chance to look at it and he's a little bit shaken up and you distract him by asking him a different question. So you pays your money and takes your chance. I don't care whether you handle automaticities or not.

Male voice: This might come as an idea and it might fit all the facts but he still has no idea of any enforcement.

If it's a very, very important automaticity and the preclear seems to be very, very interested in it, you are guilty of an ARC break if you don't do something about it. Therapeutically, it probably doesn't make any difference whether you handle it or not, but it does in the techniques of auditing undoubtedly make some difference to the preclear occasionally.

I'm glad you brought that up, Stan. The fellow says no, he doesn't have a lifetime. He hasn't any enforced responsibility. He can get an analytical idea of it but he has no further reality on it. That is why we use the rest of the buttons than Responsibility.

If he hits these things and he wants to look at them, you're doing him a dirty trick if you don't let him look, but you should understand that you are merely letting him look.

But the most choice button is Responsibility, but it sometimes cannot be used.

Now, there's no real necessity of going in there and cleaning up that side of it right now because it will clean up anyway, eventually.

You could ask him this question and he might get a reality on it. The best way to do this, by the way, is just to go over the five buttons with him and ask him to define each one. And the most reasonable explanation that seems to be real to him - he can give, you know, a textbook definition that just doesn't have any bearing at all either - but what apparently is the realest thing to him, and the buttons fade on back to Change.

Now, there is a question, however, of whether or not it wouldn't be a little faster to clip that side of it now; at least take that much off of the imbalance. Because where you have an automaticity, you have a flow which the instant it's released, compulsively rushes like a cataract and it's just as though you had lifted the dam and this tremendous volume of water goes swoosh. It doesn't matter if it goes swoosh; you can let it go swoosh. If the preclear's alarmed, startled, interested, so on, it's a good thing to let him look at it. Because if it's gone swoosh, I'll clue you, it's gone swoosh. You aren't going to do anything else with one.

Change is the lowest one. As the case fades out he can still get an idea of change.

Now, when they obsessively continue to run, it would only be because you continue to ask questions on that particular line. You see, it was „How could you help another person?“ or something of the sort, see. And you ask, „How could you help another person? How could you help another person? How could you help another person?“ And an automaticity which is begun in that direction by repeated commands in that direction will wash itself out much more thoroughly than if it's just neglected. Don't you see? But the danger of doing that is that you can get one started that goes totally out of control and the case has a tendency to sort of cave in under the tremendous violence of this thing; because in a dozen or so questions you might release violence of one-way flow there that your preclear isn't vaguely willing to confront.

You say, „What have you had to change in this lifetime?“

A better way to take it apart on this is just to go on doing what you are doing and don't Q-and-A with an automaticity. You see, it's not a misdemeanor or anything to examine one or even run one side or even start an avalanche with it. You're not going to wreck the case by doing this. But the value of doing it isn't sufficiently great - it has some value in it, but it isn't sufficiently great to make you Q-and-A with it.

Well, that's a pale shadow of responsibility, but the fellow is liable to say, „Wow, now wait a minute, oh boy, I - the thing I have to change is myself,“ or „The thing I have to change is this.“ „Well, the thing I have to change is that.“ You start asking him things he has had to change and you'll discover, then, that you'll get your needle manifestation of stuck and free and stuck and free; but the wonder of it is, is you've changed the meter behavior and the needle behavior. And that is the trick in this case, is to get a change in the meter behavior. You got that, Stan?

You bet- let your preclear look at it, just like he originates a cognition. So he originated an automaticity, and you say, „That's fine. What's it doing? And how's it going? And which way did it go? And all those answers, that's very interesting. Thank you very much. Is it through running now at the moment?“ „Yes, it seems to be.“

Male voice: Yes, thank you.

„Well, that's fine. Let's go on to the next question.“ Get the idea? You just go on auditing the way you were auditing.

Okay. You're welcome.

And don't think you won't trigger them, because if you're looking for a totally stuck, nine-way-stuck object, you start to run it, somewhere around that object, you're going to get an automaticity. The answers are going to go down that stream bed at such an appalling rate that nobody could keep up with them, much less the preclear. They're just going to go boom-swoosh.

Yes, Jack?

Now, so much for flows. A direction run too long will create a stuck flow. You say this is a flow overrunning itself, to be technical. It goes so far in one direction that it jams up, and it's - you're undoing those things.

Male voice: I'm not sure how you'd look at the enforced button of Problems on that.

Now, when you find a needle stuck on just one side of the bracket you haven't got the Rock! Not arf [half]! A Rock is stuck nine ways, and therefore you can pick up a lot of false Rocks, but they're all on the chain because the ability of that flow to stick depended on the basic stickiness of the Rock.

I gave an example, the - an oracle, or an auditor.

All right.

Male voice: Hm. Solutions.

Now, let's go off to the other part of this thing and maybe we will see some more. Let's take up now the „dispersed case,“ a case which is extremely high in its tone arm reading on whom you do not get a good positive lie reaction. Anything much that you ask the case is liable to cause a rising needle, and nothing much will bring the needle down from its high position on the tone arm back down toward a proper area of read.

Yeah. They keep walking up with problems. They - asking you to take responsibility for problems continually. Somebody walks in and they say, „I have a problem. Here is it.“ And you're expected to solve their problem.

You work on this case hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and they just stay up high on the tone arm and they don't show any signs of going on down at all.

Now, you're taking a responsibility for the solutions of these problems. And after a while, why, you say, „Problems, oh, somebody else's problems, well, that's their worry.“ You get to be a - you see this so commonly in the - amongst the rulers of earth, you know?

Now, there's the rough - a rough case. It is a rougher case than somebody who is below male and female Clear reading on a meter. That's a rougher case. It's easy to get them up but it's hard to get them down when they're sitting on that last beam at the top of the unfinished building, and they're right out to the tip of that beam and obviously the only thing they can do is go on and erect more skyscraper. And what's wrong with them is that they've got too much already. Foundation is caving in and quicksand is taking away the basement and it's liable to totter off at any moment.

Audience: Mm-hm. Yeah.

Well, the best thing for them to do is when they're on that top of the building and on the last tip of the highest beam, of course, is to go up, and they do. Only by pulling off the „Rock flow mechanism“ is that when they back off, they back in; when they try to push something off they pull it in. And you've got nearly every flow, in Lord knows how many reversals. So they try to throw something away, they throw something in their own face. They try to throw something in their own face and they throw it away. All kinds of weird things go on here.

They say, „Well, that's their worry, you know?“ „That's their idea.“ This guy is just refusing to take responsibility for problems.

They're sort of like a ping-pong ball riding in the middle of a fountain, and here they are and you're going to stick a flow. Well, you're not going to stick a flow by any ordinary method.

Well, when any person is put in an executive position, let us say, well, let's say in the army, he's put in some sort of a position. And there he is and that position carries with it a certain number of problems and he's got to take responsibility for solving these things and answering up to them and so on. Well, if it comes into duress, he'll get court-martialed if he doesn't handle them and all of this sort of thing. After all, he then begins to say, „Problems? Oh, I don't know...“ so on.

The reason for this is, of course, that the individual is stuck on all flows both ways, and is confused and doesn't know which is up and which is down and which is right and which is left; and the best thing to do is just to shut it off and get out of it all. And the only way they could do that is not-know it all, which is to be irresponsible for the works.

Now, the smartest thing for a Scientologist to do is to audit the person rather than to solve their problems. We don't solve people's problems. We get them to handle the problems, don't you see? And in this way you get a quite real circumstance and it's quite workable. And they can go on then. We can handle the general problem of problems and by handling that, we're all set.

So, there's a whole pattern of methods, a whole series or a whole group or type of methods of unraveling one of these cases and all of them are tremendously effective. They're not - it's not, „Well, if you try one, why, get another one.“ And maybe that will work, and if that doesn't work you pick up the screwdriver, and if that doesn't work, you pick up the Stillson wrench, you know. It isn't this kind of a thing. You can use any of these methods and produce a rather horrendous result on this particular case.

Well, if we set ourselves up as an oracle, or something, and we start evaluating for preclears and we start saying, „Well now, you're having trouble with your mother-in-law. Well, the thing for you to do is to go home and be nice to the old lady and enter into communication with her, and then ease her out of the house.“ You see? And that's what we tell them.

Basically, what's wrong with this person? This person has taken over responsibilities and has helped things too often and too much under duress to any longer desire to help or take over things, so you have an unwilling responsibility case or an unwilling help case, or an unwilling create case, or an unwilling problem case.

And the next person comes in and we're tired and they say, „Well, I have a terrible problem. I just got a parking ticket.“ „Well,“ you say, „you go down to the so-and-so and then you do so-and-so and so-and-so.“ And after you've done this for a few years and particularly if they didn't ever pay you anything - and they cut your willingness down. The keynote of all this is reduction of willingness.

So, everybody was always coming and giving this person problems, and this person didn't want any problems, and this person had to go on solving the problems as a sort of an oracle. And if you were being an oracle at two drachma a throw, I'm sure you would get tired after a while of people's problems and become unwilling to handle their problems.

Maintaining responsibility for and reducing willingness at the same time brings about these ridges. He'll get damn tired of problems after a while if this sort of thing happened.

Then you have, of course, the obsessive future case which is the obsessive change case, which is - and all these are the same case. So we have five buttons and any one of the five will unravel the case in terms of flows if you ask the right question.

Male voice: Well, I'm still not sure. You could say to the preclear, „What have you had to create or what have you had to be responsible for?“ But I can't quite see how you can say, „Well, what have you had to problem?“ you know?

You ask for the compulsive (any one of the five buttons) - that's the formula. You ask for compulsive examples of one of the buttons and you'll very rapidly start taking the case apart.

Female voice: No, „What problems have you had to solve?“

Now, in view of the fact that this is a total way to audit all by itself, it could be that you'd go for a long time with this particular case without getting a stuck needle or finding the Rock. All you keep on doing is getting sticks that go floof You stick some particular subject and it blows and then you don't have a clue as to what the next subject is particularly; and you stick the next subject and it blows and you get the next one and it blows; and you get the next one and it blows. And there's no consistent stick anywhere.

Male voice: „What problems have you had to solve?“

Well, don't think your preclear is so able that they're just able to blow the Rock all by themselves; that would be an awful mistake for you to make. It's that the thing has so many locks that not even the best possible geological, physical detector could locate the Rock in the midst of all these locks.

Second male voice: It would have to be alter-ised.

And what is wrong with the case, basically, is that the Rock is obscured by too many locks and it is so buried and so obscured that it isn't available. But it shows up promptly on the case that you start running this. But if you started to monkey with it and fool around with it, it shows up at once, but it shows up in physical form. It'll be some big mass starts moving in on the preclear. Lord knows what this mass is, what its identity is or anything else. If it moves in on the preclear, he can tell you about it - it has this.

Did you ever know anybody who gave you a lot of problems?

And somebody who has never had, and has rather smiled about ridges and rather smiled about big energy masses around people's heads and thought this was just a lot of bunk, you know - ha-ha-watch it because they have never seen one of these things. Well, they'll at least see them on a preclear and the process I'm about to give you will bring these right in on the preclear. They'll bring them right in on the preclear's skull and that's that. The preclear can become quite alarmed; they've never seen anything like this before, never heard of anything like this before, and it's quite upsetting to them to have some huge mass suddenly move in from the sky. And sometimes it moves in with considerable rapidity and sometimes it has all sorts of extra manifestations such as like it's red-hot or something like this. But you don't care about that, either way.

Audience: Yes. Sure.

I can tell you how to turn that mass off just as fast as you turned it on. You just run what part of the mass (that is moving in - that mass - no further significance) they could be responsible for, and the mass will move right off again.

See, that's a good entrance point. That's a good point you're bringing up because it isn't a smooth formula question.

If you were to ask a question, „What have you had to be responsible for?“ (and that is the key question of any one of the five buttons) - „What have you had to be responsible for?“ not „What could you be responsible for?“ (no willingness) - now, this is diagnostic, so you're not asking for willingness to be responsible. You're saying, „Who stood over you with a club, son, and told you you had to be responsible for something? And how long did you go on being responsible for it with no willingness on your part?“ And that in essence is the anatomy of a ridge or a stuck flow. It's going on being responsible for something long after you no longer want to be responsible for it. And your wish to get away from it and your necessity to go on assisting it, the two jam up and cause a ridge.

„Ever know anybody who gave you a lot of problems?“ and so on. You're liable to hit real paydirt on something like this, you know. And they say, „Oh, my God, yes, my mother!“ - you know, or something like that. Wow.

Now, there's one flow (speaking of flows here now) you must know can be run totally with the button of „Create“ and with the button of „Responsibility,“ and that is: Self to outwards. In other words, „What part of that could you be responsible for?“ Recognize this is a flow command: „What part of that could you help?“ You see? Now, you can ask that part of all of the flows over and over and over and over and over and over again. You just don't get all the sides of the situation, but you can actually run „Mock up a man. Mock up a man. Mock up a man. Mock up a man. Mock up a man. Mock up a man,“ without running „Get the idea of my mocking up a man, my mocking up a man, another person mocking up a man, man mocking up himself,“ so forth. You get the idea? You can just go on: „You mock up a man. You mock up a man. You mock up a man.“ In other words self outwards is so perpetual; it has been going on for so long that you can do it ad infinitum without unsettling all of its potential flow. Get the idea? So there's one leg of the bracket that has no limitation on it, that you cannot overrun; self outwards cannot be overrun. You should remember that. When you want to know what part of a bracket to pick up and beat to death because you know you've gone wrong somehow or another, self outwards „How could you help another?“ will go on and on and on and on and run and run and run and run and run. You got the idea? That one doesn't get stuck because it's already totally stuck.

Now, the worst part of this unburdening, by the way, the worst part of this unburdening is it doesn't reach with any great reality into past lives. And you can run across the barrier of past lives and you're liable to get yourself into some interesting circumstances if you don't avoid avoiding. Just because the pc has no reality on having lived before is no reason why you should Q-and-A with his unreality, you see? So, I ran a case like this last night. I got a bit of a session myself last night and audited somebody else afterwards. And it was quite amusing to me that I was running a person with no reality on ever having lived before. And the thing I finally wound up with a stuck button on - oh, I cleared off more buttons off this case, you know, just wham, wham. Oh, person was feeling much better. Tone arm was varying, coming on down to where it should be. I think it's been up there consistently now for two or three months - way high, you know, and nobody budging it.

Now, get this as a mechanism in this „dispersal case.“ We have one leg which can be run and run and run and run and run, you see, with great security and safety, so we never ask this dispersal case any other side of a bracket - we're trying to locate something - than case outwards, see? We ask, „What could you help? What could you be responsible for? What could you change?“ See? „What could you create?“ We can ask them, ask them, ask them - any one of these buttons, you see? „What problem could you create?“ You know, anything like this and it's fairly safe to do so. We don't use the rest of the bracket - not arf [half]. We don't use the rest of that bracket, particularly diagnostically, if you want to call it that, analytically.

And I was just running what part of their life had they had to be responsible for, and we scared some locks out they'd never even thought of. The final thing was, the pc suddenly said to me - just out of the blue said, „Well, had to be responsible for?“ and - „the Church.“ We cleaned „church“ off the whole present lifetime. Had - what part of the church had they had to be responsible for? And boy, they really found they'd had to be responsible for some stuff.

Let's take this case now, and I'll give you a very concrete example. The case is very high on the tone arm. You test the case for a lie reaction, you say, „Answer no to everything I ask you.“ And then you ask them a lot - three, four, five, six questions to which the answer is obviously yes. All right. You get little or no lie reaction or sporadic lie reaction.

The stuck point there, by the way, was the collection plate. And the pc finally got to line charging on collection plates - I think you can turn on a line charge this way rather easily - and line charged on collection plates like mad and went right off into Druids.

Now, that sporadic lie reaction is the borderline. On one question you got a lie reaction as you said, „Are you sitting in that chair?“ And the case said, „No,“ and you didn't get a reaction. „Are you in this room?“ And the case said, „No,“ and you didn't get a lie reaction. And „Are we in this room?“ and you got a lie reaction. And „Are your feet on the floor?“ And we got a lie reaction. And „Do I have a head on my body?“ and you got no lie reaction. Get that as a sporadic, „sometimes“ reaction sort of thing.

Preclear voluntarily gave me this datum: that as a little girl she had customarily stuck pins in a certain tree on the way to school in order to have luck. And I said, „Well, where did you hear about that as a little girl?“

Well, to be on the safe side you can consider that case in this same bracket. You can consider that case in this same category that we're just covering here. You know, occasional lie reaction, not consistent.

„Oh, nowhere.“

The requisite is, however, that the tone arm must read abnormally wrong. See, that's the characteristic. Now, I didn't say really in all cases too high or too low. I'm just saying this is a whole category of cases and it's an abnormal tone arm reading, and it's an abnormal behavior of the needle case.

See, trees, Druidism, that sort of thing. So I started asking questions about holy trees. Finally asked them what the Druids used for collection plates. And this question boggled the pc so much that I saw the pc this morning for a very brief period of time - rather had a communication with the pc - and said, „Looked up in the Encyclopaedia Britannica last night all about Druids. Couldn't find anything about Druids. Found Druidism and couldn't find a word of what they said about collection plates.“ See, here we were already steaming down the line. This person, no reality on past lives, but my casual, brief question concerning Druids and Druidism - ever - asked them, „Have you ever been a Druid? Have you ever been mixed up with the Druids?“ so on. And pc merely started to talking about Stonehenge, and all sorts of oddities connected with Druidism - they all stripped off. Everything stripped off except „Druid.“ Everything we took off Druidism freed the needle, except „Druid.“ And I wound up with this analysis of the case with „Druid“ still stuck and of course that's many centuries ago.

Now, there's two ways you could make this case: one is to have a meter that doesn't work. So you always start a case in with a reality on whether or not the meter is working by getting him to squeeze the cans. He is registering on the thing and you might even carry out a few little more experiments to make sure that the preclear is registering predictably on the instrument.

But in the process, pc also volunteered this interesting fact - coming right back to what you said about problems - pc said, „What would I have had to be responsible for? Well, having to be responsible for other people's problems, you know, like an oracle or something, in Greece. And living in a cave and people keep bringing their problems to you and you have to keep solving them. Boy, that would be the most, you know. That's not for me.“ So, here we've got a - here we've got a track which is probably two, three hundred B.C. See how this track is shaping up. Two or three hundred B.C., maybe sometime after the birth of Christ area, you got Druidism. And in this lifetime we had a tremendous church background, see, on which we had a collection plate the most thoroughly stuck object, and so on. And problems showed up on that chain of having to be responsible for somebody's problems, you see? How would you ask the question? It'd probably be in terms of solutions. You'd say, „Whose problems have you had to solve?“

Well, these preclears don't register worth a nickel; they just don't register well, the ones I'm talking about. It's just goofball stuff. Well, let's make sure the goofball isn't you in your handling of an E-Meter, you know? Even the best of auditors can hand somebody an E-Meter and turn it on and hand them the cans and then find no reaction and find out after a half an hour or not find out at all that one of the electrodes is disconnected today. Get the idea? See, even the best of them can do this, but that's a goof. That has nothing to do with this case. After you've established carefully that the preclear is reading on that meter, and that you are in communication with the preclear and now you just don't get any action or reaction, you go through, you know, you don't get good, consistent lie reactions, and you get theta bop, theta bop, theta bop, theta bop, theta bop. You start talking about death and all of a sudden you get a constant rise on the needle. And you say, „Wow!“ This is not an infrequent case, by the way; this case is rather commoner than you think, but it is not the average case by a long ways.

Male voice: Yeah.

It requires special handling only to this degree; it requires special diagnostic proceedings. Well, one of the best ways to go about it... The case always has a sluggish needle one way or the other; there's something wrong with that needle, or the needle is doing nothing but a theta bop and won't ever do anything else, you know - reading high, reading low, won't react, so forth.

Possibly the best question on that.

Special procedure for such an impasse - there are probably many such procedures and there are probably more effective procedures and I even may know some better ones myself, but I don't have any vast amount of data on these other procedures and I do have some data on the one I'm giving you and I know that it is quite reliable.

By the way, the phenomenon of unwrapping whole track - I might make a little mention of in passing - is first, it's totally unreal and then it gets realer and realer, and there's more and more data shows up on it, more and more fascinating, more and more arduous, more and more bunched, more visible (usually totally collapsed or something, you see) and then pieces start to come off of it and stuck points begin to show up as stuck points.

Proceeding is like this: Case as described and its behavior on the E-Meter. It's really a „dispersal case“ whether it's high or low; it's a dispersal case. It's reading abnormally; it's trying to get away from it all and going into it all, and it's pretty confused. We know that all five buttons on the case are upset. This we can start for sure. Now, we can say this in a modified way about any being that ever comes to us as a preclear: The five buttons are upset. But that wasn't what I was saying. In this particular case the five buttons are upset.

You know, „What was I doing around sixteen hundred? Sixteen hundred - sixteen hundred; I keep getting this picture of sixteen hundred. I don't know what I was doing around sixteen hundred.“ You know, and you never talked to the person about it; you never even run „Dead bodies, Help on,“ or anything else. You can expect this phenomenon to unroll - this phenomena to unroll in any event. So, don't be too balked about it. Just remember that asking for things they've had to be responsible for does pose us the problem, on a person who has no reality on having lived before, with gradually greasing through it.

The case's definition for „Change“ - pshew, for the birds. „Problems“ - phoo. You don't know what the devil is going to happen here on „Problem“ definition, see - that's wow! „Create“ - Lord knows! Do you get the idea? „Help“ - „Oh, I don't know,“ they're liable to think anything is help. See? „Oh, help is the circular circumference of automobile tires in Afghanistan.“ You know? That doesn't mean they're crazy but it's just off on the button. And „Responsibility“ - „Well, responsibility is well, that's what you have to do.“ That is almost a stable definition to such a person. „Responsibility is something you don't want anything to do with,“ is another typical definition on such a case.

And the auditor has to furnish the motive by asking related earlier-life questions without ever once hanging the pc with the idea that he lived before.

„Help“ is something which you do all the time anyway. No responsibility.

See, pc says, this example: We said, „Church - church - what part of a church have you had to be responsible for?“ You know, and we go on with this and we finally get to the collection plate and we discover all sorts of weird things, and then a couple of little crimes with regard to the collection plate - taking money out of it, making change in it, that sort of thing. And of course, this is a normal button to freeze on a thing like church because that is the way you really help a church; that is your help of it, see? And so here's this circumstance and as an auditor you simply ask this innocent question of them - the pc says something like, „And I stuck pins in trees,“ you see. They didn't know it but they gave you a lead-in into something earlier. Some man might say, „Well, as a little boy I kept throwing spears, you know. I always was making spears, and that sort of thing.“ Auditor could say, in this thing, „Well, what would you think of a soldier, a Roman soldier, a Greek soldier, an Egyptian soldier“, you know? And you all of sudden - maybe he gets a tight down on this sort of thing. You've opened the door and you don't have to open the door any more casually than that.

„Create“ - „Oh, yes.“ There's a key question which always gets such a response from these people, and now we are merely talking about a case being more aberrated than other cases and you get a key response like this: „How would you feel about communicating with everything everywhere at the same time and just having unlimited communication?“ so there's - so on.

That take it?

„Duuuow.“

Male voice: Thank you.

The case usually doesn't like that, not at all, not at all. They could get very argumentive on this subject; they could take this real seriously, or they simply couldn't conceive such a thing. See, an apathy side of it.

All right.

Now, you're talking about a very wide range of responses here. You're talking about every case that isn't an easy case to clear; and they all answer up under these descriptions. If you can talk to them at all, why, you can run this sort of a diagnostic proceeding.

Yes?

By the way, you have CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 and old TR 5 converted to „You make that body lie on that bed Thank you,“ to handle unconscious people and insane people and so on. You know, you can get them up to a bracket where you can talk to them.

Male voice: Ron, if you clean up a lock, let's say in the year of 500, and you clean up that lock, does that mean that the case is Clear from now-ness to then-ness between himself and the Rock?

Now, this case obviously, then, operates in the area where it is easy to talk to them, and where they don't necessarily make bad sense to you as much as they seem to make bad sense to themselves. They know this isn't right and they know this doesn't square around.

No.

One of the characteristics is it very often doesn't worry them. Very often you'll find such a case and they know this is all wrong, but it doesn't worry them that it's all wrong and it's going on that way. You know, they just „Ha-ha-ha“ - toss it off.

Male voice: In other words, you may find other locks in between there.

Or it's simply a case that's having an awfully hard time and he's very sincere about getting himself out of the soup, you see? So, it's a terrific breadth of case here so don't get the thing - it's somebody who isn't unconscious, is capable of talking to you, but who doesn't respond and clear easily.

Oh, yes.

Now, you got that whole band of cases? Well, that's the ones I'm talking about - probably something on the order of 50 percent of the human race. See? All right, this is the diagnostic procedure which is followed, now that you know what it's applied to. Oh, don't let me catch you being lazy and using this procedure on somebody that you just track it down, the needle sticks and you scout for a while. In half an hour, forty-five minutes or something like that, you've got the Rock, and so forth. Boy, don't use this proceeding, because this proceeding tends to sweep away the stucks as fast as they're located, but at least permits you to locate the stucks.

Male voice: Oh, I see.

And that is, you find enforced buttons on the one flow of pc to the environment; you find enforced buttons. You're looking for automaticities, but you find these enforced buttons.

They don't come off chronologically, unfortunately.

Now, one question that works excellently if they haven't any definition at all of responsibility is: „What have you had to be responsible for?“ Now, that is not: „What part of that object could you be responsible for?“ Now, get the horrible difference here because if you miss this one, you'll miss the whole case. You want to know responsibility to which they objected. Now, why do you want responsibilities to which they objected basically? Because you are looking for something besides the garbage which is coming off the top of this flow, and you can just go into this dispersal and run random problems from there until the pond freezes over and you'll get noplace with this case.

Male voice: I saw that you did, there. That's why I was interested in that. She was sticking pins in a tree, and then pretty soon, back-back-back.

You want to walk in as close as you can to the ridge, and the ridge is: What have they had to do that they were trying to withdraw from doing. See, and it's a withdrawing from doingness but having to go on doing, that tends to make this particular type of ridge. So you get them in as close to this ridge as you can get them and then just hold their nose to it. And eventually they'll blow off locks, locks, locks, locks, locks, chains, locks, types, material, all of which are located (no matter how indirectly) to the Rock, and each one of which will be a stuck needle. And you will watch gratifyingly that tone arm come down, half a notch, a whole notch, and then go back up a half a notch, you know, and then come down a whole notch, and then go back up a half a notch, and then go back up two notches and then drop right back, and you're getting action which you won't get on that case in any other way that I know of at this time, and you're getting action on the tone arm! And when you don't get action on the tone arm with a person who has a tone arm with an abnormal reading, you are not getting somebody Clear. Oh, bunk! Letting a tone arm sit up at 6.0, hour after hour, hour after hour, hour after hour, hour after hour, 6.0 on the tone arm, 6.0 on the tone arm, 6.0 on the tone arm. Whew! Shoot the auditor! He's worse off than the preclear, he must be! Because it violates the Auditor's Code: Not getting any change on the case. Must be running the wrong procedure. Bejesus, there must be something happening here that is wrong, and it's just going on running a process which is not producing any change.

That was me. That was me. I Q-and-A with the truth of the matter, which is he does have an organized time track. As far as what he's going to discover and present you with off this time track, that's another thing. If he has a total unreality on having lived before, his time track back of this life is a mess.

Now, how could you make the process produce change? Well, you get those enforced, having to do it but not willing to do it buttons, and then just beat them to death with two-way comm and keep looking for the stuck needle just like you scout any other way.

Boy! He might have the most gorgeous time track from birth onward with full recall on how he swore at his father when he was six months old, see? Might be just gorgeous this whole lifetime. And boy, you back up just right back of the Assumption and you find this horrible, garbled, balled-up mess and you'll find the year - a year six billion years ago sitting forward of two lifetimes ago, you see? He's chronologically out of order.

You say, „Is there anything in your life you've had to be responsible for?“ „Oh-uh“ they very often tell you, „well, no, not really.“ Not really, be damned! It's their whole cockeyed present lifetime. Every waking moment of it is an enforced responsibility for which they are not willing to answer up. And they just get an unreality on the thing.

So, if you clean up a lock at 500, don't be surprised to find you have simply succeeded in freeing up a lot of stuff in 1850.

About the time you start asking this question you'll see big masses may show up or other things may happen. You know, oddities on the case. Don't pay any attention to the oddities; just go on with this question.

Male voice: Yes. Now, one more question. Would he have locks beyond the Rock and then come forward to the Rock then?

Now, you can take each one of the five buttons and phrase it. Pick that button which is best within a normal understanding and use the enforcedness of the button.

Oh, they unwind.

You want the unwilling application of the button by the preclear to life. And you just keep looking for it and then you keep looking for that stuck needle and you're liable to get another needle manifestation which is always present when you get anywhere near the Rock, on such a case. And that is, the needle starts slamming from one side of the dial to the other, back and forth, very hectically and erratically and you think it's because the preclear is picking his fingers up and off the cans and putting them back on or something. You get wham-wham-wham-wham-wham- dirrrr-wham-wham-wham-wham-wham-wham. Oh, you're as hot as a firecracker; you should go back to the first thing that turned that thing on and scout this on: what part of that object has he had to be responsible for? Now, you'll keep blowing it, you'll blow locks, you'll have to find something else, you'll have to monkey around with something else, but you can use any one of the five buttons: „What have you had to help?“ „What have you had to change?“ „What have you had to create?“ Don't you see? Any one of these five buttons, and just scout their definitions and find the one that's most real to him and then ask that one, and it'll be the one on top. And then if that button kind of peters out, pick up another one and go on down and get these enforced buttons that he has a little bit resented, and you will start picking up lock chains just by the handfuls.

Male voice: They do?

Don't be disappointed if the thing frees again. Don't be disappointed if the needle frees up after you had it beautifully stuck for four or five questions and all of a sudden it freed and you c

They unwind. Yeah, you just take care of that. You understand why you run Step 6?

Male voice: To make his mock-ups more solid.

Yeah, but that's to take care - no, it's worse than that - it's to take care of the perfect creation which preceded the chaos. And you put him in a state where he can make a perfect homogenous creation that isn't built out of secondhand, second-rate MEST universe, his own lifetime energy, don't you see? And he starts doing this and you get him - you get him so that he can as-is his later confusions and chaos and so forth. But if you did this with the Rock present, the Rock would simply get more and more solid and kick his teeth out. And he would resist being cleared.

All right. So, this drill of the earlier locks than the Rock - see, the Step 6 - now steps in and picks up this sort of thing.

Male voice: I see.

Got it. All right.

Yes?

Male voice: How about these processes having to do with the compulsions to the buttons? How are they therapeutically?

A plain scout such as you're doing, if it exceeds more than an hour or so - if you're just trying to stick a needle and you're not doing it in any way - you should probably take off on this other tack, because it is therapeutic and you're getting the show on the road with great regularity.

You're really auditing when you're doing that - as much as scouting - and your pc will feel better and feel better and feel better and feel better and life will be more pleasant, more pleasant, more pleasant.

But don't get so involved in making life more pleasant that you cease to look for the Rock! Therefore, you are getting something done with the case. The case will be pleased with the results, and so forth, but you're still looking for the Rock. Get the idea? A plain scout that lasts more than an hour ought to change over into a somewhat therapeutic line such as this one I've given you today.

Somebody over here trying to ask a qu-...

Yes?

Male voice: Ron, I was just going to say, it seems to me this idea of going for these five buttons would be a very direct way of scanning for the Rock. Obviously the Rock is going to be something that the preclear failed to take responsibility for, failed to change, failed to help. It sounds to me like a very direct way of going in and saying, „All right. Well now, tell me what have you failed to take responsibility for?“ And that should run you straight back to it.

Oh, it will. It will, every time. The only thing I say is on most people it becomes so confoundedly easy to a good auditor to just spot the thing in the first few minutes of play, that you're wasting time. Get the idea? You can run into this Rock with such a crash.

Male voice: Okay.

Okay.

Yes?

Male voice: Would you get a needle slam running Connectedness.

You could? Could you get a needle what?

Male voice: Yeah, slam, a needle slam.

Oh, yes! Yes, because you'll start to take apart some of this identified bundle. You see, the motto of the Rock is: A=A=A=A=A. Well, what is that but Connectedness?

Male voice: And that would still indicate the needle...

Remember what I told you a long time ago about unwanted association?

Male voice: Right.

Well, add that up now to having to take responsibility for something he's no longer willing to be responsible for. See that?

Male voice: Right.

All right. Now, you start running Connectedness and you've got unwanted association untangling because you're just running association. And you run just pure association, you will start to take apart the Rock chain. Well, naturally, evidently, some part of this chain is going to be capable of turning on this slam, as you call it, which is very good. But boy, it's really a slam.

You'd swear the pc was taking his fingers on and off the cans or something of this sort. Nothing could make a needle jump around like that. And you're moving in toward the thing that he must-be-there-mustn't-be-there, must-be-there-mustn't-be-there. You're getting a yo-yo of such magnitude and such erraticness that you've actually penetrated the pc in the middle of the box.

Now, you can't, unfortunately, as I know of, just simply lift him out of that box because the box is of his own creation and every time you lifted him anyplace else you just lift the box too. So, what you'd start doing then - Connectedness all by itself - theoretically, at Lord knows how many thousand hours, has the power of stripping the whole track and knocking apart and straightening out all associations, you see? But it's the long haul.

Now, does that answer your question?

Male voice: Yes.

All right.

Yes?

Female voice: Right along with what he said there, if the pc - now, this happens, this needle phenomenon, that slamming - do you ask the pc, „Something happen there just now?“ „No.“ Well, my question is, does the pc necessarily know?

He doesn't know anything about the needle slam. Hasn't a clue. I wouldn't ever mention it to him. I would simply spot what I asked just before the needle started slamming.

Female voice: Well, on Connectedness...

On Connectedness, you've lost your clue because it's such a generalized question that there's no clue there.

Female voice: That's when it happened to me.

You bet. All right. It's all right.

Yes?

Female voice: Ron, how about if it slammed just at the beginning of the session every time?

Well, you've had it.

Female voice: You know what I mean? You sit down and you're just starting to have a session and it slams and then it sticks and theta bops or something else or whatever.

Sure.

Female voice: But just then, you've got no clue then, nothing to go on.

Evidently the sole use of the slam is to tell you you're somewhere near the Rock. You see?

Female voice: Uh-huh.

And if it turned on before you had a clue what was being asked, it's very easy to steady down the slam or pull him off of the slam; then you'd have to wait for a new slam.

Female voice: It could just be bringing the preclear there, couldn't it? That could be...

Could be. Oh, for sure. Exteriorized from his conversation with his friends into an auditing session, which he's very unwilling to have happen, or something, at that time.

Yes, Jack?

Male voice: Ron, on these cases you're talking about, you know, dispersal, these high-dispersal cases, I - looking them back over now - I see that every one of them has been very confused about every one of those five buttons.

Mm.

Male voice: So, sometimes I think that you might have to - this is a question - mightn't it not be necessary to clear first „invent a person. What's that person's idea of a problem?“ before you can even do this, if he's so vague on the whole thing.

Then you could just settle down to running a case - running a case on a high generality of button definitions until you got one that sounded fairly sane and the others appeared flat and then you'd go in for diagnosis and you start wheeling.

By the way, there's a technique which is lower than that which is quite amazing. Let me give you a little brief case history that just happened in the HGC. May I? Fellow was diagnosed for cancer, expected to die. One of the best diagnostic clinics in the United States had diagnosed it as cancer of the lungs, cancer of - I don't know what all, heart, intestines, the works. And he was strictly marble slab bait. And his wife brought him down here and started auditing him. And case very restive; very, very restive. Auditor running rather mild techniques, but nevertheless, case quite restive. And this case was consistently protesting; didn't want to be there, so on.

Auditor was finally auditing a case that was apparently damn near dead, even beginning to smell dead. Case wanted to go to another town where a friend of his was a medical doctor. Got an ambulance plane - busted off the intensive - got an ambulance plane, took him there. Doctor investigated him. An enormous swelling had arisen on the groin during processing, very painful and it was getting worse, but a head was appearing.

Director of Processing, auditor, did not want to see this boy go, because obviously the show was on the road, see? Something was happening with the case, but there was a bit of hysteria involved here, and with the people involved with the case, and off he went.

Arrived at his friend, the doctor's, was diagnosed with no cancer but a severe abdominal abscess, which had even then begun to drain. And the case is now on the mend, very definitely, and getting well, and evidently kicking himself that he didn't complete the intensive, and is going to get straightened out in the hospital there and then come back and get cleared.

Up to this time the person, the patient, was very resistive to Scientology but now had seen something; here a cancer had faded away in an abscess.

The last process which was being run is of interest - the last three hours of processing. This person in extreme duress, in extreme pain; and you talk about lowest buttons. „You make that body lie in that bed.“ Even that wouldn't work, you know? That wasn't the process.

It was „Invent a person who would be pleased with that condition.“ This was running. All arrangements were made and the person had - was leaving, and so forth, but this one was running and it was evidently the capper that took the rest of it off the case. Only three or four hours of it.

It's interesting, as a process; it's a cousin to Admiration Processing, but not, not really, because you're not dealing in particles here. You want somebody who was pleased with the condition. Our diagnosis of it's that the preclear was sick because the wife was a practitioner; you know, a way of getting attention from the wife.

Now, there's one which is south of inventing the buttons but we have yet to find somebody who wouldn't run on this definition of the buttons. Anybody evidently runs on this one.

You're not asking them to mock somebody up, but they normally do. And you have them invent somebody and even when they got horrible fields and that sort of thing. „Invent somebody. Tell me that person's idea of help,“ or „Tell me that person's idea of change,“ or something of this sort. So we have a brace there But underneath all of that, somebody who would be pleased with the situation is evidently the last rung of the case.

Male voice: Yeah.

Yeah, that's way down south. So ARC in some form goes all the way to the bottom of a case. Interesting datum, isn't it? Yes?

Female voice: This last period you've been - you mentioned about „Invent a person who could be pleased with that condition.“ How about using that as an assist for somebody coming with a chronic somatic and you haven't any intensive set up or anything. Would that be a good way to pinpoint it?

Sure. It's an awful dirty way to get rid of the service fac. Wonderful way to get rid of the service fac. Service fac's too much in your road; you make the person - condition or situation - you make the person explain this present time situation.

Let's take this fellow who is constantly in trouble with his wife and can't be audited because he's always got nothing but PT problems but can't run any PT problems, and you get this. This obviously is a service fac. After a while, after a few weeks, anybody would begin to suspect this.

And so, what do we have here, Maida? We have somebody who has to continue to define the situation. We'd have to have him continue to define the situation and ask him to invent a person who would be pleased with it. And we would kill the service fac deader than a mackerel. So your suggestion that that's a good one to run on his chronic somatic is - that's possibly not the best. Certainly service fac. Chronic somatic will very often turn out to be an auditable part of the Rock - will very often; often enough so that you should look at it.

Female voice: I was thinking more in terms of a problem that kept being presented and not resolved and obviously wasn't too important. It was like, you know, taking you away from the important thing and I couldn't find a good terminal for it. This would make - invent a person to be the terminal and you could get rid of the condition.

That's right. That's right. Slick way of getting around the thing.

Yes?

Female voice: Would that apply to a body, to a whole body?

Well.

Female voice: I mean, could you use the body?

I think the exact auditing command that was used there, as cleared with the fellow: „Invent a person who would be pleased with your condition.“ Now, that is even broader than the body, see? But „Invent a person who would be pleased with that body“ would be likely to be very aimless because in the first place, it would pin him down, pin the pc down into this lifetime, would not permit him to stray. „Invent a person that would be pleased with a body“ might be more workable, but nevertheless is, you would find I'm afraid, quite indefinite.

Female voice: Okay. Then would you use „The condition that body is in?“

„With your condition is.”

Female voice: „With your condition...“

Yes, „With your condition.“

Female voice: inclusive enough.

Oh, yes.

Female voice: All right.

Now this is not, by the way, one of these things that clears a case forever and aye and all of that sort of thing.

Female voice: No, but couldn't it be an entrance into an un-enterable case?

Oh, yes.

Female voice: Okay.

Yes. It's - this case that is apparently not going anywhere and nothing's happening on, and he's taking great pride in it, and that sort of thing, why, boy, this is a killer. This is sort of a last resort sort of process that an auditor would audit. You know, he's had the case in process now for seven hours and nothing is happening. I consider that to be a long time to have somebody in process with nothing happening, see? Seven hours. Time to throw something at him. Shake him up. Do something to him. And this will do things to them. Make them quite cheerful. And throw them in ARC.

Male voice: On succumb.

On succumb, yeah. Very good.

Yes?

Male voice: Ron, using this process we were just talking about, mocking up, I - does it make any difference at all whether you get a body part or the condition in this case? Would it be better to have the body part?

Well, it is better to have the body part for this reason: You have a definite terminal. And it's always better to run terminals than conditions.

Now, the old thing, the old rule is: Run terminals, don't run conditions. Don't run significances, run terminals. That's an old, old rule. Well, the way you get around this rule is to add a terminal to the process. Now, it could be a present life walls and bric-a-brac terminal. You could add to the process a mock-up, you see? You could add to the process a lot of things. But if you've got two terminals operative, it is even better.

Oddly enough, we've gone into a period here of processes which operate both on terminals and conditions. Help will run on conditions. But because there's some liability on running in conditions and has been in all prior processes, we still steer clear of it if we can. And just as you say, a body part would be superior to the condition, providing you generalized the body part and providing it was obviously in a bad condition, see? You get the idea? Right. And if you can't isolate that, „your condition“ is safe enough. All right.

Male voice: Isn't it possible for a thetan to continue a condition down through the track through many kinds of terminals?

Oh, yes.

Male voice: That's why this process you named might be more workable.

It might be, yes. In view of the fact it isn't a keystone process to clearing, why, the thing becomes merely a speculative exercise and an excellent way of assisting somebody.

You ask somebody who has just had an automobile accident to invent somebody who would be pleased with that accident and you're liable to get a total boggle, you know? Nobody in the world would ever be pleased with the accident. And then all of a sudden come up with a total automaticity. The insurance people, if they didn't have accidents, why, they wouldn't ever sell any insurance. And people, people, people, people - cops wouldn't have a job and repairmen wouldn't have repair shops and so on. There'd just be people all over the place pleased with that accident and eventually it may come down to the fact that he had the accident because it would please somebody.

Male voice: Would that more often be a common denominator for the service fac?

Yes. Yes. Oh, the service fac has always been very pleasing to everybody. Nothing like having a person totally with one foot in the grave to please nearly everybody. You ask, „What would be the optimum condition for a child from the viewpoint of your mother and father?“ Clumsy question but I just want to get the meaning in there, see? And most people will tell you that a good child is a sick child. That's a good child. What is being good? Being sick.

I found out what my kids think is being good, now. I know what being good is. The moral structure of my daughter is very well taken care of now. You eat all of your dinner. That's the total definition. If you're a good girl you've eaten all of your dinner.

Yes, Ray?

Male voice: In running a bracket, how can you tell if you're making a mistake in having the comm bridge too long or too short? What harm can be done if the comm bridge is short but the ARC is high? Well, now, let me understand this clearly. You're not putting a comm bridge between each command of a bracket as you run one command to the next, are you?

Male voices: We have been.

Male voice: We've been instructed...

All right.

Male voice:... instructed that we did.

That's all right. That's good practice in comm bridges but it's damn slow auditing.

Now, the best thing to do on clearing a command if you're auditing for blood - and you can do this from here on - the best thing to do is to clear the whole bracket as one command and take each word in it - as I told you some days ago - clear each word in it and straighten that all out and then just run it, because a comm bridge gets horribly in somebody's road after a little while.

Remember, auditing is what you can get away with. And the test of this is can you get away with it? And the answer is: usually.

Okay, Ray?

Male voice: Thank you.

You bet.

Yes?

Male voice: Is it all right to use these processes that you give us in the auditing here? Is that - I just wanted to clear this?

No. Not an off-beat process like „Who would be pleased with that condition?“ and so forth. Because these will take you astray. There is nobody here so bad off or so sick that you would have to go that far south. But you have already been given clearing up definitions with „Invent a person,“ and „What is his idea of?“

Male voice: We can use that?

So, that's totally usable.

Male voice: That's what I wanted to know.

All right. Now, that was given to you days ago.

Male voice: Yeah.

And this other analysis-type process whereby you find what he has had to be responsible for, had to change, you know, had to create, that sort of a thing - that is very definitely standard diagnosis.

Male voice: Okay. Thanks a lot, Ron.

Okay I let you go for a little while here on a scout, on just a plain scout, so as not to get you too entangled because, you see, what I've just given you is more complicated. I've let you go on just an ordinary, routine, run-of-the-mill scout so that you'd know how to do it, because that is easily the fastest way - if it does require considerable skill - it's the fastest way to find the Rock and sail right on down the line.

There's another question you're going to ask me.

Female voice: How about when you are running Help and some of the brackets are pretty free, is it all right to.

You'd omit it - you can omit a totally free bracket. You can cut your brackets down, down, down as you go if you want to.

Male voice: You mean omit the leg of it.

Hm?

Male voice: You mean omit the legs.

Yeah, just omit that leg, see? Omit that part of the bracket.

You keep saying, „How could another person help you?“ and you've never gotten anything but a free needle on it.

Female voice: Yes.

Well, boy, you're wasting your time.

Female voice: Oh, you don't run that.

Well, just omit it. It's quite normal to take a nine-way bracket and drop it down to a five.

Yes?

Female voice: Would you clarify just when is the best time to leave a PT problem?

When it's flat. When the person no longer...

Female voice: When is it flat?

.. no longer wishes to do anything about it. That has an old definition.

Female voice: You said the other day when it no longer bops, and that's a different definition from the other.

Yes, I'm afraid that the same definition applies. The E-Meter does register real life. When a PT problem no longer bops, the person is no longer anxious to do something about it.

Female voice: I see.

Got it? They're the same statement except one is given in the reference to the meter; the other is given in a reference to the preclear's thinkingness.

If you want to know from choice, I always choose the preclear's thinkingness.

Female voice: Good.

Yeah, I ask him, „Well, what would you like to do about that now - this problem of your wife running off with the chauffeur,“ and so forth. And the pc says, „Well, let them go (sigh).“ Still infers he'd like to do something about it. Funny part of it is, it'll still bop. See, it'll still drop on the meter. Then finally he says, „Well, I don't know, it'll work itself out one way or the other. If she was the kind of girl who would run off with the chauffeur, she's the kind of girl who would run off with the chauffeur. Let's get on with the session.”

Don't be startled if a PT problem of apparently that magnitude did flatten out that well. Everybody would say, „Well, he must be nuts. He's not going to run off the chauffeur and shoot him and he's not going to strangle his wife and he must be crazy, you know. He's not normal.“

Yes, Jay?

Male voice: On this PT problem, if the needle shows a large drop but whenever the pc starts to talk about it, it is free, he's not telling you what his PT problem is and putting it into words.

I don't pay any attention to needle drops anymore that go free and are there and aren't there and are there and aren't there. I find something that'll drop consistently, because the person's doing a dispersal. And that's a dispersal process and if you did start auditing him on it, he'd just disperse off of it anyway. So, I'd find some slicker method of sliding in there.

Male voice: Could I have a little question?

Yes.

Male voice: You were speaking in your lecture about a needle that was very wild. I think you were referring to it as a slamming needle.

Yeah.

Male voice: You said that was a very hot indication of you being near the Rock?

Yeah, you've gotten somewhere near the Rock when you start getting needle slams.

Male voice: Then you'd have to run into this...

It won't tell you another thing.

Male voice: It won't?

No, don't count it for anything. That's all it'll tell you. Because you can right then find some part of the Rock and steady it right down to whop. And that's what you're trying to do. It's something like an indicator, but it's not very diagnostic. It just tells you you're somewhere near the Rock. The subject on which you are now involved is wrapped up in the Rock chain, that's for sure. And you didn't get a needle slam on women, you didn't get a needle slam on men, you didn't get a needle slam on airplanes and you didn't get a needle slam on God, and all of a sudden there you are running „banks,“ financial banks, and the needle starts slamming. Heh-heh-heh-heh. Let's go from there.

Yes?

Female voice: Then you're just looking for a stuck needle there?

That's all you're doing. That's all you're doing, looking for a stuck needle. Much more important. I haven't got another instant. We have run way out of time here.