I am going to give you a fast review on what we have been over. This is not because one and all have failed to grasp completely the tenets and procedures of Dianetics, but because it might point out a few things that there have been questions about and so on.

I would like to make a summary remark on the line of what I was giving you in the first section of this lecture. There is no effort of mine to in any way suppress, inhibit or discourage experimentation in the field of Dianetics. Originally I did all I could to encourage it. If you remember the early talks of June and July 1950 in Elizabeth, you remember the attitude toward experimentation and independent thought. I still would like to encourage that to its furthest extent.

However, I’m not going to cover this material redundantly. This is really just a review of what I have been over, but oriented around the basis of what makes a valid technique and what makes an invalid one — how to audit wrong and how to audit right.

The only thing wrong that occurs in the field is that someone takes an experimental technique which is very experimental — it has been run on a series of three or five, maybe for two weeks or a month at the most — and picks this up as a technique. There is a big difference between an experimental technique and a technique.

The first thing we ought to cover is how to audit wrong.

The fault, then, does not lie with the experimenter. In the enthusiasm which one has to get his preclears’ cases and his own case to move as rapidly as possible, the acceptor of the experimental procedure himself is the villain of the piece. I have seen papers come out which were marked quite bluntly “Experimental Procedure” and have seen people going completely overboard on these things.

There are certain fundamentals which any technique must have in order to be a valid technique, and if somebody comes along with a technique which does not have these fundamentals and does not accomplish these specific things, that technique is, bluntly, no good. Even though it gets action, it is not necessarily getting a preclear well.

The most that an auditor should be doing with an experimental procedure is this: He likes the idea, so he takes one preclear he is running and runs that experimental technique, if he wishes to be an experimenter himself, and he works with the preclear in the preclear’s full knowledge of the fact that it is an experimental procedure which is being used. He keeps on running Standard Procedure with his other cases. The auditor then keeps good notes on what he is doing and sends his unbiased results back to the individual who originated the technique. In fairness, this is what he should do.

I spoke earlier about stage-demonstration auditing, how you pick the guy up off the couch and he hits the ceiling and caroms off the wall, screams a few times, faints down into a wilted mass of MEST, and everybody says, “Three cheers! Boy, Dianetics really works!” Then you take the preclear and straighten him out. That is a stage demonstration. There is the spectacular — the observance of the spectacular and a complete neglect of the important.

The person who is putting out this technique then can accumulate a considerable amount of data. He evidently usually knows the most about this technique, so he can correlate what suggestions he receives back again.

This is one of the first things that a technique has to be evaluated on: Is it spectacular or is it important? Are you trying to produce with this technique a number of phenomena, or are you trying to get a preclear well? I know of several techniques going around which produce phenomena astonishingly. I can produce lots of phenomena too. As a matter of fact, when it comes to thunder and lightning on techniques — making the preclear curl up into a ball so that he won’t uncurl for three days, sending him into a boil-off which will last the next two years, or getting him to run all engrams on the time track simultaneously — I can really give you phenomena if you want it! What good would it do? We would be picking this fellow up in pieces.

But this is experimentation, not practicing. Make a good, clear line between these two things.

Now, the danger of a low-tone-scale auditor is simply that he deals in emergencies; he deals in short terms. Short-term investment ruined capitalism. The quick, fast story about the disaster has ruined journalism. There isn’t any good sense in a newspaper; there is only entheta on those front pages. Once in a while it gives you a scrap of data that you need, but mostly it is not data, it is just junk. What do you care that a warehouse burned down? Is it your warehouse? But it is exciting and picks up people’s attention — particularly low-toned people’s attention.

Do you realize that it would be possible for a group antipathetic to Dianetics to originate a very valid-appearing technique, send it around on a mimeographed sheet, and spin a dozen preclears in a month?

This is the background of a spectacular technique: Is the auditor interesting himself or is he getting the preclear well? You can sell a completely inefficacious technique which yet produces an enormous amount of explosion in the preclear much faster than you can sell a smooth, quiet technique which produces a steady and stable gain in the preclear. That is a heck of a thing, but it is true enough!

The United States Navy was very nice to me in 1941; they gave me an education in naval intelligence. It included a course on how to be an agent provocateur — the boy who causes unrest and trouble within the group that his forces are attacking. There are two sides to sabotage: one is the agent saboteur and the other is the agent provocateur. The modus operandi of sabotage and provocation are very simple ones.

For instance, take this character Reich. He teaches people how to do convulsions. There isn’t any slightest desire behind this, actually, to get anybody well; he has never gotten anybody well. Some of these techniques that Reich has are tremendously interesting. His contributions to the field of structure are, without doubt, very great contributions. But as far as a therapy is concerned, even Reich admits that he doesn’t have one. I know this because I have talked to intimate disciples of Reich’s. Now, let’s give the devil his due: he is a wonderful man onstructure and he is very good on theory, but he has not produced a technique that does anything.

Dianetics has a great many friends and it has a few small, measly and unimportant enemies. Nevertheless, it is a very dull fellow who neglects all of his enemies. We have just been through the sawmill, through the public presses. Nobody need convince me further that Dianetics has enemies of such a low altitude that human liberty and the right to think in the society are nothing. I don’t care to get off on this line very far, but let me assure you the attacks made were completely unfounded on anything even faintly resembling truth.Of course, I could spend the rest of my life hunting down these dogs, but I have more important things to do. I know enough about the modus operandi of theta-entheta to know that all I would succeed in doing is enturbulating myself and Dianetics. What I am doing right at the present time is carrying the ball — getting out some books, advancing research and taking care of the things in Dianetics which have to be cared for. The entheta line has to be left where it lies. It will damp out; it will die out. Nevertheless, human life and human sanity have gone by the boards in this effort which we have just survived.

We had at the Foundation, very early — at 42 Aberdeen Road — two of Reich’s disciples. One of them could throw himself into a convulsion at will, and that was some convulsion! That was the most spectacular convulsion you ever wanted to lay your hands on. Of course, it was never going to get him well, but it was a beautiful convulsion. And this had been all right and he had gone along with Reichian therapy right straight up to the time when that convulsion became bigger than he was. He would start to walk down the subway stairs or something like that and begin to go into this convulsion automatically. All this man had to do was lie down on a bed and start moving his head in a certain way and he would instantly go into this convulsion. The floor of the room would shake! This was spectacular as the devil, but it wasn’t therapy.

Therefore, you can understand my concern in keeping the name Dianetics in practice as ethical and as provenly workable as possible. We have to stand together when it comes to the effort of thrusting out a new idea, a new concept and a new goal into a reluctant and debased society. We have got a great deal of work to do.

In Dianetics, if you don’t think you could produce “therapies” which would produce convulsions, break people out in rashes, make them walk on the ceiling and have their ears rot off, you are foolish. You definitely could. You are working here with the basic tools; you are working with what is wrong. And when you are working with what is really wrong with the human psyche, you can of course just specialize in making it more wrong. For instance, you can take a preclear down the time track and turn on a fever that won’t turn off for two or three days. That is spectacular! You can actually send him down the time track and get him into a fever engram and take his temperature or see that his skin is very hot to the touch, and he will have a fever.

No one should feel that by the submission of an experimental procedure or paper to the Foundation it will be neglected. Nearly all of them come before my eyes. Very often the experimenter himself and I have talked; my ideas have been expanded and so have his. Things which have come out that we can refer to as wildcat very often came out even though I was right in there working with the group. The only unauthorized part of it was that somebody published it very broadly, and it was accepted by practitioners, as standardized procedure. For your own safety and the security of Dianetics, the use of Proven Procedure — until Proven Procedure is altered by these new techniques — should be a primary concern of yours.

We could add that up this way: “In ancient India they believed all of the evil that was in a person was contained as a hot devil, and merely by raising the person’s temperature you could actually see the exudations of evil come off him. Therefore, the thing to do is to turn on a fever.” (Actually, there is an Indian theory like that.) But what good would it do you to have him locked up in a fever engram? This is merely spectacular.

Now, the submission of papers to the Foundation will find those papers enclosed without change in the back of the book supplements which will come out once a month. If any censorship is done on them at all it will merely be that somebody has written something in one hundred thousand words that we just don’t have the space to print. If a book comes out which is of considerable importance to Dianetics, the Foundation will publish that book. Furthermore, the copyrights and so forth can be exchanged and safeguarded in this fashion. There is not even any effort to suppress the publication of other books. There is a definite effort to keep the copyright of Dianetics straightened up.

Now, I am trying to show you what you can do with Dianetic therapy on the spectacular, emergency side. You can take any chronic somatic a person has and make it much worse with great ease. You just reverse your principles and lay into the case with some solid authoritarian auditing. I have no doubt that just by reversing the vectors on ARC you could have your preclear crying hard and long. We could work out a technique where he would cry for days — I’m sure of it!

I would feel very foolish, if some friend of mine suddenly published a book using the word Dianetics, to have to say “You can’t publish that” after it is already out. This would put me in a very embarrassing position, and yet I would have to say something or do something. Otherwise, that book going out validates the fact that now anybody can publish “Robonetics,” “Apenetics,” “Anynetics,” or publish the word Dianetics on a book which is subsidized and paid for by somebody who doesn’t like us. Right now, I have the right and the power to close down, like a slammed window, such an operation as the last one mentioned.

Somebody came in one day and had a technique by which somebody, while he was asleep at night, could scan up through chains of emotion. That was a pretty good idea so we made a couple of tests. We gave one woman the command that while she was asleep she would run this chain and get the grief off the grief chain, and we sent her home. Her pillow was wet with tears the next morning. She had no recollection of it whatsoever, but the pillow was wet with tears. We tested it on another case on a similar line and a similar thing happened. These people didn’t get much better, and as a matter of fact, I think one of them got a little worse. But there is a spectacular manifestation.

If somebody wants to publish a book about Dianetics there is no quarrel about it at all. All he has to do is write the Foundation and we go through copyright release — permission to use the copyright. That is all it takes. The Foundation will publish the book with a 10 percent royalty to its writer, if that book has any sales quality or quantity at all. And as far as small papers are concerned, these things sent to the Foundation will come out automatically as part of a supplement. By sending them in and distributing them around in such fashion, a maximum number of people will be able to see them.

Theoretically, then, there is an unexplored mechanism in Dianetics by which you can actually — just as you lay in a freewheeling command — put somebody out on the couch and give them an order that that night, when they go home and go to sleep, they will scan through all of this and that. You could give them orders, evidently, to do almost anything, and they would go ahead and do it. They would have no recollection of what they were doing, and the efficiency of it or efficacy of it has not been measured.

In other words, there is going to be and will continue to be an experimental line of action in Dianetics. That must be promoted.

If you want spectacular, screwball, off-the-beaten-track techniques, we could probably sit around and have a bull session and cook together hundreds of them. We could fix somebody up so that his temperature would go down to ninety and stay there or something. All you have to do is just take these various factors with which we are working and put them a little bit in the wrong order, and the next thing you know, you have what could be called a very spectacular technique.

But also, on your bread and butter, on your own preclears’ cases, count very solidly on the reliable production of results. Use what is provenly useful and usable.

Now, not all techniques show up their viciousness in two or three months. Some of these techniques can be run and run and run, and because man is a fairly resilient beast and because the mind is almost indestructible, a person could stand up to some of this stuff just beautifully for months without cracking up. If he were told consistently enough that he was getting well and that this was the new white hope, 1 he would have on that suggestion level a continual hope from day to day. If he has lost hope in a technique which you have been using and you give him this new one, he will do a little upsurge in tone on the hope that now he is going to get well and something is going to happen. Because there is a raised ARC, you are actually going to see, occasionally, a chronic somatic pop out.

If you have ideas that can be improved, remember that there are a lot of people who are very willing to help you dress them up and expand them. And remember too, just as I have been utterly unable to do anything with new procedures as they came out without the aid and assistance of other people, so is the experimenter himself limited. I use anything and everything in the Foundation in carrying forward the advance research line and the proof line on Dianetics.

But one of these fine days he is going to discover that he is not getting well. In addition to that, the case meantime may have been mechanically loused up. So watch out on these spectacular techniques.

Validation Processing has fewer cases behind it than anything else released. I told you that when I was giving it to you. Nevertheless, it is not really experimental. We have been running across this thing for a long time. It is just a development and an extrapolation line.

There are two things an auditor can do. He can demonstration-audit or he can audit to make preclears well.

I want you to feel friendly about this idea of ideas, because, believe me, I think I have proven myself to be your friend with regard to them and I would like to have you be mine with regard to them.

I am not pulling any punches on this. Some of the techniques that have been put out in the field are so confoundedly, slap-happy stupid that anybody using them ought to have his ears knocked off. I’m not kidding! Some of the preclears I have seen on whom this stuff has been run are really thoroughly loused up!

Now, there are a couple of matters which I have been asked about that I would like to take up very briefly.

Then there is freewheeling; I got my fingers burned on freewheeling, but I went ahead and investigated it very religiously. Here was a brand-new phenomenon; it was beautiful! You could just tell the person to freewheel through all of his engrams and they would all reduce — only they won’t. He will keep on freewheeling through these somatics, evidently, ad infinitum.

I spoke considerably about extroversion in an earlier lecture. If a person is extroverted the attention units are in present time regarding the environment. That is extroversion. When the attention units get scattered back on the track regarding yesterday’s problems, or even on computations regarding today’s problems, he is introverted. A perfectly legitimate introversion, by the way, is trying to think of the answers which compare with the data being received from the current environment. But having the attention units scattered back along the track, looking into this incident and that incident and the other incident — as produced both by an introverted person and artificially by self-auditing — is an undesirable state for a person to be in in his everyday life.

I can give you now a final report on freewheeling. I know that a case can freewheel for ten months without the reduction of any somatics and yet experience those somatics time after time after time. The person will occasionally flash himself, “Are you stuck on the track? All right, what’s the phrase? Well, it’s . . . ,” and he will give himself some holder or a grouper or something of the sort. By the end of a relatively short period of freewheeling, a person who is doing this, if he is even middle range on the tone scale, will probably find himself with his time track grouped, his secondaries all run into engrams and his engrams run into locks, with one side of the bank top and the other side bottom, and he will be shuffling off to the nearest spinbin. This is a rough deal, but boy, that technique sure was spectacular!

The difference between extroversion and introversion could be stated in another fashion. We have wondered for a long time what necessity level is. How would you like to be able to artificially pick up a person’s necessity level? All you would have to know is what necessity level is. Necessity level and extroversion are quite similar. As a matter of fact, necessity level is merely, evidently, extroversion occasioned acutely by the presence of a recognizably menaceful problem in the environment.

Imagine it, a person doesn’t need any auditor; he just walks around and a somatic turns on here and another one turns on there and he says, “Gee, I’m sure getting rid of these things. I spent all morning running out stubbed toes. I never knew I had stubbed my toe so many times.”

Here we have the environment suddenly posing a big, recognizable problem. There is the problem, and the person comes up to present time and extroverts on it. That is necessity level. Of course, because it has that magnitude he automatically responds physiologically. The adrenal system and the rest of it goes into action. This makes necessity level look pretty terrific, because here you have theta and MEST both alerting toward a danger, so you get an extroversion and you get the energy in the body necessary to make this extroversion effective.

Once in a blue moon, a piece of an engram somatic will dive out of sight on freewheeling, or erase or do something. For instance, he has run a birth engram and the freewheel has taken out a little bit of a somatic. It would have taken an auditor fifteen or twenty minutes, when running the birth engram, to have gotten that much somatic off. But this guy has spent three or four months freewheeling, and the total benefit to his case has been getting in the same amount of work that an auditor could have done in fifteen or twenty minutes. Yet freewheeling is tremendously spectacular.

Man was built, evidently, to have one of these occurrences happen to him five, six, ten times a day. After all, we lived a lot longer in the jungle and on the sea floor and in sea water, probably, than we have lived walking around in the streets of America as men. And even as men, there are probably ten to fifty thousand years of being a hunting society behind nearly any group now alive. And there are probably another ten thousand years of being in that, really, not very much less perilous environment of the agrarian society — animals, outside all the time, accidents happening in wild places, and so forth. You could count on this, then: Man has been built along the line to have lots of necessity level many times. A white man starts living the kind of a life that man used to live and it is a funny thing, but it doesn’t tear him to bits.

You can take a preclear and put him on a couch, and you can run him without the somatics but with the somatics converted into temperature. You can do this, if you want to really louse somebody up thoroughly. He will just lie there, evidently in present time, and his temperature will go up and his face will turn red; he will get cold and then hot, then he will get prickly all over, then he will get cold and then he will get hot — boy, is he getting action! And after he does this for a while you pick him up and wring him out and put him in the ragbag.

I was the first casualty home from the South Pacific. I turned myself in at the hospital, got some adhesive tape glued on me, and I was all set to go home in a hurry and see the wife and kids. But the doctor said, “No, you go to bed.”

We are playing with dynamite. Don’t disabuse yourself of that fact. You have gotten used to handling your tools and you don’t consider them dangerous tools. But you look at a person who is an oil-well shooter — a person who is out there dropping nitroglycerine into the hole in an oil well — and you say, “My gosh, that fellow handles dangerous stuff!” He doesn’t think so. He is out there with his little flasks of nitroglycerine; he puts one in his pocket and goes over and drops it down a hole and it goes boom, then he gets into the truck and throws a jug of nitro up on the seat alongside of him and drives over a nice rattly road. You look at this man and you say, “Oh, no!” This man has developed a sort of an immunity to the dangerousness of what he is handling. But every once in a while these guys get blown up too.

“Why?”

Believe me, from the standpoint of somebody out of and beyond Dianetics, you people are oil- well shooters. You are handling dynamite, nitroglycerine, Cordtex;1 you are really handling dangerous stuff. You can do tremendous things with this stuff, too. But that doesn’t for one moment lessen the fact that high-tension, high-explosive stuff sometimes explodes. And you have seen it explode.

“Well, you’ve got to have a routine checkover, routine checkover.”

The dangerousness of much of this material is very insidious; you don’t notice it. You are like a technician in an X-ray lab who says “I can’t possibly get an overdose of radiation,” and so never wears the rubber-lead apron.

Any time the navy says “routine,” this means it is unavoidable. So I proceeded to turn myself in. I woke up the next morning and there was the most horrible character I had ever seen, saying, “How many fingers do you see? What time is it? What is your name?”

If you start auditing preclears phrase after phrase after phrase, eight, ten, twelve hours a day, well into the night, when you are tired, when you are upset, when you are worried, eventually those little phrases will creep up on you. You will start going down the tone scale and you won’t even notice it. It is too gradual. Then one day you wonder why your case isn’t running well. Isn’t running well? You haven’t got a case anymore; you are a wreck! Yet there are many auditors out in the field who don’t even bother to scan off the auditing they do on preclears. That is getting up to the point where you are throwing the jug of nitroglycerine onto the seat of the Model T Ford alongside of you.

I was smart enough not to give him some flip sarcastic answers, or I would probably be there yet! I said, “Two fingers. It’s seven-thirty,” or some ridiculous hour. But what I couldn’t get over was the eagerness of this person. He was so eager and he looked so disappointed every time I answered him rationally!

An auditor can’t do a good job of auditing if he is way down on the tone scale. Little impulses and stupidities will come up and hit even the brightest auditor from behind as he goes down the tone scale. The next thing you know, he is making some stupid blunder on the preclear. It only takes a few.

I saved the anger that was building up inside of me until I saw the officer of the day outside. And I said very “politely” to him, “What’s the idea?”

Dianetics contains the answer to the riddle of sanity. It contains also, perforce, the answer to the riddle of insanity. Any one of us could take a human being and, with malice aforethought, drive him stark, staring crazy with greater efficiency than even psychiatry does. What would you do to him? You would just reverse all the things that you know would help him: you would group his track, put a lot of entheta on it, latch him up in all the secondaries, slug him with some drugs, hit him in the face, take a hypodermic needle to him so that you give him very painful but unobservable somatics, give him all the line of palaver — bouncers, denyers, everything else — and package it all up. Then when he comes out of it say this had never happened to him, feed all the content back to him again by telling him about other people’s engrams or even his own, convince him that he does not know what his reality is and convince him that you are his friend. A person can’t take this; he would spin. That would be an efficient job, but that could be done on a person who was pretty doggone sane!

And he said, “Didn’t you know?” No, I didn’t know. He said, “You are the first casualty home from the South Pacific. Everybody knows that the stress and strain of modern war is such that the human mind can’t stand it! “

Now take the people that you handle as preclears: there are very few of these people who are not below 2.0. You take these people and just start messing up the techniques of auditing. “Let’s throw in a little dash of paprika and some cinnamon and that ‘fire clearing’ that somebody had. We’ll let him go home and audit; I’m tired of him.” And the next thing you know, your preclear isn’t functioning very well.

This was one of these “everybody knows” things!

For instance, you can get careless about boil-off. I think one of the forms of hypnotism is simply talking to a person about being down and being relaxed until he finally starts into a boil- off. You get him into the boil-off and he dopes around, and then you feed him phrases and it goes into the boil-off and becomes part of the engram which that boil-off is in. That is a possible explanation for some of the phenomena of hypnotism; it may be one particular brand of hypnotism. I know that if you start a preclear into a boil-off and he is lying there boiling off when somebody walks in the room and starts talking to you, then a couple of months later, after this case has been bogged for a long time, somebody checking back over the auditing will suddenly come into this boil-off area and find that all that talking has gone in as positive suggestion just like hypnotism.

Over in Europe, the Germans had been bombing troops with these Stuka screamers and all sorts of things. The troops were getting tired out, worn out, nerves frazzled and so forth. And naturally these fellows were out of food, they were exhausted, and their engrams were keying in left and right. Why? They were being defeated so fast they didn’t know which end they were standing on! Those troops were in such full retreat that the rear guard was always in advance of the vanguard during the retreat. They pulled back to the beach at Dunkirk and went home, leaving most everything they had in Europe. And in the field of psychiatry they were adjudicating about this as “Obviously the human anatomy and mind could not stand. up to modern war.”

That is pure carelessness on the part of the auditor. An auditor who will open his face or snap his fingers to a preclear who is in a boil-off is doing a very bad thing. When a preclear starts into a boil-off — he slumps over and starts boiling — you just sit there and wait for him to snap out of it.

Japanese Zeros and the rest of this stuff down in the South Pacific didn’t offer the same picture. We very definitely were losing; we lost the first part of that war. Nobody seems to mention that, but we really lost it! However, just because a man comes out of the war area, to immediately assume he is crazy is a bit crazy!

We used to hurry up the deal a little bit; that is not good. The results of hurrying it up are far more detrimental than letting it ride. The way you ought to handle a boil-off is to simply let it boil, and be quiet around the preclear and don’t leave the preclear.

I got away from the hospital after a while. I was insulted. But I really needn’t have been insulted, because they needed data. The data finally worked out this way: The people who were carrying forward the war in combat areas had a pretty low percentage of psychotics compared to the people who were standing idle in rear areas, on supply ships and other places. War neurosis came up and slapped those people who had not enough to do, who were merely there being worried. They wanted to do something and nobody would let them.

Some preclear will start boiling off, and if you, quiet as a mouse, get up and walk out of the room, you will get just about one foot outside the door and you will have detached from him the group theta that you and he maintain. By doing this trick, you will drop him into the middle of the engram in which he is boiling off. You have just removed from his vicinity, evidently, the ARC that he has to have to keep rolling, and it is quite a jolt to him. You will hurt him if you do that, so you have to stand by on it.

In the navy, the big combat cargo vessels just cruised around endlessly; even when they made a beachhead landing they could see action over there on the beach, but they weren’t ducking very many shells. The menace in the area at most would come from a few aircraft. There was no big necessity level; there was just frustration. There was something going on and they should alert to it and then immediately close with the enemy and tear him to bits and that sort of thing, but that was being prevented.

Letting a preclear run himself while he is lying on the couch and you are sitting there is psychoanalysis; it has nothing to do with Dianetics. The Dianetic auditor who does not know at every moment where his preclear is on the track and what his preclear is doing isn’t auditing. That doesn’t mean he has to keep up a running fire of comment. He can start the preclear up a chain and so forth, but when they are running the chain the first time or two he should have the preclear check with him — just tell him once in a while a little incident he is passing and what he is doing. He should keep close tabs on this case.

For instance, take a soldier out of the front lines where he has been wounded and treat him at a first-aid station. He will be all right; he is right up near the lines where the guns are going and everything else. He is an effective social unit (or an antisocial unit — the army). He is right up there in the front lines, but he is sane. Now let’s move him to the rear area to a base hospital. There he goes. He will cease to have a target for his necessity level.

The auditor still runs the case. Don’t get stampeded by this confounded school of permissive psycho-bungling! Don’t get stampeded by it into thinking that nondirective therapy is the ultimate goal; it is not. Minimally directive therapy is a good goal, but nondirective therapy is not a goal. That is just wasting the preclear’s time and money. If you stand there and let that preclear auto-run himself, maybe he can do it better in your presence because of the existing theta body, but you might as well let him go on auto-auditing by himself. He will eventually start to auto-audit. Check that datum back, if you have had preclears that you just let run and run; you will find out pretty soon that they start to run themselves when you are not there. That is bad auditing. You are handling nitroglycerine! It is a human being you have got there on the couch. Don’t kill him.

It is interesting to you as auditors to realize, then, that man is baffled and confused by indefinites or too-definitenesses, not by violence. He can stand up to any quantity of punishment so long as he knows what it is and where it is from. It is when he doesn’t know or when he knows too well that he is really upset.

How do you know this preclear isn’t going to go auto-auditing? You are not checking on what he is doing. How do you know he isn’t going to go into a manic suicide engram — ”What would really make you feel good is to go kill yourself” — something like that? How do you know he hasn’t tripped this? How do you know it isn’t in restimulation at the moment he is getting off your couch? You don’t know where he has been if he goes on with this nondirective processing. So he smiles at you sweetly and walks out of your office and bumps himself off!

In other words, you are going up against two kinds of mental aberration which are very general and which apply very definitely to your business. One is when the danger is unknown, unselected and unrecognized — indefinite. He can’t find it, he can’t fix his mind on it, he can’t locate it. The other one is complete fixation on one thing as dangerous to the exclusion of any other dangers in the environment.

Don’t think that you would be in unusual company if your preclear did that, because they do it in psychoanalysis to a very high percentage. A fellow by the name of James Forrestal is the most prominent example of that in the last few years. But there are lots of them; it isn’t just James Forrestal.

In the first one, the mind is hunting. It can’t extrovert, because the danger might be back there down the time track too. Just where is it? Is it this? Is it that? That is why people pick up associative restimulators and things like that.

There is a certain type of potential suicide who gets down in the apathy bracket and then is very, very nice to the auditor. He feels good; he is fine, he is sure he is improving. Then one day he kills himself. That is a characteristic of the lower tone band. The guy has skidded down there to a point where one of his defenses of “Go away and leave me alone” is saying “I’m all right” when he is all wrong. If you haven’t got a good, tight rein on this preclear at all times, you don’t know what he has been into. If you can’t keep awake when you are running him, just put a few tacks in your chair; it helps out.

On the second one, you will run into somebody, for instance, who is clutching to his bosom this fact that the reason everything happened to him was “because his libido was down.” It is all libido and the answer is contained in Sigmund Freud; it must be contained there, and it has to do with his libido, and don’t disturb him any because here it is and this is all that is wrong, and this is the whole environ, and this told him everything!

I am not kidding about this. You can run them through this idiotic auto-phrase boil-off technique, 1 but that is the most hideous piece of garbage anybody ever ran into. I couldn’t condemn it enough. Those phrases he is running have no reality on them. What good are they? Do they improve the ARC of his case? No! He starts wondering where they came from, and the more he wonders where they came from, the more he introverts. The more he introverts, the less efficient he is and the further he goes down the tone scale. It becomes very obvious once you take apart the anatomy of that technique or once you examine one of these preclears who has been run that way for four months. It takes about three months to knock the stuffing’s out of him to a point where it is really solidly observable. Yes, you will get a lot of anaten off the case, but you have got a terrific job on your hands if you really want to put this case together afterwards. This fellow has hit groupers and bouncers and denyers.

Now you just try to pull this out and say, “This is good writing and everything; it is done in English and it is published with hard covers and so forth, but why don’t you look around the environment and really take a look? You realize that your wife nags you and your kids get on your nerves and so forth — let’s go into this a little more practically and . . .”

Take an engram with five separate phrases. Let’s say this is an impact engram, and the anaten level is deepest right near the beginning. You will be less likely to get the first phrase with Standard Procedure than you will the fifth phrase or even the third phrase. So you ask him for the earliest phrase he can get in the engram and he gives it to you and repeats it a few times and repeats himself into the engram. If his level of reality is good, he knows where he is on the track and he knows what that engram is about and he knows who is talking. He is volunteering this stuff to you; you are just helping him out. You shouldn’t be running engrams on a preclear who says he doesn’t know whether they exist or not, or whether this is China or August.

“No sir! It has got to be this!” In other words, he has selected himself a point of reference because he can’t find out what is wrong. So he goes into the delusion of postulating that this is wrong.

So he gets back there and he runs the third phrase. He will miss the second one usually. He will run the third, fourth and fifth phrases. Then we start him over it again and he will run the second, third, fourth and fifth phrases. Then we go over it again and he hits all five phrases.

You will also find that people will fixate on a cure. They know something is wrong, and then somebody comes along and describes this new disease called “bettahugen.” “Bettahugen is a terrible disease that invisibly attacks the cranial clavichord.” And the fellow says, “That must be me!” He knows something is wrong but he can’t locate the real source of danger as far as he is concerned, so he picks one up; this is the danger. First you sell him the disease and then you sell him the cure.

But the file clerk can give you that first phrase!

Psychiatry and medicine think we are doing that in Dianetics because that is all they have ever done. You postulate that this is what is wrong, and then you do something about what you have postulated. Whether it produces results or not is beside the point. It at least keeps a lot of people busy and interested.

Where are you going to get the boil-off on a case? At the deepest point of anaten. You are auditing exactly backwards when you demand from the file clerk a phrase which will give boil- off. Sure, you will get that whole section of boil-off just as neat as you please, except you will leave much of the engram in restimulation!

Just giving something into somebody’s hand and saying “This is cause, and we are going to fix it up with this” — just doing that for somebody who is completely unfixed, who can’t fix on any menace in his environ — is therapeutic! You have said, “This is the danger.”

But you will get action. It is spectacular. The preclear will lie there and boil off; he will dope off for you and he will go on doping for quite a while. Yet that phrase has no reality on it because it is too far down the tone scale. That phrase is really buried; it is buried under pain and anaten. There is no reality on it.

This fellow has had terrible stomachaches all of his life, and it is horrible and he hasn’t any reason for it at all. Somebody comes along and says, “Well, fellow, what’s wrong with you is very obvious. You have inflammation of the interior lufwuttapumps.”

You get him to repeat it a few times and he starts going down and goes into a boil-off. You can produce all the boil-offs you want to. But are they the boil-offs you should have for that case at that time? That is the question you should be asking. You can’t ascertain that question just by asking for random phrases and letting somebody boil, then letting him scan through a line of phrases and then letting him scan through some somatics and, after a while, asking him rather wonderingly “Where are you on the track?” What track?

And the fellow says, “I have? What is this caused by?”

There is another mechanism involved here: the scanner, the mechanism which tells the fellow what the next phrase is. There is a sort of a beam arrangement like a flashlight dispersion, whereby you have the flashlight trained on one thing but there is a dimmer light shining around the edges. It is very, very bright in the center where it is trained, but just sort of dim around that. When you get one phrase this scanner will turn on to the one before and the one after, just restimulating them enough to be active but not enough to be recognized. If either of those phrases happens to be a grouper and you are running somebody low on the tone scale, there is a sudden crash and his time track flies together. It can happen and it has happened, using this command-phrase boil-off technique.

“Well, as a matter of fact, it is caused by eating too much popcorn. Now, you just knock off that popcorn and take these pills three times a day — nasty-tasting things, aren’t they? — and you will be fine.”

I don’t want to be harsh about this technique: It is no damn good!

As a matter of fact, for a while, this fellow will be fine. He will be perfectly satisfied to nail down all of these unfixed attention units for the environ into “stomach inflammation because of popcorn.” You could even train him up to a point where, when he walks down the street and sees a popcorn stand, he will go clear across the street rather than go near one.

Now let’s take another one which installs auto-auditing. This is a wonderful mechanism. There is no doubt about the fact that there are more things dreamed of in the mind of man than we know anything about. I imagine that we could plow around and figure and think and postulate and search, and we would find dozens and dozens and dozens of these tricky mechanisms. And very possibly, one of these days, we will discover one that has a tremendous amount of use.

You will see people who have been told it is poison ivy that causes that skin rash, when it is actually the measles he had when he was a child. The fellow will just see a picture of a poison ivy plant and begin to swell up. That is his good, solid selected cause, and when you try to take that one away from him, you are really going to have a time! You are going to have to show him another, more valid cause.

We shouldn’t stop looking for them, but we should stop jumping onto every one of them we find and saying, “Aha! This is it! Oh, this is the mechanism we’ve been looking for. Now look at that: Every time you touch a preclear’s big toe his left ear starts wiggling and doesn’t stop wiggling. Now, obviously this expends all the enMEST energy from the case. The left ear just keeps on wiggling and this expends the excess energy and the preclear gets well.” Most of these techniques are just that silly. They produce an effect but they don’t make the preclear well. And making the preclear well is what we are trying to do.

That is why people come along and tell you “You better run an engram out of me! “ They want to be rolled up in a ball right away. They want to have this cause. They want to have this proven to them.

I am still appealing to that minority who wish to remove the aberration rather than the preclear.

You know what you are working with; you have seen enough of them. You have seen enough engrams and secondaries and you have seen what happens when they get relieved and so forth. That is good enough for you but it isn’t good enough for him.

These scanning mechanisms are very interesting. Auditing itself, if not scanned out and trimmed up on a low-toned case, if it’s forceful auditing in the prenatal area, eventually tends to install one of these very mechanisms. (That is probably how people learned about it.) The preclear will then start auto-auditing. So people say, “Well, naturally, let’s just install one and let him roll.” Patching up cases that have been loused up in this fashion is an arduous job, as anyone could say who has had to patch them up.

That is where charlatanism starts coming in, in any profession: the demand of the public, the demand of the individual, to be given a cause which can then be cured.

When you are dealing with people below 2.0, you are dealing with people who ask for suicide. They will buy succumb, so if you can dream up something that will give them a terrific effect, and obviously something is happening that is short-term and dramatic, they will buy it much faster than a quiet, orderly thing that will push them above 2.0 on the tone scale. You can sell strychnine to a person below 2.0 on the tone scale with great ease. All you have to do is tell him that this is just exactly what he wants. He is in a hypnotic trance anyhow — most people low on the scale are pretty hypnotic — and you could sell him anything.

The fellow who is fixated on a danger is not going to be persuaded out of the fact that that is his danger, but you can unfix him one way or the other. He gets to a point where he says, “Everything that has happened to me is because of rose petals,” “Everything that has happened to me is because of the Republicans,” “Everything that has happened to me is bankers,” “Everything that has happened to me is communists.” He will fix on this one item solidly, and he can’t get off the thing.

There is a fixation that some patients have on pills, which is the reason doctors give them flour- and-water pills. A good doctor who really knows his business always mixes some quinine or something that tastes like green persimmons in with those pills and tells the patient, “Let this melt in your mouth slowly.” Then the patient says, “Oh boy, that’s good medicine. You know, Doc Brown really knows his stuff! “ You are doing the same thing when you pick up a spectacular technique. This doctor knows very well that the few minutes of diathermy he is handing this case are doing the case some good — relaxing it or something of the sort — and he gives him the pills just to keep him hoping. But the nice, quiet part of his technique is usually what is doing the job, not the explosive stuff.

You could put a sign up saying “Republican,” and he would be afraid of that sign and fixed on that sign to the point where a saber-toothed tiger walking in from two points off his starboard bow could just walk in and eat him up.

By the way, I checked over patent medicines which are still in existence, and the patent medicines that have survived fall into two categories: those which contain a very high percentage of alcohol and can be taken with great aplomb by old ladies and those which just taste terrible. You remember the tonic Tom Sawyer fed to the cat? That was “good medicine.” The cat didn’t come back, I think, for three days!

These are both non survival attitudes: not to be able to find out what is wrong and therefore selecting something that is wrong, or actually having some menace in the environment which can’t be fought. A menace which can’t be fought will also produce this manifestation. You don’t dare fight Papa. You don’t dare fight Mama. That is where you get Papa and Mama as villains — not because they are really villains, but because they are menaces that can’t be fought. They demonstrated that a long time ago. They are suppressors — big, solid suppressors.

So, here we have a perimeter of known techniques, known responses and known results — known stability. And also, with these, we have a communication system which has been worked up so that these things are codified and can be delivered on that codification basis. Any technique which has really gotten along and is doing its stuff well has to be codified well so that it communicates easily, not only to other auditors but between the auditor and the preclear so that the preclear quickly gets the idea of what the auditor is doing. Any confusion which exists around and about the communication of a technique from one person to another will introduce a confusion, ordinarily, into the group of auditor and preclear. There is something misunderstood about it. It is too much in the field of an art.

When you start to straighten up somebody along this line, you just talk to him about present time and you will be able to start his attention wandering off the fixed object a little bit. But if you try to educate him into the fact that this object is not the object, you won’t do it. Many auditors will waste time doing that. What they ought to be doing is building up ARC. Just that. It will unfix him. Don’t worry about these two manifestations. Those actually are the two categories of inability to think.

These techniques have been used for a long time. They have been tested. There aren’t any real kickbacks on them except occasionally they are not spectacular enough, and in the past they have not opened up a case here and there fast enough. Furthermore, if run too long on a low- level case, they have had a tendency to foul up the case.

Necessity level is, then, extroversion toward a known, recognizable menace in an effort to do something about it. You will get remarkable instances of this. I think if man could be extroverted by the sudden approach of a recognizable menace three, four, five times a day, he would probably be so unaberrated that we would hardly know him as a creature. He would just keep snapping up to present time, snapping up to present time, and the next thing you know, he would be habitually in present time. Of course, he would be alert to an extreme and he probably would have extended hearing and look like something that is rather hunted, but he would reason well! I still think that is preferable to the vegetable mental condition I see in some places.

These things are resolved with the Chart of Human Evaluation. If you can spot your preclear on this chart, you won’t have trouble with these techniques, provided you use them in the proper order. If you use the proper level for the preclear, you can go on up the line. Furthermore, your very, very occluded cases will pull to pieces.

Now, I have been asked how Freud’s “death instinct,” or “death wish,” fits with Dianetic theory. As a matter of fact there probably is a relationship; most of Freud could probably be explained if you looked through Dianetics hard. We run into this sort of thing quite a bit.

Now, you take Validation Processing all by itself. That will go in on some cases that have been highly resistive to you and start producing results.

You take a barrel with ten thousand beans in it. By some hook or crook you manage to reach in and, out of ten thousand beans that more or less look all alike, pick out the one bean that is important. This is the bean. You look it over and you start using this as the bean and find out you can really do tricks with this bean.

By the way, sometimes the spike is driven with a gentle tap much more efficiently than with a terrific hammer blow. You take this validation technique and start running it on somebody who is pretty well down the tone scale, and you will see more boil-offs than you will see by the repetition of phrases to produce boil-off. You will actually see more boil-off and longer, deeper boil-off. That is a very remarkable thing. Here is something that “obviously isn’t going to do anything,” and then all of a sudden there it is, doing something.

Then somebody comes along and says proudly, “Look. That bean was out of that barrel. That was nothing.”

This sneaks up on your preclear. A large percentage of preclears stop processing because processing is too heavy for them. They are scared. Their file clerk will shut off and so forth from a little code break or auditing which is a little bit too heavy. There have been preclears who had secrecy computations and who didn’t talk too readily. That is natural; a secrecy computation is a mechanical thing. You look low on the tone scale and you will see a secrecy computation lying right down there. Shut-off communication is all it is; it doesn’t have to be a computation. He just is low on the tone scale so there is secrecy. He isn’t going to talk.

The point is that the bean was in the barrel but it wasn’t evaluated for importance. And there were 9,999 other beans which could have been picked up with equal alacrity and which wouldn’t have worked. Why didn’t the person who filled that barrel with beans pick out the right bean in the first place? Why did he insist on pouring all those beans into that barrel if he knew what he was doing?

You can take Validation Processing and coax him up the tone scale to a point where he will reveal all. But don’t just sit there and try to make him reveal all and wrack your brains to pieces.

You are asked this question in the field many times, I am sure. “How does Dianetics differ? You have a couch. It must be psychoanalysis!” And they say, “You look back in Darwin’s theory, and you will find there that it’s by natural selection — the survival of the fittest. Now, how does that possibly differ from ‘the dynamic principle of existence is survive’? It’s the same thing!” It is not the same thing, because we have an aligned body of knowledge.

You can be very clever in auditing. You can be about ten times as clever as you have to be. You could sit there and figure out the computation on this case from A to Z. figure it all out and all of a sudden drive right straight into the center of the case, pick up the exact computation that it is, knock it out — and knock out the preclear.

We have taken “the dynamic principle of existence is survive,” and then we have explored survival and found out where everything fits into the picture properly on survival. So we have an organized picture. There is a big difference between this and a phrase lying back there.

It is better if the information turns up when the information can turn up. And if you sit there and do a relatively routine job without banging your brains out any, all of a sudden your preclear starts up the tone scale and suddenly gets up to a level where he can communicate and he will give you data.

It is true that Dianetics has a great debt to pay to Darwin and it is true that Dianetics has a debt to pay to Freud. But it is very untrue that Freud or Darwin gave enough to put together what has turned out to be Dianetics. A lot of people tried to use Charles Darwin’s work as a therapy and as an understanding of the human mind. As a matter of fact, they have fallen practically flat on their faces trying to use Darwin in extrapolating and evolving a theory of mind. Therefore there must be other things in Darwin they were using that were not true, and obviously it was not properly aligned.

So, here is this group of processes; there are several of them. There is Present Time Processing. There is the processing of independent, individual locks. There is the processing of chains of locks, the processing of secondaries, the processing of engrams and chains of engrams, and then there is Validation Processing. And there is also a technique which has fallen a little bit out of use, Imaginary Incident Processing. You shouldn’t neglect that, though, because you will have to use it on the case sooner or later to coax the fellow into a rehabilitation of his own imagination.

Now, Freud and Jung and some others did the work on the death wish, death instinct, and so on. There have been a lot of these fellows. This idea came in to Europe from India about 1750, and these fellows played with it from 1750 on through till 1940 or 1945. It was played with that long without an evaluation.

Most people are scared to imagine. Imagination is wonderful if a fellow knows when he is imagining. If he knows when he is imagining, you can actually train him back into trusting and knowing all about his imagination, and you will have restored a considerable part of his computer. Don’t just sheer off from imagination by confusing imagination and delusion.

We put it down on the bottom of the tone scale and we say “It is succumb, and this is the distance and this is the direction and this is what it is,” and all of a sudden we can predict who is going to commit suicide and who is going to do this and who is going to do that. It is a different proposition but it stems exactly from that source. All knowledge builds in this fashion. People come along and they select out importance’s. They evaluate the information and fit it to the real universe. They keep selecting out information and fitting it to the universe, selecting out more and fitting it to more.

So we have this little line of techniques; that is not very many techniques. An auditor practicing up can get very expert on these things and know what is going to happen. Furthermore, he knows he has a tremendous amount of backing; an awful lot of people have been doing this. If sudden happenstance’s or bugs develop, it isn’t necessarily up to him to find them; he may find some, but somebody else is going to find them if he doesn’t. Furthermore, the bugs have been reported and reported and the thing adjusted and adjusted until you have a pretty reliable product.

Men have been trying to crack this riddle for thousands of years. You read the papers of the Greeks on the subject of insanity and so on, and you will find a lot of valid material in there; you say to yourself, “Why couldn’t these people figure out an engram and run one?” You come up along the line and look at the work of the magicians up around the ninth and tenth to twelfth centuries, and you say, “With all they knew, why couldn’t these people possibly have figured this thing out?” They didn’t, though.

By introducing these techniques at their proper levels on the tone scale, you have a type of processing that will fit each individual on the tone scale, or you have a consecutive line of processes which are used progressively on each preclear.

Then we look at the work of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in medicine, physiology and so forth, and say, “Look at all these people knew. Why didn’t they work this out?” There just wasn’t enough data yet, that was all. Pretty soon, though, you collect enough data and fit it together in the right holes, and the next thing you know, you have a working proposition.

This is in the known world. These techniques are not unknown. But I will tell you something about them: there are very, very few people who are experts on all these techniques. As a matter of fact, there are some people who aren’t expert on more than one of them. A study of these techniques is necessary to make them produce. A good attention to the fundamental principles of their use is necessary to make them produce the best results.

People try to subdivide all this stuff and they try to compartment it all out into their own slots. The horrible part of it is that these data did not work well in these separate slots — in this frame of reference and in that frame of reference. Somebody had to come along and change their frames of reference, put them together, sum them up and find out what difference it made.

Now, you can go into a case with what you may fondly suppose is Standard Procedure running of engrams and find out that this case is pretty badly bogged down. When you start to examine it a little bit you find out that somebody else has been into this case with “Standard Procedure running of engrams” and has run about four engrams half out. The auditor got bored or something of the sort and didn’t reduce them, nor did he reduce the basic on the chain, and he has gotten the whole case fouled up. You had been told this person could run engrams, and now you are working a case that is too low on the tone scale to run an engram. So what do you do? If all you know is how to run engrams, you are going to be in a bad way. So you have to remeasure this preclear on the tone scale. Furthermore, you have to develop a sensitivity to your preclear to know when he has shifted down the tone scale so you can use a lighter method on him.

People who are slamming against Dianetics don’t realize that they are kicking their favorite philosophers in the teeth. For instance, somebody will stand up to you and tell you, “Now, Korzybski really had some ideas! Korzybski this and Korzybski that...” Fine! Alfred

A good, thorough knowledge of the patter, purposes and application of each one of these techniques is something which, frankly, no auditor could develop too much of.

Korzybski’s work contributed an enormous amount to Dianetics. Nobody in Dianetics contests this in the least. The whole semantic line that we have been working on is a refinement of general semantics.

Standard Procedure — that is a great word. Somebody says “Standard Procedure” and it clicks in somebody else’s mind that he means something about running out engrams. Standard Procedure is every procedure you see on the tone scale at this time. We should call it, as it says in the book, Proven Procedure. It is a whole gamut of techniques which, lumped together, now mean Dianetic processing.

Then somebody else will come along and say it is all from general semantics or it is all from Freud or it is all from Darwin or it is all from someplace else.

If you knew how to run an engram and knew all the tricks of running an engram — just that — if you could anticipate that next phrase, if you knew what that case was going to do next in running these engrams, you would be doing better auditing than I have ever seen in the school. It is something that needs to be practiced and rehearsed and practiced again. One should never be too cocksure about his ability to run out an engram.

You are dealing with people who either can’t fix their concentration or have to fix it to escape thinking about it. They have fixed their concentration solidly on one subject, one small subject, in an effort to escape an ignorance on a tremendous number of subjects. That might be called an insanity to which the analytical mind is prone.

I saw an auditor not too long ago who was considered rather expert. He went into the thing and ran it along, and his preclear was trembling; he came back over for the second run and the preclear was not trembling. So he ran it again and the preclear wasn’t trembling. The preclear seemed a little more relaxed, if anything, so he ran it a couple more times and then he said, “All right. Let’s go to the next engram.”

Another thing I wanted to call to your attention is the existence of past deaths and past lives, in a proper frame of reference.

I took hold of the auditor’s arm, pushed him back (I know any auditor would practically shoot you for doing this, but this preclear was a psychotic) and I said, “Give me the bouncer. (snap!)”

Here again is phenomena. A scientist who refuses to look at the evidence of his environ because of prejudice or argument or somebody’s prohibition against it is not a searcher after truth. At best such a man would be a paid hack working in some laboratory or university. He would not be a scientist. He has been told to cleave to a certain line, so he does. He is not a searcher after truth, then, but a follower after gods. Past lives and past deaths showed up uninvited; preclears started to land in them. Exploration demonstrated that the manifestation from preclear to preclear was quite similar. Also, it has been demonstrated that there were dub- in past deaths and past lives, and that there were evidently real ones. A tremendous amount of material has showed up on this.

“Stay away.” The preclear went right back into the engram and started trembling again.

Now, “It is something that one shouldn’t yell about too loudly” is the general consensus of opinion. So it was put out in Science of Survival more or less as an invitation to people in the field to write in and tell us all about it. “We think we have found something there; would you please look?” That is the way past lives and so forth were presented in that book. There was really no effort to slug anybody over the head with them. If you look over the notes and so forth about them, you will find that that is about the attitude: Send in your data; there is more evidence in favor of some sort of immortality for man than there is against it. But there really is not very much evidence at all, and if you have any we would be very pleased to hear about it. Man has thought there was a human soul and immortality for more years than he thought there wasn’t one.

The engram had just been greased over — obviously! Here was an auditor who should have known his stuff. The preclear had come out of this engram just a little bit but was close enough to keep on repeating phrases. And this auditor, despite his experience, had missed the fact.

Let’s be bluntly practical now. The truth of the matter is that you can latch a case up faster than fire drill by running him into a past death and not running it out, and by not knowing about past deaths. You can really fix a case up thoroughly! Run him into a past death too far up the chain, say “This must be just dub-in,” and go off and leave it or run it out improperly, and the next thing you know, your preclear is developing somatics the like of which he has never had before, and off you go. This case bogs. Nobody can quite understand why it bogs.

This is the commonest mechanism in the world — to hit a bouncer, go partway out of it, and later on in the incident hit a call-back, 1 so the bouncer and the call-back are operating, your preclear is riding just above the engram and the somatic isn’t on but the preclear can still get phrases. You can run an engram like that and keep missing the bouncer and the call-back — because they are the effective phrases — and keep running it and running it with obviously less and less manifestation. You are getting a tiny little bit of reduction off it.

It would be a funny prejudice that made an auditor ignore data which would make his preclear sick if he didn’t use it. And yet lack of knowledge of what can exist in past lives and past deaths can do that.

What did it require? Just good, ordinary auditing of engrams! Knowing what happens. Knowing how a preclear looks when he hits a grouper, knowing how he looks when he hits a bouncer or a call-back. An auditor with experience should be able to sit alongside of the couch and know the whole content of the engram before the preclear hits it. I’m not kidding — he should!

The extent that running them helps the preclear has not been measured accurately enough for anything to be said about it. There have been a few psychometries run on it, and some slight improvement was noted in these very few after running out several past deaths and so on. The change was rather uniform, but the number of cases run was not significant. So there has got to be a lot of data gathered on this. This is a tremendous field of research.

For instance, the preclear goes into the basic area or something of the sort and all of a sudden starts to scrunch up, and he rolls up tighter and tighter. The auditor says to himself, “I wonder what this is? Here we’ve got something on the bowel-movement chain or something of the sort,” and he says, “Give us the first phrase.” And sure enough, that is the chain it is on, but the fourth phrase over is something off the coitus chain. Something has skipped! If he knows the kind of engram he was running, he knows this alien phrase has no business being there. The preclear has run along this much of the engram but then he is up the track, so there is a bouncer sitting there. An auditor ought to be pretty much on the alert for such a thing.

Recently somebody has come and told us that they have run material out on the genetic line. They go back through the sperm so far and they run into Papa, then they run into Grandpa, and they run back on the genetic line.

Perhaps the preclear is running the engram very nicely and it seems to be getting along fine. He is running out Mama saying “Oh, now you go away from here, George. I don’t want any more to do with you. (pause) Oh, on the dresser. (pause) I didn’t put the cat out. You might as well just forget about that. (pause) No!” And the auditor says, “Oh, an engram! Isn’t that sweet!” So he starts him back at the beginning again and he runs this conversation out and he runs it out again. The preclear gets bored with it after a while, so he has “obviously” reduced the engram. But the auditor has left it with a whole valence missing!

I have never run anyone on the genetic line so I wouldn’t know about this. But I have run many people on the theta-body line. By using this phenomena properly you can produce some interesting effects and sometimes get your preclear unstuck from the time track where he is badly stuck and do other things worthy of notice. So if your preclear starts handing up something like this, or if you get him back into it, you had better not neglect it. You had better do a good job on running it out. If he starts asking you whether this is true or it isn’t true, don’t invalidate it for him and don’t validate it for him. It is his case! That is the attitude.

As a matter of fact, I ran one of those one time where a preclear was into Papa’s valence and Mama’s valence sort of compoundedly all the way up and down the track, but an Aunt Ethel kept coming into the case and was making a third valence, and the auditor who had been running the case had been missing the third valence all the time. It had phrases like “Don’t pay any attention to Aunt Ethel,” and “You know that you are your parents’ child. You are part of your parents now, you must understand this,” and as a consequence it made this kind of a silly computation on the case. The auditor had actually run phrases like “What do you think about it, George?” “Oh, I don’t know, you girls had better make up your mind,” and gone happily along saying it was a conversation between Papa and Mama. I think he was confused. I think he thought he was doing psychoanalysis, because in Dianetics you listen.

I want to show you that there is a distinct difference between a death engram and a current-life engram. This has to do with the changes in the depth of anaten.

So that is the running of engrams. Running out an engram and doing a good job on it is a precision project. If you can’t find the engram necessary to resolve the case right away, you know that you have to hit a chain and go back down the chain of similar engrams until you get the basic, and you know that you sure as the devil had better get the basic on that chain now that you have gone into it. There is a lot to know about the running of engrams.

Take, for instance, an impact engram: the person’s awareness goes down suddenly and then he gradually becomes conscious. First there is a blow, so the person goes very unconscious, and then the unconsciousness gets less and less until it is gone. That would be the result of a blow.

How much easier it is just to sit there and say to the preclear. “Is there a circuit here?” “Oh, yes. ‘You can’t take it with you.”’

Then there is an anesthesia pattern. First he is conscious and awake, then he is given anesthesia and he gets down very low. In the middle of the engram nobody is giving him anesthesia; he stays unconscious through this area and then comes on up to consciousness again.

“All right. Repeat that.” And then say to yourself, “He’s in a boil-off. I’ll go into a boil-off, too. I wonder what I was thinking about yesterday. I guess I’ll auto-run for a while. Oh well, what was that phrase I was contacting the other day? Let me see, it was a very interesting phrase. I wonder what it was....”

An operation combines these two types of anaten. For instance, you can have an anesthesia engram which would follow that pattern but, because of physical pain, would go off into the impact pattern. A knife stroke or something like that would take it off the anesthesia pattern. It would deepen the unconsciousness at that point because of further pain.

You don’t have to know anything to do that; that is easy. I don’t mean to be insulting, but that is the source and spring of a lot of wildcat processes: you don’t have to be very smart to run them. Now, take Lock Scanning; that is a simple technique. When do you stop scanning a chain of locks? What kind of patter do you use that is least upsetting to your preclear? What kind of patter can you use that will upset a preclear for Lock Scanning? What happens to the earliest incident on the chain of locks?

By the way, I want to call this to your attention as auditors: An inexpert auditor can start the engram after the impact and run it out to the end, not realizing that the heaviest deposit of anaten is earlier, and the phrases are harder to get at the beginning. The level of unconsciousness depends on this impact, and if you can just get the impact off, the rest of it more or less goes. By a time shift, moving the preclear to one second before the impact or to ten seconds before the impact and shoving him on through it, you will find the moment of impact. The beginning of the engram generally shows up, though, as being later, when you first contact it; there is too much anaten right after the impact.

Every time you scan a chain of locks the chances are very good that the next time you scan it you are going to pick up an earlier incident. Yet you can set up a beautiful invalidation: “Give me the earliest incident on this chain. Is this the earliest incident? All right. From there forward to present time, begin scanning.” The next time the fellow goes back there he finds out that there were seven earlier incidents, so he didn’t have the earliest incident on the chain. Therefore “the file clerk was wrong.”

Remember that in an anesthesia the anaten goes in gradually and deepens. Then during the operation period, when the person starts being cut up, hacked up, chewed up, gnawed and so forth, the unconsciousness will deepen, so there is a period in there where there will be a disguised phrase. And then the anaten will gradually wear off.

No, the file clerk wasn’t wrong; the auditor was wrong! The file clerk was made to answer that way in order to get any information through.

Actually, the tapering off of unconsciousness is such that it sometimes extends for a day or more before the fellow is completely rid of it.

The right way to do this would be to say “Now return to the earliest available lock.” Remember this, the earliest available lock. When you get him back there, “Is there an earlier lock available?” Start him up the line from the earliest one you can find. And it will get earlier and earlier on some of them.

A past death does not have either of these patterns of anaten, and therefore it is possible for an auditor to make a mistake on running one out. A death has a different pattern; it starts — whether by impact or otherwise — and it gets deeper and deeper anaten until it is over, and then you evidently get a separation of theta and MEST. That is death. An auditor will run this and the first time he will get content up to a certain point, so he will say that is where the fellow kicked the bucket. Then he will go back over it again, up to the same point where the person kicked the bucket, and then he will run it a couple more times and think it is all erased now — he got some yawns off it and so forth — so he will go find something else.

If you are running a very cloudy chain you can start with the incidents only five days ago. The first one was five days ago, and the next couple of times you run it you find him back at five years of age and then you find him back at five months. In other words, the entheta carves from the top down. It is the same way with secondaries: you have to run them from the top down.

But the toughest part of this death is still there and is now restimulated! And the auditor keeps wondering after that, “I wonder where that curious somatic comes from, where he feels his back has been cut open?” That was the end of the engram, when the undertaker started in or something. Every once in a while you will run a past death where the fellow was not thoroughly dead.

When do you stop scanning a chain? Somebody could say offhand that it was when the chain was so short that it was covered in just a flash. No, there is another test on scanning a chain: You stop scanning a chain when the preclear extroverts on that chain, because he will go just so many times and then he will extrovert. If you carry him one more time he will drop through to another chain. You carry him twice more through or you try to get that chain so short that he just goes over it in a flash, and you may get it so he goes over it that way but you may find yourself sitting on the next chain down. Maybe this happens close to the end of the session, and you now have a chain that is going to take another forty minutes to get rid of!

But the depth of anaten of a death is very great. If on an impact he can come down to one level and on an operation he comes down to a deeper level and he is still alive, how deep does the anaten have to be to get him dead? Fortunately, the past death is not on a MEST organism. Therefore, if you run it at all well, it runs off fairly easily. So what you want to do is run it out to separation.

More importantly, you can run the preclear on chains until he extroverts, and on most chains he will extrovert. If he isn’t extroverting, you are running chains on a case that is too low on the tone scale. You ought to be doing Straightwire on this case.

Now, it is a funny thing that there is a separation point at the end of the death — at least this has been the observation of most of the auditors running past deaths. The fellow will run all the way through and then he will go up someplace and take a look at the scene and say “So what?” Then you start him in at the beginning again, and there is his mother crying and there is his old father and his sisters, and there is a lot of heavy emotion. Then he says, “Oh, I’m dead!” and there are tears and so forth. Next, he brightens up and says, “Ah well, I wonder what they are doing?” Then he goes back to the beginning and goes through this terrific emotional surge, and then he says, “So what?” You can expect this to happen. Just because he gets to the so-what stage doesn’t mean that this death is deintensified. It is not. You have got to take it back through again.

Now, what happens when a preclear locks up on a chain? You start running him up the chain and he obviously is running through no secondaries or anything like that, but suddenly he can’t move on the chain; he is stuck. You certainly don’t tell him that is bad and send him home. You can do two things: You can find out what incident he is stuck in and find out if you can run that incident as an engram; it is just a lock, but find out if you can run that as an engram. Or you can find out if there is an earlier incident just like it which can be run as an engram. In other words, you have run into a series of locks which are manifesting just exactly like a chain of engrams, and you can run them just like that. Or you can simply step over to another chain. Go on over to another chain, let that first one hang up; there is nothing you can do about it. Sometimes it will. But if it did hang up, you started lock-scanning a preclear who was too low on the tone scale. In other words, your estimation of where he was on the tone scale wasn’t accurate to begin with. You should have been straightwiring this case.

You will find all sorts of weird things; you will find valence shifters (“Oh, if it could only have been me! If I could only have died in his place!”) and so on.

What if a case can’t straightwire? Well, if a case can’t straightwire, you had better have him locate the bed for you — in other words, “Here is present time.” That is the indicated level of contact: present time. Don’t try to get him up to present time in any way other than trying to make him contact present time. Feed him some ARC. Mimic him. Be with him. You can then become a part of present time or maybe you will become all the present time there is. You are working way down on the scale with a preclear who is like that.

Now, these things will lay in with very heavy somatics, and if you run into one of them in a preclear, for heaven’s sake, run it out. If you have a preclear who is mysteriously stuck on the time track someplace, don’t pull your punches too much, don’t just stand off forever because of a prejudice; go and see if he has a past death that has been too thoroughly restimulated, because that will stick him on the time track.

Getting the preclear to contact present time is highly beneficial. As a matter of fact, it could be said that that is all you are doing all the way through therapy — just getting somebody into present time. If you get a person 100 percent into present time he is 100 percent extroverted. His computer is running evidently at 100 percent efficiency.

The test for erasure or reduction on one of these is that it is all gone; he is all the way through it. He has gotten over to the theta body and out. If this manifestation starts showing up, he knows where the end of the death is and you just run it out until it is consecutive. The difficulty is when the auditor brings him deep into the death and there is no separation and the auditor just says “He must be dead now,” and starts him back at the beginning and then comes up to only partway through. That is the danger. If you can get him through to the end at all, the thing will run out. Past lives quite occasionally show up on low-tone-scale people, where you wouldn’t think ordinarily that you could run an engram at all. What are you going to do with it? You have to run it; if you have to run it you have to run it.

Now, how do you use Straightwire? This is a neglected subject, and in view of the fact that it is the most efficacious tool for a psychotic, beyond present time and mimicry, an auditor who doesn’t know all he can possibly know about Straightwire ought to be ashamed of himself. It may be a lot easier to install a fire-control hydrant in this preclear than to sit down and learn how to do Straightwire, but it is not good sense.

Now, there is another aspect of this: what talking movies have done to the human psyche! If this material didn’t bog down cases, I wouldn’t pay much attention to it, actually, because I haven’t any proof that it really increases the level of cases. But every once in a while you will find a case bogging and you have to do something about past deaths.

Straightwire is an interesting technique. Do you realize that if Straightwire were the only technique we had, we would roll along like an express train? We would have something that this society has not had before: the mechanics of memory. We could omit knowing engrams; we could even take Straightwire and somehow or other get around the hurdles of a secondary, and we wouldn’t have to know about a time track or anything else. If we just had Dianetic Straightwire, Dianetics would have more reason for existence than this society deserves. Straightwire is awfully important!

The level of reality gets kind of bad because the fellow goes back and he says, “Oh, that’s Apache Drums. Oh yeah, that’s a scene from Apache Drums. Well, I guess I don’t have to worry about that.... Let me see. No, I guess the picture was Fort Apache. “

What do you ask for in Straightwire? How many kinds of Straightwire are there? How do you use it? There are some auditors who are very good at Straightwire, but it actually doesn’t have to be an inspirational art. It is a mechanical thing, and that is all it is. You know what it is on the time track that brings down a person’s level on the tone scale, and adds up and becomes enturbulated with engrams and secondaries on the time track: it is moments of inhibited or enforced affinity, reality and communication. You couldn’t get a clearer statement of the target. “You can’t love anybody” is inhibited affinity; “You’ve got to love people” is enforced affinity; “You never agree with anybody” is inhibited reality; “You have to agree with me” is enforced reality; “You never pay any attention to anything I say” is inhibited communication; “You’ve got to pay attention to me” is enforced communication. These are the lower-tone scale manifestations of ARC.

You start running back and you get the U.S. Cavalry’s arrival, the U.S. Cavalry’s arrival, the

Below 2.0 on the tone scale is ARC enforced. This is domination, domination by command, insistence. Insistence on affinity, on reality and on communication: “You’ve got to look!” “It is true!” “You’ve got to admit it!” That is domination by command.

U.S. Cavalry’s arrival — tremendous quantities of locks. Locks from when he was a boy of twelve reading Altsheler’s works — we get all these off and then we get back earlier and we get the Books of Knowledge out. We are looking for something. Certainly this person did not get an engram from looking at a picture. He gets into the past death, and all of a sudden he will run it or the basic on its chain, and the rest of this stuff will just go on off.

Lower than that we have ARC inhibited, and that is domination by nullification — the computation of “You don’t exist. If I can really convince you that you don’t exist, then you are no danger to me!” So the things this person says are “You never love anybody,” “You never agree with anybody,” “You never talk to me” — ”You ain’t!” So, ARC inhibited contains all of the ways you can say “You don’t exist,” and ARC enforced contains all the ways you can say “You have got to be” that are aberrative.

But when he hits a bouncer in a past death, he will very often bounce into these darn fool locks. The U.S. Cavalry’s arrival, this, that, anything — costume historicals, books, movies, motion pictures.

And the whole combination of ARC adds up to understanding, so you have affinity, reality, communication and understanding. ARC enforced says, “You’ve got to think,” “You’ve got to understand me.” That is domination by-command understanding — understanding, computation, thinking. And ARC inhibited says, “You never think,” “You never think what you’re doing! “ “You never understand a thing I say! “ and so on. That just takes the bracket of them — all three.

Just look at a theater audience as they come out of a costume historical sometime. I have gotten a kick out of this by standing alongside the ticket box and watching a few of them come out. Boy, are they restimulated!

Those are the ways in which the life force of an individual is enturbulated and tied up in the lock forms on the time track. That is the way it is done: ARC-I and understanding, ARC-E and understanding — enforced coming in at 1.5 and inhibited coming in at about 1.0 and down.

But the tremendous numbers of locks which you will pick up in this society, which has such an enormous number of pictures, books, costume historicals and so forth, is wonderful.

At the top of the scale is ARC the way it ought to be. That is neither inhibited nor enforced. Did you ever have anything to do with a person who was really reasonable? Have you ever noticed a person who could figure things out well in the humanities and figured things out well about you and about what you were doing, and who you understood very well? And did you notice that this person didn’t try to enforce upon you and insist that there was love, that there was agreement, that there was communication, that there was this, that there was that? They didn’t do this. It was not necessary, because actually in this upper band you felt ARC for them ordinarily. That is sanity: ARC and rationality.

For instance, you push him back into an incident, and he is looking at a geography book in his class and there he has before him a picture of Roanoke, Virginia, the way it must have looked. You start to bring him out of this thing, but he is low on the tone scale and he doesn’t budge. Say, “Have you ever been in Roanoke?”

So these are the component parts of insanity, below 2.0. You get these turbulences off the case, and in just this way, in maybe a hundredth of the time that it takes to psychoanalyze a person, you could probably produce remarkable results with him.

“No.”

“Sure, we’re straining at it; we have got to get down there to cause, basic cause! We have got to get in there to those engrams right away and run them. Well, sure, this preclear is 0.5 on the tone scale and he latches up every time we ask him to go into a boil-off, but so what? Let’s get in there to cause! “ That is spectacular as the devil. But what the person should have, if he is very low on the tone scale, is ARC Straightwire. You find out that you can occasionally scan this person; you have scanned him through several chains and you got away with them, so he couldn’t possibly be that low on the tone scale. And then the fifth time you lock-scanned him on something he stuck; he got stuck right there in the middle of the time his dog sat on the front porch and barked at him out of an error: “I just sit here looking at this dog.”

“Does your family come from Roanoke?” “No.”

Now, how you get him out of that mess is to just straightwire him back to earlier times maybe when dogs frightened him. Don’t keep on lock scanning him. Or you can straightwire him back into earlier times about dogs in general, and then later times, or you can take Straightwire and bring him up to present time. Just make him remember an earlier time about the dog, and then make him remember a little later time about the dog — ”Did you ever see a dog that looked like this?” — and you can jockey him out of the incident by getting enough free theta around so that it will dissolve the entheta of that incident. It takes a little doing sometimes. But he probably should have been on Straightwire all the time.

“File clerk, can we go to Roanoke? (snap!)”

Don’t undersell Straightwire. It is calm. You are sitting there and the preclear has his eyes open; he is not upset about anything. About the greatest manifestation you get out of him is an occasional smile or maybe a little giggle or something like that. That isn’t spectacular, but boy, is it important! Don’t ever confuse the spectacular with the important. Most spectacular things are below 2.0. Authoritarian procedures are, all of them, pretty spectacular.

“Yes.” The fellow says, “What? What’s this all about?” “Let’s go to Roanoke.”

Now, there are two brands of Straightwire. There is a Hurdy-Gurdy system — a good, simple system. I ran into an auditor the other day who ought to have been ashamed of himself; he didn’t know anything about the Hurdy-Gurdy system of auditing. He had heard of it but had never read it, had never reviewed it and had never used it. And yet this auditor occasionally worked on psychotics.

The preclear I did this to went straight to Roanoke and let out a pale scream, because at that moment a hatchet was sinking straight across his brow. It surprised him! The real benefit which I have seen accrue from doing something about past deaths has been strictly on the line of unsticking somebody on the time track. I found a girl once who was stuck at the declaration of war on December 7, 1941. Nothing had happened to her at all; it was simply that war had been declared. It was latched up on an incident in 1688 where war had been declared in France. This had meant the end of her English lover and she had blown her brains out. She had been in a complete apathy. All I know is that when I found she was stuck on December 7, I could find nothing happening on December 7, and it wouldn’t reduce or run out. So I said, “All right, let’s go to the incident necessary to resolve this situation.” She wound up in France in 1688. We ran the incident there, then we had to run an earlier incident, and we came back and exhausted the first one completely and brought her on up the line. As far as I know, as long as she had been in Dianetics she had never been above December 7, 1941, and this time she came to present time like a shot.

Hurdy-Gurdy can come off completely mechanically. You have an ARC triangle for Papa. Now, Papa is not always at 1.5; Papa occasionally slumps, let us say. So you have your ARC triangle for Papa again — enforced and inhibited. We have a pair of these for Mama, and pairs for Aunt Grace and Aunt Ethel and Grandma and Grandpa and the school teachers and the boyfriend; we have one for everybody.

She was speaking French back there in the incident but she couldn’t speak French in this life.

Keep a notebook when you’re doing a lot of Hurdy-Gurdy and you have a case very low on the tone scale. The reason you do this is that when you work him on Straightwire on Monday he may not get very much. But you ask him the same questions on Wednesday and he has a lot of answers for you. Memory jogs itself. It takes a while for this wandering beam to get through the spin drift and clouds and black hurricanes which are, actually, most people’s minds. So getting this little ray of light down through all that and stretched to the data takes time.

Sometimes you get a fellow who is fairly well up the tone scale around 2.0 or 2.5 and you can generally do something with scanning on past lives. However, this is something that should be approached with grave trepidation. Certainly above that level you can scan them. But I did this one time to a fellow who was at 1.0 with the most remarkable results. You see terror come off a case occasionally, but I have never seen a case like that. One leg of the couch was a tiny bit too short, and the terror came off this case with such violence, as a result of scanning through past deaths, that the whole couch vibrated and started to play a tattoo on the floor that sounded like a pneumatic drill. People were coming around to find out what was happening.

All straight memory carries with it a pretty good level of validation. It validates itself. If a person really remembers something he remembers it; if he tells you he has a concept of remembering something — he has a concept such-and-such happened — even that is memory. At least he knows the concept itself is real. He might not be able to tell you where it happened, but maybe on Wednesday he will know where it happened and what was said.

It came from one specific incident. By scanning his past lives, I latched him up in the incident and then ran it. That was probably a very dangerous proceeding. But this fellow had never had anything run off his case before and nobody could touch anything on his case.

This is a method, then, of keeping tabs on what you are doing with a case without taking tremendously voluminous notes. It is awfully obvious once it is broken down mechanically, but it is not obvious at all to your preclear. He thinks you are reaching right straight into the depths of his soul. This builds up a lot of affinity.

Standard Procedure used on secondaries during past lives or on past deaths — standard running of engrams with this in mind — accomplishes the results and should be done if you trip your preclear into one of these.

On Monday we covered Papa and Mama, for instance. We went at it by asking for moments when affinity, reality and communication were enforced or inhibited. Now we ask him, “Did Papa ever insist on affection around the house, or did he ever insist on anything like that?”

But anything about past deaths and past lives is experimental in the extreme. Right now we don’t know anything; we are really ignorant on the subject. God knows what lies along that track! People spring up with it spontaneously. They don’t have to have heard of it from the Foundation or anything. For instance, some fellow kind of sidles up to you and says, “You know, out in Minnipugla, we had a funny experience. We had a preclear out there” (he is very embarrassed about this whole thing) “and this fellow ran out a flock of past deaths.”

“No, not Papa. No.”

So you say, “Well, sure. So what?” He looks so relieved!

“Was he a very agreeable fellow?” “Papa? Are you kidding?”

And then he tells you confidentially, “Well, actually, we have run them out of about half the group, and one was run out of me three days ago.”

“Can you remember a time when he told you that you had to agree with him?” “Uh . . .”

I have been asked how you tell a real past life from a dub-in. An auditor is far too prone, I have found, to assign the label dub-in to some preclear’s incidents. There is only one real test for dub-in: Does the preclear go through it again with the same somatics, and with more or less the same content? Does it sound like an engram? Is it an engram? In other words, is this the sort of thing that would have happened when he was unconscious — people talking back and forth and so on — or is it just a monologue of some sort? Sometimes you will get a preclear who will run nothing but Mama’s monologues, without much in the way of somatics or anything else, just on and on. That is not valid; it is dub-in.

“Do you ever remember a time when he made you stand there while he talked to you? Do you remember a time when this happened?”

If you go back and ask him to repeat it, he can’t. But he will immediately tell you about another incident that he thinks is earlier or which he has to get first, and he will run that one. That is dub-in. Very often if a preclear is really loopy, he doesn’t know when he is dubbing. If you as an auditor continue to accept dub-in and so on, you are really validating dub-in. You are validating delusion, and when you validate something it comes true. If you validate enough delusion and enough dub-in on a case, you will eventually find that this case will run nothing for you but delusion and dub-in.

“Not Papa.”

This doesn’t mean that you should invalidate, but it does mean that you are using too heavy a level of processing on this preclear. That is all it means. If you find a case dubbing in, it isn’t up to you to go charging into this case and try to make him run a real engram. If he is bad enough to be dubbing in and doesn’t know he is dubbing in, he is in such bad shape that he had better be audited with very light techniques.

Right away we know that Papa is 1.0. But we sort of lay that aside for the moment because we don’t want to get the case up to a point where it alarms. Sometimes Straightwire comes through best with a little sudden punch rather than by dragging it out; that just gets the preclear restimulated on the subject.

In other words, you assign his proper position on the tone scale and use the type of processing that will fit that position. Usually if a case is dubbing in badly — if a case will dub in without knowing he is dubbing in and does really nothing but dub in — an auditor had better get that preclear in contact with present time and use a little bit of Straightwire.

So you come over and you ask about Mama on enforced.

Now, we have two possible lines here: the theta line and the genetic line. The theta line doesn’t follow the genetic line.

Then we get back over to Papa and we find that Papa Milquetoast Smith never agreed with anybody; he said continually that nobody ever loved him, nobody ever paid any attention to him, that he couldn’t agree with that, anyway, but he supposed that he would be forced into it anyhow. We find this character and all of a sudden we have Papa nailed on the tone scale.

These are the lines which have been explored. First is current life. You have, on this, the time track between conception and present time. We are familiar with this one. We have agreed that this exists and has reality and that you are you and I am me, and so on. We have some good agreement on that. By the way, though, we haven’t got any more evidence that this exists than that past lives exist!

Now, where is the Milquetoast in our preclear? We can just mine this and mine it and mine it. How did Papa get this way? For that we can look to the other people. How did Mama react to Papa? How did Mama react to Grandma?

In back of this are the sperm and ovum sequences Some people have been telling me lately that there is a genetic line that starts going out earlier than this, back through all the ancestors. There are lots of engrams back there! Frankly, I haven’t run into this, but I have been told about it, and this leads to all sorts of things. It leads to a theory of prime valences which says nobody can be in a valence that isn’t on his own genetic line. That doesn’t happen to hold. You have run a lot of preclears who were in the valences of dogs, and as I have said before, the fact that you ran the preclear in the valence of a dog does not necessarily put the dog on the genetic line.

This is a plot of interpersonal relations. How did these people react to each other in the family? By the way, you don’t say things like “Did you ever own an automobile?” (which is simply memory) unless you are working with a psychotic. With some psychotics, if you can get them to remember that they own an automobile, you have really done something.

The idea is that if you keep backing up into the sperm line you can start running into Grandpa’s engrams and all of Grandma’s engrams, and so on back down the genetic line. You can have that one. I hope nobody opens that up in any case I have anything to do with — if it exists.

But we are talking about a person, now, who is a good, reasonable, 0.1 “normal.” The wrong way to do Straightwire on such a person would be to say to yourself, “I’m an expert on Straightwire. I’ve read the title; I know what it means. All right, let’s go right into this case and let’s just clean it up,” and then say, “Do you have a circuit?”

And then we have the theta-body line. The theta body is a consecutive life line. This would be just the theta part of the organism. I don’t know how the theta body gets there, but it is simply a sequence of consecutive lives, and sometimes a hitch where two theta bodies will make up one of these lives or something like that. There are foul-ups of this character. The file clerk cannot extrapolate and alter the Gregorian calendar into the Chaldean calendar and so forth, so date flashes are not at all reliable back along the line.

“Uh . . . hm-hm, hmm.”

You can find lots of material on this. There are tremendous quantities on this theta-body line. What it will do for a case I don’t know, beyond lousing it up if it is ignored. I loused up five cases before I decided to accept the evidence of the real universe. Then I went back rather apologetically. I didn’t ever get my hands on three of the cases again, but I heard recently that one of them had been untangled.

“I guess people treated you pretty mean when you were a kid, huh? You remember when people treated you mean?”

All I did was go into a past death and say, “Well, gee whiz,” and go back and find another one and say, “Gosh,” and then say, “You better come up to present time!” It was done to me too; I still think I have a hang-up on 410 B.C. ! Somebody ran me back down there one day, and it was near the end of the session; the last thing I remember was a large body of Persian cavalry charging.

“I guess somebody must have.”

Now, while we are on this line of the theta body, there is another aspect we haven’t looked at too heavily yet: theta perceptics. The theta perceptics open up an enormous field of study. How much can be perceived of the theta universe, how much there is to perceive, how it is perceived, and so forth, are fields which occultism, spiritualism, magic and various groups have been playing around with for thousands of years. There is a tremendous amount of accumulated observation data — some of it valid, some of it not valid, some of it pure hoax and some of it very good scientific observation. It is wonderful the amount of accumulated data that has just sat out there, detached and unrelated to anything with the scientific world — because they couldn’t relate it to anything — saying, “No! No! No, no ghosts! No spooks! Don’t do this to us! Now we have everything all figured out and it is all MEST, you understand? There are no ghosts.”

“Well, did anybody ever take your toys away from you, or anything like that?” “Well, I suppose they might have.”

What you will find out there, I don’t know. This is the trouble with Dianetics: You go into the field of human thought and you have a nice orderly idea of making people a little more sane, and the next thing you know, the horizon has opened in all directions on some subject that you didn’t want to have anything to do with in the first place!

“Did you go to high school?” “Yeah.”

“Do you remember high school?” “Oh, sure.”

“Did you go to college?” “No.”

“Oh, you didn’t go to college. Did you ever have a job? Oh, you’re working now. Oh, you’re working for the government. Do you ordinarily like people? Well, now, let’s get down to business. How is your sex life?”

This is not Straightwire. I wish to point out to you the difference between those two techniques!

If you got to be an expert on Straightwire you could make a fantastic living in a community, because you would be doing your ten- and twenty minute routine stuff. You wouldn’t be seeing people over a long period of time. You could just have them come into the waiting room and you would take them in line as they came in.

“I will see Mrs. Jones now. How is your arthritis today, Mrs. Jones?” “Oh, it’s just terrible, just terrible.”

“Hmm. What have you been worrying about lately?”

“Well, it’s little Joanne. She’s going around with that awful Beagle boy.” “Did you ever know anybody that looked like that Beagle boy?”

“Oh, n — you know, he looks just like Frank Savage that I used to go with when I was in high school. Gee, you know, that’s a funny thing. I hadn’t thought about . . .”

“Just pay the nurse as you go out. Next!”

That is all you would have to do, just keep people from being enturbulated. Every once in a while you would hit the jackpot and her arthritis would turn off and never come back anymore. And you wouldn’t quite know what you hit either, but you would solemnly assure her, “Yes, Dianetics works miracles.” This is all you would have to know.

Now, we have gone over Dynamic Straightwire, with the interlock of affinity, reality and communication between the dynamics. We set it up for all the dynamics; we know of eight. They probably go on up to the clouds. There is probably a whole series of theta-universe dynamics that we don’t know anything about.

Somebody gave me a note the other day and said they were picking up free theta on the interim between lives. Now, that might be. Who knows? If you can really find this level of activity, you might be tapping into free theta sources, you might be tapping into free life-force sources. Wouldn’t that be gorgeous! You wouldn’t have to audit anymore; the preclear would come in and you would give him a “glass of ARC”!

On this Dynamic Straightwire you are working the interplay, the carrying of ARC from one dynamic to the other, realizing that every angel has two faces; every dynamic has two faces as far as that is concerned. The interior dynamic and its exterior counterpart in the world are in conflict. For instance, the interior of dynamic one and what the person has been led to believe by the environment that he should think about the first dynamic will come into conflict. So there are suppressors for each dynamic.

The exterior group may suppress the individual’s third dynamic. For example, take somebody who is a member of a defeated army: he has a very badly blocked third dynamic because a third dynamic has suppressed him on the third dynamic.

The member of a defeated army has had such a smash to his third dynamic that he has a hard time on it. He can get down so low on the third dynamic that it will fall apart. He can’t be made to actively support a government, and he may be perfectly willing and cheerful about going over to the enemy and serving their causes and purposes. His own group has fallen apart so badly and he goes so low on the tone scale for “group” that his ethic goes to pieces, his support goes to pieces. You will find this is very often the case. They go way down on the tone scale.

For instance, Japanese soldiers at the present time would be perfectly willing to fight for the United States Army. And undoubtedly a large number of them could actually be recruited to fight Japan. They are way down. That army was smashed, so their ethic level went all to pieces. Their level of responsibility and persistence and so forth would have gone too.

I am giving you that as an example to show you that in the individual there is a third dynamic; there is his concept of group.

If you were processing a psychiatrist, you would actually be picking up material on any assault Dianetics might have made. You would pick it up on dynamic one. You would undoubtedly pick it up on the second dynamic because Dianetics says that sex is not all, and he has fondly hoped all his life that it is. You would certainly pick it up on dynamic three. We are talking here about Dianetics as a group being suppressive to the psychiatrist personally — to what his conception of sex was, maybe, and certainly to the psychiatric group. He will have a concept about an intergroup relationship of one group suppressing another.

If a person had all of these dynamics riding at 4.0, he would really be a powerhouse. But it’s the interplay — one high, another one not so high, one very high, and so forth — the unevenness of these dynamics as a bundle, which establishes the chronic tone.

You could draw a tone scale for each one of these dynamics. What we have in the Chart of Human Evaluation is more or less a composite, because you don’t want to have to fool with all these odds and ends. Where you see variability cropping up on that — and you will see occasional little variability’s on the tone scale — it is because all the dynamics have been more or less grouped into it as one plot. A completely accurate plot — but not quite as useful — would consist of plotting dynamic one on all the columns, dynamic two on all the columns, dynamic three on all the columns, and so forth. But you can get entirely too precise about this.

There is a place on the tone scale not only for each one of the dynamics but for each person in the preclear’s life. He will be at a position on the tone scale toward that person. He is at a place on the tone scale toward Mama. He is at another place on the tone scale toward Papa. He is at another place on the tone scale toward his wife. He is at another place on the tone scale toward his children. This gives you what has passed in the past for actually being a sort of a schizophrenic state of affairs: a fellow seems to have many personalities because he reacts differently in different areas. That is simply because he is at different positions on the tone scale with different groups. What we are doing is taking a good overall mechanical average of the theta/entheta ratio and processing him accordingly.

But you will find — and sometimes be rather fooled by — a preclear who, in the vicinity of his own home, around the wife and the kids and so forth, can lock-scan and do all sorts of things. But if all of a sudden you get him back into his childhood home you can’t even get any Straightwire! He just bogs. There is a section of track there that is more heavily occluded than other sections of the track, therefore the free-theta/entheta ratio is much stronger and heavier early on his track.

But you get the overall reaction of this when you just look him up on the tone scale and plot it by asking him questions. I’m just showing you that there is a further breakdown possible.

Now, some fellow might be 0.5 toward Mother and 1.0 toward Father, and this same fellow is liable to be 4.0 toward his golf partner. They are friends, they play golf every day, they are very cheerful together and they are in full agreement about things. And he actually wouldn’t think of interrupting a communication from his partner. He thinks of talking to him; he wouldn’t think of just remaining silent around him. If you saw this person with this friend of his, you would think he was really something.

That is why you need many columns — because the actuality is that he is not with this friend very much of the time. When you start plotting him out on the chart, you are plotting him out against such things as children, against his physiological condition, and so forth.