Okay, what questions do we have here?

How are you today?

Male voice: This is a comment and a question. In playing around with this help thing and the CCH 0 in general, it's suddenly — light turning on, you know, up here . . .

Audience: Fine. Okay. Good.

Yeah.

What'll we do today?

Male voice: . . . that you have a trinity there, with goals and problems and help, that is very closely interlaced one with the other. And in some cases it might be worthwhile to sort of work around the three to find your best entrance point.

Audience: (various responses)

Yes. Yes, that is very, very true. They do have a seniority, one to the other, however. And one of the senior points is that Responsibility should generally be run on any specific subject after Help. You shouldn't necessarily run Help first, but you must always run Responsibility after. That's an interesting sidelight on this. I'm doing some experimenting with it.

You want a lecture, or you want questions?

You have a terrific weapon in Help. You can run a nine-way bracket easily with a person; you can run it less easily with a psychosomatic. But you can run a several-side bracket on a psychosomatic and knock it out with tremendous speed. The old lady has a bad lung. Now, you just start running Help about this lung. Of course you may run into the automaticity of lungs, as one of your class members did one day, and you get a takeover of the breathing automaticity, but you shouldn't really be interfering with the breathing automaticity. You'd run Help on this psychosomatic.

Audience: Lecture.

Let's — something much easier, something much easier — fellow has a burned hand, we just run Help on this hand, back and forth.

Okay. So be it.

Male voice: How?

We have not covered several aspects of clearing, and one of the first aspects is the conduct of an end product.

Oh, "How could that hand help you? How could you help that hand? How could that hand help somebody else? How could somebody else help that hand?"

What's the conduct of Clear? Well, this is a very broad subject, and one that I think you'll be speculating about for some time. And I probably have the only meager stable data there are on it, so far.

Male voice: On the terminal rather than the . . .

First characteristic is positiveness. Characteristic of Clear. In other words, positiveness: You get yeses and noes.

Oh yeah. You go on and on and on and on and on about this hand, you'll find that burn suddenly receding so rapidly, and these resistant psychosomatics disappearing so rapidly upon this, that you will understand the anatomy of a miracle cure was enough Help. And you'll get immediately an explanation of Christ's miracle-curing. And that is the basis of a miracle cure. Very rapid.

Let's look at the base of a motor. We trace down in vain to discover any other (below the level of postulate) — but any other electrical phenomenon that generates current, except the base of the motor, the ability to hold two terminals apart and to cause a discharge between those two terminals. In other words, to hold something fixed in space. In other words, to be cause over constant location.

But a miracle cure was sporadic only in that it left to chance which side of the bracket was going to be stepped up. And wherever the fellow was ready for an inflow bracket and somebody showed up who he thought was capable of helping him enough, you got an immediate cure.

This characteristic actually gives you, way down deep in mest, electrical power. The only thing that permits power to develop, you might say, electrically, is the base of the motor. Two terminals are held apart by the base of the motor and by their being firmly held, and by other influences trying to unhold them, you do get electrical current and power. Quite interesting.

And you got things like, "If the finest knight in Christendom will gaze upon this illness, why, at once it will cure." And you had some fellow who was very, very good in the lists and knocking fellows' blocks off all over the place and able to persevere against all demons, dames and dragons, and suddenly, why, he'd knock out the heavyweight champion of the particular area and time. And he'd suddenly find himself the top knight in Christendom. Christendom was a place where they had heard about Christianity but hadn't practiced it yet.

But it goes back to this: postulate. The fixedness, the postulated fixedness of a terminal. If a person cannot postulate a fixedness, you might say, and make it stick, he had difficulty with other electrical phenomena. And you get a preclear drilling on this Hold It Still, and you get the resultant outbursts of energy and electrical phenomena and so forth which make up communications systems which permit somebody to be in communication. And you border somewhere in the vicinity of what they used to call a magnetic personality. Quite interesting that they say magnetic personality, isn't it? Actually does have something to do with electrical phenomena.

Well anyhow, you'd get people all over Europe being dragged and put in baskets and so forth, and carried to where this fellow was. And he'd actually have to hold a soiree of some sort or another, and they'd be carried by in long lines. And part of his duty was to gaze upon injury, illness and whatnot. It was not, really, an effort to aberrate the man. But people would be getting well all over the place, see, which made a very handy miracle.

The ability to hold something still, to keep something fixed and in position. And we assign to this constancy, the ability to carry on, that sort of thing.

You also got trial by fire. But unfortunately the fellow who won in such trials had to be an OT. Put his hand in the fire, and if he wasn't guilty, it wouldn't get burned. So they figured out OTs couldn't be guilty. They were right.

Now, a Clear might or might not continue in one spot unmoving forever. He himself does not feel so fixed, and he himself is capable of fixing things. See, cause has gone over to the other side of the picture.

When we look over this wide picture of psychosomatics and realize how much we have worked on helping psychosomatics, we find out that we have left help on automatic. Naturally it would be the last citadel recovered, see? Because it was what we were trying to do. And our sincerity in doing it was so thorough that we never looked at it, and so we never got processed.

Now, I notice some of you think this is a big mystery. Could you look at Scientology 8-80 again? I have no desire to go over this. But coordinate Scientology 8-80 against the ability to hold something still, to fix something in a position, and you'll see that the basic electrical phenomena of the universe is pursuant to that. So that you can expect, amongst other things, no great energy difficulties — no difficulties with ridges or something of that sort of thing. Much more important, no difficulties with exhaustion and so on. You see that these things are, to some degree, electrical phenomena.

Okay.

The engram bank and the reactive mind are obsessive, unknowing energy manifestations for which the person is taking no responsibility. When he starts to take responsibility for energy and when he is himself able to create energy, then we discover that an individual without a reactive mind is not being subjected to a tremendous number of electrical impulses of one kind or another.

Yes?

Cybernetics, by the way, of many, many lost years ago, by a fellow by the name of Norbert Wiener up at MIT who is almost psychotically violent on the subject of Dianetics — Wiener traced the fact that there were energy flows up and down the neurons of the nervous system; that there was current running there. As a matter of fact, a nerve impulse runs at about ten feet — something on this sort of thing — per second. It's pretty slow. I've forgotten exactly what the figure is, but it's something in that vicinity. And you get — in the nerves of the body you get a run and a return. In other words, you get the thing going both ways. His great discovery was the fact that there was current coming back, I think, more or less — that's the — was the case, the gist of the thing. And he discovered that there was current (this is a very old discovery, by the way), but discovered there was current, and then the current came back. And however complicated this system got, being an engineer he assigned all sensory activity to these nerve impulses which were electrical flows. You got that?

Male voice: You could say, so faith healing really ought to be called "Help healing."

Well, it's very interesting. If you had to depend upon nerve impulses traveling (and, again, I'm not certain of this figure) ten feet per second, you couldn't have a reaction time adequate to drive an automobile. That would not work. As a matter of fact, the dinosaur went extinct simply because somebody — the brontosaurus, I think, was the prime example of this. He could be bitten in the tail and he wouldn't find out about it for fifteen or twenty seconds — nerve impulse took too long to go from the tail to the brain. Do you see that? As a matter of fact, he developed a second brain in the tail.

That's for sure. That's for sure.

Now, the physical body has a bunch of subsystems — subbrains. And these things come, apparently, at the various points of where you would expect thinkingness to be — at the crook of the elbow, at the wrist, so forth. And some workmen will tell you their hands figure it all out. Well, it's some kind of a — automaticity on a brain order which occurs in the wrist, and it actually is a thinkingness of one kind or another. Except if he got it on total automatic, he'd be in trouble. If he used these suborders, he would be in as much trouble as you would expect in a system which would only flow at some very, very low rate. Do you see that — that this system, the neuron system, is not adequate to drive fast cars, to fly jet planes, to go to the moon with or anything else? It's totally an inadequate system.

Male voice: That's what it is.

You cannot use a slow communication system to handle fast objects. So you have to be able to postulate an action without regard to space or mass or conduit. In other words, in order to do anything effectively and swiftly, you have to bypass this system. It's interesting, isn't it? Here we have this beautifully set up thing that the psychiatrists are chopping up and studying and so forth, and we find out that to do anything you have to bypass the system.

By the way, faith — that's a good point. Faith has nothing to do with it, except this: It's faith in help.

You look at the speed of an impulse and how long it would take an execution acknowledgment to get back to you if you were using totally a neuron system, and we find out that you certainly had better stick to kiddie cars if you're doing that.

Male voice: Yeah.

Well, the truth of the matter is that a Homo sap becomes more and more accustomed to using this very pat communication system. And the more he uses it, the more stupid he gets. Probably the finest example of something that uses a communication system almost exclusively is a giant sloth. Boy, that's slow. Boy, that's slow.

When you invent a god of vengeance, you do your people in.

You could only afford to drive a big Cadillac on highways if your communications were that slow. I think most of the people that drive these Cadillacs do have slow systems. Yeah, well, if you ever find yourself in a roadblock, look up ahead for the Cadillac, and you'll usually find it. A car that can go faster than all the rest, and it's busy going slower.

Male voice: Yes.

Then we see that as a person aberrates, he falls back, more or less, into agreement with the laws of energy, the laws of lines and particle flows. In other words, he's gone thoroughly into agreement with all of these odds and ends of electrical phenomena, don't you see? He falls back from that, from this "hold a position in order to get energy." So his entrance point is a fixed position, and then you will have energy.

Yes?

He goes into further and further agreement and at last finds himself in the field of effort. And he does everything by effort. There is nothing bad about this. There are probably lots of boxers who are still working in the field of effort. Most heavyweights box almost totally in the level of effort and counter-effort. They do not box at all in the level of postulates. You'd have to leave that to the flyweights. They're fast enough; they have to be fast.

Male voice: How specific should you want to be as the auditor on the method of help ?

But you wait for the — in vain for these heavyweights to really box. Actually they stand up. They pick their fist up off the canvas. They say, "Now I am going to hit you." They send the fist traveling through space. They get their body arranged very carefully back of the fist. They give it the maximum momentum. And fortunately for them, the other boxer has said — he is picking his fist up off the canvas — "I observe this." It's quite amazing. Watch these boys. You watch a pair of heavyweights and you watch a pair of flyweights, and the heavyweights, apparently, by comparison are in dreadfully slow motion. They look like they would jump off the canvas and float on down to another position.

It is a repetitive process, and it says "how." And the "how" must be left totally up to the preclear. And if he thinks he has answered how, he's answered it. That's how specific. Does that answer your question? — no.

The only reason I advance this as an example is to give you an idea — although the flyweight probably isn't doing it either — the idea between postulating motion, bypassing a comm system and at the same time executing an action; contrasting that with setting up a system where you pull a trigger here and you get a flow there, and it goes over there and this thing over here does that, and then some other thing happens. Got that? You're beholding a world of vias when you behold any one of these systems of any kind. It's a world of vias.

Male voice: No, I want to know when I, as the auditor, am going to leave it.

So that one of the things a Clear does is tend to bypass comm systems — communication systems. And he goes on upstairs toward OT, he does bypass them, very thoroughly. He can jump at any point of a communication system and put a postulate into any stage of a communication system. A Clear only tends to do this.

When you're going to leave it flat?

Now, one of the things that makes him un-Clear is occasional surprise until he gets used to this sort of thing. So you could dream up a lot of drills to condition and orient a Clear in his state. Now, that sounds very interesting, doesn't it? You make a Clear by processing, and you say, "Well then, he's Clear." Well actually, there's a tremendous number of drills that you could put together which would then accustom him to being there so that he would arrive without surprise. This would only be in the direction of guaranteeing his stability.

Male voice: Null.

Well, what would these drills be?

Well, it just no longer bops. It's an E-Meter process. You will find that it runs up through, very ordinarily, obsessive destruction to propitiation, to destruction, to help. And you leave it when it is well in the clear.

You see why you'd have the drills? Well, I'll give you a very good example: He starts to take a drink of milk and he feels the clammy waxiness of the milk bottle suddenly much better than having his hand on it.

Now, you can run a bracket in two ways. You could flatten totally each side of the bracket and never touch it again — that's improper. That would be a very bad run.

Now, this might surprise him. If he got enough cold, clammy surprises, he would tend to pull back his communication system and fall within a more reasonable perimeter.

You could run it the total opposite of that: One question of each all the way around — improper. Very improper. It gives you too jumpy a look. The fellow is just beginning to consider this. He never would have time to clear the question, you see, and it'd just take too long to clear each question as you went down the line and so on. He'll run into an aberration that will be so thorough that he'll just boggle at the question for five, ten commands. You know, he — daah, daah. "How could other people's hands help other people?" Or "... another person's hands help another person ... I just don't (mumble). Just don't get it." You know? And then he finally gives you a weak answer.

No reason for him to be upset to this degree every time he finds out that he can touch something extrasensorily. Now, when we say extrasensorily we do not mean Rhinesque doodle-dads. We mean without a sense-communication system. In other words he touches a wall over there without vias. This is probably what Rhine is looking for. We'll have to process the old boy sometime, give him a break.

So we have a matter of auditor judgment. And the best answer to it is "a few" — a few commands or several commands or many commands. But it certainly answers it this way: an acceptable minimum of charge. We don't want this thing dropping fifteen dials. So it still drops half a dial on the question — all right. If half a dial is what the fellow was normally dropping the first pass-over, we would just let it — get it back to dropping half a dial. You understand that?

But he's liable to surprises of this character. And if he gets enough surprises, and if he seems to himself to be enough out of gear, he could unstabilize. And then he could postulate a reduced ability because he'd think that it was more accommodating to him. Furthermore, he might get the idea that he was out of agreement, because other people aren't able to act this way.

And then the next time through, you see, why, we could settle, this time, for no drop on the dial. You get the idea? We'd make up our minds how far we were going to run this.

Well, this is why state of Clear, rather than Operating Thetan, is the first practical goal in processing anybody — because he doesn't do these things as wildly as this: Operating Thetan looks at a vase, says, "Wonder how it would be if that blew up," and it blows up. Get the idea? He just flicker-flak — bang! Only he didn't "clearly intend to blow it up," but it blew up. You get the idea? So he's afraid of — he gets afraid, after a while, of doing something by mere thinkingness, and then throws himself back on effort because he considers that he might be irresponsible. Well now, he is — he's in a state where he doesn't quite trust what he can do because he doesn't know the limit of what he can do, and he might still have some feeling of power.

But it has to do with observation of the preclear. And you're not going to leave him in a bog. Nor are you going to waste too much time bridging and clearing commands. Because you're going to have to clear the command and bridge for every one of them, and that might take an awful lot of doing. Don't you see? So as long as you've got it bridged, you have to flatten it somewhat.

Now, these, then, are not absolute states. In other words, a Clear is processed up to a certain series of tests, but to settle out and stabilize at that level requires livingness. An OT might go up to a certain step, you see, and then have to level out at that step, and the leveling out would require livingness.

What do you mean by flatten?

Now, that livingness could be approximated by processing. And a whole series of steps to assist a Clear — now, not a preclear — but a whole series of steps could assist a Clear in the interest of his stability.

Well, the fellow isn't jumping in the chair or screaming in a low pitch when you leave it. See?

And what would these steps be? These steps, primarily, would be leveled in the direction of familiarity with the physical universe. And without giving him any loses, give him a bunch of easy contacts. He's sitting in one chair — look at a chair on the other side of the room and you say, "Feel the texture of that chair. You know, without getting up, feel the texture of that chair. You get the idea?" And little drills of this character. Communication drills with his immediate environment, you know? "Outside, feel the mushiness of that person's brain." Get the idea? And any other odds and ends of phenomena or sources of shock or wonder that he might immediately and directly run into. This is all in the direction of maintaining a stability.

No, it is not possible to give a total instruction as to how that is run, if by that we say omitting all judgment. You see, it still requires a considerable amount of judgment to run Help. A lot of it.

Now, we have some old drills of this character, way back when. One of them was a pain test: You kept threatening the fellow's body while he was exteriorized. On a gradient scale, you threatened the body and gave it little sensations that built up to actual pain, until at last you could actually haul off and kick the body hard and he would never yo-yo back toward it. In other words, you were getting him over body protection. That was just a gradient scale of pain. It has to do with Thetan Exterior more than it does have to do with Clear, doesn't it?

Now the oddity is, is there's a whole other bracket if we're going to flatten the whole idea of Help. We've got to run a different process than CCH Ob to finish it all off. We've got to run Help against the dynamics, which I've already talked to you about. And if you run Help against the dynamics, you're liable to run into some things you never touched with the first run of the process.

But the funny part of it is, it is also applicable to Clear. Only we don't tell him to not come back in. We just ask him not to flinch, and we tap him on the knee. And we ask him, "Did you flinch?"

I had a preclear the other day almost go through the floorboards on the idea of help on the third dynamic. Fellow couldn't conceive it, he just couldn't get the idea at all of helping a group. It just was a total boggle. And after he got through with it for a long time, he suddenly realized that he had a tremendous ridge right through the middle of his head, and that that ridge was moving every time he thought of helping a group. And then he found out that a group wasn't — one of the first cognitions. And then he found out what you meant by a group, and then he found out how you could help a group. And he got this thing sorted out. But it took him about an hour and ten minutes to sort out a group. I never saw such comm lags. Wow! First comm lag was fully twenty minutes. You know? The fellow would keep saying, "Group — help — daah."

"No."

You'll find some people who are having familial trouble will get hung up on the second dynamic. Whereas they apparently go clean all the way across the boards on helping everything in brackets, and they're all happy about it. And then all of a sudden, you just say, "Now, how . . ." You see, you take care of the first dynamic in that bracket, but there's nothing in there that takes care of the second dynamic. So you run the bracket pretty flat and then you say, "All right. Now, how could you help a child?"

It's nonsense — of course he hasn't flinched. So we tap him on the — we tell him not to flinch and we tap him on the shoulder, and ask him if he did, see?

"Oh, that's easy. You'd feed him, clothe him, work your fingers to the bone."

And he says, "No, nope." He didn't.

Now we get over on the other side of the bracket about this child. You see, you run the bracket with the same pattern on a dynamic; you run it the same nine ways.

And then we take our fist and pound on his fingers and we say, "Did you flinch?"

"How could a child help you?"

"No," he says, "I didn't flinch."

"Duh! A child help me? What a new, unusual and strange idea! Well, well, well, well, a child help me. Well, well . . . There ain't any way." You've got a stuck flow on the subject.

And we start stepping on his toes and jabbing him a little bit. We get out a dull pin.

Some very unusual computations will fly off of a case running this Help, any way you want to look at it. And I think because it is so rough a button, it probably has more combinations of aberration on it than any other button we know about.

Funny part of it is, you can build him right upstairs in the matter, maybe only a couple, three hours of processing, to a state the fakirs of India take ten or fifteen years to reach. It is not OT at all to be able to sink a pin into your body and pull it out. That isn't OT. It's just a not-flinch. What are you doing with that much automaticity, that every time something touches you, you feel it? Now, isn't that a funny automaticity when you get to thinking about it? That's real funny, funny automaticity — real crazy.

Now, I thought we had all the buttons on the ARC triangle. Sure enough, it covers all possible aberrations, but the signficance of "Help" is left out of it. And you'll probably find more aberrations on help, responsibility and goals than you will on the ARC triangle.

Now, you'd be going up toward OT if you ran one of these flinch drills — which is what we'd call them — on a basis of you take a spike, drive it through a guy's wrist, pull it out and find no hole. If you stuck a pin in a Clear, you'd expect to find a hole, but not an OT. Singular difference. There's one historical character I know wasn't an OT.

Yes?

Now, from a standpoint of Clear, we're working with cause and effect without consequence. And that's practically the only — where we're working — cause and effect without consequence. An OT works cause and effect with or without agreement with any universe. It's entirely different. He didn't flinch and the Clear didn't flinch merely because something threatened the body. The OT not only did not flinch, but when the spike was pulled out, why, there was a wrist still there, intact. You get the idea?

Male voice: You said run Responsibility after Help?

Now, when we look over the attributes of Clear, we find this positiveness, and consequences then occupy the first zone of inspection — completely aside from any mechanical aspect — consequences. The individual doesn't always necessarily have consequences for every action. He is not trying to alter the consequences, particularly, but he does not necessarily have consequences.

Yes, that's for sure.

So this second characteristic is luck — what people would call luck. You don't necessarily have bad consequences for every action. When a person gets far enough down Tone Scale — when he gets far enough down Tone Scale, starts scraping bottom — every action has a bad consequence. First he fears it, and then he finally gets it. But taking an action without bad consequence would constitute the major part of what man understands as luck. Man doesn't understand luck anymore to be "a good thing happened." He understands it at this sphere of the game, as "a bad thing didn't happen." Vast difference.

Male voice: You mean a specific . . .

Luck in Arabian times would have been, "He was in real luck. He walked out in the street and found a bag of gold dinars." And in modern times, "He walked out in the street and didn't drop through a manhole cover — what luck!"

I was speaking of a specific psychosomatic.

Now, this quality of luck or quality of consequence — I don't care which you call it — would, at the Clear level, simply omit, necessarily, a whole bunch of bad consequences pursuant to an action. But at OT, he would have to postulate a series of good consequences, and they would probably occur. So luck drops out as a factor at OT. You couldn't any longer call it "luck" because luck is conditional. But luck is still conditional at Clear, and it is certainly not conditional at Homo sap.

Male voice: Oh.

It is a very interesting commodity. Whenever the fellow has to win a decent stake while playing vingt-et-un — blackjack — he loses his shirt. It's enough for him to postulate a good action to get a bad one. He goes on a flip. You see a lot of fellows in gambling, the more they need the money, the more they lose. You get luck reversals: The moment that he needed a good break he got a bad one, until after a while he thinks all he needs is bad breaks. If he just had enough bad breaks, he'd have it made. He could exteriorize and find another body, and he begins to work for bad breaks. And this is 2.0 down. He is uniformly working for bad breaks. He does not want any good breaks.

And I would then also add this up to the dynamic run. After — you flatten Responsibility on all dynamics if you're running one of these dynamic runs. All dynamics. "What responsibility do you take for children?"

Well, now we've really left the zone of luck, from 2.0 down, and we're getting into something that looks very like postulation, except it isn't willing or knowing — things "just happen." Now, look at Homo sap when he says, "Well, you know how it is, things just happen!"

It's quite interesting that an individual may not be able to run Responsibility — then run Help, and then he can run Responsibility. But in Help you have a sort of other-terminalness. When you finally flatten Help, you still have another identity; you have another thing, don't you see? And when you run Responsibility, you knock out the final barrier. "Responsible for it" is very close to being it. So you finish it off with a responsible-for, don't you see?

They do? Of course, he looks at the complicated network of life and being unable to trace responsibility for any action he has taken, he looks at every scene he sees minus one causation point — himself. He subtracts self from causation in any concatenation of incident. In other words, he can look at a football game that was just played, and he was a player. And he'll look over the game and he will assign cause to everything in the game — every player, the referees or anything else that was there — he'll assign cause to everything in the place except self.

You could say, "How could you help a child? How could a child help itself? How could a child help you?" And go on and on and on with this child. And finally get it so that it wasn't bopping and seemed to be all smooth. And the fellow . . .

And life starts looking pretty haphazard, let me assure you. Because the scenes you are looking at, or the scenes you do look at, have a large ingredient of self-cause in them for this — I mean, caused by yourself in them — because you are part of the scene you are looking at. This is very hard to phrase. It's just as though you always looked with blue beams and everybody else looked with red beams. The mere fact that you were looking at a bunch of red beams would probably inject a blue beam into their midst. Don't you see? And then if you say, "There's no blue beam there," and "I wonder where the blue beam came from," you'll get cause as it is experienced by most Homo saps. He looks at his zone of operations and he can see no self-cause in it anywhere: Self is not there. It's total irresponsibility.

The funny part of it is you can unsettle the process again and now flatten it so it can't be unsettled further by running responsibility for a child. "How could a child be responsible for you? How could you be responsible for a child?" Well, he'll bop, always, on "How could a child be responsible for you?" because this isn't one of those three-way looks. His own responsibility for the child is the only thing that's important, see? Whereas in Help all the brackets are important. Okay?

For instance, I was talking to a fellow the other day. He was looking at the US government, and he says, "You know this democracy shouldn't have been set up this way in the first place. Those dirty dogs that set it up that way . . ." and so forth. And he was going on and on. And I noticed that he got angrier and angrier the longer he talked. So I knew he had had a hand in setting up that democracy. He was going downscale as he talked about it. Perfectly all right, you see, for him to talk about it angrily — nobody is arguing with his right to do that. But this other one is a funny trick, and you should be able to recognize it at once: He was talking about it and be got more and more and more angry. Well, then you had to assume that there was a cause there for which he was not taking responsibility. And the longer he talked about it, the longer period he was not taking responsibility for it, the longer he became an unwilling and unknowing effect. You follow this carefully?

Yes?

Well, that is the descent on the Tone Scale — less and less responsibility for an area, so no area is eventually Clear — see, less and less responsibility for an area or a zone of action. Why can't a person remember a past life? Now, here we'll get into another sphere.

Male voice: Two questions about Clear. One, is there any point in running subjective Remedy of Havingness on a Clear who knows he's handling his own pictures anyway? And two, would you get needle reactions, theta bops, on GE pictures on a Clear?

Just let me summate that by saying, well, a Clear usually does not go into a dwindling spiral again. Actually, from about three-quarters on, he doesn't hit these dwindling spirals because of his causation orientation: He doesn't keep looking at scenes and saying, " I'm no part of it, and have no part in it." Don't you see?

There aren't any GE pictures, to answer the last one first. There just aren't any.

Yeah, a person looks over — well, he works in an office — and if he looks at that office every day as having no part in the office, and all the things that happen in that office being outside his zone of responsibility, then these things every day go more and more on automatic, don't they? So he's in a dwindling spiral. And that is the dwindling spiral. It's taking less and less responsibility for what a person is more and more responsible for. And that causes — that's probably the only cause of a dwindling spiral. There are a lot of subsidiary causes, but they all come back to that one.

Male voice: Now you've really confused me.

An individual refuses to take responsibility for his own actions. As soon as he assigns responsibility for his own actions to other persons and things, he then has solidified them, hasn't he, on this ownership basis. Then they become more and more solid and more and more persistent, and of course he really gets more and more hung with it.

Now I've really fixed you up. You'll find that out in the final analysis. There are no GE pictures. Horrible discovery I had to make.

A Clear isn't having this trouble, ordinarily. He is more capable of seeing cause and he is more capable of assuming responsibility for actions for which he is responsible.

Male voice: Yes.

Now, the odd part of it is he does not have to assume responsibility for his own actions only. He can also misassign responsibility for other people's actions. Very, very interesting. In other words, he can say, "I did it," when somebody else did it, without liability. This is an odd trick. But he cannot say, "They did it," when he did it, without liability. That has liability. You got it? It's quite amazing.

Now, you can be a tooth and mock up the pictures that a tooth ought to have, and you will get the pictures the tooth had, and all of this sort of thing. But it's still a mock-up.

And as a consequence we get somebody more and more willing to extend himself and more and more willing to involve himself in various activities. He finds this out. Instead of swearing at rockets, he's liable to say something like this — swearing at rockets and the fact they don't work — he could actually say, and know he was lying but he would still say to himself, "I wonder why I am failing all over the place with rockets? I guess I will build them some other way." Totally specious line of logic, don't you see? But it lets him assume responsibility for the way rockets are being built, lets him redesign them and so forth. There's no liability to it. But if he was building rockets, if he was engaged in building rockets and they failed, and he said it was the workmen, it was the other designers that did this, and no longer had any responsibility for it himself, all of a sudden he'd be totally plowed-in on the subject of rockets, don't you see?

Male voice: Well, would you get reactions to it?

The reason for this is there's only one crime — there's only one crime — and that is denial of self. Unfortunately, denial of the other guy has had very little to do with it. Deny the other fellow all you please, but don't deny yourself. Denial of self. Don't ever fall into this one.

Hm?

You black somebody's eye in a melee, and he didn't recognize you, and then you say, "I'm sorry your eye got blacked," or "Who hit you?" You know? "Who hit you?" as though you didn't know. Pretending you don't know. Well, that's denying your own action.

Male voice: Will you get reaction — needle reactions, on the mock-up?

Now, denial of self is sufficiently high an aberration that it works up into the postulate levels before we get into energy. It works out that a thetan is the only one capable of aberrating himself. Nobody else can aberrate a thetan. This is what this all amounts to. So we get a Clear, if he's going to stay that way at all, capable of assigning responsibility for action even when it includes himself. It's almost a dirty crack at man. He can assume responsibility for action even when it includes himself.

Now let's answer the first one.

So one of the symptoms that you run into, if you want to call it that, is the fact that an individual will properly assume responsibility. He will properly assign cause.

Male voice: All right.

But he's liable to start playing a game of misassigning cause in order to get persistence. And that would be one game I would warn him against. That's how he got there. If you misassigned enough cause, why, then you'd get beautifully lost, and then not even you could as-is anything around you. And it'd all be nice, solid mass. That is the road out on such a thing. All right.

I've answered the second one. Now let's answer the first one and it answers the rest of that. And that is, there is an OT drill of "Make a Picture Affect the Body," at which time you get a neat meter reaction. That's not a Clear drill, that's an OT drill. In other words, you can mock up a picture and make the picture have an effect on the body, and you get a needle reaction. You got that?

If one is willing to assign cause, he is of course willing to assign cause to self. Now, this will surprise you. An OT who can be at knowing or willing cause over life, matter, energy, space, time, is actually above cause and effect. He's above cause and effect.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

A Clear is not above cause and effect, and he will still have enough randomity in worrying about causes and effects to live life.

Now state your first question again, there.

But OT is well up above that. He, you might say, looks down upon the cause-distance-effect formula. In other words, he is senior to the formula. You would suspect that, very naturally, that this would be the case.

Male voice: First question was subjective Repair or Remedy of Havingness.

But don't expect, then, too much of a Clear. Because he is still subject to causes and effects. And in that he can use any part of the Tone Scale to cause an effect, then don't assign, if you please, beautiful sadness or beautiful serenity as the emotion of a Clear. Because then you yourself will have started as a group, a group aberration. He is more emotional, not less. But if he is emotional, he knows it. It isn't happening on a total automaticity. He doesn't wake up two days later to find out he's been angry. He isn't just sad and doesn't know why. He can assign or recognize causes, you see? But don't think he can't get sad; he certainly can get sad. And he can get mad. And he can get apathetic. And he can get totally numb. Only trouble is, he doesn't stick there. And that, of course, I imagine would be a great worry to anybody who meant him ill. You mean somebody . . . You can make the guy feel unhappy, but you don't necessarily make him feel unhappy forever. He gets over it in an hour. Get the idea?

Yeah, that's right. All right. Now, that answers up that one. Yes, there is an object in running it. But that would be the only object in running it.

In view of the fact that he can fix positions and location, he can also fix emotions. And if he can fix emotions, he can also unfix emotions. And he can experience emotions or give forth emotions and that becomes quite important.

Male voice: I see, thank you.

Now, as to what a Clear can do in the field of necromancy, you'd better assign the whole cockeyed thing over to OT. And an OT is able to work in the area of an optimum solution. So whoever was worried about witches and demons going around and putting postulates in people's heads and making them do things, and going around causing bad effects on other people, must have had a bill of goods to sell somebody. You realize that a person has to be tremendously, out-of-sight high on Help in order to be an OT, you'll realize at once that you aren't getting capricious destruction from an OT.

You bet.

Now, the main thing which has slowed up research is a — even, I imagine, seeking a state of bodhi — would be a fear by a great many people that the state would turn out to be something evil. And people would get a little bit nervous at the idea of having some of these people around in the society. Used to be an innocent game that went on in Middle Europe. You used to persuade somebody to — that there was a spirit in the neighborhood which had the powers of good luck and bad luck and used to persuade people to put out saucers of milk and so forth. The neighborhood cats and dogs, of course, would drink up the saucers of milk — so it was "obviously" a spirit who was being fed.

Yes?

Even here in the United States you will find, in some very isolated farm communities, people putting saucers of milk out on the back porch at night for some kind of a demon or spirit or something of the sort. That's right. It was very, very common even a century ago. It's much less common now.

Male voice: Looking at this Help on the dynamics, on a nine-way bracket on eight dynamics, when do you get around to Step 5? In the third week?

We haven't yet developed the number of industrial superstitions which we will have in this particular culture if we don't clear somebody. Oh, don't worry, when these superstitions roll up the line ... A superstition is a substitution for nonunderstanding of the basic causes. When you no longer can trace the basic causes of something, you develop superstitions regarding it. And you can have people developing tremendous superstitions about cars. For instance, "This car will not run with a locked trunk." Have to keep his trunk unlocked and so on. Superstition — which is just misassignment of causes.

If you're flattening each command totally before going on, the answer is, yes, third week. But it isn't necessary to do that.

The more aberrated a people gets, by the way, the more it misassigns causes. Which, by the way, is all by itself a rule of thumb for the tracing and understanding of any culture or civilization of any given period of its history — the accuracy of its assigning causes.

Yes?

Now, similarly, the accuracy of tracing a case state is the accuracy or inaccuracy of assigning causes. And the more vias they get away from actual cause, the worse off they are. And that is a direct arithmetical coordination there. But because people thought Clears, bodhis, spirits . . . Well, look at the junk that's been thrown out here in the motion pictures over the last fifty years. Whenever they have filmed anything having to do with the spirit, they have filmed a horror picture. Isn't that interesting? Most of these shock-theater pictures have some basic thetan mechanism connected with them one way or the other. For instance, last night there was somebody who was rematerializing his legs under the Svengaliness of a Hindu who was teaching him. Boy, is that for the birds!

Male voice: Okay. It looks to me like we have gotten down to a simplicity and then back up to a complexity that is to some extent defeating where we had arrived.

I'll clue you: You've only got to run CCH Ob in its totality to recognize that evil and ability do not live together. And people have been persuaded to keep other people chained because if they let them loose, they would do so many evil things! We look upon this — it is the great crime of the last ten thousand years. It is the number one crime. Just like the number one aberration is you denying yourself. So we get the number one crime of the last ten thousand years being the idea, the planting of the idea, that an individual, if he was freed, would be dangerous to society; that punishment and oppression were needed to impress a social pattern upon the person.

No. If you will notice, it's CCH Ob. That's way early in an intensive, isn't it?

Now, you can just trace that down. It's an interesting exercise, an interesting mental exercise just to trace down that, that I'm just saying — the various things developed to keep people from being free and the various parts of the theory, and people who have mentioned this, have said it and so on — that you daren't let them free because they were evil.

Male voice: Yes.

And you'll find preclears who will shudder at the idea of becoming an auditor, particularly when Clears get rather numerous. "Dzz — what — what would happen? Well, if they let the guy — guy — guy fr — free, the guy's liable to attack them!" See?

Well, your preclear is pretty complicated early in an intensive.

We have a poor old devil, we've tried to patch this guy up a half a dozen times, and under earlier techniques he would never sit still. He's over here right now; he came back to town not too long ago. He just never would sit still. And we didn't have CCH 0 the last time he was around. But he thinks now that I have been following him as a thetan and doing evil things to him for the last two years. What conceit! He doesn't realize any more than anybody else has, this fundamental: that if you could follow a person with enormous accuracy and if you could put postulates into them, you would be basically capable of helping them. And you wouldn't be worrying about doing anything else to them.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

I'm sure that as this news spreads about clearing, far and wide — and it spreads fast, believe me, I've heard from some remote points — I know of about twenty-five people who are going to shake in their boots. And they won't know why; they'll not even be able to trace that. But they'll be shaking in their boots, believe me. They will be absolutely sure that we're going to be siccing somebody on them.

And his complicated lookingness here has to be taken care of. And actually, evidently, every part of it is necessary. It's not a complexity, it's the number of terminals that could be associated with the idea of help — that's all we're trying to reach for. And we'll find out that he's only stuck three or four ways. If we think we're going to get equal charge on each one of these things, why, we're quite mistaken. There are several of them that are just totally uncharged. But there are a few of them, two or three of them, will just be whammed-up like mad because you get the phenomenon of stuck flows operating here.

And I will tell you what the actual impulse was with regard to these twenty-five or so people. They really did slow up the show tremendously with Dianetics. They raised hell. But the action which was going to be taken — it's already been thought of, what action to be taken — was this: trying to get in communication with them so as to bring them in and straighten them out. That was the action taken against these people. And yet, I'm sure that I'm going to hear from some of these people on a via at a high whine of terror.

Male voice: Then in the running of the dynamics on the bracket, if you got two or three answers to one leg of a bracket on one dynamic that didn't show any particular charge, you just drop that right fast then . . . ?

Now, you're bound to get this sort of reaction. Some auditors would basically flinch at the idea of clearing somebody unless he understood this. You have only to examine help, attitudes toward, and get it up from propitiate through the upper range of Destroy, up into actual Help — move it all the way upstairs — to understand the basic state of mind necessary to maintaining a state of Clear or OT. It is so lacking in vengeance that only vengeance could trip it over.

Yeah. That's for sure. Only I'd ask it about five times, just to be sure.

Now, when an individual gets down and is unable to assign cause anymore — he misassigns all causes — he, of course, then, starts to assign vengeances. And the less he can assign actual cause, the greater ferocity he uses to assign targets of vengeance, until you get an insane state which is totally this: misassignment of cause, total misassignment of vengeance, but positive he knows what's caused his trouble — that bedpost caused all of his trouble.

Male voice: Of course you would.

So we'd understand that a fellow practically becomes a saint before he's free, which is the most fascinating thing.

Yes?

Now, just by being good you can't go free. It's fantastic, see? That was the swindle the church sold. Just by being good you can't go free. But by being able to help far and wide, you can go free. But the ability has to be regained before the freedom is regained.

Male voice: Seems to me that this — way we're running Help at the moment — "How can I help you," for example, is — it has a slight barrier to it because of the fact that it's a bit sloppy. In other words, basically, the first postulate would be worth working at. Now, why shouldn't we run it "Can I help you ?" and get an answer, and then "How ?" Because that's going to tighten down the help angle.

Someday, sooner or later, somebody will start swinging an ax in the direction of Scientology, I'm sure, on a political front. I look over and find out that some of Buddha's early work and penetration into China resulted in the formation of an organization in 443 a.d. called the White Lotus, formed by a monk and eighteen fellows. It remained the revolutionary force even up to the time of the Boxer Rebellion. It was one of the primary revolutionary forces, and is probably that revolutionary force which is in existence right now and brought the downfall of the Kuomintang and the upsurge of the Communist Party over in ...

Waste of time. We've done some experimentation with that.

You know that Tao in China — Taoism, you know, is a political philosophy? It has nothing to do with Lao-tse. He wouldn't recognize it. Tremendous political philosophy around this thing called Taoism. And sooner or later somebody's going to misread all of that across the boards.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Now, the mere fact that somebody would make a political philosophy which sought to achieve its ends by raw, red, violent revolution out of a piece of work capable of clearing people, tells you that philosophy didn't make the grade. In other words, that philosophy, if it really made Clears and OTs or made an improved state, would necessarily have been a direct approach, not a revolutionary protest. See that?

And the fellow always just automatic — propitiatively says, "Yes," or he's in terrible shape and says, "No." And we only get two answers to it. And he's already made a postulate. And we don't want him to make any of those postulates. See? We don't want him to monkey with it, see? We just — because he's liable to say, "No," and he'll slow himself down for an hour.

So you can say that where you get a revolutionary reaction on the part of some Scientologists against something or other, no matter where this is up the track, you will discover that somebody has forgotten TR 0 to 10. They're not auditing anymore. Get the idea? Somebody's going around spinning like a whirling dervish saying, "I'm Clear." And he's not.

Male voice: And of course, you work on it the beginning of the intensive.

Oh, there are, of course, things to protest against. But because you can assign cause you can understand them. And if you can understand anything, you can tear it to pieces. And you don't have to be bloody about it; requires no blood at all.

That's right. It's the beginning of the intensive. You're not running this on cases in good condition, ever. If you want to take care of Help all the way, toward the early part of the intensive, you take care of the psychosomatic difficulty the fellow is having, and this has a tendency to impress the living daylights out of him. He's always had a sore back and you just run Help, several brackets, on the back. And all of a sudden, why, the back completely changes its manifestation. And we get — the guy says, "Wow, what's this?" He notices that that evening, he doesn't have a sore back or the vertebrae have all straightened out or something like this. It's a big punch. Well, he's willing to go on.

For this reason an actual revolution could only be an evolution. It would make things better because the individuals in it would primarily have to be so capable of being able to help themselves and others that they wouldn't do anything else. They would find this to be a much better solution, and the optimum solution would be applied.

Male voice: Thank you.

Now, there's one mistake that is being consistently made, and I'll take responsibility for it because responsibility is resident right there. In 1950 I wrote some things about "group spirit." And it was as though this were the case: that a number of people were together, and after a while you got a group spirit, as though it was a separate thetan. Do you remember this work?

You bet.

Audience: Mm-hm. Yes.

By the way, it might interest you about cleared staffs that we're going to clear staffs on two points — and this is data that you could use. After March 3rd, we're going to mop up "on post." That is to say, we're going to use Help and Responsibility on post for each staff member. In other words, we're going to clear them on post. Well, you'd be surprised, but it only takes a half an hour up to two hours to clear them on post. There's no vast time element. See that? Well, that's the first one.

Well, it might or might not be true — I'm certainly not going to deny the work — but I will tell you an illusion which occurs: that as you make a great many people able as individuals, you apparently have a much better group.

And then on a co-audit basis, why, go the rest of the way through to Clear, which is quite interesting. But the organization isn't waiting on that. You will see a rapid, fundamental shift on staffs and difficulties and ease of doing business, in just a very short space of time.

Then you get into worry about leaders, you get into worry about strong men and weak men, when the truth of the matter is, the only worry you should engage upon at all with regard to this is whether or not you have strong individuals. Able individuals — much better statement than strong individuals. In other words, if you make enough individuals able you will get, oddly enough, a very competent group.

Yes?

Therefore, political philosophy in Scientology does not depend upon the formulation of a number of principles, customs or I-am-supposed-to. I may do this sometime, just working out what would be an optimum solution more or less in agreement with the time and area. I might do this. But it would be a mental exercise rather than a series of necessities.

Male voice: How do you clear a man at his job ?

If you were to take a number of individuals and clear them, you would not have a cleared group, you would have a number of cleared individuals. Do you understand that? But these individuals would be adequate to communication and adequate to help one another to a point of where the apparency would be an overwhelmingly strong group. Do you understand that?

You'd run Help on every terminal his job associates him with immediately and instantly — that is, merely the closest terminals to his job. Don't go off into the rest of the organization only because you're giving him, then, an organization clear. We're just clearing him on post. So you'd run Help any way you could on the terminals immediately intimate to that. And then you would flatten Responsibility on those same terminals. That moves him right into a beingness. Quite interesting. He can assume a beingness at will, if he does this.

Audience: Mm-hm.

Yes?

Hm? And as each individual himself was able to stand on his own feet, then there wouldn't have to be just one person in that group doing all the standing on the feet for him — for the whole group. It's quite customary for one person to do all the standing up and other people not to, in this society at this time. Do you understand that? But as you had a number of people who were capable of standing up by themselves, you would get them so capable of standing together that they would be quite formidable as a group.

Female voice: Sir, do you have any comment about clearing a command? Part of what I had in mind would be clearing it word for word, versus clearing it entirely.

Organization, then, is never the final answer. Patterns of organization can only smooth communication channels. An organization can do nothing. The state of each individual in the organization or an average of the states of individuals in an organization, then, give you something to shoot at.

Well, you'd never clear a command entir.

Now, they can also have a very smart modus operandi. See, they could also have that. But that's like arming a giant with a sharp sword, see? I mean, a giant could be quite effective without any sword. Now you give him a sword, too. And that is what organization adds to the picture. It's just — it's a good tool that able people can use.

Female voice: And the other would be, what sort of a clearing to accept from a preclear, or any?

You actually have no real worry about political philosophy the moment you really embrace this idea that a group is as strong as the individuals with which it is composed. If you have enough strong individuals you, of course, do not need appointed leaders. Your responsibility factor is very high. They will appoint their own leaders and own agreements. And if you had a group that was totally cleared, you would not, probably, have a leader.

You'd never clear a command entirely. You never say, "Walk over to the other side of the room and put your hand on the wall. Now, what does that command mean to you?" He's just left in a fog. You clear it piecemeal. You clear it word by word — how. You'll be amazed. He'll all of a sudden come up with something on how. Could. "What do you mean, could?"

You would, perhaps, if you had an army of them — let's say somebody started to clear the US Army — the first thing which would go by the boards would be rank. There would probably be the rank of officer. See, that would be a single rank — officer. And then there would be some people who were not yet officers, they were still being trained. Get the idea? There probably wouldn't be any troops. You'd probably have officers sitting around saying, "Troops? Troops — they want to give us troops. What do we want troops for?" And somebody would try to figure out some use for troops. And finally, in an effort to absorb some of the surplus food of the government or something of the sort, they would be persuaded to take troops because it'd help the farmer.

You see, you give him a clue of what you're doing. You say, "The command is, 'How could I help you?' Now, we're going to clear this command. Now, what does how mean to you? What does could mean to you? I? Help?" Wow! "You?"

You do, in a — if you're running a ship, you need somebody to steer and you need somebody to run engines. And there shouldn't be so few that everybody has to stand double watches. But there gets to be a point when there are so damn many you can't find out what watch to stand. All these things have a reasonable solution.

It's a very odd thing; if you clear a command, you will knock out all the old circuitry difficulties we used to have. We used to have circuitry difficulties of who was auditing what. And if you clear each command as you go along, these — it's a constant clearing of I, and it's a constant clearing of you. And all of a sudden the fellow will find himself, just in clearing commands. It's too valuable a piece of auditing to overlook, and we're rather heroic in the way we overlook this. Rather heroic.

Well, I've tried to give you some insight into this matter, and it's probably not been terribly beneficial. I've already given you the exact tests which go to make up Clear. But I've given you what little I have been able to ferret out so far concerning the Clear and his future impacts on groups and the society.

Female voice: Would you ever stick a preclear onto the clearing that you started with?

Thank you.

Hm?

Female voice: Would you ever stick a preclear so that he continued thereafter using the clearing that. . .

Uh-uh. You're unsticking him.

Female voice: Okay.

And if he starts saying this . . . You know, there's another angle to this that just your good sense would tell you about. He starts somewhere along the line saying, "Let's see, how could I help you?" You asked him a question. You said, "How could I help you?"

"How — could — I — help — you?" Well, he hasn't got the command.

So, you say, "Now, I'm going to repeat the auditing command," or "I'll repeat the auditing command. How could I help you?"

And he says, "How could I help you?" Boy, we'd better clear that command! Get the idea? Just bridge out of it. Clear the command all over again and so forth. Don't leave him at a stuck point. But ordinarily clearing a command unsticks him. It gives him a sufficient familiarity with the words that he's not stumbling.

But somewhere along the line he's liable to fall out of a valence, into a valence, the command goes boggling, we don't know where he is or what he's doing. And his usual manifestation on that is to be puzzled. Well, his puzzlement is very often occasioned by the fact that the command needs clearing again.

Female voice: Mm-hm. One idea I had about that was on this, "You get the idea of making that wall connect with you." Well, the auditor could clear it until all he wants is an idea — if he starts clearing it word for word.

Yeah.

Female voice: Well, then you're starting the process at the end, aren't you?

What's this? You're starting a process at the end?

Female voice: Well, you're just getting these ideas like he tells you to, and that's all you're doing. You're not making it — you aren't . . . You're just here, and you're getting these ideas.

Well, that's what he's asked you to do.

Female voice: That's right. Okay. Well then, maybe that's all you want. Very good.

Maybe. All right. All right. Ever hear of Rising Scale Processing?

Female voice: Sure.

All right. Now, I've taken somebody who was eight miles deep and without a diving suit and run Rising Scale Processing on this person — altered his ideas and everything else, all over the place. He hadn't a clue what was happening. No cognition came up along the line. He was a different person when I finished. Get the idea?

Female voice: Yeah, I do. Thank you.

"Get the idea?" That's a joke!

Okay. Well, that's it today. Thank you very much.

Male voice: Thank you.