Very few people are sufficiently aware of the great importance of emotion in processing. If you could take all of the painful emotion off the case you would have a release. Of course, on a practical line, it is very hard to pick up all the emotion without picking up physical pain engrams as well. It so happens that every painful emotion engram sits on a physical pain engram; nevertheless, if you could take all this emotion off the case you would have a release.

I am probably covering many thousands of years of developed thought here. People have been thinking about how man thought for a very long time. What is man’s relationship to the physical universe? What is his relationship to himself and his relationship to the group? These have been primary thoughts with man for thousands of years.

These various factors were not coordinated until we got the triangle of affinity, communication and reality. At this time we were able to coordinate the problem and get some solutions.

If what I have been covering seems a little bit rapid you will have to forgive me, because to cover it in full would probably require touching each step of the development, tracing each point back and showing the evaluation of each point in it, and this would probably take a minimum of two or three hundred hours of lectures.

The front part of the Handbooks has in it a two-dimensional tone scale, but the tone scale is actually three-dimensional. It is actually a stack of triangles. Beginning with the base triangle, they go up on a sort of a geometric progression.

The point out of this which is vital to you is the affinity, communication and reality triangle, as a triangle, and the tone scale of emotion and its relationship to the tone scale of reality and the tone scale of communication, or perception. There is a definite interrelation in these things.

By making this into a three-dimensional scale, it suddenly becomes a great deal more useful. By examining this closely we can begin to understand a little bit more about emotion, and we will go into that more thoroughly later.

The next figure we have is a figure which is the most prominent part of a subject known as Dianometry, the measurement of thought, which is concerned with how people think and what logic is. And in order to understand this, one needs to know a little bit about the history of logic.

If you have a person who has to be dragged up to apathy, you had better drag him up to apathy before you expect to get any grief! If you have a person who has very bad sonic shut-off, bad visio shut-off and so on, you can drag him up the scale on the emotional scale and accomplish the perceptic turn-on, because he goes up the scale on a whole strata. The whole thing rises simultaneously. Every point of this triangle is dependent on the other two, and every two is dependent upon one. We can’t cut down one without cutting down the other two, and we can’t rehabilitate one without rehabilitating the other two. On the positive side, we can rehabilitate any point on that triangle by rehabilitating any other point on the triangle.

Once upon a time, man functioned on one-valued logic. You can see immediately that one-valued logic would be highly reactive: cause and effect, and that is all. But cause and effect were not determined by man to be within man. Cause and effect were exterior to him as far as he could tell. This was one-valued logic. Sum it up to the will of God. Anything that happened was God’s fault! That is the logic of some savage in the jungle. If he gets his feet wet, that is God’s fault. And if he dines too well upon slightly decomposed whale and gets a stomachache, that stomachache is God’s fault. That is one-valued logic. This is a fundamental in reactive thought.

If you have a preclear with a sonic shut-off, it is not very advantageous for you to try to get every commands off the case that would shut off sonic. As a matter of fact, you won’t turn on sonic that way. But you can turn it on by bringing the preclear up the tone scale on the affinity line, the emotional line. You cannot expect anybody who is chronically in grief to have much in the way of sonic.

Then a man by the name of Aristotle codified logic. He said in effect that man has a right to think; he has a right of decision. That was a very great advance. Of course, men had realized this long before Aristotle, but he said so, and he gave us two-valued logic. That was a considerable contribution to the field of logic.

Now, the interrelationship is close but it is not exact. These points don’t raise evenly, all at once, but it is so close that you could address the problem of shut-off sonic by rehabilitating the computational ability of the preclear. The way to do that is to pick up all that you can about him being told that he is dumb, he is stupid, he can’t think, and so forth, and you will find that it will bring up his communication level.

So here was two-valued logic, right and wrong — in other words, an absolute scale. There was no in-between about this. Something was absolutely right or it was absolutely wrong. This system fits in with law and religious connotations very closely, in that an action is either good or bad.

It appears to be very different to turn on sonic by making a person compute better about where he is and what he is doing, but that is what increases his reality. Or you can bring it up just on the basis of knocking out all the engrams that say everything is unreal. That, all by itself, will turn on sonic.

In a practical world you really can’t deal very well with two-valued logic, and yet you will find today as you look around that most people — particularly the illiterate peoples of the world — have advanced in the culture up to two-valued logic: right and wrong, God and the devil. It’s either constructive or it’s destructive.

If you knock out all those things, you will find out that the person will have a better chance of perceiving his engrams. It is obvious that if a person believes everything is unreal and if he can’t think about things straight, he will not be able to listen to something that he doesn’t think is there. And if he can’t think straight and if he can’t work in the field of reality, you certainly would not expect him to be in very great affinity with existence. His emotional tone could not be expected to be at its optimum.

A girl kisses a boy — is that right or wrong? Now, you would say, “Well, it depends.” No — that’s wrong! “A girl gets married and has children” — right or wrong? You might say, “Well, I don’t know, some of these things don’t work out too well.” Not in two-valued logic — that’s right! There are just these two values at work.The engineer in recent years found himself unable to work with Aristotelian logic, and as a consequence he changed it around to make it a little more workable. In the first place, he had staring him in the face a mathematics — Boolean algebra. Boolean algebra figures out all answers just in terms of yes and no. As a matter of fact, you can evolve all mathematics in these terms. “Is yes greater than no, or no greater than yes?” The brain, particularly by engineers who are accustomed to working on switchboards, is considered to work wholly on this basis of the yes is greater than the no. In other words, it’s hotter than it’s cold; it’s redder than it’s blue — yes, no, yes, no — except that the engineer in actual practice doesn’t use that. He uses three-valued logic. More values in logic are being introduced in direct ratio to the advance of the culture.

When you cut affinity on a person, sharply, you also cut communication and reality. And it is a strange thing that when one has cut communication thoroughly with another, and when one has a low tone scale value for that person, that person to some degree ceases to exist for the individual. One of the favorite things which you will hear people say is “As far as I’m concerned, he doesn’t exist anymore. I hate him; he doesn’t exist!” — or that they are going to wipe the other person out of existence, which is a little bit further up the scale. These things are interlocked.

So the engineer says right, wrong and maybe. That middle one is maybe. He had gotten up to the point where he felt that there weren’t as many absolute values in the world. A car could be a good car, it could be a bad car, or maybe it wasn’t a good car, and maybe it wasn’t a bad car. As a matter of fact, it is very hard to think without using a maybe occasionally.

You sometimes find an individual who has good sonic but a rather poor sense of reality. He hears it, but he doesn’t believe it. This may seem rather strange. What you have got there is the fact that sonic-cuts in rather early; you can have sonic and a poor sense of reality. In the reactive mind, sonic cuts in fairly low, and that should tell you immediately that most people are in a bad state!

This evolved to where we End out that the second we really begin to regard the human mind, it is absolutely necessary for us to regard logic in infinity values. We immediately take a jump from three-valued logic into an infinity of values. And actually we come upon, then, a highly workable system of logic.

Now, it so happens that we say “Get the grief off the case. Get off these painful emotion engrams,” and so on, but you are not going to be able to do much for a person on whom the summation of his reactive mind values is 0.4 (grief is 0.7 or thereabouts). You have got to raise this person’s tone so that he can cry, so that you can get grief off! This is particularly true of a psychotic who is in an apathetic state.

What we are dealing with here is a spectrum — a graduated scale. There are lots of these graduated scales in Dianetics. One of the basic principles of thought that we use is that there is no such thing as a completely sharp value. There is a graduated scale.

I want you to keep in mind how many of these stacks of triangles there are. There are lots of them. There is the reactive mind tone scale, and there is, in the same individual, his natural tone scale. What is evident is the natural tone scale modified by the reactive mind tone scale, but when you enter into processing you are mainly addressing the reactive mind tone scale. The complete sum of the individual would be the reactive tone scale plus the whole tone scale, averaged. In processing you are dealing with the reactive mind, and you head him right straight toward it.

An individual who normally may be just relatively bored with life has an average tone scale that is pretty high. Maybe it’s up there around 2.5 — well above normal — and his general conduct, his whole being in the society, is what we see. The person’s native, genetically endowed tone scale is up around 4, and his reactive tone scale is down around 1 or 0.5. Take 0.5 and add it to 4.0, and you get 4.5, way up. Average it out and you have him way down. The average individual is around 2.5, and 0.5 would be his reactive mind tone scale. Or perhaps his endowed tone scale would be up around 3.5. Add the two together and you get 4; divide it by two and you get his tone scale at 2, which is overt resentment.

Here is a series of lines. In the center is zero, and to one side of the scale is right. That has an infinity value and that is survive! If anybody got completely, absolutely, infinitely right on anything, he of course would live forever and so would the universe, and so would the whole universe of thought. That gives you an idea of the incredibleness of being completely and absolutely right without a single wrong factor anywhere! An infinity value of right on any one solution would be immortality.

We must not forget that we are dealing with two tone scales with every individual; and the aberree walking around in the society is the average of these two scales, modified by the fact that the reactive scale is quite changeable and varies from day to day as it exists for the moment. There is an acute (momentary) scale and there is the overall sum of the aberrations in the mind, which would make up the average reactive mind tone scale.

All the way over the other way is wrong, and on this side we have succumb. The scale goes out more or less to infinity in this direction too. Actually, you can argue about the infinity over on the wrong side because how wrong can a person get? Dead. That is how wrong he can get on anything.

But now, on an immediate level, we get this fellow’s reactive mind tone which would vary maybe from 0.2 up to 1.5. He will get angry, then he will go off again on to these lower values, and up and down from moment to moment, depending on which engram is in restimulation. You would therefore be able to vary a person’s overall tone quite wildly by merely taking him down the track and parking him in one of these engrams for a moment, then bringing him up to present time. You can make a person look like a roller coaster with this sort of thing. You can do this physiologically because it is also applicable to the physiology of the beings

So, from zero on this ladder of lines to the right we get a tendency toward immortality, a tendency toward survival; and going left on this infinity of lines we reach being wrong.

His survival potential goes up and down this tone scale. If this fellow is in very good health and he is in very good shape, he is going to survive very easily. If he is in very bad health and poor shape, he isn’t going to survive so well. This is his potential in terms of physical survival.

The reason there is an infinity on the wrong side has to do with the whole universe of big theta and the universe of little theta. A man isn’t very wrong as far as the universe is concerned when he is dead. He is very wrong where he himself is concerned, where his own race is concerned, his own group and his own family. He is even wrong where mankind is concerned. But of course he is also partly composed of MEST, and if he was completely and utterly dead, this MEST would be dead too. If MEST ever got down to a point where it was dead, that would impose a stop, because if MEST died out like that, that would be the universe stopping; that would be the end of the universe.

You can alarm a medical doctor who doesn’t know Dianetics by bumping a preclear’s temperature up, giving him a fast pulse rate, or changing his health and apparent physiological age. Sometimes you go back down the track with somebody and knock out a bad holder or a valence shifter, then bring the person back up to present time and he will seem to be about ten years younger. It is quite variable.

A person dies by degrees. First, he dies as far as little theta is concerned, and then, little by little, cellular death sets in, and the last living thing in him probably is his fingernails. When they finally die, you can say the person is all the way dead. This takes about a year and a half normally. That gives you some sort of an idea of where zero is located on this scale. It is not quite where you thought it was. But if the energy of which those cells are composed died off, that would be the end of the universe.

So when you are dealing with Dianetics, you are really demonstrating things that look like straight black magic to somebody who doesn’t know what you are doing, because of course you are changing this person physiologically, and you are changing the tone scale of his reactive mind.

Now, I’m salting this material down with a few little philosophic imponderables, but we find that this equation is very valid. We have here a thing which will graph logic and shows, more or less, how the mind operates.

The reactive mind tone scale is always below 2.0. It doesn’t contain emotions above that except manics, and these hardly count because the emotional text of them is implanted artificially. A person has an emotion “I’m so happy, I’m so happy, I’m so strong!” The apparent emotional scale on it is rather high and it could be added in that way, but the overall sum as far as the mind is concerned is very low because this “I’m so happy, I’m so happy” is inevitably in the vicinity of “My God, I’m so depressed.” That is the manic-depressive.

You could call this the central board of the mind. This would be fed literally by thousands of such evaluators. This is the computer by which all the data of the problem is summed up.

You can get a person down the track and actually restimulate one of these manic engrams and you apparently get somebody who is wildly happy. He may stay that way for a couple more days and tell you, “Oh, I’m clear now, I know it! I’m absolutely clear!” then in a couple more days the thing wears out and he is very depressed. That is the manic at work; it’s just part of the reactive mind bank. But the overall average of a reactive mind bank does not go above 2.0, ever. A person whose reactive mind is in very, very good shape might have one around 1.2 on the tone scale, but that reactive mind would be practically empty!

Did you ever see a Chinese abacus? They knock the little wooden pellets around on this board. This is not a child’s toy. You will see these things in Chinese banks, and mathematicians building ships use them to figure out all sorts of things. They will pick up an abacus and start knocking the wooden pellets around on the thing, and they will say, “Well, the square footage is 928 on this.” You look at it and there isn’t anything resembling a 9 or a 28, or anything else. It’s a wonderful thing — they give it to children to play with in the Western world! But what it is, is something to keep tally on the brain. The mind does the computation and all the Chinese does is use this thing to keep tally on what he has thought of before. He is using the human mind as a servomechanism in his mathematics.

Let’s start calling this tone scale a perceptic scale and we will get the same sort of answers. We can say a persons perceptics vary, and they do. As you restimulate engrams this way and that, they vary.

Some mathematicians try desperately to tell you “Mathematics is pure. It existed before man got here, it will exist while he is here, and it will exist long after he has departed. It is a pure science.” That is an interesting point but it does not happen to be provable.

Now let’s call it a reality scale, and we see that his sense of reality will vary. It is just as acute as putting him through the tone scale.

It is fine to put a mathematical formula down on a piece of paper and place it in the middle of an Egyptian tomb, hoping it will stand by itself, but it wouldn’t be any good to anybody until the human mind addressed it.

You are dealing with three quantities here which are interlocked, and you can raise any two of them by treating the third. So this is very valuable to you as an auditor.

We cannot escape the fact that the human mind is a servomechanism in all mathematics. We can’t divorce any of man’s activities from his mind. When a man examines any problem, this central board of the mind — somewhat on the order of an abacus — will go into operation and keep tally, and this is the way he makes a decision.

You have possibly worked somebody who couldn’t get off a grief charge although you couldn’t find anything else wrong with the case particularly. He just lay there and said with a sigh, “Oh, well....” You were running into a reactive bank which was below grief for that case.

One could say that a person feels perfectly null about things, his mind is sitting about zero. (The mind never does this, however; it always picks up from where the last problem left off.) He isn’t quite sure what he is going to do. Suddenly he decides that he is going to eat dinner. Well, that’s fine. It is something to do; it’s a decision. So the arrow on the spectrum will start to work and he moves over to two lines right about eating dinner. But he thinks about it for a moment, and he is not hungry. He doesn’t want to eat now. This will pull him right straight back to zero again. Should he eat dinner? Shouldn’t he eat dinner? Indecision!

Another person could have an engram that artificially fixes him on this tone scale into anger, so he will dramatize anger on it. You had better knock that engram out. Because he is fixed on the tone scale, he is not going to get down to grief.

The next thing that he thinks of, perhaps, is the fact that he wants to go to a show at seven o’clock and it is now six. So if he wants to eat dinner before he goes to the show, then he had better eat dinner. That moves out there to two values right again. And then all of a sudden he thinks about this place that serves beautiful duck, and he thinks to himself, “Gosh, the last time

A person can be stuck on the track, then, in anger; and as you look up and down a person’s time track, you will find that the emotions are parked somewhere on that track. There is an incident in which they are held, where the emotions are full on. There is where the emotional scale is locked up.

I ate that duck — oh, boy!” So that’s a few more values right. Then he reaches into his pocket and finds out he has only got fifty cents. So to eat duck is pretty wrong, and he comes back toward an irresolution again. Where is he going to eat? In other words, is it right or wrong? Well, that’s one of these little indecisive, undramatic problems that a man solves all the time, and he solves it by these lines.

Now, this is just as valid and is the same kind of computation as somebody being stuck someplace on the track with a certain age flash. His age is locked up at that point.

Let’s take two people who have had a lover’s quarrel, and the man thinks he ought to call the girl and apologize. He hasn’t made any big decision till he starts thinking about it. Then he says, “I think I’ll call up and apologize. After all, I love her dearly, and that’s what I’m going to do because by apologizing, everything will come out fine.” This action is six values right. But then he thinks, “But she told me I was a cad!” That really affects him and he thinks about it for a moment. “A cad, yes, she said that.” So to call her up would be eight values wrong. (We count back from the last arrow.)

Supposing this person has a chronic pain in his leg: he is locked up on the track at a point where there is a pain in his leg. One shouldn’t think of a chronic somatic as something that is just accidental to be gotten rid of; this thing is a good locator. It tells you immediately that pain is locked up on the track at a certain point, and that is the only place where this person can feel and express pain.

Then he thinks, “But Oscar is liable to call her up and she is liable to start going out with him, and I couldn’t bear that. I think I will call her up.” Just the thought of Oscar is pretty bad. That makes it immediately ten values right to call her up. He is getting up there to a point where he is going to call. As a matter of fact, he could make a decision and call at this moment, and he does make the decision and call but he finds out that her phone is busy.

This can get so bad that you can run a case into an engram, particularly one where a groupers has been triggered, and thereafter when the person has a headache, for example, his foot will hurt. When he has just received a big injury in the arm, the foot will hurt. When his mother has morning sickness, his foot will hurt. He has just one pain that he expresses for every pain that comes in. All of his pain is locked up in an incident where his foot was hurt.

So he immediately says, “It’s that Oscar!”

Or we could take an emotion. Here is this person who is going around chronically dramatizing anger. He varies between red-hot mad and covertly mad, according to the intensity of restimulation of the emotional engram in which he is stuck. Ask this person to feel pleasure, he gets mad! Ask him to feel loving, he gets mad! Ask him to feel apathetic, he gets mad! He has a fixed value on the tone scale.

Now he gets a little bit more upset about it, and here we have got some more values right, and this means he is going to call her or else! As far as he is concerned, the right solution is to call.

Now, just because this person with one somatic is dramatic and more interesting, don’t overlook the fact that a person’s emotions can be tied up on the track in the same way, so that any emotion which is in the bank will be retranslated into the one he is locked up in and that emotion will keep dramatizing itself. You’ll see apathy turned out that way.

So he calls her and finds out that she has already made a date with Oscar, that she is off with him for life, and that she was just sitting there at the phone waiting for him to call so that she could show him up.

This should demonstrate something to you about the endocrine balance.

Immediately, as far as this problem is concerned, he recaps after the act and says, “You know, that was about twenty-five values wrong.” Boy, is he wrong!

The new engram that gets restimulated has a little tab that comes up on it which says “The emotional tone of this engram is 0.6.” But all that the person who is stuck on the track in an emotion of anger will register and express is the emotion which is right there — anger.

You can add up all of these problems in this fashion: how many values right and how many values wrong? We must then include something in all thinking: the evaluation of a datum. What is the value of the datum? How many values right and how many values wrong in relationship to the importance of the problem? The mind works these things out all the time and it can assign values; it has sub-computers that are handing up values to this continually. How many values right and how many values wrong? Back and forth the little arrow travels, and the person will arrive at a decision.

Or we have one where the emotion coming through on an engram is rage. Papa and Mama are having a quarrel in the prenatal area. You are running your preclear, trying to get him to express some of this emotion in order to run it out of the engram, and the fellow lies there apathetically during the whole thing. You run something else and he runs that apathetically. Then he runs a pleasure moment and he runs it apathetically. Don’t get the idea that this person is merely apathetic; he is stuck in an engram which has apathy as its emotional tone.

When people are indecisive, their computer is sitting dead center and you are getting no action. A computer which continues to sit dead center with no action gets an accumulating energy level behind it, and something is bound to happen. Something will break with this sooner or later. A person could actually have a type of engram that says “You can’t possibly make any decision. You don’t have the power of decision. You don’t have any will power. You never can make up your mind,” which would actually force the evaluation to sit in the center indecisively, and such a person wouldn’t be able to think easily.

The most common emotion for a person to turn on solidly, for some reason or other, is terror. But, of course, someone in this society can’t go around expressing terror, so the whole thing simply gets sealed up. His necessity level on the expression of emotion just closes over the whole thing. This entire case will present the most occluded aspect on emotion that you ever want to see. The person can go through a grief incident, an apathy incident, a boredom incident, and there is nothing there at all. It is covered up terror. And then one day, all of a sudden, if you really know your business and you know about the emotional scale, you will get him into an engram and he will go “Yah! Yow! Wow! Wow!” and practically explode all over the room in terror. If you let him escape out of that engram now, you will just double-seal it. Ride it through and get that emotion out and the first thing you know, you will be able to take him up to a pleasure moment and he’ll feel pleasure.

Then there is the person who has got an engram that says “I am always right. No matter what I think of, I am completely right. I’m right all the time.” This freezes the computer over on the survive side all the time. He doesn’t have a chance to evaluate his problems because he says “I’m right.”

One case was stuck in about four places on the track, each one of them a terror moment. I had quite a time with him. I worked with the case for quite a while before I finally got this person near what he was near. His visio turned on and inevitably it was a coffin, and he was in stark terror, with a servant girl telling him all about being buried in the cold ground with the worms. This child, who was already shut down by grief, went into terror. There were also holders right there in the terror. And there he had been for years and years, as far as his emotions were concerned, standing alongside of his grandfather’s coffin.

He thinks, “Well, the thing to do is to take this Ford car and drive it off a cliff,” and he is right so he does it. Of course, that would be psychotic, and that is what is the matter with a psychotic. His evaluation scale is stuck in one place. He can’t think. He can’t evaluate problems. He can’t make decisions.

Similarly, the shut-off of computation will occur in an engram someplace, and if he is stuck in terror or in something that turns off perceptics, don’t expect this person to be able to think very well. The engram doesn’t have to say “You’re dumb.” Just by being restimulated with the person held on the track in it, it will turn off his perceptics and his affinity, and he isn’t going to think well. Did you ever see anybody quite as rattle-brained as a person who was experiencing terror?

A person who has an engram that says “I’m wrong, I’m always wrong, I’m never anything else but wrong!” starts to think out a problem very logically, but there will sometimes be enough false data entered into such a problem by the computer itself to make him wrong — because he has to be wrong. That is an interruption of thought.

These things should not be confused with the overall basic mechanics of the mind. You can take an engram with not a word in it, pack it full of enough pain and emotion, and you can have a person’s computational ability, his sense of reality, his affinity and his communication shut off. It has got so much impact that when it gets restimulated he is automatically at that place on the track. That is what is meant by a mechanical shut-off.

So fixed values can enter into this computer circuit and prevent the person from evaluating his information properly, and at that moment he stops thinking well or easily. Engrams assign fixed values to practically everything.

The rest of them are statement shut-offs, computational, like command somatics: Mama says, “I have such a pain in the back of my head, I have such a headache.” So if he is in Mama’s valence in that incident, he gets a pain in the back of his head.

For instance, someone says, “I’d like to get married. She’s a beautiful girl.”

The real meat of engrams is on the mechanical level. Language happens to be just one perceptic in the engram. So don’t overlook the mechanical aspects of an engram, because they are very important. And there is an interlocking on this triangle of these three factors. This is the way you handle mechanical computation.

And the engram says, “You hate women. You know you hate women. You don’t want anything to do with women!” So he doesn’t get married.

Now, let’s take a look at the time track. There are twenty-six perceptics on one time track, including sight, sound, hot and cold, pain and emotion — all the senses, straight across the line — and each one has its own track. In other words, as a person comes up and down the time track he has all these things available.

Now, supposing he has data in there that says “I can’t believe it”; every datum has to be distrusted completely, so he could never have a sharp assignment of value to any datum which he has. He can’t believe it. He wouldn’t be over on the survive side.

This time track gets out of phase. Various parts of it get occluded. So you get someone running through an engram getting pain and a faint impression of sound. Actually, he should be running through the incident on all perceptics, but he is only hitting those. How thoroughly do you think that engram is erased? It has got twenty-four senses left in it!

A person who has “I have to believe everything” of course has the same trouble. It is just as much a fixed value. Everything he adds into the equation, even somebody telling him black cats are always green, has to be believed!

Somebody who tells me “You know, it’s a funny thing about engrams, but after you erase them, they reappear” must have been running the preclear out of valence. Furthermore, he couldn’t possibly have been running the right incident to resolve the case, and probably shouldn’t have been running any pain engrams at all. He should have been running some emotional engrams, trying to tune up this case, shooting out some circuitry, and knocking out some valence commands. In other words, he should have been doing anything but running a basic area engram on somebody, out of valence, and running two perceptics out of twenty-six. That should give you some sort of an idea of the mechanical importance of senses.

People who have a hard time with their sense of humor may or may not have an engram that says “You have no sense of humor,” but that’s not what causes it. The thing says, “You have to believe it,” and humor is actually a rejection of material. The material comes in; it is thought to not compare with the real world and one rejects it — boom! Out it goes again. But if the person has to believe it, you can tell him a joke — you say, “Well, Pat and Mike are walking down the street, and they stop in front of a jewelry store window. Pat says, ‘Boy! I’d like to have my pick!’ and Mike says, ‘By God, I’d rather have my shovel! “‘ — and the fellow just looks at you fixedly: “Pick and shovel... Were they workmen?” He’s like the Englishman that lay awake all night trying to figure the joke and it finally dawned on him!

Computationally, you run all these things out of the engram. That is to say, each one of these things can be shut off by a statement; but they can also be shut off mechanically, and that is the basic shut-off. The language is incidental to it.

That is the person who can’t reject it; he has to believe it. Now, if you give this person a release in processing, you are liable to trigger this, and you will observe the strange process of him laughing at all the jokes in his life that could never be evaluated or laughed at before. They will actually come up on a whole chain — literally hundreds of thousands of jokes and funny quips and sayings he has read in newspapers and so forth.

You cannot pull the text out of an engram independently of all the rest of this material. It is useless! If a person is doing that, you have some problems in circuitry and emotion that you should solve before you get down to running engrams.

Now, because he learns that it is socially bad not to have a sense of humor (this is something for which he may be indicted before the court of his group), he will watch the people around him fixedly, and when they start to laugh he will laugh. You can catch someone that way by telling him a story. You say, “A fellow walked into the restaurant with a big dog, and he sat down at the table and the dog sat down at the table alongside him. The waiter came up and the fellow said, ‘Now I want some apple pie and a bowl of milk for my dog.’

Don’t label a pianola case as anybody who will run text. A pianola case, a case which is running easily, is a case which is running in valence and running out twenty-six perceptics for every engram. They don’t have to be sorted out one by one. This person is in valence and he is running out all the perceptics as they occur in the engram. In other words, he is getting the pain in the proper places, the feeling of moisture, the feeling of hot and cold, and all the other perceptics as he goes through this engram. That’s a pianola case!

“The waiter said, ‘All right, sir,’ and went away.” (This person will be watching very earnestly.) “Then the waiter came back and he said, ‘Well, sir, we have a bowl of milk for your dog, but we have no apple pie. Would peach pie do?”’ and you look very bright at this point. The person will look at you distrustfully for a moment and then burst out laughing!

You send him to the engram necessary to resolve the case, he goes right there and runs it off with all the perceptics, and the thing reduces or erases. You send him someplace else and that reduces or erases. That is a pianola case. A pianola case is not just somebody who runs text.

If you want to find a “You’ve got to believe it” engram in anybody, spring that joke on them. If they laugh, they’ve got one, because the person has had to learn to laugh at jokes socially although he doesn’t actually think that any jokes are funny.

The way you make a pianola case is by first addressing the case computationally, to get into some of it to find out what it is and what the overall computation of this case is. Then you try to knock it out mechanically. Get some of the emotion off the case. Try to get this person up to some apathy, maybe, and knock out some of these emotional charges that are on the line; try to find out why you can’t get there. You will generally find out that it is circuitry and valence problems. Then you will have to shoot some circuits out of the case.

Somebody can say to such a person, “The best thing for you to do is to divorce your wife.”

At long last, after you have fixed the case up so it is in beautiful shape, you then run yourself some full-parade engrams — from the bottom to the top — and you will have made a pianola case.

He will think this over for a while. “All right, so being married is wrong. Shall I divorce my wife? Well, I have to! Being married is wrong.” That is an exaggerated level of activity, but you will find that there are people like that who are impressionable and suggestible.

People are sometimes over anxious to get into a case and run engrams: “We’ve got to run some engrams! Well, let’s put him into a painful emotion incident. He doesn’t get any painful emotion off. Well, let’s go down in the basic area and run some engrams. He’s getting text in the basic area? Well, that’s fine; we’ll run out the text.” But you could run that text in the basic area, probably, for two thousand hours and find all sorts of engrams. As a matter of fact, the person’s tone would come up a little bit and he would get a little bit better because you would have taken some of the charge off some of these valences, but he will never reach clear that way!

That is exactly what hypnotism is. Somebody else is taking a point on the person’s computation scale and moving it around. The person himself doesn’t think; he has somebody else moving the arrow around for him. When it approaches the complete fact of this being done by somebody else, the person is either in amnesia trance or under hypnosis, or he is insane.

All you have to do is fix up the case so it is pianola, using these three factors. You want to pick up his ability to communicate with his own past, with the present and with the future. You want to pick up his feeling of affinity for his fellow man and for himself, and you want to raise his sense of reality about his own past, about his present and about other people. Raise these things up, because he is not going to be able to run anything worth a nickel until you get his tone scale up the line.

To arrive at correct evaluations one has to have the right to make decisions. An engram is fixed data; it does not allow evaluation. For instance, a forgetters such as “It is not to be thought of” sends intelligence down, and a man gets more and more wrong in his decisions. And how wrong can a man get? Dead wrong.

You are lifting your preclear by his own bootstraps and it is tough, because as you try to bring him up the line, what is depressing him is some of these engrams. And there is where the smartest side of auditing is: shooting circuits, knocking out the emotional blocks, getting him moving adequately on the track and getting him into his own valence. Unfortunately, this is the first thing you tackle and it is the toughest end of the case, when the case is the most aberrated.

Now, if we take the right-and-wrong board and we put it together with the tone scale — the stack of triangles — we find out that they are the same thing in operation. This board could have an immediate value for one datum, or it could have a value for the whole person. A person could be, let us say, consistently and continually wrong. This would mean he would be rather depressed. And if he was continually wrong and nobody would let him be right, he would be in a state of apathy — tone 0 to 1.

The case is never going to be as bad as it is the first moment you address it.

Zero is finite death for the individual, for the group, for the future, for mankind. This scale could operate for anything or anybody or any collection of beings. Infinity would go on down further, but this would be talking about universal survival. We are not interested in universal survival because it is rather impractical. We know when a group is dead, it is dead. We know when a man is dead we bury him, and the rest of the universe can go happily on. It has no further bearing on him, if you consider death in that light. So we don’t need to worry about the infinity value on the wrong side of the scale.

Maybe eighty hours from then, you are still shooting circuitry. Maybe two hundred hours from then, you are still trying to adjust this case into being a pianola case. But if at any time down along the line you get the sudden idea that “Oh, well, we’ll just run some engrams in the basic area. I’m tired of worrying about the rest of this thing. I’ve tried running out some of these emotional locks and where he is held on the track, and tried to resolve these computations. Let’s just run some engrams, because he’s out of valence anyway and it doesn’t matter,” you can then go on, I imagine, for a couple of thousand hours and you won’t get anyplace.

All of this has to do with emotion, and it also has to do with computation and perception.

So this is the place where you spend the time, getting the case into shape to run, raising the person’s ability to communicate with himself — his sonic — and picking up his general affinity. You have to knock out the preponderance of apathy in this case in order for him to come up into grief. You have to knock out the preponderance of grief in this case for him to come up along the line, and you have to knock out some of the fear and terror in this case just to get him up the reactive scale far enough so that he can get sonic on, and that is what we are trying to do.

If a man is almost all the way wrong, he becomes rather fixed as to what he thinks he should do. In other words, he is so close to dead he actually begins to approximate death — and that has a certain survival value all by itself. The opossum has borrowed part of this tone scale — the pretense of death. Everybody says he is dead, so he is dead.

It is actually better to go into a case at the beginning and just find little incidents where the person was maybe frightened a bit. They are probably locks on a real fear charge someplace in the case, but they are locks, and as locks they are holding attention units. When you knock them out, one by one, you are going to free attention units and raise this person’s tone a little bit. And when you do that, he is going to get better sonic or maybe some impressions.

A man will go into the same state. On the field of battle, a soldier will very often fall down without being hit at all. He is in a complete fear paralysis, he can’t move. They call these people catatonics, and there are various classifications of insanity that come into this bracket. That would be a permanent state on the scale, for the whole being.

The only thing wrong with the whole reactive mind is the fact that it has absorbed attention units. But you, as an auditor, can get some of them back and you can turn on some of these emotions. You have to put the case together with your bare hands sometimes. People can be in very bad shape.

We find out that a person who is in a fear paralysis would not be able to perceive very much around him, and he certainly wouldn’t be able to communicate with you. That is the trouble that we find with the catatonic in the institution — we can’t talk to him and he can’t talk to us. He is out of communication. So his communication is down very close to zero.

A person can be very thoroughly stuck on the track and you may not be able to find where he is stuck or be able to budge him. Yet you can still get enough attention units to run something on an emotional line, to get some charge off his circuits or perhaps get him more into valence. In other words, you can do things for this case even if the case is stuck on the track.

As far as reality is concerned on this scale, we know that we have agreed upon certain realities in the field of the mind. So actually this reality all the way down the line is agreement. We have agreed upon a reality as far as the world of thought is concerned. We have agreed that this is real, and so it goes on being real. We can see that nobody in a state of fear paralysis has any great sense of reality. He is not dead, but he is dead, and he is certainly not going to agree with you or anybody else. If you could just get him to agree with you, or get him to sense the reality of that fire which you have just built under him, he would move.

But don’t start in on a repeater techniques basis, have the person repeat a lot of phrases, and then say, “Well, the case isn’t doing very well.” That is not auditing!

But along the line of affinity, if you cannot talk to this man and he doesn’t know you are there, evidently, and there is no concourse or anything else, he cannot feel any affinity for you. And if he can feel no affinity for you, you are not going to pull him up either.

The auditor who is clever takes a good look at this case and tries to find out what he has to do to make it run, and the mechanics of the case are lying there right before his eyes.

Sometimes affinity can be sort of regenerated, and you can feel affinity for him and he feels affinity for you somehow or other. But it’s pulling him up by the bootstraps, because he is down there at a point where you can’t communicate with him, you can’t establish affinity with him, and he can’t agree with you — he has no sense of reality. As far as the soldier who fell down on the battlefield and is now being rushed off to a hospital is concerned, he is right there at the instant he fell down on the battlefield. That is his sense of reality. He has no concept of the actual reality of his situation. He will be lying in an institution day in and day out with no change occurring. He is still on the battlefield.

The one thing that you will learn above all others in the professional certification school is that the tools with which you are working are not hit-or-miss, now-and-then tools. You will become a better auditor if you just recognize one thing: You are working with precision tools which work. Use them with conviction and assurance, and your cases are going to resolve very readily. If you learn that well, you have learned the major thing that you can be taught, and you can get the rest out of books.

Let’s take a look at the affinity lines on this. We have come down to apathy, which is the lowest state on the scale, and when you get somebody in an apathy engram, you have really got something to contend with.

It means that when you tell the somatic strips to go anyplace, you know that it went. You know the file clerk will cooperate with you if you can reach him at all. You know that the engrams exist. You know how early you have to go. You know his emotions are tied up on the track someplace. You know his computational ability is tied up somewhere. You know what you are working with. You know about these circuits and you go after them with assurance.

Someone who is working all right in other states may suddenly be triggered into one of these apathy engrams, and he will say, “What’s the use? How could I possibly?”

For instance, you look over the case and find out this fellow is in a very apathetic state most of the time. So you see if you can actually run an apathy engram out of him. Painful emotion isn’t expressed simply by the word grief: A grief engram doesn’t cover the field of painful emotion, because there are terror engrams, apathy engrams, and other such painful emotion engrams. So you try to knock out some of this painful emotion and get his emotions freed on the track.

You say, “Well, go back over it again.”

But this person can’t even move on the track. All right, use some Straightwire and knock out some locks. Have him remember the time when he was five years of age and somebody pushed a fist down his throat.

“What’s the use?” All is lost as far as he is concerned, and he refuses to go through it.

He says, “I can’t ever remember things like that. I can’t remember early; nobody can remember early.”

Of course, a person can feel slight despair about things sometimes, but that is not a real apathy state. That is a top order of that state. When a person gets into a real apathy state, you have got something on your hands. In grief a person will sit and cry. But in apathy he won’t do anything. He has approached this level of fear paralysis and death.

And you say, “Well, let’s see if you can remember your father and mother.”

Right above apathy, we get grief. Grief is actually the upper part of the apathy band, but it is called the grief band. The 0 to 1 scale has been named the apathy band. Actually, about 0 to 0.5 is apathy; and 0.5 to 1.0 on the tone scale, the upper half of that band, is actually the grief zone. There is where grief is located.

“I can’t remember anybody. I don’t remember names; I don’t remember people.”

Right above grief we have fear. Fear is getting into the 1 to 2 band. Grief is that emotion which is felt when loss has taken place, and fear is that emotion which has to do with an imminence of loss, perhaps of one’s own life, or of a friend by death or departure. A cut-down of one’s survival potential by a loss: the threat of that is fear, the fact of it is grief, and the accomplishment of the fact is apathy. If it has taken place with great magnitude, the person will go right on down to the bottom of the scale, and if he has nothing in his vicinity to pick him up, he will land in an apathy state and stay there.

Where do you start in with a case like that? Well, as an auditor, you know your tools. You know the mechanics of what this person’s mind looks like mechanically and computationally. You know that you are dealing with the tone scale on a reactive mind basis. You know that this person has emotion and is able to attain a certain level at his optimum. You know something is suppressing that and you know the various tools you can use to get to it.

This is how a person is moved up and down the tone scale.

What do you do with someone who is like that? You say, “Well, take a look at me. Now, who am I?”

Now, there are two factors involved here. There is the kind of emotion — such as grief, apathy, fear — and there is the magnitude. For instance, there is terror, which is just magnitude of fear. Or you could take grief and call it sorrow; grief has to do with a greater magnitude of sorrow. It is the same thing, but there is simply more of it.

“Why,” he says, “you’re Mr. Smith.”

Above fear we start to get into covert resentment. Then we get into anger, which is the solid center between 1 and 2 on the tone scale. There a person is still fighting. Something comes in and threatens him with a loss, and this person says “Hrmmph!” and tackles it back again.

You say, “There, you’ve remembered one person. What do you mean, you can’t remember people? Who do you work for?”

It is a strange thing, though, that when that anger is beaten back and defeated the person sinks into fear and grief, and if it is broken too thoroughly he will sink into an apathy. That is what is known as the breaking of an abreaction or, in Dianetics, the breaking of a dramatization. If you break an anger dramatization, for instance, too thoroughly the person is shoved back down the scale, because anger is a breakthrough point.

“I work for a fellow by the name of Jones.” “Ha, there is another one you can remember.”

You will never be able to release anybody if you fail to reach a point of his complete tone where he is angry. One has to go up this scale if he is at all below it on any subject.

Start opening up the channels to the past, in other words, in any way that you possibly can, and start freeing attention units. Start putting him into communication with his own past and the reality of it will pick up.

There may be a point somewhere in this case where he is saying apathetically, “Well, Mother was after all just Mother. Yeah, I love her very much,” and you have just runs through this series of knock-arounds and beatings, and so forth. Sure, he shouldn’t stay angry at his mother for the rest of his life, but if he has never been angry at his mother, you are lying below the anger belt and this case is not going to recover until he comes up to and through the anger belt on the tone scale; because every case will come up the line, one right after the other, on these emotions.

So there is a variety of ways to use this same triangle; you keep going around on it. He communicates with his own past which then has greater reality, immediately. If you do that with straight memory, you have also freed some attention units and he has got more force of mind to tackle the problem.

So he has run across this one where his mother denied him things and did this and that to him, and he is still telling you “Oh, I love her dearly. Yes, I love her dearly, I love her dearly.” He is down in propitiation, which comes below the anger belt. Propitiation starts right down in the neighborhood of apathy. If you get someone who is propitiative, that is very bad. In lots of cases, you can tell where they reach that on the tone scale because they will bring you presents as an auditor. That is propitiation. That is “I’m buying you off. Don’t kill me.”

You could go on with a person hour in and hour out, day in and day out, on straight memory and you would probably get him up to a point where he was pianola. I have seen it happen that a person’s tone was raised to such an extent and he had so many attention units finally freed by straight memory that if you suddenly asked him to go back down the track and pick up an engram, he would.

Anger is above that, but he can never get mad at his mother. Then one day he says, “Oh, if I could just get my hands on that woman, I’d kill her! I’m going to write her a letter, that’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to fix her!” and he mutters around about it. You restrain him from writing the letter, but don’t make it too positive that you are restraining him. You accomplish the restraint of the writing of the letter, because in a few days he is going to come up to boredom and he’ll say, “Ah, well, Ma — she had her troubles.” If you permit him to get that angry at the period when he arrives there on the tone scale, he is going to have a lot to patch up afterwards.

There is the difference, then, between a certified auditor and a book auditor. The book auditor doesn’t know, he hasn’t quite tried, he guesses these tools may work or they may not. So he sits there in a rather doubtful frame of mind, and after he has had lots of practice, he finally comes down to the basis of “Well, possibly there is something to this,” or “Gee whiz, there certainly is!” But he never gets into the complete knowledge of the fact that he is using a certain set of tools, or has the assurance he needs in order to use those tools adequately.

It is very embarrassing to most preclears when they sound off as they come up the tone scale and pass through this anger band. They start telling people off, and then they find out a few days later that they didn’t need to be that brutal about it, they didn’t feel that bitter about it, and now they have actually broken an affinity. Whereas, if they had just left Mama and Papa and Uncle Ezra alone during that period, when they got up above it they wouldn’t give a darn about what these people had done. If Papa were to show up now (Papa used to beat him with a club or something like that), the preclear would say, “How are you? Sit down and have a cup of coffee,” whereas if he had caught him earlier, he probably would have broken Papa’s nose!

A certified auditor takes a look at the case and says, “Well, let’s see what’s wrong with this case. This person is in a very apathetic state of mind. Let’s find out about his parents. They quarreled a great deal. Let’s see who was guilty for giving him the bulk of his engrams. Let’s see how good his memory is. Let’s see how good his perceptics are. Let’s turn this thing on, and if we can’t get anyplace, let’s knock the circuitry out.”

Nearly everybody has had their abreaction’s broken by their parents. This doesn’t mean, by far, that all parents are terribly nasty to their children. This is very far from the truth. But your worst cases have had some upset this way, and most parents in this society have broken the dramatizations of their children.

In other words, he goes right straight along the line with Standard Procedure and never questions himself or the preclear once. He knows this person works just like every other preclear on the basic level at which he is operating. So he works with assurance, he knows his tools and he can knock the case apart with Standard Procedure.

For instance, a child gets mad. Papa has got him sitting there at the table, and the kid is supposed to eat his spinach and he won’t. He says, “I’m not going to eat my spinach.”

Now, you will see from what we have covered that there is a triangle — affinity, communication and reality — which is interlocked. Whatever else you are doing in a case, you are always dealing with this triangle; and where your preclear errs on any point in that triangle, you can increase his potential on that point in which you are interested by improving him on the other two points.

And Papa says, “You’re going to eat your spinach, young man, or you’re going to march right straight to your room.”

Before we understood this triangle, if a person’s perceptics were shut off, one could only address his perceptics. In other words, if a person’s communication was bad, one tried to do something about it along that level, which took time. Now we can take a person whose communications are bad and we have got three points of entrance. We can address communication itself; we can increase this person’s sense of reality; or we can address affinity for other people by finding affinity breaks, rejections, and so forth, back in his past, or by finding emotional engrams or even light emotional locks. What we are trying to do is turn on his perceptics.

After all, this guy is not very tall and Papa is a lot bigger, and Papa wins.

Nothing increases a person’s sense of reality as much as being thrown into a high-tension emotional engram! It is not just the fact that it comes off; it is such a convincer, computationally. Before this, he knew that nobody could ever tear him to pieces this way. You get him into the incident, and he comes up off the couch, his shoes fly across the room and he says, “There must be something to Dianetics; therefore there must be something to my own past — there must be something to me!”

It was a bad thing for Papa to win, by the way. You will find it in processing. It will probably come up as a lock because it is not an actual engram, but it has done something to the affinity scale.

His sense of reality has toughened up, right there. That is one of the values of an occasional “exploder” in a case. You are building up his sense of reality, so of course his sense of communication comes up, and certainly his sense of affinity comes up.

The next point above anger is overt resentment. Just above that we start to get varying degrees of “Oh, well, what the dickens is the use? Oh, I don’t care about it much anyhow” — boredom with the subject. Above that, you get relief. There is a surge point.

We are working upon a triangle. Any time we get one point of it that we have to resolve before we can go on with this case, we can address three points to solve that one. That is valuable, and knowing what you know now, after a study of this triangle, you should be able to derive new ways to use it. This is not material to be learned by rote, but derivational material with which you can think. An auditor who can’t and won’t think about his preclear’s case is not much of an auditor. This is material with which you can compute cases. The more you use this and the more you look at people around you, the more use you will find for it.

The reason this is in a geometric progression is because actually that relief point is about halfway up. There are so many degrees of pleasant emotion above the relief point that we don’t recognize how high and how varied that relief point is. We just say, “Well, that’s happiness,” and let it go at that. But that is not the case. There are a great many degrees of being relieved, happy, cheerful, ecstatic and so forth. They go on up the line, and the happiness end of this band is bigger and longer than the depressed end of it below the relief point. So above boredom we have got relief and then happiness. Pleasure and all the emotions of pleasure fit above this point of relief.

Let’s take two groups in the world, Russia and the United States, and ask “Why are Russia and the United States so mad at each other?”

These emotions are actually a spectrum where you take little theta, walk in on it with MEST, and start reversing its polarity. The more its polarity is reversed, the more MEST there is and the less theta, until you get down to the bottom where the person is all MEST and no theta; he’s dead. You start up the line again and you get a little bit more little theta and a little less MEST, until you finally get clear up to the top of the spectrum where you get pure survival, pure life, pure little theta.

Well, one corner of the triangle is out — communication. We talk about their iron curtain, they talk about capitalistic imperialism — there is no communication, so of course there is going to be no affinity. And as far as the reality of their aims is concerned, we regard them very poorly, and we can’t compute about Russia. The whole sordid fact of the case is that nobody is thinking on the subject or computing about Russia. Because communication is off and affinity is off, how can one think about it? There is no reality to the problem, so one won’t address it as a problem. That is a use on a group level for affinity, communication and reality.

This is what the Hindus are talking about when they refer to real saintliness. A real saint gets up to a point on this tone scale, according to the Hindu, where he becomes so much “all thought,” so utterly and completely pure, that he sort of nebulizes on the spot and takes off for heaven in his own body. It is rather amusing that as we look at this thing hypothetically, that happens to be true!

Or you can say, “I wonder what’s wrong between my wife and myself the last couple of weeks? We haven’t been getting along too well.” Then you suddenly realize that when you come home at night you don’t bother to say much. Just do this: Simply walk in and say, “Good evening, dear. How are you? What did you do today? I had a pretty good time today. How is everything?” The affinity will go up, and you won’t have any trouble with your wife. Don’t bother to talk about the fights.

At the bottom of the scale he is all earth and clay — dead. Further up he is resenting being overcome and is angry about it. And up the line he starts to win. That break point occurs when he is about fifty percent little theta and fifty percent big theta. Up above that point, the amount of big theta starts to fall away and the amount of MEST would theoretically start to drop out of the picture.

Any time you put anybody into communication with you, you can’t help but raise an affinity level, and you become more real to them, their problems become more real to you, they also become more reasonable, and you go into a further and deeper agreement with each other. That is how you can get with your worst enemy, actually, and effect a compromise. You can reverse this thing in the world of living as well as in the world of engrams, and you can do a lot with it.

Actually, what happens is that he is more and more able to control the material universe. He is more rational, he can think more easily and ably, he doesn’t make mistakes, and he begins to control the material universe more and more and more. He also has no residual physical error, so that probably his longevity increases markedly.

Right here you have the hub of all interpersonal relations. If you want to know what Dianetics can do for you with regard to your personal relations with the rest of the people around you and the rest of society, there it is.

Though little progress has been made in the field of psychic phenomena in Dianetics, we have made enough progress to raise the hair of the whole society — just as we are doing on the subject of processing. But it is interesting to me that some of the past concepts of what life is seem to be very antique at this time.

This is derivational material. You can think with it. If you see a situation declining between you and somebody else, you can do something about it.

We haven’t had time to look up some of the confirmations thoroughly enough, but there is just a little bit more evidence in favor of immortality and the individuality of the human soul than there is against it. The more returns that come in from research, the more it tends over into this — not from any religious data whatsoever, or any religious conviction; it’s just solid scientific results. And it seems to be turning up more and more the point that an individual is a continuum of life and activity, regardless of his own body.

In other words, over on this reality side, reality is in essence, in the field of thought, agreement. If you just agree with somebody who is busy fighting with you, the tone scale starts up. Sometimes it will come up so fast that affinity will shoot up and you are in perfect communication with that person; there is no more fight. It is as easy as shooting sitting ducks when you know how.

We have got someone who is doing nothing but slug into this right now, and he is working hammer and tongs. All he is doing is assembling evidence.

Or if he is mad at you all the time, you can say, “But look, these are the reasons why I have to do this thing. Is this reasonable or isn’t it?”

The preponderance of the evidence is in favor of individual immortality. I never thought that would be the case. All my life, I had supposed that when a person was dead, he was dead. He looks awfully dead! Actually, that was all the scientific evidence the society had on that basis a few short months ago: “He looks awfully dead.”

The person looks it over and says, “Well, you’re right. That’s about the only thing you can do, isn’t it? Well, let’s go out and have a drink.”

So, we look and we find that this affinity line is the emotional scale of the individual and that is what you are addressing. Now we find out something very important, that when you are unable to get any grief off an individual, you can even go to a point and start running relief. You can start running moments when he was bored. You can then run a few moments when he was angry. Then you can find some periods when he was afraid, and pick up a lot of those incidents, and the first thing you know, you will be able to pick up an incident of grief.

Those are the basic tenets on which processing is erected.

You don’t go into these cases and say “Well, we want some grief. ‘The file clerks will now give us the grief incident necessary to resolve the case. When I count from one to five and snap my fingers, we’ll get the grief.’ Well, this guy doesn’t cry; let’s go to basic-basic.” That is not good processing!

Where you will actually enter this is probably in the field of fear. If you can get some incidents where the person was afraid, particularly an incident where he was terrified, you can move down into grief.

A person’s emotions can be locked up anywhere on this tone scale and frozen. You can get a stet emotion, in other words, and it can be set somewhere on the tone scale in some incident in his life where the bulk of his emotions are wrapped up, and it is not necessarily grief. It can be terror.

These are the interrelationships on this scale.

Then we have the tone scale on the reality level. That has to do with a person’s ability to compute, to agree, to get into agreement, to get into his standard bank — data on what reality is and so forth; and to find out how this data may agree within the world and with others. There is reality, and reality does one of these reversals right straight down the line until you get down to zero reality. In other words, he starts converting reality over into other things.

It starts to get very erroneous below the anger level. What would be anger level on the emotional side would be an error level on the reality scale, which would be the logical scale — the logical concatenation.

Over on the communication side of it is the person’s ability to perceive. Did you ever hear of anybody being blind with rage? Well, believe me, they are, because right about that point they stop perceiving. They also stop communicating. They just sort of put out ergs, and they go on down the line, communicating less and less, until they don’t communicate at all. And as they go up along the line from there they can communicate more and more and more.

Actually, that communication can be terrifically aberrated. A person can have an engram which tells him that he has to talk continually. If he has such an engram, he is not in communication. He is talking, sure, and he may appear to listen, but he isn’t. He is out of communication.

Communication is a two-way affair. It concerns also whether or not a person can receive communications, not just whether or not he puts out communications .

As a person goes down the scale, his ability to put out communication and to receive communication deteriorates. His sense of reality, for instance, goes down and at the same time his perceptions will go down, although they don’t go down evenly.

But if we find someone who, for instance, doesn’t have any sonic or vision and his sense of reality about all this is very poor, we will find out that his affinity level is bad as well. These three things are poor simultaneously. They all work one with the next.

On this affinity scale, we have the emotional scale. How does he feel toward his fellow man? You would be absolutely amazed to find out that most people are in fear as far as their fellow man is concerned — they are a bit afraid of him; whereas the only real proper protection that a person could have would be way up the scale. The higher you can get up this scale, the less danger men are to you.

These have been pointed up as philosophic, metaphysical and mystical principles through the ages, yet they are pretty simple when you take a flat look at them. Naturally if a person is afraid, he is going to do things to protect himself; in protecting himself he is liable to hurt somebody else, and if he hurts somebody else they are liable to hurt him.

What is the least optimum method of surviving? It would be going around protecting oneself all the time so that he wouldn’t be hurt; so he has to hurt other people so that they won’t hurt him — only they do because he does! There is an interaction.

This data on the triangle and the tone scale is data which you can use. You can see immediately where a person actually is on the tone scale, both as to an incident and as to the whole being. You can look over his computational ability, his emotional scale (his affinity level), or his ability to perceive and you will see where that person is on the tone scale.

Because we have an interaction like this, we have some sort of an idea, from the performance of this man, what his possible dynamic is. One of these days we will have a fine way to measure a dynamic.

If this person is all shut down on perception, know that his affinity level is low, too. Know also that his computational level is fairly low. But if this person is still being successful, realize you have got a man!

To the individual whose native tone scale is very high, you add the reactive minds scale to his endowed scale, divide them in half, and you will get your average tone scale between the two. You will get approximately where the person is seen to ride as an average. It is usually somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.2 to 2.3, and that is the whole tone of the aberrated individual. That is the way you could compute it. Now you have his whole tone.

A person would vary on this tone scale by endowment. It doesn’t mean that the blank, unaberrated, uneducated individual would simply have, automatically, an infinity value on this whole tone scale. He wouldn’t; his lifetime has been modified by his genetics and other things. But there would be the individual, and then you would have where his reactive mind lay on this tone scale, and between the two of them you get where he actually is in relationship to life.

When you pick away the reactive mind scale, what you have left will be the fellow cleared, and you will get his tone level lifting all the way across the boards.

This means that some people natively are able to communicate better than others. Some think better than others; some feel more affection and so forth than others. These positions have to do with endowment. There is a tremendous difference of personality from person to person.

When you start an individual in processing he has a certain ability to perceive the world around him, to measure present time, to think and remember and so forth that is determined by the whole tone of the individual plus his reactive mind. But when you are processing him you are inspecting just one thing, his reactive mind tone scale, because you are after engrams. And the engrams, as you start down the track, will become very, very apparent to you. You will find out that his sonic is probably off. That’s normal. This is why you should be very careful to balance every case in the last part of your two-hour session. You bring him up to a pleasure moment and run it very thoroughly, then bring him up to present time and put him on straight memory over the whole session. You want him balanced out as the average individual. You don’t want your reactive scale having more weight in his life than it ordinarily would have.

This last step is something added to Standard Procedure beyond what has been written before. You finish up every session by running one or more pleasure moments, and then complete the session by using straight memory on everything which has taken place during the session, leaving no occlusions whatsoever. Doing this, you will have a much more stable preclear

If you can’t run current pleasure moments, run future pleasure moments whether they are imaginary or not. Usually they are just imagination, but you will occasionally find somebody who says “This is really going to happen.” That is quite all right. Don’t invalidate his future.

That is Standard Procedure. Do it and you will find your preclears more stable.