[Start of Lecture]

[Start of Lecture]

Thank you. Okay, I'd like to talk to you about the handling of difficulties when they are difficulties and avoiding difficulties when they aren't and otherwise indulging yourself in looking over preclears.

Well, probably for the first time in my career I am saying very honestly that I have nothing to talk to you about tonight at all. Usually I use that as a sort of a gag and so on, but it's absolutely true.

Never tried to teach diagnosis to a unit before. I never have. That's diagnosis: it's after Dianetics; direct word source. It's not medical diagnosis we're talking about. It's „look-agnosis,“ and we were going to coin another word on it and call it „obnosis“: knowing the obvious.

I was going to say a few words about organization and the handling and functions of organizations, finishing off what I was talking about last week. But you possibly wouldn't be much interested in that, so I thought I'd go off onto something else – unless, of course, you wanted to hear something about that.

The great unlearned item in all of Dianetics and Scientology has been diagnosis. That is the one thing which auditors never seem to learn very well.

Audience voices: Yes.

Never had any reason for this, until one day we were looking at some gamma rays, and we suddenly decided the reason they were attractive to people, and people were attracted to them, and they did things that were bad, is because they were invisible. One couldn't see them, and not being able to see them, he then got nervous about them. Got that?

Well, I don't see any great note of enthusiasm there. Organizations are something that get on one's nerves with the greatest of ease, but nevertheless, my talk, I'll have you note, is devoted to getting it off and getting them off our nerves. So you see it is a different kind of a feature.

What you can't observe and which might or might not be present becomes an anxiety. One doesn't know whether he can confront something or not, because it's not there to be confronted. He cannot prove it, then, to himself If he could prove it to himself, he would no longer be nervous about it.

If organizations get on your nerves, then this talk is to get organizations off your nerves, don't you see? And not only get off of your nerves but get into your bank account. See? Got that? Got that?

You find young men enlisting in war, usually, merely to prove to themselves that they are not cowards. Although what's cowardly about not using a body for a bullet screen is something I wouldn't know. I mean, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with courage or bravery. It has a lot to do with wasting mock- ups, but young men go to war to confront the enemy to prove to themselves and their girlfriends that they are not cowards. Of course, since it's become rather fashionable to be a coward in this particular line, I don't know how they're going to fight the next war. But I imagine they'll manage.

A Scientologist should have a great deal to do with organizations in view of the fact that organizations do not know what organizations are or how to run organizations; they just happen. An organization says, "We're going to organize now," and they set up a command line, and then they use that for their communications line, and the next thing you know, why, boom! Either everybody is in confusion – so much in confusion that nobody dares kill the organization (that's usually how they survive), or the organization simply knocks itself off. Because it uses its communication line – as its communication line – its command line. From general down to private is used as their communication line.

Now, the hidden influence: If you don't have an enemy, you cannot prove you are brave. It's one of these fabulous stupidities, you know?

Now, this has evidently happened recently to a very large electronic recorder company in America, one of the best, because it is losing all of its good people. Now, when a big organization starts to lose all of its good people, then you can be very sure that there is something wrong with its communication system. It means that those people cannot make the organization and its communications systems function in order to permit them to continue a good, productive level.

All right, diagnosis could cover what the fellow is trying to prove. It could cover who he's trying to prove wrong. It could cover several items as you go down the list. One of the things that it could prove very easily is whether or not the individual is sane. See, I mean, the fellow is trying to prove that he's sane. Well, that's an interesting thing, because you can't prove you're sane unless you can prove that you can react against insane duress.

An organization is a servomechanism to the doingness of people. Now, I've told you what an organization is. An organization is a group of terminals and communication lines associated with a common purpose. That's what an organization is. All right. Talked to you about that for a whole hour, didn't I? Fact.

See, you can prove you're sane by reacting favorably against insane duress. You have insane pressure against you one way or the other, and you react sanely to it, that proves you're sane, doesn't it? So it demonstrates that you can confront insanity. That's all it demonstrates, very easily.

Now, here's something very peculiar: An organization never does anything. Never. It can't hurt. It can't bleed. It can't think. It can't act. It's a postulate of a purpose sitting there with communication terminals and communication lines, and that is the totality of the organization. We have to move something alive in on it before it seems to do anything. But the organization never actually does a thing – never. Never accomplishes a second's work.

But there's many a fellow down here in the insane asylum who is simply proving this madly. The first thing that an insane person tries to do is prove to you how sane he is, which I think is rather remarkable. We look it over — rather remarkable, because he obviously is sane. But something around there is insane.

All an organization can do is to assist and facilitate those people's doingness who wish to do. That's all an organization can do. It can help you with your doingness.

The auditor has already learned that it is the something around there which is nuts. It is the something around there. It is not the preclear. The preclear is always — no matter in what unconscious or comatose condition — reacting as favorably as he can to the circumstances in which he finds himself. And he has the circumstances which he is surrounded by clutched to him, so as to demonstrate his ability to confront it.

Therefore, what an organization is, very sharply, is a servomechanism to the doingness of people. Now, what do you mean by a servomechanism? It means a mechanism which serves, services or aids something. That is all that that is – servomechanism. If it is not a servomechanism, it becomes a sort of a monster, a peculiar sort of a monster too, because the monster never does anything, except interrupt the willingness and doingness and workingness of human beings. When an organization becomes a monster it has ceased to assist the doingness of the person and has begun to block the doingness of the person, and then that organization is a monster. It is apparently something which exists which kills people.

Therefore, any man rushing down the street, spinning in small circles and leaping into the air with high-pitched screams is, of course, the sanest man in town. He can confront insanity; he's demonstrating this. You see, we have to think of him as a thetan confronting this insane body, and we demonstrate at once that the fellow is the sanest fellow around. Because only he could confront insanity to this degree.

A bad organization could actually, factually slaughter everybody in its ranks. But what do we see here? We merely see then that ignorance of organization is what slaughters people in their ranks. Since the organization itself can never do anything, then attempted doingnesses go so awry on the organizational lines that they succeed in knocking off all the parts of the organization. You follow me that? It's something that man has never learned, and it's one of the reasons I have been talking to you about organization. Man has never learned this. He has never learned that an organization cannot do. He has never learned that it cannot bleed. It does not suffer. It cannot be punished. There is nothing there to receive or become cognizant of punishment.

Now, the psychiatrist with his obsessed sanity — he is usually a case of dramatized sanity (a good phrase for you to remember, by the way: dramatized sanity) — is actually unable to confront insanity. He's not capable of confronting it. Therefore, he has a lot of dramatizations which he calls „sane,“ which are about as silly as you could possibly look at.

And when you look at what an organization is, you find it's a series of communication lines and terminals associated with a common purpose. What about these terminals? No, a terminal is never a body, and that is a fantastic error that is made by 99 percent of the people in organizations. They think of themselves as terminals. They exist as terminals only when they do not have proper communication facilities. I already talked to you about that. I said it snapped in on the body: They use the body as a terminal.

Now, if everybody is proving that he is confronting, is proving that he can at least confront a substitute to something or for something, then the whole problem of diagnosis becomes rather involved. Because we see an insane preclear as a sane person. We see a „sane“ (unquote) psychiatrist as being a very insane man. Don't you see? You get this? We see these manifestations taking place where the individual is clutching to him things and is proving that he can confront them, and this makes him something. This is a game: proving what you can confront. This is a game.

Well, let's look over this whole principle of organization, and let's take one person who is attempting to do something. Now, all he's attempting to do perhaps is to deliver some cartons of nuts and bolts from A to B and get a receipt for them. That's all he has to do. Now, he is a terminal known as shipping department. He has to stay pegged there if there is no real terminal. There's nothing to receive communications in his absence; he is then tied in to this. If there's any way people can write something on a slip of paper and drop it in a basket there, then we do have a terminal. It's a basket or the folder in the basket is the terminal. He can be reached. Therefore, he himself is not glued to this terminal at once. And he has received an order to ship two cartons of nuts and bolts over here to the assembly department. Now, he has to procure these from the people who are storing all of the spare parts and things like that. It's a very simple action. Nothing to this at all.

It's not the only game there is, and you understand that confrontingness is not the highest order of human aberration and so forth. But it is certainly a common denominator to people in this universe, involved with this space and energy, these masses and distances. And confrontingness goes a long way toward explaining these things. It's a common denominator of everything until you get into — right up the line — until you get into creativeness. And when you get rather full scale into creativeness, you of course jump this whole thing of confrontingness.

He calls, phones, writes – in other words, indicates a despatch – to the storehouse and says, "Cartons of nuts and bolts, if you please." He then operates as a communication particle: He picks them up. He walks over to the assembly room. He lays them down. He says, "Give me a receipt." He walks back to where he normally operates to see if there's anything else in his basket. Isn't that a simple arrangement? There's nothing to that.

You can use creativeness to solve confrontingness, but you can't use confrontingness to solve creativeness. Wrong way to, you see? I mean, you got that? You could use creativeness to solve confrontingness, but you can't really solve — this is by actual test — you can't use confrontingness to solve creativeness very much. They are different classes of action.

Let's see how an organization could foul him up.

Confrontingness concerns itself in the main with „that which is.“ It conceives that things are and that they were not created, that they exist, and that their sole purpose is Axiom 10 — cause- distance-effect.

No communications lines exist whatsoever coming in to Mr. Jones, who is to deliver these nuts and bolts – no communication lines. All of a sudden there's a pink slip appears in front of his face that says "You're fired! Why are you fired? Well, you're fired because you didn't deliver the nuts and bolts." What nuts and bolts? Most elementary situation in the world. He never heard about it. Why did he never hear about it? Because there was no organization there, or the organization that was there was not really a good organization at all. The messages, the calls, the orders, anything to procure the nuts and bolts, went someplace else. They went up to the blueprints factory or something.

Now, you enter into Axiom 10 with confrontingness, so you actually have the totality of Axioms from 10 up to 1 standing senior to confrontingness. I just don't want you to go too far overboard on this thing called confrontingness. Confrontingness works. It works like mad! There is nothing more workable in the work-a-day world in which you find your preclear. But it's the suborder of things. It works on him; he can get reality on the processes connected with it and, as a result, becomes highly functional to the auditor — very, very functional.

See, here's how that'd work. The office boy drops by and he says, "Oh, I'm walking over toward the procurement desk and I'll take this along" – he sees it on somebody's desk. And he walks up to the blueprint place. And he isn't looking, and he just lays down a whole bunch of stuff, and also amongst it is some other stuff that really belonged down in the engineering section. He puts that on the desk up there, too. Some messages went awry.

The principle, then, explains on this low order, human phenomena. It explains actions and reactions, and it explains diagnosis.

Well, most organizations specialize only in methods of making messages go astray. That is the only thing they really want to do is to introduce more vias on the line. They try to introduce more vias. If they find a command Jam anywhere along the line, they follow an exact principle.

You see, you're diagnosing somebody who is working in a work-a- day world. He is working in a live-a-day world. It's a world in which the space already exists, the walls are there, the particles are there, planets, suns, moons, politicians; all kinds of things are there. And you get these items as the items of the game, the units of which the game is composed.

Now, you think this is just a quip or a joke, but it's not. It's actually a rule that is followed by bad organizations – by the people who run them. It's a rule followed by them just as meticulously and as carefully as Newton followed his three laws, right or wrong. And that is, whenever you have a communication difficulty you add people. If something isn't happening, you add people. If you can't get the job done, you add people. That's all they know. It's a sort of bluh-bluh. Just add some more people.

Now, only to that we need to add the living beingness of a thetan and many thetans to have the game in its actuality the way it looks in this live-a-day world. That's the way it looks. It looks like, „Here's this universe, and to this universe we have added all these living beings. And they are in contest in one way or other against each other, against various types of beingness and against the universe itself”. That is the way it appears. And his reality on this is so strong that he processes in that sphere of action. The truth lies from Axiom 10 on up, all of which is above confrontingness. Do you understand that?

"What! You mean you can't get these nuts and bolts from this desk over to that desk. Hire three more shipping clerks."

You see, you mustn't go too far astray on this, because, a preclear will get just so well, he will just get so able, and then he will hit a null point. And for a long time I was looking for this null point after which these processes did not work upon him. Well, at that moment, the Axiom 10 processes and all of the Creative Processes become intensely workable. Once you have run all of these Confrontingness Processes flat, you then have the entirety of processes from Axiom 10 on up to Axiom 1, which is, naturally, a considerable lot of stuff. But it's all creativeness. It's all under the heading of creativeness — one phase or another of it. Do you see that?

Now, wait a minute. One couldn't receive despatches; do you think three more can?

So that 8-C, Part A works a certain distance on a case. Op Pro by Dup works a little bit of a greater distance on a case. Communication all by itself common-denominator's this. You can't communicate unless you can confront. And it works a considerable distance on this case.

Oh, no, but they can certainly pass despatches amongst themselves to add to the confusion to such a degree that nobody has any responsibility for ever shipping anything. And the remedy of the organization people in charge of that organization would be, in antediluvian times, to add more people to that desk again. See, one man couldn't do the job, so they added three. The four men now can't do the job, so now we're going to add ten. See, I mean, this is the rule they follow.

But then the case will hit a null of some kind or another; it doesn't seem to be gaining or advancing very rapidly, and then we must look at processes which we already have and had long before we had these other more basic processes.

Now, you want to watch this very carefully as you look around. You will see a bad organization grow in personnel all out of proportion to how they grow in business. Do you see that? Their business doesn't increase, but they keep adding personnel. What's wrong with this organization?

This whole subject has been evolved backwards. You notice that. We had first, a fairly complex series of processes in Dianetics. Then we had, with a leap, the most elementary processes. People just didn't understand them in droves. They were just too darned elementary. And those were the processes from Axiom 1 to Axiom 10. And those processes, most of them, have been around for a long time.

Well, two things could be wrong with it: One is your business, and the other is your business on telling people what organizations are. The people comprising this organization have no doingness about them of any kind whatsoever. It doesn't remedy their no-doingness by adding more people.

Then we had to develop processes which were again on the engram, live-a-day-world level. And these all head up under the heading of Confrontingness.

The other thing could be wrong is the organization itself doesn't have terminals and communication lines. It cannot communicate inside itself.

Now, as confrontingness goes downscale we get substitution, about which I have talked to you. That fits, really, below confrontingness — substitution: substituting this for that. Then below this, we have pure identification processes; processes which are entirely identification processes. They are so far below significance that there is no significance as to why they should be done at all. And you will find yourself occasionally at a loss to understand why they are producing the results they produce.

I'll give you an example of how bad communication, and so on, works: Here's Jones. He gets fired for not delivering something. It's very seldom explained to the organization at large what happened to the shipping clerk. They think something bad happened. Management never bothers to inform anybody. It says, "That's nobody's business. You know, we're protecting the guy." So people begin to believe that he robbed a bank or he has a criminal record or something real bad, or reversely, that management is merely being arbitrary, you see? It's very upsetting.

After an individual has failed to confront consistently and continually, he has things. Look this over, see? He's failed to confront things completely; now he has things. Got that?

Actually, management thought it had a reason to fire Jones, and it never aired this reason. Therefore, the organization never is able to come forward as individuals and say, "What are you talking about – the two cartons of nuts and bolts that weren't delivered? I've been sitting here for three days with that communication on my desk, wondering where it was supposed to go. What do you mean firing Jones for this!" In other words, somebody could talk; somebody could communicate.

Well, to fail to confront completely would be to even run out of „substitutes for.“ You know, „I can confront that wall, but I can't confront that wall on fire. Therefore, that wall could be a substitute for a wall which is on fire. Therefore, I confront that wall and the wall which is on fire becomes less terrifying to me.“ Do you understand that?

Well, there are two things punished in this universe: One is being there, and the other is communicating. Those are the only two punishments there are, let me assure you. Just two, one is being there, and the other is communicating.

Well now, first there's pure confrontingness. As we go down — let's go from Axiom 10 down. We're not making an effect yet, we're merely confronting, don't you see? Effect has no bearing on this whatsoever. We're not ranging in that purpose level. Here we have effect as Axiom 10. Now, let's just drop just below that level of processing — not necessarily to Axiom 11, but just below this in importance and height — and we have direct confrontingness.

Now, they actually are joined together. Being-thereness is advertised by communicatingness. Got it? But these are the two things that are punished. So people hear people communicating, and they say "Shoot them!" Somebody notices somebody is present, they say, "Make him run!" Got the idea?

„I may not be able to knock an elephant's head off, but I can face one.“ Got it?

So in spite of the beauties of the periodic chart, this universe could be said to be against organization, since organization consists entirely of being-thereness and communicatingness.

Now we go down just one step below that, and we get into much more interesting data, which is substitutes for elephants. See? „I may not be able to face an elephant vis-÷-vis, but I can face the stuffed head of an elephant. There it is on my wall. Shot him in Kenya, I did. Uh-hah, rather! There he is. I faced him. Here's the substitute. I can continue to face him,“ don't you see? Now, that's just about the shadow. The fellow has faced something, and he is demonstrating to people that he can continue to face it. Do you see that?

Well, how could an organization have an entire universe against it? Oh, very easily, very easily. You merely have to fill it up - - all those posts in the organization – full of people that have already totally succumbed to the ardures and duress of the universe. That's all you had to do: just get a bunch of people who've already caved in and have closed terminals completely with the physical universe, and let them behave in a chaotic fashion. Then they would take any organizational plan or pattern and scatter it, confuse it and nonexistence it at such a remarkable rate that you would no longer have an organization if you had a perfect one to begin with. Do you see that?

All right, now let's drop down below that, and let's find out that the fellow failed completely to face the elephant in Kenya. He stood there with his double-barreled derringer, and he just completely missed the whole show. The elephant came charging at him, and when the elephant got to about a quarter of a mile away, why, he threw the derringer down and grabbed the nearest tree, and nobody could get him out of it. As a matter of fact, three days later they had to have the fire department from Nairobi up there to get him out of that tree, see?

So we get to that thing which most intimately concerns the Scientologist. An organization is the easiest thing in the world to lay out. It is the easiest thing in the world to understand, as long as you understand that it is simply a collection of terminals and communication lines associated with a common purpose. Very easy to understand. Nothing to it. You can lay out an organization, scat, just in a moment. Until we run into this other fact: an organization, then, would never exist in any other way than as a collection of individuals. Given a perfect organization and given a collection of individuals – see, a perfect organization and then just a collection of individuals – the doingness of those individuals would confuse or upset the organization to the degree that these people could not straightly do. If they could not do, then the organization itself would be upset. Do you understand?

Now, this fellow is unable to face a live elephant. It is doubtful if he will. It's doubtful if he will go and buy an elephant head. See, it is doubtful if he'll go and buy it. He failed on this one completely. It's doubtful if he'll go and buy an elephant head. That is not a good substitute. He doesn't have an elephant head on his wall, but you'll probably see the most beautiful collection of butterflies.

So every organization under the sun is composed of people – individuals. There isn't a duo or a trio in the whole works. We hear of cliques in organization. We hear of four or five people who kind of run things over there in the machine shop. We hear of the four or five people who sort of run things in the west wing of the jail. We hear of these cliques, and we get the idea that these groups are not individuals but are operating on a group basis. Well, we know already that a group can sort of gather to itself a spirit. We know this. Groups are very hard to knock out. But in the final analysis, you yourself, in your approach to organizations, governments, groups of people in any way, must remember that these numbers of people are composed of individuals, and the general tone of the group is remediable by a change of tone of the individuals in the group.

Now, why is he collecting butterflies? He doesn't like butterflies. He is colorblind and so forth, but these butterflies are all from northern Canada. That's far enough away from Africa.

There is no such thing as the United States government. There is no such thing as the British government. It isn't, if by government you mean something alive, something that acts, something that has volition, something that can receive, something that can send. It isn't. It's a bunch of individuals, and it wouldn't matter how many constitutions, how many Magna Chartas, how many customs you had laid out. It wouldn't matter how many rules and regulations you had on the communication lines if the individual occupying those terminals and using those terminals and lines was himself incapable of keeping lines and terminals straight and separate and was himself incapable of doingness. We get immediately to this fact about organizations. Organizations exist – if they have any general purpose at all – they exist or could exist only to assist the government of themselves or the doingness of people.

Now, it'd amaze you to discover that a case of butterflies hanging on his wall was a substitute for an elephant he didn't shoot in Kenya. Which lifetime, who knows? Got the idea?

You could have an organization which existed solely to exist. You could have that. It could exist only to run itself You know, everybody taking in everybody else's laundry sort of thing, you know? The total purpose of it was to have an organization. This is possible. Many kids have gangs just to have gangs, not to do anything. It's quite interesting. They have an organization there.

All right, now, there is a case of substitution. He is substituting for something. He will at least substitute, don't you see? He's really not in terrible bad condition. He's not in awfully bad condition; he'll still substitute. He had a failure and so forth.

But where the organization itself has a purpose which is exterior to itself, then its only reason for existence, the only excuse it would have to exist, would be to assist the doingness of the individuals within it. And if an organization cannot assist the doingness of individuals within it, then it had better not exist at all, because it will impede the doingness of the individuals within it.

Some guy has been driving in races, and he's banged one into the brick wall and torn wheels off on other cars and done other interesting odds and ends, and so on, and he will still keep a cup around for a race that he won, although he doesn't race anymore; he knows it's dangerous. He will face the win. He will face the cup. He will face the token. But the funny part of it is, he wouldn't put a steering wheel from his first car on the wall. Just a little bit close, see? Little bit too much on. But the cup, that is an association, you see; that's a substitute.

When you have a very large number of people under one of these canopies like government (state, city, federal; I don't care what), you see a weird phenomenon take place, very weird: People look at this thing called a government or an organization or a group or a club – they look at this thing and they say, "The organization did this. The organization did that." In such a way, the organization is simply a shield for cowardly men whose doingness is very poor. Nobody there stands up and dares be there. They say, "The organization. The government did this. The government thought that." The devil it did! At no time did a government ever do a single thing anyplace in the history of the world. A guy did it. A guy cooperating with some more guys did it. That's all that did it. And they used a set of communication lines and terminals that we call government, but they did it.

Now, out of this, we get everything that you know as logic. It's a gradient scale of substitutes.

If you're looking for basic cause in a society – its economic or legal duress or distress – for heaven sakes never be fooled by looking at this huge, nonextant thing called government. Don't ever look at that to be cause for anything, because you are assigning improper cause. That's an improper cause and will wind you up into a concatenation of bad logic, because you didn't start at cause and therefore you won't get distance or effect. You say, "The government did it." The devil it did! It never did any such thing.

I ask you to jump your logic on purpose right at this point, you see — at that point — just to look at this. You actually have to look at the principle of substitution. First you have to look at the principle of confronting, then the principle of substitution in order to see the gradient scale of logic. It's quite interesting.

Now, this is something you must know if you are ever going to counsel a business or a group and get it into any kind of a shape. If you're ever going to do this, you would have to know this. I'm not just here cursing governments. Actually, there have been good governments on earth, because there have been good men on earth. And when there are bad governments on earth, there are bad men on earth, and that's all it amounts to.

Well now, you see, logic has been jumped when we get a case of butterflies on the wall. That's not quite logical outside the field of Scientology. It is logical within Scientology, but it's not logical elsewhere because we cannot proceed along any gradient scale and achieve the answer to the case of butterflies and, at the same time, why a case of butterflies sometimes makes him nervous. Do you see that?

When we address immediately, directly and intimately a business (and by the way, Scientologists these days more and more are addressing businesses), then we must never make the mistake of believing for a moment that the business exists as a living, breathing entity, because there win be something there that we feel called upon to process that we can't reach, and therefore we're up against a hidden menace of some kind or another; we're up against a hidden influence.

Now, that's what we used to call an associative restimulator in some fashion or another. A little bit different. There was a butterfly, but we explain it now by mental image pictures. A butterfly was present while he was running from the elephant. He sees a butterfly — associative restimulator. Now also, space was present when he ran from the elephant, so that any space that is present there at all is an associative restimulator, and he doesn't want to face that space because it was present when he ran from that elephant. And there was a tree there, so that any forest, suburban — or even suburban living is just a little bit uh-urh to him. And another thing about it, he was recovering from his fright for days against a rather yellowish plaster wall. And the yellowish plaster wall, a butterfly, a tree, any one of these things could act as associative restimulators.

We go in and say, "Well, the Salisbury Company" – how easily we say that – "The Salisbury Company wants me to process their employees." You've uttered a common human statement. But because it's a common human error you will never be able to achieve it. Some people in the Salisbury Company want some processing. That is the correct rendition.

Let's say it in some other fashion. They are too close to the thing to be an acceptable substitute. They are not acceptable substitutes at all.

Now, the Salisbury Company itself couldn't ever be processed, never. The individual idea of how communication should exist or not exist, however, can be processed. The Salisbury Company will never do or be anything. It assists or impedes the doingness of the individuals within its comm lines and terminal boundaries. That's all it does, if it does anything.

Now, we would have to go all the way away from this whole incident to really get total comfort. There were no women present at all. He really likes them. Get the idea? He can confront a woman any day. Nothing to it.

Now, its communication lines and terminals are as good as the people will let them be, and they're as bad as, and as murderous, as the people insist that they are. So you see a bunch of communication lines and you see them all tangled up and so on, don't think that some bright guy in the company can't draw up more communication lines and terminals. They can draw them up by the – oh, I don't know. Sometimes you doubt this when you suddenly shove under the hands of an executive and say, "Here. Draw me a map of your own secretarial service."

Men, by the way, carefully preserved this area of confrontingness — women — by not permitting women to engage in hunting, sports or outdoor activities of any kind for many generations. And then the women, having been armored against this and not having had to confront anything for a long time, began to become bold. And they started to take up archery and that sort of thing. And eventually women got wound up in his sports, automobile accidents and things like this. Even a safari in Africa probably contained a woman, so she became an associative restimulator for all this sort of action.

And he says, "What do you mean?"

You'll find men are probably being more brutal and more careless of women these days. They are less willing to confront them. They confront them with more ferocity or less care. It's very hard to confront a woman, for some men. That woman is an associative restimulator.

"Draw the communication lines that you use every day."

Of course, the deathblow to womankind was Florence Nightingale. That was that. This is a horrible thing to say about a beautiful, lovely lady like that. It's a terrible thing: She probably did more for homosexuality than any other person in our modern times, except maybe Oscar Wilde. How do you get that? You put a woman into every painful incident: the treatment after the accident, the illness, and so forth. You keep putting a woman into the scene. Don't you see?

And he comm lags for two and a half hours. Chews on the pencil, his tongue over here in his cheek. Squints up. "Let me see now. I write a letter... No, I really don't write the letter. Now, let's see. The letter comes in to me. Well, the letter comes in to me. I get a letter. Well, it's easy. I get a letter. I answer it. That's my communication line."

Why put a woman in the scene? She's something you're supposed to be able to confront when you're not able to confront anything else. So you get her in there as an associative restimulator, you run fellows downhill like mad, and they eventually won't even confront a woman. You get the idea?

You say, "No. No. No. Come on. Come on. Just where does this thing go?"

All right, now, let's look over this idea of substitutes for confrontingness. And we get this long parade of items, just on and on and on, and somewhere along the line, we have something the fellow will confront. Therefore, if you run substitutes one after the other, he will follow along the line of a gradient scale which will lead him eventually to the thing he won't confront, with the discovery that he can confront it. Do you see that? He will be more knowing and less reasonable — be more knowing and less logical. Do you follow that?

"What thing?"

In other words, you, with processing people with substitution, can start anyplace you like. The substitutes they give you for things are the wildest things you ever saw in your life. I just sit there and boggle at some of these preclears. It's one of my more amusing things to do lately is to run Substitution on somebody.

"The letter."

„Now, give me a substitute for your mother.“

"Thing? You mean a letter. Well, it's a bunch of stuff that says something."

„Well, good, good, yes, all right, I will. Now, let's see. Oh, that tree.“

"Oh, it is, is it? Well, what is a letter?"

„All right. Now another substitute for your mother.“

Wow. Guy will tell you it's anything. He'll say it is a communication. That's dodging the issue nicely. He'll finally find out that a letter is a piece of paper with some words on it. But this will escape him, particularly a business executive, by the hour. What is a letter? He won't be able to tell you. What is this thing? You can hold one up and shake it in front of his face. I've done this. "What is this thing?" I've said.

„Well, that rock out there.“

He says, "It's a communication! What are you talking about? That particular one is a demand for eighteen cans of something or other."

„All right, good. Give me another... Now, make sure this is a substitute for your mother. Another substitute for your mother.“

And you say, "Fine. Fine. What is a letter?" You know?

„Uh, well, yes. Now, that grass. That bit of tar.“

And he finally says – after you plague him and chew on him and beat at him for a long time, he finally up and admits it is a thing; it's a piece of paper with some words on it.

You say, „Now, wait a minute.“ If you start straining your own logical processes to draw the concatenation from what he considers an adequate substitute for Mother — right on up to Mother — you're going to strain or sprain your medulla oblongata! Because the substitution pattern lies only in his bank. Get that.

And having cognited then that a communication particle was a particle, that it did have some mass, that it could go across space and distances, we say, "Now, let's get to work on the subject of where your communication lines go, and where they come from." And boy, they sure end always at the door of his private office. They never go out to his secretary. They just never arrive out there. They get taken out there in some fashion, or something of the sort. But when he processes one of these things, he really has no idea that it ever goes anyplace. It sort of magically disappears out of his own brain and appears in somebody else's brain in some fashion, and if it doesn't do that very magically, he gets very upset. He cannot allow any communication lag. He can't allow time for his communication, his letter now, to go through a couple of hands, to be transcribed, to go through a couple of hands and appear on somebody else's desk and to be put into a slot and read in due course. He can't allow for that.

The only place this pattern exists, and the only pattern like it, and the only approximating pattern in existence, is in that one bank, peculiar to that bank, and only in that bank! Now, you got the idea?

So you find these boys are mostly concerned with jamming their own lines. They write the letter on Thursday – Thursday evening usually, very late. The girl comes in. She has already a jammed line, so she gets this letter typed as soon as she can, sometime around 11:30 or something like that. She gets it into an envelope. Mailboy comes along and picks it up and it goes over to somebody over here. But what do you know, this was Friday and the offices are closed on Saturday. And Monday this other guy reads it in his desk, and so on. This would be optimum, you see. And then he answers it in some fashion, and it goes back onto this communication line. Monday afternoon our executive is saying, "Let's see. It was clear last Thursday when I wanted to know what happened to Jones. Uh... uh – rr-rrr! I'll have to call him up on the telephone," see? So, he says, "Referring the... Hey, Jones," on the phone, "referring to the letter I wrote you."

There's no telling on what route he would go from a bit of tar, up any kind of a gradient scale to finally confronting Mother. The second he says, „Substitute for Mother: That tree, that tar, that grass,“ you know doggone well that this boy will not, cannot, confront Mother. If he did, he would be looking straight through her. She would be unreal. He would have another mother mocked up in her place. Get the idea? See, I mean, there's a real distance here. Follow me closely. Hm? It's a big jump from a bit of tar to Mother, let me assure you. And that is why I look at these substitutions with such amusement while I'm processing a preclear.

"What letter?"

I don't hide my amusement. I'm not sitting back laughing at him. I laugh right out loud at him. And that's really a bad thing to do to a preclear who is being very serious about this. He knows for sure that that tar is a substitute for Mother. And I say, „No kidding?“

Now, I don't know why, but they always at this moment search for the letter. When he gets all the phone lines all tied up, and he gets Jones' secretary tied up and his own secretary tied up, and he gets everybody all tied up and everything off the groove and off the line, and finally he's satisfied he hasn't got an answer to it yet, Jones told him he'd answer him tomorrow. He's got it all tied up. He's all set, see?

And he looks it over. „Well... Well, maybe... maybe that wall over there would be a better substitute for Mother.“

Somebody's trying to crowd, push and crunch, not his job, he's trying to punish the line itself Got this? You'll find most executives are in this condition. The lines themselves don't exist to serve them, they exist to be beaten. Then you wonder why everybody in the plant can't find out anything. It's all sitting on the executive's desk usually. It's someplace unanswered. He has all the data.

I say, „No kidding? Is that a fact? That'd be a good substitute for Mother, huh? Well, all right now, let's find a better substitute for Mother.“

I've met some of the most remarkably, wonderfully efficient men. Boy, these guys could tell you at any instant what the production figure was, where it was, how it was, zim-zam. Oh, boy! Straight genius, see? And anybody ten feet away from that desk didn't know a thing, and yet they were expected to do, and they were expected to function.

And he eventually gets into things that we could understand, like „that lamp.“ Naturally you could associate a lamp with Mother being the actual thing. Don't you see? You don't see that.

One notable case – one fantastic case of this – ran a government-surplus sales organization. He bought government surplus and he sold it. He had a staff of fifteen salesmen. He himself would receive all of the lists of the material he now owned. You see, he'd buy those over the phone. He'd take these lists. Then he would call up his own prospects. He would sell them. But in the meantime, routine communication had distributed these lists to his salesmen and they would be out there beating their brains out trying to sell things which had already been sold. And then he'd sit back and say, "You see how much better I am than any other salesman in the place, you know? My sales record is way up, and yours is way down. What's the matter with you people?"

That's what you do, you see? You look at him and you say, well now, there is no logical track between what he's saying and Mother, you see? But to you, some other track would be totally logical, don't you see? Follow me? So therefore, when you're trying to diagnose his case, you're diagnosing a near incomprehensibility.

Well, the funny part of it is, every single one of those salesmen knew what was the matter with the people – him. He might have been fooling himself, but he wasn't fooling them; they knew what he was doing. And they knew that – some dim way – that he possibly was not conscious of this fact. He never let anybody have any information anyplace in the place. Nobody ever could find out a thing – secrecy.

„What's wrong with this fellow,“ you say. „That lamp — Mother. Now, that's logical. But he says tar — Mother! That's just completely insane.“ You follow it out?

In other words, here was an individual who stopped every comm line that he could get his hands on. He'd stop it. He himself would act. He was a case of "I have to do it myself " He couldn't let another soul do a thing anywhere else in the world. And this man's whole organization was in chaos, if you called it an organization.

Well, that's the basic difficulty of diagnosis. So the safest thing to do is to go into a field where no gradient scale is even vaguely traceable on any subject whatsoever, which has no relationship, and one doesn't even know what he is substituting for or that he is substituting while being audited. And that, of course, becomes a very workable, usable process, and that process we call Havingness.

And one day it up and went broke. And he could never understand why those salesmen hadn't gotten out and sold the stuff for him. They knew that anytime they had an old secondhand ship, or something of the sort, then they knew if they got a sale for it, it would have been sold the day before and they never would have been told. So they didn't dare sell anything. They just didn't dare sell a thing. In other words, he achieved the cutting out of all of their doingnesses by cutting the comm lines which would have assisted those doingnesses. Got it?

We say, „Look around here and find something you could have.“ Well, running an undercut — actually, those things which he couldn't make confront things are things which he can have, which he has to have, by the way. He has no choice. Don't you see?

So that's how organizations are wrecked. That's how they get into the state they get into. But all an organization is, is a series of comm lines and terminals, so what gets wrecked? The comm lines and the terminals. That's all that are there to get wrecked, so that's all that gets wrecked.

So, we're running „failure to confront,“ bottom rung of, with total identification. There is no rationale at all why he says he can have that wall.

Now you, in handling any group, then, in view of the fact that anybody can dream up an organization, would actually be wasting your time to lay out a beautiful pattern of communication from here to there and so on. You would really be wasting your time. There's no sense in this, beyond this one point: People who are accustomed to this activity can feed you data at both ends, and you, because you hear both ends of the story, can act as mediator. And it sounds like a real bright idea – the idea that Joe gave you and the idea that Bill gave you, see? You put them together into the idea that will agree, and they both say, "You're real bright, Mr. Scientologist. You're all set. You're absolutely right. See, I mean that's a good idea. That's a terrific idea you dreamed up." Who dreamed up? They dreamed up. But they dreamed up an idea that was within their ability to agree with communication. See, that was the idea they dreamed up, and you have to pay attention to that.

Now, back of that statement, „I can have that wall,“ would lie the total collapse of walls on him. See, the wall — whole subject of walls has collapsed on him. He no longer is not only not able to confront walls, but walls are something which collapse on him. And if he were permitted to go along this line too long, he would find out eventually that walls were him and that he was walls. See?

You either, then, have to dream up or agree with what they will consider communication – at which time they will communicate in that pattern – or you've got to change their acceptance level of communication, and I'm afraid there are no other answers.

I've seen people do this, by the way. They stand up in front of television screens when you're trying to look at the screen. They'll stand between you and the screen. Obsessive thereness. They are being things which collapsed on them to such a degree that they are them. And the function of such a thing was to debar sight, cut out light, or do something of this character. And they dramatize its potentials. And you'll see them dramatizing this thereness. And they'll get up and walk — you can't explain why, but you're sitting there comfortably looking at the television screen, and they get up and on the pretext of adjusting the knob, or something of this sort, step forward to the screen and then step back to observe the effect, between you and the screen, and will continue to stand there.

You cannot have a soldier standing alongside of each government desk saying, "Communicate." Somehow or other they'd foul up his supply of bullets.

So, below the level of being able to confront, we actually have the capability of being on another determinism. And then we get doing and having and we get all sorts of interesting lower-range manifestations, you see, that are also high-range manifestations, but these are the obsessive „have to be.“ This fellow has to be a wall because he can have walls. Why can he have walls? Because he has not confronted enough walls so that he became one, see? Now, there's no logic that you could trace between his — first, his being able to have a wall, his being able to be a wall, his being able to confront a wall, except just those exact steps which I am giving you. That is a series of very exact steps.

Here we have, then, this oddity that you could get people to agree on data, agree on organization, agree on patterns of data, patterns of logic. You could get people to agree on these things. But to hammer them with it and say, "You must not think about this now. This is not called to your attention any further. It is for your acceptance and memorization." Wow, they won't communicate with it, and they won't do.

Now, how he got that way is some other thing, and that comes under the heading of speculative diagnosis.

I didn't mean accidentally to describe college education as it exists today. I didn't mean to. I mean, I'm sorry. I keep running into it, though, every once in a while.

Now, we start in there, then, that the individual is unaware of it when he is standing in the middle of a wall; he'd be unaware of the wall. To some awareness that he was in the wall; he could have a wall. In other words, this says, „A wall would collapse on me.“ This he recognizes. But that's still a communication, so it's good processing.

You couldn't possibly ask anybody to do anything if you insisted on your evaluation of communication as the thing he must follow. Do you see? You can't then have him do anything. If you take your idea of communication – see, your idea of what is a good communication here – and then insist that he accept it right there, and like that... He'd have to be in terrific shape. If you gave him a Scientology definition of communication – you said that is it – he could look at its component parts but he couldn't put them together. It's not his idea of communication. He knows what communication is, it's "Huh!" That's communication. What do you do when you get a letter, you say, "Huh!" What do you do when you want to ask somebody hello? You know, you greet them on the street, you say, "Huh!" What do you do when you want to sell something? I'm afraid it is also, "Huh!" And we wonder why he isn't a good salesman.

Now, the next little gradient scale up from that is that he could be the wall, you see? The wall would collapse on him, he could be the wall, but he could recognize this with some awareness that he was being a wall. Next, he would confront or could confront in some fashion, with some substitute for himself, a wall. Next step up the line is he could have an effect on a wall. And we move into the Axiom 10 range. You get how the — what these steps are?

No, I'm afraid we would have to take this subject of communication up with him very directly, and we would have to say "What is a letter?" Until he can finally find some definition in himself that tells you and at the same time tells him what this letter is, he's going no place from there. Do you see that? He's going no place because you've never found an entrance level to the case. There's no entrance level to the case unless you have some communication that is a communication: He understands it's a communication, and understanding it's a communication, he then accepts it as a communication. Don't you see?

Well, I'm not trying to arrange for you the perfect pattern of exactly how this happens because there are inversions lower on the line of be-do-have and so on, and these are all enforced. These are a DEI Scale of the fellow desired something, and it was enforced upon him, and then it was inhibited in some fashion. And he is in an unknowingness band. So that we get Havingness Processes being totally identified processes to such a degree that we don't even know what the preclear is identifying them with. It's just a total identification process.

Now, if you process people just into an understanding of communication... After all, you have its basic definitions. If you have its basic definitions, if you just went over each one of these definitions – let's take a whole group of business people, see; whole group of business people. We just take the longest, most arduous definition of communication we have. You know, the one that's cause, distance, effect, and attention and intention and all the rest of them – duplication – we take all of these parts and we just rack them all up into an arduous stack over here, see? And we take the first one off the top and we say, "Now, what is this? What is this? What is this thing called attention? What is attention? Oh, you, Jones over there, what is attention?"

Therefore, if you start to run Substitution on total identification, you're going to get results — that I assure you — because it would be a low range that's low, low, low, low, low. And this is why people go unconscious when you start to remedy their havingness. It's right in the range of total identification, unconsciousness: See, everything is everything; all things are substitutes for all things; anything is a substitute for anything. You take a workman who misuses machinery, continually misuses machinery. He's an artist at it, let's say. How do you mean, misuses machinery? Well, the chronic way they misuse machinery — and you'll laugh about this if you ever go around investigating. You'll find somebody who is an apprentice carpenter, and not a very good one. And he's struggling along somehow, and he's pretty low-toned anyhow, which is why he's doing this. You'll find him using tools, and he uses the pliers to hammer nails. He tries to use the chisel for a screwdriver, don't you see? He at least can get the similarity of shape there. The pliers have mass and the hammers have mass and the chisel, and so forth.

Oh well, Jones'll say, "Attention. Attention is something people demand of YOU.

Well, they get wilder than this. They get much wilder than that. You can understand that one. But how in the name of heaven they could substitute some of the things they substitute is quite remarkable, because they substitute uses. And then you could say they abuse machinery. Abuse machinery.

And you'd say to the rest of them, "Now, what do the rest of you think about that? Do you think that's what attention is?"

You'll see a passenger car going down the road loaded up like a truck. That's understandable; the fellow doesn't own a truck, but he does own a passenger car. All right, that's understandable. But it is not a very bad misuse. But if this fellow needed something to haul dirt with and had the money and walked out and bought a passenger car, then you'd have it in the aberrative band, you see? The aberrated band.

Finally you'd get them to define, to their own satisfaction, what all these words were. You'd get them to define them as well as you could get them to define them. And I hate to tell you this, but if they're a group of business people that are in an enforced kick on communication all the time, the definitions they give you are not, at the end of hours, going to even approach satisfactoriness. They're going to be still something real wild, something you don't want at all. But they agree that's what it was, and so you say that's fine. You take the next one, and you go through the lot of them.

And people do this rather consistently. You'll find them misusing things. For instance, a very fine ironer that was installed the other day is being used by the maid as a clothes dryer. Well, that's understandable. There was nothing to hang clothes on, you see? There was not an immediate clothesline that was close to the tubs and so forth. And so one says, „Well, that's better than nothing. You can hang clothes on that ironer because it does hang up.“

How many evenings of training do you think a group like this would have to have, huh? All you did was take the most arduous, long formula of communication we have and took every single part of it and asked them what it was. But the funny part of it is, you would wind up with people who, by and large, could then form and carry on an organization which would serve their doingness. Because once they find out they can communicate, they're apt to be willing to appear. As soon as they appear, they're willing to be terminals. As soon as they are willing to be terminals, why, they're perfectly willing to have terminals and confront terminals and work with terminals. And then you would have an organization. You follow me?

But then a clothesline was provided, a very good one, very easy to reach and much closer to the zone of actions than the ironer. And the ironer continued to be used as a clothes dryer. Get that? The misuse of machinery.

In order to reform the United States government – formidable project; one which I advise you never to attempt; don't ever attempt it – don't think it consists of going down to Congress and beating on the drum for a bunch of new laws to be passed. That has nothing to do with it! Has nothing whatsoever to do with it, not for a minute. All those new laws will do is they will enter new arbitraries which will cause additional new confusion. That's all. Because you're feeding into a vast bad organization a lot more ways of stopping, and boy it's on inverted stop now. It can stop everybody.

The fellow who goes to see a lawyer when he should see a doctor. Misuse of personnel.

Now, the gay, heroic spirit of the young second lieutenant who goes into the army is a touching sight. I often see somebody with some shoulder bars or something like that – brand-new gold bars. It's wonderful. It's a beautiful sight. I think, "Well, there goes another one, you know? He'll get in there, and he'll want to change this, and he'll want to change that, and he wants to do this, and he wants to do that. And he thinks that this is the thing he ought to do. And he looks and finds his troops are in kind of bad morale and in bad condition, and he wants to get them a little bit better off, and he wants to shape this up, and so forth. And there's no mechanism there to serve his doingness at all. He has no comm lines to serve his doingness.

I hate to tell you what leads into that category. You look at any organization that can't use or place personnel in the zone of their capabilities and you're looking at a psycho organization. Now, I did not mention the U.S. Army, Air Forces or Navy. Now, you're just hanging me with libel.

Just let him try to address something to the major. Uh-ha, well, the major: that's a real close look. Let him try to receive something from the general staff. Comm lines are the command lines, so they're all forbidden. What's a command line do in a large organization? It forbids. See? What is the standard command? It's to forbid. "No, you can't." So if this is then the communication line, what do you get on the comm lines? Forbid. Now, after a while they forbid the comm line.

I've fished more firemen out of engine rooms — they were rated firemen, who were good deck men — and have put more deck force people in engine rooms who were good firemen than you could shake a stick at. And it didn't take any great personnel sensibility to do this because their former experience had been the experience of firemen and their former experience had been the experience of deck men, and yet they were just completely wrongly rated and classified and sent the opposite direction, don't you see?

Did you ever see anybody get mixed up with government who is in a much higher state of action afterwards? Think it over for a moment. Did you ever see anybody get mixed up with a government who came out in a much higher state of ambition and action, hm? Well, they'd have to have had a lot of processing to have made it if they ever did, because the lines are not there to serve the individual. The individual is there to serve the lines. Get the reverse look? And so the doingness of the individual is neglected. And if you neglect the doingness of the individual, you will make everything very gruesome thereafter, because there'll be a lot of bodies around and they won't be moving.

Takes a lot of straightening out — I don't care whether you're in a business organization or a service, or something of the sort — to get this misuse, misassignment, misidentification of personnel straightened out. But organizations which are batty will always misuse and miscall tools, machinery, personnel. They always will. They just — because they're running a total identification. A truck isn't a truck to them. It may belong to a class of something like metal objects. That's their nearest ability to identify. Best identity that they could assign to a truck would be a metal object, don't you see? Now, really, they're incapable of calling it or using it as a truck. Do you see this?

War is not a symptom of the anger of peoples. Governments go on a routine and regular cycle which drops into absolute destruction at relatively regular intervals. Its own organizational lines get down to forbid, and its own laws forbid killing the other fellows in the army, so somebody in the army has to kill somebody, and they go out and find an enemy and knock him off. I don't think that it has a single thing to do with the international situation. I don't think there's even any relation whatsoever between war and politics. I think war is an insanity which is achieved when a bad organization descends to a complete anxiety, and you get a condition of war.

Now, that is just nothing more or less than the band of total identification, and that goes down to „we don't know for what,“ and we have havingness. And you run Havingness on an awful lot of people and they go unconscious. They're running in the band of total identification, and no one knows for what anything is identified. There is no starting point to it. Eventually they will cognite and tell you something. Well, they have found a starting point. They have found something that they could vaguely confront. Out of this bundle of identifications they found one item that they've walked back up on and they've confronted it, and we call that a cognition.

Now, where would you get an organization that would assist the doingness of people? Well, it would have to be amongst people who were doing. And those people, in doing, must be able to tolerate communication. So what would be a good organization to work for? A good organization to work for would be an organization that would tolerate communication. And that wouldn't be too hard to work for. That'd be all right.

Now, it's an upper range of that to have an effect on this thing. You see, just to stand and face something is a high skill. See, that's a big skill. Stand and face a wall? Oh, wow! Why, that's pretty terrific! Stand and face a wall. Hm! Really takes some doing.

Work, of course, you understand is "always" arduous. But how can we get it to not a complete death sentence? And that would be to be in an organization where people were doing, and people were willing to communicate. And if this was the case, then that organization would gradually find that it could have and could construct communication lines to serve the doingness of people.

Now, to do something to the wall is higher than that. But to do something to the wall, believing that the wall is a blackboard, is of course lower than that.

Somebody has an idea that coordinates his action with somebody else's action; there must be some way where he can communicate this. And having communicated it, the other person doesn't go straight up and a mile south and forbid the communication and get all upset about it.

Now, what about the case that can't remedy havingness in any way, shape or form? Now, you look at this case and you say, „Well, I know exactly what's wrong with that person. I can just add it up just as neat as you please. Can add it up just as fine as you please. I know what's wrong with him. It's so-and-so and so-and- so and so-and-so.“ And we process him on this and nothing happens.

The other person also has the freedom to say "That's nutty. That's crazy. Dopiest thing I ever heard." Free line, see?

Well, it's obvious what's wrong with him, but what he's substituting this for, Lord only knows. What he's having, Lord only knows. What he can't have, Lord knows. We're just wham, you see? It's a level of substitution on a complete identification.

And the other fellow say, "What's dopey about it?"

And people will tell you, „Yes, I know that's wrong with me,“ and go right on in the most conversational tone of voice you ever heard of, see — just go right on. Yes, they know they shouldn't beat the car to make it start. You point this out to them.

"Well, I don't like it."

The living of life in this day and time mainly consists of pointing out to people things which are terribly obvious to you but aren't at all obvious to them, and having them not listen.

"Well, that's not good enough."

Now, there are ways to get almost any datum across, but to go through a total identification instead of any logical chain at all — no logical chain, no bridge left... The fellow who is below havingness, however, can still — can still be salvaged. By some gradient scale he can be walked upstairs. You still have to find out some zone where there is a recoverable ability and improve it. That is the formula of making anybody well. Find a zone, area, class of recoverable ability and improve it.

"Well, all right, it'd make me more work."

Now, that might be a recoverable ability to have. You see, you'd have to get more complicated, see? You'd have to say, „What would you have to do in order to have that?“ See? We've run Havingness on him for half an hour. We notice that there's no change of comm lag, nothing of the sort. He just doesn't cognite. The wall isn't there.

"Oh, if it'd make you more work... How would it make you more work?"

So we ask him, „What would you have to do in order to have that wall?“ Oh, and he will give you some long, involved logical chain.

"Well, I'd have to make everything out in quintuplicate," like they have to do for machine-gun ammunition on the front lines. To get more machinegun ammunition you have to make out the requisitions in quintuplicate, you know? One copy goes to the enemy for okay.

Now, have you noticed in running Havingness on some people that they will explain to you continuously that, „Well, I could have that if...“ or „I could have something just like it if I bought it, if I had enough money.“ You got that?

All right. Now, if we look over this we see that we are facing not an unsolvable problem at all. We are facing a problem which is peculiarly solvable, because we can solve the problems on the individual level, therefore it is obvious that we can solve problems on a third-dynamic or organizational level, because they are individual problems.

Well, that — they actually have altered the auditing command. The auditing command is „Look around here and find something you could have,“ and when they add an „if“ they have altered the command.

You can actually give people a test, spot them on the Tone Scale and know exactly how the communication lines will behave in their immediate vicinity – the easiest thing to do a Scientologist ever did. The only thing that happens is the Scientologist, having nothing to do with a science, usually has a good heart, and he is always prone to assign a better value to the individual than the test indicated. This is fabulous. This works everyplace but the HGC.

By the way, they don't get any better. The preclear who is altering the command on you like this is not running the process and is not improving.

HGC – we know this so we're always on the safe side, always undercut the actual state of the case by three stages and process there. That's the only place where we do this. Every place else we say, "Well," (charity, sweetness and light) "I mean, they mean all right, even if they are a stupid bunch of jerks," so on – keep giving people the benefit of the doubt. Well, it's a fatal thing to do in taking an assessment of people when you're trying to treat an organizational series of personnel. You better look at it right straight on the button all the way across; be accurate. I know that's not a human characteristic, but be accurate anyhow.

You'd have to ask an auditing command which was answerable by those phrases in order to get any improvement, you see that? Otherwise he's avoiding you. You've permitted an avoidance.

We had it figured out one time that it is impossible to be human and to be right – utterly impossible. You could not possibly be human and be right. To be human it is an absolute necessity to be wrong! Well, that's for sure.

You find out he can't have. All right. You'd alter the auditing command. „Look around here and find what you could have on how many vias.“

Now, look it over. You sit down at a table. You have a glass of milk while somebody else is finishing dinner, something like that, and you're waiting to go to the movie, see? And so you have a glass of milk to be polite. You didn't want it at all, but you just joined them and you're waiting for them to finish dinner, and they're going to go to the movie with you. That's fine. And they say, "You don't mind waiting, do you?" And you say, "Oh, no. I don't mind waiting." The feature only goes on in three minutes, you see? And you sit there smiling, you know? What a liar you are. Now, is that being right? No, you're not being right. You're telling lies. You're just lying like mad.

Now, it's quite remarkable that the people you are processing, most of them know they are being processed in some vague way. Most of them will sit still, most of them will answer questions, and so on. Now, I want you as auditors to look on that as an asset. It is a tremendous asset.

There are many other ways that it is impossible to be right. For instance, somebody says, "Well, you know that the cube root of Newton's second law is one of the more factual facts." And you know it's for the birds, but you don't want to offend him, so you say, "Well, that's right. Yeah." God have mercy on my soul, see?

You start processing people who can't sit still, who can't answer your questions — and you haven't gone into an insane band to find that level of people, either, you know? They're hardly even classifiable as neurotic. They're just totally unable to have or be or confront anything vaguely resembling a personal approach which is a personal approach — personal to what their actions are or their beingness or something. They consider all these things a wild criticism, as hot as being hit with a ray pistol, see? Just the thought of standing there, the thought of being there, the thought of answering any of these questions and so forth becomes a subject for intolerance.

You are always forced, being human, to tell lies, to be wrong – just as routine, routine activity, see, be wrong. And you look this over carefully, and you discover that it's really not possible to be human and to be right. The penalty of being human is to be wrong.

Now, there's a whole lot of people like that. They're crazier than hell. They can't play a game. But they're getting by in the society for being sane. Everything in their vicinity is going at a hot spin, that's for sure. You look for such a person, look for the unprocessable person in a household, and you will generally discover the person in that household who, on how many vias, is upsetting the entire household.

Somebody wrote a play one time about a fellow who told the truth for twenty-four hours – told nothing but truth, twenty-four hours – and I think in the play he did not get shot, so the play itself was a lie.

This explains to you the difficulties of the squirrel. You know, it's an odd thing about squirrels... Just the scientific- technical word „squirrel.“ Something very odd about these people is they always have — a real squirrel has in his vicinity somebody who is unprocessable by him and who is opposed to the subject of Dianetics or Scientology. You look at the squirrel, you have to look one step beyond the squirrel, and you will find the opposition to the subject. Now, because he can't get this person to confront the subject he eventually takes on the valence of that person who cannot confront, and so he himself becomes critical and upset about it.

But we look this over and we properly evaluate people, and we would be able then to forecast what they would do, what they would be, how they would work and react, and all we're interested in is how they would communicate. If we're interested in how they would communicate, then we can spot the fact that they will be able to do. A person is so accustomed to trying to do something that he cannot then communicate that communicatingness cuts down his doingness. And there's a direct coordination between these two things: his communicatingness and his doingness.

Now, he doesn't become critical to the point of moving completely out of the sphere. He unfortunately stays halfway in and halfway out. You got the idea?

So, let's look it over and let's see very plainly that an organization depends upon the tone level of its personnel, and that is really all it depends on, unless of course we grade goals. Some goals of organizations are better and some are worse, some are more pervasive, some are less. But this again was the idea, ordinarily, of a person.

Wherever you've found a squirrel you find this kind of a condition. Now, that's a little rule of thumb that we've developed here for years because we've had experience with this line.

Communism doesn't like this idea. They even swear at the cult of the personality. I know they kept people from going to circuses in droves when they told Popov the Clown that he must play a background role now because he was trying to erect a cult of the personality. The Moscow Circus was being jammed throughout Europe; people were going to it wherever it appeared because of this famous clown, Popov. And the anti-Stalinists said that this must be a bad thing, that he was there and he was communicating, so they were going to cut his throat and they did.

But let me show you something: That person who is unprocessable, no matter how logically this person declares it, is actually incapable of confronting any part of anything anywhere, don't you see, that even vaguely relates to personal experience. And this person is unable to confront personal experience in any way.

And they get the idea that goals and songs and other things float in the air; they are conditions which exist, never caused. See, a folk song is an uncaused song. Nobody ever wrote it. That's one of the silliest things. You get to looking this over and you'll see that somebody is so stuck in conditions they can't have terminals. So it's rather a fabulous thing that communism operates at all. And we look at it closely and we find out it doesn't operate. What's operating there is a capitalism state- size. Well, we won't go into that any further.

Have you ever had a preclear fly into a dispersal somewhere during a session? You tell the person to look at the wall or do something like this, and the person sort of rises half out of their chair or something and they flinch and they say, „Rrrowrow,” and they go off on some other subject or other. You've just hit one of these total-identification areas, and it is so strong in its command power over the preclear that it causes the preclear to go into a frenzied dispersal. You ever see that?

But if we have all things uncaused, why, then we can never treat them. Do you understand that completely? Things which have never been caused can never be erased. Only things which have been caused can be factually erased.

Well, these people go into that as their only dramatization. Doesn't matter how they phrase it, put it, say it. You ask them to be audited, you ask them to let you ask them to do something, and they go into one of these frantic dispersals, or they simply go into an apathetic sort of a collapse state. You understand? I mean, there's just no cooperation in there at all.

A fellow has lumbago: You have to find some basis for his lumbago satisfactory to him before it goes away. He has to understand that he caused it or somebody caused it or something caused it. And all of a sudden he cognites, and he says, "That's when I was going on that sleigh ride. Ah, I remember that pain. Yeah, I was on that sleigh ride and I was kissing the girl, and just at that moment we fell off the back of the sleigh, and I've never been the same since" – something like that; an interrupted kiss or something. Anyway, he says, "That's why I've got this bad leg, here. That's easy." And all of a sudden it goes away.

Now, what do you suppose a person like that would do to somebody else's private life? This person cannot confront any personal problem of any kind. Let me show you, then, that the person who is associated with them in making them — trying to make them confront personal problems gets this person falling back on them all the time. And this person falls back on them, falls back on them.

A condition, to exist, must be uncaused. And so if we say the organization did it, it's uncaused. You see that? If we say the great god Throgmagog caused it (only he doesn't exist: he's everywhere at once; he's in all drinking water), the condition can never be erased. Nobody can ever reach it, and they go frantic. They get very upset with it because they can never penetrate to the causation, and never being able to penetrate to causation, they cannot of course eradicate the condition, so the condition goes on forever.

This guy or this girl cannot hold this other person up into a position of confronting any personal situation of any kind. The person falls back on them, fights them, talks at them, does something or becomes totally 1870 — you know, „I'm so weak and helpless, cough, cough.“ Get the idea?

How do you make something go on forever? You say it was never caused. Nobody, nothing ever caused this. It is a condition which is natural, which exists, which is psychological. Well, all right.

Now, that person's action of falling back on them in this fashion eventually brings about this interesting phenomenon of causing the person who is making the other person confront, be that person. Now, you'll see this phenomenon untangle, and you yourself could experience it rather easily, by mocking up people and making them confront the wall. Now, the same process, almost, with the added thing that it has some motion in it, is „Make so- and-so fight the wall. Mock up somebody and make them fight the wall. Mock up somebody and make them fight the wall. Mock up somebody and make them fight the wall.“

Therefore, the statement that General Electric does this and General Electric does that, and General Motors does this, and the government does that are all uncaused actions which will then float forward till the end of time. And it's no wonder that whereas an organization might have been able to have built a submarine in 1954, to find that they're not able to build a submarine in 1956. They're just hitting the dwindling spiral, aren't they? In other words, this "company" built a submarine. The devil it did! It never did! I didn't see a single company sign down there pounding rivets. There wasn't a single sign, and none of the tape at all came around to polish the windows or the ports or anything. There was nothing. Nothing happened there as far as that's concerned. But there were some men there. And there were some men that did drawings on drawing boards, and there were some girls that copied them off. And there were some riveters and some welders there. And there were some atomic-energy men there, and there were some other people there. But they were all people. And they all lived and breathed. And they are reachable, and they can be contacted, and they can be talked to. And these people exist; they are. And their actions are traceable to them.

And you find out one of these weak universes and have the preclear mock this person up and fight the wall, you will have the personality, the nonconfronting personality that collapsed on him. And now he's having trouble with that valence.

I'm afraid what I'm giving you is terribly destructive. If this was uttered tonight in Hungary or in Poland, we would probably all be shot before dawn. Fortunately, our present government has not yet snapped terminals to the degree that it would accomplish this if it found out about it. We are protected by the fact that our government almost never finds out anything. If it finds it out and if it believes it thoroughly, count on it; it's wrong.

You see, this doesn't violate the old communication and distance formulas and so forth. His attention gets so fixed upon an effort to make the person confront and gets so many failures in making that person confront that eventually he is totally fixed on that person with no distance — no affinity, no distance, bang — and as a result he becomes that person, and that is a valence. That's all a valence is. Doesn't matter much how you try to separate these valences. Doesn't matter what you do with a valence. The basic mechanism of happenstance in a preclear is that.

Why would this be revolutionary? Because the complete, solid understanding that an organization is composed of individuals and is not itself a thing is primary cause on organization. And if you realize that thoroughly – not just lip service to it – if you really looked it over, if you yourself could find that in your own experience and in your own observation, then the organizations which you have looked at for so long (governments and other things) would be seen by you for what they are: collections of individuals. And those individuals are individual individuals. There is nothing mystic or esoteric about any one of them. They exist, they live, they breathe.

Now, you're thinking at once in terms of, well, he had a mother; he couldn't make his mother confront things. This is rather usual for a child. He had a wife, she had a husband, had a schoolteacher, somebody. There was a drunk uncle. We have a case hanging fire right now, not too awfully — well, at least on this continent — that we will have to round up one of these days, that had a drunken uncle and was so thoroughly (this drunken uncle) in a drunken vomiting spell and so on that it was rather peculiar. We did not have the mechanism which I'm giving you at the moment these years ago that we processed the case, and we never were able to strip that valence.

And to realize that about a great government is to realize, almost, the end of that government. Do you see that clearly? Because all you would have to do is to put out this law: You would have to say, "Government officials hereinafter must be human," or "They must be processed," or they must be anything'd. And there would go (up or down) the organization. All you'd have to do is recognize the individual nature of each person in that organization and realize that they were people, and you would never again be afraid of a police force.

We finally got the valence isolated, but what could we do about it? We know what we would do about it now. We would find somebody she could make confront a wall, and then we would have her run this long enough, arduously enough, until we could finally pick up the uncle and mock him up confronting the wall, and that valence will break.

Policemen are robots, you know; somebody else always sent them. Definition of a robot: a robot is a machine that somebody else runs. You never contact the operator of robots, you contact the robot. Well, police are peculiarly this. Nevertheless, there was somebody who sent them.

Now, you also have the entrance of havingness. We want to know what Uncle can't have in the room. Why „can't have“? Well, it's a games condition: the opponent. See, the opponent must never have anything.

The organization of police is never against one. The organization of government cannot possibly be against one. The organization of an army cannot be against one. But individuals can be nasty on occasion. But remember this: individuals can be handled even when they have rocket pistols in their hands. I know. I speak by experience.

Never run „What can your mother have,“ see? „Look around the room and find something your mother can have.“ Boy, is that wrong! See, that is just wrong. It just — it's a no-game condition, and so on. The proper phrasing — I know it defies logic, but one isn't being logical; he's treating aberration — is „Look around the room and find something your mother cannot have.“

Thank you.

Well, do you see that that gets an identification? We're striking at a basic identification there. So we might have to run that before we ran „Mock up your mother and make her confront the wall.“ Do you see that?

Thank you.

We're walking up this same ladder of steps I gave you just a moment ago. Total identification, total collapse, doesn't even know what he's associated with or what what is associated with, has no knowing of this at all. That would run, perhaps, on a „can't have-have“ basis, some substitution on a „have“ basis, but you're not even asking him to substitute.

Then the next thing you might do with him is find some substitutes for one of these things, you see? And the next one up is mock-ups and „confront these things.“ Follow that?

Now, 8-C, Part A is running on a total-identification level. You don't know who he's being while he is confronting the wall. You don't know what's confronting the wall, see, but neither does he; that makes you even. And he'll eventually be able to make something confront the wall, and he confronts the wall with more and more accuracy. And he may have made five hundred or a thousand people confront that wall without himself knowing it and without the auditor having had very much view of it. Just running on a total identification all the way on the track.

All right. Do you see this mechanism of the collapse of a valence on the individual?

Well, that is actually the way the individual got into this universe, too. Couldn't make this universe confront anything. First, couldn't have an effect on it, then couldn't confront it, and then became it and had it. Don't you see? So that the way out would be run it on a games condition of what could you have in it, what it can't have, possibly, substitutes for it — sounds like an impossible process, but substitutes for it. You can run substitutes on data of incomparable magnitude, data not of the same order at all, and he'll eventually give you data of a similar order. And you've found a substitute for it the moment that you've done that.

And then we go up into the next stage immediately above that, which would be confronting this universe. And that would be the universe as a universe, don't you see? I mean, on the whole thing.

Now, in the live-a-day world we only have small parts of this, and we work with small parts of this, but I want you to be warned that you're running the small part of this rather overwhelming process which I just outlined to you.

Now, we find, then, that there is a scale of what we can make the preclear do. And we have Havingness Processes run on a games condition. They include „can't have“ processes. Never „can't have“ for the individual, you know. „Have“ for him, „can't have“ for something else. We go up into substitutions, subjective or objective; we don't care what. There's a way of running substitutions you might be interested in. We call it stable data.

„What would be a stable data to your early childhood?“

„Oh,“ the fellow would say, „a chest.“

„What kind of a chest?“

„Oh, the kind you lock up.“

„All right. That's fine. Mock it up. Mock it up. Mock it up. Mock up a chest. Mock up a chest. Mock up a chest. Mock up a chest.“ Never saw so much commotion in the world. Commotion will fly around and hit that chest and go in all directions. And you just do that for a long time. This one gets kind of fozzle-fozzled, and he can eventually mock one of these things up, and it will sit there. And with your coaxing and so forth, you've improved it until he can just mock up a chest and it sits there right in the room.

And you say, „That's fine.“ You say, „Give me another stable datum for your childhood.“

He says, „Apron strings.“

You say, „All right. Mock up some apron strings. Good. Mock up some apron strings. Good. Mock up some apron strings. Good. Mock up some apron strings.“

What are you doing? You've got a cognited substitute for something, see? It's there. And you just run it. And you run it until you run off all of the confusions for which it's standing as a stable datum. See, it's the resistance point.

Why this substitute stable datum? Because a stable datum is something that confronts the confusion, and you're running confrontingness of a confusion, don't you see? Got that?

„Look around the room and find something your mother couldn't have.“ Very fine. „Look around the room and find a substitute for Mother.“ More or less the same process; if anything, a little more workable. „Look around and find something you can have.“ That isn't even for anything; it's just total identification, so of course it's the undercutting process and on most cases works best.

And as we get upscale we discover that there are other processes that are quite usable in terms of confrontingness. You could reduce a fever with this dodge: „Look around and find something that is motionless. Find something that is still.“ Fellow finally does. Well, it's a no-game condition to find something that is still without any effort of your own, but that's all right. This just tells you it's that — that much of it is a bad process. And then you say, „Now make your body confront it. You make your body confront it. You make your body confront it,“ see? Ah-hah!

Do you know that'll reduce a fever? That'll take a fever down from about 103 down to subnormal faster than seat, half an hour of it, twenty minutes of it. Quite remarkable.

If it doesn't take it down objective, it takes it down subjective. „Look around the room and find something motionless. All right. You make your body confront it.“ Now, if this was not working and didn't take the fever down, then what would take the fever down would be „Look around the room and find something motionless. All right. Mock up your body and make the mock-up confront it.“ But that is quite a trick, that process.

Now, the fellow is making his own body that he has, right here and now, confront things. Let me bring that to your attention. He is successfully doing this. Now, that ability can be improved. It is the body that he has, this is what is going on in the world. He is doing this. But there are many things which deter it from doing any confronting.

Now, for a long time we've known about theta bodies, but we've never been able to do anything about them that was very effective. But you can run a preclear on „Mock up a theta body and make it confront the wall.“ You take your black case, you do this to this black case, and you run this very thoroughly and, brother, he will cease to be a black case. After how much pain and duress we don't go into.

„Mock up some blackness and shove it in,“ of course, is the lower identification. This blackness he has, if you mock up some blackness and shove it in, eventually becomes a theta body. You know, a black Fac One body or something of the sort. Well, what do you do with it? You could do the same process. Or you could remedy havingness on black theta bodies — identification, some more. Or you could jump to this higher level and — in many cases, not totally successful — „Mock up a theta body and make it confront the wall.“ An amazing amount of phenomena and reaction occur on such processes.

Well, now, this is diagnosis, just this: which of these processes handles the obvious difficulty with the preclear? And the heart of diagnosis is something that needs no discussion at all: You look at them and find something obvious about them and cure it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]