Yeah, Australia. I was there when they were still glad to see Yanks.

Thank you.

Male voice: Wow, that was early.

Well, I understand that we've started an ACC.

That was early, wasn't it?

Audience: Yeah. Yes.

As a matter of fact, I was one of the first officers back from the upper battle areas. And I've had Australian officers meet me at airports and in offices and so forth, and actually stand there with tears in their eyes, they were so glad to see somebody give them a hand. I was the total antiaircraft of Brisbane, once. One submachine gun. They referred to me as the „ack-ack battery!“ Yeah.

All right. This is the sixth lecture, 20th ACC, July 21st, 1958, and I'm going to take up today the key words of Scientology.

Boy, when naval observers came in there, by the way, they looked at me in this patched-up office that I was running it from; they couldn't believe that either, you see? There'd been too much dispatch traffic coming from this particular part of the world, too many demands, too much authority. We were ordering about US cruisers and things. You know? We were not above telling people to arrive, and sail, and get out of there, and dump their cargo and so forth.

We are continuing our discussion of ACC Procedure, but it is necessary before we go much further to pinpoint what we are trying to do with preclears.

And I'd sent, on my own authority, four cargo ships loaded to the gunwales with machine gun ammunition, rifle ammunition and quinine up to MacArthur.

Now, I know what I am trying to do with preclears when I'm auditing somebody, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that everybody does.

Always - I always, right up to the time I managed to resign from the Navy expected some day to get a bill for four ships.

The intention to clear is the first and foremost intention that an auditor has to have in order to clear. And every now and then something gets in his road so that he really thinks, well, he has some little reservation on the matter, you know: „I don't know, this boy is a pretty wild boy and if we let him loose and let him become very powerful, why, maybe we'd just better drop the ashtray, hm? And when we lean on the wall, why, why not lean just a little bit too far over and break the window or something like that. Or let's change commands suddenly.“

Male voice: Did they get there?

Now, what I'm saying is not accusative. There can be a reactive reaction to setting somebody free which a person himself doesn't even recognize or know about because if he did, it wouldn't be there and it wouldn't be effective.

Oh, yeah, two of them got there just as nice as you please.

But where an individual makes a great many mistakes, for instance, and makes a great many flubs in auditing (after he knows how) when he is trying to clear somebody, we must assume that there is something wrong with pushing this fellow all the way up the line.

But when Melbourne - when Melbourne found out that the office was too active for them to do anything about, they went into apathy for a while and then they got reinforced by several admirals, and they finally got brave enough to put the brakes on it. By that time there were enough troops in the area so the danger was over, so I went home. I wrote myself some orders and reported back to the US.

Well, now there's - really it's quite amazing, but it's quite amazing to realize instead of being critical, you see, of this restraint on clearing somebody, it's quite amazing that people would be of sufficiently good heart (if they are all animals, the way the phrenologist said they were) that they would actually make another person more powerful than themselves.

But I used to hear - for the next two or three years I'd run into officers, and they would say, „Hubbard? Hubbard? Hubbard? Are you Hubbard that was in Australia?“ And I'd say, „Yes.“

Now, that is apparently, on the fundamental, a little bit of a sacrifice, don't you see?

And they'd say, „Oh!“ Kind of, you know, horrified, like they didn't know whether they should quite talk to me or not, you know? Terrible man.

Here's a fellow who isn't Clear and he busily is clearing somebody. Well, all right. It's firmly in his mind, perhaps, that this other individual is going to wind up more powerful than he is.

You go fighting a war all on your own like that, you know, and start bypassing things and it's a pretty bad thing to do. I want to caution you about it. Liable to get in trouble.

And for an auditor who isn't getting any auditing to sit down and clear people, assembly-line fashion, really requires more good heart than has ever been attributed to man.

I think the war was fought by fellows who didn't care whether they got in trouble or not. And after the war was over all those who wanted to keep out of trouble stayed in - dirty remark.

It all works out all right because the truth of the matter is, when an individual becomes truly effective he becomes much less dangerous. When he's truly effective he's much less dangerous. That's quite interesting. But almost a - almost a comment here which calls itself a liar, he becomes far more dangerous. He becomes effective.

But there's a case of responsibility which is quite interesting.

So, let's put it in this wise instead. An individual, before he is Clear, is destructively dangerous. He's destructively dangerous. He really is the person who is dangerous. But now we clear him, he becomes effectively dangerous to destructive people.

My God, what starts happening if you take responsibility for your own little zone and then don't care who tells you you shouldn't, you know. Lord, what things start happening in that immediate vicinity. Wow! Funny part of it is, only when you, yourself, decide not to take that much responsibility, do you fall in. Only then do you start to get it. And you have trouble right from there on out.

And if you think this thought all the way through, and even recognize it intellectually, you'll have far less trouble clearing people.

Well, we have a question period here. This is your half-hour, not mine.

There isn't a one of us who hasn't been shot, maimed, hauled over the glowing coals, put on the rack; there's hardly any of us who hasn't decorated, one time or another, a gallows: all evidences of the brutality and cruelty of man.

Yes, Jack?

And very often we have flown ourselves as a flag to this brutality, and have offered ourselves as the factual example of the cruelty and brutality of man.

Male voice: Yeah. You said on the 19th, that there is no such thing as responsibil-irresponsibility?

When we go around with a broken arm persisting or a broken neck persisting or something of this sort, we are simply evidencing the fact that man is brutal.

There isn't, really.

So to say that a person who is not Clear has a slightly reactive computation on the subject of clearing people is not to point out an extraordinary circumstance. It is an ordinary circumstance that very often you have your doubts. That's ordinary, that's routine.

Male voice: It's a sort of a person's causatively saying, „I'm not responsible“ is how it winds up?

But if you think this thing through, by clearing somebody we have an „effective.“ And clearing somebody requires that we also understand the optimum solution to problems and that is - the optimum solution to any problem - is the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. That's the optimum solution.

Well, that's a peculiar one. Irresponsibility doesn't run. That is the only test I have to back this up.

Clears tend to solve things this way; just tend to. You understand they really don't all the way across the boards. They tend to solve things on an optimum solution.

If there was such a thing as irresponsibility, it's not necessarily true that this would work out, but this is one of the rationales on which we proceed in research: that if it won't run, it isn't. See? And a nonactuality won't run.

Now, when we go from Clear to OT, we pass the borderline of judgment - and I'll be talking about that later - we pass this borderline called judgment, and that is: how many dynamics an individual computes on simultaneously. Now we get the differences a bit ironed out here when we see somebody who is already Clear thinking very clearly on the first dynamic.

„Look around here and find something for which you do not have to be responsible,“ doesn't run, runs, doesn't run, it doesn't get anyplace, doesn't do anything. That's entirely on what that rationale is based. On no more than this.

We are occasionally, quite often, rebuffed. We say this fellow isn't taking into account at all his family or he isn't taking into account at all this, that or the other thing. Well, he struggles along and finds out that this isn't the right answer and he modifies his conduct accordingly and we see a Clear as a person who is becoming reoriented. And all of his educational factors are still present.

„Look around here and find something you can't help,“ is the same Responsibility Process, almost.

I've often told you if you clear a witch doctor, you've got a good witch doctor. You haven't necessarily got somebody who will no longer use the tom-tom and the aromatic, hypnotic powders and all this sort of thing. His whole educational pattern along the line is oriented on this item „witch doctor.“

The reason why Help and Responsibility and Create, Problems and Change are always cropping up is that all other computations extend from them. And undoubtedly there is some kind of a combination which amounts to irresponsibility, but it is not irresponsibility. Now, just exactly how that's explained, I don't know.

You clear a con man and you've got a cleared con man. See, we've already had an example of that. We've already had an example of that. One chap after he was cleared went home and his own judgment concerning his conduct was really clouded to this degree: that what he now knew about life didn't quite mesh with the way he thought life ought to be, you see? Now he thought life ought to be a bit different. But all of his training and his pattern and his professional patter, you might say, were all lined up with „con man.“

Thank you, Jack. Is that it? All right.

He couldn't resist telling people some of the more wild tales concerning clearing. He couldn't resist mis-selling clearing - you get the idea - at the moment. And it's taken him about a quarter of a year to climb out of this slough of despond. He's climbing out of it little by little. But he's having to reinvent his entire orientation. He's managing it but he's really not becoming more Clear, he's going from Clear to OT. You see this?

Yes?

A Clear, when he finds his educational background does not agree with the environment and is not useful to him, is capable of changing that educational background. He isn't fixed or set with it.

Male voice: Ron, wouldn't you say that responsibility is that help is more basic - that responsibility comes from help?

But to say that he won't use it the next day after he's cleared is to expect far, far too much. What else does he have to use? It's educational data! How do people react? To what do they react?

Yeah, yeah. But they're still separate commodities to some degree. The two are not the same but they interlock. And you can find them interlocking and not interlocking.

Well, you set up a little pitch stand on the street, and you fill some bottles full of water, and put a little mud in it, and you say it's Indian swamp root oil. And you give a much more persuasive speech on the matter and they buy much more - many more of these bottles. But before this time he was never capable of inspecting the actual activity. Now he inspects the activity, and after he's been doing this for a few weeks, he said, „You know, I keep saying this is therapeutic, maybe I ought to put some therapeutic stuff in these bottles.“ This is a brand-new thought to him, you see?

For instance, you can help somebody without having consciously taken responsibility for him. You can imagine a situation like that.

Now, climbing to a state of Clear subjectively requires a second action: that one climb to it objectively. And there is no living done in an auditing room. You see, one doesn't re-experience the environment in which he spends twenty-four hours a day in the auditing room. That is an artificial environment and it can do remarkable things, but it isn't an environment that teaches the person a great many things, do you see?

A fellow is lying there with a broken leg after an accident, you didn't really take responsibility for his having been in the accident at all, but you did patch up his broken leg.

He learns from himself. He learns from his past experience. He rehashes existence in its entirety. He overhauls it. He cognites this and that. But he is not actually vis-a-vis with the third dynamic and sixth dynamic. See, he's not exactly face to face with this whole thing. And he never makes any resolutions. You really haven't heard very many preclears suddenly resolve, „Well, after this I will be honest!“ you know, or anything like that. They don't. They go out in the society and they make those resolutions. See, they get it all patched together again.

Now, afterwards you can conceive that you did take some responsibility for him. Don't you see? In other words, they can stand mentally separate. They can stand separate mentally.

That's partially this settling-out period of some little time. And people have mistaken my statements about a settling-out period to mean that the case settles out. No, the settling-out period is a reorientation period and really ought to be called such. A GE is still being mocked up. It's still being mocked up with things wrong with it. These things start to come right, but that's an outer-environment thing, this mock-up that everybody can see. And then there is the entire world outside of play and counter-play, game and counter-game, and an individual has to readjust to these things.

Because these five things are so charged, they easily identify. And they merge awfully easily.

He will go along for quite a while in a tried and true pattern and then gradually he'll move over. Man does not - even a Clear - do tremendously, adventurously dangerous changes. He will not suddenly shift the pattern of a whole lifetime. He would not survive if he did.

They can become themselves a great, big blur, see? And taking them apart one by one, just by definition, does some remarkable things.

The fellow's a streetcar conductor; you clear him. So, instantly he's supposed to be Mozart or somebody, you know? No, no, he goes home and becomes a streetcar conductor. And after a while when he's still settled in - streetcar conductor - he looks around and he sees his horizon is a bit broader. He sees there are other things he could do, maybe just inside the streetcar company. And the next thing you know, he is doing more. But it's a case of doing more rather than doing different. And then you get a good concept of this.

I might or might not remember, oh, I probably will, to tell you a process on this particular line.

But, it's dangerous not to clear somebody. That is what is dangerous. That's what I'm trying to tell you today.

There is a process, „Invent an identity,“ by which you say, „Invent a person,“ and then some such command as „Tell me his idea of (one of these five buttons).“ Now this is the fastest mind-changer you ever saw. But in view of the fact that you're pulling stable data out of the case, the case goes into a rather tremendous confusion. It comes out of this confusion fortunately if you substitute mock-ups for the invent.

Every one of us in an aberrated state was something on the order of the fellow, the drunk, walking down the street. He had a great big green crocodile following him, snapping at his heels, snapping at his heels. And the crocodile was about six, seven feet back of him. He'd rush forward once in a while and snap, you know, and the drunk - and the drunk finally got to the corner and he turned around and he looked at the crocodile, looked at him very hard, gave him a thorough glare, and he says, „You come one step closer, and I'll take an Alka-Seltzer and get rid of you.“

The basic process was „Invent a person.“ The reason you can still use „Invent a person“ - this will probably be important to you later on in this course, so we'll take it up again; but I'll just hit it in passing so that you'll know it exists, and won't take you all by surprise - „Invent a person.“ Now, maybe this fellow can't mock up, you see, and if you told him to „mock up,“ his understanding of putting a mental image picture out there is beyond him, well, he is obsessively mocking up, so when you say „Invent“ you do get a mock-up out there in the darkness, anyhow.

Now, that's what's known as getting Clear by desperation. And you very often find a person gets Clear by desperation. Life is so horrible the way he is that he forces himself out into a cleared state. Then life suddenly isn't horrible, and there's no crocodile, and he begins to notice the street. And he says, „What's this? A street.“ Well, his former action consisted of walking along the street, so it's that street, and he still walks along it. That he can now change his mind and invade other streets in the absence of the crocodile is another story.

And then you say, „Now tell me that person's ideas on...“ and then just take one of these five.

But it is dangerous, really, not to clear somebody. If you take somebody three-quarters of the way up, he will be better off, that's for true. There's nothing wrong with dropping his case right there. He'll be better off; there's no real liability.

Now, let us say you're getting nowhere on the subject of Change. In other words, the case is not changing. Well, I could go further; I could give you a horrible example of a case that's been in the shop. And I'll take this up again later in the unit. But I'll just go over it very rapidly here.

But this individual could have the power of reacting much better. And that's really what a blow is. Some of you people want to know what you are doing when you blow - you have become more able. You have become more able to blow.

This case keeps presenting a service fac. And the old service facsimile is, of course, is a defensive mechanism. That's a good old-time defensive mechanism. It protects all the aberrations, and it's the coating on the Rock and certainly isn't the Rock.

You improve somebody's mock-ups, he's more able to mock up a reactive mind. The green crocodile is now much bigger, much plainer and has much sharper teeth. And that is in essence what happens when you start to clear somebody. You give him the potential of having bigger and better green crocodiles before he has the potential of having a street. And that's what we call over the hump.

So, this person keeps chattering away, this particular pc, he's the bugbear of the HGC occasionally - he really worries them - and he chatters away obsessively about - all on the service fac. And every time you change an auditor or something like that on him, because he's been under processing quite a long time - the new auditor is always taken in by the convincingness of this individual on his service fac.

So, the only other word of warning that I would give you when you start to clear somebody is: just sit down and clear them; don't sit down and work at it; don't sit down and improve his mock-ups; don't sit down and patch up his field; don't sit down and get him over a couple of aberrations because all you do is make it more possible when you're going forward on Clear techniques - which are quite different than other auditing techniques - as I'll just take up here.

Well, his service fac does happen to include his PT problem. Duhh, boy, this was a killer, see? His service fac is his PT problem and nobody will ever go anyplace else than this because, of course, you can't unless you've resolved his PT problem in some fashion.

The first test that demonstrated how you cleared people is one of the most interesting we have, and let's go into this immediately. The first test that was made that demonstrated conclusively how you cleared somebody and that people could be cleared consisted of this: An individual was run on the time track. And by the way, later on in this series of lectures, we're going to take up the anatomy of what you are treating, the anatomy of what you are handling.

All right, this is a case in extremis. And to unsettle the case you could directly run Change. Directly. You could say, „Invent a person. Now tell me that person's idea of change. Thank you. Invent a person. Tell me that person's idea of change. Thank you.“ All right, now you'd unsettle the case. Just like you run Change on SCS to unsettle Start and Stop. Not to get any results. You don't want any positive results, but you want to unsettle the case so that it then will shift. So, „Tell me an idea of change.“ All right. Now, the individual has got Change unfixed, you can expect something else to happen. So the next thing that's going to happen to this fellow will be, „Invent a person and tell me his definition of a problem.“ See? And we'll run that one until we've shaken loose all of the nonsense that he must have as stable data on the subject of problem.

Some of you tend to believe that I've changed my mind concerning the existence of certain phenomena in the mind. That I changed my mind didn't get rid of all the engrams in the world and the secondaries and all the rest of them.

By this time the case will rather be in a horrendous confusion. But we couldn't care less. Better for him to be in a confusion than to be half-dead the way he is now.

Now, an individual was run back on the time track and was made to inspect a mental image picture of a moment of pain and unconsciousness. Then he was brought to present time and run on Step 6 to improve his mockups. Now, another individual was run on the time track back to a moment of pain and unconsciousness and then on successive days without any processing was run back to this same moment and was caused to inspect it.

Now, we will take up this PT problem, see, and we'll run it. But if the service fac is still in the road, we'll just apply some good old-time Scientology and we'll run, „What will it get you into? And what will it get you out of?“ which is one of the oldest processes known on a service fac. Just alternately, you - „What will it get you into? What will it get you out of? What will it get you into? What will it get you out of?“ It was used on this chap with a broken back...

Now, the behavior in this particular case was the moment of pain and unconsciousness deintensified and erased. He was just run back down the time track into it and then pulled out of the backtrack and pushed into present time again. Don't you see? No more therapy. See? So this we know by experience was what would happen if we ran an individual back, let us say, to a tonsillectomy and we did this every day for many days, eventually he'd say, „Oh, to hell with this engram, you know?“ And he'd be rid of it to a marked degree. In other words, the thing became less bright, less real, became less capable of knocking him to pieces. Now, that's one manifestation.

Male voice: Oh, yes.

Truth of the matter is he became cause over it to some degree because something was happening with regard to it. He was at least looking at it again. He was confronting it. You see, there are therapeutic values involved in this test.

..very successfully. A service fac.

But now the other fellow that was run back to this mental image picture - to his mental image picture, you see - and then brought back to present time and treated with Step 6, reacted entirely different.

Now, the only reason you'd monkey around with something like that is because the individual can't be audited because he's always presenting his service fac with such forcefulness that you never can get past it to get any auditing in, see? So, you might chip it out of the road if it still persisted after you've done these first two things.

Each time he was given some Step 6 to improve his ability to mock up. And the next time he was run back to his tonsillectomy, it was glowing much brighter! And the instruments were much more solid. His ability to confront it was also improving, but that thing was getting to be full 3-D technicolor, complete with its pain and unconsciousness. It was getting to be a much better engram.

Now, this person has been null on Help, and this is what makes the case a case. There is something wrong with this individual's concept of help. See, that's a rare one. Help won't run on any quarter of this case. Well, why won't it? There must be...

Several tests of this character were made and this became the most important research project I had ever engaged in except, perhaps, the first time I engaged in the search for a common denominator for life. This became the single, most important experiment, because it brought about this fact: When applied generally here and there, and worked with, it was demonstrated that as an individual's ability to create was improved, so improved every mental image picture he had, including those of the GE. And therefore we were left finally with this one inevitable conclusion.

Male voice: It's not there.

Now, if somebody else wishes to make another conclusion out of this, or could find another one to make, I would be very happy to listen to it very thoroughly because I, myself questioned this thing and put it under a microscope and scratched my head and snarled about it.

Huh?

I achieved this originally on a sort of an intuitive deductive process. I said, „Well, this would be the case.“ But then I didn't dare believe it because it looked too good and therefore checked it, and checked it several times.

Male voice: Help hasn't been run on them. It's a valence.

As an individual's personal ability to create is improved, so improve all mental image pictures. All mental image pictures. Get that all! It doesn't mean that a bank is being made by the GE. It doesn't mean that there are a bunch of things making a bank independent of the preclear.

Help's been run on anything an auditor could think of, and it just exactly goes nowhere.

We should have suspected something like this a long time ago just by the fact that an individual could change his reaction to an incident in the past by auditing. If an individual could change his conduct in the present by auditing some picture of the past, he must have been the causative factor of that picture.

Male voice: Yeah.

Now it goes even further than this. He must have been the causative factor of the incident, otherwise the only thing he could erase out of it was causation. And we get another factor involved. He must have been responsible for the incident if responsibility would resolve the incident! Whooo!

Now this is about the rarest case on record. This is like the giant horned exboo in the mountains of the Himalayas, you see. I don't think he's very standard. He isn't.

In other words, his creativeness gave him not just the picture, but the incident. We have to conclude something on this order. And sure enough if we go back far enough, or look far enough in any case we will find out they decided to have and decided to cause every experience they ever had.

Now we'll have him invent a person and tell us that person's idea of help. And it will be, „Help is impossible to give anybody,“ or something, you see? He'd be totally wound up on this particular subject.

Creation and cause are more or less synonymous in our work.

Ordinarily in running it these definitions will shake out of the case. Well, in this particular instance we're just going to give it a frontal attack. This attack is beginning this afternoon, by the way, on this week's auditing of this PC. And I don't think his case will survive it.

But here is this individual capable of mocking up. We improve his capability of mocking up and we improve all these mental image pictures. Oh, wow!

So, „Invent a person. Tell me that person's idea of help.“

The tremendous importance of this thing I did not miss. It simply meant that all you had to do was get an individual to create and increase his willingness to create, and increase it and increase it and increase it even though it half killed him, to have him suddenly admit that he was creating each and every part of the bank and thus you got, with that recognition, a vanquishment of the entire bank and the fellow had no longer a reactive mind.

Now, we might as well go all the way and run this particular experimental Clear technique, which is what this is, it's Clearing by Definition.

If a person still has some little fragment, as he's going to Clear, then there's just a little fragment that he is not willing to create. And that's how you take out the fragments. The whole thing doesn't collapse at once, you see?

„Invent a person“ - and by this time we will start inventing them at various quarters of the body, you see, above, and below and beyond, give it location and probably shift it off to „Mock up.“ „Mock up a person. Tell me his idea of creation“ or creating or creativeness, see? Get that shaken down and then beat it to death on Responsibility.

The individual says, „Well, I've got it all solved, but there's one person I would never create! Never! Because I certainly do not want to be like Aunt Agatha.“ And you get this little Aunt Agatha valence sticking around on a person who is otherwise Clear.

Now, certainly by this time - the same process on Responsibility, see - by this time we certainly will have altered the key factors of the case. And then we'll just proceed with this other.

The last few moments of play on clearing are quite upsetting to an auditor because the fellow ought to be Clear, he's made all of the cognitions necessary to being Clear and yet he won't be cause on some little tiny sector of life, and he's not Clear on that sector.

Now then, theoretically you could clear a case simply by clearing these five buttons. Theoretically. But in view of the violence of the Rock, and some various other factors, it might not be feasible. So it's highly experimental and it's an experimental excursion into Clearing by Definition. We've done lots of things by definition, so let's try to clear by definition and see if we get anyplace.

And as you clear people, you will then see once more this same proposition demonstrated: that area of existence in which the person is unwilling to be cause, tends to be (not necessarily is) but tends to be the master of that person. And we get responsibility as the other factor with create.

We'll have more on this before this course ends.

That for which a person will take no responsibility, devours him hook, line and shoe buckles.

We find out that an individual gets along as well as he can change his mind about things. Well, this is a process which directly tells him „to change his mind or else,“ see, sort of a thing.

„Well, that's my wife. She can do as she please. I'm - no responsibility of mine what she does. That's just modern life.“ God knows what happens after that. Lord knows what quicksand and what bogs this fellow is about to walk into.

And it's a project and I usually start a project along about the time an ACC comes along, and about two-thirds of the way through and two-thirds of the cases are all bogged down and it never will something or other, why, we usually trot something out of the ragbag and patch it all up and get it going.

Now, the funny part of it is, because of the enormous complexities of life, he doesn't necessarily walk into that particular bog. He waits two centuries, finds another girl who reminds him of the first girl and even though he is desperately trying to take responsibility for this woman, she does him in. And one day she and her lover has his head on cabbage salad. And he just can't understand what happened to him. He never would have caused this, he will tell you or a psychoanalyst, or somebody. He's just talking, you see? He couldn't have caused this! This is one thing he couldn't have caused! And the alligator tears are splashing like mad. Real alligator tears.

But you'll find every case that bogs down or every case that is being boggy has a misdefinition on at least one. But where you get a misdefinition on one, that misdefinition then identifies (to get right back to your question) and associates itself tightly as an identification with the other four.

There was a sector of his past where he didn't take responsibility which goes first postulate ahead of the area where he did and it drives him nuts. The thing can't work out.

Now, breaking those apart and breaking that down is a primary goal of auditing. This is a method I was giving you of doing it directly.

He knows instinctively that if he just takes responsibility for his environment, and the people around him, and for living a life, he's all set. You see, he knows this instinctively that if it really comes down to the last push (everybody will tell you this) that they've got to get in there and do their job, and so forth.

They all do associate one with another, naturally. But where they totally identify, you get a total mess.

Even - you get a drunk (who is the most irresponsible person in the world); he's abandoned his family and he's abandoned his job and you go down to Alcoholics Anonymous, you find them knee-deep. You can be knee-deep in a minute in people like this. And every one of them will tell you, „Well, I realize that I ought to stand up and assert my willpower and lay off liquor and go back in and support the family and take care of things and go back and take care of my job. And I realize this. But... But...“ And they got a bunch of excuses.

Does that answer it?

Everybody, no matter how far gone he is, still has some feeling like well, if he - at least if he had turned around on life, at least if he had picked up a few responsibilities at one time or another, he would have won.

Male voice: Yes, Ron. One more question attached to that: In having a person „Invent a person, and tell me that person's ideas of change,“ you're going to strip off valences doing that, aren't you? Oh, I'm sure you're going to do a lot of wild things. But the wildest thing you're going to do is strip off stable data. And that puts an awful lot of data into motion in the case, and puts an awful lot of confusion going.

That's self-blame. Self-blame is the assertion that one didn't take responsibility when he should have. And „blaming somebody else“ is another mechanism entirely. That's saying responsibility didn't exist, but that's saying it right now that it still doesn't exist. You know, it's „Their fault, their fault, their fault.“ All he's saying is „Responsibility doesn't exist.“ He's just laying one up for the year 2250.

Oh, there's a brand-new rule I'd better tell you. It's a brand-new rule: The first incident - this is one of the oldest rules we have, this part of it - the prior incident, the earlier incident, always should receive the greater attention for lasting and final results, you see? That's back to getting basic-basic off the chain, you know? Now, that prior incident idea can also be run into the first, second, third, fourth postulate idea.

All right. Life, then, apparently imposes this fantastic discipline: that a person must be responsible for all of his acts; that he must be willing and must know that he is willing to be at cause in every situation; and must know that he is creating what he is creating for him to be in excellent condition. Now, that is the regimen that life lays down.

Where an individual has a field, he can be assumed to be inhibiting with the field a creation which was made before the field. So, the rule is: Don't ever monkey with fields. Leave them alone, unless you also at the same time - the borderline case would be - unless you also at the same time handle the creation.

Now, the discipline of the sixth dynamic says that you must be willing to change.

So, an auditing command such as, „Find a creation that is masked,“ would be just about as close as you could come to auditing what will become a technical term with you, rather than field, which is rather formidable, a more technical term which has greater use is inhibitor -o-r - inhibitor.

So we get another button. It may be a little obscure up to this point that I'm talking about specific buttons, but I am just talking about buttons. Time. Pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, up the time track, you know?

Male voice: What was that command again, Ron?

How come this stuff is always solid at the exact instant that you look at it? You know, that's one of the most amazing problems. You can ask a little kid that and really boggle him. You say, „How come that stuff is always solid just at the exact instant you look at it?“ And you say, „Boy, that is some trick, isn't it, you know?“

Oh, that's just - that just gives you the borderline. It's not a - really a fine process. It does some interesting things though with fields.

Well, change. If a person is unwilling to have any change occurs, then he sticks himself all over the time track. See? And he doesn't let this stuff go pocketa-pocketa-pocketa but he takes a mental image picture of it and says, „You will not pocketa.“ And that sticks him but thoroughly, and there he is not pocketa-ing and that's the end of that.

Is - I think it was, „Look around here and locate a masked creation.“

Auditor comes along a few generations or centuries or thousands of years later and says, „Come up to present time.“

Now, that tells you what a field is. A field is something that is masking a creation.

And he says in effect, „Present time has long evaded me. Time has marched on. Anything that you are looking at now is future to me. Life is sad. Life is cruel. And I didn't change. And furthermore, I'm not going to.“

A field is also something else. A field is a shattered creation.

A thetan would rather stop than move. It's apparently more therapeutic to him and more interesting to him to stop something dead still than to move. But he is the author of motion, so therefore he shouldn't be antipathetic to motion.

Here's a planet. It was perfectly spherical when it was mocked up; it was just doing fine and it was going along swimmingly and everything was swell and all of a sudden it went poompf. Got John Foster Dulles as secretary of state or something and it went boom, see? And it wasn't any longer in its orbit, and there it was, you see? All right, what about this planet? To get rid of the actual planet - we're not now talking about the mental image picture, see, let's just put it into a broader material universe phrase - to get rid of the planet, I'm afraid you would have to treat its perfect form, see, its moment of perfect form.

But perhaps, just as a neat little game, he propounds this weighty one: „I will contest everything that moves.“ This eventually results in contesting everything that changes and the progress of MEST through time: matter, energy and space through time. Change: change is the keynote of time.

It almost can be said that all things are primarily mocked up as perfect form. Now, this gives the lie, for the first time, to some of the Vedic hymns. It claims that all was chaos and the chaos all came together and made something. And I think that's commie propaganda. Don't think it's true at all. That's about the fourth postulate.

Change, incidentally, is the keynote of any case on which you are working. It is the fundamental.

All right, it runs this way: Nothingness; postulate one: perfect mock-up; postulate two: fragmentation and chaos inhibiting the perfect mock-up or as a result of the perfect mock-up; fragment three, a recompos- pardon me - postulate three: a recomposition of the fragments into a solid whole; postulate four: disintegration or inhibition of this third thing.

What are you trying to do when you're running goals? You're trying to get him to postulate a change. Definition of Goals Processing: any attempt to get the preclear to postulate change.

Now, you can go five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, on down the line, and you finally get to a Ford automobile. And this all by itself will tell you why it is so hard to as-is MEST; it's a recomposition of chaos.

Now any way you could get him to do that, you'll wind up with a goal.

Well, the chaos came originally from the fragments of a perfect form, see? You get the idea? This is a very revolutionary principle. I don't know - can't tell you positively whether it's always true or not, because a thetan could start right in and mock up chaos. See? Yes?

A goal is a not-here. It isn't just future. It's not-here. It postulates that he is going to go someplace. And it is a highly covert activity in which the auditor engages. It's very covert. The auditor is saying, „Come on now. Can't I possibly persuade you to move up the time track just that much. It won't kill you, you know? It's just - just that much. Just try. Try it now. Try it.“

Female voice: Could you say it over so we could hear it twice and maybe get it written this time?

Fellow says, „Well, my goal for the session could be to get rid of the session, get over it and get done with it.“ Oh, but even in that bitterness he has still postulated this little tiny change. He said, „There's going to be an end of session.“ And that moment of time is different than the moment of time in which he's postulating it. So he was handling the future, wasn't he? This is a sneaker. Carried out to its final limit it would move the person bodily on the time track and carry him on up to present time.

All right. Zero is nothing. See, that's just thetan potential. One is perfect form, of course, in perfect space. Two would be the inhibition of the perfect form, usually by its own fragments, but you also could have other fragments. Three, a recomposition of these fragments into a new form. Four, once more the aspect of disintegration of this third form. Five, of course, would be a recomposition of form. Six would be a disintegration of that form. Seven, and so on.

Most of the goals he's given you, he gives you early in processing, are the things he - the reverse of the things he doesn't want to have happen in his future. And his future may very well be 1066. He's still trying to keep from being the last surviving officer of the Battle of Hastings. See? And he's saying...

Well, now to take apart this little scale you have to hit the first perfect form.

So it's the easy thing to do, is for him to stay in cadet school, you see, at 1005, or something like that, you know? That's the best thing to do.

This is kind of the way it works out in auditing. As long as you audit perfect form, you get rid of the inhibitor.

And you find him parked in 1005 and you say, „What happened in 1005 to make him stick?“ Oh, it's much worse than that. Something did happen but he is using it to keep from going into 1066. Do you get the idea?

Now, we just draw a conclusion. This is probably the way the MEST universe got here and became permanent. I don't know on what ten-millionth variation of this we are now proceeding, see? How many times has that wall you see disintegrated and then been made up again and disintegrated and been made up again.

Don't think a thetan doesn't use his stuck points. His ability to have a greater rationale than the mechanics is phenomenal, wonderful, beautiful.

Hm?

The individual has more reasons for these mechanics than you can easily count in a long session. But the principal one is no future, no change. Therefore he rebels against a future which he went into. See, he went up to the future and he says, „Not for me!“ and does a down bounce to an earlier moment and hastily grabs on to a stuck period. And he finds this idiotic moment where one cadet hit him over the head with a chamber pot or something and he says - and yeah, I had such a case one time - and all the fellow was worried about was the fact that his fellow companions used to hit him over the head with a chamber pot, and this was all very Freudian, and it fitted exactly but it didn't ever get anyplace.

Male voice: Well, this explains a question I was going to ask about - there are two types of case: the one who's got pictures and doesn't know it (busy unknowing his pictures) and there's the one who's busy who's got his pictures, who's busy unknowing the MEST universe.

All it amounted to was he didn't want to grow up in that particular lifetime. That was all it amounted to. And he had handed - and he had grabbed on to this nauseous incident which he couldn't take responsibility for, had taken a wider, more general responsibility for it, had created it, had said he was not now creating it, and all the thing he was trying to do was avoid responsibility for a later moment. When responsibility was resolved for the later moment, the earlier moment went pfzzt. Fascinating, hm? All right.

Yeah.

Now, the role of an auditor is to outguess a thetan, so auditors are obviously greater than thetans. Clearing an auditor, then, should be much easier than clearing thetans; and it is. Even though a good auditor will occasionally go up in smoke under modern processing, he generally will get himself by the nape of the neck and go back into it again.

Male voice: And you've got these two inversions sitting right here...

Had an example of that the other day. Somebody told me, „Under no circumstances will I answer that question.“ Told me in devious and various ways. You know: it didn't matter, didn't bother him, inconsequential, didn't apply to the case. And when I finally insisted the question be answered, I got the astonishing flashback you see, of never would the question be answered, and all kinds of fulminations, you see? And I flattened that particular process finally.

Yeah. That's right. That's right. You'll find a case sitting along these lines. Every once in a while you start auditing a wide-open case who has pictures and has no control over them and doesn't know it and they all just appear magically, and he doesn't know from where, you know, a nice irresponsibility. You audit him for a while and it all goes black. Or it gets into shooting comets and all that sort of thing. And my, is that case disturbed. Well, you've just shifted him up scale, not down scale. And you went into the earlier cycle of disintegration.

And you know, this person being an auditor then said to me, „Well, I see what I've been doing. I've occasionally been defeating myself by not really answering an auditing question, but by faking an answer. And I've just been holding up my processing like mad. So, I know what I was doing and now I don't have to do that so I can be cleared much more rapidly.“

Now, if you always handle first postulates, why, you always undo the second stage. So inhibitors are undone by handling perfect form.

Now, what preclear off the street would have been able to have figured this one out, see? Yet this person now, by self-discipline, even if the incident seems to demonstrate the question must not be answered, then this Scientologist is going to answer the question. Get the idea?

And one of the reasons you use simple forms in Step 6 is to make sure that they will be perfect forms. And the automaticity of form doesn't enter in.

Well, in view of the fact that there's so much beef involved in answering some of these questions, so much flashback, such a potential in some of this, that a Scientologist really ought to be able to be cleared much better than a person out in the public.

And now when you ask an individual to invent a person and tell him his idea of (something of the sort), boy, you get muck flying around the like of which no pc ever saw before because you're pulling out stable data.

He understands more, in a highly gener- generality, he's got more subjective reality on what is going on than somebody else. And he doesn't necessarily surrender to his reactive computations.

But why did the stable data exist? They existed on an earlier disintegration which the pc didn't like, and so on, so each stable data is keeping an earlier disintegration going, and you theoretically could walk him up scale.

He can blow for twenty-four hours, but sooner or later he's going to say, „Now, wait a minute!“ Get the idea? And the person out in the public never says, „Now wait a minute.“

Yes, Jack?

Now, what happens when clearing is taking place is not the same thing that happened when Dianetic Auditing was taking place. We're patching up a person by getting rid of and getting him to confront his mental image pictures.

Male voice: Is this connected with the scale of substitutes in Creation of Human Ability?

Now, whatever route was there and whatever it finally developed into and however it arrived, that is not the same thing as we are doing today. And you should understand this.

Very, very much parallel to the same thing. You might say the scale of substitutes, the earlier version.

There is another method to Clear. There's an older method to Clear. See? Way back there - possibly an easier method - it was just getting people to confront these things and pretty soon, pretty soon they said, „Well, they don't worry me,“ so they didn't mock them up. Do you get the idea? And they came through a realization, one kind or another, that's so ...

We could get another one, is the first, second and third, fourth postulates on Know and Not-know, and this would be the mental reaction to it. And there eventually gets to be a physical action called Know and Not-know. And the physical action of Not-know is your second postulate in this particular case. You get the idea? As the individual runs along, the individual first not-knows everything and then he knows some part of it. You get the idea? So this first, second, third, fourth postulate, and that old Not-know Scale are not in coordination. They're not the same thing.

We're not doing that today. We're doing a much faster, more positive job, but that job includes a trip over the hump. When you start to clear somebody, start to audit him toward Clear - he might have already had some auditing in this direction - we ask him a few questions and all of a sudden he hits something that let's his mock-ups get much better, brrrrp. Or we hit something that lets him take much better responsibility for something. Of course, that's a safer one than his mock-ups are much better. When his mock-ups are much better, and he's not taking any greater responsibility for them, he can get his silly head kicked off. You see that?

When we say first postulate we mean Not-know, see, on the old scale. And there we're in the field of pure thinkingness, pure knowingness, and so forth, and we're operating there.

So, he's sitting there, he's perfectly in good shape and everything is going along fine and so on. He is saying, „Yes. Yes.“

Well, this other one describes form, and this is a form scale. In both cases you audit out the first postulate.

„Mock up a lifesaver in front of the body.“

One of the contests of Not-know could be said to be (this is a far-fetched one): you make such a perfect form that everybody fixates on it and not-knows everything else.

„Yes. Yes.“

Typical example of this: a beautiful girl shows up and the boys completely forget what they were talking about, thinking about, their bickering and everything else goes by the boards, you see? It's possibly a form method of not-knowing, something on this order.

„Mock up a lifesaver in back of the body.“

Yes?

„Yes. Yes. Fine.“

Female voice: This is a question on a different line. At the time of conception of a new body, is the thetan there and then does he make the pictures of the prenatal period and, well, create them and take responsibility?

„Keep it from going away.“ And so on.

Isn't that interesting?

Happy, happy, and everything is fine. And all of a sudden a fixed look starts to come on his face, you know, and ... You say, well, the E-Meter is twitching around but that will be all right, you know, and „All right. Beneath that body mock up a lifesaver, and keep it from going away.”

Female voice: Mm-hm.

And whoooom! You're liable to get yourself into a bloodbath situation there if you just listen to it for a moment, you know? All of a sudden his ability to mock up increased without his responsibility for mocking up increasing one iota. And whenever that happened he just became the victim about three times as much, and it can happen solidly and it can happen very savagely.

But that's all I can say about it. Yeah, is the thetan present at the moment of conception? Does he make those pictures as he comes up the line? Evidently there's some interlock here that has not been explored. And this comes under the heading of a much wider question, is: Do you make all of this all the time? And do you make everybody all the time? And is your individuality actually your compartmented part of making everything else too, and saying, „This is me, this is I, while all that over ...“ If that were the case then you would have to some degree predetermined your new body and had a finger on it all the way up the line up to the moment that you got it.

And you can bring an individual three-quarters of the way to Clear, and make him go dumping around like a sick chicken for two or three weeks if you don't audit him. You get the idea?

This is quite fascinating. As I have said to you before we have never totally resolved this question: Are you everybody or are you just one amongst many? And although we lean rather toward „there are many and you are one amongst that many,“ and it seems to work out that way, nevertheless we seem to have capabilities of being everybody too, which is confusing. That is a problem for OT. That's definitely an OT problem.

He's actually better off - if you can imagine this - he himself is better off, but he is now mocking up a reactive bank much better than he was mocking up before. He's not mocking up less of it, he's just mocking it up better!

Yes?

And although he feels much happier... You get the idea?

Male voice: How does willingness fit into these five buttons and what you've been talking about on this scale? Willingness is responsibility since true responsibility cannot exist in absence of willingness.

So the route we are taking is one of the more violent and adventurous routes. And you should understand that. Therefore, it does not admit of bad auditing.

Male voice: Would you say they are synonymous or is willingness...

There are some routes, I am sure, which we will someday discover which are long, perhaps, and easy, and don't knock anybody apart. And fellows can do it without special skill and it only takes seven or eight years. I'm sure that someday one of those routes will come up as the favored route, long after I'm gone and so forth, that will probably come up - it's one of those routes will come up as a favored route, you know.

No, no. Willingness is subordinate to responsibility.

„Well, we really ought to take this process. And a fellow sort of does this and that and you get a session every month at the beginning of the month or something like that and you eventually wind up Clear, and fellows are much happier and it's all very smooth and there's no drama connected with it whatsoever.“ Very high probability, you see?

Male voice: Willingness is subordinate to responsibility?

Some generation of auditors may refuse to confront this sort of thing, you know, and say, „Wait a minute, you know?“

Yep. Yep. This is worked out by auditing tests, by the way, how we arrive at these seniorities, and so forth, by auditing test.

But just like - just like there's some Chas today that run into the manifestation that you run into in a pc in running engrams, you know, and they say, „God, what's that?“ You know? Fellow curled up in a ball in the middle of the floor screaming at high C! Screaming „Don't stick me! Don't stick me! Oh, please, don't do it again!“ you know?

By auditing willingness alone, do we arrive at the same result as we do when we're using responsibility? And the answer is no, not arf [half]. Not even vaguely.

„Well, I've got to do it again, dear. Now, just lie there and don't move,“ you know.

So, you'd say a person could be responsible for something under duress. You could say that. But it isn't necessarily true because he's then not really being responsible for it, you see? Actually, somebody else is being responsible for it, and he's merely being responsible for it on a via if it's responsibility under duress.

Once in a while somebody runs into one of these old engrams that contorts the GE all out of shape, revivifies it square on the track. But an auditor who has faced this sort of thing doesn't have any qualms about facing it.

And as you audit responsibility, people come up through this cycle and all of a sudden themselves begin to be willing to be responsible.

It's quite interesting that the head of the Los Angeles office recently had a man who totally revivified in riding a horse. And he was sitting there in the auditing session riding the horse, you know, and pulling on the reins and, „Whoa. Giddap,“ and sort of flinging the answers to the auditing questions out of the corner of his mouth to the auditor quite incidentally as he rode this horse down the road, you know. The horse was going at a considerable gallop, too. Total revivification. You know, the fellow came out of it. Wasn't at all amazed at what he'd been doing because he'd always been doing this.

All right, then willingness to be responsible is responsibility. And we may be saying responsibility when we say willingness.

So if you go directly toward clearing and steer a very straight course, if the person is that thoroughly stuck in an incident that he will revivify in the incident, he'll revivify in the methods we are using. He will revivify if you pushed it all the way through.

Male voice: I wondered.

Now, there are ways to get around this. You can run Help, Step 6, Help, Step 6, Help, Step 6, and occasionally throw in a handful of Responsibility. You know, just ease it off, even in a two-way comm, and so forth. Keep this thing out so it doesn't necessarily tear his head off bodily and leave it bloodily dripping upon the floor. And it's not necessarily true that it half kills somebody but it can! And you must remember that.

Yeah, we may be saying that, but the thing doesn't completely resolve a case. Willingness alone does not resolve the case.

To date, has not really killed anybody, but has caused some people to flinch; has caused them to flinch sufficiently that they are at the beginning of the session in which it happened.

A young girl being willing to commit sin is not necessarily a better young girl.

What'd I tell you a few moments ago about the fellow being hit on the head with a chamber pot and stuck in the incident so he wouldn't have to go through the Battle of Hastings again, see?

Male voice: Is that because they don't communicate the two ideas?

Well, there are some people at the beginning of that auditing session wherein they hit the Rock without being the least bit prepared to hit a Rock, and it splintered their little canoe all over the river.

Yeah. Now say that again?

All of a sudden there was the Rock, see? Horrors! „What happened to me?“

Male voice: When you say responsibility, you are also communicating willingness.

Well, I don't know, what happened to them. They should be proud of themselves if they only knew it. If they only knew it, their pride in themselves should be very great.

Yes.

That they can mock up an incident with such realism, with such savageness, such pain and such pressure as to almost cause them themselves to cave in is quite a remarkable feat. But of course, they never realize this because it wouldn't cave them in if they were taking any responsibility for it, which they aren't. Just a little responsibility applied to a case at the point where it's about to go up through the roof will take the curse off the blow.

Male voice: You say willingness, you are not communicating responsibility.

And you can make a blow smooth right out with some Responsibility of one kind or another.

Correct. Correct. Very, very smart. Thank you.

Now, when you get an actual blow, and the person is leaving and so forth, and it's gone, it's too late to do something about it so you should smell one coming and ease it off. Smell one coming and ease the thing off.

Female voice: This spring, willingness came in as a gradient on that to help break the „have-to's“ and the „musts“ and the „shoulds.“

Person's getting tense, upset, something of this character. You've already gone too long between Help and Step 6. In other words, you've improved their mock-ups more than you have made it possible for them to help things, you get the idea. There's an imbalance has taken place in this session of one kind or another.

Yeah.

But in view of the fact that it's almost impossible to be 100 percent right, you will still get blows. You don't see them coming, they don't see them coming, they happen rather fast and suddenly and they go wham!

Female voice: And a couple of times - working both ways - it was said, well, „Could you be willing,“ and all of a sudden these musts and have-to's just began to disappear, that had been standing there like blocks before.

So, don't be upset by the fact. Just realize what's happened. His ability to create has suddenly become much greater than his responsibility for creating it. And when that occurs you've given him a much better, more solid, more effective reactive bank that kicks his teeth in much more significantly. Do you see that?

These two things are interactive to some degree.

Well, taking a person over the hump, three-quarters of the way to Clear is a skill in itself and it's something you learn by flying by the seat of your pants. Best way to learn it is, start to take somebody over the hump sometime.

Male voice: Yeah, to me it seems that creation is senior to those because you have to create the willingness to create the responsibility. Is that correct?

And where people are failing to clear we have this factor involved: First, there must be some little idea that they really don't want to set the person free - that must be there to some degree.

Yeah, that's right.

We get, then, this other factor. This other factor is much more arduous: is that they get them almost over the hump and then they cut the toboggan line, see, and let them go back down the same side they came up.

Creativeness is the basic impulse of everything, and even if it's thought. And you get this, of course, as your senior button all the way along the line. It sometimes, however, cannot be directly approached, and these other four buttons give us a method of approaching it.

Now, they're going to have an awful time getting him up to that point in the Alps again. The fellow gets sick from rarefied air. He doesn't like snow, and wind and cold upset him mightily. See? And you very often find that some case you're having difficulty clearing, particularly amongst Scientologists, almost made it once, you know?

Yes?

Then you have to address the case very directly and unwrap the case and unwrap such incidents in auditing and therapy as is necessary in order to get the case wheeling again.

Male voice: Is consequences a shift of responsibility?

Fortunately, Help and such processes undo what they do. Scientology is the only subject on the face of the earth that undoes itself. That makes it the only true science there is. See? Scientology can wipe out what Scientology does. I never noticed physics or chemistry doing it.

Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Willingness to accept consequences is also a test of responsibility. It doesn't audit clearly or cleanly but it's still a test of responsibility. A person is unwilling to be responsible if he's unwilling to accept the consequences for, so he must have the idea of consequences before he has the idea of irresponsibility.

Now, where we have a case, then, as I have gone over these things and talked about them here and shown you their relationship to auditing, we then have in essence five central buttons. And I've just discussed each one of these things in turn. And each one of it has a relationship to clearing.

And a person who is totally impressed by consequence is a person who is quite irresponsible. And therefore we get the direction of social law as tending toward the creation of criminals. For instance, the most dangerous person in China or India is probably a woman. Quite interesting: the women are probably much more dangerous in comparison of the sexes than men. Much more.

And these buttons you could sort out with the greatest of ease. Just take Clearing Procedure, then go down the line and you will find what these buttons are.

And the most tremendous framework of consequence is erected around women in China and India - tremendous consequences. And they erected these things originally, possibly, because women were dangerous basically or something of the sort and then came up the line and enforced them, and the longer these things have been in action, the more, you might say, irresponsible for the community at whole, the women of India and China have been. Until they arrive at a very, very high irresponsibility, oh, about -I don't know the exact date, I wouldn't even pretend to know it, but it's back there in terms of hundreds, up toward thousands of years - when they had to invent suttee, which is one of the more fascinating things. If a man dies, you burn his wife or wives.

First and foremost is Change. Hence we have CCH 0, Goals. Change: that's the button you're hitting for. Person has to be willing to change - otherwise he won't change.

Well, why did they do this? There was a wave of husband poisoning going on which immediately succeeded no divorce. They got the idea that there could never be a divorce, and they enforced this on women so they wouldn't go flying around. So the women acted as a counter to this by poisoning their husbands. And the husband-poisoning became so common that then they invented suttee, and the wife got burned alive on the pyre which took away the body of a husband. Do you see? And this thing just went from one irresponsibility to the next.

Next button: Problems.

Now, this again did not make women more responsible, you see? And none of these remedies have ever resulted in a higher responsibility.

He must have some concept of problems that admits of their resolution. If he doesn't have a concept of problems that admits of their resolutions, you have a case that won't change because PT problem can never be solved. You see?

All you need is about a thousand more traffic laws to have nothing but a 100 percent accident rate. Get the idea? All you need is a few more consequences.

So, your next most important button - and it was clearing, itself, which demonstrated these buttons by the way; this is after the fact, these buttons. We know that there are dozens of buttons, and lots of them are very, very important, but let's look at this clearing after the fact, and find out what buttons were connected with clearing. We find just these buttons are. So that problem definition has got to be very good. Otherwise we never get a change of profile; and we never get a Clear.

There's always a sleeper along with every series of consequences that causes the thing to apparently work. And that is the actual social nature of man. And the actual social nature of man gets him over even law.

All right, let's just move up just a little bit further here.

I wouldn't give you anything for a fellow who was totally restrained from doing something solely because law exactly operated. I wouldn't give you two bits for the man.

As far as Control is concerned, we are actually working with responsibility - responsibility.

It's just like a hound dog. He's no good unless he'll kill chickens.

First the auditor's willingness to take responsibility for the person, and the person, then, sort of by contagion, taking some responsibility for himself and the session. Got that?

The fellow, in other words, who is made totally social by law, duress and consequence doesn't exist unless we call „totally social“ a man who is totally irresponsible. This becomes a very interesting enigma that the courts are always trying to solve.

Responsibility is at work here. „Did you stop that body?“ we say in old SCS, see?

Now the courts have awarded total irresponsibility by not punishing people who are insane. Well, they'd have to do this eventually as an end product, wouldn't they?

You make him take some responsibility for what's going on. And responsibility over Start, Change and Stop is a low-order responsibility. Responsibility over Create, and Change, and the rest of these buttons is much greater, but that's a low-order responsibility and we do get the case to get a little bit of responsibility with regard to this.

Audience: Sure.

So, we've got this button called Responsibility which doesn't really fit on the scale there, but in procedure fits there. It's actually the last button that we have anything to do with. But we do something about it fairly early.

Once they'd run out of consequences, they'd sooner or later have to make an opening for insanity, and so they have.

And then we get into this thing called Help.

And insanity is more and more used as a plea - more and more and more used as a plea.

Now, unless there's some kind of a definition for help that admits of it occurring, you're never going to get anyplace, so you want to watch it, and make sure that this definition on the part of the preclear changes before you bash your brains out on the rocks of „I won't.“ You see that?

Now, there's a motion on foot to call all criminals insane.

There must be something changing about his definitions of help if help isn't occurring easily.

Well, in view of the fact that the people who are doing this don't know that there's a cure for criminality and are just talking about it, and haven't yet cured a criminal of anything, why, it makes it a rather dangerous social experiment to call all criminals insane and turn them loose.

And then we get the next button to that which is Create.

We've already had a case of this. We had two boys who had been given psychotherapy in institutions. They were two criminals, more or less; socially disorderly cases. And both of them had been just monkeyed with by the prison psychologists and psychiatrists and so on to a point where they'd become relatively unauditable. In other words, they were not only not helping them, but they were also making them unauditable.

And of course, it's the biggest button of all. Create. And that's a huge button. Man, you could button every bib in the world on that one. Create.

Fernando handled one of these much to his sorrow. He hasn't been in jail since. We raised him up the line a little bit, gave him a little bit of reality, and I heard from a lieutenant of police not too long ago that he had just for the fun of it run through the records and he hadn't found the boy's name, and this was very odd for this character not to have been picked up for drunk and disorderly conduct or petty theft or something like that over a period of a year, and this had never happened before since the boy had attained the age of 18. So we must have done something.

Of course, that made the biggest operation in the world assigning all creation and all blame, shame and regret to some monodeistic fairy tale. See, and that made that the biggest operation that ever occurred anyplace, at any time, to make people more sick than any other single activity that ever happened anywhere.

But the main barrier we were into was this psychiatric revulsion on the part of both of these cases. That was probably the main barrier we were trying to overcome. They were certain that no mental therapy could do anything for anybody. This they were very certain of. They had no other certainty; that's what the prison had given them.

And you get some reality on this someday, and you'll say, „What!“ And you'll go down the street and look at the „I Will Arise“ church, or something like that and you'll say, „Huh!“ It'll no longer become a matter of opinion with you but just a matter of good sense.

Now, we get consequence and responsibility as an interplay and we don't find it workable in absence of actual social consciousness.

Because responsibility for creativeness and a knowledge of what one is creating means sanity, effectiveness, capability and freedom. So, its exact reverse must mean the exact reverse.

And man is fairly - he is a social animal, if you want to call him an animal in the frame of the psychologist. And the psychologist is trying to convince us that he's not; that he's a social animal by duress.

Irresponsibility for something else which then creates everything means naturally sickness, slavery and all of the other ills that go along with that.

But actually a thetan is a social being. And his willingness to have a third dynamic is the only thing that keeps things wheeling. His willingness to work is the only thing that keeps factories running. It actually isn't pay. It isn't anything. These are only apparencies. And it's quite amazing.

It's a nice operation. Next time you say your prayers, remember it and get some auditing.

When you look this over, you find out that the willingness to work; the willingness to be orderly; the willingness to be social; the willingness to handle, manage, and run a family; all of these willingnesses have as parasites all of these agencies that are supposed to make it happen. And we see all these agencies failing, failing, failing, failing, failing. Well, that's because they're only parasitic on a basic willingness anyhow. And this responsibility is quite interesting.

This doesn't say that there isn't such a thing as a collective God of one kind or another but it certainly does say that there isn't such a thing for a healthy man of a total fixation on a single deity who made everything including him!

An auditor leveling consequences at his preclear is in a dangerous auditing position. He's not going to get very far with it. To some slight degree once in a while it's allowable, just to some faint degree. Like a guy is drowning because he hates you and he doesn't want you to rescue him, you know? And you start to draw back a little bit from the bank and he quickly overcomes his hatred of you and gets himself salvaged.

There's a vast difference between those two things.

But again we are leaning upon the preclear's social sense; his sense of at least wanting to save the first dynamic, you see? But it can't be leaned on very much without reversing it, and we get off over onto this irresponsibility kick whereby we manufacture with consequences irresponsibility.

Now, let's look over this and find that we have established here a little set of buttons, and a new clearing chart. And these, you might say, are the clearing buttons.

Treatment of the insane with electric shock is a totally manufactured irresponsibility. And they wonder why they have to come back and get more and more shocks and so forth.

And they are, and I'll go over them again: Change, Problems, Help, Create and Responsibility. Or actually, they should be in that order.

I was told the other day by some layman - a layman is somebody who believes psychiatrists - that electric shock was a very good thing, because he knew some fellow who had had some electric shocks. He had been crazy before and he'd had some electric shocks and for three years the fellow had not had a recurrence. And he was telling me this and this was fine, and I was very happy to hear this.

Now, any other button is so junior to these five buttons - see, we've learned this through the actual facts of clearing that these were the important buttons, you see - and any other button is so junior to these buttons that it is regulated by one or more of these buttons. So, now we're looking at sanity and aberration and the number of postulates a thetan can make to drive himself mad. And behind each one of them, each great computation or huge upset or something of the sort, we will find one or more of these basic buttons.

And I said, „Well, what did the fellow used to do?“

Now, go over them again.

„Well, the fellow used to be the manager of a restaurant.“

First one, Change.

„What is he doing now?“

Second one, Problems.

„Well, as a matter of fact he's on relief. But he hasn't been sane - he hasn't been insane since. You see?“ Figure that one if you can as a gain, huh? We burden the society with one guy. We burdened him one way, that didn't work, so we burden him the other way, see? It's the same way.

Third one, Help.

Yes?

Fourth one, Create.

Female voice: Ron, would you tell me what it is that causes the lag between becoming a Scientologist, going to lectures, being audited, and actually using all this in daily existence twenty-four hours a day? What is the lag?

Fifth one, Responsibility.

Female voice: What causes it?

Now, in session, we run Responsibility all the way through them, and up here in position 3 in our ACC Procedure, because we try to get the individual some responsibility for the session or the body or something by running Connectedness and SCS. SCS has more responsibility mixed up in it than Connectedness.

Nothing. That's just the slowness of educational reaction. It is man's unwillingness - man's unwillingness to be sure.

You'll find out that his continuous refusal to change; next one, misconcept of, scarcity of, something wrong with, problems; aberration in his definitions, concept or conduct or receipt of help; misconceptions as to creativeness - who created what and where, how it creates, who doesn't have it, the ability to create, who shouldn't create, what you shouldn't, what you should - all of these ball up into the reactive mind, mental image pictures, and the universe around us.

He has been fooled so often. He has been fooled with and fooled so often; he has been given such extravagant promises so long, and even I was guilty of - a bit on the side of an extravagant promise. I had done it; other people didn't do it. Don't you see? It was unintentional, but it for sure gave us a little bit of a curve, see, and it gave people a lot of downcurve that was not too good. Because it played right into the hands of the same thing you're talking about.

And responsibility is the final cap that fits down over it all and makes it, when it is irresponsibility, a good snug fit for somebody dead in his head.

He's been fooled so often. He's been told all he had to do was dedicate himself to God, and be totally irresponsible and go and live in a cave someplace and be a hermit and live on berries, or something like this. And all he had to do was do that and he was all set. And when he exteriorized from that body, why, he found out he was dragging along all of his can't-haves, and deprivations, and irresponsibilities, and unwillingness-to-creates, and everything else, and he was much worse off the next life.

Thank you.

I imagine many a thetan who has gone looking for heaven has been terribly disappointed.

But because of this, the speed with which he'll pick up a reality on something is quite slow.

And Darwin mentions this fact in discussing horses - the length of hair on horses. It's quite amazing.

They take a bunch of horses on the hot plains in Arabia and they take them up in the mountains. And while they are up in the mountains for several generations they grow hair to protect themselves and then they turn around and bring them down to the plains again. They'll keep that long hair in that horrible heat for four years, or pardon me, four generations, he says. Four generations before they finally trust their new location enough to adapt themselves to it.

Rabbits will do the same. You take an Arctic rabbit, quite white, and you bring him down to Arizona. I've actually seen this. I don't know whether Darwin's remarks are correct or not, but I do know that this one is correct.

And I'll be a son of a gun if every winter he doesn't turn white. You look at this, you know, you say, „The damned fool, you know!“ Sun bouncing off all the rocks, and everything, the whole environment red and brown and here's this glaring white rabbit just cutting his own throat, you might say. A coyote or a wolf a mile away can spot this rabbit.

And yet for many winters, all the winters I knew this rabbit, he turned white. Now probably in his next couple of generations or something like that he'd get the word. There's no snow in Arizona! And you get any living being going through more or less this same distrustful cycle.

Male voice: The rabbit cycle.

Particularly on anything that is intimate as his own mental machinery. He does all sorts of weird things to protect that mental machinery; he'll go on being crazy for years just to keep from getting sane, because he's afraid he'll get crazier.

Take hypnotism. Every once in a while you're going to get a preclear that's got an hypnotic reaction. You should know what it is. His eyes are either glazed, and he agrees with everything no matter what it is, or he's got an eye flutter and his eyelids will go this way. You say, „Close your eyes,“ and his eyelids will go this way, see? Just flick-drrrrrrr. It's pretty hard consciously to make your eyes flicker this fast, you know? Well, undoubtedly when he went into hypnotism, and he was first hypnotized five or six million years ago in space opera, because that's a - hypnotism is a space opera gag - he undoubtedly was totally convinced this was going to help him and he's never since gotten out of the rut.

We have a pc that turns up periodically that one time had a conflict with Salter, the great Salter, the great hypnotist.

And Salter covertly hypnotized him. And I think just only recently we got him over this. But he's been boxing around with this for years.

Well, undoubtedly his great faith in the therapeutic value of becoming a total effect has led him since that time to be very distrustful of Scientology. See, here was something else that was going to fix him up, as long as he could become what he considered to be a total effect of being audited.

See? Only auditing isn't being a total effect - not arf! [half?] See, but it was because it - hypnotism is a total... Get it all involved and identified, you see? I don't know on what slow curve the populace at large would go through this cycle. But I know that it is a cycle that they have to, to a marked extent, go through because if you try to catalyze the cycle, all you've done is grab a bunch of people off who are in a state of awe, shock or fear.

For instance, all right, we make an OT and we put him out on a set of lectures and he demonstrates conclusively that he can bust vases at will or raise women's hats in the audience three feet off their heads or something like that, you know? Or levitate bodies a thousand feet above the city or mock up gods or something of the sort that can walk all over the public buildings. So he could do all these things, you see? Well, the rest of the populace then simply says, „Here is something else to be afraid of,“ and go into a consequence sequence.

And their responsibility, what little gold you've got, disappears in the aqua regia of your own shock. See? What little responsibility they've got goes by the boards, and all you do is create this wide sweeping irresponsibility by these boys.

I've spoken of this for many years and I still get into arguments with people. They don't view this. They want it all to happen at once. It's got to happen quick. And they say, „Well, why don't we do something of this character that's highly spectacular, you see, and impresses everybody.“ And they don't realize that it's just throwing what little gold you've got left back into the creek.

Male voice: I know of a case that committed suicide because all of his stable - he was an engineer, and somebody levitated something for him. He went and committed suicide as a result.

Yeah?

Male voice: It just unhung his stable data.

Yeah.

Male voice: Too much confusion.

All right.

Male voice: Right.

That's right. There's a good case in point.

Well, we're way overdue. Your Instructor is getting very, very nervous.

I haven't mentioned this before but you've got a couple, three, very good Instructors there. I think that they'll do right by you.

But I want to give you a tip. I want to give you a tip about your Instructors and so forth. And you can get around them. This is the way you can get around them, and so forth.

Just do exactly what they say.

Thank you.