Okay. We're going to Q and A now. This is lecture two, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 19 July AD 12. A Q and A.

How are you tonight?

I do have an announcement to make before I do this. For those of you who have not noticed, we have a TV demonstration on Wednesday night. And this has been so successful for two consecutive weeks that next Wednesday night we're going to repeat this and the formula by which auditors are chosen for this demonstration is just by formula. It's not as some of you believe — that you have protested or are afraid or something like that. It is — there's one GAE — somebody who is off auditing because of errors. There is one person who is going along fair and there is one person who is pretty good. Now this could include of course anybody after their first week on course. So some of you needn't be too — feel too safe about it. I mean there's always a point where you shouldn't feel safe. Yes, very, very vicious.

Audience: Fine.

The truth of the matter is that you have been learning so much from these things that I should feel very odd if I left them out. And perhaps I will resume my own demonstrations. But if I do, there's a possibility that it will be on a fourth night. So you just figure — just figure this; that there are some hills that have to be climbed and take this in your stride as just one of the liabilities of being on course. There's actually no sadism connected with it.

Better?

None of the instructors take any particular joy out of the smell of fear. And if I knew some way to teach you more smoothly, I would, but in this particular instance, this is a — this is a bomb. This is fine.

Audience: Yes.

It has this virtue. Those that are on the demonstration sure as hell know whether their auditing is any good or not when they finished off. We tell them in no uncertain terms. And sometimes somebody's been riding along sort of blaming the pcs, you know and that sort of thing and then they turn on the wrong end of the totem pole after something like that and then they scramble like mad on their theory and practical and so forth and all of a sudden, they don't have to blame the pc anymore because the pc's getting along fine.

All right. Well, this is what?

It's quite mysterious. You sit there on a pc, the pc's terrible, is doing awful things and have him getting ARC breaks and a very nattery pc and it's just no good. That's all — that's just — the pc's just no good, you know. And then you smooth out your E-Meter reading, you smooth out your auditing and that sort of thing and you sit there and do it right off the textbook and so forth and you come back and audit the same pc and he's just quiet as a lamb and he's good and everything's fine and goes along And you know something The pc didn't change any in the time the person's working out his GAE.

Audience: 19th. July the 19th.

If you ever find yourself in the position of a D of P or anything like that, just remember that. Just remember that. It's very important. You as the D of P can make the most serious mistake possible for a Central Organization by trying to audit the pcs through the auditor. That is the most serious error that you can make because you'll inevitably come up with unusual solutions. Now that's very serious.

Nineteen July AD 12. All right. So be it. Let's have tomorrow be the 20th. First lecture, Saint Hill Briefing Course. The results of last night's TV demonstration, in one session that was given, gave me unlimited hope. It gave me a great deal of hope, because it shows that auditing can be done. That was pretty doggone good. But it was slowed down slightly by the failure of some of you students to recognize that it was an excellent session. And you left me flabbergasted. I don't want any withholds from you, but that's a fact. How couldn't you see that auditing presence and the fact the boy was reading the E-Meter pretty doggone well? How couldn't you see that? How couldn't you look at the pc and tell whether the pc was in session or not, see? Your ability to look and see what a good session is has got to be improved. See? Going to raise your criteria. If you haven't got one we'll audit one in. But that's definitely a very, very hopeful sign. Very good auditor presence. Pc put into session with a slash and that was it. you got to learn to see that.

The only thing you can possibly do is handle the auditors who are auditing the pcs. That becomes an entirely different operation. You can almost differentiate between good Ds of P and poor Ds of P on that one basis. The good D of P is handling the auditors and he makes sure that the auditors can do their job and that the auditors are doing what they're supposed to be doing And the poor one tries to handle the pc without any recourse to the auditor.

Tonight we're going to talk about the E-Meter. The E-Meter is an instrument mentioned in a lecture by L. Ron Hubbard in October of 1950. And I said if I had one, that would be very nice. And for about a year and a half or two years I had been trying to find out how to get an auditor to observe a pc, and I hadn't been successful at all. And I myself — I myself saw that one had a much greater need for direct and positive observation. And I've audited pcs with my fingers on their pulse and done other things trying to find out what was going on and if there was any detectable reaction. And out in California on, I think it was about the twentieth of October or something like that, I described such an instrument in a lecture and said it would be very, very, very useful. And a fellow by the name of Mathison went home and he put one together on a breadboard and I got it in very early 51. That is, I probably got it a little bit before that, but I got down to experimenting with it.

Now oddly enough, the fellow who's trying to handle the pcs, if he's got very bad auditors who don't know what they're doing, probably will get better results for a while than the Director of Processing who is handling auditors, see.

Now, these comments are very germane. The genus of the E-Meter is not, as one would like to say for the benefit of licensing and patenting and the law and public credence and all that sort of thing — just forget all those things — the genus of the E-Meter was exactly just that and it was no more than that. It was actually not born out of the Wheatstone bridge. That Mathison knew the existence of the Wheatstone bridge didn't cause him to build one. The first Mathison really isn't built that way. This was just developed just like that, to detect an electronic impulse in a human being

When you run into the fact you haven't got any trained auditors working for you, you'd better handle those pcs because nobody else is. But this lays in its own trap. In the long run, you'd get far further bringing those auditors up to the point where they can handle the pcs. And your results also will be better and improve as you go along All this is quite important. You wouldn't think that that much — that there'd be that much difference in just those two points of view, but there is a terrific difference. I look at the auditors reports from a — from HGCs coming in from all over the world and I can tell you at a glance whether the D of P is handling auditors or pcs.

Now, up to that time they didn't even have the theory of a meter straight. You must realize this. Man has had these things around but they didn't even know what they were measuring. And you yourself will run into arguments about this, so you should — you need a little of the background music. They think it measures sweat. In other words, you don't have instant reads, you have instant sweats, and instant nonsweats. And the reason for that is the early galvanometer is so thoroughly insensitive that they wouldn't know whether they were measuring sweat or what. But they think it is sweat.

All right. Q and A. What question would you like to ask?

We had an engineer here the other day that our TV circuit was designed and built by — Reg's engineer. And Reg had him going in circles on an E-Meter, and he was saying kind of "Well," and so on. Because, you see, he knew about galvanometers, and they think these things are — they measure the amount of sweat in the palm. Sort of on the basis that if somebody gets nervous his palms get sweaty. That's how far back the animal psychologist is in it, see? And Reg talked to him for a while and of course there was a meter up there. Of course, unobserved, why, he could take hold of the thing and fool with it a little bit and so on. And pretty soon he was rather diffidently shocked about it. He was coming to the conclusion that it must measure something about an electrical or mental impulse. See? He'd come toward that conclusion. Now, possibly there's more to the story than that but that will serve our needs at the moment. That it was an electrical read, not an electrical measure of a physical read, that it was all electrical, that — something like this. Something was dawning on him that it might be in that direction, that it really was reading thought and so on. Spooked him quite a bit. Now, this is a very knowledgeable man, you see? He knows his stuff pretty well.

The oracle is open. Yes, Merrill.

And engineers in Scientology and electronics men in Scientology have not always recognized, have not always recognized completely, that this is a wild departure from standard thought on the subject; we're doing something else. The meter is designed to do something else than the old psychogalvanometer or any part of an old lie detector or anything else.

Female voice: on this, you know, testing for a complete list on goals . . .

Now, if they'd known how those things work maybe they would have developed one that did work. But, as a matter of fact, they don't work. And if you get somebody who is accustomed merely to the old psychogalvanometer, or something, to fool around with a circuit or something and build an E-Meter — and he doesn't know anything about Scientology or anything like that — one of the first things he does is protect the movement. It's necessary, you know. Meter comes first and subject comes second. And they build a lag into the movement of the thing And to this day you can see homemade E-Meters around that have built-in comm lags in them. And it's about a half a second to a second built-in comm lag. It's pretty grim. The instant read, then, occurs a half a second to a second late.

Testing for complete list on goals.

Well, this was true of all earlier meters, so, of course, nobody did any observation on it because the electronic circuit was not a direct circuit. And the Keeler galvanometer, I think, has this same fault, and I think they read prior reads.

Female voice: Mmm. I'm wondering if you could null, say, part of the list and there's a question, see, if you know the list is complete, you go back and give the test, you know, like reading half a dozen goals or more to see if you get any TA. If the fact that you had nulled, see, those goals — these are the ones at the beginning of the list — would this make any difference as far as that TA. . .

Now, I don't know. I haven't been through their course up near Chicago. Because I get mixed up. I don't know whether the alcoholic cure is Keeler, see, or whether that's Keeley. See? There's somebody down in the southwest that cures alcohol and their name is Keeler or Keeley, see? And this other outfit near Chicago is named Keeler or Keeley, so I can't even write to them. I'm liable to, you know, insult them or something so it's put me pretty badly out of communication. Otherwise, I'd go up and take their three-and-a-half-day course on the operation... I probably would, too, and see what they teach is which. And I might know a little bit more about the background music.

I can tell you that it would make no difference.

I only know what I have found from police operators who have had that course. And the police operator uses a lie detector in combination with a blood pressure meter and a breath meter. And it's a muscular-strap arrangement that goes around the chest and if the guy goes "uh-ha-uh-ha-uh-ha-uhha-uh-ha," it registers, and if a guy's blood goes pound, pound, pound, pound, pound, it registers. And these three needles — one from a galvanometer, one from the blood pressure, and one from the breath — are all joined together on an endless tape which has three needles, and you can make notations on the side of this tape as to what this was a reaction on. So the fellow writes down "bodies under bridges" — give you an actual case — "bodies under bridges," you see, and then asks the question, "Bodies under bridges?" and sees if there's any disturbance of these three needles on that area of the tape that says, "Bodies under bridges." Now, this is just about as crude as you can get because none of these reads are instant reads. The galvanometer's motion is protected so the actual read is always too late to be considered, of course. It's prior reads that they consider, so any restimulative word causes the police lie detector operator to immediately say, "He's guilty. Take him out and hang him."

Female voice: Hmmm.

But over the years they've become wise to this. They've gotten a coordination of cases and people have turned up often enough, after they'd burned the guy in the chair, and things like this, and confessed to the actual murder, that they've got a coordination of data, and their vital statistics demonstrate to them that it's 9.5 percent to 15 percent wrong. And their data also says that a certain percentage, which is not announced but is probably the same percentage — they would condense this data, don't you see? They'd say 9.5 percent to 15 percent of the people who are put on this lie detector machine cannot be detected by the machine. See? So they expect the machine to be that much in error, always. They do not distinguish, physiological or any other way, prior to the reading of the machine, whether the fellow will read on the machine or not, and they don't take any particular characteristic of the machine as saying whether he will read on the machine or not.

If the list is not complete and the rudiments are in, you will get TA action on an incomplete goals list. That is something on the order of, "If you wind up a clock, it runs. If you don't wind up a clock, it doesn't run."

Now, the early Mathison that — no matter what Mathison did afterwards, give the man credit, see? Mostly what Mathison didn't do is he wouldn't listen. He kept building things that had long tubes and that you glued onto elephant's toenails and — I don't know, my God! He finally got up to a fourhundred-dollar lie detector that has two dials and five or six adjustments, all of which throw inconstants into the read, and about that time an auditor couldn't read any part of any of this, you see? But to this day he still carries "Tone Scale" on his tone arm. See? I told him about the Tone Scale so he drew an arbitrary Tone Scale over this, and this became known as the tone arm. He built these things for a while for chiropractors and so on. Possibly even today he builds some of them. But he wouldn't groove the machine in to practical auditing.

Female voice: Thank you.

So the first year that I had this machine, it was refined two or three times, and the first two or three times it was refined on request. And the very first Mathison would not read on a large percentage of the cases. I don't know what the percentage was because I didn't have enough people on it, but it — recognizably more than 10 percent. The people would come in off the bottom of the dial — see, you couldn't wind it down enough to catch some people — and you couldn't turn it up enough to catch some other people. The sensitivity knob in those days couldn't be advanced enough to separate the read of a low-tone pc. And if a fellow was sitting there in a lot of mass, you just couldn't get him on the machine. You just couldn't ever get your needle on the dial. So I got him to expand this and got him to make this more flexible so it'd take more people, and so on, and we expanded the thing, and made him adjust the sensitivity of the thing and so on. By the end of 1952 we had a pretty good meter — pretty functional.

Yeah. That's one of those open and shut data. There were some 3D and 3D Criss Cross tests for completeness of list. Any one of those tests could be applied for the completeness of a goals list. It's about all that we ever salvaged from 3D Criss Cross which we're not using anyplace now. With horror I read through from an organization the other day — after we had trained everybody on 3D Criss Cross, I sent a dispatch out no, no, no, no, no, no, don't do that. No, no, no. Abandon it. Go around the organization and tear them all up. But actually there was still a datum in 3D Criss Cross that was quite valid and that was there were a number of tests for complete lists and all of those are very valid for the tests of goals. You can take and read as little as a half a dozen if you're really watching your meter — half a dozen goals and tell whether you got TA action or not. Man, a complete goals list is the flattest, limpest fish you've ever handled. It's as floppy as a president's handshake. No kidding

And unfortunately Purcell grabbed the first of these things which would be a good museum piece, and it had probably been thrown on a junk heap someplace up in some junk-heap state. "Kanzarkansas," I think the name of the state is. I keep forgetting these things that have alter-ised the track so badly. I think the name of the town was Mud Bayou, Kanzarkansas. Yeah, I think so. Where the presidents don't come from.

Okay. Thank you, Merrill.

Anyhow, I'd still — I'd like to have — I'd like to have those, because there was the original meter, the original Mathison, was not unlike the face layout of this meter; not unlike it at all. And it had a dial and it had a tone arm and it had a sensitivity knob and it had a jack and you plugged in the cans, and so forth.

Female voice: That leads me to a second question on that.

Well, the thing wouldn't read mental thoughts when we first got ahold of this thing. Let's go back to that first machine and our trials and tribulations with it, and I think it will remind you of some of your own trials and tribulations with this machine.

Well, I don't know if you can have a second one or not. Go ahead.

It wouldn't read. Oh, you could jump on the electrodes. I think they eventually — they had an egg — no a tea strainer — the tea strainer electrode eventually evolved along this line. But the original ones had just a little bar and you were supposed to put a plastic bag over the pc's hand, one hand, so that he couldn't knock the cans together. And this was Mathison's first concern. He was always worried about knocking the cans together because he was afraid his meter would short out, of course. And that was a mains meter, and that — that plugged into the mains, and all kinds of valves in the back of the thing glowed and so on. And the production line of these things had the frailty of very often having the chassis grounded to the pc, and now and then you'd pick up the electrodes on a Mathison and get 110 volts right straight off the mains. And, once in a while, an auditor whose Mathison had been operating just fine would reach over to start to move the machine while it was switched on and get 110 volts off the back of the case. They were jolty. They sort of made things respected — made themselves respected in this fashion.

Female voice: Well, if you were making a second test, see, after going on listing some more, would you use those same first goals or would you go on . . .

And the thing — the thing had tiny little bars for its electrodes and when it was first delivered up to the house, Mary Sue — she wasn't around when that thing first arrived, but she was around shortly afterwards when we were doing things hot and heavy with the thing. But a fellow named Jim Elliot was there at that time and Jim and I sat up most of the night. I finally got disgusted with the whole thing because we couldn't make it read, couldn't make it do anything.

Honey, it doesn't matter what set of goals you used. you know, you could even use the ones you thought you'd nulled. I mean it's that much of an open and shut question. Because one of the things they won't do is stay null on an incomplete list. Oh, they pop in and out like jack-in-the-boxes. You've never quite noticed this.

And one of them was a projection meter. There were two, and one of them was a great big projection meter, sort of a magic lantern with an element built across a huge magic-lantern lens with a reverse Tone Scale on this thing so it projected right into — when it hit a screen. It was an interesting and a very, very good projection meter. I've never seen as good a projection meter. If it had the guts of a Mark IV to that needle across the lens, that would be the finest projection meter anybody would wish for. But he fooled around with the projection meter, and I was fooling around with the other meter, and after a half a dozen shocks and no mental reads and a few things like that I was getting awful disgusted with this thing.

Let's take some list where the goals have stayed in and had to be rubbed out with a — with a branding iron or something like that, you know. you could just hear the grind going on in the session. "To catch catfish. To catch catfish. To catch catfish. To catch catfish. To catch catfish. Grrrrrr. Grrrrrr. Still in."

And I don't know whether it was Jim or whether it was me, but somebody thought of soup cans. By increasing the amount of electrode area we might be able to increase the mental read. And so we went out in the kitchen — and I think V8 vegetable juice or something like that; and we got awful tired of that stuff after a while, you know. Because, you know, American Can Company won't sell you just plain tin cans. You've got to go out and... If they do sell you tin cans, they cost as much as a can of soup anyhow, and you can't get them. For some reason or other these big can companies won't sell you cans. Sears and Roebuck at one time had home-canning outfits, and I hoped to be able to get spare cans from them, but we've never been able to run down just plain cans! We've always been going to the grocery store and buying a couple of new brands of vegetable juice or orange juice or something of the sort that were the right size, bringing them home, drinking the stuff down and washing them all out and hooking them onto the meter. Some day somebody is going to permanently paint cans, you know, and they won't have paper on them, and we'll be sunk. They don't realize — they don't realize what scientific advance is hanging on this whim. Hey! We'd be out of business at once.

Get the pc's rudiments in, polish him all up. Get everything all fine. Get a Prepcheck done on listing and then go back and, to your horror, those that you think you have erased will have some life in them. It's something on the order of trying to jump up and down on a bed made out of steel, you know. It doesn't sink.

And it must have been two, three, four o'clock in the morning when we finally hooked up these cans, and so help me Pete, we could get a reaction that was understandably and visibly and undoubtedly a mental reaction. And at that point I knew we had something.

Charge on a goals list is expended only by listing of goals, not by nulling of goals. It's only by listing. And you really got to get that list flat. What was your exact question?

We went on and fooled with that thing for quite a long time. Did various things with it. I put different types of people on it; studied their reactions. And to this day I go back to that work every time I turn around.

Female voice: Umm. On making a second test . . .

You know, you get a constant, agitated rock slam on psychotics. You possibly didn't know that, but you'll be horrified someday. You'll be down in the local spinbin; they've just laid out the red carpet for you and that sort of thing; and the psychiatrist is standing there with his staff drawn up on dress parade, surrendering the place to you, you know, handing you the electrodes of his electric-shock machine or something like that. And you'll go in there and you'll put some — with great confidence you'll put some psycho on your meter, thinking you are going to do something And you're not going to do anything — not with a meter, man.

On making a second test . . .

Fortunately, it coincides with this: when a person's needle is in constant, agitated rock slam — a manic-depressive, schizophrenic, these people — constant agitated rock... Oh, it's just horrible! Just all over the place. Nnzzrrrr! As soon as you pull it down far enough on sensitivity, why, you're below his read because the guy is just pounded in, in concrete, don't you see? Fortunately, no E-Meter process will work on these people and you'd use CCHs anyway. See, that's just fortunate because it means that we really don't have to develop a psychotic-detecting E-Meter. But you will be horrified when you first see a real full-blown psycho on an E-Meter. The needle will either be stuck like the sword in the hand of a statue, or it'll be so agitated that you can't read any part of it.

Female voice: The — the, yeah — for completeness.

Now, if it isn't that way — if it isn't that way and you can talk to the person, the person is auditable on an E-Meter. It's a fortunate coincidence.

Yeah.

It's just a coincidence that if you can read a psychotic on the E-Meter he'll run a Prepcheck process. See? If he'd speak to you or answer the auditing question. But if it's too agitated for you to read it on the meter — we're not talking about the little dirty needles that you guys get occasionally. This is violent, man.

Female voice: You use those same first goals.

Your little dirty needle cleans up when somebody finds out that the TR 4 was mishandled in the beginning of your first auditing session, or something wild has been going on, and various oddball things. You know you can get a dirty needle from people objecting to the electric current they feel in their hands, even on a Mark IV? If they've got an awful lot of overts on the electrical line. I cleaned up a dirty needle one time with just running up those overts. You know, "shocking people" and things like that? Cleaned it up very nicely.

Yeah. Well, it doesn't matter whether you use first goals, last goals, but I actually would take, just because it's more seemly to the pc, I would take some goals I had just done. I'd just tell the pc to shut up and read them once. Just read them once. Not try to null anything. Just spend all of my time watching the meter, see, you know. "To catch catfish. To shoot tigers. To ride waterbucks." And keep that thing in the center.

It's just a happy thought, it's a very happy thought, that if you can read the person — you can get a reaction on the person — why, you can audit them with a think process, you know? They can audit with a conversational process — you know, repetitive process of some kind or another. You get your rudiments in, everything. No matter how batty they look, or what their reputation is.

You know that a complete goals list stays in about three goals on a page of thirty or forty. Ohh, that's . . . And I can tell every time by looking at that part of the goals list, which was added on and has been nulled. You can't tell by the number of strikes opposite the first of the goals list.

I found out also that psychiatric assignment or classification had nothing whatsoever to do with sanity, through an E-Meter. Hasn't any bearing on sanity. As I told you before, I finally found out what this was (not afterwards but before I had the answer to this), and it was the institution they're in that determines the type of psychosis they have, which I think is interesting.

Let's say a fellow did a goals list last April. And the first five pages have got X's and slants after them and they've been nulled out four times and all of that sort of thing and they died hard, you see. And, you can't take those first few pages and tell anything about how easy the thing is nulling because obviously those are old goals that have been gone over before the list was completed, while the list was still charged. So to make a real test of the thing, you just glance at the pc's goals list the auditor has been doing on the pc and take that — a section that he has been nulling since he added the last goals. Well, that doesn't mean three or four goals. You could add three or four, I mean you went into a long business of listing, see.

So the meter, to that degree, will detect whether or not a person is auditable. I learned that very early on.

Now, when you go down and null those things, that's the page to look at for the test. And you just look at that page and you'll find in, in, in, out, in, in, in, out, in, in. Oh, come off of it. Come off of it. That goals list is not complete. That is all there is to that. It's not complete. You can actually test by nulling, you can test by reading to the pc, you've — there are numbers of ways of testing given in the 3D Criss Cross info letter and they're just all — that list is charged. You want it to go out,out,out,out,out,out,out,out,out,out,out. This is just on three reads, see. In. Out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, in. In. Out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out, out. That's the end of that page. And then you really know. you really know.

Now, I went on from there and developed this — the second model of it and a more sensitive third model and did an awful lot of work with this thing

Now, in view of the fact that it really doesn't take much charge off the case to list goals, it's — you sort of had it, you see. Hence, your long, long lists, the long, long lists; because listing a goal doesn't take much charge off per goal, see. It's not like listing items. You list items and the charge just goes off in all directions. Zoom, zoom, zoom, zoom, zoom. But not listing goals. You don't get proportionate quantities of charge off. And when I first looked at this, I myself had found enough goals and had them stay in without making long and arduous lists, that I was obscured on this particular fact and after a great deal of study, of what I was doing — not just what you were doing, but I also myself was doing on goals and the trouble I had had occasionally on goals and so on — I recognized you had to list the charge off the goals list. And if you got the charge off of the goals list, why, violà! You'll find the goal, bang! Just like that. Stands up like Pikes Peak, you know. It's very obvious. But if you haven't got all the charge off, it's mixed up in all this other charge stuff.

The result of that work is still extant in The History of Man. Mary Sue and I worked on that, I guess, for the better part of a year. And my God, you talk about chasing each other and everybody else, and so forth, all over the time track picking up this and that. If you want to see a sixteen-dial drop on one of these things, why, just take the Grim Weeper or something like that in The History of Man, and you'll see a sixteen-dial drop. They're sixteen-dialdrop incidents. They go on and on and on and on and on and the needle is falling fast all that time. It's not a slow fall. And you just keep trying to free it off the pin. And your effort to keep freeing it off the pin will be something like five down . . . See? Your tone arm is reading something like this. Sixteen dials. And those incidents still exist in everybody's bank.

Now, don't feel that you could list the list until no goal would read. The goal will still read. Now, theoretically and only theoretically, you could list goals until only the goal would read three times for three reads, see. Theoretically. But you'd probably have to list about 50 percent more goals than you would have to have, see, just to take the last bit of charge off.

Now, the meter, then, landed us in a complete cul-de-sac. As you know, if you stay in this lifetime with a Prepcheck you can make somebody look pretty good. But what we ran into, unwittingly, because of the meter, was the whole, open span of the backtrack. Now, the E-Meter didn't pilot this out. I'd found backtrack earlier than that, to such a degree that the board of the first Foundation was resigning all over the place if I dared go on and research past lives. It was the damnedest thing I ever heard of. Anyhow . . . And it was the first time they found out I could get mad. And they said afterwards that was what really shocked them, you know? That sort of thing. They had to pull themselves out of the plaster from the wall back of them. And that really shattered them. That was probably the beginning of the end of the first Foundation, right there. But I thought, "There can't be people around to tell you what to research and what not to research, man. That would be the end of all."

Rudiments really have to be in for goals listing. Otherwise the charge doesn't blow as you list the list, see. Listing goals is auditing. Another question's going to come up in line with this.

But it wasn't until we had the E-Meter that we went back and found out how significant all this was and how fantastic all this was and the number of engrams that actually exist on the whole track of the pc. And the number is infinity. Whew! And don't kid yourself, that was an awful research blow. And that was pounded right into view by the E-Meter. Because it meant that Dianetics was wrong. As far as I could see, Dianetics was wrong.

I probably should have given you a 3GA lecture this second lecture, but I was half of a mind to do so, but I got a piece of technology that's in the middle of something here. And until that's wrapped up, I didn't care to really give you a lecture on it. Now I haven't even got a withhold on you.

Now, what I had been doing previous to that was taking this lifetime's engrams, taking these engrams, taking something like conception and birth, something like that, and on a case that could run an engram you could clean that case up and make them look awful good. Oddly enough, we've come right back to it again in Prepchecking As long as you keep somebody around this lifetime, you can make them look awful good by just running this lifetime.

And, but listing goals can be done by a pc all by himself, see, perfectly happily. Perfectly valid. It is not self-auditing Don't put it under that category. They've been doing this kind of thing all their lives, sitting around wondering what their goal is. It's just life, you know. So let them go ahead and make a goals list and even keep whanging them along with the end of the towel saying, "All right. All right. So you're all run down at 350. Well, go on. List it up to 850."

But this was an end of track, as far as I could see at that time. I didn't care why this was, or if there was any saving graces about it. It became absolutely positive and obvious that to make a Clear Clear — exclamation point Clear — by first-book definition, which is to run out every incident and every engram on the track, that this was impossible. You just didn't have enough time to do it, that's all. There are too many. And that was where the first E-Meter landed us. And that was an interesting research datum. You can do it to this day. If you want to fool around for a year or so with an E-Meter, you can plot up whole track on people in the most general incidents and so on. It's pretty hair-raising. But you will soon come to the conclusion that if we had to do it engram by engram, or even chains of engrams, if we did it on a whole-track basis, we're in for four or five lifetimes of engram running And that was the first thing we learned from an E-Meter.

You know, just keep pushing them that way. You're not bothering to get their rudiments in or anything like that and then give the list a test as your auditing action to find out whether or not it gives TA action. But to do that, you'd better get the rudiments in. You'd better give them a little bit — you'd better give them a Prepcheck like the June 11th bulletin, see. And then give that list a test. And if you got TA action, you could go on listing, and probably will, but don't be harassed if the pc keeps going home and turning out lists of 50 or 60 and bringing them in. Feel this is fine, not otherwise. Perfectly okay.

So Suzie and I went down to the library, and we started hauling books out and looking for words. And we finally found scio and we find ology. And there was the founding of that word. Now, that word had been used to some degree before. There had been some thought of this. Actually the earliest studies on these didn't have any name to them until a little bit along the line and then I called it anything you could think of. But we found that this word Scientology, you see — and it could have been any other word that had also been used — was the best-fitted word for exactly what we were — wanted.

Now, when we get into listing lines of items from that goal, we get into a slightly different proposition because I myself am piloting through and figuring out.... A lot of individual listing without an auditor can be done with the resulting gains. There is no doubt about this. It's possibly five or six to one, however. You spend five or six hours if you were listing by yourself to accomplish what you would accomplish in about one hour of listing with an auditor. It's quite interesting Quite interesting that you can do individual listing. I'm doing a lot of listing like that myself right now because there is no way you got any auditing time for me. Everybody's studying processing No time to process, you know. That sort of thing.

Scio means knowing in the fullest sense of the word. It is one of these ultimate or exclamation-point words. Translated across it becomes scien. And we went down and we made sure that that was the right word and that was what we were trying to do and that was what I was heading for and so forth. And she was very good about it. she was lugging the books and I was turning the pages. You know, proper division of labor. And we said, "Well, that's what we've got to do."

But listing only gets out of hand — if you're doing it personally and individually — if you don't get an occasional Prepcheck to straighten out the subject of listing, you see. Now, a guy doing a Prepcheck on himself in order to continue listing, now, now, now we're in trouble, see. Now, we're going to go to hell in a balloon if we don't watch it. So if individual listing were taking place, you would have to have at least a Prepcheck going on by an auditor. That would be your minimum requirement.

Now, one of the reasons this was so is because we had to move out — I had to move out of the field of studying the mind into studying knowingness. Simultaneously during this work, I wrote the first axioms of Dianetics (doing the first E-Meter work) and the first axioms of knowledge. And that was a wonderful weapon in itself. I assembled the means by which this was done. And the mind is only a vessel of knowledge. If you want to know the conclusion I came to, it was just that: it's just a vessel of knowledge. So what are you studying the earthenware for, see? That's what that amounts to. So it required a brand-new approach. And it was. It was a completely reversed approach to what we had been doing before.

You have to watch also an equality of list. you have to make sure those lists stay the same length. And people listing by themselves get careless about this. And they run on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and all of a sudden they're 250 items ahead of any other list. And they get sick at their stomach and dizzy and they feel terrible. They go around in horrible shape for three or four days and then they suddenly say, "I wonder if one of these lists is longer than another."

Exteriorization, other things, started coming up. We went on down to Phoenix and I kept on studying this and that and well, we had fifteen-dozen ways of trying to study and view this idea of looking at a thetan and so on.

The best way to check it is not by numbering items but just by numbering pages. You don't have to be accurate — 400, 400, 400 — because about the average number occurs on a page. If you write very small, you can take a double spread of your legal-size paper. You know. And put four lists on that double spread. You can see whether or not they're even fast enough. But just do it — "equality by pages." There are this many pages and this many pages, you know, that many pages. So don't try to do it by number of items. Do it by number of pages. You'll come out much better in the long run.

And one day Evans Farber — one night — he showed up on the front porch out in the desert there, and he wouldn't go away; he had to see me. And I'd had a hard day and I was there watching Mr. Farber decide he wasn't going to go away. And I was feeling mean about it, as a matter of fact. I was just feeling darn mean. And by golly, he went out on the front lawn and he lay down and he wouldn't go anyplace. Well, Evans had had many wild ideas at one time or another and he'd occupied hours in trying to relay these things. And I was very tired, I'd been lecturing all day, and I just was bound and determined I wasn't going to see him! That was all! Just mean. And I finally said — conscience got the better of me — said, "What the hell. He's lying out there on the front lawn, exposing himself to the Arizona night."

But apparently listing all by itself as an action — whether of goals or of items — apparently don't come under the heading of self-auditing They don't — they don't have the same thing But listing of items — you apparently get lots less charge off, or listing of goals you get lots less charge off than you would under an auditor, see. So just be prepared to list lots longer. But it's a good thing to know that.

So I went on out the front porch and I said, "All right, Evans, what have you got?" Well, actually, Suzie was pretty cross at both of us the next morning because we'd been making so much noise the rest of the night, and so forth, she couldn't sleep. But it was the "Try not to be three feet back of your head." That works to this day.

You get swamped with pcs sometime and you got four pcs going clear left and right and they are standing around on one foot and then the other foot and you figure if you keep going this way, by the time you've delivered a thousand hours of auditing necessary to clear them by Christmas and it's to your interest to clear them fairly rapidly, why, just keep giving them a swift kick and tell them to list and bring their lists in and prepcheck them, see. And then list awhile after you finish the prepcheck and get them — lists equalized again and let them go list awhile, you know. They won't do themselves any harm at all. This is actual experience on this line.

He'd taken two lines out of a bulletin and combined the two things, and he'd looked this over, and then he had decided that it would be a reverse vector. So he had put the magic words — not "be three feet back of your head" but "try not to be three feet back of your head." And he found out he was getting the largest proportion of people he addressed these words to — they would fly out of their heads like they were shot from guns. He was having a ball. So he blew me about halfway across Arizona, and I blew him out of his head. Nobody had said it to him yet. We went around patching things up.

They will do this. They'll change the lines. They'll wobble. They'll just decide the line should be worded wrong — differently. They all of a sudden reword their line, particularly if it's right there ahead of a very heavy item.

The things I've been through. What I have done for you, my God!

The reason I didn't give you a lecture on 3D Criss Cross tonight is definitely in the direction of listing lines, lines, wording of lines. I'll tell you something about that. I'll give you as much as I know about it.

Anyway, old Evans was very elated with all this and he finally went off home. And that was practically the end of the E-Meter. Because you can't register a thetan out of his head.

You've got four vectors. There's the vector of inflow. There's the vector of outflow. There's a bulletin on this. And then there's the inhibition of the inflow and the inhibition of the outflow. On beingness goals, the wording want-not-want, oppose-not-oppose, is apparently adequate. At least it's cleared to date an awful lot of people. But they all had beingness goals. How interesting. Or they had goals they were interpreting in this way. Or they got by with it somehow. Now, we have just collided with doingness goals. And there's doingness goals and there's havingness goals. And the horrible thought has reached in to the midst of this happy state of affairs that maybe the lines for a doingness goal have to be worded differently than the beingness goal and maybe the lines for a havingness goal have to be worded differently than the other two.

I came over to England. We fooled around a bit more with E-Meters, we were still using E-Meters on detection, we were still working with E-Meters to some degree, but it wasn't making any real advance, don't you see, because I wasn't depending on them. And I tried to develop a thetan detector. I took one of these magic eye things that had just been designed — it's a little bar; it's not the round magic eye but it's the little bar magic eye — and by amplification was trying to test exteriorization. I was up at 30 Marlborough Place up here in London for a long time. And we were trying to test exteriorization. How do you test an exteriorized thetan? See? And the difficulty with the meter was, if a being in his head or out came within a circle of about ten to fifteen feet from this antenna it started registering. Now, you could blow somebody out of his head and make him sit on the table or around the antenna and you'd get the read, providing the auditor then didn't approach the antenna; or if he was within ten feet of the antenna didn't wiggle his head. you get the idea? It was very unparticular on what thetan it registered.

At the moment, I'm only working on a doingness goal and now this is a — quite a problem. If you draw on your sheet there two — go ahead and draw — two arrows facing each other. Just draw two pointed arrows facing each other. Name one outflow and the other inflow. And then below that draw two little arrows facing the opposite directions. In other words, on the inflow, draw one facing the opposite direction. Little, short arrow. And on the outflow draw a little, short arrow which is facing against the outflow. Get the idea?

Now, the gimmickry on that was really — not really worth preserving. I've even forgotten exactly how it was amplified and so forth, but it was mostly because it was such common electronics that any good electronics man could reapproximate this thing. It just super-super-superamplified and then you read the thing on an expanding beam of light in a tube. you got the guy — or you could put it on just ordinary E-Meter providing the meter was far enough away from the antenna.

Now, you draw these four arrows. The inflow and the outflow are the main flows. But those little, tiny arrows are the things that oppose the main flows. You've got to list at least this many things to make the package unwind on a goal and the pc go Clear. Now, it's very fine to have that inflow one and the outflow one and so forth. To have all of these nicely coincidental and just worded "want" you see, "not-want." See, that'd be the little short arrows — "not-want." That's the opposition to "want" and then the other one to be "opposed" and the little, short arrow under that one to be "not-opposed." That wording has been adequate so far in the goals worded.

We made several mains E-Meters. We had trouble making E-Meters. E-Meters were around for a long time. We used them more or less. There was no real improvement in E-Meters and about 1955, 56, something like that, I think we stopped using them entirely. Didn't have anything to do with E-Meters for quite a while. And then all of a sudden we moved in toward the first Clearing ACC over in the States. And I did assessments on a lot of people with the E-Meter. But, basically, it was on this basis that E-Meters revived.

We're all of a sudden starting to run into a strata of doingness goals where this wording is not adequate and where this situation has begun to exist: where the pc confuses — because there's — isn't any seeming difference between them to the pc, the "not-oppose" and "not-want." So he actually is wording the outflow, the inflow and a third line. The inflow and the outflow and a third line — which overlists one line, doubles the listing on one line and omits another line entirely. And on that four — four-line wording that you have there, the pc usually is listing only these: The "want" — call that the outflow line for the fun of it — the "oppose" which is the inflow line and then "not-oppose," because "not-want" when you get into doingness, is too identified with, "not-oppose." And actually all he really does is, "not-oppose" mostly "not-opposes" all the way down the line. Or he could go in reverse and list only the "not-wants" and just skip the "not-oppose." In other words, when you ask him "not-oppose" he just lists the "not-want." In other words, it isn't articulated enough for the pc to get this thing straightened out.

There were several chaps around the Washington organization and to give any one of them full credit along this line would be a mistake. Well, Dale had been around talking about this sort of thing, and Pinkham, and there'd been a lot of this sort of thing over a period of time and they'd done various things with circuits and meters and so on. And I wasn't paying much attention. I'd listen, but I wasn't paying it any real attention because I didn't have an immediate or real use for this machine.

It is on a beingness goal, but it isn't on doingness goals, so we run into this limitation. What we really want, is the outflow line can, of course, be designated as, "want to do this goal" whatever it is, and the inflow line would be "oppose this goal" whatever it is. you don't — you're not using the word this goal that I'm just giving you this goal instead of fabricating a goal for you.

Till all of a sudden one or another of these designed the first transistor meter, which is the direct grandfather of the Mark IV. About 1957 that thing was released and the immediate result of offering this E-Meter, you know, in an auditing session and taking the amount of material that it could give you and so forth — the immediate and direct result of this was leading directly up to clearing And we made a whole bunch of first dynamic Clears (something on the — I've forgotten the percentage; it was fifteen out of sixty, or fifteen out of seventy or something like that; it was some fabulous percentage) on Help — a 5-way bracket on Help. And there was only one bug to the process. There was a big bug on the process. It was, I had to do the assessment. That's a horrible fact.

And then on the inhibition line — you see, the inhibited outflow — you know, your four flows: outflow, inflow, inhibited outflow, inhibited inflow. Those are the four basic flows. If you haven't got that many, it won't go together. Of course, God help us if we have to list sixteen flows or something like that. See, that would give us all the flows there are, but you don't need that many to clear a pc, fortunately. But you do need an articulation of these four flows so the pc never makes a mistake. He never comes a cropper, he doesn't. And to do that, you'd have to word them something like this: "Want to goal." And then that inhibition line down there, "pullback" or some such wording "from goal."

We were assessing on machines and factories and all kinds of circuitry. We were assessing circuitry. And there were three types of circuitry and — there's an awful lot of technology all mixed up in this, you know? All these types of circuitry — oh, I guess, I look around here; some of you were there — and you could detect this circuitry, and then if you got a terminal that fitted that circuit, of course (we know now) you had the name of the terminal, you see? So therefore, everybody who had a beingness goal (this we know now, didn't know it then), everybody who had a beingness goal and who happened to choose the terminal of that beingness, you see, goal... And we ran a 5-way bracket of Help on this thing, we got a first dynamic Clear who might fall in again because we hadn't got any of the GPM really out of the road. We just got it keyed out.

You see, there's your outflow. Then there's the "pullback," see. This "pullback" vector has got to be just called just that on a doingness goal. Something that gives this distinct idea that it's a pullback of an outflow. In other words, taming and slowing down that outflow. And then over here, on the inflow, well, you have "oppose," well, that's dandy. It's all perfectly all right. No reason to change the word "oppose" or the wording of that line who or want — "who or what would oppose goal" undoubtedly the i-n-g form of the goal. That's fine. But how about the opposition to the opposition? We'd have to have something that said, "pull back the opposition."

In fact, let me see, there's somebody right now I just remembered that is here — Tony — and we had something on you that was heading for the direction of Clear. And if they haven't got his goal right this minute, I could exhume what this was, do a list like I just did on Jean. I knew that the word doctor was kicking around because she went Clear on this down in South Africa, so the goal must have contained the word doctor. Had her auditor do a whole list of these things after she was — I beat her a few times and managed to get her to do it. And got a whole list of these goals with the word doctor in them. They assessed out this short list and they got the goal. See? Tricky, huh? We could probably do the same with Tony. I just remembered it.

"Who or what would restrain opposition to the goal?" You see that other line? "Who or what would restrain opposition to the goal?" And we get a whole new series of packages. So you got — you got wording that goes something like this: "Who or what would — Who or what would — pull back someone or something from, 'to catch catfish'?" See, goal. "Who or what would pull back something or someone — someone or something from catching catfish?" see. "Who or what would want to catch catfish? Who or what would oppose catching catfish?" And "Who or what would restrain opposition to catching catfish?" That would be the fourth line. Well, this would probably clear even a doingness goal, you see. But this is under present action. It is better to have just that wording you've got right now on any kind of a doingness goal than the earlier wording. The earlier wording's liable to get you into trouble if you have a doingness goal.

In other words, you could clear anybody with these technologies, whose terminal was also his goal. Do you see the basic limitation of this thing Terminal was also the goal.

We've all of a sudden come up with several doingness goals. We hadn't been listing them before. Apparently, beingness goals are easier to find or something like that, see.

Well now, how I did these original assessments — because I assessed everybody on that ACC, the whole lot. I did them in two afternoons, fifteen minutes per person. And the — the trick of assessment, you see, was to find exactly what the — I don't know if we were using the word Rock but it was what the Rock was, anyway. I didn't remember if I applied the word Rock till the later part of the course or the early part of the course. But anyhow, this was the Rock, whatever it was, and naturally that would be — if that flukily coincided with the wording of a goal that would clear them; we had a Clear.

Now, you know what I'm talking about? It's got to communicate to the pc that he's got to list a bunch of items that would want to do this goal, see. Whatever it is. And a bunch of items that would pull him back from doing this goal or pull back items from doing this goal. And it would oppose doing this goal and something that would restrain opposition to the goal. And then we get the four main flows expressed properly, particularly for a doingness.

Well man, the meter was in. The meter was in. It proved itself right there. There wasn't any more monkey business about this. I couldn't find out how you could do it otherwise. That was it. Took this type of assessment. Well, before, assessment had not been this vital. But it became obvious to me at that point — about 1956, 57, during that period sometime — it was getting more and more obvious to me that you weren't going to clear anybody without a meter. And this was horrible because I'd never been able to teach an auditor to use one!

What has entered the complication on it is a thetan who has a doingness goal usually winds up in a stuck flow and then he has a hell of a time for himself. See, he's stuck flow. Let's say the goal is "to shoot buffalo." Well, man, he's not about to be able to shoot buffalo after all these trillennia. The mere thought of shooting buffalo causes him to put on the brakes with a scream, see. And you've got to list what's putting on the brakes with a scream. Now, only this little question enters into all of this. Apparently, he could also get answers on "could" and "can't" for the goal, making six lines, throwing everything to hell, throwing it all out of balance and in actual fact you're moving on up toward your sixteen. Those four lines, as far as we know at the present moment, would operate as a clearing action.

Ah, the cat is out of the bag! I'd never worked very hard; I'll give you that. I'd never worked very hard to teach auditors. But I used to watch auditors sitting around with a meter in their lap and the needle's waggling — particularly if they got one of these whizeroo Mathisons that had to be driven in on a truck. And the needles would be going back and forth in conflict and dials ringing and gongs going and . . . We've even got one of these old beep meters upstairs. I'll have to break that out because it proves something else entirely different than E-Metering.

Now, I am fully prepared to have a havingness goal require a different set of words. Life is interesting, isn't it? Get something all buttoned up and then somebody falls in your lap and says, "Hey!"

But we were in. That was it. you weren't going to clear anybody without an E-Meter, because you had to be able to look into their bank and find the anatomy of that bank and find the proper button to press; and if you pressed any other button — as some of you either have learned or may, I hope not, learn from experience on a pc and I — certainly not on yourself — the bank beefs up and goes blooey. Everything goes wrong if you get the wrong button.

Of course, all the laws of motion are active in these goal lines, you see and the poor guy who has an outflow or a reaching or a "meet up with" type of goal has gotten on a stuck flow, so he's accumulated tremendous numbers of things which are inhibiting him from performing the goal. And frankly, he is much more likely to perform the goal than not to perform the goal. The mere fact that he has that goal is giving him trouble in executing it. The fellow who has "to throw away bread" as a goal, you see. you let a piece of bread — just sit — put it on the kitchen table, the far corner of the kitchen table, you see and without any human volition of any kind whatsoever, I guarantee you that piece of bread or that whole loaf of bread is going to slither across and slap him in the face. He's going to be the damnedest collector of bread you ever ran into. And yet he might stand for hours in front of a shop window realizing he couldn't possibly even come close to that bread much less throw it away. And that nobody could ever truck bread or do anything with bread. These are the social convictions he is now saddled with. They're not being expressed in the goal form, but he wants to really do the goal form, but he is in a position where he would — really would hardest dramatize something the complete reverse. And then he will also tell you if you omit these lines that his case isn't moving, that nothing is happening, that nothing could happen, that nothing is reaching anything. And, of course, he's just telling you what the basic goal is. But that's because you're omitting this restrained outflow line. And the restrained outflow line is the one he never notices. And that's quite interesting.

You're going to run the wrong button long enough or hard enough on a pc with a clearing process and you'll practically ruin him. The remedy of it is to find the right button and run that. But they're awful uncomfortable. And the Step 6 phenomena that we ran into in clearing, shortly after all that, was wrong button. You get the pc mocking up something that's off his goal line and the bank beefs up because of the goal. And it isn't that creativeness mocks up the bank. See? Finally been able to understand the rest of this Step 6 phenomena — why Step 6 worked on some cases and didn't work on others. Naturally, if you had the guy's goal run out, or desensitized, he could then do all types of Creative Processes which are not in conflict with his goal. That's Step 6 phenomena. You're not terribly concerned with that one way or the other, but I just mentioned it in passing. It's actually running the wrong goal.

Now, how we get over this particular hump — this is an easy one. We'll get over this hump, but it is a hump that's been brought on. For instance, we've had a pc here that had a — had an outflow goal which is kind of an outflow around inflow goal, see.

I mentioned to you in a recent lecture that the phenomena of alteration of creativeness was your highest pin. So therefore religion and who created this universe plays an enormously strong role in banks and that sort of thing. Well, you run — you collide with that when you get the wrong goal for the individual, and just everything starts to beef up and go solid.

And a redesign of lines — a redesign of lines lets it come up easier on the pc. But this pc's lines were w. She might have gone Clear on the first wording without any difficulty whatsoever if they hadn't been overlisted and if the wording hadn't been completely changed. The pronoun was changed in the goal and made a different goal and so forth. Made a mess out of it. Well, anyhow, how are you getting along with that?

Now, when a bank goes solid, that's no fun. That is no fun. I can tell you that by experience — personal experience. I've had my own bank beefed up to a point where it was just nothing but concrete and you practically had to take small hammers and chip them off of the area in front of my eyes so I could see, you know? What I've been through for you. Anyhow, a very good subjective reality on that. And of — one of the things — reasons I've "been through things for you" — not putting it that way — but one of the reasons I've been through these things: I very often will refuse to subject a pc to an experimental process that I halfway feel will knock his block off. so I feel I could dig myself out of it and usually have.

Female voice: With what?

Now, the difficulty, though, of auditors finding the right Rock loomed enormously, because I've never known a proper assessment. I've never known of one.

The goal.

So from that point till now, two things have been in action, two separate things: is technology which unwound any accidental out of this package of clearing. We must understand everything there is to know about clearing. There must not be any unknown data. And the data we do find must be interpretable by an auditor on an E-Meter. Well, this required a meter. And the first British meter was simply built, I don't mind telling you, as a mere copy of the American meter. I didn't even possibly think it would be as good. I hoped we could build as good a meter over here as the 1957 American meter. Sounds funny, doesn't it? Because I should have known from my earlier experience with British electronics people that they're pretty sharp on an individualistic basis.

Female voice: Her auditor's on GAE.

America is the mass-production area of the world. See? They will build it better, they will build it so it works more automatically, they will build it so it works longer with less repair, and they will build more of it than anybody could possibly have any use for, see? But they won't, and apparently almost can't, build a little of anything on a company or manufacturing business.

Huh?

And I might have realized that these boys Fowler and Allen, when I first collided with them — I'd collided with another E-Meter manufacturer uptown and a few geniuses on the line and that sort of thing, but none of these could really answer up to what we wanted. And when Fowler and Allen came along, why, I thought, "These are pretty sharp boys." And I started telling them what it was all about and that sort of thing, and they made the first of these present series of meters. And they didn't have any reality on what they were making; they were not Scientologists; and they were just hooking wires together. They took the green and gold meter that somebody was making uptown up here (was a copy of the American meter), and they didn't like this meter. They didn't like the meter they were copying it from. So they asked me if they couldn't do this and that, and I looked over some of the stuff they were doing, and I said, "Well, that's good. That's fine. Just so it works." And they built the first of these meters.

Female voice: Her auditor's on GAE.

Well, one day, Fowler, no, it was Allen was sitting across the desk from me and I told them how these meters worked. And of course, they thought they were building something that looked like a psychogalvanometer, you see? And they were trying to add up all this theory together and they — and so forth, and they didn't have a clue what they were doing

Oh, your auditor's on GAE. All right. How do you like that? Not only is it not moving, but the auditor then gets put on GAE. People don't have any luck at all.

So I sat this fellow down across from my desk and I ran a responsibility process on whatever he was looking at, and put him on the meter and asked him a few things and located, oh, a dead war companion and his feeling of overts against that one and some things, and then found out that he was just looking at blackness but — surrounding a window. But he had a window. And I thought, "This is intriguing." So I asked him what part of that scene he was looking at could he be responsible for. (I don't know if you've ever run this on a pc or not, but the results are sometimes quite fascinating.) And the next thing you know, he had more and more room. He was seeing more and more room, you see, in the picture. He was backing up from this window, and he saw more and more room. And all of a sudden the atomic bombs went off through the window, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and he turned around and ran away from the window, ran out of the room, jumped into his car (small space opera-type vehicle) and took off over a hill with full kinesthesia. Sitting right there in the chair across from me, you see, he got the full operation of jumping in the car and the car speeding off and accelerating, and then going over this hill, you know. And you know how light you feel sometimes when something goes over a hill fast. And he didn't have this picture anymore. And he didn't look the same either. And they became rather mystic about it all. They weren't quite sure what had happened, but they knew something had happened.

All right. I told you all I know about that. It'd be safest to word by the wording I gave you on any goal if you want to know the truth of it. And then any little falderal on the situation wouldn't mess you up. you had to be just a little more positive. Completely in spite of the fact that we've had nine people go free needle with the original wording, see. But the interesting part of it is that the doingness and reachingness type of goal wasn't going free. So the old man suddenly pulled up his socks and said, "Here it is. And — the Marines are about to land." Landed, figured it out and triggered it up and so on. What are you going to do when I'm not around to fix that up?

Well, on numerous occasions I explained to them bits and pieces of the operation of the E-Meter and odd bits of this and that, and they finally began to recognize that it was reading something, and they learned how to read it on each other a bit, you know, and that sort of thing. And they got accustomed to what we were doing, and I got them to do some work on the OT meter and — eventually. But that's ahead of the story.

Anyhow, let's have another question. Yes, Jean.

On this meter, they went on and built the Mark II and they built the Mark III and I smoothed that out, and built the Mark IV, the present meter. Well, they built the Mark IV by the time they were pretty knowledgable about things, and they changed a lot of things around. For instance, the early meter can occasionally get a big rock slam on the thing and you'd have to throw the dial — this is true of the American meters — and they have to throw the dial back and forth hard to clean the dust out of it. Well, this has got a pot in it that that can't happen with. There's several oddities here that have been built into it that are quite distinctly different. But more than that, the circuit is a bit shifted here and there and sensitized up, and the thing has its own balancing mechanisms and so forth. And they've solved quite a few interesting electronic problems, such as the drift of the meter during auditing and so on.

Female voice: Um — question on listing. At what point can you begin to allow your lists to go uneven towards the end of listing?

And they have also built two or three monstrosities as prototypes for this and that, and they have been rejected. In other words, there's been a lot of hunt and fumble here. There was one meter that — you would have laughed; it had — and you wouldn't have used it either. It had two dials down here and you switched the meter on and then you adjusted the needle to set with one of these dials and then you waited for one minute — I can see you waiting for one minute — and then you plugged it in and adjusted the other dial to set and actually after that it would not creep either way. That was fixed in but they balanced it twice. We rejected that.

At what point can you allow your lists to go uneven toward the end of listing Now, you mean the — when needles are going free?

Anyway, they finally not only got the meter's design we finally wanted, but also did this so that it's a good — a pretty consistent production. And although we check these meters out, there's less and less variation from meter to meter. They smooth these things out as they go along. They find parts that wear in them and they make sure that the next time they build a series that the part doesn't. And the meter, although it's a Mark IV, is actually in constant state of refinement as far as the actual parts are concerned. For instance, they just offered me a new cord today that could be buried at the bottom of the sea for 150 years without any deterioration. But you're not going to be auditing down there, so I . . . It felt just a little bit sticky to my hand and it smelled slightly medical, so I rejected the stuff. Anyway . . .

Female voice: Yes.

I just designed a case for these things, by the way. I don't know if any of you have seen those E-Meter cases or if any of them have been shipped in. Maybe they're under manufacture at the present time. They take a clipboard the size of an auditor's report. They take the meter, and they take two soup cans, and the lady's powder puff and a few things like that, and then flap over and strap over your shoulder. And the more important part of it is, the case can be rolled up into a relatively small ball and still protect the meter when the meter is in it. odd things like this are going along.

Ahhh. At what point? The point of the first free needle. At what point can you allow your lists to go uneven at the end of listing. And by that end of listing, she doesn't mean in the session. She means in series of intensives adding up to clearing. She's talking about clearing now.

But the meter, as far as that's concerned, is still designed to do just one job. And that was from 1950 on forward. And that job is simply to detect what the pc has in the reactive bank. That is the job the meter is designed for. And it is actually incidental that the meter detects what the pc is thinking or doing or withholding or anything like that. Somehow or another we could probably get by those later points. But we would never get by "What does he have in the reactive bank?" You see? That is the basic mission of the E-Meter.

All right. And that is taken care of by the law of the free needle. You never list a free needle. Never. Never. Never. Never. Never. Don't. Don't. Don't. Don't. Don't ever list a free... I've had guy after guy around here, Jean, who's try — been trying to list free needles. They don't recognize that a free needle is total expression of the cleanest needle you can get, see. So never, never, never, never, never list a free needle. That answers your question. You list exactly to free needle. You say that needle is free.

And you go on and start fooling around with meters or trying to design them or trying to do something with them and start stressing that it's just what the pc is thinking, what the pc is withholding from you, does he have problems and that sort of thing, as the important line, you could totally miss this other one. And that is what the meter is built to do. And the meter is not built just to keep rudiments in or something like that. Those are auxiliary uses of the E-Meter.

Now, just for Esther's benefit, you don't sit there and say, "Wow! Look at that. A free needle. Hey! Hey! Look at that! Ha! Ho-ho! What do you know? Lying to it, I got a free needle. You won't look. Look. You know." Poor Esther. That was what happened to her first free needle back in June. Gruesome, man. Huh?

The meter therefore must be sensitive enough and must be built around this one point of the detection of a prime postulate in an individual. If a meter will not detect a prime postulate, that meter is useless — just pointblank — because you wouldn't ever clear anybody with it.

Female voice: I — I'd like to know how come that you can have a free needle when the wording is wrong on the list.

Now, I probably haven't talked about this for a long time. you probably knew a lot of this or maybe it set some of your data straight because some of the propaganda issued in the early days and so forth — not necessarily totally factual. And I've given you a very — a very straight story of this E-Meter.

No. You could — you . . .

Now, the greatest liability of the meter has not been a poorly built meter. We have always been able to refine a meter down to a point where it would read the prime postulate. It takes pretty fine doing. It has to be a very sensitive meter — far, far more sensitive than you would dream of. Because when you really find one today after listing 850 goals or 1,000 or 1,500 goals to where there's no tone arm action left on the goals list — and by test there should be 7X0 tone arm action left on the goals list before you start nulling the first time — when you get down to that point the goal probably reads something on the order of about a fifth to a quarter of a division of the dial at sensitivity 16. And that would be the absolute minimum sensitivity that a meter could have to operate with. That'd be absolute minimum because you couldn't detect below that point. But if you have a meter that is too sensitive, it picks up all the body reactions and everything else the pc is doing — digesting, blinking his eyes and twitching and anything else — and it becomes an unreadable meter. Now, there's possibly design ways to get around that but they haven't been designed to do it.

Female voice: That's what happened to me.

Now, this meter — this meter has the liability of auditor reading. And it has always had that liability. And I had not realized until just last week — to show you that a terrific advance has been made here . . . You think it's just done so that you would be kicked around, but that's not true. A terrific advance has been made here: E-Meter reading has been singled out as — given the existing technology — as the weakest point of auditing today and the one point which must be corrected in the auditor before he can be called a safe auditor. That is the one point. Now, that has always been the toughest point about an E-Meter: getting an auditor to read one.

Yes. But you could have had one that was a reinterpretation and you were reinterpreting as you did it and so forth. And you see, clearing isn't really all that touchy, but you walk down and you must have been very close to it and then, was it one line or two lines went clear?

Now, so much technology has gathered around this point because of so much difficulty in getting this done... See, I learned how to read one of these things in 1952, and there's never been any doubt in my mind about it as to how they read or what the read looked like or anything like that. Well, I'm way ahead of you on practice, and additionally I'm probably ahead of you on just the basic idea of obnosis. I'm perfectly willing to sit and observe what's happening without dreaming up any reason why it happened or anything else, you see? And I'm willing to sit there and look at the needle. One day you will acquire this. you won't do anything else; you will look at the needle and then you will act.

Female voice: One.

And the gist of this is that the meter has been abandoned on at least one occasion for a period of two or three years because I despaired of teaching auditors to read the meter. But at that time very little had been articulated about meter reads. A tremendous amount of information now exists on the subject of meter reads because I've been analyzing everything I've known about meters all these years and everything that's done with these meters and how they respond and behave, and limiting down exactly what auditors do wrong with meters. And I've had a great deal of attention on that.

One line went clear. And that's pretty easy, you see. So what happened to you actually is one line went clear and you had in effect a first dynamic Clear all of a sudden created with the other three lines not free. Freak. But it could happen very easily. It's not even mysterious.

And I find, in the final analysis, that it is simply an auditor has yet to acquire an everytimeness for a clean or a reaction on the part of the meter, and that's the only thing that an auditor is missing on. And that's what he is missing on.

Now, your question, first free needle. After that you don't pay a doggone bit of attention to the length of lines. I'm very glad you asked the question by the way, Jean. Don't pay any attention to the length of lines after that. you just list a free needle.

Some auditors choose to have trouble with coordinating the last syllable of what they are saying with the read of the meter in order to get an instant read on the thing Well, I don't really buy that that is any difficulty at all because I never watch a needle for any read until I have enunciated the last syllable. See, let's say out was the last word in the goal or something like that or the line or the rudiment, and it's basically — not even bothering to look, you see? Let's say, "How would you find out?" You see? All right. "How would you . . ." It's really this way: "How would you find out?" See? But that introduces a comm lag, so your trained response is really this: "How would you find — out?" And then your eye is on the thing during the period of the articulation of the t of out and of course you see the read. But you're going to wear your eyes out looking at it. "How would you find ." Who cares? See? "How would you find ." You introduce fantastic quantities of eyestrain and that sort of thing into meter reading. It's just like the needle must be on the dial at the moment you say the last syllable. It doesn't matter whether it is or not before that moment.

Female voice: And you never go back to the one that's had a free needle. That's the point that I'm making

You could be looking at this. you could look at the pc. "How would you find out?" Yeah. And your coordination between the enunciation of the last syllable and the instantaneousness of the read is then done all in a split second. You lift your eyes off the meter or don't bother to look. can you fix your eyes on something without looking at it? You can. you can. There is an additional action called looking that has nothing to do with pointing the eyes. Learn the difference sometimes. Just fix your eyes on the wall and look at it, and then don't look at it. Look at it, don't look at it, see? Look at it, and don't look at it. It's looking in that instant that is giving you the trouble on some cases.

Oh, yes, you do.

But the technique of how you read one, the drills of how one should be — read one, should contain equally "it isn't reading" with "it is reading." "All right, point me out some no-reads," you should, as coach, tell the student. "All right, give me a no-read." And he's got to show you times when the meter is not reading.

Female voice: Ooh.

"Not reading, not reading, not reading, not reading."

Because it's not going to be free now.

"All right. Give me some times the meter is reading."

Female voice: Yes.

"Read, read, read, read, read."

Your free needle is a sporadic phenomenon.

Just watching a needle, no instant read. Just the thing drifting around.

Female voice: Yeah.

"Give me some not-reads."

So, you list line one and all of a sudden you've got a free needle on line one. Take it in the swim. Don't fire off rockets. And say, "Well, that's it." See? Good. The needle's free. There it is drifting. You might have done two or three before you suddenly realized you had a free needle on your hands and you say, "All right. That's it. That's the end of that line . . . " Go to line two. All right. You'll find that the second you start asking for line two, you haven't got a free needle. This is the phenomena that demonstrates itself, see.

"That's a not-read, and that's a not-read, and that's a not-read, that's a not-read."

And you list, list, list, list, list, list, list and if you're listing, all of a sudden pretty long, not getting anyplace and that sort of thing and the pc is starting to grope for things, it's just as you were doing before. That you've had a free needle doesn't interrupt your behavior with line two. And then you go to line three and you list and you go to line four and you list and maybe line four goes free. Well, the second it goes free, you drop it.

"Give me some reads."

Go to line one. You'll find this is very unfree now because of the four flow manifestation. See, you've moved a lot of bank in on this guy by listing the other three lines, you see. So you list that down. And supposing it doesn't go free. Well, you just list it the normal length of time that you would list a list, don't you see.

"That's a read. That's a read. That's a read. That's a read."

Female voice: Yes.

Get the idea? Just that type of drill. Then let him hook it up to his own vocal cords. Because that's a separate action.

Now, you — maybe you'll find two going free. The second it goes free, you come off of it and go someplace else. you got the idea? So you're keeping up your equality as long as something isn't going free. But then you're going to get to this interesting stage. That's the early stage. That's your first free needle and it cuts in and out and you'll see it a couple of times in the session. And each time you saw it, you come right off of that line, you see. And you'll eventually settle the thing down to where you'll list a line to a free needle and then list the next line for a while. The needle's not now free. And it doesn't go free. And then you list line three and that goes free. And so you go immediately to line four and it doesn't go free. And then you go to line one and it goes free. And you stop right now on it. And shift to your next one, line two and it goes free. And you go to your next line three and it doesn't go free now. And you list that a reasonable length of time. And then you go to list four and it goes free. And the next thing you know, you've got line one to free needle, line two to free needle, line three to free needle, line four to free needle, line one to free needle, line two to free needle, line three to free needle. They go off. They'll shut off every time you start to list the other line. And finally, it doesn't matter what line you list. You're going to have a free needle. And at that time, you don't list another single item. you just — you're there. What you do then is let the pc go around and acclimate himself and — to the operating atmosphere and have him get up in the morning and look at himself on the E-Meter and wondering if he's still at the clear read. you know how they do. And you just assess for a new goal. And maybe his old goals list has come alive again. But probably the safest thing to do is assess for a new goal. See, you have brand-new goals now.

But now I believe we know how to teach people to read an E-Meter and if we don't know I'll jolly well find out, because I have made up my mind not to any longer retreat on this subject. If you're going to clear people, you're going to have to be able to detect the thing in the mind that is keeping the person from not being Clear. I know of no other way to do it except with an E-Meter. If you're going to clear people, going to have to learn an E-Meter.

Goes through the whole procedure again, but it takes less long. And once more the law of the free needle is never list beyond the point of a free needle on any given line. Never do it. The reason you never do it is because you're going to list him into the next GPM.

So I have finally made up my mind — which I never had before, completely — that you've got to learn how to read an E-Meter. Also, that you can and will learn how to read an E-Meter. That is all. Because there's no way around that particular impediment on the track. There isn't any other way around it. There isn't anything else can be done for you except that fact. We can give every assistance in the world in learning how to read one but we've got to cross that hump. And that's what you've seen happen here in the last ten days or so. And I've given you a resume of all of this oddball oddities of history just to show you that there's quite a bit of background to the E-Meter, but there's never been this background to it: You've got to learn how to read one and you will be able to read one. See?

You can overrun a free needle. It's not serious. But you can list a free needle for a half an hour and have the next GPM start coming up. Everything starts pulling the wrong way. you get a terrific rock slam. Everything starts going wild and so on. You're just pulling the next section of track up where it has no business to be at all. And then you run into a little bit of trouble. And your pc's going up and down. Your pc doesn't know what's going on and that sort of thing. Well, actually, it's a violation of the Auditor's Code. It's running a flat process. Listing a free needle is running a flat process. That's all. Does that answer your question?

So that's the background we have added to this, because it comes along with this other datum: that the only reason one auditor seems to be better than another auditor is because one auditor can read an E-Meter and the other auditor cannot. Presence is marvelous. You can acquire all these things. The drills are very interesting; they're very easy. Everything is very smooth. You can smooth a session out. you can do all kinds of things. You can get your auditing questions answered. You — all of these things are fine, but in the final analysis it's whether you can read a meter or not read a meter that makes you a good auditor or somebody who can't audit.

Female voice: Yes, sir.

All right. I have spoke my piece on the subject of E-Meters, and I've had it on my mind, and I thought I had better tell all.

All right. Probably even more thoroughly than you thought.

Thank you.

Female voice: Yes.

Audience: Thank you.

All right. But you appreciate it.

Female voice: Yes.

All right. That's better. All right. Yes, Esther.

Female voice: I'd like to know about the — the difference in these goals that are beingness, doingness and havingness goals.

They just say it. They say be and do and have.

Female voice: What I mean — I — I know what the difference is between do, have and be.

No. They — they say it.

Female voice: I know. That I know that, but what I need to know is something different. Can you . . .

All right. She wants to know the difference between a beingness, doingness and havingness goal and . . .

Female voice: Can you tell . . .

Can you tell . . .

Female voice: . . . the um — how far back these goals would go by the difference in the goals whether it's a doingness or beingness or havingness. Whether it would be further back on the track or so? That's what I mean.

Whether a beingness or doingness or havingness goal would be the furthest back on the track and that sort of thing. I don't think you could tell a thing about it.

Female voice: You couldn't determine that?

I don't know. I have no data on that whatsoever.

Female voice: That's what I'm curious about.

No. I have no data on that whatsoever. By theory, by theory the beingness goal is earliest on the track, the doingness goal is mediumly on the track and the havingness goal is the late one on the track, but that is by theory and how these pancakes are stacked on the griddle and eaten on the plate, God help us, we don't know. Okay?

Female voice: Yes.

All right. Yes, Merrill.

Female voice: I've got something sort of wild here. I wonder, you know, if you ever do find out after you've listed on a goal and everything, sort of what cycle it was. you know?

If you ever find out?

Female voice: Yeah.

Oh, I'm sure you'll know someday.

Track opens up and you suddenly remember where it was and . . . Trouble is nobody ever comments on it because the time the thing is run out it is totally unimportant. All right. David?

Male voice: Got a question that's not sequitur to this actually, Ron. It's um — what would you like to see a field auditor leaving here do?

What would I like to see a field auditor leaving here do? Now, that's a — that's an unfair question because its answer is a divisional — I mean I would like to see a field auditor leaving here, help out in a Central Org for a short time just to help himself out. But next to that, I would like to see him sit down somewhere and accumulate any and all people who have ever been trained in his immediate vicinity and start winding them back into the line, pick up any and all pcs he ever had around and straighten them up and start them back into good shape again. In other words, this process is basically an ARC-type action. If you pick up the ARC breaks in your immediate vicinity, or pick up the unfinished cycles in your immediate vicinity, anybody leaving here now at the state of training he should be in, would actually be able to accomplish some rather remarkable things, not at a great sweat. People are more likely to fall on your head if you tell them you're there, you know, than otherwise. There isn't any great action.

For instance, Dorothy Broaded went back to Seattle area and, I don't know, she had about sixty people and all kinds of things were going on and everybody getting very excited for her. She'll have a hard time staying out of the running like I used to do. I had more difficulty not auditing than I did auditing, see. People on the front doorstep all the time and that kind of action.

Now, there are certain — sometimes in a vicinity there are quite a few people who have been trained at one stage or another. Didn't really finish their certification or requirements. Some of them did. Some of them aren't doing anything. Some of them are. There's some Book Auditors around that did this and that. There are some people who are just interested who did this and that, but they're sort of hung up, see, to some degree or not hung up at all. They may still be going forward too.

Well, anybody who has his hands on good training and good performance and can do something like that would only have to reach in their particular direction just to some slight degree to get the show rolling. And a lot of the auditors who have left here that — I've had to come down on them with a club. They're just auditing day and night, you know. I mean that kind of thing. And very busy doing lots of things.

So what would I like to see them do? Well, there's lots of things I'd like to see people do, but I know inevitably what they will do. They'll either collect the Scientologists in their area and see that they get some auditing and straighten the thing out and keep it going or they won't. All right. You bet. Okay.

Male voice: oh, to carry on with that, John told me when I stopped up to see him that "Don't go out in the sun and cast a shadow because the people will trip over it and you'll be completely snowed under."

Yes. Yes. Poor. . . That's a good thing. He says don't go out in the sun and — Saint Hill graduate here — don't go out in the sun and cast shadows because people will trip over and you'll be snowed under ever afterwards. That's true. I've gotten some letters from people that he hasn't deigned to write to and they are very upset with him for not instantly getting them 7,640 hours of auditing and that sort of thing. He got more than he bargained for. Yes, Ian.

Male voice: Ron, E-Meter reading

Right.

Male voice: How soon are we going to get some visual aids on this?

How soon are you going to get some visual aids. Your best visual aid — somebody was telling me a couple of weeks or something like that and I see from a head nod here that it's probably still that same estimate.

Male voice: Maybe a bit earlier.

Huh?

Male voice: Maybe a bit earlier.

Maybe a bit earlier. Your best visual aid at the present moment is not asking questions or putting some guy quasily indifferently into session. The student sits down and takes hold of the cans. Another student sits there and watches the meter. And nobody says anything except the coach and the student. The coach stands behind him. Or no coach. I just sit there and watch the meter. And just call the reads. And call 50 percent of the time no reads and the other 50 percent of the time reads. Now, that in itself is terrific training if entered in upon without messing up anybody's bank or anything like that. And I think possibly anybody doing that here oh, probably at the other end of the line, will be grooved in enough when he's really good at that to collide with the first visual aids we will have. And I think that would get us over the jump. Does that answer your question?

Male voice: Yes, thank you.

You bet. Okay. Any other questions? All right. That's fine. Thank you very much. Have a good auditing day tomorrow and a good weekend.

Good night.