There have been many roads to clear.

The first was the most simple in description but the most difficult to audit. I never succeeded in teaching it to anyone. All one did was renew the pc's confidence in being able to face sonic, visio, tactile, etc, in the bank by gradient scale and at long last he would be able to confront a bank wholly. When that happened he didn't have a reactive bank. He was clear. It required a very gentle touch. That was the way I made all the early clears in 1947 to 1949. Then I had to explain it all to the "scientists" and the fact of clear was lost in the mire of the roadway for some years. I've been accused of wanting it that way to tell the sheep from the goats. The point remains that this route was the first successful route. We did not know how much there was to a bank or its anatomy. We had to know the worst before the sun came up again. It came up in December of 1957 with my development of "help" and Step 6. Suddenly we were making clears. Making them out of both high and low profile cases, out of occluded cases and wide open cases.

Auditor: LRH Pc – Experimental Case. Nervous, restless, heavy somatics.

Clearing is now an accomplished fact for any well-trained validated auditor using a central organization E-Meter.

I started session by attempting to clear a p. t. problem. First he had to clear the command. The pc, very restless, defined a problem as "Something that can't be solved. " "You can keep trying but of course you can't solve it. "

The further in miles from the central organization the attempt to clear is tried, the more difficulty is being experienced. First the word goes out that clearing is being done, then the how-to-do-it. By the time it gets to Alaska or the Bronx or some distant place, the auditor is uncertain as to the right way and even the fact of clearing. He tries it (or thinks he does) (his version anyway) and laying an egg or two, gives up or thinks it isn't real.

I tried in vain to get pc to as-is that computation. It would not change.

For such an auditor an HAA clearing course is indicated. (1) He'll learn right and (2) he'll see some clears around and begin to understand what one is. And he'll know there is at least one valid road to clear that he can take and do.

I was faced by this: One cannot audit successfully up against a p. t. problem. If one tries to do so without clearing the problem the whole case hangs fire. Every unchanged profile or case after auditing is unchanged because the auditor left a present time problem partly or wholly unflat and in restimulation. A pc whose definition of a problem is "something that can't be solved" and who yet has a p. t. problem could not be audited successfully unless the computation altered.

Therefore we do not really need right now more roads to clear and certainly we need no roads to OT while the path to clear is still a thin blazed trail. Good Heavens, what's happened is wonderful enough – and nobody far away has any reality on that yet. However I am still on the job looking for (1) Alternate clear roads and (2) Roads to OT.

Trying "What is a problem?" as a repetitive question for half an hour only made the pc nervous, restless and tearful. Obviously the consideration would not change. Therefore, obviously, the consideration was mis-owned. It was a valence, another person the pc was being with complete tenacity and total error. Process abandoned. Decided to strip the valence off.

Standard Clearing Procedure, the procedure that is making clears in skilled hands, is a very set SCP indeed. It alone has made all clears to date by persons other than myself.

A discussion of what was a valence finally bore fruit. Pc understood term as meaning a mental package of ideas and considerations really belonging to another person and unknowingly borrowed by pc.

SCP is aided here and there by other techniques used to cross a block or two faster. But all older techniques only assist the steps of SCP (and sometimes impede SCP). Of course there are some people who would rather walk in the swamp alongside the causeway just built – that's up to them. If they know there's a causeway and still walk in a swamp it's power of choice. If they haven't seen the big causeway beside them and walk in the swamp, that's stupidity.

Started in to run a process to at once give greater reality on valences and to hit at the computation.

Standard Clearing Procedure works as follows:

If pc would fight help so hard then the valence had four considerations that were known to me. (1) It couldn't be assisted; (2) It considered a problem as "something that could not be solved"; (3) It was steeped in defeatism; and (4) The pc thought of the valence as self.

Requisite for auditor – Validated certificate.

Just to ease into valences I ran a process as follows "Can you get an idea of somebody that cannot be helped?" Pc could. "Describe the person. " Pc did, thus getting a detached idea of a personality in the mind. "Now what would you say that person's definition of a problem would be?"

Tools: A quiet room and clearing E-Meter from D.C. or London (not some tin quivering together on the hopes of some tinker nor yet an old Model T E-Meter made in California).

The first dozen people so imagined all had definitions of problems identical with pc's own. But then there began to be a change in the definition.

Publications: Clear Procedure available from the HCO. [See page 172.]

Possibly this process would have gotten further but pc was looking brighter and a flat place was reached and I was really trying to clear by valences.

First Action: Start session CCH 0.

Therefore I bridged, started in on valences directly. I called the valence in which pc was stuck "that valence" (pc thought of it as self). I used the repetitive command "Tell me how you could waste that valence". Now and then I asked where it was. Pc didn't know sometimes, sometimes did. (At first it was just back of pc's eyes and was pc's thinkingness.)

Second Action:Search out by meter a p. t. problem and run it by finding "What part of it pc can be responsible for" as a repetitive command, formal auditing.

Terrible somatics cut in after fifteen minutes, all chronic with pc.

Third Action: CCH 0 b. Clear help in brackets with a meter, running meter toward a freer needle. Don't over-run a leg of the bracket and get the pc stuck or anaten.

I went right on with process for some time (over one hour) when pc suddenly began to cognite on problems. The somatics had ceased entirely fifteen minutes before.

Fourth Action: Run Step 6 of the book Clear Procedure and run it flat.

As a process can be left when (a) an ability is regained, or (b) three responses are given with equal comm lag or (c) pc truly cognites in line with process, I could then leave it and bridge.

Fifth Action: Reclear help.

I bridged over to "What part of that valence could you be responsible for?" for twelve minutes to round process off and keep pc from making "that valence" an enemy if any bit of it remained and to check out somatics. Pc felt very dazed for a moment or two (typical of a separating somatic) but came out of it very bright. Process flat.

Sixth Action: Step 6 until flat, flat, flat and needle free.

Bridged into earlier commands for a few commands each to flatten them and bridged out to begin clearing of session.

That's SCP. It is assisted by SCS and Connectedness on some pcs.

Pc could not now consider any of the five initial problems listed as problems now… they all seemed simple and routine parts of life.

SCP is an accomplished fact only if the auditor has good training and validation. He doesn't have to be clear. But he has to be accurate. The HAA-BScn course teaches Validation and Clearing. HCA-HPA teach the basics of Scientology – you have to know those first.

Ended session.

Thus an experimental road to Clear is today a luxury. But you know me – I'm always cutting corners.

Time of auditing 2½ hours approximately including one short break.

So here is an alternate, still in theoretical stage, which promises to be the 3rd successful road. However it requires even greater auditing skill and understanding than SCP but may be faster for lower cases.

Goal of session was to clear up problems on the subject of problems. Goal was attained.

It is called "Clearing By Valences".

Added bonuses – Loss of main thinkingness circuit, loss of chronic somatic and service facsimile, increase of potential, new zest to continue on to clear.

Its theory is simple. One can assume that a thetan has all the attributes of clear in his basic personality (see Book I, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health for a discussion of Basic Personality). The action of clearing gives a person back to himself. Therefore the bulldozing of rubble from the basic personality would give us a clear.

Pc heretofore desiring little auditing, hard to control in session, reactive toward help offered by others. All changed.

I have known for some time that an APA or OCA profile was a picture of a valence or of valences – artificial overlays. I have also known that there is a basic personality. When you clear someone you don't get a ghost or a god – you get a distinct personality. Men are not equal even if the highest courts in the U.S. so insist. And neither are clears. It is Commie-psychiatric thinking that each is equal to the next like grains of mush. You can generalize by saying clears are good and able. But some are gooder than others and some are distinctly differently able. So people are different.

But valences (borrowed, artificial personalities) overlay the real self and weaken it. Valences are the sum of overwhelmings of the pc. Whenever he lost he got one.

His basic personality was invalidated so he sought new ones. These were invalidated so he sought even newer ones. Like standing between two mirrors facing each other we achieve the multiple pc. But where is the clear? We find him when we scoop away the thousands of others he is being.

[PAB 139, An Example of Clearing by Valences, 1 July 1958, is taken from this HCO B.]

The first straight wire run at Elizabeth, N. J. , in 1950 succeeded when it knocked off a sick valence. Well we can knock them off wholesale today – with skilled auditing.

The clue is the Curiosity-Desire-Enforce-Inhibit Scale run on valences.

That which the pc erases with difficulty is misowned by him. Therefore it is a valence. In the presence of valences he cannot change his mind easily when he misowns the consideration. Therefore all fixed, harmful ideas or aberrations stem from valences.

The process on this would be "Tell me how you could waste a (male) (female) (other) valence. " This would have to be cleared as a command thoroughly and often. That's the skill.

An auditor can ask a pc about an aberration and spot a valence possibility. And then run it by waste, etc.

People usually have to waste before they can have. A person who can have a valence isn't subject to it.

This type of command is rounded off with "What part of that valence could you be responsible for?"

The general rules of auditing must be observed. The basics of Scientology must be understood. And great skill and understanding are required of the auditor.

"Tell me how you could waste father's valence" "… a fat valence" "… a defeated valence" etc. The list is enormous.

Well there it is in the rough. When it's made some clears it will be an alternate probably and have a highly polished form like SCP. Right now it is used as an assist to SCP on a difficult case as per the next HCO B.

[PAB 138, Standard Clear Procedure and An Experimental Road: Clearing by Valences, 15 June 1958, is taken from this HCO B.]