I'm glad to see that you are all in such excellent condition today.

All right. It comes down to field trouble, right? You picked fields for randomity, isn't that right? Somehow or another the auditor has, and the preclear has. How about, as of now, skipping it, huh? It's very, very easy to pick something for randomity and then carry on with it as a stumbling block. It's one of the things that man does best: find a new way to stumble, and then stumble. Men will do that all the time — something you could almost expect.

Audience: Yes.

There would be a certain amount of stumbling — would happen — if I said, "The main difficulty with cases are the automaticity and motion of the mock-up." And we could be absolutely sure that some of us — not because we're pcs or auditors, either one — some of us would immediately concentrate on the automaticity of a mock-up.

Now, today we'll continue this blow-by-blow account of clearing that we've been going into. Do you realize in three lectures we just moved up to finding the auditor? There's quite a bit to know about it, isn't there?

Because why? Not because I said so. Because it's a posed problem. It looks like a new problem. It looks like a new game. Right?

Male voice: Yes.

So I will teach you a lesson you have been learning the hard way, right now. Any time you see that something has been chosen out for — as randomity, while you're running Clear Procedure as an auditor, studiously ignore it and skip it.

Well, I'm just trying to disabuse you of any idea that might still linger in the minds of the people you talk to of the ease with which any goof, by throwing a few processes up in the air, could affect clearing. The discipline of an auditor is part and parcel to this activity. And without that discipline and that viewpoint it cannot happen.

Now, we've fallen into fields again, after all of these years. We've fallen into them before: We fell into it at Elizabeth, we fell into fields at Wichita, in Phoenix, and here again we're falling into fields, right?

But today we'll proceed along the line and talk about processes, well understanding — well understanding that these would fail without the necessary discipline. Now, there have been orders and groups and societies and associations which had a considerable discipline. As a matter of fact, the Tibetan laman has a discipline that would make anything we're doing look very, very pale. Whether it gets anyplace or not is beside the point. It's mainly a first dynamic discipline. They went into the inversion of, "If you beat yourself up enough, why, you'll amount to something." And that's all very well, but it sounds more like a dramatization than a discipline. But nevertheless they did adopt it to a discipline. It takes them about twenty, twenty-five years to get up to a state of purity sufficient to be very wise and be very something-or-other. And then they wish they had to do it all over again, because by that time they're shot.

Male voice: Philadelphia, too.

These are not bitter words, these are actually based on an understanding of these people. Remember, I have lived with these people. And they are very often confused and very often unhappy. And they hold below a postulate of how calm and serene they must be, just about every aberration that we've ever run across. And they, actually, are hot bombs. And this cool, calm exterior was a not-isness. You understand that?

Philadelphia. Fields.

So that a discipline which becomes a not-isness, actually does operate as an internal suppression. But a discipline which operates out of an understanding and a freedom, then, doesn't lay a small bomb in your midriff, ready to go off at any moment. Do you understand that? So we even use this word discipline with some reserve because it really isn't a discipline. It's a freedom to be disciplined. It's sort of something new here on Earth.

Well now, I'll tell you something real wild about this. It is possible to bypass them utterly. It's also possible to bypass any other automaticity that could be construed as randomity and used as such.

As I've mentioned before, and not just to make a smart crack, a psychologist, a university student would have no more chance of approximating a professional auditor's results than he would have of turning water into wine. This may make a professional auditor's results look very mysterious to him. And-well it should. If he's stupid enough to investigate instead of partake, let him be part of a mystery sandwich. Mystery is the big sticker, you know?

It's possible to run a case this way: A fellow says, "The trouble with me is Mama. Mama has been cutting me to ribbons all my life. She's living with me right now. She tells my wife what to do. She tells me what to do. And I'm going mad. I'm going crazy, I tell you, because I can't stand another minute of it. I can't stand another minute."

Two things the human race buys: make nothing out of it, and a total mystery. They buy these things. These are very salable. All of Madison Avenue's techniques are functional only when they hit these two points.

You say, "That's fine," and studiously never thereafter mention her! And you would be obeying your "null to null," wouldn't you?

As a matter of fact, Madison Avenue's techniques of continuing to put a name up, a name up, a name up — you know, put up General Motors, General Motors, General Motors, General Motors — could eventually result in the erasure from public consciousness of General Motors. Too familiar. You get too familiar with a symbol and it'll disappear, naturally, because there's no mass there to support it. As a matter of fact, it could go so far as the people wouldn't even see the cars on the streets. General Motors could turn out a new rocket vehicle that runs 862 miles an hour and takes off upside down and has a couch and an accessory that squirts perfume all through the place — in other words, the ne plus ultra of automotive manufacture. And if it had been advertised enough — enough, you understand, they really don't advertise any of these things up to that point because nobody can afford it — but if that name was everywhere, if every time you went down the street you saw General Motors on a billboard and every time you looked at a newspaper right on the front page you saw General Motors and General Motors and General Motors, you would think offhand that the public would then fall under the sway of General Motors. No. No. There's no pain and unconsciousness mixed up with it at all. And all they're doing is running out some implants. And after a while these — the letters which go to make up "General Motors" would themselves simply become a design that was customary in the country and meant nothing. You see that?

A new method of auditing has arisen here recently: null to null. And somebody pointed it out very brilliantly: He says, "One of the reasons why they're having field trouble is because they're not picking nulls — not picking a null black object to push in."

Therefore, it is conduct and results which disseminate Scientology and get you places, rather than a continuous repetition to people how good Scientology is. You see, you keep saying Scientology, Scientology, Scientology, Scientology — so what? You'll find there's an awful lot of people who have gotten tired of you saying that already. And they turn around and become critical. But an actual example of discipline, good results, ability, makes them continue to be aware of you and what you are doing. And after a while, the mystery sandwich goes slurp and they say, "What is all this?"

Aha! That's true. There's an even extended truth on that, as bright as that is. His fields aren't a null subject, no more than Mama. A thetan becomes terrified at the idea of going blind, not being able to see. So you scare him to death and you freeze him into it. See?

Now, at that time, to simply give them some techniques and say, "Go out and try it," could be catastrophic.

I'll tell you the mechanisms you've got to get out of the road, and they are not field. They are mechanisms. One, an individual who has been badly beaten around is liable to have a destroy automaticity move in on him, for which he will not take responsibility, and is liable to continue to obey it, and therefore is liable to have a destroy automaticity going on and on and on chewing his mock-ups up. You get the idea? This will be particularly true in the next generation — conscription, that sort of thing. There's too much talk today about destroy, destroy, destroy. People set their ideas of making nothing of it over into, and interiorize into, these destroy valences very easily.

Why? They're in no position to use this sort of thing. They haven't become familiar enough to go for broke.

Well, you can take that one to pieces. It's there to be taken to pieces. But it's not randomity, and you never have to tell the preclear about it. You can take this not-isness apart and thus speed up clearing. I say you can, I'm not saying you must. You could speed it up. You can take over an automaticity of one kind or another which is directly going to defeat you, by paralleling — by making the mind do exactly what it is doing.

Well, how would a public at large become familiar enough to go for broke? Personal Efficiency and HAS Courses running the same disciplines everybody else has run would eventually let them get up there. I mean, the road is open.

Now, it isn't the preclear's fault that he's gotten into one of these destroy valences. The thing was trying to destroy him — trying to destroy him, and he failed. And sometime or another he must have tried to destroy something like that or he wouldn't be in difficulties. But it isn't his direct, immediate, present time fault that he's got one of these valences moving in on him.

And there will always be, then, a whole strata of techniques which somebody without much discipline could run. And we know what those are. We know that a Touch Assist is quite remarkable. And almost any "auditor" undisciplined, incapable of sustaining any far flight, would not get in trouble with a Touch Assist. Right?

Well, this is very close to fields — very close to fields because it also operates on the next step. All right.

It's quite amazing, an old-time Scientologist the other day had a neck ache, and I simply did a Touch Assist — "Feel my fingers. Feel my thumb. Feel my fingers. Feel my thumb. Feel my fingers. Feel my thumb." Did that for about ten minutes and the person didn't have a neck ache. All right.

But we'll just say a destroy automaticity, and we'll take somebody out and make him do a Union Station on it. Funny part of it is, just walking out and spotting people will relax him as a preclear regardless of the significance that's added into it. See, here's a good process all by itself, just walking out and looking at people. So let's add the automaticity of destroy into the thing, and we will probably get rid of the destroy valence that'll keep knocking out his mock-ups. Very interesting. That's a speedup. That's a shortcut.

So there's a host of processes which are insufficiently lethal — insufficiently to cause an undisciplined "auditor" to flinch. And there are a great many processes which are so lethal . . .

Now, the second one as it moves on top of this — same one almost — is the protection mechanism. An individual is almost picking up a destroy valence, his field is resisting, and he's doing the one thing he mustn't do.

Now, oddly enough, although it looks very easy, Clear Procedure on its subjective mock-up steps is one of these. The understanding required to run mock-ups, the understanding of the mechanisms of the mind, the patience, the tolerance, the know-how of putting it together just so that it will happen just right, are so far beyond run-of-the-mill people they never make the grade.

You know why women get along better in this universe than men (they do, you know, they live several years longer and so forth) is they are more closely an inflow mechanism. They expect to inflow; their expectance is inflow. A male expects to outflow, even if only on the second dynamic. You see? It's a different construction mechanism. A woman, then, doesn't fight against inflowing as hard as a man fights against it. Therefore you'll expect to find more fields amongst men than women. This is an interesting side comment — but merely a side comment.

Somebody gets ahold of a book and he starts to run this sort of thing through. Well fortunately, he'll stop by the time he gets to Stop-C-S or Start-C-S. He undoubtedly will not progress beyond this point because ... I say, you could probably even take army sergeants — interesting class of people who you would think would be able to run that — but tell them what this was and have them run it directly with touch contact on the person they were running it on. I think a large percentage of them would blow in the process.

A girl who is having too much trouble with a field has normally been too often overwhelmped by a destroy mechanism, whether it was Papa or some lover or something like this, or life in general.

Because HGC auditors, every time we revive this — it keeps getting revived, by the way. It's on, I think, its third revival right about now — always finds in the ranks of the HGC an auditor or two who wasn't there the last time it was used, and who's never been trained in it. The Director of Processing patches him up, trains him in it in some fashion or another. A couple of his fellow auditors says, "Go on in and pitch." At the end of the day you have a white, shaken figure. He's persisting simply because he knows he's supposed to, and nobody else seems to have any trouble with it. And it almost kills him.

But destroy is the basic mechanism, and protection is the other mechanism — resistance toward a destroy area, resistance toward a destroy valence. There is the other area. And so, as he seeks to protect himself, he seeks not to be touched. And you're making him deny himself with step — with the mock-up step, see? You're making him directly deny himself, see? He says, "Nothing must come in toward me at all. Nothing." And then you say, "Mock it up and push it in."

You're asking him at once, without — without having a total control of his own body, to control somebody else's body. And of course it restimulates the living daylights out of him. The auditor in this particular case who isn't used to that sort of thing, if he does a long series of sessions on it, runs it out — he's no longer bothered with it. But until he has had some experience with it, until he has actually done it for a little while, there's a possibility of repercussion.

Well, you're not then doing what the mind is doing. The mind is trying to keep anything from coming in — aren't you? So you can do it circuitously. And you can get this protection mechanism with this process — key process: "What action could you take against that body?"

Now, sitting there running somebody else's bank, as in the upper steps of Clear Procedure, becomes one of the more interesting activities. Because as far as an unknowing, untrained, undisciplined person could do — the other person was simply sitting there looking at nothing, and his own curiosity would overwhelm his skill.

Now, you have to say "for sure," you have to have him be certain that he could take that action against this body. He'd have to modify it until he was absolutely certain he could take that action. And after a while you've run the gradient scale of touch on the body, and the field will go. No attention, however, was paid to the field, in either case.

So it goes something like this: "Says here in the book, 'What can you mock up?' What — that mock-up, that means a mental image picture. What could you do?" See?

Now, you get this now? You take care of the destroy automaticity: He's taking, covertly, some responsibility and ownership of this thing by himself postulating inventions of destruction.

Fellow says, "Well, I could . . ." Fellow says, "I can mock up a fountain, if that's what you mean."

And then the next step, you take over protection, and you permit him to get the idea that he could touch his body. And because you've already cleaned the way of the most violent objections, you could then go on directly onto a step we should have been on in the first place, which is a very interesting step: "What can you mock up?"

And he says, "Well, it says go on and do so."

And we clear mock-ups. We just clean those up real good. The individual is mocking something up. He knows he's mocking it up, he can see it, he has a certainty of mock-up, and we just clean him up on mocking up. You got the idea? Not even necessarily on sides of the body, we just want him to mock up something.

Fellow does.

And after we've got him sure that he's mocked up something, why, then we could put it on various sides of the body. In other words, break him in gradually, here. And he complains about a red fog or a green fog or a blue or a brown or a black — still, we carefully pay no attention to it at all. We simply ignore it. And we just coax him into being able to mock up. And then we coax him into being able to mock up and keep it from going away. And then we coax him to do that on six sides of the body.

"You mean you can mock up something and see it? Huh! Well, am I supposed to see it too? No, I couldn't see anything like that. Well, where did you get the energy to mock it up with? I mean, if it is, where is it? What is it? How is it? You're doing it? No kidding!"

And if he falls from grace somewhere along the line, then we clear mock-ups again with him, very carefully — what can he mock up — all over again. And keep him coming. And you'll find out he'll get as Clear as anybody else.

This'd just be his general frame of mind, you know?

What is wrong with every case? A field. Or at least too tight an association.

"It says here, 'Keep it from going away.' Well go on, do that. Well, how did you manage it? You didn't reach your hands out and grab it. What else is there to take hold of it with — if it exists?"

But all of this is expressed in no responsibility for mocking it up. While he is mocking it up, he takes no responsibility for mocking it up. Let me call this back to your attention again, that an individual can be audited because he is mocking up all of his difficulties. He does not clear Father; he clears the picture he is making of Father. Do you get that? He cannot possibly clear up, directly, a case that is not there. He must, therefore, be clearing up something that is there. And as he is the only one present — this I guarantee you — he is doing it.

You get the total adriftness?

Now, if you accuse him of doing it, he doesn't like this. But he's got the significance of the picture mixed up with the picture.

Now, I know we had the brighter people with us in Dianetics, when people could just off the cuff start running engrams. A lot of them did. A lot of them got away with it. A lot of them did fine. Isn't it funny that reaching just a little further and picking people at random who hadn't volunteered, they'd say, "Well, 'engram.' You mean you're looking at something — a dentist or something? Gee, man, you're crazy, there's no dentist in this room!"

Now, there's probably ... I was — the one I was fooling with last night, I was just trying to disentangle these two things on a fast shot. I took a specific engram that had been bothering a person for a very long time and asked them what significance in that engram could they take responsibility for? And all of a sudden the whole thing blew. Just repetitive question on this: "What significance in that engram could you take responsibility for?" It was a rather gruesome experience. But the person came up at the other end of the thing realizing that it was a picture of a death, not the death. And a little later on, recognized that she must be mocking up the picture of the death because there was nobody else there to do so. And this picture, by the way, has resisted all other processes, except Clearing Process — it would have cleared up on that. She wouldn't buy the significance, and therefore wouldn't buy the picture. She was mocking it up; somebody else must be mocking it up because she wouldn't do that. That's perfectly true — she wouldn't do that, but she could take responsibility for certain significances.

I actually heard that remark made one time at a party. I tried to get somebody there, who hadn't volunteered at all, to audit somebody. And you never saw as much puzzlement, as much upset and so forth. He didn't have a clue that he was supposed to be doing something for somebody else. He was doing it all for himself, to satisfy his curiosity.

The reason I picked on significances is because they do not knock out mass. You can take the significance out of a mass without knocking out the mass. Don't you see?

Well, I don't care how far these techniques get spread that we're talking about. It doesn't matter a bit. Just make sure that the disciplines of an auditor get spread further. Keep telling people that really — really the way to do themselves some good is either: one, get some professional auditing, and if they're going to do anybody else some good, two, get training.

See, here was a cute gimmick just to run an engram. If we'd have had that in 1950, we'd be cheering all over the place. Just a gimmick, though, today.

And knock off this idea of thinking that they can do it all from scratch because we've reached a point where it can't be done successfully. Then you'll have a lot of messed-up people around, and Scientology will be getting a bad name because it "louses people up." Scientology doesn't louse people up. But the desire to make nothing of others coupled with mystery, curiosity, could really cut swaths in it. So when we speak of clearing and clearing processes, we're actually speaking of a highly professional activity. And don't think otherwise.

So to coax somebody into mocking up a picture they know they mock up, and then to coax them into keeping it from going away so that they know they're keeping it from going away, is to do this whole step.

Now, if somebody's got to audit somebody else that doesn't know how, remember we do have quite a few processes that they can have dumped on their heads and they can be happy with. Do you understand that?

Now, the reason you would get away with destroy and protect, and the reason you'd knock these two out, is so that it becomes obvious you can control those too. And it's simply part of a control mechanism, rather than what they actually do to the bank.

So what I'm saying now and finishing up here on techniques is not handed out as that thing which clears people. That thing which clears people is an auditor. The auditor clears people. Techniques don't clear anybody.

So we don't care what shape the bank is in immediately after he has run "destroy" on a number of people — objective — outside. See, we don't care. Nor do we care what the state of the bank is after we have run, "What action could you take — could you certainly take against that body?" See, we wouldn't care what shape the bank was in. It would have changed, but this is not our concern. We're showing them we can take this over too.

Now, there's some possibility that an auditor, even if well trained — as a matter of fact, it's more than a possibility — could not clear people without the techniques. See? That's there too, because it's taken the examination, the dream-up — the examination of probably, oh, hundreds of thousands of techniques, combinations and so forth — to work this thing out, and it's come out to be a rather intricately neat package. We're still having trouble communicating it a little bit and still streamlining it to find out what auditors at large will use in it easily and achieve the same results.

These are the two most outstanding barriers that he would expect to have crossed by the auditor. And we get him off obsessive destroy and obsessive protect, then he won't be putting these up to stop us. Or these won't arise to stop us. And we find it rather easy, then, to build him into making pictures.

But it is not, you might say, something that is a highly secondary proposition. But it has a primary fact; the primary fact is the auditor. And the primary fact is the control of the — by the auditor. A primary fact is the in-sessionness of the preclear. A primary fact is this, and a primary fact is that. Don't you see? And we take off from all these primary facts and we get into something that begins to look rather secondary. And if the primary facts exist, this thing that looks rather secondary, used properly and administered by an auditor, then becomes a clearing activity.

Now, this is a reswhat I'm telling you is a result of direct test. And we have found out here very recently that on tests, those who had a bad field and who were doing mock-ups and keeping them from going away, that they could barely see, that they were very thin, that it was very upset in general. They made better gains than those who had their fields cleared. Got it? Quite interesting, isn't it?

Tremendous number of reservations here, aren't there?

What is it but a field? What is a whole bunch of unconsciously mocked-up, no-responsibility-for pictures but a field? What is a bank but a field? What are you trying to do in clearing but clearing a field? Look at it that way.

Well, we're not saying that everybody can clear everybody. We are saying, however, that a disciplined auditor can clear people. And we've already done so rather widely. There were a great many experimental runs on this on various types of cases, and it became awfully obvious that we had made the grade. Terribly obvious.

We know the basic mechanism is to take over the automaticity. Well now, problems collapse on somebody if he solves them. That's an automaticity, isn't it? So of course, we have to keep things from going away, or even shove them into the body, to get this mechanism of collapse of solutions. In no way at all could we get away with clearing if we didn't take over this mechanism of collapse. Well, the funny part of it is, the mechanism of collapse is much more important in this universe — the mechanism of inflow, collapse, keep it from going away and so forth — is much more important than destroy or protect. So these are two easy ones that he could take on a gradient. And he could move it right on upstairs.

The common denominator — now let's just speak about techniques without all these reservations — the common denominator of the processes we are using is your Intensive Procedure that you were given early in the Unit here, and this and several side variations of it have all been successful.

Do you realize that every black screen a fellow has out there is resisting something coming in? And every time he resists something coming in, he builds himself into a piece of granite because it can't come in in the first place. There is no "in" for it to come to. The whole mechanism of inflow is the mechanism of un-clearing.

Now, when I say side variations, I don't mean that in the little red pamphlet there, Clear Procedure, that the Step 6 in there (you call it Step 5 in your Intensive Procedure here) could be varied. That one can't be varied. That is as fixed as the center of a wheel. The process by which we ask somebody to mock something up in front of him and keep it from going away, and mock something up behind him and keep it from going away, and mock something up to the left, to the right, and below and above, and each time keep it from going away, enough times around with enough types of objects, and then same thing "Hold it still," and then same thing with the command "Make it a little more solid," becomes an invariable.

So by gradient scale you could take over these various functions and factors. And these, of course, would be destroy and protect and then create. Destroy is a not-isness. True destruction comes about simply by not creating. A person has to create everything which bothers him, one way or the other — has to contribute to its creation.

Don't lose that one. Don't pull the old trick of the — of keeping all of the napkins and favors and frills and slices of cake that went with the party and forget the present, which was a silver service. That step, right there, is the hub of clearing.

Yes?

And whereas it's perfectly all right to experiment experimentally to improve that particular step, don't experiment while you're clearing somebody. Got the idea? Because it will clear somebody, administered properly by an auditor.

Female voice: I guess I've been pushing these questions about goals. It's my habit to set a goal as a preclear that corresponds with the process I'm to be run on. And it's not my auditor's habit to have the preclear do that. And I think that her opinion is more agreed-upon than mine. So when you set your goal, can you set it on ...

Now, very probably, knowing that much, that step can be refined. But it's taken eight years to get that step. And there's hundreds of thousands of combinations have already been tested. Now, if you use an experimental combination of processes on somebody testwise in order to improve it, and you get a more rapid happening, fine. Fine. Let's all hear about it. But if you use something else on a person you're trying to clear and then find out he didn't clear, don't write me. I won't be interested. Get the difference here?

Oh, boy, this . . .

In the first place, clearing can be done with sufficient rapidity that it is within your ability to give the time, and my ability to give the time, to clear. I mean, if you're going to complete a case and finish it all up, you don't want to run anybody less than — oh, certainly less than thirty-five hours. How in the name of common sense would you ever make the guy's acquaintance? You get the idea? We're getting down to a point of where we line them all up in a row and shoot them all in the arm and they don't know whether you're Joe or Bill or Pete. See? It takes a moment or two for a fellow to settle into a groove one way or the other. We're down within those limits of time, where people in general are concerned.

Female voice:. . . the basis of the process you're going to be run on? Or can't you?

And whereas last night I did a tricky one, a tricky one-shot Clear proposition on an incident, and blew the incident. It was very tricky and it only took five minutes. And it blew a principal incident. I notice that twelve hours later it's caved in. Just took somebody and something they've been worried about most of their life, and cleaned it up in about (snap) that fast, see? By handling a factor of significance. You handle significance, you don't reduce mass. Highly experimental, having to do with the responsibility buttons and all that sort of thing. Well, maybe there's some route to Clear there. Fine. But as far as I'm concerned, we haven't had a standard route for eight years. And we've got one. And there isn't much reason to go over in the jungle and thrash through the thorn bushes, because, brother, they're beat to pieces already with the work we've been doing. In other words, we have something and we should use it until we agree that we have something better. We should use this one.

. . . this would not be interfered with, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I'd just ignore this whole thing if I were auditing somebody, and I would say, "Well, how do you know I'm going to run you on that process?" That'd be one of the things that I would ask.

Now, that is the total motive and motto back of every process that is in Intensive Procedure. In other words, it does something, we know that it does something, and why not use it? These are fantastically practical processes. Do you know that there are better processes, theoretically, than each one of them? Theoretically, better processes than each one of the Intensive Procedure processes — theoretically.

Female voice: Oh, I guess it was me, then.

Take — if CCH 0 is supposed to establish participation, then why don't we invent some game that the fellow could play and would become very engrossed in playing, and then all of a sudden, why, he swings out into participation because he finds himself in-session, or something like this? See, there's — theoretically, there's a much better procedure than CCH 0, but CCH 0 is what we have not been able to bypass now since about '53. It contains all the things that we find that we have never been able to get away with, totally, on all preclears.

And I'd say, "Well, I don't know, you say you want a goal. Fine. Fine. Set it any way you please as long as you know you want that goal — if you'd like for that to happen."

Well, that's an interesting summation, then, isn't it? So it's a sort of a high road that, well, it may have rocks in it and the grades may be too steep in places and so forth, but we've got a vast background of workability in CCH 0. It's merely a lump sum of all these workabilities of problems and starting out a session with no goals.

Yes?

It's interesting, I've seen an auditor start a session with no goals, run clear through to the end of the intensive with no goals, then wonder why nothing happened to the preclear. Neither he nor the preclear ever postulated that any one thing would ever happen. So who was going to postulate it? They were the only two people present.

Male voice: It's not the past death, it's the picture of the past death.

And so we sort these things out. And we find out these, when omitted, have been sore points just time after time after time after time, until they have become a rut. No matter how many people we train, we find we're always going back over the same ground. No matter how many books I write, we're always having to pull these in by their heels. Maybe they look different every time we pull them in, but they're the same old corpse.

So true.

And there are these things which are resident there in CCH 0, so I suppose that one of these fine days, why, I'll busily write a brand-new book all about how to start a session, see? And it'll just be the same old corpse drug in by the heels. I don't think there is anything else to starting a session rather than first, have a trained auditor, and then the various portions of CCH 0. If there's anything else to starting a session it would be in the magnitude of, "Well, you have to have a universe to audit in, such as the mest universe." Maybe that'll become a problem someday to auditors — they'll have blown it. At which time it'll be time enough to drag it in. But we've still got a universe, and so we've got CCH 0.

Male voice: It's not the bank, it's the picture of the bank.

Well, CCH 0, I don't really know of any good rendition of it in print. It's still flexible. But I don't even — unless it's for posterity, unless it's for our future memory, I wouldn't know too much reason to write it up and be terribly arduous about it. You see? It's awfully obvious: Find a preclear. Find an auditor. And then what do we go into? We've got to find an auditing room a little bit. But if you found an auditing room too thoroughly, you'd either blow his head off or clear him in one shot. That's asking for a whole intensive to take place, to find the auditing room. So we just get it kind of located. "Is it all right to audit in this coffee shop?" we say.

Right. If you look over the mechanism of pictures you'll find something that's quite amusing: You look at a wall, that wall is there. Maybe you are or are not mocking it up on god knows what via, that's beside the point. That's an OT problem. We're not worried about it. We found out we didn't have to pay any attention to that problem to get the rest of the thing whipped out, which is quite amazing all by itself. All we had to pay attention to was clearing a mind. All right.

And that much done, then we get into the rather obvious things — been with us for years and years and years: goals, present time problem. We get into this relatively new button, Help. And we've got the three most important significances that have to be covered right there.

So there's that wall. You conceive that wall may bite you, so you resist it, so you take a picture of it. Got it? You take a picture of the wall. Now, this is fine, except for this: When you take a picture with great resistance and lots of energy, you are left with a black side facing you and a picture of the wall on the other side.

PT problem. Don't try to go anyplace if a PT problem is in restim because you haven't got an auditing room. It's rather odd, but the preclear is so anxious about going to see that lawyer who was about to sue him that afternoon that he cannot sit still. Well, the definition of a present time problem is something which exists in present time which is seeking to exteriorize the preclear from the session.

If you could ask anybody — get anybody brave enough to turn around one of these screens and look at it that way, he'll see it's a picture of something. And he'll say, "There are lions outside the screen."

It must exist. And that's a present time problem. It doesn't have to bop. It must exist. The auditor has to say it exists and the preclear has to say it exists, you know? Nice, solid agreement. It must exist — a point a lot of auditors will overlook. They think, "Well, it's a present time problem to him. I'm willing to let him have a present time problem that ghosts are walking in his room every night," and so forth. Now you're talking about an aberration. You're not talking about a present time problem.

Oh no. That is not true. The screen is a picture of lions. Get the idea?

There is a lawyer. There is a wife. There is a husband. There is a cop. There is a boss and no paycheck. There's actually something. There's something in the world which is nagging him. Well, maybe his crimes all added up to this, but you understand, this doesn't fall within the limit of the bank. See? Oddly enough, by some telepathic means it'd be cleared up by addressing the bank.

Now, you can ask somebody a silly question like this and turn a bank all upside down — it doesn't take any time to clear a bank, I swear, it really doesn't. You could ask him a silly question like this: "What part of those screens do you feel you're justified in keeping there?"

Maybe you'll understand right in this moment why this is a mystery to me that a PT problem can be cleared because it is not resident as a picture. We're not interested in it as a picture. It exists out there. Now, I've seen too many present time problems run and clear up out there in the physical universe to treat it as a bank phenomenon. It is not a bank phenomenon.

Of course it adds to somebody's havingness. So it's actually not a bad process. "Well, the screen that resists my mother. I'm justified in keeping that there!" And all of a sudden it's not there.

So therefore, a true present time problem isn't something in this second universe of the bank. It isn't something that is in the mind. Oh yes, maybe he's worried about it because of his mind and his mind is this way and his mind is that way, but it goes further than this. It means there's actual duress, there are actual othernesses connected with it, there's actual mest connected with it. And that's a PT problem. And that's as solid as a concrete sidewalk. There is a present time problem.

Yes?

Fellow says, "Well, I worry all the time for fear my wife is going to leave me."

Male voice: On these pictures, are they the result of a compulsive and mechanical duplication which is a mockery of true duplication which would produce an as-isness?

"Has she ever said she's going to leave you?"

Right.

"No."

Male voice: Okay.

"Is she about to leave you?"

Yes?

"No."

Female voice: So we mock up something simple, like I decide, well, I'll do a brick, and so I kind of like see a brick somewhat. But I've seen bricks, and I'm not saying that I'm doing it, necessarily.

"Have you had any discussions about her leaving you lately?"

Why don't you draw a brick?

"No."

Female voice: Well, I did yellow ones and . . .

It's not a PT problem. I don't care if it bops off the damn dial. Because nothing happened. So it must be an aberration.

I've even made a preclear take a ... He says, " I'm making a brick, and I don't know whether I'm making a brick or not because I've seen a brick, and therefore I don't know whether I'm copying a brick or making a brick."

And you, as an auditor, would set forth upon a long, vague voyage into the guy's bank in trying to clean this up as a PT problem, you see? You're trying to make a start-of-the-session process clear everything that's wrong with the preclear. Well, there's nothing wrong with that. Fortunately, it probably would do it. But the main difficulty we're up against here is that the preclear may exteriorize from the session when PT terminals are nagging him to this degree. Present time terminals are nagging him, he's liable to exteriorize to them. If they aren't, he'll stay in-session. So we don't bother with it.

One of the ways you can do it, one of the older methods, is to turn it various colors, and after a while he knows that this brick did not turn those colors, so he must be making it.

The other condition that we lay down just because of this and not for any other reason at all, is a bop on the E-Meter. The fellow said that he was being sued for divorce or something of the sort. And so we clear this as a present time problem.

Another way to do it is have him saw out of wood the shape of a brick, no matter how crudely he does it. And then take a crayon and color the piece of wood he has mocked up — this is all in mock-ups, see — and go about it on the total, arduous, mest universe build-it basis. And then put it up in front of him. And he says, "Yes, by god, I created that brick!"

And you ask this fellow, "Did it drop on the meter when you talked about it?"

Another method some of — I was telling you the other day of a guy with black disks: I made him take some pen and ink and draw the disk and scribble it black and so forth. And he finally wound up knowing he'd made this disk. And after that, why, for the next six, seven commands, he scribbled the disk black, and after that he just put it there.

And the auditor says, "No."

Female voice: I guess I can't see that well. Okay. Thank you.

You can say then, at the same time, "Then you didn't get anyplace cleaning it up, did you?"

All right. Well, there's no doubt about it that you could be swung up into seeing that well.

"Well, no, as a matter of fact we didn't."

Your — the main things that overwhelm a fellow, of course, are the necessities of destroying as they have been conceived in a person's vicinity, and the necessities of protection. These are absolutely true, aren't they? A thetan must protect himself — above all else he has to protect himself. Darwin told him so and so on. He's on a self-protective mechanism. These are automaticities which, when overcome, give him a considerable amount of courage with regard to the rest of the bank.

If there's no charge sitting on top to be cleaned off, you may be stirring up a hornet's nest that you can handle with better processes. Get the idea? So the guy is below worrying about it, so what? That's your benefit. Let him be below worrying about it. Didn't bop.

Too many ways through on this. It's possibly just that there are too many ways through that baffles some of you auditors. This probably could be done by an auditor who was in very good shape — he could probably just postulate the bank out of existence. And he possibly is continuing to postulate it in existence the longer he runs it.

He says, "Well," he says — he comes into the auditing session, "I'm terribly worried. I'm very, very upset because my Aunt Isabel has just come to town, and she wants to know what I did with Papa's inheritance, and it's eight million dollars and I haven't got a cent of it left. I spent it all on women, and I don't know what's going to happen and I'm very, very worried." He goes on running off at the mouth about being very, very worried. He's holding the electrodes. I don't care if it is eight million dollars, I don't care if it is Aunt Isabel. I don't care if she had a record of burning every small child she ever touched. The point is, did it drop on the meter? That's a nice adjudication, because that's merely another test of whether to run it or not.

Remember, we have the basic mechanism of gradient scales. We know somebody can get there on a gradient, don't we?

And so he sits there and he's saying, "Oh, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap and it's all very terrible," and so forth.

Male voice: Yes.

Well, you can get a drop out of the E-Meter by kicking him in the shins, by touching him in the back of the neck, by mentioning the last horse race he lost, you see — the last bet he put on the ponies, he lost that and it drops like mad. In other words, you know the preclear is reacting on the meter. And he talks about having gone south with eight million dollars and Aunt Isabel being in town and all of this, and you get no drop on the meter. You're a fool if you run it.

Well, all you've got to do is stretch out a gradient scale of how you're going to get him to mock something up and keep it from going away, and you've got it. Any gradient that gets there would get there.

Sounds arbitrary, doesn't it? Because it sounds to you like a present time problem. But he's liable to come around, as a preclear did recently who had been worrying his auditor for four days of an intensive with PT problems without any drop. And the preclear finally said, "You know what my present time problem really is?"

But too many auditors are hanging up on the bank as a big, nice piece of randomity. Well, of course, it is the randomity of unclear people — that is it. And it consists of destroy, it consists of protection and it consists of not having to look at it and, oh, all kinds of things and so on. Vias, dependencies, nonconfrontingness. Tremendous number of factors enter into this, but the principal factors are destroy, protect, gradient scale of making sure he made it and so on up the line.

The auditor says, gaspingly, after all this time, "No. What?"

Now, I'll tell you this about all of these processes: If you were very sharp and you were very ornery and you were very mean, and you sat somebody down and you wouldn't have it any other way but that he mock something up, and you wouldn't have it any other way but that he would keep it from going away and know he did it, and you wouldn't have it any other way but what he completed that whole clearing step all by itself with no frills, you would probably produce a Clear. The rest of this is just a gradient scale to make it easy. Got that?

He said, "I can't worry about these things!"

An auditor who sits there and postulates the bank — the field — who sits there and says, "Well, we'll have to clear this field first, we'll have to clear this field first," will do just like this auditor did a couple of days ago in the HGC, which is to say, override the whole thing and get the field all back again. Had it clear, had it clean as a wolf's tooth, but had no goal for the session and so never arrived. The guy was sitting there looking at snowcapped peaks all around him and recognized that the gray he had all the time was a snowstorm. And the auditor gave it a very, very bad acknowledgment and went on mocking up gray shapes. This invalidated the whole thing.

Pretty wild, huh? Not one of them was a PT problem; not one of them had dropped, there was no charge on any of them. They all sounded reasonable. But his present time problem was because he couldn't worry when these things happened to him.

All the auditor had to do at that moment was say, "Well, well, well, well, well! When was that, do you suppose?"

Here was, by the way, one of the detached cases Freud speaks about. Very detached — nothing could seem real. What really worried him was that nothing seemed real to him, no matter what happened to him.

"Oh, I don't know. It seems unfamiliar, familiar . . . something way back when."

And eventually we just sailed on with Clear Procedure, once I got the auditor pried loose from all of these present time problems. We just sailed on with Clear Procedure and the case got better and better, and all of a sudden was able to worry, but now didn't want them cleared up as PT problems because he saw how they were doing. You get the idea? They weren't present time problems. All right.

And the next thing you know, why, could have been pulled out of it. "Well, we don't need that one anymore," I might have said. "Come up to present time. All right. Now, mock up something, and let's get the show on the road."

You take goals. It's rather interesting that goals continues to be a fine subject for clearing. And it certainly had better be cleared. Now, an auditor the other day didn't have a goal for a session and was clearing up somebody's field and cleared it all up. But having no goal about clearing a field, the auditor was just going on clearing a field, which is rather amazing. Wasn't clearing a field to clear the field, see, but was just going on with the process called Clearing the Field. And halfway or so through the session, cleared the field. It went clear. But not having any goal as an auditor for the session or for the process or for anything else, of course, went right on having gray masses mocked up and shoved into the preclear's body until the preclear got his field back. Finished up the session with the field as dense as before. I think it's quite wonderful!

He would have been slightly overwhelmed, but I would have put him in shape where it didn't matter.

Of course, the preclear, somewhere along the line, said, "Hey, field's clear."

There is such a thing as being too brash, and there is such a thing as being too careful, and in your infinite judgment you will have to decide which is which.

And the auditor said, "Yes, thank you very much. Now, mock up a gray mass and push it into the body," which of course was an invalidation. The pc evidently had a goal, but the auditor didn't.

Thank you very much.

Well, this subject of goals applies equally to the auditor and to the pc. They both had to have goals for the session.

Now, you sometimes work this thing — goals — around, and you'll run head-on into the destruction manifestation. The person's goals are all somebody else's.

"Do you have any goal for this intensive?"

"Yes. I want to get better."

"Well, fine. Well now, just how do you want to get better?" or something like that.

"Well, I just do."

"Well, is there anything you'd rather do better?"

"No, I just want to get better." Of course, it'd be invalidative on the auditor's part to turn right around and say, "Get better? Well, who — who are you getting better for? For whom would you get better? Who wants you to get better?"

You oddly enough will get some sort of response like "Joe" or "Bill" or "Pete" or "Agnes" — somebody. Somebody else wants him to get better.

Well, it specifically says "goals." And that specifically applies to the auditor and the preclear. So if the preclear doesn't have any goals and if he's only running on somebody else's goals, then he doesn't have any goal for the session, the intensive, does he? And sure enough, it works out at the end that he never got anyplace either.

It's asking for a postulate to boost you along a little bit. And sometimes in the total absence of a postulate, lord knows where they go. It's like "I'm supposed to go out here and fire this Snark missile. I don't know at what or who, but the business is to fire it. If it hits me or hits the Capitol or the enemy, who knows? It doesn't matter, because it's merely supposed to be fired."

Well, you want to beware firing intensives without knowing where they're going to go.

If you sort out goals with any preclear, you will eventually discover some goals the preclear actually believes the preclear could attain. In other words, they aren't roseate delusions, messes, that nobody could reach. They are something the preclear really feels he could attain through auditing. That might be awful small. Maybe he's consistently had a pain in back of one ear and he can faintly hope that auditing will rid him of the pain back of that ear. Well, boy, that's a better goal any day of the week if he thinks it's attainable, if he thinks there's some possibility to it, than "I want to get to be an Operating Thetan!"

You ask him, "What's an Operating Thetan?"

And they say, "Oh, Operating Thetan, that's, well, that's ... I want to be an Operating Thetan, that's what!"

And you say, "Well, what is this thing, Operating Thetan, that you want to get to be?"

Well now, listen, you and I may have some clue of what an Operating Thetan is, but somebody who walks in off the street and just heard it somewhere — and he's probably got it mixed up with his boyhood images of Superman or something. Maybe the Operating Thetans go flying through the air with rather moldy cloaks flowing along behind them, you know? Maybe that's what an OT does. Personally I don't believe in cloaks, but that's another story. Get tangled in your facsimiles!

Now here — here, then, is a point that has been stressed and people have fallen over, on and on and on. And the other point that gets all messed up is this thing, Help. And finally that is the lowest point of entrance into a case. If a case is just daaaah, the thing to do is beat Help to death on a bracket. "Can I help you? Can you help me? Can others help others?" You know? "Can you help yourself? Could I help myself?" Get the idea? Just beat this one to pieces.

If you're running it on a meter, you'll find out that it drops all the way along until it's finally discharged. And it'll discharge just on that sort of a question, two-way comm — not really a process but just a two-way comm on the subject of help. And you'll cease to get drops after a while and then the person can get into session. A person's very leery of being helped — person's been beaten up, abused, something like this.

You could take a wino and get him into session with Help. It may take you ten hours to get him into session, but I'll clue you: It's better to audit them when they're in-session because then they get somewhere.

Actually, you have no real choice on such a point. A person cannot be audited anywhere unless they're in-session. And the main thing that bars them out of session, of course, is first a PT problem existing out here in the physical universe. It's trying to exteriorize him out of the auditing room; they ought to be elsewhere doing something about it. Until they get over that idea with your processes, why, they won't be audited. They'll be too nervous or disturbed.

And, by the way, with processes you can get them up to a point where they don't think they have to do anything about it, and won't have to, which is quite amazing. I don't quite get this but it usually works out that way.

Now, that, of course is primary, but is only primary if the fellow thinks he can be helped in the first place. Well, the most fundamental of steps is this thing, Help. It's a common denominator of all these things. And the only way known to be effective in Help is just a bracket on Help. "Can I help you? Can you help me? Can you help yourself? What could help you?" You know, you've got lots of latitude. It's not a process — it's not a repetitive process.

The fellow says, "Well I'm — well I — help — (mumble) . . . Help, I don't want any help. I've been in too many of these gospel missions and . . ." See? Spin, spin, spin.

You say, "Well, is there any way you could help yourself?"

"Sure, I could help myself. Sure I help myself. I know how to help myself."

"Well, how would you help yourself?"

"Well I'd stop drinking. But you can't stop drinking, so why should I help myself?"

You say — you say, "Well, this is a hopeless viewpoint." No, it is not, because if you continue this on, an able auditor could just change his mind right straight around to a point of where he'll go into session. Might take you ten hours, but you can do it. That applies to almost anybody.

Now, when we speak of help, it best goes into injury and so on. And they'll start thinking about their injuries and thinking about this sort of thing. Get real to them.

When we've dispensed with, more or less, those things, maybe an additional one or two, we could then safely say that a session is really begun as far as an establishment is concerned. You have to go quite a ways to establish a session sometimes. But if you think that you establish a session by saying, "Start," or begin it, you've got another look. You may be starting a session for the better part of an intensive. I don't say that you should hang up on it, but actually no session is in — really in progress until the better part of an intensive has been paid out.

It would be better to do it that way if you finally did wind up and establish a session, don't you see? You finally did establish a session, then you'll be somewhere. You will have begun. And I call it to your attention that in Scientology, as well as anything else, it is necessary to begin something in order to do something.

Because more intensives have flopped because nobody began a session. It's quite amazing. You should be very critical of whether or not the session is in progress, not to the preclear but from your own viewpoint. Is this guy really in there yet? Or is he flying around in the air? You'll see him doing extra things. You say, "Seat that body in that chair," something like that, and he does eight other things. He's not in-session. He must be self-auditing or he must be adding to it with a scoop shovel somehow or another. He couldn't possibly have found the auditor or he wouldn't be auditing himself. You get the idea? And you should be quite critical of that sort of thing.

Well, he has to be in-session before you can put him under control. Now, you can always put a man under control with a sledgehammer. It's rather easy — if that's control. But is it? Now, he has to be in-session, there has to be some willingness and some knowingness before control can be exerted. And here is the most blatant truism surrounding this whole subject: If he hasn't found the auditor, there is nobody there to control him, so he isn't under control. You got it?

So in attempting to assert control it is sometimes necessary to run CCH 3 or 4 or both — Hand Space Mimicry, Book Mimicry and so on — even though it's apparently no part of clearing. The guy just doesn't get under control. Well, then he couldn't have found the auditor. And if he couldn't find the auditor, why, of course, there was nothing there to control him. So one of the best edges into control was to let him find the auditor. And when he found the auditor then control — willing and knowing receipt of control — could take place.

By the way, unwilling, unknowing control never did anybody any good, in auditing or anything else. But some willingness, some knowingness on control — find the auditor, source of control established — then permitted a control to happen. A fellow can relax under this.

And the whole rest of it from CCH 0 — the establishment of a session — right straight on up to Step 6 in the book Clear Procedure, (Step 5 in this intensive you're doing, the mock-up step) is nothing but control. And each step that has been chosen all the way up the line is as hackneyed, as old, as moth-eaten, as shopworn as you can get. As I told you, SCS has been dragged out three times and forgotten about and put back in mothballs.

And the reason it has been dragged out here is the same reason somebody would have an awful lot of fancy ignition fuses for the second stage of a rocket, and yet know that a certain type of ignition fuse, even though it was used in the Civil War, had always worked. It was too heavy, cumbersome, required that somebody ran up a ladder like mad and lit it just before they fired the whole rocket or something, clumsy — but it never failed. And everybody could light it, there was no maintenance problems. And if you were throwing together a rocket of some kind or another, why, you would tend to put such types of parts in it if you wanted a rocket that really worked.

Of course, probably the Vanguard project — probably they didn't want a rocket; probably nobody ever postulated in the whole project that any rocket would ever go up. I'll bet you if you went around and asked them, one by one, you would not be able to find anybody that had ever postulated the Vanguard would ever take off. I'll bet they were running totally without a goal.

"Why are you firing the Vanguard?"

And they would say, "Well, we've been told to."

"Who told you?"

"Well, I don't know. It was in an order."

"Was that why you're firing the Vanguard?"

"Yes, of course."

"Well, what are you doing? Just firing the Vanguard?"

"Yeah. Of course."

And I bet you there'd be guy after guy on that project that wouldn't see anything wrong with answering these questions any way. I think the reason the thing keeps burning up on the test stand is nobody ever postulated that it would go into outer space. They just postulated that it'd be fired. Probably the original order says, "You will fire off a Vanguard." And they've been firing one off ever since. But they never fired one off to anywhere. Probably somebody had an ambition, then he got transferred — the way it's usually done.

But here's an old moth-eaten thing in Start-C-S. Precisely done, you do it in exactly the same way, but as far as I know after he's done it for a few hours no auditor to date has failed thereafterwards to be able to do it without a repercussion.

There is a period during it when he's liable to get quite sick. Liable to be very upset. And you'll probably run into that right here. But that goes. The idea of controlling another body than your own has repercussion sometimes. And so, auditor gets over this point. Funny part of it is he never fails to get over this point. Not yet has anybody ever had to really use a big club to get an auditor to go on and flatten that phenomenon in himself, by controlling some other body than his own. In other words, auditors go on and do this. And it doesn't require a tremendous amount of persuasion to get them to run this process. They use it very broadly, they use it very well, they learn it, they stay with it, they think it's fine. It always lights, it always works.

Funny part of it is, it has a number of therapeutic versions. One of these versions, for sure, will exteriorize somebody. And that's Stop-C-S. But you're not running Stop-C-S, you're running Start-C-S. And that's merely an emphasis on Stop, this old exteriorization version — emphasis on Stop, emphasis on Stop. Boy, sooner or later he's going to fly out of his head! He'd have to be awful dead in his head not to. You run this long enough and a guy will at least yo-yo. They go kind of wham-wham, and they say, "What's this?"

Sometimes they say, "I've had the most beautiful experience. I went clear up to touch it, to heaven. Saw all these beautiful things around, and here were all these little children that I had known in my youth, and they were all there too. I mean, they had wonderful ideas." We don't care anything about that. We want the pc under control.

If you think the process is therapeutic, then think of it as therapeutic comparatively. It's more therapeutic than not doing it. You know, Stop-C-S is therapeutic, but Start-C-S is not very, but it's more therapeutic than not doing it. But it does not class — it is better than most old-time processes — but it does not class with subjective mock-ups in terms of rises. Oh yes, it's enough to revolutionize psychology, psychiatry, all that sort of thing; I mean, it could obviously. Carried on long enough it'll do some wonderful things. But the main point is it isn't designed to do that. We just dragged in another piece of stuff that we know was terribly effective and was very easily learned and used, and we added it into the chain of actions because it always got pcs under control — whatever else it did, it got them under control.

Now, of course, there's another version, 8-C. 8-C might be better, it might give the preclear a little more havingness. Maybe if you had a bad havingness case, maybe you wouldn't run Start-C-S at all; maybe you might feel it'd be much better to run 8-C. But you're liable to get so engrossed in running 8-C that you completely miss the idea of control and getting onto Step 6.

And then we've taken another old standby which is well-tested and so forth, in this thing called Connectedness. And Connectedness, of course, is the granddaddy of all the processes like Trio, Locational, all of that sort of thing. It's Connectedness. It is the master process of a great many processes.

Now, there's a control version of it, "You get the idea of making that (indicated object) connect with you." That's very controllish, isn't it? So that's the version we're using, because we're still on control.

When we've got these squared away — even if it only took us fifteen minutes to square all of them away or if it took us fifteen hours to square all of them away, we squared them away. Only then would be — we be ready to run the actual clearing process, which is Step 6 of the red Clear Procedure booklet — Step 5 in your Intensive Procedure.

Now that, run properly, will eventually clear somebody. And that starts out with "Clear the field," however. But there are a few too many ways to do this. And the funny part of it is, you could merely get the fellow off a destroy angle, get him off a protection angle, and then bully him into mocking up and knowing it, and you'd still have bypassed clearing the field. It's not a stopping point. There is no reason why clearing the field should stop any clearing.

Then we would go on with the rest of the mock-ups. We run this long enough — that's what you spend most of your time on, the mock-ups and the series Keep It from Going Away, Hold It Still and Make It a Little More Solid — and you would wind up with a Clear.

If you don't, you've avoided one of the lower steps, not Step 6. Got it?

Thank you.