Okay, what questions do we have here?

Well, we've got a few things to take up here. What's the date?

Male voice: Question regarding Group Processing: What rationale would one use on Group Processing today and what general process would one do?

Audience: Seventh.

The last and most effective Group Process that came out was issued in a PAB.*The PAB referred to here is PAB 114, the context of which is covered in HCOB 8 Apr. 57, That's why I say that. I don't know the number of the PAB; I didn't number it. I've never seen a copy of it, but it's a Group Processing PAB — very recent, certainly the middle of 1957. And that Group Processing bulletin was retested here in November, December.

February 1, 1958 — AD 8.

I don't say that that is the best one that could be dreamed up in view of what we know now, but I will tell you definitely that it's good.

I want to talk to you now about running a session designed to clear somebody; talk to you about the fundamentals of clearing on this February 7, 1958. It's about the tenth consecutive lecture you had on clearing. You'll notice in early lectures I talked about fields. And you ran into some randomity about fields, and I said there were more ways to clear fields than I knew how to count. And this lecture is no exception to this. We're going to take up some of these hurdles.

Yes?

Now, auditors up to this time have had policing criteria as to whether or not they were getting results above and beyond the preclear's opinion and, to some degree, beyond their own opinion. And we would occasionally hear somebody with great enthusiasm saying, "I got terrific results on the preclear," and then we'd see the preclear and the preclear would be blyaaah. Well, occasionally this happened. So that you'd read — you'd turn to an APA graph, and if that hadn't changed, you'd turn it over and look at the intelligence — the IQ. And if that hadn't changed, why, then you would consider that somebody around was not observing.

Male voice: Do you think that "be as you are" and "do what you're doing" would lend itself at all to Group Auditing?

In other words, this is about the criteria in order of importance. You ask the auditor, and you generally take his word as tops on the thing, and other evidence is simply corroborative to the auditor's word on the matter because he's the observer. And if he hasn't got any positive attitude about it, or if he is wildly enthusiastic and then the preclear, when interviewed, seems to be nyaaah, we ask the preclear how he's getting along. And the preclear says, well, he doesn't know. Why, then we look at the APA graph, and if that hasn't changed, then we turn it over and look at intelligence, and if that hasn't changed, boy, we know we have laid an egg. It's in about that order of importance. If an APA has not changed, I generally turn it over and find out if he got a ten-, twenty-point jump of IQ. If he did, fine. Successful intensive as far as that goes.

Oh yes. Oh, for heaven's sakes, you're Scientologists, you can do anything in a Group Auditing session. But you certainly had better not go into any fancy, high-flown group clearing, because I'm sure it won't work.

But today we have a much sharper criteria than all this. You have a definite end product in Operating Thetan and you have a way-stop on the matter of Clear. That is just a way-stop in the direction of Operating Thetan. But it is such a positive area and it is so easily defined that you're actually going in a particular direction. If you audit somebody for five weeks and he's not Clear, why, you'd better come back and take another ACC. That's about the way it is.

Male voice: Another part of the question was, how does this new data that we have...

Now, what horrifying errors have occurred in auditing people? What fantastic,blunders have happened at this stage of the game? What incidents have taken place that made the Instructors go into a closet and beat their head quietly against the wall?

It doesn't.

Well, the funny part of it is, although they've looked at quite a few things, they have not looked at this one with the intensity they should, nor have you ever looked at this one with the intensity you should.

Male voice: It doesn't apply at all to groups?

If a case does not progress, it has not been started. Sounds funny. I mean, it's one of these horrible things. You say, "If a railroad train leaving Omaha does not get to Kansas City and can't be found along the track anyplace, obviously it has not left Omaha."

Hm-mm. Would apply in your understanding as you handled a group.

Now, this is in no wise a chastisement, since you're here to learn, not to be brutalized. So I'll brutalize you a little bit.

Male voice: I see.

What does a preclear look like and act like if he is in-session? And that's a burning question, and one that you had certainly better answer to your own satisfaction. Because your criteria of this is no more than your own observation; it's nobody else's observation. It's not even the preclear's.

But you're touching two hot buttons — they're too hot. You can run them on a Scientologist who is rather blase toward processes, you understand? You can run them up here in sessions. But the normal reaction in the HGC is what makes HGC processing a little bit different than our co-auditing here or staff co-auditing or something of the sort — is people are coming in there and sitting down and it's just one long "Wow, gee, for Christ's sakes, my god," and other blasphemies, you know? And it's just blowing them — they blow and they threaten to blow and they fall apart and they do this and they do that, and the dramatics of it are too high for a group.

Preclear could be in super, colossal, exclamation-point propitiation. He doesn't even have to bring you diamond wristwatches every morning before the session for you to notice this. Obsessive agreement is probably the main thing you notice about propitiation.

Male voice: Okay.

You say, "How are you doing this morning?"

Male voice: Yeah.

"Fine, fine!"

Anything that we've been over here, except maybe engram running or Lock Scanning or something — maybe even Lock Scanning could be done by a group, but I don't think any of these later clearing processes are adaptable at this time.

"Is it raining out?"

Jack, you had a question; you seldom ask one.

"Yes, yes."

Male voice: Yeah, after the eighth inverts and you get a society like India, is there anything lower except savagery?

"Did you sleep with sputnik all night?"

Boy, that's pretty savage. When the oneness of it all lets them down . . . You certainly put your finger on something, that is true. I'm not observing that, you observed it. But that, I think, probably is what happened to ants. Maybe they were all running along, running railroad trains at one time or another.

"Yes, yes . . . Uh, what did you say?"

Possibly every strata of life has gone out that bottom. Of course, the oddity of it to us, is evidently Buddhism picked it back up from savagery, and that was a higher concept than they had. But that's not very high, is it?

Propitiation: He's getting along fine, he feels much better — heh, heh, heh, heh, heh. Like hell he does! Propitiation is what you've run into, not a session. All he's saying is, "Please don't kill me." What's this got to do with auditing?

Anything else?

If when you get upstairs to making him mock things up and keep them from going away, and you find this guy has a field, I'm afraid you can assume only one thing, that the train never left Omaha.

Male voice: No, that's all.

Isn't this an awful thing — here I am talking to some of you people, you've still got a little field left. Now, I'm — give this lecture at the risk of invalidating the living daylights out of you.

Does that answer the question?

It's almost impossible to keep Scientology from doing something. And the preclear in this case is not trying to keep Scientology from doing something, the preclear is simply too out-of-session to run. Now that's not the preclear's fault.

Male voice: Yeah.

The person has just had hell raised with every quarter of his life in the last few years; he's just appetite over tin cup one way or the other; got so many present time problems at the moment that he couldn't possibly sit still even if he were outside somewhere. Now, you're asking him to sit still and concentrate on auditing. Well, he's just — he's not going to answer up, he's not going to do these things. He's going to give some shadow of it, or he's going to try to do it much faster, or he's going to try to improve it, to be quick about it. Do you understand? Or he's going to be so straining at it that he never has a HELP — HOW TO GET STARTED chance to notice if anything is happening or not. He's a fellow who has to run so fast that he stands still. Or he's a fellow that doesn't even dare run. In other words, you've got a scattered dispersal.

All right.

When you get this Dispersed, Nervous point on a graph, that's what you're looking at. That's why the point never rises till he finds an auditor — which is the same thing as saying "till he gets into session." And if that point never moves, he never gets into session.

Yes?

Now, your basic training is in the direction of handling people and handling acknowledgments. But there's one point that is never stressed, which probably should be stressed. But I don't know how else you'd stress it than simply to tell you, "For god's sakes, look!" And that's placing a person in the auditing chair.

Male voice: What would you recommend for a Clear project — for a clearing project for a field auditor? How would you recommend as a stable datum for setting it up?

Now, this could be quite a drill. The only trouble is, you walk outside and take the person and bring him in and sit him in the auditing chair. Well, that's only a physical manifestation. You'd have to go outside again — with a lot of preclears, the preclears that have trouble — and pick up his mind and carry it in and put it in the auditing chair. And then you'd have to walk outside again and pick him up as a thetan, and bring him in and put him in the auditing chair. And if he could be that much assembled at any one place at any one time, he'd probably be Clear anyhow.

How do you mean this now? You mean you're going to take a field auditor and audit him, or he's going to audit somebody else?

So we must assume that if your basic processes which put him under control did not come out at the end of the line of the Control series and Connectedness with a preclear with no field and able to mock things up, we must assume that he never left Omaha. Do you get the idea? We must assume that he was never originally in-session. And we have to go right straight back to scratch.

Male voice: No, for a field auditor to go out and set up a clearing project somewhere in the field.

He either had a whopping big PT problem which was telling him every moment from out there in the real, live mest universe, every moment saying, "Son, you'd better get on your way, they're going to do for you before noon. If you're not at the barricades, the jig is up." "Do not send to find for whom the bell tolls, you've had it, son." And this PT problem is whispering these unsweet nothingnesses in his ear in such a concatenation that every time he — you say, "All right, now . . ." (well, let's say we really got basic on this — we think we got basic), every time we said, "You make that body sit in that chair," or something like this.

Yeah, what about it?

By the way, we had to run this for ten hours on a preclear in the HGC not very long ago, right in midflight, because the pc was so nervous and scratching and jumping around that he couldn't hold the E-Meter cans. In other words, body was so out of control it was flying into flinders every couple of minutes, you know? The auditor for about the first five, six hours of the session hadn't gotten a read yet. And he came around and said, "Gee, Christ, what I do now?"

Male voice: Not just as he is going to audit somebody, but get people to co-audit to Clear. I want to know, do you have any . . .

And I said, "Well, you'd better get him so he can sit a body in the chair, and then maybe you'll have it. Maybe you'll have it." This was just in the interest of being able to get an E-Meter read on. You couldn't even tell if he had a PT problem. You get the idea? Well, it took about ten hours, and he managed to finally sit the body in the chair.

Oh yes.

And by the way, much to the chagrin of the HGC, the same preclear who caused so much trouble in the HGC is today Clear in the Academy — or nearly so. Somebody in the Academy must have started the session. Might have been by accident, but a session got started.

Male voice: . . . stable datum for it?

Now believe me, an individual has got enough trouble in his mind without splitting his and your attention on a lot of other things first. In other words, the four dynamics — the thetan, the mind, the body and the physical universe — are just too many opponents. Note this: that's just too many, even for an auditor and a preclear. It takes an auditor and a preclear, usually, just to hold down a body and a mind. Preclear all by himself may sometimes hold down the body, may sometimes hold down the mind but seldom both, much less the physical universe. He just sits back and says, "Well, it just goes on and on and on. Automaticity after automaticity. And there's nothing I can do about it anyway — and that's why I'm running for president." Anyhow! The spot from which he can do the least about it.

Yes, yes, yes. That's why you had your HAS Manual published recently. You make a technician out of them. It's all been worked out. Thank you for asking. But you make a technician out of them. And you make damn sure you make a technician out of them. Don't try to get them to understand anything. You say, "You shuttle this cube of sugar into that bowl and you're all set." And you don't give them any difficulties to jump across, you don't tell them what they can run into, you just say, "You do this." And it becomes a monitored project. There will have to be somebody around who isn't a technician before you can do that. But we've been running that way for years — what's so different about it, see?

Now, here's an individual in an auditing chair and here's an auditor, and the physical universe is on total automatic. Well, it is anyhow. But if the preclear's attention is on the fact thoroughly because of something that's happening in it — not via his mind, see — if something directly is happening in the physical universe, it's not yet recorded in his mind, so you have to handle that by telepathy or something. That's right. And you run Problem of Comparable Magnitude or What Part of That Problem Could You Be Responsible For or Invent Something Worse Than That Problem. In other words, you dish this thing, you get rid of it. Well, I'm not — this isn't handled via the mind. It's probably the thetan to the physical universe directly in some fashion. And something over here in the physical universe usually gets handled.

Director of Processing, somebody like that, he can actually have people on staff, sometimes, that he just steers. Of course eventually as they go along, why, these people themselves move out of the grade of technician and — in actual practice — and they become a theoretician. And they get pretty hot about it and they start picking cases to pieces and putting their fingers on this and that and so forth and generally people go around then and they ask them for a while, and then they get the dope. And — you know? And that's the way it goes.

Well, we had never cleared a present time problem — the guy was going to be arrested — and then have the cops swoop in. We've had cops about to swoop in on the preclear, run a PT problem of cops, and the cops didn't arrive and somebody lost the ticket. See? We've had this sort of thing happening. You understand what I mean? In other words, there's some necromancy or live-romancy, I don't know quite which, by which we can actually short-circuit the mind and the body. See, we can actually short-circuit those two universes, and we run a PT problem when the physical universe is being demandingly automatic to the preclear. In other words, there's things going on which he feels he cannot control and which he must attend to at the moment — that's the definition of a present time problem. All right.

But that project has been laid out and that's why the HAS was started as a degree, you know? We even thought of making another certificate but we had too many certificates already and we never activated it. We mentioned it in a publication, I believe — HTS or something like that, or technician.

We take care of that: Problem of Comparable Magnitude, something of the sort. Well, oddly enough, it's a sufficiently powerful process, even though it doesn't result in a Clear. It, by the way, goes up just a certain direction. You might be interested to know where that Problem of Comparable Magnitude goes to — if you don't know already. It goes up a sufficient distance and it produces quite ordinarily and routinely in any preclear somewhere along the line — just a problem of comparable magnitude to anything — it'll produce the cognition that he's making up all the problems so that he'll have something to do. You possibly have had that happen to people. And he'll go Clear for anywhere from two minutes to forty-eight hours, and then it all caves in again. That's because you've made a physical universe Clear in some fashion, some weird way here, and the mind is totally automatic, and the body is still totally automatic. You must have handled just one universe. That's a crude statement of it. We'll let it pass because the lecture isn't on that subject.

Actually, an HAS should be pushable right in that grade and unit up to technician, and I would consider, however, that a clearing project would start out with schooling. And you're running a model of a clearing project right here in this particular Unit, plus one single fact which makes it an ACC, and that's the fact that I'm giving you lectures. Got it? Which tends to boost you out of being technicians, see?

But Problem of Comparable Magnitude is what you would handle a present time problem with.

Yes?

Well now, you can't even run what I'm about to tell you about, the remainder of CCH 0, if a present time problem is kicking around like this; because you have to do, in this particular case, exactly what the mind is doing, which is worrying about a physical universe problem. The rule of thumb is you parallel, as an auditor, what the mind is doing and it will unravel. You make the mind do what the mind is doing, then it goes off automatic.

Female voice: I'd like to know if clearing Help could be used as a standard way of — in opening in a session, in an intensive, to use it each day . . .

Well, in this particular case, you make a thetan do what the thetan is doing. And this is a very rough rule of thumb; this isn't a rule to Clear. By the way, oddly enough, doesn't wind up with Clear. But you nevertheless can undo small, finite problems, such as present time problems, such as he's got an earache that keeps him out of session. Something like this. You see? You can even handle a few minor body problems, providing they are acute, by running some sort of an assist on him. That helps him get into session, too.

Well now, just a minute.

So this predates, you might say, in a session — establishment of present time problem — anything else you would do, factually, because this is the fourth universe. So it's a wise thing to get rid of all this one universe at a time and then kick the thetan out, too. Get the idea? If you get rid of this, one universe at a time, you're all set.

Female voice: . . . for a short while.

Supposing the physical universe is giving him a present time problem. He is — just before he came into the session, why, he ran into a Cadillac, and there's a bunch of crumpled fenders out there. Of course, he's had it all towed away, but there's going to be bills, and he didn't have any public liability and property damage insurance. He knows anybody who had a Cadillac will collect! Here's a problem, see? Well, this just faces him up to the physical universe on an immediacy. All right.

It is CCH 0.

Well, he could clean that up, actually, so he wasn't worried about it at all. And, oddly enough, he probably wouldn't get sued afterwards.

Female voice: Uh-huh.

Now, supposing he had — all of a sudden, as you tried to get a little further into the session you found out he had a somatic. You know, a momentary somatic. Do you know you could actually handle the somatic as itself and get that universe peeled off? You don't have to handle a somatic via the mind, you can handle a somatic very directly — such a matter as a Touch Assist or a lot of other patch-up processes we had. Have him make the somatic say "Hello" and he says, "Okay" to it; say "Hello" to the somatic and have it say "Okay" to him — the old communication formula run on a somatic. Wrecks havingness if run too long, but awfully effective right where it is.

And you never bypass CCH 0 to start an intensive or to start a session.

Matter of fact, I know two or three preclears whose greatest reality on Scientology is because the communication formula directly applied to a somatic, works. They felt a toothache go off, you know, and they felt a stomachache go off, boom! Quite amazing, and really startled them.

Female voice: Yes. Well, that's what I mean . . .

Well, you can get this body universe out of the road here, you see? All right. Now, how about the mind?

Now . . .

Well, I assure you that the mind is a field, whether he sees it or not, and it's between him and observation of the physical universe, and it's an interposition. Furthermore, it is a copy and a record of an awful consecutive line of physical universe activities, only he is mocking them up, and there they are. And this isn't very good havingness. And he thinks he has to have a mind in order to remember all of this stuff. He's got more rationale than you can shake a stick at with regard to this thing called mind. But the funny thing is he can do without it.

Female voice: . . . to start the session every day for a few minutes, to just have...

And the worst part of the mind is what we used to call the "reactive bank" or the "reactive mind" in Dianetics. And it's totally field. It's just a mass of ridges filled full of facsimiles, and he's keeping it all mocked up very neatly and very nicely. And every time something in the physical universe says, "Yip," why, the ridges answer up to this "yip" — the ridges say, "Yip," too. He says, "Yip," the ridges say, "Nyaah, shut up!" Although he's mocking up the mind, it's out of his control. It's a sort of a "bid to be controlled" sort of a mechanism, this mind is. He uses it to stay in agreement with, at first, and then after a while, why, bango! It gets tougher than he thought it would.

Oh, that's for true.

It actually is not just him making it all rough. He has a good reason why he's in the shape he's in anywhere along the line, and that reason is not necessarily of his own invention. But he can take it over because he's doing any perpetuation of the difficulty, without knowing he's perpetuating it. So he can take over the difficulty, but it's a case of taking over the difficulty.

Female voice: That would be good?

Well, one of the basic phenomena, the easiest thing to "see" about a mind for a lot of people, is the field. Well, this is a reactive mind in full restimulation. That's all it is. His effort to not-know it. The color of not-know is black or invisible, sometimes gray. But his effort to not-know it has made him press against it and get into various attitudes with regard to it — and he's got a reactive bank in full restimulation.

But it is actually better to take the button and beat it to pieces if there's anything wrong with it at all. And you've got to make up your mind whether or not you're running two-way comm . . .

Now, oddly enough you could take almost anybody and put him in a like state. All you'd have to do is say to him, "Do you remember when you were a little child? You remember any time when you were a little child?"

Let me say a word about this, may I? I'm glad you brought this point up — not because you need this, particularly. But when you're running clearing, all of the CCH 0 processes have two versions. One is two-way comm and the other version is a repetitive command. See, it's one version as two-way comm, and it is another version as a repetitive command — formal auditing.

And the fellow will say, "Yeah, I do."

Don't mix the two up. I found somebody the other day who thought that two-way comm was a sloppy repetitive command audit. And it is not. And this person was not bridging, was not standardizing the command, was not clearing the command, wasn't doing any of the things that you would do in formal auditing. And, wow, was Help going down for the last time!

"Do you remember your father and your mother? Were they ever mean to you?"

Now, if you're going to clear Help utterly, you're going to have to do it as formal auditing and as a process which runs as a bracket and which is cleared — each command is cleared as you go; you bridge carefully between each point of the bracket and you run it as a process.

"Yeah. Well yeah, I remember my father and mother being mean."

Now, early in the intensive, if it apparently needed it, you understand — early in the intensive, you would undoubtedly run it, if it was needed, as a repetitive command, formally audited process, you understand? But day by day, you would simply check it as two-way comm. You got that?

"Did they ever put you to sleep in a dark room?"

Female voice: Yes.

And he says, "Yes, as a matter of fact, I have."

So there is a slight difference there between the two. I'm glad you brought that up.

You say, "Have you got a field?"

You can really beat this one to pieces — this thing called Help. And actually you run his havingness up all the way. It's one of these processes which — like destroy: you can run an awful lot of destroy without, you know, as-ising destroy, and get havingness. You can also run Help and get havingness. But it is a little bit more critical, and therefore the auditing of it has to be more careful, and it has to be a better formal audit.

He'll say, "My god, yes!" Just as easy as that. You can give anybody a field.

You start just clearing the word help in the auditing command and you're liable to have a picnic. Clearing a word isn't explaining it to the preclear, either, by the way. You want to know what he thinks it means, and his considerations of it are what you're trying to get. You're not even trying to get him to get it straight. You're trying to get him to get some idea of it, and he's liable to get an awful lot of cognitions on clearing Help.

Now, a person doesn't have to get out of one in order to be audited — that's number one. It's not absolutely necessary. But if he still has one while he is in session, which is that plain and is getting in the road of auditing, then the button which is not cleared is CCH 0. It goes clear back to scratch. He's still defending, all by himself, a poor little lone knight standing out in the stygian black with a two-handed sword in each hand — not able to lift either of them, but defending — defending himself as best he can because there is no help anyplace. And he doesn't notice that help is sitting in the auditing chair. So he does not relinquish, one iota, his screens or protective devices.

And as you go up the line, if you're sloppy enough to use "others" — you know, "Do you think others could help you?" — this is a highly improper command, by the way. "Do you think others could help you?" Boy, you're liable to run into more trouble than a pack of monkeys, because you've gone onto the psychiatric-communist school of thought.

Now, a careful trace of some cases which I have just reviewed reveals this fact: People who had mock-ups and could do them well, when subjected to a long series of severe Auditor Code breaks, then developed a field. So we could say that, then, a person in a fair state of being able to do it, subjected to a long series of ARC breaks in life, would wind up with a field. We can parallel the auditing phenomenon with life fairly safely. The evidence is enormously in favor of the fact that a field is developed in the absence of help.

You, by the way, probably think I beat this psychiatric-communist join-up — it's not a piece of propaganda — more than is necessary. But the truth of the matter is, they're the same breed of cat. You only have to talk to a psychiatrist to realize that he does believe there is a "people," there is a "mass" and there are "others," and he's protecting those "others" by victimizing the individual. And that is the rationale on which he proceeds.

And in view of the fact that help is scarcest in space opera — if you've ever been in a spacesuit eighteen thousand light-years on the other side of Arcturus with a cracking helmet, you'll know what I mean — there isn't anybody else around, and they wouldn't be able to do a thing for you if they were. Not unless they had pressure chambers and all sorts of things to get you out of it. There's nobody lonelier than somebody in space opera.

It's the same as communism: "You mustn't ever have an individual. The cult of the personality is something that must be crushed and squashed at once. You must never have an individual. You must only have a mass." "The masses," see? This whole idea of "the masses." It's just a big, blurred identification, don't you see?

I suppose that's why this particular society, at this time, having lots of green fields, green trees, worrying about overpopulation while practically the totality of the eastern United States is utterly uninhabited . . . This is the vastest wilderness between Maine and Florida you ever cared to walk through. Actually, it's no surprise to me that the Indians suddenly came back, down in South Carolina the other day. I think they've been back there for years hunting trout and deer and having a good time. And I think they're all ready to be offered another string of beads for South Carolina. You know, they did come back and attack the Klu Klux Klan. I think they've — I think they've — just the way some extinct bird sometimes reappears in great numbers, I don't think anybody noticed. There's too much space down there.

Well, you try to run "Do you think others could help you?" and a fellow is liable to answer this auditing command four or five times before he starts to chunk into it and realize that it can't be answered. It's rather weird. "Can another person help you?" "Could a doctor help you?" And the plurality of the bracket, to that degree, is something that is very unproductive of results. Because you're auditing against a consideration, not a terminal. And it immediately violates the idea that you run problems, you run other things, most beneficially against terminals. You do not run them against considerations. And this thing — "others," "masses," "the people" — these things are simply considerations, and in essence do not exist.

I know I, myself, have driven for days without getting anywhere in all sorts of states — particularly Texas. Nothing anywhere, you know?

So clearing up these various commands one way or the other is actually necessary. You clarify every side of the bracket, you use it — a repetitive command, you scrupulously use bridges between them. You use a bridge between "Could I help you?" and "Could you help me?" or "Is there any way you could help me?" or "Think of a way you could help me," or "Imagine a way you could help me." We're not trying to give you the magic incantation here on Help because after you've cleared the command you may find out that it has to be phrased in a certain peculiar, particular way in order to get across. This is the hottest button on the case and you're running it first when he won't even sit still. Get the idea?

And why this particular society wants to go into space is quite a mystery to me. Because, I suppose, they must be drawn there by the idea that there's more trouble to be found there than there is here. Or because they have begun to dramatize no-help. Well, I'll tell you, there's — you got a station on some base, on a moon or something like that, boy, something goes wrong there's just no help ever arrives. That's it.

A field will stay in suspense evidently, by actual test now, just as long as a person doesn't believe there's any help. Of course, we've got all sorts of nonsensical stupid ideas in this society. We have phrases which are (shades of Dianetics) fantastic. Our phraseology, our cliches are wonderful. "I can't help it," the fellow says about a habit. There are dozens of these phrases. They're just gorgeous. And your pc will get stuck on these faster than anything else because he mustn't touch it. And it's a not-touch phrase, which is something — wasn't embraced in Dianetics. A "destroy" is a stuck on the track, but a "help" is simply a not-touch.

But we look at the conduct of the — ha! — US government. By the way, we're going to organize a society one of these days, out of OTs, a society for the rehabilitation of a constitutional government. And the government is there to help people, but there are no people. It's there to help people. Well, they've never had to confront a person. See?

One other thing I'd say about this: you can also clear Help by the dynamics. You can also clear a case by the dynamics. Just pick them up — one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight — and run Help in a sort of a bracket on every one of them. Of course, when you say "man" you're into what? You're into "others," aren't you, as far as a runnable process is concerned. It actually depends for its action on the idea of mankind getting busted down to some individual men. So you'd still run it just to break it down. You'd run it usually by clearing it — by clearing the living daylights out of it.

What do they do to a person? Oh, execute him, shoot him from guns, court-martial him, make him waste his time, exile him in Panama if he calls to anybody's attention the fact that we don't have any moons upstairs. You know? I mean, their action against a person is quite remarkably savage. But they're evidently for "the people," this mass — the psychiatric-communist mass idea. The masses. The people. You never have to face anybody. That's a total no-confront. All right.

This thing called God: if you ever try to clear the word God with a preclear, you'll have a picnic. Best way to clear God with a preclear who is not clear on other dynamics, simply have him mock up gods — then he at least has a little mass — and know he's creating them.

They certainly must be dramatizing no-help, because the first thing you would say a government was for would be to help individuals or to cooperate with individuals or to make it possible for individuals to cooperate with one another.

Okay, what other questions are there?

I think there's a better way to deal with our incompetent people than to have a government to put them into. I think people who are indigent and can't earn a living — like senators and things like that — I think they ought to have a home. I don't think there's any particular reason why they should send them up on Capitol Hill.

Yes?

These are not bitter remarks. They are based on the fact that I know them as a class, and almost all of them have fields armor-plate thick. These men are supposed to help somebody? Well, their dramatization is not to do so.

Male voice: These cases that get lobotomized, like the manic-depressive, fellow who thinks that he caused the world war, you know — goes around dramatizing this — his main button of course is Help. But would you also handle "destroy" on them?

Well, this is not condemning somebody who has a field, but it says where this field comes from. It evidently develops to the degree that a person stands alone. And as a person falls on down the dynamics from eight to one, he becomes more and more convinced that he is standing alone and that there isn't anybody else. But the first symptom that he notices is not that there is not anybody else but there is no help "over there."

A "destroy" can always be handled.

Now, when the Christian Church capitalized and crystallized this idea of the eighth dynamic and they made a direct promise, and they said, " If you're a good boy, you mind your p's and q's, kick in your tithe, keep your nose clean, God will help you." Well, I don't know that they had any authority!

Male voice: You know what sort of case I mean?

Little kids find this out very early. They find out God is not particularly interested in them, if God is the person who is being talked about by some of these more barbaric churches, like the cult of Baal, Molech. The only difference between some of these personifications and others is some are made out of mud, some out of brass and some are not made at all. I'm talking not cynically now, but very seriously. Anybody who cannot even see the second dynamic or the third, who is being an authority on the eighth is being quite remarkable, I assure you, quite remarkable.

Yes. But you know this — you know this about destroy — please know this about a destroy: destroy is a not-is, and when you're running a not-is, it runs without very much profit. Help is quite therapeutic. Destroy is not.

Nevertheless, without any authority I've ever seen around, they promised a lot of help from the eighth, and it never arrived. And every little kid learns that when he prayed for a bicycle, it never arrived. And once in a blue moon, why, some little kid is in trouble and he prays God that he won't get his . . . family won't get messed up or something of the sort, and his family goes right on getting messed up. In other words, it's a no-help situation.

Male voice: Then you handle help first and unstick it — would you then just take a look at destroy?

What they're dramatizing, actually, is space opera. They're told that God is space, for some reason or other. Most people have that idea. And there's no help in space. And you say, "God is going to help you," and "God is space," you'll eventually, just on the track, key in engrams where a guy couldn't be helped in space. You see that? So we get the collapse of the eighth dynamic as far as the individual is concerned.

Yeah, that's right. By the way, the longer you run destroy, the further down the APA you'll go — actual test.

Then the seventh dynamic: At first he thinks of fairies, and thetans are going to help him out. And as a matter of fact, thetans in some areas have been very helpful, one way or the other, without being bodies. But after a while, somebody jumps up and finds out he can pass a collection plate and get a couple of quick nickels on the drum — just as crude as that — and by saying all thetans are bad, and spirits and demons are all very, very bad, and you're being haunted. And there are actually really ghosts, and they're there to get you and scare you and kill you, and you must, therefore, do everything you can to defend against these horrible things called thetans.

You can run it for some hours with profit, and disentangle it, but you're expending graph.

And the Roman Catholic Church, by the way, owes its progress in Europe to this exact sales talk, not because of anything else. They promised to safeguard people against these horrible things called demons and spirits. An interesting thing. You can look this up and you'll find it to be true. Nearly all of the Middle Ages' textbooks on the subjects are protecting people from demons, protecting them from spirits. In other words, there goes the seventh. The seventh finally becomes evil.

Yes?

Well, it's interesting that every old — the god of every old religion becomes the devil of the new. For instance, the devil as we know it (simply means "little god") was the god of the witchcraft in Europe — the European order of witchcraft. And we know, now, witches. But witches in those days were men, oddly enough. It's really gotten turned around eight ways from the middle. And this fellow Lucifer was actually the god of the witchcraft. And he became the devil of the new religion, don't you see? In other words, the old god becomes evil, right?

Male voice: Speaking of lobotomies, I don't suppose . . .

So let's look on the seventh dynamic, now, and we see that the thetan then can become a demon. You see that? Seventh.

I wasn't.

And the sixth can become an evil place — a trap. Do you get how this can cave in?

Male voice: No, I know, but he mentioned it.

Well, the exact pattern of its cave-in is, it's no longer any help. A dependency for help is extended to this dynamic, whether the eighth, seventh, sixth or any of the rest of them — a person counts on it for help and then it fails him. Or he tries to help it and it fails him again, or he fails it.

All right.

You'd be surprised. Some thetans are caved-in simply because they robbed a church, and they can't account for the fact of just merely robbing a church in — two lives ago; caved them in because they weren't religious two lives ago. They're actually caving in from ten or twenty lives ago, see? They were very religious, and then all of a sudden they strike back against the religion. In other words, they fail to help it. Don't you see?

Male voice: I don't suppose you have any data since this clearing procedure's gotten into full swing, so to speak, but do you think it would be possible to clear a person who had had brain surgery?

You'll see somebody ready to blow his brains out: He wasn't in the accident, he just failed to prevent it. See? You find most anybody will go back a concatenation of logic to a point of where if he hadn't gotten up and eaten cereal that morning, or something of the sort, why, the accident wouldn't have happened. He'll work it back to that point and he'll figure out that he didn't help, then, and it caves him in. All right.

Yes, I'd rather imagine. We've already done some remarkable things with brain surgery cases. That's very maddening to the psychiatrist: the brain very usually grows back together again in some fashion or another.

So the eighth dynamic goes to pieces, becomes evil and highly malevolent on this button of Help. In other words, destroy is the reverse of help, isn't it?

In view of the fact the control mechanisms of the body are not at all dependent upon the brain — it's the shock of the engram itself, somebody trying to reach him, a thetan dead in his head, that is a shock to him — not what happens to the tissue. But we've already done a lot with that, and I'm sure that we could do something very dramatic with that here.

And the dichotomy there is help-destroy, by the way. That's quite an important dichotomy. It is not destroy — create, because create is not a not-isness and it's not an alter-isness, is it? And destroy is a not-isness. So they're not data of comparable magnitude, create and destroy. That's why in The Fundamentals of Thought it says create and then create-create-create and then no create, as the cycle of action. That is the cycle of action. But you can do alter-isnesses along the line and cause other things to happen. And you get this mechanism of destroy.

Yes?

Well, the opposite of destroy is another alter-isness called help. Destroy is an alter-isness. It's a changingness; it's an effort to change something. And help is an effort to change something. Destroy is an effort to change something. They're actually a very pat dichotomy. You must remember this in clearing people because you get somebody who's trying to chew up his bank and so forth, he must be sour on the other side of the thing. He must have been let down too many times. All right.

Male voice: The area of, we'll say, near Clear, Clear, tested Clear and then on up: Can you give us a little bit more stable data on this whole area? What the hell goes on?

As we fold up the dynamics from eight to seven, now spirits are no more help, you see? They're evil. And then you better forget about them. In other words, it goes on irresponsibility and automatic; no longer in control of this thing called spirits. Just a little earlier he was no longer in control of this thing called god.

What's that?

Now, six. He gets to six. Six helps him. He can have a good game because of the sixth. Then it becomes malevolent and then he becomes irresponsible for it; can take no further responsibility for it. And it disappears — but it's still there.

Male voice: Well, one of the sort of things that's confusing me at this particular time is where exactly does exteriorization, with — I mean, real 3-D present time visio . . .

Then we get him on the fifth. Animals. Animals were fine. As recently as the Crusades, man could still be amazed at a thetan controlling numbers of birds. It was fantastic. I mean, you mean a thetan can't control bodies? But they had a saint, there, that could make the birds sing on every side or shut up or come around or go away and was very good with animals. And this amazed them all, and they built shrines and everything else to it. The boy was obviously very able, but what was he? He was simply an operating thetan on the fifth dynamic. It — amazing.

You're talking about OT now. You're not talking about Clear.

But we, with the automobile, have fixed it up so that we went off the fifth. Furthermore, we hire cops today instead of police dogs. I know I would much rather, if I were worried about protecting a body, have a few mastiffs on the end of a chain than several cops on the end of a nightstick, any day of the week.

Male voice: Right.

The automobile is much, much more effective than the horse, there's no doubt about it at all. If you've ever had anything to do with horses, you realize that was true. Very few in this generation have had very much to do with a horse; you haven't had to live with horses. You've occasionally had to ride horses and you think horses are nice, and you see them gamboling in pastures and gambling in stables. But you haven't — you haven't actually had to live with a horse, not depend on him utterly. This is — be pretty rare in this generation, you see? Maybe some of you have, but it's very rare. Boy, you get up in the morning to go someplace, and the first impediment on your way is a horse!

Exteriorization has nothing to do with clearing.

They talk about the horrible accident rate these days. Actually, percentagewise, there is less casualty connected with automobiles than there were with horses. It's quite interesting. Horses are dangerous in this particular line. Just looking over accident figures from the National Casualty Company, it's quite interesting. Automobiles, they could smash themselves up two and three times as bad, and they still wouldn't get up to a point where man was to when animals were still serving him, toward the end.

Male voice: Right. Now . . .

Now, I'm very, very sure that a few hundred years ago man didn't have this much trouble with horses, you see? He was still very heavy on the fifth and he did not object to having pigs in the parlor and chickens under the foot and so on. So much so that anybody who was really putting on a big show, and he was a high-class gent — I'm sorry you can't say anything more noble about the nobles of the Middle Ages — he used to sit at the table with dogs under his feet and a falcon on his wrist and eat. And it was very interesting. They used to change the straw every few months, sometimes once a year — cleanly people.

A totally accidental factor.

But this fellow would go outside and he would of course talk to something with which he's much more familiar. He was — it belonged to the animal kingdom. He'd talk to a horse, he was used to talking to horses, and he got along much better.

Male voice: Mm-hm. And the second point of. . .

As the centuries went along into the nineteenth century, we started to get a higher casualty rate than you have today with the automobiles.

Yeah, we're not interested in exteriorization when we speak of Clear; 'tisn't within the definition line. Why? Because the individual as Clear is not being asked to confront the totality of the physical universe as viewed by everybody and anybody.

We have, then, the problem of a folded-up fifth. We could see it fold up. Once upon a time dogs were trained by dog boys. And dog boys used to play with the dogs, and they had a definite series of games that were played with these dogs. Games had names. "Pounce" was one of the games. Dog pounces on the boy, the boy pounces on the dog. You play it today with — as "paws," which is to say, you'll hit a dog's paws. I've seen some of you do this, tap a dog's paws and he gets his paws out of the road. It never occurs to you to play the other side of the game though: Let the dog hit your paws. Scientologist, it would, of course.

Now, Clear isn't a gradient scale, however; it has certain definite things.

But this dog must have been part of the society at one time or another much more so than now. Now he's a pet, nobody works him, the dog is not under control. You see some of these old ladies going down the street with a peke, you know the dog has gotten up to the level of deification and will soon cave in as a malevolent object that we must rid the society of because it is so bad. Get the idea? All right.

And what happens is quite interesting — is that a person can come near Clear and then go for a few weeks and get the rest of the cognitions. You get him on his road, you don't have to finish the job, and he will actually go on to this point within a few weeks. Now, whether he's exteriorized or not has nothing to do with it.

Now, we come down to the fourth. And the same ideas are going on about the fourth, right now. The United Nations are drooling about the fourth dynamic. Now, I haven't any idea why they're drooling about the fourth dynamic, unless they simply drool. They aren't doing anything very effective, and most of the lines which they're letting out are so antipathetic to the people who are receiving the material that, although it's very idealistic and it's very pretty, they're looked upon as being dreamers and very impractical. They're not getting very far.

Now, when we're talking about "Clear" — we are just clearing this word "Clear" — we are talking about that exact definition. I'm talking about no other definition.

It's quite wonderful though, that they are actually totally on the fourth. It's too bad they aren't also on the third, second and first. So it must be an inverted fourth. If you've read much of their material, you'll know what I'm talking about: They are not being real. They are for man without being for a single individual man, you see? And when you get that condition, you've had it. Now, that's an inversion, isn't it?

Now, what he can create, or the variety of it or the solidity of it or any other thing, is unimportant. One of his cognitions at this point is simply and exactly this: that he's got a lot further to go.

Well, you take, today, the third dynamic. Man is beginning to realize that the greatest bane of his existence is, of course, nationalism — invented not too long ago and going out quite rapidly. Nationalism has actually given us more wars than "emperorism" in the Roman Empire gave them. The serious wars fought by Rome in its earlier, formative days were nationalistic wars. Her civil wars, except perhaps the Battle of Masada, which happened just before a barbarian invasion and, therefore, wiped out most of her army just at the time she needed it, actually did not terribly reduce the Empire.

This state you'll find a lot of people discussing and talking about as a gradient — that there are people "more Clear than other people," and so on. And this horrible fact comes out in the wash, is there is somebody who is almost, and there is somebody who is more than, Clear. But there isn't somebody who is clearer than others. You get the idea?

Nationalism. One of these days you will hear nationalism as a very wicked thing — extremely wicked. We will live to see a time, unless we ourselves do something about it, which we undoubtedly will, when the idea of a nation or borders or something of this character is an act of viciousness.

Male voice: Yeah.

And there will be TV plays, probably three-dimensional in full color by that time. And they'll be TV plays. And the villain in this particular thing will be a nationalist. You know, he's one of these dirty, foul, stinking beasts; he has the idea that you ought to have a nation. And man has gone the whole gamut on this nationalism, now. The more great wars he fights over nationalism, the less he likes the idea.

All right.

I'm not preaching for or against nationalism, just showing you that it has a curve.

Yes?

And the second dynamic was once something that occurred to have babies. Well, don't go to Hollywood to study it today. You wouldn't recognize it. It was help in creativeness. And you can see that very directly because it is very intimate to the first dynamic, you see? Help in creativeness. Two thetans got together and created something and, boy, did that make it persist! You see? And eventually it got down to this point.

Female voice: Do we want our pc to just be able to mock up something he's seen, or do we want him to be able to mock up something like he's doing it and he never saw it?

Now, there isn't much you can say about a first dynamic, except it, when it goes, gives the person the idea that he cannot help and he cannot be helped. But the funny part of it is that it will flip and run the whole gamut of the dynamics backwards, all as self. Quite amazing. There hasn't been a dictator in good shape for so doggone long — they're all on inverted thirds. They're self as a third dynamic, you get the idea? They're self as mankind. They're crazy.

Well, you should be able to get him to create. Individuals whose creativeness comes up gradually takes over the automaticity of form.

And then you get clear on down the inversions to an inverted eighth, which is self as god. And you get the Indian doctrine — which was not introduced by the people it's authored to — of the oneness of everybody. Boy, you've really got it made there: You've got an eighth that's a one. That's really fabulous when you come to think it over. The oneness of everybody. You must recognize your oneness, that you are everything else and you are everybody else.

Female voice: I got it.

Funny part of it is, if you can't communicate to everything and everybody else, you're in trouble. But if you are everything and everybody else, and can't get out of those valences and can't withdraw in any way, you're in trouble. See this? The first, because it's a fact and does not consist of any further agreements — it is a fact, you see — never wholly disappears. But it shifts into other things rather easily.

And so he will be able to mock up things.

Now, on the first inversion there really is an eighth, there really is a seventh, there really is a sixth. There's isness of mest — it is. It isn't that it's a product of your imagination, you see? It isn't that it's something you thought up in a loose moment while you were drunk. The highest significance of it is — which is why everybody misses it — is that it is. You can argue with that all you please. Mary Baker Eddy argued with it, and she said it's infinite mind. I'm sure that it is not infinite mind. It is. It is what it is, it is not something else — like Popeye. See, it just is.

Female voice: And if you got him to doing that, then you wouldn't have to worry about whether you've gone back ten thousand years or a hundred hundred thousand years into facsimiles.

Funny part of it is a thetan, liking to doll things up, always loves to add a thousand more significances. So after it is, then he adds something else, see? You have an awful time with somebody to get him to come right down to the fact of the case that the physical universe simply is. We don't care whether it will be or was or who created it or anything else. It is a fact.

Right.

Now, taking that fact apart is another problem. Adding to that fact is another problem. You see? It happens that it is a fact. But it doesn't even have to be a fact to the degree that the first dynamic is a fact. Now, Mary Baker Eddy would have uttered something a little truer had she said that the spirit is always senior to matter. That's true. That is a fact. But it is not true that because that is true, matter isn't. You get the idea? That is unjustified logic, and is only logic.

Well, you have to understand this about facsimiles: Facsimiles are all in present time, they are all being mocked up in present time and the thetan never at any time is anywhere else but present time, but facsimiles have a time tab on them. And this consideration alone makes him feel that he is elsewhere than in present time.

Now, the common denominator of this whole cave-in is just the white going into the black. Don't you see? As you see those dynamics fold up, you see the white into the black. White is help, help, help, help, help, help, gone, gone, gone, gone, gone, gone — kill it. You were never so mad at any other person as you have been at the person you sought to help and couldn't.

If you can get the picture of a fellow standing on a country railroad station and a train going by, and the train is moving in time and the fellow is not moving in time, that is exactly what a thetan is evidently doing all of the time.

Audience: Yeah.

Female voice: That's right.

I've seen the most amazing thing. I've seen a corpsman working like mad giving blood transfusions, you know, bottle after bottle, and sewing somebody up, and working like mad and working like mad and working like mad and trying to pick up this dog soldier he fished out of the landing craft, you know? And all of a sudden, why, the guy says — groan, creak, rattle, bang. He's gone. The corpsman stands up and looks at him (and I'll quote it directly because the ladies present are Scientologists) and he says, "Why, you dirty son of a bitch!" — that very healthy attitude. Don't think it was otherwise. The dog soldier didn't cooperate at all. He didn't even come back and help anybody pack him up and throw him into the icebox, either. That was that.

Now, the parade of mest gives him various considerations, and he gives it various considerations, and the facsimiles he mocks up of it contain these considerations, so we have a time track. But it is quite a misnomer as far as the thetan himself is concerned. Actually he's never been anyplace, he's never going anyplace. He is not located anywhere, actually, except by consideration. You got that?

And you say men get calloused. I rather think he had become very uncalloused.

Female voice: I was wondering, like, whether my pc last week could have mocked up a dinosaur if I'd finally said, "Well now, they look like this."

Now, we look at these dynamics and we see that if you could get a picture of the upper sides of one to eight — and even the inversion down here as gray — if you could get the upper side of one to eight, the upper side of the dynamic as white and then just fading on down into gray and then going black and then disappearing utterly, you would get some sort of a color scheme that most people seem to agree with. That isn't a fact either, that's just a dream-up, but it seems what usually happens. And that will occur. Don't be amazed when you find someday that the blackness of the physical universe is simply your cave-in on the sixth. Don't be amazed when you discover that, because you'll run into it someday when you go for OT. You'll say, "There's not dark out here, what's the matter with me?"

Sure. There's even a drill that takes this over with a dull crunch, and there is no particular reason to take it over, but there is a drill. And you say, "Mock something up with the consideration that it happened ten thousand years ago. All right. Good." "Mock up something with a consideration that it is happening." And you'll get all sorts of weird time jumbles. He's making all the time there is, you see?

It becomes a not-know; it becomes an irresponsibility when it goes totally black. It's now even gone beyond destroy, you see? When it is totally, inkily, armor-plate black it is simply, "I've got nothing to do with it, I am no part of it. It's over there and I'm over here, and I hope it stays over there but good." Got that thoroughly? And it's just help flipping in, over to that.

Female voice: And I was making a problem . . .

Now, the only reason I'm beating this to death — and I am beating it to death — is because it needs to be beaten to death. It tells you to start a session before you run one. It tells you to get a train from Omaha to Chicago. You may expertly locate a station at Kansas City, but if you never get the steam up in Omaha, it will never get to Kansas City or Chicago. It'll never go anywhere.

Right.

Similarly, if a preclear is sitting there out of session, he never gets auditing. And it is not auditing that has failed at all because it never happened. A condition of auditing is being in-session.

Female voice: . . . the pc.

What is meant by being in-session? That the requisites, to some degree, of CCH 0 are met.

All right.

And the two wildest things that'll keep him out of session are PT problem and Help. And if he doesn't think he can help you, and if he doesn't think you can help him, and if he doesn't think any help is possible, he's not going to go anywhere. And his field won't clear up, either.

Yes?

Now, his field isn't necessarily the button Help totally gone sour. You understand this? But it's the entering wedge, which, if not unwedged, will not permit any other technique to operate on the field.

Male voice: I'd like to know if there's any definite way stop between Clear and OT.

You've got a little drill called CCH 0, and you're trying to build an archway through a mountain — it looks to you — and you've got this little hand-drill that drills a sixteenth of an inch hole an inch deep. I assure you, you've got to start out with some kind of a hole, some kind of a drill. And you'll be surprised how less of a mountain it looks when you have at least drilled the first hole. And the first hole is Help. It's really got to be drilled. Just to talk to him, you have to handle the PT problem. But to actually get auditing in progress, you have to be able to clear Help and get it out of the road, get it swept aside, open the gates, because up to that time those gates are closed. The windows of his soul are shut and barred. And if he's bad enough off, he's got howitzers sitting just under the casement.

Yes, yes. Obviously you would get your exteriorization mechanism popping up in there as a very forceful point, where the individual was exteriorized to a point where he didn't re-interiorize. In other words, he was untrappable. And it's a point that you had better call "untrappable," however, rather than "thetan exterior," because it's a consideration that he would have to make the consideration to be trapped in any event anyplace. And that is a way stop.

He will only get better if he gets help. Conversely, he will only get better if he gets over the idea that he cannot be helped and that he cannot help you.

Male voice: Yeah.

And he got into that idea in the first place because he thought he needed help at some time or another, and it's sitting on that postulate. But if it's sitting on that postulate, it is still a fact as far as you're concerned in an auditing session that he is hung up on this particular basis.

Yes?

And you would be better off to clear Help for five solid hours or ten hours, or to clear it, for Pete's sake, until there was no black, gray, pink, orange field left, than to go off and abandon it and skip it. You've got to start a session all over again if no session was ever started. And the way to start it: PT problem and Help.

Male voice: Would you please explain the phenomena we come against in getting null objects? You ask the preclear for an object, he mocks it up, it's null. He looks at the facsimile, it's not null.

Thank you.

What's the phenomenon?

Male voice: That you're looking for a null object.

Yeah.

Male voice: If he mocks it up and tells you about it, it's null.

Right.

Male voice: He looks at a facsimile and tells you about it, it is definitely not null.

Yeah. Well, the facsimile is usually misowned and reassigned to the body. And the facsimile will change body densities, and mock-ups don't.

Male voice: Well, it — would you then, if he just mocked it up, accept it as a null object?

If he just mocked it up, you'd accept it as a null object? Yes. And up to the time when he got up to the point where he realized this facsimile was something he was mocking up, too. And it'd go blip, and that would be the end of that.

Male voice: I see, thank you.

You bet.

Yes?

Male voice: Would there be any possibility when you get up near that area of sort of cognition-fishing on this facsimile a bit, by having him pull up a facsimile and look at it and then do whatever he wants to with it, and then mock up a copy of the facsimile?

Yeah, you can do a lot of things. Now you're talking about grooming one up.

Male voice: Yeah.

You can run him — you can run him to a point of where he's null all over the darn meter, and you can be fairly sure in the next few weeks he'll blow Clear, see?

It's funny, they only have to be started about halfway and they start to go. It's a very — evidently a very difficult thing, as I've always said, to keep an aberration in place once you jiggle it.

Yes?

Male voice: Back to this Help business: I was getting this sort of feeling: when you receive help and get the feeling that you can't give help, that is quite aberrative, and . . .

Mm-hm.

Male voice:. . . would you care to discuss that a bit?

No, except that these imbalances in help are responsible for it, and are considerations of what help is: "Help is something that is given to the indigent," "When you are helpless you have to have help" — all of these considerations, you see?

Male voice: Like charity.

Yeah. Yeah. "Charity is help." These identifications of one kind or another. You get a clear view of this in the preclear, and he'll start rebalancing these things. But up to that time, that he has no — when he has no clear view of it at all, why, you'll get many imbalances, and it varies from preclear to preclear how it's imbalanced. That is to say, you'll have a preclear with a consideration that help is something he receives — that is all it is. It's not something he gives anybody. It's something he'd — be impossible for him to give anybody.

And you'll get somebody else with the consideration that help is something he gives, but it'd be impossible for him to get any. These are extreme considerations and these are imbalances in terms of flows. These are stuck flows; they obey the flow mechanisms and manifestations. So as you work this out, I'd say there are probably hundreds and hundreds of variations with regard to considerations of help. A thetan — what best thing he can do is consider, and one of the hottest things he can consider on is help.

Male voice: Yeah.

Right.

Male voice: You know something? I think there are a lot of people that just don't like L. Ron Hubbard because L. Ron Hubbard helps them and they can't help him, you know?

Well, I haven't met too many of these people. I've been spared to a large degree, of that difficulty. Mostly, I guess, because I don't go looking for them.

But anyhow, when it comes to these boys, they are, themselves, incapable of receiving help. And the manifestation which you're discussing I've already investigated in a couple of preclears who were very squirrelly, and their manifestation was simply this: It wasn't that they couldn't help me; it was that they couldn't receive help. And they usually only take off on this basis.

Casewise, they're pretty gummy. And they have a bad time of it casewise. And the whole fact of the case is that it would require a considerable impasse and a considerable upset if this basis of my being helped could not be established easily by them.

You see, it's the easiest thing in the world to help me. You see, there's nothing easier. That would be the easiest thing in the world — if a fellow could see it. You see, that's just nothing, because what I accept as help, you see, is any third dynamic activity.

I myself was running Help one day and I realized what would help me most at this moment — if somebody would simply become an able, bright leader in this government and run it. Now, that actually would help me like mad, for the excellent reason it wouldn't put me up against economic stresses all the time with regard to people and research and other things, and wouldn't get parts of my staff all outraged and upset and so forth, simply because they read the morning paper.

Now, this is not a highly personalized view of the matter, but it would directly — and I could show you mechanically and actually how it would be an enormous help, don't you see?

So actually, it helps me simply if a fellow does his job.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

And it's an interesting thing, you see? Of course it helps you, too, if somebody does his job, but I am factually enough first dynamic that I accept it as a personal favor very often.

Now, a person thinking that — a person thinking that could be cleared up very easily on this button. You say, well — he says, "It's not possible to help Ron Hubbard," see? He says that's not possible. Just have him dream up a way or two to do so, and all of a sudden he'd come up with the same damn consideration, you see?

Now, if he has a consideration that I have to have a broken leg before he can help me, he's liable to try to give me one. (laughter)

Yes?

Male voice: I was thinking about this thing, like in this country, the acceptance of charities used to be a very bad thing.

Yeah.

Male voice: And yet people used to be able to give and receive help much better.

Oh yes.

Male voice: Seems to be an inversion now . . .

Yes.

Male voice:. . . of this.

Yeah.

Male voice: The two are just opposite.

Well, charity is an accusation to some degree — or was to these people — but help wasn't. It's a symptom of a frontier society, however, that when you fall off a horse and break your leg and you go on lying there, and there's nobody going to turn up — just like space opera, you see, you're in the — such wide space that's not heavily populated, you do run into difficulties with no assistance. And this happens sufficiently often, and this follows the rules of havingness. In other words, consideration of help disappear — or changes — considerations of help change to the degree there isn't any or is some. In other words, scarcity and abundance monitor this thing called help. And a person who has a black field might get a black field just by the terrific scarcity of help, you see, all by itself. So it's monitored by that consideration of scarcity. But what you say about charity, that again is very true. But who defined charity, you see? "Charity is something that carries an insult with it."

Male voice: Well, the thing is nowadays if a person can wheedle something out of the government — you know, like beating them on the income taxes, something like that — it's all right. In a way, that's sort of charity but it seems that now everybody has the idea that they cannot help the government.

Oh, that's for true. The government seems to have made very sure of this. It will get individuated from the people sooner or later, having nothing to do with the Constitution or the things that make America, there will be a group here which becomes totally individuated on the basis of help. And they will neither help the people nor expect any help from the people and they'll think they have to fight the war all by themselves. When any regular can tell you that it's a good thing, when a war comes along, that he doesn't have to fight all of it. That's for sure.

Male voice: What are the mechanics of a problem collapsing on an individual when he solves the problem?

What are the what?

Male voice: Mechanics.

Mechanics of it?

Male voice: Yeah.

Well, the mechanics — evidently, that you're stuck with any alter-isness. It goes back to the Axioms. When you alter something you stick it. You see, it's no longer a pure creation, it's a changed creation, isn't it?

Therefore, an individual who is fighting against stuck things snaps on it. Now, the actual mechanic is that he brings it in to do something about it. To fix a clock, you take the clock in your hands, don't you? And you get a trained mechanism in a person that every time he solves something, he pulls it in on himself and he gets this going as an automaticity. And it is one of these automa, this is one of the automaticities which is taken over by "Mock it up and keep it from going away," you see? And . . .

Male voice: No, I don't see.

You don't see that?

Male voice: No.

Well, there is an experimental test which you should probably make with regard to it, and that is simply "Mock up a problem. Now give me a solution to that problem." This is on a preclear. "Mock up a problem." All right.

Now, you have him mock up the problem and ask him where it is, and he'll say, well, it's out there five feet away from him. And then you say, "All right. Solve the problem. Give me a solution to the problem." And you ask him where it is now, and he'll tell you that it's about three feet away from him. And you say, "Solve the problem" again, and he's got it — right here. See, he's got it. All right.

Now you say, "Mock up a problem of comparable magnitude to it," and it moves out three feet. "Mock up a problem of comparable magnitude to it," it goes out five feet. "Mock up a problem of comparable magnitude to it," and it goes phoof.

Now, the automaticity involved in this is simply his continuous pulling it in, in order to solve it. And he finally gets the consideration that it must be closer to solve it. It comes under the heading of control. People go into bodies to control them, you see, when they can no longer control them at a distance. This is the same mechanism. This is also taken over by "Mock it up and keep it from going away."

"Mock it up and push it into the body" — same — almost the same mechanism. Got it now?

Male voice: I don't quite see how the "keep it from going away" ties in with the other.

You don't?

Male voice: Mm.

Well, "Keep it from going away" had better be cleared with you as an auditing command. Now, that's no insult or anything of the sort, but maybe you are doing something else than keeping it from going away. Because the direction and vector is exactly the same.

Male voice: Oh.

They're exact parallels. I didn't mean to chop you.

Male voice: No.

All right.

Look — we've had it.

Female voice: Okay.

And you're about to run out of time. Your day must proceed.

Audience: Yeah. Yes.

To tell you this late in the date that help is a clearer for fields is excused only by this: your difficulty made me review a lot of records.

Male voice: Thank you.

Thank you.