The new data which is coming out in these lectures is the resolution of the life-continuum phenomenon. How do you resolve it and what is it? This is new data and it is very workable.

This next subject you could call the goal of processing — in other words, what you are trying to do. This has something to do with the ideal state of man. A codification of an ideal state of man — highly ideal, with all of the meaning of ideal thrown in there — would be simply the top band of the Chart of Attitudes. That is an ideal state. Of course, it is very, very mpractlcal. Now, we are taking ideal as opposed to practical, but as an individual approaches this ideal state, he also goes into a practical state. There is a sort of automatic shift into an extroversion as he goes up to-ward this ideal state, and he will stay in a state of action. Life has sort of taken care of that.

If you are ever going to produce very many miracles, you are going to have to resolve the life continuum, because these people who are in terrible condition — even little children — have gratuitously and pleasantly taken upon themselves somebody else’s existence and have sought thus to resolve a failure on the part of somebody else. And a failure, of course, is simply a loss of one sort or another, whether by departure or loss of potential of some individual.

You try to get him up the tone scale to this ideal state. If he has lots of circuits and he is pretty bogged and a lot of other things, you can try to beat it into his skull: “Survival is your right and infinite survival is your goal. Now, you understand that.”

You take some little child and find them sick of something or other, and when you try to do something for them what do you find is the source of it? You find that they got sympathetic toward Gracie Ann. Gracie Ann was very ill and they were told a terrible sob story about Gracie Ann; maybe Gracie Ann was very sick and got in very bad condition. So the child went into sympathy and has stayed in bed, sick, for a year.

“Yes.”

It sounds odd that anyone would do this. You have to work a few cases and maybe look at your own case a couple of times to find this. You will find that the incidents which do not easily give up are those incidents which are occasioned by this life-continuum phenomenon.

“Now, full responsibility is an ideal state. You understand that. You are fully responsible now, aren’t you?”

Valence shifting is actually no more and no less than this sort of a proposition. But valence shifting is not just into somebody else’s valence and then going on from there. A person can be in a multiple or complex valence situation. They can be holding on to many valences or they can be in no valence or they can be in a synthetic valence.

“Yes.”

In the past you have been trying to shift people into their own valence by just telling them to shift into their own valence. The funny part of it is, they will, and then they can run the thing out. But if you shifted the preclear into his own valence and then you didn’t run it all the way out, he was in for trouble. So we will stop worrying about what the preclear is doing with regard to valence and start worrying about what the preclear is doing with regard to life continuum.

“All right. I guess we got you there. Now, you are in a state of beingness, aren’t you? A complete state of beingness — you understand that?”

If you run into some situation which is revealed to you by Effort Processing whereby the individual seems to be in some kind of a death, regardless of when or where or how, he is probably doing a life continuum for himself. Or if he is in a severe operation where he thinks he died, he will then do a life continuum for himself. But what is “himself”? It is a person being operated on. You can see how this would work.

“Yes.”

So let’s use valence only as an estimate of the case. Stop working with it as a valence and start working with it in terms of life continuum.

“All right. You are in that state, aren’t you?”

If an individual is out of valence — if he is seeing himself, viewing himself, when he is returned to an incident, in other words — he is doing a life continuum for somebody. And very often when he is solidly inside himself, he may very well be doing a life continuum for himself. If everything is foggy and occluded and upset and so forth and yet he is still in his own valence, he is probably continuing his own life from some point which is in restimulation.

“Yes.” “You cause everything, don’t you?”

Theoretically, a person starts out in life with a free, clear control center. It starts getting aberrated relatively soon.

“Yes. Yes.”

There is material on record which you don’t have to bring up to your preclears or really even mention in public, merely because if you want to prove it you have to throw somebody down on the couch, and that is too much work. They don’t believe it. Just don’t incite people’s incredulity by throwing a lot of odds and ends of strange phenomena at them. You can throw some very interesting phenomena at them without doing that. Just show them themselves — that is a shocker to most people. Their present-time self is enough phenomena to rock them, because they aren’t looking at the present-time self. They are not solving their problems in any way, shape or form, usually, in present time. They are trying to solve them in the future or the past. Their lives are built of straw, and from straw to straw there is a large bridge of “if.”

“All right, you’re willing to accept the fact that you cause everything; you don’t desire not to be a cause on anything, do you?”

This life continuum can actually begin with conception. Something bad happens during conception or the first mitosis, and the person begins to continue his life from there. So you can get a life continuum from an engram. That is the easy case. You run it out and he is in fine shape.

“Well, this business about murdering little kids, I don’t . . .”

That happens every once in a while — in fact, very frequently. Just a little bit of straight processing with the auditor doing no thinking, and all of a sudden this case is back to battery and doing beautifully. What the auditor has done is resolve the preclear’s life continuum of himself, where his life was interrupted by some major incident, regardless of where that incident was on the track. It can even be that the individual is hung up in one of his own past lives. But the usual thing is that a person does a life continuum and becomes aberrated thereby.

“Well, now, wait a minute. You realize that you cause everything and you . . .”

Now, you can process this person, you can make him happier, you can make him more successful and everything else, but it is something like doing a dance with the real aberration unless the life continuum is resolved. It wouldn’t matter how long you processed him; you would still be doing a dance with the real aberration. It would still be there. What you would have done is shape him up to a point where he could suffer it or bear it. Of course, he would come up to a point where he could suffer it or bear it almost immediately if you could resolve it. That thing — the real aberration — is the life continuum.

“Yes.”

You start by running all the sympathy on a case. There are going to be failures and deaths on the part of other people which show up. You just start running sympathy. Start scanning the feeling of sympathy in general, and the person will all of a sudden start pinning it down here and pinning it down there and he will begin to remember a lot of things in his life that he didn’t remember before. Then you run regret, or you take up approval — the desire for approval or giving approval.

“Now, you understand that?”

An individual often has a visio that keeps popping up. Sometimes he gets them while he is asleep and sometimes while he is awake. But if he has some sort of a visio that keeps appearing — any visio (usually it is a still visio or it is too small or something of the sort) — just run regret on it.

“Yes.”

He gets a visio of a girl dancing: she is in a dancing position, only she is stopped or something like that, or she might even be moving a little bit; it doesn’t matter. You say, “Well, scan some regret off of it.”

“Okay! You’re in good shape. Get thee hence.”

He says, “Why? This is obviously a ballet I attended — Swan Lake — and it’s a very pretty ballet and I enjoyed it.” “Scan regret off of it.” So he says, “All right,” and he scans. Then all of a sudden he sobs, “I killed my older sister!” “Well, how did you get there?” He remembers his older sister as having studied ballet. Does this make you a smart auditor!

That would be an educational level of doingness. It has certain drawbacks. You are going to find a lot of preclears that are suddenly going to charge off at about 1.5 or something like that and say, “Well, I’m self-determined now!”

Now, if he can’t get a visio on somebody he knows he knew, scan regret — just that: regret, regret, regret. If he gets a visio, scan regret. All of a sudden the computation of the case will fall into your lap. This is a very interesting, easy technique.

Actually, the attributes of self-determinism are identical with the attributes of theta all the way up the line. But if you really boost somebody up this tone scale they are going to suddenly fly out of your hands someplace along the line. This is not out of orneriness or blame or something of the sort; they are just going to get very active. It doesn’t matter what they get active in; they get very active. They have hit somewhere around their tolerance of randomity and so forth; they are not introverted anymore. They extrovert. In other words, available energy is being applied to the world and people around them, rather than being applied to the past or even to any great degree the present. They do a lot of future planning, a lot of action; every effort is into the future.

The next thing, after you start getting regret, is you will find that there is blame to be found on it. That is the second step: there is blame. So you say, “All right, let’s scan some blame off this.” “Well, I don’t blame myself for anything about this.” “Just scan some blame.” “But I don’t blame myself! I know I don’t blame myself!” “Please scan blame on this; just scan the feeling of blame off of this.”

Let’s take this business of survival. It may be that an individual can say to himself “Well, I’m going to survive forever” and lay in a postulate of that character and go on and do so. For some reason or other, every once in a while somebody in the past has walked into a monastery or gotten interested in engineering design or begun to raise flowers and just sort of automatically done it.

“Oh, yes. If I hadn’t taken the car that night, why, they would have been able to have gotten to the doctor and my little brother wouldn’t have died.”

By the way, pick up a Florist’s Guide sometime. These fellows are always in the future. They always want to see what is growing; they always want to see what is going to happen to these plants tomorrow. They have a couple of new breeds coming along and they are working out there in the slush and rain and going into the hot hothouse and out into the cold atmosphere all winter long. You would say, “Why, these guys would be in horrible condition.” No, they are not. You pick up a Florist’s Guide and the obituary in it says, “Smith, J: automobile wreck, age 96,” and so on. That is about the way those ages run — from 90 to about 110. This is really wonderful, and it is because their environment says “future” and of course their environment is actually full of life. They are growing things; their activity is very constructive.

That is a lot of horsefeathers, by the way. A person will find some cockeyed rationalization and then afterwards hold himself responsible for this life not having been continued, and he will promptly take over the aberrations and conclude the life. That is to say, he will keep it alive.

Now, you would expect a maternity ward to be a little bit grim here and there. But you take a really big maternity ward like the one in Bethesda Naval Hospitall (just why the navy has to have a maternity ward is beside the point, but it does have one; it is an enormous ward and all the senators’ wives and congressmen’s wives and admirals’ wives and second-class seamen’s wives go there and have their babies), you go by it in the elevator and if you see somebody from that floor, you really know it’s the maternity ward. The nurses are way up the tone scale, they are just beaming and full of smiles, energy, enthusiasm. It isn’t that it is well-managed; it is just that there is new life. They are dealing exclusively in futures — utterly and completely in physical, living futures.

When he starts blaming himself, that is in the last stages because “himself” is somebody different than “I.” When he starts blaming himself for it you will find him in the last stages of dropping down the tone scale.

You see a little baby suddenly appear in the children’s ward behind the glass, and three or four days go by and the child’s head shape is getting a lot better. The fathers are nervous and that is something to be joked about. The mothers come out of it and they are glad to see their babies most of the time. The doctors, the interns and the nurses that work in this ward are just up in the clouds all the time. It is a very cheerful thing to walk through the corridors on that floor.

You can actually pick up the point in any person’s life where for the first time he really actively blamed himself. It was at that moment he broke from being fairly sane to being not too well off. That was the instant, and it happens all in an instant in any man’s life. It can get progressively worse with future blames, but you can find the first time he blamed himself as a sort of a break in a person’s life from a free, happy existence.

That is action in the physical universe having to do with futures, and that is an ideal state of mind; it reflects itself in being very healthy and so forth.

Now, you will think you have found the time; maybe it was ten years ago. And then you will think you have found the time again; maybe that was fifteen years ago. Then you will get another time when he blamed himself, and that was twenty-three years ago. But this preclear is only twenty-six, and you say, “What goes on here?” Then all of a sudden it turns out that the little dog who ran across the street while he was sitting in his baby buggy got killed, and it was his fault because he should have yelled! He didn’t yell and therefore the dog died — something weird like this.

Now, we are talking about an ideal state of being. A person to some degree, if he is in a happy state of mind, is right along that band. He is plotting into futures, he is working with futures, he is in action, he is traveling at a high level of motion. There isn’t very much in his environ that will block him, oddly enough; nothing much happens to him because he computes very easily on what is going to happen. He isn’t nervous about it. His computations are quite correct.

He is already in pretty bad shape if he really starts blaming himself that early. He has had a rough prenatal and a lot of other things.

We are a little bit out of luck in Dianetics to this degree: at least at this time, in order to make people progress into the future we have to handle a lot of past. We sometimes fail some individual. We try to do something for him and every once in a while we don’t do it and we blame ourselves for that and we go down the tone scale. This is a very bad business and it is something that an auditor should safeguard against.

What is this thing we are monkeyihg with here, life continuum? You can see that it exists. You can put your hands on almost any preclear and you will find some semblance of it. You can look into your own case and find that there is something in your own case that demonstrates you to be continuing the goals, fears and identity of somebody else. How come? And particularly, how would you be able to undo this thing?

The funny part of it is that all the auditor has to do is keep himself up at a rather high level of motion and he can fail all over the place for quite a period of time before he has to be put back up there again. Remember, though, he has to be put back up there again.

The technique I have given you — run regret and run blame — does remarkably well. If you just do that you will be all right. But there is a better one — a much better one. It has to do with the emotional curve, the use of the emotional curve.

Theoretically, he can reach that level and not be driven down from it again. No doubt this is the case, particularly if you review his whole lifetime and get it squared around.

I spoke earlier about having decided to look for a solution of interpersonal relationships and how I found this sudden drop of the emotional curve.

But how do we go about both securing ourselves as auditors and securing our preclears into some action state of being? By motion, the handling of motion, action. Even if you are sitting around plotting and thinking and wondering and scratching your head about this and that, you can still indulge in some action. It is actually action to straighten out a preclear.

Pain can be associated with your little trick of making somebody else do a dive from happiness down to sadness or something of the sort, and you can get blame for a somatic or something mixed up in making a person get that drop. You say, “You know that person you were trying to help — that person who had that bad stomach somatic, the anxiety-stomach somatic, you were trying to help? And you know, he felt so well, he felt fine?” The fellow says, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.”

Now, there is one little question in Dianetics that someday will get answered. Why do we have to handle any of a person’s yesterday to make him look into tomorrow? That is an interesting question. We can see as we look down a person’s life track that it is an awful lot of yesterday, and any time we take in trying to straighten out that yesterday is that much tomorrow that we haven’t been plotting into. So it is interesting: Why should we have to handle yesterday?

You say, “Well, he’s got it back and it’s all occluded now and nobody can get to it.” Do that and you will give the fellow the stomach somatic. If you want to experiment with this, you can see it. He will actually pick up a counter-effort of his own and substitute it.

When an individual is incapable of handling himself to his fullest extent and is being handled to a marked degree by his environment, the only way we know at this time to straighten him out is to straighten out the reasons why he cannot handle his own memory. We keep the environment from handling him by making it difficult for the environment to handle his memory.

How does he do this? By doing this he evidently thinks that he can alleviate this other person. The whole field of faith healing was based on this premise.

This is an indirect approach. It should not be lost sight of that it is an indirect approach, since that would occlude a future worker in these lines from suddenly blasting through with a technique which would have to do solely with now and tomorrow and which would just do a “yesterdayectomy” on the preclear.

Let me tell you how to do faith healing; there is no trick to it — but it doesn’t work. You take some fellow who has epiglutis of the esophagus or something. The best way to do it, if you really want to do it well, is you put your hand on him and hypnotize him — tactilecommunication hypnosis or something of the sort — and then you say, “Now, you can feel that pain coming off into my hand. The area is getting warmer and warmer and warmer and the pain is coming off into my hand,” and so on. He will actually feel this area getting warmer and warmer, and then you say, “All right, (snap!) it’s gone.” You have given him a somatic shutoff; that is what you have done. The funny part of it is, they are sometimes happier and so on.

There is a mechanical means of doing “yesterday-ectomies.” You see it all the time: The individual fails markedly and decides to be somebody else. He comes up on the other side as a valence shift. This was life’s rather poor answer to how to go about this. He goes through these failure cycles and comes up as somebody else.

Of course, the real way you do faith healing is to be up over top static and into some other field or someplace, and you come along and see somebody lying there in horrible shape and you say, “Whhhsskt!” and — pop! — they are in beautiful shape. That would be the technical and theoretical way of doing it. We aren’t quite up to that point. But when we get up there, I’ll tell you.

Every once in a while an in dividual chan ge s his environ ment and changes his identity to some degree and succeeds wonderfully and is very healthful as somebody else — every once in a while. One doesn’t succeed anytime, though, to the degree that he should, because his yesterday will eventually catch up with him.

Anyway, this mechanism of life continuum is easily explained out of the phenomena of survival and full responsibility.

Now, the manic-depressive, historically — as well as hysterically — falls off from a manic, saying, “Oh, boy! Oh, gee! Oh, boy! Oh, great, fine! Euphoria! Great! Great!”

Now, if you look in Advanced Procedure and Axioms, you will find that every individual potentially considers himself responsible or is responsible for everything on every dynamic that exists in the whole universe, including Alpha Centauri and your glasses. And as he comes down the tone scale, he is electing out more and more and more things for which he is not responsible, until he gets to the bottom of the tone scale when he is not responsible for anything, including himself, at which moment he is dead. Do you see what that gradient scale is? He actually starts in with this tremendous view and then he starts losing parts of it.

And you say, “What are you thinking about?”

That is full responsibility. The chart in the first book showed infinite survival as being hightoned. How right can you be? You know that if you were completely, ultimately, absolutely right, the universe would survive forever. And if any person were completely, utterly, entirely wrong, probably we would all vanish. This is the ridiculousness, the reductio ad absurdum, of the gradient scale. It says that absolute right means infinite survival clear across the boards for everything. That is how right a person would have to be to be absolutely right. The moment anybody reached that point, the whole thing would go into a static state. Let’s hope they don’t.

“Oh, I don’t know. Well, we’re thinking these big thoughts and . . . big thoughts and . . .”

And then down at the wrong end, if a person were completely wrong, theoretically everything would collapse. Those are the two unattainable, opposite poles.

“What thoughts?”

Up at the top of infinite survival, it says if you are going to survive infinitely then you have to take the responsibility for everything. There is no question about that, simply because of this: Your survival is interdependent with all other survivals, and if you start knocking out everything here and there broadly and telling it not to survive and telling something else not to survive and so on, you keep cutting down your own survival. Do not send to find for whom the bell tolls — it’s ringing for you, bud!

“Well, we’re just thinking them. What are you questioning them for? You want to put me in a depressive cycle?”

So, we have this infinite scale, and as a person comes down this scale from complete survival he is starting to drop down also from complete responsibility. Complete responsibility includes complete cause also — he considers himself the cause of these things.

That is the tune of it. He is not thinking. He is in an engram, actually — a simple, mechanical engram, just as mechanical as you read about in the first book. This engram has two points on its curve. Point one is way up at the top of the scale and the other point is way down at the bottom. That is an emotional curve.

Now, the dignity of a small baby is interesting to observe. People come along and they say “Coochy-coo” and so forth, and the baby looks at them and he doesn’t like it. If you have been back there on the time track you might have noticed the feeling of dignity — way up the tone scale — of a little baby.

So any time you run into this character, you are running into a very interesting setup which we get when we examine a facsimile.

People maul them around and the babies giggle and they laugh — that is to be obliging. After a while they become human.

We take an individual who is at about 2.5 and we start operating on him; we put some gas to his nose or something of the sort and we start him down the line. And what do you know? He goes through a complete tone scale. He goes from 2.5 down to practically zero. There is the emotional curve. It is the middle of every engram.

But the funny part of it is, the trouble a baby has is simply that he is having a little bit of difficulty with his motor-control panel. He is like somebody who has suddenly been put into a big bomber with eight engines, each one with separate throttles, and there are fuel-mixture controls and buttons, wheels, meters and gauge-s all over the place. It is terrific stuff. If anybody suddenly put you out in one of these B-47s and said “Well, take it out and land it again,” you would be in about the same fix as a baby. It is not that the baby is incapable; it is just that the baby is not articulating and he is not in control of the engine yet to any marked degree.

Every tone level below the level the preclear is chronically at is in every incident of unconsciousness. He may be starting into this thing at 1.1. This operation actually starts at the moment when he hears he is going to be operated on. He starts coming down the tone scale with the idea and then when he is actually starting to go unconscious he is probably down around fear. He will do a fluctuation into anger and then he will slide on down off anger into fear and down into grief and then into apathy. Then he will gradually climb up out of this on the same levels.

But he does have this tremendous dignity. And if you take a look at a little child of three or four who is running around the neighborhood and all of a sudden he sees a black wreath on a door, you will find him wondering what he did to cause this. It isn’t that his parents have beaten his head in and given him an aberration on the fact that he is to blame for everything ; don ‘t try to answer it that way, because it doesn’t answer that way. He wonders who it was, what he did or what it was all about, and if this happens to be a relative of a playfellow. If it is, he will try to pick up something to support this playfellow — in other words, an indirect method of bringing that relative back to life. It is a fascinating business. You will find some very basic aberrations on the track through having done this.

You do a cross section on any engram and you will find the emotional tone of that cross section. An engram is not a monotone: it is in a curve. You want to do a complete emotional curve on an engram; you get the emotion before, the depth emotion and the last emotion of recovery.

This is full responsibility; here is full survival. What is regret? Regret is simply an effort to take something out of the time stream — “I’m sorry it happened. I wish it hadn’t happened.” That is all it is. “I’m sorry it happened. I wish it hadn’t occurred.” Very heavy regret, of course, moves the incident out of contact, and the more you regret it, the more it goes out of contact.

By the way, that is a very interesting one and you mustn’t overlook it because it is relief. The fellow hears that it is all over now, so he is in a state of relief. You ask your preclear what he wants and he will very often tell you he wants relief. Where do you find relief? If you scan all the relief in the bank you will find him at the end of every accident and every operation just after it is over. And what kind of shape is he in? He is all bandaged up, he is sick at his stomach and so on; that is relief!

Regret is a mechanism of abdication of the post of great responsibility. “I wish it hadn’t happened.” Why do you wish it hadn’t happened? Because that cuts down your full responsibility. You weren’t able to control, you think, that particular little segment of existence, so you regret it and it goes out of existence. That is the emotion of regret.

You run an emotional curve, then, which goes down and up. You start running this emotional curve down and up, down and up, and you will actually start disconnecting engrams from this individual without running them. I will go into that in a moment.

Now, let’s look at survival and let’s look at approval. What is approval? Way up on top of the tone scale a person doesn’t hand out approval and doesn’t receive approval. But as you get down into action, you will find that an individual, still very high on the tone scale, is handing out approval to people. He is approving of this one and he is approving of that one and so forth. He doesn’t expect anything back or have any back channel on it or anything of the sort. But after a while, he gets into a co-approval basis. We used to call them “mutual admiration societies.” By this time the person is getting down the tone scale pretty far. After a while he has to have approval from others. And then he loses approval from somebody and he starts out the bottom.

What is a manic-depressive? A manic-depressive is an individual who, because of a phrase or an effort or a restimulation — no more and no less — climbs way up the tone scale; there is just a small peak, and he hits this peak and then dives off it again and goes on with the engram. That peak is very fragile. It has been observed many times that a person stays on the manic less and less and in the depressive more and more. That is because the emotional curve of failure does what? We are really talking about key-in, aren’t we? Now we have the answer to key-in.

What is approval? We could print up a license to survive: “You, John Jones, this umpteenth date of something or other, are hereby granted a license to survive. Signed, Foundation.” And it would be very amazing, but if we put those in the window of the Foundation and said that anybody could have one merely by coming in, I am afraid we would not be able to keep up supplying them. I am afraid we couldn’t.

A key-in is just a continual failure. The drop of emotion, which is natural to existence, can all of a sudden tie up with one of these engrams. And if a person gets enough of these emotional curves just in the analytical business of living, he will pick up more and more of these engrams until his whole bank looks like that curve.

People wouldn’t quite know why they wanted this; they would think it would be a good gag and everything else. They would show it around to their friends as a joke, and their friends would say, “Ho-ho. (Don’t quite see what’s funny about it — I haven’t got one.)”

We are not ki cking out the window the first book or engra ms or sec ondaries. They are still there, but we have to know how to handle them a lot faster than we have ever known how to before. So let’s know their upper strata of anatomy. We find out in the first place that emotion is the thing which latches them on so that “I” can hold on to them. The “I” can hold on to them by emotion. We find out that when we get the emotion off we really start straightening things out.

Approval is a license to survive. And you are either not caring whether you have a license or not, which is way up on top; or you are issuing licenses to survive, which is as you come down the tone scale; or you have to exchange licenses, or you have to receive licenses to survive. When you are way down the tone scale you have to have licenses from various people to survive.

We find quite often that one of these engrams has got effort surrounding its emotion and that you really can’t get to its emotion at all because there is too much effort on it. All of a sudden effort seems to be indicated in running the thing. You run the effort for a moment and suddenly emotion and thoughts come out of it. That is when you use Effort Processing.

You have possibly wondered why it is that some poor little child is so snarled up about having been such a pain and terror to his mother when he was born. There is regret on this and there is sympathy and there is blame, self-blame and everything else. This is a rough deal. The little child caused his mother all this trouble — she tells him about it every day — and we wonder why he is so snarled up.

But as soon as e motion starts to show up after using Effort Pro cess ing , why go on using effort? What you do at that point is start running emotional curves, and the darned incident will disconnect. Because what holds it to the case? Effort doesn’t hold it to the case. Effort is just effort: You get in your car, you slam the door, you put on the brakes — effort, effort, effort, miscalculation. You start to open a drawer and you have to yank and bang at it. You mean to tell me this is aberrative? No, it is not. This is just incident to living in a rather patched-up society which doesn’t make drawers and doors so they handle easily.

Mama is insisting on something that isn’t really true: she was the sole cause of his survival; therefore she licensed him to survive! This is not true. So he has to pay attention to his licenser as a licensee. Only he is running on a very, very limited ticket. “You can’t go here, you can’t do this, you must do that, you can’t eat this, you must wear that, you must get up, you must go to bed” — he has a very limited ticket. It says “180-degree turns around front yard only.” That is its outermost limit. And some of these tickets say “Limited to 360-degree turns in living room and bedroom — no passengers.”

But that effort can remind an individual who is already well down the tone scale that he has been balked before. And the emotion which he starts to exhibit can all of a sudden start to tie on to some old engram, and there he goes. What is happening to him?

Right to survive — that is approval. If you think you have to have approval from anybody under the sun, then you think you have to be granted a right to survive by somebody. The funny part of it is, you are the only licensee and the only licenser to you.

Doing an analysis of this, we find something very, very simple is happening to him: He is failing to handle his own facsimiles, and that is all that is happening to him. He is not handling his own facsimiles.

Look this thing over and you will find out that these situations come up along the line, and the way a person gets into this situation is not by being told or hammered into believing that he has to have this. There must be something actual and real for which the individual blames himself prior to being challenged on it. In other words, he has to elect to blame himself or blame something else first, before he starts asking for a license to survive.

That is all that can happen to an individual, evidently: his own facsimiles go out of his control. So our study is how to put these facsimiles back into his control or how to disconnect them so he can’t handle them — so they just fly off someplace and that is the end of them. And in a lowtonescale case that is what you do: you just throw these facsimiles out. He would try to reach out and he would be reaching for thin air — that’s a big joke on him.

After a person has done something wrong to another individual he will slide off into sympathy. He has hurt another individual in some way, and if he does it and fails — that is to say, if he hurts somebody and then he looks at them and sees they are hurt (he realizes he has failed in some degree at that moment) — he feels sympathy.

Then you pick him up along the line and you get him up to a point where he can do anything he wants with them. That is the state you are trying to get him into. That is self-determinism. Selfdeterminism includes the handling of one’s own memories. If one cannot handle one’s own memories, then the environment can handle them for him and that is restimulation.

You want to know what is behind sympathy? You go all the way back down the track and you will find an overt actl against that dynamic — somebody just being mean as the devil. You find somebody who is very sympathetic about dogs, who has a big grief charge about dogs, and you go back and you will find this person at five, six, seven years of age kicking their slats in, teasing them — beating up dogs.

It is pretty low on the tone scale, this restimulation of the engram. It only happens to individuals who are being very thoroughly handled by their environment. Think about that for a minute.

Then one day he actually hurt a dog and the dog suddenly looked pathetic to him and he felt a great deal of sympathy for this dog. After that he was fond of dogs, he protected dogs, he worked with dogs; he became very quiet about the whole deal. And then one day a dog died on him. He did a life continuum for dogs after that. He will have some habit or some activity in his actions which will be a dog’s.

You start working on self-determinism and you will get your preclear going on up the tone scale at a heck of a rush. He will get up to a point where he can really handle these things and do anything he wants with them. This means you will have him up to a point where a silly tune won’t get into his head and start going round and round and round. That is just a facsimile he is not handling. He wanted to be affected by the tune, so he is being affected by it. He doesn’t know how to keep himself from being affected by it, so he can’t lay it aside when he wants to.

A person is perfectly free to do all the overt acts in the world, so long as he doesn’t fail. If he fails, he has extended an actiue sphere of responsibility.

Most minds would be some file clerk sitting in an enormous central filing system, and this file clerk has been told that he is in charge of all these files: There he sits and the file drawers slide open and packages start flying out of them. The whole file on the subject of automobiles moves over one day and somebody drops a steel curtain in between him and it. It is over there someplace, but he can’t tell you much about automobiles. He finally gets so he is just in a state of apathy.

Now, I want you to get the difference between full responsibility and active responsibility. Full responsibility is all the way up at the top of the tone scale. You have to step down from it to go into action; you have to select something out. “I am responsible; I’m going to do something about it.” That is down the tone scale but it is not an undesirable level. You have to do that to get into the 20.0 band. You have to come down the scale because you are too static when you just say “I’m responsible.” Trucks are colliding with little children and typhoid is sweeping through the land and the Democrats are about to get into office again — all of these cataclysms are going on and the person just benignly says, “Yes, I am responsible.”

The file clerk stops working when a fellow goes way down the tone scale. It just sits there in apathy; the packages fly this way and they go that way, lines get connected this way and that way and the files get scrambled; a wind blows in through the window and it mixes them all up. He says, “Well, I guess that’s just the way things are. The environment is handling me.” That is the state an individual gets into.

He has to come down the tone scale before he wants to get in there and stop these epidemics and straighten out the children and so forth. As a matter of fact, the world wouldn’t run at all if everybody insisted on being up at the top static of full responsibility. That is just ideal, not practical.

How do you put him back into a better state? Do you have to pick up every file, dust it off, find the proper filing place and put it back in place? God help us if we had to do that. That was actually, to some degree, what we were trying to do not too long ago. It is much too long a job and I hate filing anyway. Let’s just fix up the file clerk so he can go to work and do it anyhow. Let’s put personnel on the job. Let’s get the preclear into a situation where he can handle all of these things and then cut him loose.

Now, you come down from that level and you go into action with your responsibility. The second you go into your action on your responsibility, you start cutting out segments for which you are responsible and you start blaming these things. “I’m not responsible for it — you are the cause of it, I’m not,” “I’m to blame. It was nobody’s fault but my own” — all this kind of stuff.

You will find that when you get him into a place where he can handle all of these things, he starts a rather progressive advance right on up the tone scale. He will walk along through life and he will see something and it will remind him of something else and that will remind him of something else. He will say, “What the — why was I ever worried about palm trees? Oh, yes! Yes,” and that’s that — boom! — it is gone, and he isn’t even thinking about it.

That is cause and effect in action. A person is assigning cause to other things besides himself. The second he does this he is not responsible for these things and he gets badly off.

One day he will get so doggone extroverted and so intense on this new project that when you say, “Well, did you get it all straightened out?” he says, “Did I get all what straightened out?” “Don’t you remember? Auditing.”

Now, when a person has sinned against the human race in some fashion or other, he will go into sympathy with the people he feels he has hurt.

“Oh, yes, yes. Yes sir, that was a good session. That was a good session. Best thing that ever happened to me. Thanks ever so much. Say, by the way, would you like to buy a block of stock in . . . ?” He comes up above the level, eventually, where he thinks he has to buy any license to survive.

By the way, that is a wonderful word — sinned — isn’t it? There actually is a sin: the sin is failing. Just don’t fail. Go out and chop up bodies and stuff them in trunks, but don’t fail! And if you do fail, run it out!

Now, you might think offhand the society would probably fly completely to pieces and everybody would stop cooperating with everybody else and it would be entirely chaotic if everybody became completely, fully responsible and off on their own concerns. Maybe it would! But apparently, from what small indications we have, it doesn’t. It just starts to work a lot smoother and individuals in it become a lot healthier.

An individual riding at 20.0 is not fully responsible because he has elected things out so that he can have action.

The main goal, then, has to do with the facsimile, and we could classify this as “facsimile, handling of.” Your knowledge which is under that heading should be classified as very important. Anything that comes under that classification is more important than “facsimile, erasing of” or “facsimile, reduction of.” Much more important is “handling of” — by the preclear himself.

I want to show you something about randomity and action. It ties in with this tone scale. Some people may have had a little difficulty with the Axioms in telling what randomity is. So I will ask you to imagine a rubber ball and to set this rubber ball very neatly on a table, and you can look at that rubber ball. Go ahead, look at the rubber ball.

You have to know how to handle people’s facsimiles before they can handle them. The preclear isn’t handling his and you as an auditor are the environment, so you have to know how to handle his facsimiles.

The second that you are asked to look at something which is apparently static, you start up your own randomity, don’t you? There is no motion in that rubber ball. It is just sitting there. You become bored with it; that is the emotion that goes along with it. You could sit and contemplate one rubber ball or something of the sort for just so long without saying “Tsk! So what?”

By the way, you could probably process a person by processing him on all the people he was trying to process while he was busy growing up. “What would you like to have reformed in so-and-so?”

Then we take this same rubber ball and I start bouncing it and I say, “Now, watch this rubber ball bouncing.” I just start bouncing it very regularly. You watch that rubber ball bouncing just so long before you say “So what?” That is a different kind of a static; that is repetitive motion which becomes monotonous.

Now, in the handling of a facsimile, first you have to realize what a facsimile is. It is a recording through all perceptions of the environment plus a recording of the thought, evaluation and conclusion — considering that a person himself is part of his own environment. That is a facsimile. It is a motion picture, a smellie, everything, across the boards — a wonderful motion picture in technicolor and so forth. This would be a full facsimile. This is data.

Now, if I were to bounce the rubber ball a little more erratically, or if I were to take three rubber balls and bounce them around, you would say “Very interesting.” That is randomity — erratic motion.

Once upon a time we were overstressing the need of sonic and visio and all the rest of this stuff. I don’t know that a person at 20.0 has any sonic and visio. I can tell you this: A person at 1.1 who has a tremendous amount of regret has a complete sonic dub-in track. I can tell you that, certainly, and I can tell you that if you take somebody at around 4.0 who is carrying forward a life continuum for somebody else, you will find he can shut off his sonic and visio and you can turn them back on again. But I don’t know that you could persuade anybody at 20.0 — though the facsimiles might be there, complete — to look at them. So this would be the same thing as saying they aren’t there, because you are never going to look at them. It comes out to that old cockeyed argument: Would there be a sound if a tree fell in a forest and a man wasn’t there? I have already brought an individual up above the level where he stops doing anything with sonic and visio; he is getting instantaneous computational data.

The optimum level of erratic motion has on its near side minus motion and it has on its other side plus motion.

So handling a facsimile also includes what you select out of the facsimile and how you read facsimiles. I would like to see somebody do a paper on that; I don’t know yet. But I do know this: You can select any part of a facsimile you want if you are really self-determined. You can select out its effort, you can select out its emotion, you can select out its thought patterns, you can select out its perceptics. Any of these things could be selected out of it.

For instance, I could hit this rubber ball and have it shoot off across the room and I would have to go over and pick up the rubber ball and bring it back. Then I could hit the rubber ball again and it would fly out in another direction. That would be too much randomity; it would be too erratic. So it wouldn’t be under control.

But I don’t know that a person at 20.0 has any truck whatsoever with recalls as such. I am giving that to you bluntly; maybe I am up above the point where I rationalize. But there is a point for you: If you are trying to rehabilitate somebody’s sonic and visio as your goal in auditing, you evidently are going to keep him down along the line someplace where he does this. It is no goal. It isn’t worth it. This fellow is going to know everything there is to know, when he really gets up there, without recalling it laboriously, because recalls are not done in time. There is no time in a facsimile. There is a time tab and it says “August 3, 1942, 2:01 A.M.,” but he doesn’t even read that at this high level. He just happens to know that that is the datum.

Supposing I put the rubber ball down and just left it: there is not enough motion. That is minus randomity. Do you see the emotional reaction? There has to be some controlled, eccentric action in motion — relatively controlled — in order to hold your attention. That is what you desire from life.

If you ask him “What time did this happen?” he would probably tell you if he weren’t too interested in something else. Don’t think that a person who has been rehabilitated is even going to be necessarily polite.

Monotony is, to you, death. It is a static, and a static is either something still or just a repetitive motion — so repetitive that it becomes, in that regard, utterly inane.

Now, a unit facsimile would be any consecutive related experience, in motion and so forth. Actually, it would contain as many recordings or as many separate pictures as sight needs in order to produce motion — 75 to 125 pictures a second. But maybe this experience lasted for a week. Maybe somebody got married and at the end of the week got divorced. Maybe somebody had an automobile accident; maybe somebody gave him a piece of cake. Each one of these things would be a unit facsimile. It would be a related experience. So you can see how variable its definition could be, but nevertheless it is only variable in terms of subject and time.

A person who goes to work from nine to five, nine to five, nine to five, nine to five, off on Saturday, off on Sunday, nine to five, nine to five, nine to five, nine to five, nine to five, off on Saturday, off on Sunday — the same thing week after week, particularly if every Sunday afternoon he goes to the same theater to see a movie — after a while becomes bored.

Related subject: “When I was in college . . .” Theoretically, lying there is a four-year or sixyear unit facsimile; this is the first one he presents. “. . . I was living in the south dorm.” That cuts it down to a much smaller facsimile. “And I had a roommate, and one night” (this is getting much shorter) “we went to see this girl.” This is a little tiny facsimile we are talking about now. That is the way things get introduced: big block, then smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller, and then the facsimile he wants to talk about.

Now, the oddity of it is that individuals have different tolerances for randomity. This nine-tofive deal, to many people, appears to be even adventurous. You may have stood and watched something like a subwaytrain or bus driver and said, “How can that man go to the other end of the run and turn around and come back, and then turn around and go back, and keep it up for sixty years or thirty years or something like that?” You know you couldn’t do it.

Now, the person who is being handled by the environment says, “When I was in college — I forget which year it was — I had a roommate whose name was . . . Well, anyway, one night . . . What was I talking about?” This person is not handling his facsimiles. You want to get him up to where he handles them easily, swiftly and well. The only point that you will be able to get him to is the point where he becomes self-determined about handling them, and he is then going to fly out of your hands. Then you say, “Well, that’s the end of that preclear.” That is what will happen. You are not going to put anybody up at 20.0. You might put somebody at

You say, “Well, therefore, there’s something wrong with me.” Yes, there is something “wrong” with you: you desire a little more randomity than he does.

3.5 or 4.0, but he will go on up if he is going to go. And if he isn’t going to go and you can’t put him any further anyhow, so what? There are lots of preclears!

You talk to one of these boys and you say, “Gee, doesn’t that just about drive you daffy?” He says, “What?” “Running that bus! Running that bus.”

You get him up above this band of 2.0 and he is not going to murder anybody, he is not going to kill himself, he is not going to work active harm in the society, he is not going to buy the crime of omission — which we very often forget is a crime.

“How do you mean? Do you realize I have to get up every morning at six o’clock, come down here, start the bus, get in there, get my change in order . . .” And he starts going through this routine, and you can see that it is just the dullest routine in the world. The only difference on change is sometimes he drops a dime when he is loading his coins. And sometimes it is Mrs. Snodgrass, not Mrs. Smith, who gets on the bus first at the first stop to get to her job, and there is whether Mrs. Snide up the street is going to go downtown today. This is randomity to that individual.

Have you ever run into anybody who says “But I didn’t say anything, I didn’t have any part in the argument; it wasn’t any fault of mine”? Oh, yeah? That is the crime of omission. It is the failure to talk when they should have talked; it is the failure to do when they should have done.

Your wild adventurer demands as randomity the cataclysm and crash of nations, societies. Hitler, for instance, was down on the tone scale in his desire for randomity, but I don’t believe he was even satisfied when he was blowing himself up. There were millions dead and armies ruined and continents changed and shifted all over the place and people suffering in all directions but he was still going strong. This was a 1.5’s idea of good randomity. His appetite for randomity was too high and his idea of randomity was all plus — too much.

Commission — action — looks so much bigger. That is pretty bad. Omission is worse, by the way, than the other level.

Now, on a constructive level there can also be too much randomity for an individual. Any of you who have been bewildered from time to time at sudden advances in technique were getting just a little bit too much randomity. You didn’t want quite that much randomity, in spite of the fact that the techniques are an advance for your preclears. That is to say, perhaps you took the first techniques offered and you were still working them a couple or three hours a week on a preclear and so forth; techniques then came along that could produce this result and they caught up with you.

These people, when you bring them up the tone scale, won’t drive others around them berserk by their inactivity, irresponsibility, letting things slide by the boards and being completely limp about this and that and so forth. And they aren’t going to smash things and upset things and change everything haywire so people are upset all the time. In other words, they aren’t going to destroy things.

In other words, we are doing with a new technique a speedup every time on the case. But what you are liable to start watching is this flood of new techniques. They are actually upsetting your randomity of snapping the fingers or something; they are altering this.

But when you get them up above this 2.0 level, people start acting in a self-determined fashion. When they get up around 4.0 you can usually still reach them; maybe you can reach somebody at 5.0 and maybe you could push somebody up to 6.0, but by that time they are out of your hands. This is very different from somebody going out of your hands because of inaccessibility below 2.0. Don’t ever make the mistake of confusing these two.

There is something else you should look at: you should be very pleased this is happening. I don’t know anything, really, more boring than snapping the fingers at a preclear six hours a day, six days a week. That is pretty grim. So we are working a technique up by which an auditor will have a lot of randomity.

There is one nice test: Is he thinking? Can he think about things? And does he remember things well? The only reason a person forgets is that he doesn’t want to remember. The only reason he doesn’t want to remember is that it hurts him to remember. If it hurts him to remember, then he can’t handle his facsimiles. So you just want to get him up to a point where he can handle all of his facsimiles, and that is all you are trying to do with the preclear. Of course, he won’t have any chronic somatics at that point. He could move in and out of a heart attack for an armyinduction physical in a split instant. He would go in and see the doctor, and he would have his heart going “B-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r! Murmur, murmur, murmur.”

Now, when a person comes down scale from full responsibility, he is moving into 20.0 for him when he gets to optimum. He will be optimumly busy, but don’t think he won’t be busy. The fellow that says “I’m going to buy an orange grove and sit there” has a goal and it is pretty, but when he gets there and he sits down he is liable to get right back up again.

The doctor would say, “Oh, for God’s sake! I mean. . . It’s all right. Sorry, son,” and write down, “Poor fellow, he hasn’t got long to live. Rejected .”

Look what happens to the man who is advised that he had better retire for his health and take it easy, control himself, take it quiet: all of a sudden they bury him. They say, “Well, that’s the way it goes with these fellows. They just work themselves all their lives too hard and it gets them. It’s a good thing he laid off and started to rest when he did.”

Then the fellow would go outside and his heart would go pocketapocketa-pocketa-pocketapocketa- pocketa — regular as a clock.

An individual who is running at more or less optimum motion for him is up above all of his past counter-efforts. Do you get the idea? As he sinks down from his optimum motion or goes up from his optimum motion, he will run into bands of lower speed for himself and he will start getting clipped by counter-efforts .

Now, don’t get off into the feeling that because a person “wasn’t there when it happened” he didn’t know about it. Because you and I know he did. He can pick up both ends of an engram; they are both known. They are a space in time, aren’t they? And if he has that space in time spaced, he knows the content in between those points must have been space too; he can even handle an engram, and don’t think he can’t.

This is all very sequitur. This may sound to you for a moment as if it is not making a complete package, but let me show you something. We have a scale from 40.0 through 20.0 down to 0.0, and at 20.0 is optimum motion for an individual. Some fellow will go out to a race track and watch these racing cars go round and round, and he will go out on the next Sunday and watch the racing cars go round and round. What produces randomity there is the fact that these cars are going too fast, which fascinates him. The other thing which produces it is the fact that every once in a while there is a big crash.

You can go back along a preclear’s track and ask him, “All right, now, you’ve got this ear somatic. When did you first decide to have it?”

How a race driver can stand up to his own fans, I don’t know. Out at Indianapolis one day a race driver went over the wall, rolled and so forth, and people went down on the grounds. The first thing one of them said was “Oh, gee! Look what I got! “ He had picked up a handkerchief that had fallen out of the driver’s chest, and it was saturated with blood, still dripping. That was his idea of randomity.

“Never! I never decided to have it.”

Anyway, each individual has a potential capacity or a potential action level. That is just theoretical. Everybody, if brought to 20.0, would be not to a 20.0 but to his 20.0. A happy, healthy, exuberant, long-lived bus driver is at 20.0. He gets on in the morning and he counts his change and he checks out and goes to this end of the run, then he goes to that end of the run and so on.

“Oh, well, think for a moment. What is the value of having this ear somatic?”

Now, look at an emotional curve: A person is way up in enthusiasm; he comes in and tells everybody about this bright idea he has and then somebody says, “No, it won’t work, because . . .” and convinces him, and this fellow in enthusiasm goes shooting down the tone scale. The shift in tone is quite marked.

“Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. There’s something there....”

What happens here? Up in enthusiasm he is running along so that his motion — the amount of randomity which he is encompassing and which he is engage d in and so forth — is up above the moti on or sp ee d of t he counter efforts which might threaten him. Do you understand that? The only way a counter-effort can threaten a person is by being faster than he is. Then he gets it.

“Well, do you remember what it is?” “No, but I just got a vague idea . . .”

This is proven by the fact that if you sit a fellow down very quietly and have him concentrate on a state of not-beingness, he will get his counterefforts — bang! You can demonstrate this on individuals.

“Well, run some sympathy for a minute.”

It means, then, that when an individual is dropped suddenly in what we will call speed — this internal governor or whatever it is — he drops emotionally as well, and that is the emotional curve.

So he scans some sympathy — “Oh, yes, it’s my aunt. Ha-ha! She sure used to get upset when I got an earache.”

Up at the top he is not suffering from any counter-efforts; he doesn’t have anything. And then somebody says, “Well, that girl you worked on last night, you know, that had a terrible anxiety stomach and so forth and so on? Well, she’s in the hospital.”

“Well, do you remember turning it on?”

He had decided to handle this anxiety stomach, this counter-effort. He was all enthusiastic. He thought he had fixed her up and then suddenly he is informed that he didn’t handle it. His first reaction is to handle it, but he has been dropped down the tone scale to a point where he can’t, suddenly. He will get an anxiety stomach.

“No. I didn’t turn it on automatically at first.”

You can run this test on individuals. You can give them a big buildup and a sudden drop. And if you give them a big buildup and a sudden drop about an injury, they will get the injury. It is fascinating.

“Well, what did happen?”

Let’s say you are working on a preclear; you work on him, you know you have the cause of it, you are running the thing out, you are in good shape on it and you can see his tone come up, then all of a sudden he sits up and says very apathetically, “Well, I’ve still got my sore leg.” You go sliding down the scale.

“Oh, I remember I put a bean in my ear and it swelled up and she was very sympathetic. We went down to the doctor’s and he got it out. By golly, do you know after that every once in a while I’d get this earache when I was around her. Yeah. She’d blow cigarette smoke in it. Yeah. She’s dead now. I wonder if that’s why I smoke cigarettes?” The other thing just sort of drops out.

How many auditors have unwittingly picked up a sore leg or some somatic and didn’t realize what its source was? You just check back over your cases, you check back over your auditing, and you will find that sooner or later something happened on it.

Now, obviously some unconsciousness or something could be around such an incident, and the computation is on it.

It doesn’t happen right away. The reason why is that the auditor who is running up above 4.0 is not doing too badly till one day he gets carved down this way. But his next curve is going to be a deeper drop. And each time it happens he will drop, but he won’t come back quite as far. Eventually it could be a flat line and then he has come all the way down to where he can’t handle this motion. At that moment one of these things he missed on consistently in the past cuts in as a chronic somatic.

When a person goes unconscious down along the lower band he is in bad shape, because he is not conscious to begin with to amount to anything. But this isn’t any reason why he can’t say “Well, the years from five to ten I wasn’t very conscious.” That handles that facsimile.

His resilience at first is such that when this gag is pulled on him he bounces. That is all right; he bounces. If he had really looked at himself, he would have gotten a momentary twitch out of it and then bounced back up again. But when he really gets smashed down along to that flat line he gets a chronic somatic, and he is not going to get rid of it until it is processed out on the lifecontinuum factor. What has he done? He suddenly took over the responsibility of that somatic he failed on by wearing it himself.

A person can handle his facsimiles with thought, he can handle them with emotion and he can handle them in lots of ways. But he knows what he is doing. And although you may act as though you are fully responsible, if you go on caring what he does with a facsimile after you have got him up to a point where he can really handle this facsimile, you are not being fully responsible at all. You are way down scale on the thing; you are being very concerned.

This is, by the way, not very esoteric. If you think this over for a while you will see that we are talking in terms of weights and balances.

The fellow you should be concerned with is the fellow who cannot handle his facsimiles: he has a bad memory, he doesn’t remember, he has slow reactions, it takes him a long time to think, he hasn’t got any time to do anything (although he is playing solitaire). This is a rough case! Serious! He says, “Well, I’ve put all that way back; I don’t think about that anymore.” It is way back, all right.

An individual, as “I,” can handle motion. You are handling motion right now: the beat of your heart, the coursing of your blood, the various activities of the human body and its actions. You are bracing against gravity; you are doing all sorts of these motions. There is lots of motion.

All this depends on is a point of self-confidence. Perhaps this individual, by taking up the piano or by indulging in group therapy or some other thing, comes up fast enough so all of a sudden he starts to handle a few of his facsimiles. There you go — something has been done therapeutically. It doesn’t matter how you get this individual to handle his facsimiles; that is what we want him to do. At first he doesn’t want to handle them, in almost every case you lay your hands on, and you just sort of have to hornswoggle him into it. And all of a sudden he says to you very cockily one day, “Oh, well, I can remember that. I got myself started in. I always remembered that,” and he is going to town, because he is now going to be selfdetermined about the whole thing. That is what you are doing to people.

Have you ever watched a person as he comes down the tone scale? He gets to anger and he will have a violent flair of relatively poorly directed motion, and then it is like the sudden flash of a lamp bulb just before it goes out. He will finally come down to where he just sits, and he gets quieter and quieter and quieter. I told you about motion, about resistance and reaction to motion in comparison to this tone scale: He isn’t handling left-over counterefforts.

This point of view is possible at this time because of the knowledge of Postulate Processing, the knowledge of Effort Processing and the knowledge of emotional curves. It is a faster and more advanced viewpoint than any of the past viewpoints we have had in Dianetics.

Let’s say that when you were a kid, a baseball hit you in the eye. You were just fine. Years go by and you don’t think about this baseball hitting you in the eye at all, but then you hear about some friend of yours or something of the sort who got hit in the eye with a baseball. An immediate sort of sympathy computation goes in. You drop on the tone scale because this is bad news.

It is very distrustful of an individual to think that you have to knock out every bad memory he has. This is really saying to him “Well, we have to fix you up, you poor guy; you can’t handle your facsimiles anyhow; we just have to fix you up so no matter how you handle them you can’t get into trouble.” We didn’t have other ways to go about it. But now we have these other techniques; now we can start handling it on a faster basis. That is why processing has gotten swifter. It is just that there has been this shift of emphasis from fixing it up so that no matter what he did with his facsimiles he couldn’t get into trouble, to the point of fixing him up so he can handle his facsimiles no matter what happens. It takes the seriousness off the situation and the level of concern which you will feel. Therefore your technique is shorter and that is why it is shorter.

Did you ever stop and think of why it was bad news to you that he got hit in the eye with a baseball? So what? So he got hit in the eye with a baseball — does this hurt your food supply line? You can always find another canasta player. But you are fully responsible, inherently; so you say, “Well, that’s fine — my responsibility, I must be to blame. I didn’t keep the baseball from hitting him in the eye.”

Now, the unit facsimile is something that can afford a great deal of study to a lot of people for an awful long time. You suddenly run head-on into the genetic blueprint of the body or its structural blueprint or any other blueprint that you want to call it, and when you start looking over this genetic blueprint you find out what its patterns of memory were that caused it to be constructed that way.

You can work with people for a while and they will finally come up with some dopey explanation of how it was their fault — he intended to call the fellow on Saturday and see whether or not he could play a game of golf that day, and by not calling him . . . “Therefore, there he was out playing baseball with the boys and that is how he got hit in the eye with a baseball, and that’s why it’s my fault.”

This would be, by the way, a major discovery in biology. If you want to play with this, you will be “biologizing” above any biologist alive today. Also, it tells you about evolution. There is a lot of data in there. But this is the data of what is in the facsimile, rather than “can he handle it?”

But the reason you haven’t seen very many of these rationalizations is that they are tied up in emotional curves.

A person’s self-determinism can be advanced up to a point, evidently, where he can handle any facsimile back along the time track. He doesn’t have to even remember and recognize the thing; he can handle it. So when it starts to move in on him he knows exactly why it started to move on him, he does an automatic process and it moves out — bang! — if he doesn’t want it.

A little boy is out playing and life is going along all right; suddenly his mother comes out and she looks very, very sad and sorrowful. He says, “What’s the matter, Mommy? What’s the matter, Mommy?”

But if you started “biologizing” you would want to know, wouldn’t you? You would want to know what was in this one, what was in that one, what was in another one, what was in another one; you would want to monkey around and fool around with them and examine them one way or the other. That is a very fascinating study.

She says, “Nothing (sniff).” This increases his tension terrifically. She gets him built up to a tremendous level of anxiety and then pops it — “Grandpa just died.”

You can examine some history with this track too. It doesn’t always agree with the history books. A “Mississippi of lies” is how one philosopher referred to history. I have gotten enough checks off the line to realize that it is not all squirrel-cage stuff.

This little boy knows Grandpa. He has sat around Grandpa occasionally on a little footstool and said, “Gee, I wish Grandpa’s rheumatizl didn’t hurt. I wish I could see for Grandpa a little better. Gosh, he sure has a lot of trouble getting the car started; I think I’ll invent a self-starter for him or something. Yeah, I think I’ll get rich. I think I’ll get rich and I’ll have a big castle and I’ll store one whole room with chewing tobacco so he’ll never be out of chewing tobacco, because he always seems to run out of it when he wants some.” This little boy knows Grandpa. So, subject: Grandpa; habits, somatics of Grandpa, counter-efforts — these must be duplicated, because the first reaction of the little boy is to say “It’s not so. I do not believe it. It can’t be true.” That is an effort of invalidation, and this effort of invalidation comes down with a crash afterwards. That goes down too, which just drives this loss home further.

There is good reason you run into past bad incidents of that character: there is so much regret on them. For some reason or other, people do not like to have a bottom-static failure. There is something about dying. (That poor clam ! )

When he says “I can’t believe this and I don’t want to believe this, and this isn’t true” and all that sort of thing, people then very quietly and solemnly convince him it is true. “Let’s not have any fast music around the dead. Let’s not do anything very exciting. I don’t think you ought to go to the show this afternoon, Johnny. After all, it’s only been two weeks since your grandfather died.” This keeps him running slow, and he will keep picking these somatics up. They are not Grandpa’s, they are his. But you can run this emotional curve.

Anyway, in all of this processing, if you have the return of self determined ability to handle facsimiles as an end goal, you will be able to do a lot faster work with your preclear.

Now, you know there are occluded deaths on cases. There probably isn’t a case around that doesn’t have two or three deaths that they aren’t consciously aware of having happened in their vicinity. But how do you make the individual aware that they did happen? Not by trying to sell him on the idea and going and getting the family Bible — let’s not be psychoanalysts. Let’s not go get the Bible and show him in there, “Look, your grandpapa died at such and such a date because it says right there in the front of the Bible, so therefore it’s true. All right, you’re well now. Next customer.” That is the wrong approach.

Now, you say, “It takes several hours to run one grief charge off a case.” But are you saying “It takes me as the auditor several hours to run grief off of this preclear”?

If there were an automatic process which would immediately reveal to the individual these incidents, which would reveal to him the times when he blamed himself for the death and would reveal to him the times when he had tried to defend the dead person and bring to view his thoughts with regard to his desire for approval from that person or his desire to give approval to the person in order to go on living, wouldn’t that be a very valuable technique? It really would — particularly in view of the fact that you can see Grandpa’s glasses on this preclear and Grandpa’s habits on this preclear and Grandpa’s everything on this preclear, including Grandpa’s consistent business failure. People will go on failing in businesses just for Grandpa. They will go on being professionally something else, just for Grandpa. More important than that, they will go on walking like a horse or something of the sort for dear old Bessie that died when they were two years old back in the middle-west farmhouse.

It could be in three ways: We have this preclear up to a point where the running of the grief is incidental; we have this preclear up to the point where he will run his own grief; or he is still slogging down along the bottom of the tone scale someplace where you have to sit there and say, “Yes, yes. Yes, yes. And then what did she say? And then what did he say? What did she say then? Who else was there? Yes; yes, indeed....” You could take hours at that; I guarantee that you can spend over an hour running a grief charge off a case that way.

How would you like a technique that did that? It is a very simple technique. You just run the emotional curve — that is all. You just insist on running the emotional curve. The regret comes out and the blame comes out and the thought behind it comes out, and it all falls out of this darn curve:

But if you start sneaking up on a grief charge by running regret and blame and an emotional curve and so forth, all of a sudden it is like an artillery shell exploding. If you run this stuff long enough, the preclear will blow up, or he will simply come into a recognition of the whole thing, snap out of it and pass right on over it, and he will no longer be stuck there on the track and he will be able to handle this facsimile.

“Can you remember the time your grandfather died?”

It doesn’t much matter, because a facsimile is not interior; it is not inside you. It isn’t stored in any file-card system in the back of your head. It is not energy enclosed in your cells. It doesn’t have to be bled out of the cells in order to make the cells happier. I had done insufficient work on this; it apparently was in the cells, but that was before we isolated the identity of the life static and found out a facsimile didn’t have any wavelength. I would like to know how the devil you can store anything which doesn’t have any wavelength.

“No.”

Furthermore, how rough can a facsimile get? I have a hole in my jaw that says it can get rough enough to kick a tooth out through the side — just a facsimile that you borrow and turn on full. Some of the people around the Foundation remember the night I came down looking rather hangdog and announced this experiment. It actually had broken a tooth out sideways. I would like you to show me a tooth which has residual energy in it sufficient to break it out from the center that way.

“Well, how would you have felt just before you found out he died?”

Completely aside from this point, all the cells of the body seem to change about every seven years. Completely aside from this point, remember the clam? You can’t tell me that the pain from that clam cell is still stored with physical-universe energy. It is not.

“Oh, all right, I guess.”

So you are handling facsimiles which are capable of regenerating on the physical universe and taking out of the physical universe the power they use. It is a regeneration process by which the facsimile uses the force residual in the universe in order to produce the forces which it has. But it can come in from the doggonedest vector sources.

“How would you have felt just afterwards?”

Did you ever stand in a vaccination line? Sometimes the medical corpsmen or the hospital boys are not too easy on that; they stab the fellow and he goes spang! It is quite a jolt.

“Oh, terrible.”

You can run a fellow through that; you can sit there and watch his arm if he is running well and you will see it dent where the needle hit. You will see it dent all the way in. Does anybody want to show me the muscles of the arm which can make it cave in to a point? That is nothing but fatty tissue that is caving in. Evidently the unit facsimile influences the atoms and molecules of physical structure. It is on that low a level of influence — at least that low a level of influence. It is a direct contact on atoms and molecules and it can form them into any shape it wants.

“Well, how do you feel when you’re all right?”

It is no mystery how your preclear can go way back down the bank and get into an incident in childhood and more or less get stuck there and keep on looking like that when you bring him up to present time. It is no mystery how you can have somebody with a big swelling on his neck and when you run the incident you can watch the swelling go down. It is no mystery; there is nothing much to it. That is a facsimile. What you are trying to do is handle these darn things.

“Oh, I feel all right.”

The reason why the facsimile cannot be handled is not because the individual did not handle it at the time. That is much too brief. It is because he later on used it and failed with it. That is the key-in situation. It doesn’t matter how many Mack trucks you get run over by. Don’t, however, take a Mack truck and run over somebody and fail.

“How do you feel when you feel terrible?”

It is the use of the facsimile. You could actually ask a preclear this question and you would get an interesting result: “What is the first time you decided to use a bad facsimile or a destructive facsimile? What is the first time you decided to use it?” Try it. You may get some very interesting results out of your preclear, because that is basic-basicl on key-ins. I know what it is, but why don’t you find out? It is very easy to locate — the first time you decided to use a bad one.

“Well, just terrible.”

Now, you decided to use a bad one in this life — the time your brother came up to you and said some nasty words and you hauled off and pasted him one. How come you pasted your brother one? What did you use for data to paste your brother one? You used an entheta facsimile. You pasted him one and Mama came out and said, “You mustn’t hit your brother anymore!” Bang! Bang! Bang! That hangs you up with this facsimile of pasting somebody in the jaw, and you can’t do anything about it, and so you have it. You went down an emotional curve; you went down to slow speed because you were interrupted in your action. And you get that facsimile from there on, because what did you use in the first place? You used the facsimile of being, yourself, struck in the jaw. You said, “This is data.” It was parked back there and you could handle that all right. So you were hit in the jaw — so what? But one day you said, “Hmm. I’m not fully responsible. Here’s a nice facsimile of a good sock in the jaw” — bang! You were being the countereffort; you were the winning valence at this point. You used that facsimile in the winning valence. You were being the counter-effort, you hit your brother in the jaw and then somebody came along and said, “No!” Down the tone scale you went. Then you had to swivel and be the effort — not the countereffort — so you got the sock in the jaw.

“Well, can you get the drop between those two? Can you feel all right and then feel terrible, feel all right and feel terrible?”

Why did somebody stop you? Because they wanted you socked in the jaw. People do this instinctively.

“Yeah. Yeah, oh, here’s that time I hit that boy over the head with a club, knocked him out. I didn’t mean to.”

So when you drop an individual down the tone scale, you get him down below speed. It is even more exact than that: you throw him over to where he becomes the recipient of the counter-effort.

And you start picking up incidents of that magnitude (which is minor magnitude) and you pick up more incidents and more incidents and more incidents of greater and greater magnitude till all of a sudden you are picking up deaths on the case the person didn’t know anything about, much less the deaths he knew about. But if you find one of these occluded deaths, you start running it and you will find out just where he blamed himself for that death. And they all do!

This individual has worked and worked and worked in order to get his preclear up from an engram. A little bit later somebody comes along and tells him he failed at it, or the preclear tells him he failed at it.

That is what is rough on soldiers. They are out there on the field of battle and they go charging over the top into a flock of machine-gun bullets or something of the sort and guys fall here and guys fall there and guys fall someplace else. The soldier is responsible for all those deaths — each one of them is, really. Then he gets over into the enemy trench and he kills another human being, and he is responsible for that one, too. So he can’t win.

What has he been using for data? While he was working on the preclear, he may have been fool enough to pick up a facsimile out of his own bank that was almost identical to what had happened to his preclear. He had this and he was examining it: “It goes this way — goes round and round, and it comes out there. Oh, yes. What’s the next step? Yes. And then what happens? (That’s what happened to me.) Well, will that do?” He was all set. But what was he being? He was being the counter-effort. He was forcing the preclear to run an incident, but that was the incident that he was using and he was the counter-effort in that incident.

War is a game by which you keep people down the tone scale so that you can govern them very well. I don’t think a national government could actually exist without the threat of war — if there weren’t an aggressor around. There are aggressors around and you do have to have something to prevent their actions, because everybody is working on this same circle. But you see what happens.

So, he has been using this and all of a sudden the preclear says, “Well, I know you processed me for eight hours but I still have pogostickitis.” (That’s a disease that makes an individual bounce around a lot.) The second the auditor fails he goes down tone, because what it restimulates is an emotional drop of tone. And that emotional drop of tone is attendant to switching him from the counter-effort into the effort. So he gets it — bang!

Now, this soldier finally hardens himself into it and he sells himself this bill of goods: “Well, I’m me; I don’t care who else I am.” And then he gives himself a snide satisfaction for having eaten the lunch of the guy in the next bed in the hospital where they both were — the guy was his buddy and he got his buddy’s lunch. Food was kind of scarce there and his buddy died at eleven-thirty, so he got his lunch.

The auditor has a tendency to pick up and use a facsimile to compare it to whatever is happening to the preclear, and he is being a counter-effort in the preclear’s facsimile in order to force the preclear through it. Failure causes him to reverse and become — in his own facsimile, not in the preclear’s — the recipient of the effort. So he picks up the somatic.

You will get this fellow actually holding such incidents in, saying, “I am tough. I am hard. I can stand up to all of this. Nothing of this can shake me.” He keeps telling himself this and the next thing you know, nothing can, not even life. He doesn’t enjoy anything anymore, by the way, but he sure is tough!

In a life continuum, a person dreams up things for Grandpa and he dreams up things for this and that, and he is fully responsible for life in general, but all of a sudden he hits this emotional curve — he hears about a death or he witnesses one — and he dives down the tone scale.

You will run into this case every once in a while. You try to run an emotional curve on one and it is like trying to open up brick pavement with a toothpick, until all of a sudden you start triggering approval or regret. This case is never closed down so tight that you can’t find some regret or something on it, and you just start running that off a little bit and the first thing you know, the rest of the case starts to open up.

His first impulse is to be the counter-effort and hold it back. Did you ever see some little child about to have an accident? This child is going up toward the table and you can’t reach him in time, and you pull back as the table or something of the sort.

I will give you just a momentary review of this thing: What is survival? Survival is a right to survive which an individual gives himself automatically. When he is his own right to survive, he is very fully responsible. And this right to survive operates in the society as approval.

You often get the same thing when you start to feed a little baby. One day I was in a restaurant and Mama was feeding her little baby, and everybody in the restaurant was looking over at that table. Of course, the baby was too busy playing with spoons and things to eat, but Mama would extend the spoon and the baby would clamp its mouth shut and Mama would open her mouth wide. Then the baby would open up and take it. I watched this going on — Mama opening her mouth, and so on, each bite. I looked around the restaurant and everybody in the whole restaurant was doing it. They were all cause; they wanted that baby to eat.

When some other thing on some other dynamic fails to survive, an individual holds himself responsible for that failure. When he actually can demonstrate to himself that he definitely was responsible for it, you don’t get it just as an esoteric mechanism, you get it as an actual fact, and he goes into sympathy on that dynamic. He will stay sympathetic toward that dynamic and he will stay down the tone scale with regard to that dynamic, and he will keep on asking that part of that dynamic for his own survival.

It is this mechanism with which you are dealing. There is how the life continuum happens and there is how you resolve it, and there is also your goal in processing — just to render the individual capable of welshing on some of his bets back in the past and to get in control of all of his facsimiles again.

At this point in the lecture, a gap exists in the available recordings. We have been unable to locate any recording or transcript for the missing section.