[Start of Lecture]

[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, tonight particularly I have nothing to talk to you about. Tonight particularly.

Well, the subject of this lecture should be randomity. But actually, I intended to talk a little bit more about teaching processes and the handling of groups – that you as Scientologists should be interested in.

And that's because the weather doesn't really permit dry humor.

First and foremost, we will examine the first threshold that anyone has to cross when handling groups or attempting to teach large numbers of people. That threshold is known as stage fright. Embarrassment. That's the first thing, and that is a threshold which has to be crossed by anyone sometime in his career. It is a fascinating phenomenon for everyone except the person who has it.

Very good. I knew one man would applaud that. I knew that.

It's very remarkable, the instances of stage fright I have seen, but none of these made near as much impression on me as instances of stage fright I have experienced myself. These made a considerable impression on me. I remember very well in the field of radio, of overcoming the mike consciousness right here in Washington, going to the university. I had a fifteen-minute program every day. And it was fascinating, as time went on, how accustomed I became to handling that mike and going on, good weather and bad – mostly bad here in Washington.

I would like to give you a little talk on the Tone Scale and rather bring it up-to-date and talk a little bit about its uses.

And years later I was going to the Geller Theater Workshop in Hollywood, after the war. And I walked in, and was going through all the class – everything was going along fine, smoothly, pleasantly. I was learning to say "How now brown cow?" along with the young starlets and so forth. I was studying acting, was what I was doing, to find out how to make actors, because it seemed to me that there was an answer to the mind and to training in the field of acting. I felt that acting was a sort of a synthetic living. And what you could know about it as a synthetic thing you might then be able to apply to life and so understand life a little better.

This material you all know. You've heard all this. There's nothing new about it at all, I assure you. Except, of course, some few small items.

I, by the way, didn't finish up there at all. I got vastly fascinated with other things. And I was a writer, not an actor, anyway, you see. And I became very enamored with other fields of action, and became particularly enamored with processing the young actors who were going there. And actually, to the last days I was in Los Angeles, these kids used to come up from there saying "I hear you can do something for me." And I usually did, one way or the other. I'd square them away on this subject.

Now, the first of these few small items was the addition, some time ago, of the Know to Mystery Scale.

But I walked in one day to their radio workshop with the rest of the class and there was a microphone. There it stood – pure, innocent and chromium plated – attached to exactly nothing. It didn't even go out to a monitor station outside the room. It was simply a dummy mike, and people were supposed to stand there and practice plays, and so on, reading, and how you handle paper, and how you talk, and so on.

Now, the Know to Mystery Scale was an interesting introduction, but all it was in essence was an expansion of Science of Survival up and down. We expanded Science of Survival up and down. Well, it's very interesting since in Science of Survival we have told you how bad it can get and is, you see, at the bottom of the scale, that with our Know to Mystery Scale we then go south. And this is very hard to do, but I managed it. I just said everything from that point on down south was indescribable, incomprehensible, un-understandable, and that was the trouble with it. Everybody was trying to understand it and there's no understanding in it.

And it came my turn, and I stood up in front of this mike and all of a sudden, boy, that mike had more motion in it, and so did I, than I would ordinarily care to experience. Brrrrrr! And I c-c-c- couldn't talk! Fabulous! The thing was a dummy mike. I went back and I sat down and I said, "That thing is a dummy mike! I've handled one of these things for years!" Tuhh! Coo!

Now, it's very fascinating that the Tone Scale itself occupies that band which is covered in the Know to Mystery Scale as Emotion. And that's a rather high band.

Well, as the days went by, I got all right again. But it made an impression on me. I had actually experienced stage fright, which was very interesting – on a dummy mike! And I assayed one day to know more about this. Now, the only time I myself pick up stage fright in front of audiences is when they get up to a certain size. Up to about twenty-five hundred, strictly cucumber. Above twenty-five hundred, well, "My God, there's a lot of people out there."

The Know to Mystery Scale goes in this fashion: It goes Know, which is totality of knowing; and then it goes Not-Know, which means that we have to not-know some things in order to know some things; and then it goes down into Look, which means the totality of perception; and then goes down into the emotional band, which goes, of course, from enthusiasm down to (covering it very roughly) conservatism, antagonism, anger, fear, grief and apathy. That's the emotional band, and then we move into Effort or Solids; Solids are part of the Effort band.

And then a famous English actress started clobbering me in recent months to say something about stage fright. What was it all about? She called it "first-night nerves." She said, "Every actor on the first night has nerves." And she attributed it to the fact that they didn't know how the play was going to go; and they didn't know what was going to happen; and there was tremendous uncertainty; and they were watching themselves every moment in an unaccustomed scene, which would become an accustomed scene after a few nights, and so they would lose their upset. This is the theory on which man has worked and it is wrong. It is not the theory. It is not what is behind stage fright.

Well, right about that point – right about that point – a fantastically terrible cognition occurred. It almost blew me out of my chair at the time I was sitting there. I was minding my own business. I wasn't thinking about much of anything. And I was sort of adding up processes, you know, in a lackadaisical sort of way, and I said, "Now, let's see. These processes over here obviously upset preclears." And I wrote down a small list of these things, and "Then these processes over here obviously benefit preclears. But in this list of processes that benefit preclears we find a great many that don't, and in the list of processes that don't benefit preclears we find some that do. Oh, no."

The essence of stage fright is simply this: It is the unwillingness to confront a mass. It is a "can't have" on the mass. That is all. That's all it is. And to prove that, it is only necessary to change one's mind or run a process in the direction of having that mass to instantly cure stage fright. It cures just like that. Remedy of Havingness. Why is it "first- night nerves"? Why, after fifteen years off the air, do I step up to a dummy microphone and get the shakes?

Well, of course I had entered right into the strata of incomprehensibility and unfortunately made it comprehensible. I got to looking at this and all of a sudden realized what we've been doing for a long, long time. Ha! It's pathetic to think of it, but every now and then when we audited a preclear and he became apathetic, we were making him well. Just look that over.

That's because for fifteen years I didn't have something which I had. It's the fifteen years of not having the microphone which make you shake the moment you have one, because you already had one and it didn't worry you. The first time you had it, you hadn't had it, don't you see? So there was no period there of not-havingness to overcome with some sudden havingness. But we go on, then, for a short time and have one a few years, and then all of a sudden we run this long span of no havingness on a microphone. The next time we meet one, snap!

Every now and then when we were auditing somebody and he apparently slumped to the bottom of the emotional scale, we actually were winning. We had brought him up to apathy.

The instant we get one, it's an important item; it is an important havingness. We are trying to have it all at once. It is motionless. There it is. It is obtainable, and available, obviously, but we try to get fifteen-years worth out of one second of microphone. And there isn't fifteen years worth in the microphone. You got that? There is only one performance worth.

When you really look this over you have the answers to a tremendous number of phenomena which we have encountered, and amongst them is "don't care." Amongst them is "forget," "can't remember anything," "can't remember childhood." Amongst them is irresponsibility: "can't do anything about it anyway." Many of these characteristics lie below apathy and they're all above apathy. And what a happy man it is that can be apathetic. He's high toned.

All right. Now, let's take that audience. If you'd never had an audience, no audience would give you a quiver. If you'd never had one, you would never experience stage fright. You would be graceful and aesthetic and carry off the role like an old trooper. But having had an audience over a period of time, then not having an audience for a period of time, the next audience we get is going to make us go mnnnunyaaaa!

Now, one of the first random data that was recovered in this wise was the observation that very often seamen, very often chaps working on ships, rather beat-up characters... I'm talking now about the common seaman of yesteryear before the unions promoted him above the officers. This fellow would occasionally get hurt and would then insist on going about his duties, and could not be made to sit still long enough to have a broken hand or something like this heal up. And very many men have observed this and they have assigned a certain deity to it, you see. The man is practically godlike in his ability to withstand pain.

Why? During that one presentation, we are trying to get the entire no-havingness of audiences filled full during that period, because they're important. You see, it's an important havingness to have an audience. That's an important havingness. And it was a not-havingness over a period of time, and the no-havingness of it makes it a shiver. Now, this is a basic mechanic. There are considerations above this, but I am telling you the mechanic so that you can understand it as a principle which can be utilized in the curing and overcoming of embarrassment – both on the part of your preclears and on your part if you don't like to confront an audience.

The horrible discovery is he's not withstanding pain; he can't feel it! He cannot feel it. He is incapable of that much sensitivity. He is below apathy.

Now here, in essence, is Remedy of Havingness on audiences as the cure. That is the only cure there is that is a good, reliable, standard cure. It's a good cure.

Now, I know what I'm talking about now, because I've had several cases that were in that range and they hadn't known that they had been hurt and had no recall of it whatsoever. And I worked with them and brought them upscale, and they finally became apathetic about having been hurt. And I brought them up a little bit higher and, oh boy, did it hurt. And brought them up a little bit higher and they could handle it. But at that low stage they had been completely overwhelmed to a point of not even knowing they had been overwhelmed.

Have them mock up audiences, go and find audiences, don't you see? Find out what part of audiences they can have, what part of audiences they can dispense with. Go take them to a movie theater and stand back in the aisle someplace toward the back and have them point out the backs of audiences. That's perfectly all right. It's still mass – back or front. Make somebody go and talk to some people someplace. That, in essence, is having an audience. But making a person go and talk to a bunch of people gives him two things to do at once: both perform and have. And it's one too many for most people who have had, and then haven't had.

Now you say, "How bad can it get?" Well, you can go lower than that. You can go lower than that. You can go to a point of no comprehension of any successive moment. No comprehension of any moment preceding or succeeding any other moment.

If you experience embarrassment because of an audience, it is because you have been without one for a long time; not because audiences customarily, in the last few lives you've led, leaped over the footlights and tore you to ribbons; not necessarily because you confuse every audience you see with a jury of twelve good men and true, who want to hang you for stealing that horse. It isn't necessarily true that you confuse things at all. It's just that you've been a couple of hundred years without a good audience! And therefore, you try to remedy a couple of hundred years worth of no-audience with an audience. And it scatters them all over the track. Really! They go tzzzzz! from your point of view.

Now, you can get worse than that. You can get no comprehension of any moment, including now. Well, we get a politician or something like that, you know. We get somebody that's really in there pitching, you know. He doesn't know he's there; he doesn't know he has been there; he doesn't know he will be there; he doesn't know you are there or anything of the sort, and that's about it.

They are evidently much more critical. Their critical level is tremendously exaggerated by any person who is giving a performance in front of an audience. He thinks their critical level is something fantastic. Well, I'll agree with you, it's something fantastic, but it's not that bad.

Now, we have already descended below Mystery because he's not puzzled. Nothing worries him. Oh-ho-ho, no. Nothing worries that man at all. He can be counted on to not react, and therefore he is a firm, sound, solid individual. Obviously nothing ever affects him. But it would if he found it out! Get the difference. Something would affect him if he found it out.

I've seldom seen audiences file in, to an ordinary entertainment production at least, with Tommy guns held under the overcoat. You know? Seldom. Very few. And yet a lot of people who get up and try to perform or talk in front of an audience certainly seem to be convinced that the very least that is under those overcoats is Tommy guns.

Now, this is actually a matter of tone. Of course, we're approaching, in the ranges of the Tone Scale, close down to now-perpetual unconsciousness. And unconsciousness is, of course, just plain waiting. That is all.

Now, as you reduce havingness, you heighten critical level. As the havingness goes down, critical level goes up. So as havingness goes down on audiences, one's belief in their critical level goes up, as well as one's own critical level of the audience. And to talk to an audience you mustn't have a high critical level of the audience, let me assure you. You have to be in communication with them. And if you have a high critical level of any audience to whom you are speaking, you are not going to communicate with them at all. And as a result, you're going to have difficulties.

Now, there are some other few little things about the Tone Scale that are interesting besides that below-apathy matter. And one of them at first is not too useful, but a person is a victim of any tone level above him. No use to this, of course. Now, we've talked long ago about the fact that it took about one point zero band – that is to say, one solid number on the Tone Scale – to affect the lower number. In other words, it was one-half a number or a whole number, but you could have an effect on a person in fear, for instance by being angry or antagonistic. See, that's one whole point above it. Fear at about 1.0 then is affected by 1.5 and by 2.0, but isn't particularly affected at all above that line.

If you haven't had audiences for a couple of hundred years – ever since you stepped out of the Swan Theater, or something of this sort... Maybe you were awfully good at Hamlet once; maybe you were one of the most terrific Othellos that ever trod the boards, but you haven't done it for a long time – that is, you haven't had for a long time on the subject of audiences. And one day you go out to do Othello and, boy, do you lay eggs!

Now, this is quite interesting. He doesn't know anything exists above that line. Cognition, low on the Tone Scale band, is in terms of about one tone or one-half a tone. In other words, one can cognite upwards easily one tone. So that a man who is afraid perpetually, always in fear, would then have great reality on the fact that people became angry and antagonistic. Also that people became sad; that is below that tone. And also that people became apathetic and weren't afraid when they ought to be. See, there's something wrong with the fellow, because he isn't afraid when he ought to be.

Several things can happen. But you think that their critical level of you is much greater than it is. And you think at the same time, that your performance is much worse than it is. And you also suppose that their demands are much greater than they are. Maybe you got this idea out of a Roman arena. That's a discouraging place to have audiences. But wherever you see bad performance you simply have a case of no havingness of audiences and theaters.

But that's sort of dim. That isn't too well understood by this person.

You can cure the first-night nerves or the mike fright with subjective processes by which simply someone mocks up audiences and shoves them in, audiences and throws them away, microphones and shove them in, microphones and throw them away. There is nothing to this. It is one of our most elementary processes and it works. Works very satisfactorily.

So we get a new principle on it: That a person is affected most by that part of the Know to Mystery Scale immediately above or below his position upon it. That becomes a fantastic weapon for analysis of various things. It tells us at once that the German people were somewhere between grief to fear when they were being led by Hitler at 1.5. Here we had a perfect 1.5. They must've been in grief or in fear, and that must have been the national tone at the time this was going forward.

But people get so bad off in having an audience that they can't have one even when they have one. So what do we do then? We have people waste audiences.

Therefore, we could predict the Tone Scale of a people by examining their choice of leaders. And when we do this, I'm afraid we would often error because we would get down below a no- emotional band and there those points are hard to recognize. But there the rest of the Tone Scale serves us well, because those lower bands are significance, significance, significance and from significance on down through to greater significance and greater significance.

The total reason for the existence of Hollywood and the cinema today is entirely attributable to the fact that nobody can have a show. Look it over. Do you think a bunch of shadows playing on a screen with no substance is an adequate show? Well, that is wasting the production, don't you see? That's a waste of production. I tell you it's a waste of production because people go downhill on going to shows and after a while don't go to shows.

You see, there's... From the end of the Tone Scale at apathy and down through Solids we're on solid ground, if you will excuse me. But from there on it is merely the type of significance which gives us the judgment of the situation. That's all. There is nothing else.

It must demonstrate, then, that it's not an adequate havingness for the amount of motion contained in the presentation. They have gotten to a point of no-show, to a point where they have no show, so that they can have no show, don't you see?

Now, I am particularly interested in the fact that people keep following this Tone Scale. I don't know, they've heard a rumor or something of the sort, and it's fashionable or something, but they do follow it. And a process is a good process which raises people on this scale, and it is a bad process when it doesn't. I don't know any process which depresses them. It's quite interesting. I really don't. I know processes by which their total memory could be wiped out in twenty seconds.

Now, we've reduced the screen... First it went up. Hollywood asserted itself. It got big enough to be seen, with VistaScreen, VistaVision, BroadView. What are some of those? Cinerama, CineScope, "Cinemope." There are a whole bunch of them. They got big, you know. And then they got fifteen different varieties of color. And the actors got to be 115 – that's the stopping point of this is when the actors get to be 115 feet high. What are they trying to do? They're trying to remedy somebody's havingness. They're trying to put up enough mass there to keep the people coming. They are trying to say, "Look, they may be only one molecule or one photon thick, but they're awfully tall!"

The second I started studying brainwashing, this one fell out of the hamper. I mean it became one of those easy things. There's nothing to that. Brainwashing – the whole subject is insufficiently complicated for the Pavlovian school to have grasped, don't you see. It's not complicated enough. So there's really nothing to brainwashing somebody. All you have to do is take away all his mental image pictures at once, quickly, suddenly, and so forth, and if he depends on these utterly, of course you wipe him out. That's all you have to do and you've brainwashed him thoroughly.

And the audiences have turned aside – not being able to have a show – to a point where they look on a little seventeen-inch screen or a twenty-one-inch screen which isn't even in color these days. And they don't even look at it, they simply go to sleep. The fellow says, "I slept a good show the other night on TV. Did you snore it?"

You can do a limited job of this by giving him some additional pictures he doesn't want. But that, of course, is very limited and very arduous. The Pavlovian school didn't even do that. The people brainwashed in Korea were... Well, I guess they were brainwashed, I don't know. It's a technical name, but it's just the technical name of it.

Now, it must be – if people are wasting shows to this degree – conversely, somebody must be wasting audiences, too. And certainly this is the truth. The Hollywood actor wastes audiences and wastes them and wastes them. You never saw a poorer audience than cameramen. I've talked to them and they didn't notice what was happening during the scene at all. But they knew how many feet they ran. They knew what the light reading of the scene was. But they couldn't tell you who the actors were unless they read it on their card.

A tremendous amount of duress was used and the mechanisms to produce hallucination were interesting, but they didn't work.

The assistant director is a very bad audience. No mass! He's the furtive little fellow that runs around when the heavier director tells him to, you see. And the director, he's only looking for bad acting or bad positioning, so he's no audience. He doesn't see any of the good stuff. Man, are those people wasting audiences, and they go mad in the process of doing so. They do! They just go mad in the process of acting before nobody.

By the way, the Korean is still working somewhere in the range of the 22 percent. You've heard me talk about 22 percent. I mean, any therapy will do good work with 22 percent of the people. And it's interesting that brainwashing is apparently right in that band, too. In other words, there are 22 percent of the people with which you can do anything. All right.

If you were around a movie colony any length of time, I can assure you that your services would be pulled in that direction. Because they have lots of preclears for you that nobody had better find out about.

Now, it's an interesting thing that a person does not escape affect from the upper band above him even when he doesn't know about it. He will consciously react to one-half to one tone above him – referring to your Tone Scale in Science of Survival. But just because he doesn't cognite on them, he doesn't fail to react to the upper bands.

Now, here we have, then, the disappearance of show. We're seeing it happen. We're trying to have people sit in front of the camera... I mean, pardon me, the TV set – I mean, the Fac One thing... We're trying to have them sit there for twenty-eight hours of the day in order to remedy the fact that there aren't three minutes worth of show. There is no mass in there. They can't have any mass; there's no mass involved.

So a person in Eat has got the rest of the stack sitting right there.

The very thing to do, if you wanted to kill all entertainment in the country, would be to take all mass out of entertainment. You'd kill it. So therefore, the very thing to do on your part – the very thing to do to take all confrontingness out of you – is to have nothing ever to confront.

So we go down into complications from Solids. Now, I said the Know to Mystery Scale, this very useful scale: Know; Not-Know (the ability to not-know or forget or wipe out things consciously); Look, which includes all perception; and then down into the emotional scale, the various emotional bands; then into Solids; and then, what do you know, into Think. All right.

Well, one of the ways you move up into this on a gradient scale is simply go to a lot of live theater for a while, or go to a lot of lectures, so forth. It's amazing. There are still things going on. Playing to somewhat empty halls, but these things are still going on in the society. Get yourself a few tickets and slide in and listen to what people are talking about. You'd be utterly fascinated. They're seldom very good. People go to see them; they listen to them. And just note carefully whether or not anybody in the theater audience picks up any tin cans or rotten eggs or anything. Just note carefully, by the end of the production, how many people have leaped over the footlights with a knife in their hands.

It's a very fine thing to run into Think finally, because at this band one only thinks of things he invents to think about. It's quite an amazing band. It is a band occupied normally by people who cannot face anything solid. They cannot work, they cannot exert effort in any way, and they occupy this band with great thoroughness.

Now, you will note – you will note, in such a wise – that there is still a lot of presentation going on. There are still people talking to people; there are still people listening to people. Of course, I know it's getting in to the minority, and a small percentage of the world indulges in such a thing. But the funny part of it is, that it is that way, not because the excellence of production has dropped, but because people have run out of havingness on production.

Well, they go south from there. Now, you know, that was about as far south as anybody has ever gone. But actually, they go south from there; they go way down from there. You go into Symbols. And, of course, the definition of a symbol is something that has mass, meaning and mobility. But at Symbols we never really have the thing. We have a substitute for the thing. And that is the proper definition of the Symbol band. If a Symbol has mass, meaning and mobility, that would make anything a symbol.

Remember, this country for a long time was a backwoods country. One drove up and down the streets of Philadelphia hoping that his wagon would not sink to the hub during the next block. The streets of Washington have only been paved for a short period of time. Itinerant players tried to remedy the havingness of the country, but it wasn't very easy to do. We went for a long, long period with no show to amount to anything. We were a lot, a tremendous lot, of wilderness.

But let's look at it a little more carefully, and we find out that the symbol band actually is a band of substitution. One substitutes for the thing, something else.

It's an amazing thing that you don't find the older countries of Europe fallen away to no-show to the degree that countries that are newly emerged are without show. You can understand, of course, that the Casino de Paris in Paris would of course be fairly jammed, particularly during tourist season, in view of the stage productions which they have. It isn't the costumes that people go to see; it's the lack of them.

In other words, we have a barrel and a person at the symbol band never looks or feels or weighs or inspects the barrel. He says, "That, uh... that is a... a Krokokinov barrel. Yes, yes. That's true, that's true," and goes and looks it up in a dictionary, chases down the derivations of the word, follows those through carefully on its history, writes an enormous paper on the subject, releases it, has it printed in some huge technical journal, is acclaimed far and wide until, of course, the janitor comes along, who's in better shape (because he can work), and he looks at the barrel. And he finds out it's a barrel of crackers, and he proceeds to pass them out to his family and friends and they eat it all up. And nobody ever finds out about this. It's this tremendous amount of significance which is built up on that. In other words, it's a representative stand-in.

And, by the way, the Casino de Paris is noted for its tremendously beautiful costumes – the most overdressed place you ever saw in your life. The amount of show given at the Casino to an audience which numbers thousands and thousands of people – it's big, that's a big place – is rather fantastic. A lot of poor people go to the cinema, but anybody with any money still goes to shows. In other words, there is still theater and people haven't completely flattened out on this entirely as a country at large. But we're still climbing the hump.

The characteristic of that is "Never look at the thing; always look at a substitute for the thing." Well, you can use this directly in processing by making people look at substitutes for the thing until they will finally find themselves, willy-nilly, in communication with the thing, and they find it doesn't bite. And that's the end of that particular manifestation as far as they're concerned.

I'm not telling you that people just normally dwindling-spiral and run out of show. I tell you they get used to not having any show – as we've had for the last couple hundred years over on this side – and they kind of try to work up to it. They try to get in to at least see the TV set once in a while, you know. They work up to it on a gradient scale somehow or another. There is hope! But it's all on a subject of havingness, no matter which way these aspects play. Do you see that?

Now, we go south from there and we find people who cannot substitute meanings for things, but still have to get rid of them. And they do that by eating them. This is the activity to which they are mainly dedicated and devoted.

Now, you think that nobody would come and listen to you talk. Bah! It's not true. It's not true at all. As a matter of fact, you and your experiences, with your individual viewpoint and with your knowledge and command of the subject of the mind, would probably have no difficulty whatsoever talking to any audience that could be mustered of whatever kind in America. Unless, of course, you were running a bzzzzzz! every time you saw an audience! And then they would realize that you couldn't confront them, and they don't want, then, to confront you. Got it?

Now, there are two sides – because there's cause-distance-effect as a formula for communication – there are always two sides to being eaten. There is eating and there's being eaten. And actually, it's probably a very interesting game. I know a number of animals that play this game. I've actually had a number of recipes given to me as an affectionate gesture by a chief of a tribe down in the Solomon Islands. He thought that was a good thing for me to have there.

So, handling groups is being willing to have, so that one can confront. Groups of people are people. They are essentially audiences. They are something to have. And you, to them, are something to have. And so with that communication possible and made possible because of a mutual ability to have, we have such a thing as stage presence. We have such a thing as audience interest, don't you see?

It's how you cooked "long pig." And you have to do various interesting things to overcome the rather sweet flavor of human flesh. Evidently it's very difficult to get rid of that pungency. He explained to me that very often when you were raiding the poorer tribes, they had not been dieting well. If they ate too much seafood, for instance, you could sometimes taste fish in the thing.

I would love to tell you that it's your aesthetics, just the way you hold the pinkie, the beautiful gesture with which you undulate, the way you describe things. I would love to tell you, as they do in theater workshops, that it's your command of English, your proper accent, the way you pronounce "formidable."

And he had a certain kind of berry that you cooked with the food, you know, which did away with fish and so on. It was very scientific but awfully complicated.

But it doesn't happen to be true. Those are all significances which hang on to the fact of actual havingness. The reason it is difficult to study acting is because one does it without an audience. It's very interesting.

Of course, you'd take a French chef, he could go the Solomon Island cannibaler several better. The pinch of thyme which matches the touch of ginger, and it's all flipped with exactly a certain angle of the little pinkie, you see. You have to hold the little pinkie up like this just as you flip it in a certain way, and otherwise it doesn't taste right.

The ways and means of remedying your havingness on groups, in its crudest, rudest and most elementary form, is simply to get a bunch of people and talk to them. Grab yourself sort of by the back of the neck this way and say, "Good evening," and note carefully that they are still there. That's rude and crude. But there are other ways of going about this – much smoother, more positive ways of going about this.

Well, we get down to that band, and then we get into another band below that band and that is the band of Sex. And people have had an awful lot of fun with this band. They get awfully significant about it. It's much more complicated than eating – much, much more complicated.

And one of those ways is this whole subject of confrontingness coupled with the subject of havingness. Havingness is the easiest to talk about or deliver, as far as a process is concerned: Mock up audiences. Mock up audiences in motion. Mock up audiences and have the preclear push them in. Mock them up and throw them away. Mock them up and let them remain. Mock them up and push them in. Mock them up and throw them away. Mock them up and let them remain. Just straight Creative Processing.

Well, I don't know, there's no reason to go into some of the aboriginal customs on the second dynamic, but there are several that are very, very amusing. They're very interesting and so forth.

All right, you say, somebody has an entirely black field; he can't possibly do mock-ups. All right, that's fine. Have him mock up audiences in total blackness and push them in. You see that? You know, this idea of having a... when you shut your eyes, never being able to see a mock-up but seeing only blackness and so forth – that belongs, you know, as a problem, back to about '52 or '53. It doesn't belong to now. It really doesn't. Just "Mock up a black mass and push it in, a black mass and throw it away" gives us quite adequately a clearing of this. Fellow goes anaten and lots of other things happen. But you can do it with good auditing.

Let's take courting of one kind or another, and so on – the various accepted measures. Here, sixty, seventy years ago, the whole act of courting was done according to some ritual which was notable mainly for its complexity. You talk about its inhibition, however. You sat on the girl's porch in the hammock, you know, and you talked in exactly certain tones about certain distant, disrelated subjects. You went and saw her. You didn't just jump in the car and get across the state line and get married. You didn't do that. You asked her father, and he looked into your bankbook. He tried to find out how secure you were in life and all kinds of odd, ritualistic functions that went along with this.

It simply is addressed by addressing it. Also in confrontingness, you can have somebody mock himself up confronting blackness, and all sorts of interesting things happen. He finds himself standing on the bridge of spaceships, going through space with little asteroids pattering merrily through the windscreen.

But anyway, that is even more complicated than eating, I assure you. Much more complicated.

But the subject of havingness is essentially the subject of willingness to confront or willingness to be something that you're willing to have confront.

Now, you go south from there and you get, of course, into what we have normally called the Mystery band. You get into, oh, basic religions and so on. And boy, are these things complicated.

In essence, then, people must become possessible to you if you're going to handle and talk to groups. It must be possible for you to possess people.

It's very interesting that the moment firearms came out... You would think that a manual of arms was something that evolved across the centuries, but this is not true at all. The high priests of the military at once invented rituals of Lord-knows- what complexity in order to load and fire one of these early firearms. They even had priests running up and down the line blessing the touchholes. It was quite interesting. And nobody understood firearms, so they just made a terrific complexity out of it. And I don't know whether it was blessing the touchhole or not that made them go off, but the soldiers were fairly convinced that it was.

Now, let me assure you that the race at large runs on the idea of no invasion of privacy. Got that clearly? This is a well- established fact – individuation. People feel they must individuate. The whole idea of individuation, or falling away from the race at large, is the story of disenfranchisement from the game. As one is kicked out of the game he believes that he had better individuate just a little further, he had better be just a little bit different. A fellow who can play a game doesn't have to be different.

You start to fade out about that point into anything that is easily understood, because that's its definition – "not easily understood" – from there on south. So that we get below there the next definite location is "waiting to understand." "Not easily understood," you see, goes south to "waiting to understand because it is too complex to figure out, so therefore we have to have some other thing someplace or another to undo this complexity, but it probably will not come along, but we'd better wait anyhow."

Listen to some of our modern, very popular comics, and listen to them say the same thing over and over again. It's quite fascinating. It'd be a great loss, for instance, with any of these boys if they lost a couple of their pat tricks. You've seen these many, many times, yet you laugh at them. It's the familiarity of them, it is the ARC, the repetition contained in them which makes them acceptable.

See, at that band they don't wait for anybody or they don't wait for any purpose, you see, particularly. They just kind of wait. But understanding is not part of it. No understanding enters into that at all.

So do you have to be new and different and come on the stage with fifteen lions – fifteen? No, you don't even have to have anything to say. It's the most fabulous thing you ever heard of.

Now, you see, we've gone a lot further south than the original Tone Scale in Science of Survival. This is because we've become, ourselves, hypercritical and cynical – as time went on, you see. But the truth of the matter is that we were driven to it. We have been driven to it because we have found preclears located at all these way stations south from simply being apathetic.

One time, many years ago, I was doing some high-school theatricals, and we had a whole scene for which there was no fill, and we all of a sudden had a blank spot on the program, you see. The characters that were supposed to go through that particular skit just hadn't appeared. They'd evidently backed out at the last moment. I went on the stage and sat down and ate a piece of pie and a sandwich.

Now, this produces something fantastic in processing. If an auditor doesn't understand this when he's processing these days with modern processes, he gets himself into an interesting batch of trouble. He thinks he's making the preclear worse.

Of course, I admit there was novelty in this since there was no piece of pie and no sandwich. But I didn't say a word for twelve minutes. And that's an awful long time to be on a stage doing nothing and saying nothing, except eat this piece of pie. I did not even eat it spectacularly! I just ate it – and the audience sat there and watched me eat this piece of pie and then eat this sandwich, and rolled in the aisles.

He starts processing the preclear on Connectedness. The best process I know on the subject of Connectedness would simply be "What could you make connect with you on how many vias?" Nice complicated process.

There was only one original bit in it. When I was through with the pie plate I did throw it – non-extant – offscene and have somebody back there drop a couple of dishpans. But otherwise, I didn't look at the audience, talk to them or apparently communicate with them. There is evidently a tremendous willingness, then, on the part of an audience to communicate. This is what that proved to me. I just kind of knew that I'd get away with it. I was cocky in those days.

Now, originally the process was even simpler than that, but it proved a little too simple: "What could you make connect with you?" You had him look around and spot things that he could make connect with him. Now, that's an interesting thing to do, an interesting exercise. The only trouble is, it is a bit forthright and occasionally misses the preclear. So what you do is add "via how many other things." "What could you make connect with you via how many other things?" See? Not only "What could you make connect with you?" but "How zig-zagily, crookedly and round- aboutly could you make this occur?" And we'd find this is much to the appetite of the people on the south end of the scale. They think this is a delightful process. It begins to work very easily and nicely. And they work it, and they work it with innocence. And they sit there, and they run as good preclears should, and then they get apathetic, and they get more and more apathetic.

But there are many instances of this kind. You really don't have to have much to say or to be terribly original. The one thing which you must not be, however, is nervous. Above all things, you must belong there as much as they belong there. At least that much. When you start to exceed this, you start to command the audience. You see that? You belong there more, a little bit more, than they belong there. This is delivered by your certainty and your appearance. You are simply there and you look like you're there. And you look like you're there because you know you should be there. Don't you see? It's very esoteric.

But unfortunately, some of them simply get caved in with effort before they hit apathy. Then they hit this apathy and they get very apathetic, and they get more and more apathetic. And then after a while they get sad. And after a while they get afraid, and so they come on up the Tone Scale.

Now, Scientology at this time is doing very well across the world. If it were doing just a little bit better, there would be things not happening which are happening at this moment on the major scene of nations. Of that, I assure you. We do have the ear of more people than you would suspect. There are more people listening. Today, Scientology is accepted in a state of rather frigid wariness by the professions which it is supplanting. They are no longer scoffing at it. They get down to the point of saying "Oh, Hubbard died yesterday," or "The whole subject is uh... uh... Where did you hear about it?" We have conducted a personal survey of such people; we know.

But this process, particularly, is one which does turn on the subzero scale. "What could you make connect with you on how many vias?" They come upscale on this process, and you do actually move them up into this.

Also, it's quite amazing how many people you run into who have vaguely heard of it. Now, if you run into one in a hundred on the face of earth, this is quite amazing, quite amazing. Because we're not doing the standard American Medical Association advertising campaign. We're not doing any of these things.

Running Stop-C-S and some other modern processes you see the similar manifestations. A person is apt to feel awfully, awfully apathetic for a little while. Take "Keep it from going away." You ask somebody to keep something from going away. You hand it to him. You're liable to turn on an awful lot of soggy, degraded sort of feeling and so on.

In other words, we're doing, in a small way, all right. But one of these days, one of these days, somebody about your shape and size as an individual is going to have to stand up and talk, because they won't let you sit there. You got the idea?

And if you didn't know about the subzero scale, you'd say "I'm making the preclear worse," just like I thought for five years. I thought, "Well, you run these processes, it makes the preclear worse." No! We had our hands right on processes that were making them better, except it isn't normal and natural to expect that a person would be healthier in a state of apathy than in a state of ugh. But it's true; he would be. His health would be better going around apathetically.

A military organization, which at this moment is engaged in a very large and bloody war, has just interrupted its comm lines to me, as far as I am concerned. But before this unfortunate incident occurred, I was engaged in writing their manual on mental health.

A chap one day had been run on a process which did this, and he said all of a sudden, "You know, I... uh..." – this is after the session – he says, "You know, I... I – I think I've been calling boredom wrong all of my life. I... There's something wrong with this. You know I think what I've been calling boredom is really apathy. And this means that I would occasionally come up tone to feeling bored. But I wasn't feeling bored, I was really feeling apathetic. I wonder how boredom feels?" He found out a few days later and he came back and told me. He says, "You know," he says, "boredom is entirely different than apathy." He says, "You don't, when you're bored, have a sick, degraded feeling in your stomach." A big cognition, see.

You don't think we get around? It's quite fascinating. Wherever you look, we are more capable of penetrating and we are doing a better job of penetrating than before.

Therefore, we in many instances have, as auditors and people practicing in Scientology, actually believed that we were not achieving any effect upon people when we were, and we were actually bettering people when we thought we were running them into the ground. Well, that's because we weren't cynical enough much earlier in the development of the subject. If we'd been more cynical, we would have simply looked at it plainly and flatly and said, "The human race, heh, is not flat on its back, but sooner or later we will get it there."

You see, we have the know-how. We do have the know-how. Even if you, in your experience and so forth, were only able to bring calmness or sobriety to one alcoholic in the case of three or four hours of processing – if that was all you could do, you see, by running a little bit of 8-C, just make him feel better – you're still doing more than anyone else has ever done in the field of the mind.

Now, an individual, then, would better into unconsciousness. Now, look at that one. Could a person better into unconsciousness? Yes, he frequently does become better by becoming unconscious.

But the other day, over at the HGC, we raised somebody's IQ, I think, forty-four points. Forty-four points! It's not possible. We did it. We do it rather usually.

Now, this is no reason why the medical profession should go on knocking everybody out with squirt guns, or whatever they do. Those syringes they go around with all the time. Just knocking a person out doesn't make him better, but a person who is getting better very often presents the aspect of being knocked out. They get groggy. They go "wog-wog," you know.

And what is more promising: with indoctrination into good auditing procedure, and with a better understanding of techniques, and better codifications to deliver an understanding to auditors, and with their better use of them with better procedure, we are getting better and better and better results. And somewhere along the line, we'll have to quit or we will become far, far too popular.

Well, the first time I found this taking place was when I was processing somebody and they went clean unconscious.

You can't sit and know all we know forever. You see, you just can't do it. It isn't true that people will try to shoot you down. Only the weaker-minded will, and they're always bad shots.

Obviously they were totally out. They were not in communication with me at all, obviously, but I just kept on giving them the auditing command anyway, which was a subjective command. And what do you know! They followed it all the way through much better than they had a few minutes before when evidently totally awake.

No, one of these days – one of these days, let's face it – you're going to have to face it.

Now, this was quite fascinating, because they were totally awake as somebody else. So the whole of valence shifting is simply ceasing to be awake as Joe and waking up as Bill. See, that'd be the whole of valence shifting. One passes out of Father's valence into unconsciousness, which is "It's better off for you to be unconscious than to be conscious as Papa, because you aren't Papa." It's very complicated.

I was scared a few weeks ago. I had a piece of paper put in front of me that moved me back about an inch in the chair. You know, thud! You know – quickly recovering my aplomb and saying, "Oh, yes, yes. Carry on," and all that sort of thing, and – rrrrrrrrr!

I don't know how many echelons a person would have to move through in terms of unconsciousness to get out of maybe forty or fifty valences, one after the other, because each one of those would go through unconsciousnesses to get better before he totally passed out of that valence.

A discussion was taking place of what we would use for training quarters in a certain country for 250 thousand men. And the size hadn't come home to me at all until a choice of bases was under discussion. And they had a spare infantry-training school which had been closed down since the war. And it turned out that it wasn't big enough for the task we were going to have to accomplish in about three years. A whole infantry-training school isn't big enough to handle a quarter of a million men, who would only be run through the school, you see, at a few at a time.

In other words, how many unconsciousnesses north does the preclear have to go to himself become unconscious.

But, let's take 250 thousand men and divide it by thirty-six. Can you do that? A third of a quarter of a million. How many men is it? How many people is that? How long you going to train them so as to resist brainwashing, be able to handle enemy propaganda, be able to withstand the rigors of modern war? How long? Well, I wouldn't attempt it in under three or four months. How many people is that over a period?

Now, I hate to tell you these things really, because it's liable to give you a snide attitude toward the people walking up and down the street. You're liable to get the idea that these people are not quite there, and I don't want you to get that idea at all, because they obviously aren't.

Well, the training school would have had to have been enlarged because it wasn't big enough to hold the number of people which would have had to have been trained at one time. And I had no more chance of laying my hands on enough Instructors to run that school than a man in the moon, even though I'd reached out for every auditor in the world today. And that's only a quarter of a million men. You don't train thousands of people at a time without personal contact.

But here's the great oddity. They get along one way or another or somehow. They bungle through in some way. And the only thing we can object to is occasionally we're what they bungle across. And when they do that, we have, of course, a great license to object.

If anybody has a long memory, do you remember Los Angeles? Now, how many people was that? How many people was that? And the tremendous amount of randomity, of course, might have been occurring from lack of know-how in terms of organization, but it was an awful lot of randomity. There was a lot of motion there which wasn't under good control at all. We still learned something.

But actually, until man can develop a criteria of his own, not something borrowed from his great-great-great-great-great grandmother, only then can he move up into a level of culture that you would call in any way, shape or form, a desirable level of culture.

But are we going to do a first-class, Los Angeles sort of a job on a project of training 250 thousand men? No, then it takes everybody everywhere to pitch in on that job. Fantastic as it may seem, it would take everybody everywhere. And of course, a lot of people can't come. They've got their sectors nailed down. So we just have to multiply everybody by four, you see, that is there. And we say, "You're four people today. This is your class, that five hundred people over there that are milling in a small circle."

Now, if an individual is unconscious himself while being conscious as Grandpa, then we get the interesting aspect that these individuals that can be affected by nothing – you know they take everything in their stride; they do not react to things; they tell you "You shouldn't be so emotional. You should take it all calmly and philosophically like I do." Of course, this individual doesn't ever do anything, but that's beside the point. "You should be calm, you see, and you should not react. You shouldn't go into motion of one kind or another. You should be real calm."

Now, we're not embarking on that tomorrow. We're not embarking on such projects immediately in all directions. But the time to learn to confront groups is now. The time to train groups is now, because the very best you could do is simply stand up and train men to train groups, which men know nothing about your subject at all.

The funny part of it is, this individual that evidently will not react to anything is in a total hypnotic trance. And anything you say to him goes in, thud! and he will react to it just like a puppy dog if you know this. And that's a horrible thing to find out about somebody.

It makes a sad look when you look it over. The thoroughness of the training would be very un-thorough indeed, under present circumstances. The handling of groups, though – the handling of groups definitely includes the handling of a large group of students under lecture. Don't think that you wouldn't have to handle them just like you would an audience of any kind. They won't learn a thing unless you do.

Here's this individual who is in an obsessive game condition. He's in a game condition whereby he's been fighting unknowingly some sort of a fight or game or other and – I don't know, the penguins will get him or something. And he's been fighting this game. And here he is and he's evidently alert, you know, and he's on his toes and so on. And you say something to him, and he says, "Ah, that's not true, rrr-rarr-rar-rar-rar-rarr," see. And you say, "MY goodness, what a formidable person. He's really getting through life, isn't he? He just brushes everything off."

All right. Now, completely aside from some large project which is now put up on the shelf because the army involved is shooting, you have a sphere of activity yourself in which you can talk. Your ability to talk is one thing. Your ability to confront a group is another. And under that heading is your ability to handle and control them. And here's the funny thing: If you can handle and control them, the amount of effort you have to put into the talk is very slight indeed. Strain comes on instruction only when you can't handle and control the people to whom you're talking.

Well, the funny part of it is he's in a total hypnotic trace. That's something you'll miss unless you look. Actually, all you'd have to do, in spite of how he is snarling at you, is fix your finger in front of his face like this and say, "Bark!" He would say to you, "Well, it doesn't affect me. Nothing you can do would really affect me. Woof! I'm pretty tough or..."

Now, the odd part of it is, an audience is perfectly willing to be handled and controlled. Very willing; tremendous willingness. All you have to do is run good 8-C on them, and they think this is gorgeous. You just talk to them with good 8-C. Talk to them complicatedly enough, too. But you talk with good 8-C. You don't say, "Now we'll take up the problem of all of these airplanes. Now, how many of you boys have studied your lessons about submarines? Well now, that's very, very good. By the way, at 2:15 we all stand to for baggage inspection." This isn't running good 8-C on a group and they don't like it.

One way or another your suggestion will go in, it will penetrate and it will act, because it is usually more alive than he is.

So, handling, controlling a group has a great deal to do with the ARC you can maintain with a group. And every Scientologist should, on his own initiative, put himself into a better havingness in terms of audience. Don't start crossing the first stage-fright period with your first real audience. You get the idea? Cross it first – either on the gradient scale of simply going out and talking to the Boy Scouts Troop 10 or remedying it in an auditing session. Any way you care to go about it, you actually should practice up a little bit on being able to handle and control a group of people. It would do you worlds of good. Make you feel good; make you feel real good.

In handling preclears, it's one of the more fabulous things, that the preclear who acts the roughest and snidest toward the auditor is usually closest to a total hypnotic trance. And the funny part of it is, that although you apparently are making no impression on him whatsoever, if you became rough or lost your temper a little bit and said some things which were slightly engramic, they would be.

Now, actually, in handling groups and so forth, I, of course, myself, am a little shy. I like to be amongst friends. I do. I like to be amongst friends. I do not like to talk to hostile groups. I really do not.

Such a person is in an obsessive resistance which inverts and pulls in on him everything that is said to him. So, he can't select anything that's said to him. He can't analyze it or look at it. It's below his level of inspection. Everything that's said to him goes below the level of inspection. How does he know?

And I'm mean, too, when I do. You never saw such a change in a man in your life as when I have to talk to a hostile group. I immediately go off onto an entirely different line of stagecraft. It's tough! It's tough! They're there challengingly. They are willing to listen, but they already have been told how bad it is. They're sure you're not going to say anything interesting. But they're going to suffer through it somehow so that they can get on with the dessert or something. I get mean about that time, and I do bad things. I seldom give bad reports on myself, but that is actually an instance when I do.

Now remember, I gave you that first characteristic; I said when they go below apathy, they get down to a point of where they're not conscious of the moment just passed, not conscious of the moment which will come and not conscious of the moment they are in. But they can be a valence sitting there raising hell with you and usually are.

I hypnotized, one time, the staff of St. Elizabeth's. Told them they'd heard a good speech and left the stage. They all came around afterwards saying, "What a good speech that was you gave!" That was a mean thing to do. That was certainly backing out of it, wasn't it? But it was in the early career of Dianetics and I felt very much like backing out of it. I was preceded by someone who told all of them how bad it was over "Ron-ward."

Now, this person, oddly enough, fulfills all the condition of an hypnotic subject. And just because they don't react, and instantly the body goes into some sort of a rapport the second that you command it to, is no reason why you haven't got them in an hypnotic trance, don't you see. The valence doesn't hypnotize. You can't hypnotize Grandfather because he's not there; he's been dead for years. But you can hypnotize his grandson Johnny who is sitting just in back of the valence. This is quite fabulous.

They might afterwards have suspected my knowledge of the mind, but certainly not my knowledge of hypnotism. It's very easy to hypnotize groups.

So that these people have a tendency to go around and pick up life as just a running fire of engram, you might say. It's just total moment-to-moment. They see a mantelpiece and they know all about the mantelpiece. They know it falls in on people and hurts people, so they know that's dangerous. And that grows in as something against which they should violently react. Only, of course, they're too low to react, so they simply look at the mantelpiece. But the odd part of it is, is some part of them violently reacts to the mantelpiece. There they sit, below apathy, evidently not reacting, but they look at something and they do react.

Another time, I talked to a group of people that couldn't have cared less about hearing anyone. But it was on their schedule that there was twenty minutes going to be devoted to a speaker, and at the last moment they hadn't been able to find any, so they got me. This is the sort of a position, you see, which is optimum – optimum. Well, I found out that in view of the fact that they couldn't care less, I might as well make them care more, and I became a bad boy at once and started insulting them. It's all I could do. I at least got their attention.

So you have this odd fact of their unlearning characteristics. They can't unlearn. It's not possible for them to unlearn something. So be careful of what you teach them. Don't act like the society does. Don't take these people and put them in jail, because they won't unlearn it. Don't tell them they're criminals; they won't unlearn it. Don't tell them they're bad children; they won't unlearn that. Don't tell them they're bad husbands; they go, "I am now a bad husband."

I was rather amazed afterwards – I was rather amazed afterwards... Actually I was rather insulting. I talked about their particular activities and not about mine at all. Never said a word about my activities, but said tremendously about theirs. And they hadn't been very nice to me when I had come in, you see, and I taught them better. I went down the list of their faults, one after the other, castigated them rather roundly, sarcastically and impudently. And afterwards, two of them came around and congratulated me for having given the only sincere speech they had ever heard there.

Now, they only go crazy when somebody tells them they're a bad husband and a good wife or something. Somebody tells them they're a bad husband and a good husband because they're a bad husband because... so on. And eventually they get mixed up, and their selectivity is now they can't select out which hypnotic trance to follow, so they have to cease to be along that particular line or be a confusion along that particular line. Maybe after that they're just a confusion. They go down and join the traffic department and plan traffic.

I suppose that one has a havingness on hostile groups as far as that's concerned. But the truth be told, I've never had any group be hostile long. Their hostility rather has a tendency to blow up to the degree that you find them on the Tone Scale. And you talk to them on their position of the Tone Scale and they will very quickly realize that you are real.

Wherever we see somebody who is having a hard time in life and whose tone is obviously somewhere along "beautiful serenity," you know, don't get the idea that there isn't chaos going on, because there is.

Now, this isn't necessarily a trick. One simply falls into it. He inspects the situation and he talks. So actually there is no such thing as a bad audience – unless, of course, it is a group that wants to hang you. But of course, they are not technically an audience. The type of entertainment they want doesn't include you alive. So even then there's a saving grace. But there is no really bad audience.

Somebody comes along and says of the fireplug, "That's green." This person goes walking up the street wondering how the person knew they had a green complexion, because their complexion obviously at this time is now green. Yet when you confront them and ask them why they are looking sad, they can't tell you. "Well, did you hear somebody say something?"

A man should be able to control almost any kind of an audience. Very few petitioners ever believe that the United States government could be an audience. But there was a chap one time who wrote... Did you ever read the story of The Man Without a Country? All about Philip Nolan? Well, the author of that, one time, wrote a petition for the Customs House – if I remember rightly – on raising pay or doing something of the sort. And he wrote it so well and it was so beautifully expressed, and it was so seldom anything like that had ever been sent to the government at large, that they raised everybody's pay. Even the government could be an audience. Now, that's a fantastic thing. In other words, there is no limit whatsoever to the direction you can appeal or to the level you can appeal.

"No. What do you think I am, crazy? Do you think I take in everything that is said to me?"

People used to criticize George Wichelow over in London – rather broke his morale down – for going out in Hyde Park and lecturing alongside of the communists and lecturing elsewhere. But the funny part of it was, he has his regular group. He's over in Jersey now, and he's not lecturing in Hyde Park anymore – people miss him. There are an awful lot of people drifted by there. As a matter of fact, we were mentioned in two or three leading newspapers, along with other groups that were seen lecturing in Hyde Park.

Well, don't say, "Yes, I think so," because they'll have to think so that way, too.

But the point is that even this level of audience and that type of talking was effective. It doesn't matter what kind of an audience you get together. It doesn't matter particularly how big they are or how small they are. It really doesn't matter how interesting you are or uninteresting you are. The point of the matter is, all you have to do is say something to them. And just do this, and you find out you get along splendidly. But you find out that by not doing it you are apt to someday find yourself confronting an audience, not having had any havingness on audiences for a long time, with the result: stage fright, tongue- tiedness, and so on. I'm not backing up a horrible fate for you, but I am telling you for true that you should talk.

What we look at in this wise is an ambulant dramatization dragging around an hypnotized preclear. And I'm afraid this comes close to being average man. It does begin to look this way.

Now, the whole world is trying to tell you as an individual that you should never talk. There are two crimes in this universe. One is thereness and the other is communicatingness. Both are attempted to be punished. People attempt to punish both of these things. Thereness and communicatingness. The only two things that you can do wrong are to communicate and to be there. All crimes fall into that category. The law uniformly makes you prove that you weren't there. If you can prove you weren't there, why, they immediately exonerate you. That's thereness.

Now, the odd part of it is that he wakes up on simple, basic, fundamental communications, truths and actions. That's why processing works. He wakes up. He says, "That's my language." All of a sudden he says, "Ha! Somebody said something to me." See, that's the first time that's happened. They've been talking to his dramatizations or his valence before this, and somebody has said something to him, you see. Something happens; he starts to wake up.

Now, we take the whole subject of communicatingness. I don't care whether you did it by words or by bullets or with a knife or something, the only thing anybody ever objects to is communicatinguess apparently. This is the way the world runs, apparently.

So don't be amazed if he goes completely anaten as a dramatization as he wakes up as himself. He'll get this odd manifestation of himself feeling totally awake and giving the aspect to the auditor or the person talking to him of being totally asleep. We have merely reversed the situation, you see. The valence went to sleep and he started to come awake, so that he looks like he's asleep. Deceptive, huh?

Two crimes: thereness and communicatingness. There are only two ways for a man to get well: thereness and communicatingness.

But the funny part of it is that you can go right on and audit him very well. I mean, all that's asleep is the dramatized valence.

Now, you, by succumbing to the law against being there and the law against communicating, are aiding and abetting your own demise. You are being a partner to the crime of your own extinction. So, if you can be discouraged in doing either of these two things, you can be made ill. That's for sure. Only those things to which you cannot or dare not communicate can affect you. Fantastic, but true.

Now, he is not yet strong enough to wiggle the arms and do those other things, you see. He's not strong enough to prop open the eyelids yet. But if you go on processing him and don't quit at that point, why, he'll get strong enough so he can open the eyelids. Interesting phenomena.

Now, if you yourself feel that you cannot communicate to groups and cannot hold them, you will become the victim of groups. And because life is a third-dynamic activity – not a first-dynamic activity – part of living consists of confronting groups. And when you cut and ran, or let the shakes deter you from shaking, you of course are being a partner to your own demise.

This series of processes which have recently been developed are devoted exclusively to picking up a being where he is and boosting him up the line with the least barriers encountered in terms of bank and other valences. You encounter the least number of barriers possible, and you just try to boost him up the line. So don't be alarmed if you find yourself auditing somebody who's gone completely dong. He'll tell you afterwards, "I don't know why you didn't keep on talking because I could hear you all right." Now, what he's really confessing is that he himself can't wobble the chin without the help of the bank and other mechanisms and automaticities. He can't wobble the chin and wiggle the vocal chords, so he has a hard time acknowledging.

So then, it actually doesn't come down to a basis of you should do this for dear old Scientology, see. It actually comes down to a basis you should do it because in the past I am sure that you have done an audience or two in. I'm sure you have. Otherwise you wouldn't be shy of them today, if you are. Now, of course, many of you are not at all audience shy, and that is very fine. That's very fine. You should practice, however, once in a while.

He gets very, rather rapidly, able to kind of bob his head a little bit, you know. You'll sometimes see some guy who is evidently totally anaten, and you'll give him an auditing command. If you watch him very carefully, why, he'll manage a little bob of the head. And it gets into a better and better headbob, and after a while he would himself begin to talk.

One of the most interesting activities in which a person can engage is the instruction of his fellow man, in making his life a bit better and in making the world a better place in which to live. In fact, I would go so far as to say I don't know of any other activity. But that's just my stupidity. I have had some past acquaintances who tell me that destroying the whole world from pole to pole is an interesting activity, too. They have told me this.

Well, don't be amazed if he starts to talk sadly or angrily or something to you, as though you have just knifed him to the heart, because that's where he moved on the Tone Scale – up, not down.

Well, the total win for destroying the world from pole to pole will consist of not needing a fire in the future with which to fry eggs on earth. You won't need a fire to fry eggs on earth after the boys have got it all neatly dusted off, but you won't have any eggs, either! So these blessings are not always blessings.

Interesting phenomena, the subzero manifestations. And of course, we're all Scientologists here so I can tell you it is the exact phenomenon of lost past life. It is not necessarily true that a thetan forgets everything simply because he loses a body. That is not necessarily true at all. He depends on the havingness of a body to remedy his havingness. When he loses it, he drops so far in tone that he drops into the no-memory band – no record, no memory, don't care. And if you bring him upscale he begins to be mad as hell at having lost that body. Oh, he begins to really, really gripe about it.

It does seem to me that making the world a better place in which to live, maintaining people's interest in existence, keeping the game going, helping your fellow man – these things seem to be very worthwhile activities, and I know as long as I engage in them and keep my attention off of my more wicked impulses, I feel fine.

And one of the interesting things I did one day with a Connectedness process was – right out of thin air, I was running Connectedness, and the fellow all of a sudden went gog-wog-glub. And I kept on giving him the auditing command and so forth. And all of a sudden the preclear sat up in the chair and said, "Damn them!"

So that's really the only therapy I have indulged in recently. And whereas I'm not in awfully good condition, you know – I never am – I nevertheless feel more satisfied than many of the preclears I've had recently.

I said, "What's the matter?"

Thank you.

"They had a nerve!"

Thank you.

"Who had a nerve?"

"Where am I?"

Come to find out he'd just been knocked out at the Battle of Hastings. He thought it was kind of mean for full-armored knights to be attacking a couple of unarmored peasants, of which he was one.

Now, just how he'd been coasting up the track since, he didn't bother to explain, nor did he have any memory of it. But his last intimate consciousness, as a thetan and a being not dependent on a body in any way, was getting knocked off at the Battle of Hastings. So, of course, we get lots of argument from people about past lives.

Of course, it isn't any such thing as a "past life." How can we speak of the person standing before us in past tense? There are past identities, but there were certainly never past lives. He loves, though, to categorize things on a past-life basis, which frees him from any further responsibility for having stolen the warden's chickens. And he very glibly says, "Oh, that was life before last." See, he glibly says this. That's very easy, because this absolves him of any responsibility for it.

Well, have him look it up in the statute books. Nowhere in the statute books does it say a thetan is guilty of anything. It says bodies are guilty, and that settles it. A body is buried. If you'll notice, it's always The People v. John Jones. See, "John Jones." Well, he's a thetan. His name is something he'd tailor up. Somebody else named this body "John Jones." He gets out from it sideways with the greatest of ease, you see.

But there are no past lives. One has been living continuously for a long time and he never ceased to live. But he did drop down tone.

You suddenly take away from somebody who is carrying it, two hundred pounds of potatoes that were his, and he'll complain. You can watch him drop down tone. Now, if somebody is carrying two hundred pounds of gold, and he had amassed this at great care and labor, cross-postulates and not-knowingness; and he'd gradually accumulated this tremendous amount of gold, and somebody came along and took this gold away from him at once, he would probably be so apathetic about it that he would not complain, you see.

Now, he could beef about the potatoes; he could argue, see. Somebody came along – he has this two hundred pounds of potatoes, and he knows there are a few thousand pounds more in the world – and they took these two hundred pounds of potatoes away from him, and he said, "Ah, those dirty dogs! They robbed me of two hundred pounds of potatoes!" See, he could still rah-wraw. Or he can say, "You know, I am afraid to walk down that road anymore with potatoes." Or he can say, "You know, that makes me pretty sad." Or he could say, "I sure feel apathetic about that," and go back and dig some more potatoes the next day, you know; knock off for three or four days on digging potatoes.

It's quite a different thing with a higher value. Two hundred pounds in gold – they take it away from him, he goes below apathy. He simply sits down, and you say to him, "Hey! Hey!" And you say, "Hey!"

"Nah."

"Hey! What's the matter?"

"Umm." And that's about all the explanation you'd get for his tone.

Well, we do this with thetans, as auditors, all the time. We say, "Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey you, wake up!"

And he says, finally, "Hm?"

And we say, "What's the matter with you? What's the matter with you?"

He says, "Damn them!" Because what'd he lose? He lost two hundred pounds of body, just like that.

He nursed it carefully. He was very careful to steal it from the very best people! Raised it up. Educated it. Protected it. Somehow or another got it through school. Somehow or another got enough things stolen to keep it going in the lean periods, you know. Kept it out of jail. Found it a good dame. You know, he really cared for this thing. Groomed it every morning, polished it every night; careful never to run it into lampposts or anything like that. Somebody comes along and they take it away from him.

And, of course, he gets more apathetic than he would get at losing two hundred pounds of gold just like that. And he doesn't come out of that easily, even though he gets another body, because the body that made him apathetic isn't there again ever. He gets very, very significant at this band.

Well, we take the Greek. The Greek knew pretty well that people lived before. The Egyptian was certain of it, earlier than that. Later than that we find the primary mission of a church, whose name we will not mention, substituting good spirits for all the bad ones that were running around in Europe.

The main appeal that the Roman Catholic church had in its early inception – the main appeal that it had – was simply that it would protect you from bad spirits by exerting a certain amount of power over them. And the peasant bought this. Everybody bought this because they knew all about bad spirits. They knew that lately when they were exteriorized they didn't intend anybody any good, so they could understand perfectly how nobody else would.

That is the only way Catholicism got its grip on Europe. You can go back and examine the histories very carefully, but this is what it amounts to.

Now that nobody is worried about spirits at all we find the whole Catholic movement much paler in the world than it was once. They have to mock up a new enemy in order to really get along well.

But here we have loss of havingness resulting suddenly and catastrophically in subzero scale position which contains no memory, no recall, no present, no past, no future, no existence: "It didn't happen. It couldn't happen. I'm not here. It never was." And we get a good look for the first time at the subzero scale, which is not, by the way, a new scale. But to understand this scale was quite something else because the scale itself just gets more and more complicated from Effort on down. It gets so complicated it goes beyond comprehension. But one can describe it in negatives. He can isolate those things which are not present on the subzero scale and describe them, and the things that are not present are memory, reaction, sensation and all of the upper scale. And that's what's in the subzero scale.

Now, do not confuse insanity with subzero scale. Insanity is a peculiar mechanism which happens. You can turn on the sensation of insanity any time you wish in a preclear by getting him to get the idea that he must have something but can't have it, that he must reach something but can't reach it, that he must withdraw but can't withdraw. Any of those sets, rigidly enough held by the preclear, gives him the feeling of nahhhhhhhh! whoa! It is a very delicate condition. It's delicate in that it's almost impossible to continue.

Just why they don't get more cures – those people that handle the insane – is a great mystery. Barrett and I were going to write them a letter the other day and ask them "Why don't you people get your 22 percent quota of cures?"

That is an odd circumstance. It is simply a conflict existing right on the point of conflict, and we get a "no decide" on an emergency measure, and we get the feeling of insanity. And when that persists, then the insanity persists.

Well, everybody has felt for a moment this terrific emergency situation in which there could be no decision. He had to make a decision! He can't make a decision! You see? Anybody has felt that for a moment.

Now, if we synthesize that and extend it in continuance on the track without disturbing it in any way, we get then this thing called the glee of insanity or the feeling of insanity, and so on. It's just a no-responsibility in any way.

But I call something to your attention: that the insane do gyrate, they do move, they do chatter and they can still dramatize, and that is something. It is when they can't dramatize at all, when they're in a catatonic state, that people consider them completely incurable. Actually, a catatonic is not incurable; they are merely difficult. You could do lots of things with a catatonic. No need to go into that since this is no talk on the subject. But one of the things you could do is simply lie down alongside of them – assume the same positions. They get mad after a while; that's more duplication than they could understand. They'd [be] liable to turn around and say, "What are you doing?"

But, looking at the Tone Scale at large, we do see that we have a firmer set of values. We can work more positively and understand more certainly a betterment when it occurs. That's one of the tricks of any therapy, is to find out when the patient is getting well. That's one of the great difficulties, since it was formerly impossible to rely upon the patient's statement. He either said he was, rather obsessively – "Oh, I feel so much better! I am very grateful to you" – and falls over dead, you know. And the other one... And the other one has never been able to raise his hands above his belt before and he says, "I'm damned if you're going to treat me like that anymore!" See, and so on.

But the only thing that you notice is the variability of reaction following this rather pat pattern as it moves upscale.

Now, we have many training processes which are the processes which have formerly moved people upscale rather rapidly. They are not just training processes. An auditor has to know how to do them. He has to get along with them well. Each one of these, however, moves people on the Tone Scale, and so he gets a good chance to look this over – particularly old Opening Procedure by Duplication, an early Scientology process which has just come back into view. It'll be in view, too. Because you can watch a person walk right up the Know to Mystery Scale. They go tock- tock-tock-tock-tock-tock-tock. It's very fascinating. One moment they're talking about – oh, I don't know, they walk over to a book and they pick it up and they say, "I hope it's something about sex," and they put it down, and so on. And they walk over to the bottle, and say, "I wanted something to eat, not to drink," and so on. And they'll make remarks, if you ask them, which tell you just where they have gone to on this Know to Mystery Scale. We have a very handy tool, then, of analysis.

And the unfortunate part of it is, the only real diagnosis in terms of analysis – the only real diagnosis there is on the subzero scale – is in terms of being able to experience the present, imagine the future and recall the past. Reality of these three things are the important things in diagnosis on that scale. And it means the ability to experience (and this is also monitored by the ability to learn), the ability to forget and the ability to handle or reject a datum are all establishing points on this subzero scale.

And when you increase and better those abilities, you better them up till even they can feel apathetic.

Thank you.