In this lecture I am going to cover the Auditor’s Code and beginnings of Standard Procedure. Very bad things happen when the Auditor’s Code gets broken.

The first thing to cover with Standard Procedure is the subject of accessibility. The Standard Procedure Charts should begin with accessibility. It actually begins with “For Accessible Cases.” There isn’t any difference in Standard Procedure for an inaccessible case and Standard Procedure for an accessible case except that one is just a bit further removed from a pianola case. The effort is the same; the distance is much greater.

There are two major crimes in Dianetics. The first one is the invalidation of the preclear’s data, and this is probably the most serious breach of the Auditor’s Code. The second one is failure to reduce every engram which is contacted, or the basics on that chain. Those are the crimes of high treason against your preclear

The problem of accessibility is not just the problem of treating someone who is inaccessible by reason of insanity. The accessibility of an individual has to do with his own ability to communicate with his environment and to communicate with his own past. When we regard accessibility in this way we find that we have a great deal more scope in the word inaccessible, because there are many people who can turn in something like a day’s work who are yet inaccessible cases. For instance, the person who is bound and determined to stay sick, who won’t talk to you, who will have nothing to do with being healed in any way, is an inaccessible case.

The reason the Auditor’s Code is the Auditor’s Code doesn’t have to do with whether or not it is nice or civilized. It has to do with whether or not you get processing done on your preclear. Actually, an auditor by reversing the code could considerably upset the mental health of the preclear, and if he could upset the preclear’s mental health, he could probably upset that person’s physical health too. This is not something that should be regarded lightly.

In the past, insanity has been measured in terms of the danger the society could expect from the individual rather than the rationale of the individual. Therefore we have made an error in this society of just branding certain people as psychotic who are intractable and who are dangerous to themselves or to society. Start to go into legal codes and you will find out that what occupies a very dominant position in every code is whether or not this person is dangerous to himself or society. That certainly does not include all that it should include.

The invalidation of data is a very serious thing. When we regard the tone scale and affinity, communication and reality, we can see immediately that the invalidation of data is a reversal of reality.

The rationality of an individual is very much to point, because that individual who will not ably care for himself, for his family, for his group or for mankind is not rational. And that person who, by his acts, actually endangers himself, the future, the group or mankind (the classification should not be limited just to a person who strikes a blow or tries to eat razor blades), who is so irrational, for instance, as to believe that the atom bomb is the answer to our future security, is of course insane. What is insanity? It is just irrationality. And does that person threaten the society? Yes, he does.

This shows you the dynamic nature of affinity, communication and reality. They are vectors which represent something, rather than just static lines on a graph. They have in them force values. There is a certain flow along these vector lines, and by interruption of that flow one can actually reverse its polarity at a particular point.

So let’s look at the psychotic in terms of a time factor. Let’s not overlook the important by stressing the dramatic, since the important is not always dramatic. The sudden punch, the immediate slam of impact, is very dramatic.

If we knew more about the actual electromagnetic-gravitic nature of thought as opposed to energy we would be able to understand just what was getting reversed, but just by the fact that we can see that something is getting reversed we have approached this problem of what the energy is that is contained in thought itself. We can see that there is a flow.

Look in the newspaper headlines and you will see “FIVE-BILLION DOLLAR WAREHOUSE BURNS UP.” That is news. And right alongside of it there is a little item which says “The United States now has 3,750,000 juvenile delinquents.” I’m afraid that warehouse can be rebuilt rather rapidly, but the job of rehabilitating 3,750,000 juvenile delinquents is an enormous task and it means a great deal in terms of the survival of this society.

Take affinity. It is a flowing line of force which, if suddenly reversed, reverses the polarity and makes an encystment. There is a sudden impulse which makes a storage of energy. This would be impossible, however, in the absence of something to store it in.

The evaluation of the data is all wrong. You find that three people died in this five-billion-dollar fire, but you look over here in this juvenile delinquent column and you are probably looking at hundreds of thousands of dead people. This shows the value of a sudden punch to newspapers. The time factor enters into it. In other words, if we spread bad news over a long enough period it is no longer bad news. Is that rational? That says that if bad news is spread over a long enough period — no matter how bad the news is — its not bad.

There has to have been a collision with MEST, or something wrong between thought and MEST, for these lines to be severely interrupted. And we have to have physical pain before the reversal of one of these lines becomes highly dangerous to the health of the individual.

What one is doing is walking away from the sudden impacts that cause communication, affinity and reality break engrams. A sudden impact creates a rapid encystment, but if it were spread out over periods of days or weeks it wouldn’t be so bad. That is, if the information weretrickling through a little at a time without creating any anxiety (since this is a dispersal of attention and is in itself bad), it would not deliver this impact, although it is no less serious on an analytical or reactive level.

It is the communication of thee to me via MEST that is important. If we could have a communication between just thee and me without sound waves and cells and matter and so forth, we wouldn’t get this phenomenon.

Is one driven to the conclusion, then, that the press is mainly interested in reactive news? And is one driven to the conclusion that the field of healing has been too interested in reactive logic (if you can call it logic)? There must have been a lack of rationale in the way the problem was regarded. That regard must, in itself, have been a reactive regard. They have been living on a tremendous amount of engrams in this society. So the five-billion-dollar fire gets the headlines.

By looking at affinity we see how very easily one of these lines can be suddenly interrupted and an encystment made over an old physical pain area. We can see that in a grief charge. Many grief charges, when they release, are very strong indeed.

Actually, war news more closely approaches important news, and so we get the old truism that if we can just get a good war started, the newspapers will sell like hotcakes.

It is hard to understand, at first, how the simple transfer of a piece of information to the effect that one has suffered a loss could encyst so much energy, but we are actually already dealing here with a turbulence in thought. We have a vector of affinity, which is a measurable force line; then there is a loss, a sudden reversal of force, and finally an encystment of it.A reversal in the force vector of reality is the same problem, except it has to do with one’s concept of reality, which has a great deal to do with agreement. We have agreed that we perceive what we perceive.

There is a story about William Randolph Hearst, a United States editor and newspaper publisher. He sent a photographer down to Cuba to get pictures of “that there Cuban war” before the United States went into it. The photographer cabled back and said, “There is no war down here.”

Now, there are many question marks that could be interposed between perceiving something, recording it and recalling it. Just how all this takes place, what is actually being perceived, what is actually being recorded and what is actually being recalled we are not in any position to say.

Hearst sent him back a message which said “You get me the pictures and I’ll get you the war!”

This has been a philosophic football for ages. The last person to take a kick at this football was Bertrand Russell, who in a recent long and learned tome concerning perception entered some new confusion into the subject. Descartes also mentioned this, but it had been going on for a long time before that.

A war is a great menace to the society. It menaces a lot of people. It continues over a long period of time at a high dramatic level, and so we concentrate our attention upon war. But it is an interesting thing that the focus of attention is so sharp on something dangerous that man begins to look like a bird hypnotized by a snake.

In other words, if there is a shout in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, was there a sound? Or, the barn is red but is the barn red unless somebody sees the red barn? If you get into this, it might be a red barn, who knows? But we do know that we are perceiving parts of this material universe with the perceptions of sight, sound, tactile, kinesthesia and so on.

Reactive attention is very interesting. When attention is too fixed, such as when a datum is too fixed in thought, one cannot be completely rational regarding that thing at which one is looking. In other words, he isn’t evaluating what he is looking at with relation to the rest of the environment around it; he is merely looking at it. That is what happens in a war. Everybody starts looking at the war and their attention gets fixed on it because the war is news, it is dramatic, it is dangerous and so on; and as the attention gets more and more fixed, the society gets more and more psychotic on the subject of this war.

In parapsychology you start running into communication that hasn’t anything to do with perceiving the material universe, and looking this over, one would predict that such things would exist. It would seem impossible that people who were operating off the same energy bank could not be in communication other than via the material universe. So there is an apparent communication there.

There are two reactive things about attention. The first is this fixing of attention. The other one is too great a dispersal of attention, which is very bad. That is actually fear of the unknown. The mind is hunting; it knows there is danger in the vicinity and it is trying to find it. It can’t fix that danger on anything and so it hunts, distracted — it can’t fix itself. All of a sudden such a mind may, out of sheer relief, fasten upon one thing and then fold all of its attention in on that one thing and fix it too closely. The optimum attention would be a little span wide enough on the subject to see on either side of it and evaluate it, but not too big a span to lose sight of that thing which is being observed. And so we have a great deal of reactive attention.

Incidentally, I have picked up some engrams out of people that blocked telepathy, and their sensory perceptions seemed to pick up. It seems like almost anybody has some telepathy, but it certainly does get closed down.

You will find that this is the main trouble with an engram; it either disperses the attention completely or it fixes it completely. It deals in lights and darks. And this is the main trouble with news as it is promulgated. It seeks to fix and root the attention by making a big dramatic splash, whereas an evaluation of the situation would demonstrate that there are much more important things, perhaps, in that same newspaper than this thing which is supposed to fix the attention. Unfortunately newspapers are thought to sell better this way, and so five-billion-dollar fires and so forth get punched up and poured at the society continually.

Reality is that thing which thee and me agree is real. We have agreed it is real and so it is real.

The rationale involved, then, has something to do with the time span. “Five-billion-dollar fire,” hitting fast with impact, is very interesting. It is a sharp point. But the same words spread out over a long period of time would, by proportion, not be as interesting.

Suppose somebody says “Well, look at those twelve black cats up there on the stage,” and we don’t see any black cats; if he keeps screaming about these black cats and makes any commotion about them, we have him put away. He has not agreed with our reality, and that is the prime insanity.

If a person is suddenly dangerous or irrational, you say immediately, “Obviously a psychotic”; but if the person is just continually irrational, and none of his acts draw any blood from anybody, apparently, you say, “Well, this person is not particularly irrational; this person couldn’t possibly be a psychotic,” and yet, actually, they should be so classified.

It doesn’t mean that there weren’t twelve black cats on the stage; it means that we didn’t agree that there were. That factor has got to be interposed because, after all, we are dealing exclusively with perception in this case.

The society, the group, the family, the future, are most seriously menaced by the things that go along nicely and plainly, not the ones that puff up and hit people in the face — the obvious things. It’s the ones that just go along, psychotic all the way through, that are dangerous.

If everybody decides, for instance, that Marshall Field does not own Marshall Field and Company, then he doesn’t own it. If he continues to say “But I do own it,” and everybody has agreed that he does not, the fellow must be insane because he obviously isn’t facing reality.

I have talked to people who were most “reasonable” on some subjects, who were actually gibberingly insane. And if you go down to an institution you can always find somebody there who appears to make sense. The only trouble is that after you have listened to him for a while you can’t add up anything he said because it just didn’t make sense all the way along the line. He merely sounded rational.

If reality has so much to do with agreement, how is it that we all agree so well on reality? Maybe evolution isn’t the most accurate theory on which one can embark, but certainly it has the factor of natural selection. Perhaps the race has naturally selected out of itself people who have disagreed with our realities. A fellow doesn’t have much chance to reproduce in an insane asylum. So natural selection seems to have taken care of the fact that we all agree pretty well on what reality is.

Our standards of requiring rationality from human beings are very low. We are very tolerant as to the amount of rationality which we expect from people, and as a consequence a great many inaccessible psychotics go unnoticed right in our vicinity. You might not realize this until one day you as an auditor sit down and start to talk to Grandpop. Well, Grandpop has always had the pip and he is a bad hypochondriac and so on. (Incidentally, he takes care of the baby most of the time.) But you want to do something for him. So you say, “Would you like to feel better?”

For instance, if somebody says “Communists should rule the world; democracy is a decadent imperialism and you have got to change your government immediately,” I don’t think many people would agree with him. He is not agreeing with our reality, therefore we put him out of communication with us. We also don’t feel much affinity for him.

“Yeah, yeah. I’ve got to take my tonic. That will make me feel better. That’s the stuff.” (His tonic happens to be eighty-five percent alcohol!)

But taking reality by itself, it can be seen as a force flow. If somebody suddenly says, in a moment when a person is completely disarmed, that this force flow is in error, there will be a reversal of polarity on the force flow of reality — with exactly the same mechanics as in grief.

And you say, “Well, no, I mean we could really do something about this. Now you see what it has done for Betsy Ann, you see what it has done for Uncle Joe, and you see over here what it’s done.” But regardless of the evidence he will stick with his tonic.

Such an invalidation of reality is saying “Your reality does not agree with us,” and that is non-survival.

Watch this man’s patter. It is fascinating — not because he is resisting any processing; that is not your test. That happens to be an excellent test but one which you should not use; it’s not proper. Compare him with what his environment demands of him and whether or not he answers up to the demands of his environment. There is rationale. His environment demands certain things of him. Does he do those things? He demands certain things of his environment. Does he accomplish them? There is the full-dress-parade rationale, including the dynamics, including competence and everything else in this interplay. It isn’t whether he matches up to one thing. You could start to address him on almost any subject and you would get more or less the same answer.

If a person’s reality continues to agree with those around him (even if not very well), he can get along fairly well in his group. But if he is suddenly found to be in error as to his own reality, and if he is challenged at a moment when he is relatively disarmed, or if he has embarked upon a new reality for the group, which he is hanging on to rather tenuously but on which he is depending greatly, and somebody invalidates it, the encystment is very severe! It is a species of grief charge, but it is on the reality force line. That should tell you how important this reality is to us and how desperately we hang on to it.

It’s very interesting; he is very skeptical and doubtful but says he is so reasonable about all of this. (It’s sort of like the lady I knew who had an open mind — it was always open to doubt.) For instance, you talk to him about the fact that maybe it would be a good thing if he moved to the house down at the other end of the garden, which he could have all by himself. And he is very reasonable about the whole thing but it just somehow doesn’t get accomplished. It’s actually desirable from his standpoint, it’s a lot better, but he just doesn’t go down there. It never works out, and you can’t quite put your finger on why. It is like trying to pick up handfuls of water.

The conservative, for instance, is doing nothing but hanging on to a reactive reality. He doesn’t want things changed. He may have spent all of his life trying to assemble a reality. If somebody then says “That isn’t real,” he must either fight and go right down the emotional tone scale, or fall into apathy. If he says “My reality is not real, I confess” — how wrong can a person get?

A social worker knocks on a door, and here is this man who is pretty badly unshaven and so on. She wants to know why he doesn’t go to work and support his family. Here he is, an able-bodied man. And he has got the best reasons you ever listened to, wonderful reasons, why he cannot work. He is apparently very rational. But there is work. There’s the kind of work that a human being would normally desire to indulge in. He is starving, the children are sick and dirty, and his wife is in bad shape, and he should do something about this. But no, he has got lots of reasons. And that fellow passes for a sane individual — only he’s not. He is actually an inaccessible case. We will just drop this word psychotic (giving you to understand that it means the sudden punch) when talking about the inaccessible case.

So it is a very serious thing to invalidate somebody’s reality unless it’s for the betterment of the reality of the group, and then one had better invalidate it rather artfully. One could invalidate reality so thoroughly, so suddenly and so well that it could kill a person. The bottom of this strata is death.

This case is inaccessible to the social worker. This case will probably be inaccessible to you. This case is also inaccessible to the medical doctor. This case is just inaccessible across the boards to anything, except maybe the bartender’s offerings.

Take a small group within a larger group and invalidate the reality of that small group, and then force home through the larger group that what the small group has been dealing in, which has been recognized for a long while as being real, is actually unreal. That small group will die. That is the way one could knock out, for instance, a minority in any government — simply invalidate it and then prove that it is invalid. In other words, add a reality to the invalidation so that the invalidation itself becomes a reality to more minds than the smaller group and there will be an immediate disappearance of it.

Here you have a consistent, continual break of communication between this individual and his environment, and the environment and this individual. You have a broken communication line. Every time there is one of those there will be a broken affinity line too, and you will also find the broken reality line is there. This person isn’t facing reality at all. He isn’t in concourse with his fellow human beings at all. He is merely going through the motions.

This information could be very dangerous in the hands of an agent provocateur or a propagandist, but that is the way it is done; and where they have had successful operations, they have stumbled across this one.

The real test of such a person — and as you begin to address such people you will begin to appreciate this more and more — is whether or not he can communicate on any subject lucidly. That’s fair, but let’s see how many subjects he can communicate on and let’s find out whether he is really communicating on these subjects or just running on. Does it really make sense? Is he facing the reality of his environment or isn’t he? There is your test of accessibility.

There is a time factor involved here — the speed with which it is done. If one could space out over a time period the relay of the information that someone had suffered a loss, the encystment would not be so sudden or sharp. That is a theoretical statement. It’s something one could prove or disprove by test. It is something that is predicted, and that I believe to be true.

Accessibility, then, is whether or not these lines of force flow more or less uninterruptedly between the individual and his environment, and the environment and the individual. That is the measure of accessibility. Is he capable of affection? Is he capable of communication with things and can things communicate with him? Does he see a reality in various situations? Can he create, himself, a reality? One of man’s greatest functions is creating realities.

That is very true on the subject of reality. The forcefulness depends upon the thoroughness, of course, and anything that would be tremendously thorough would probably be very sudden. If there was a rapid enough encystment, with enough impact in it, the person or group would die.

Little kids are always at this and they generally get cuffed for lying. They understand so little of what reality is that they think it is perfectly permissible to create realities all the time.

We hear of people dying of a broken heart. Probably people can also die of a broken reality. One of the main things that happens between friends who become enemies is the fact that their reality line breaks down, though it may be less, for instance, than an affinity line separation. How do we express a break-up between friends? By saying they had a disagreement; their reality line severed.

I wish I had some of that imagination left from my youth. You can sure write fiction once you have the data. The only trouble is that the more data you get, the less you do it.

Now, there is a similar force vector in existence on communication. The suddenness with which a communication is shut off and the counter-force which shuts it off create an encystment on the communication line. For example, the psycho neurotic stutterer has had a sudden, sharp shut-off of communication.

These are the tests. And I place in your hands, right here, an intelligence test and a measure of rationale which you can use without paper or pencil or anything else. If you understand this you can talk to a person for a short time and you will be able to get a fair measure of his accessibility.

One can therefore predict that it would be possible to reverse the polarity on the force line of communication, reverse the polarity on the force line of affinity, and simultaneously reverse the polarity on the force line of reality and kill somebody just like that.

When you start to put him into Dianetics you will start to measure his accessibility more closely, because you are now testing his ability to communicate with his past, his affinity with himself and his sense of reality about his own past. And you are measuring those things directly, so you will know more about his accessibility. Just because a person will lie down on the couch and close his eyes and go back down the track is no reason that this person is accessible. He may be standing completely outside of himself. He may not really be in contact with any part of his past, or he may be in contact with a past that never existed. It’s fortunate if you can at least get him to lie down and go back down the track, because then you can do something about it. The cases you are worried about are the cases that won’t lie down and go back down the track. So that is your measure of accessibility at its optimum; less optimally, will this person answer questions?

We are not playing with a flock of words on a page when we talk about the Auditor’s Code. We are talking about life and death. How wrong can you get? Dead!

That may sound ridiculous to you as a gain — will he answer questions? Regardless of whether the answer is rational or not, will he just answer them? But I can see somebody walking down the cells of an institution and at about the fifteenth or twentieth cell saying “This person is all right, he can answer questions,” and feeling very relieved that he had found somebody who was practically sane in relationship to his environment.

There is an interesting thing about thought: It is dealing with MEST in such a way that it doesn’t have too good a grip on it. Space, time and elemental forces have a very bad impact against those things which thought has managed to assemble from the material universe. The concern of thought is to be right and to survive infinitely. To be infinitely right would be to infinitely survive.

Will he answer questions? If you can get a person to do so, you can start to regain attention units. You can get his attention on you, and the second you do that you can build up his affinity with you by getting him to agree with you. Remember that these points are very closely related. Understand that in processing you should get a person to agree with you. For instance, if you can only get him to agree to the fact that there is a day, not even if it’s a good day or a bad day, that its just a day, and he says yes, you have already punched up his reality, his communication and his affinity, right there. So you get him to agree with you and you agree with him.

The analytical mind has as its first computational basic “to be right,” and when a person starts admitting he is wrong, watch the downward curve of that person’s mental health. I don’t mean a dramatization of “I’m wrong, I’m wrong, I’m wrong,” but someone having it proven to him continually that he is wrong. He has a computational break there on the subject of “I’ve thought these things out, but they are wrong.”

Some very adventurous and quite brilliant psychiatrists in the past have sometimes gotten into super agreement with psychotics by imitating them. The psychotic picks up a chair and he smashes it against the wall, so the psychiatrist picks up a chair and he smashes it against the wall. What is agreement but mimicry? And so the psychotic goes into affinity with the psychiatrist. After that they can talk. They just built up an agreement, which immediately built up communication and affinity.

This sort of thing can’t happen in the absence of considerable turbulence between thought and the material universe — in other words, a series of physical pain engrams. That makes these things possible. When there is no physical pain engram the amount of this that can be done is slight, and it would pass away in a few minutes.

When you are talking to a relatively inaccessible person, you are talking at him. So, if you can get his attention just long enough to get him to agree with you, find some points in the conversation on which he will agree and stress those points, and then agree with his points even though they seem a bit irrational to you — ”pick an agreement” with him, in other words — you will get the whole stack of triangles marching up the line. That’s one of the best ways to begin.

But when thought has already been pretty well convinced that it isn’t kingpin over this material universe because it has been hurt by it too often — there is too much pain and turbulence there already — and when you start convincing somebody, on top of that, that he is continually wrong, you will get a very serious brand of trouble; because the moment he starts saying “All right, I know it, I realize it, it’s proven to me, I’m wrong,” he is saying, “I’m dead.” How wrong can you get? Dead.

You can conduct a few experiments on this. If you, for instance, stepped into a padded cell with a psychotic (meaning the extreme inaccessible case) every day at about ten o’clock and did what he did just for a moment, just made the same motion that he made and then walked out again, and you did this for a while, I think you would find yourself eventually getting up to a point where, when you said what he said, you could interject something with which he would agree. And if he demanded something of you, you would agree on that and demand back and forth. If you kept on doing this you would eventually get into communication with this person and he would probably sit down on the edge of his bunk and have a long conversation with you. He might not talk to anybody else, because you have just built up one person as a reality to him. But you could pick it all the way up the line. If you can get one person to be real with him, then you can get other people to be real with him, and finally what you are really trying to do is to get him out into the world where all is real.

Take small children in school. They start handing in their work and the teacher keeps saying, “Well, you’re wrong,” and “There’s an error here, and this is wrong and that’s wrong, and I have to correct you. You have to learn to accept criticism.” How these children have an IQ of five left when they get through most schools, I don’t know. But what they are wrong on are subjects which have not been properly taught to them. If a child is wrong on a school subject, the thing which is in error is the school curriculum. The insidious thing called the examination has probably destroyed more ambition and ability than Genghis Khan with his piles of skulls.

We are dealing with a spectrum, then, that has to do with just these things. Any time you can pick up one point of the triangle and increase it just a hair, you have picked up each of the other points and so you have brought about accessibility.

The human mind is built to be right. One of the main difficulties the analytical mind has, after it starts to accumulate a few engrams and they get into restimulation, is trying to keep on being right although it knows there is an error in the computer.

The whole problem of inaccessibility is the problem of a person being low on the tone scale reactively. What you want to do is pick up the points of this problem — pick an agreement with him. To hammer him and force him will not work. This person is usually just sodden with circuitry, and someone has been highly dominant in his vicinity.

For instance, a fellow driving a car down the street suddenly climbs the curb and runs into a lamppost. Probably it was an engram clicking in with “You’re just wrecking yourself,” or “I’ve got to make a wreck of myself to convince you.”

So the first point on Standard Procedure is accessibility: How do you increase this accessibility and how accessible should a person be to run engrams? Pay very particular attention to this. You should understand how inaccessible cases really are. Understand that it is a gain if you can get this person to answer a question. If he can answer a question and remember something about his own past, that is a pretty big step. If you can get him to actually contact pleasure with his eyes closed, or contact anything with his eyes closed, that is a big gain there. Now, if you can get him to move down the track and contact his past, that is a big gain. But don’t think that the person is accessible yet, until he can run an engram with all twenty-six perceptics, in valence. At that moment he is accessible. There are few people who are!

If you asked this person why he had this accident, he would probably say, “Well, it was the sun shining on a windshield over there; and besides, there was a pedestrian up on that corner and he almost stepped out into the . . .”

Now, the problem we are going into here is the problem of the “normal” person.

And somebody else might say, “There was no pedestrian there, and the sun is way over there,” and the person would get very confused because he had given a justified reason for having done something that he was not aware of having any reason for doing. It was inexplicable.

On the Standard Procedure Chart it says, “For Accessible Cases.” I never wrote that on there, by the way. Actually, no threshold of accessibility had been considered at the time that was written. What is the threshold of accessibility? It is when the person is accessible to run engrams with all twenty-six perception in his own valence, and doing fine. Of course, he could not run them with twenty-six perceptics out of valence. So when he can run the engrams in that fashion, then he is accessible for running engrams.

The analytical mind suddenly observes itself in operation, observes the vehicle in operation, observes that an accident has taken place, says, “Must have been a reason,” can’t find one rapidly, tailor-makes one and says, “Well, there you are, I’m still right.” Then somebody comes along and invalidates that reason.

Earlier than that, he is accessible for repairing breaks on communication, affinity and reality. Earlier than that, he is accessible for being talked to. Earlier than that he is accessible for being looked at. Now, you wouldn’t consider that that had anything to do with accessibility, offhand, would you? It is awfully hard to audit somebody who is running so fast you can’t catch him!

If you want to see a man spin, just invalidate his justification. The justification is already so tenuous that it can’t support any challenge. The analytical mind has to justify itself for having done what it thought it did, since it doesn’t know about the existence of the engram that caused it, and it can get into a mighty fine setup on justifications. I have read some of the most remarkable and wonderful justifications. There are whole philosophies which are the justifications of one man. The world is filled with them.

So the problem of accessibility is a problem of degrees. The highest degree is the pianola case, the case that plays itself. A pianola case is able to run engrams with all twenty-six perceptics. You keep patching up and repairing and taking circuitry out of the case until such time as it will do that, and then you run engrams — unless you actually can get charge off the case. But again, you are really dealing in terms of accessibility to run engrams.

Go down to the police court, the magistrate’s court or the supreme court and listen to lawyers telling the judge, back and forth, why their client or this corporation did something. Then the client stands up and says why he did it and so forth. They have at least reached an honest dishonesty. They know they are lying, but the analytical mind doesn’t know this when it starts justifying.

You sometimes have to run engrams with the person out of valence, more or less, because they are pretty jammed up and so on, but it is not a good thing to do. You can get tension off the line by doing that and regain a few attention units, but this will not fix up that case.

If a person was really right, he would have a rather calm attitude toward what he had just done. But if he is running on a justification, his reality force flow is already so dispersed that it can be hit rather easily and rolled up and encysted. So that is another kind of an engram that can be implanted into a person.

When you start to take circuitry out of the case, for instance, you will very often run engrams with high line charge, very intense, with the preclear out of valence. You will run the charge off these things. You will try to get him into his own valence and to get him back down the track to the earliest time this circuitry appeared. But don’t think you are really running engrams off this case to the degree and magnitude that you should. You do not start an erasure on this case when it is doing that; that is just the beginning.

There are actually, then, two new kinds of engrams. There is the physical pain engram (which is practically all the engram there is), and there are three others which can impinge upon it:

Take an auditor, for instance, who goes down into the basic area and starts to run out engrams in a routine fashion on a person who is consistently and continually out of valence, whose sense of reality is very poor, whose affinity is very bad, and who, as he is running them, gets some kind of a vague impression that something might be happening but he isn’t quite sure, and so forth. The auditor who will go along and run that case that way is going to be a very confused auditor before long because he is going to find that the darned engrams seem to reappear. Of course they never went anyplace. He is going to find that the person’s valences are all messed up. He is going to start getting unconsciousness.

1. The painful emotion engram

After a person has been run that way long enough, unconsciousness will start to come off on every moment of the past. In other words, if you send him to yesterday, when he was wide awake, and run him through a moment of yesterday, unconsciousness will start to come off because unconsciousness has been restimulated on this case to such a degree that it is just loaded with it. It just comes off anyplace. It is an interesting thing.

But that would be thoroughly bad auditing. It means that the auditor has attempted to pronounce a case pianola and run it long before he should have. He has abandoned the job of taking off painful emotion, communication invalidation’s and reality breaks. He has abandoned this job long before he should have. He has just kicked all that out and said, “Well, there’s no reason to go after these things; there’s no reason to get any circuits off the case. We’ll just run engrams.” He will find out that something somewhat like a file clerk will work with him and the somatic strip will work with him, and he can get the guy to move on the track and to run out a valence, maybe, in spite of a very, very low sense of reality and very, very poor communication with his own engrams. But the auditor will find these engrams reappearing. Of course, they never disappeared. And he will find all sorts of strange things happening to this case. When that is occurring it means simply that the auditor pronounced the case accessible long before it was.

Now that is what is meant by accessibility and that is what we are trying to attempt. There is your first major step: determining the accessibility of the case, and repairing the accessibility and increasing the accessibility up to a point where it can run engrams — physical pain engrams in the basic area with all twenty-six perceptics. You keep working at this case until you can do it, and you do not do anything to this case which keeps the case from doing it. And the first thing you know, your case will be running fine. This is Standard Procedure.

They could all be done forcefully enough so that a person would practically fold up. Have you ever seen anybody fold up in grief? Have you ever taken some preclear and run out a grief charge and then seen this person look about ten years younger? That is what can happen with grief.

So that is a wide look at this problem of accessibility. We have looked at how to patch up and put together the affinities, the communication abilities and the reality conceptions of the individual. I point out here that these things have to be done, and you have to get out the circuits and get the person in his own valence. Sometimes you have to work with a case a long, long while.

In people’s lives you will also find these other two types of engrams. They have been handled all the time, but we had not suspected their magnitude and how they had to be cleared up to get a case to progress.

I wouldn’t really call a case open until it would run an engram in the basic area with all twenty-six perceptics on. That case I would call open. As for the preclear whom we can just get to move on the track, his case is not open. Nor is it open if we can run an engram way out of valence; nor if we can just run some kind of a grief discharge or something on this person — ”He’s crying his mother’s tears, of course, but he’s at least crying.” No, those would not be open cases.

The reversed communication engram is as important as a grief engram. It is sitting there on actual physical pain on its own vector line. You can turn on sonic on a case by finding and running these reversed communication engrams.

The case is open under two conditions. The first is when a major portion of the grief is off the case or when you have got the central grief engram off the case. The second is when the case can run basic area engrams with all twenty-six perceptics on. Then the case is really open, because it says immediately that you must have gotten some grief off it, and it says immediately that you must have repaired these vectors of communication, affinity and reality.

For example, suppose the physical pain engram is a prenatal As you come up the line you may find this communication engram at four or five years of age which has no physical pain in it, but it is a reversal of a communication line.

These are two new factors in Dianetics. I found out that people were contacting them just in the normal course of human affairs but not assigning to them the sudden and abrupt shock value they could have — that it could happen in a very short space of time.

Most psycho neurotic stutterers, for instance, have a reversal of communication on themselves which is quite sudden and sharp. It is usually along this line: Let us say a boy is telling something which he knows to be the truth. He is communicating, and he is putting forward a reality at the same time. Then somebody, to protect herself or himself, forces people to believe that the child is lying, and then right in the same concatenation of events forces the child to admit that he is lying. By this time you have the child pretty frantic. In fact, he will go immediately into an apathy if that second step is added. That is a communication engram. It is also an invalidation engram, but it shouldn’t be considered separately. The two engrams have intermingled, but they are both engrams.

Naturally, if somebody has also broken affinity with this child by forcing him to admit he was lying, you have got all three of them together. And this one happens to be a very severe and serious engram, the likes of which you will find every few cases. As a matter of fact, on cases where the reality is low, where there is a lot of dub-in and the preclear tells you lies, doesn’t believe himself, doesn’t like people, and so forth, if you look down the line you will find several of these triple engrams. And you had better clear them up because these cases are not going to improve much until you do.

The context, perceptics, personnel and so forth in these engrams generally match up to the physical pain engrams underlying them, which is why you have a serious situation on invalidating the reality and reversing the affinity of a small child — it is generally done by the same personnel who are in the physical pain engram. These are highly specialized locks, but they are of such super power that you have to call them engrams or people won’t run them.

By handling a grief or a terror engram lightly and not as an engram, you can spin the whole case so that somebody has to unsnarl the thing before the case will go forward again.

So, regarding the Auditor’s Code, you as an auditor have to make it your business to come into an affinity with the preclear Otherwise, you will not get anything done.

You are communicating with him and you are trying to get him to communicate, in a very intimate state, between himself and his own past, which is rather difficult for some people to do. At the same time you are trying to help him out on the subject of building up his reality. You start building up considerable force with this preclear on the three lines of affinity, communication and reality, and if you have built them up well, or if they exist and you have worked with them, you are going to have something pretty strong at work there.

Then if you suddenly invalidate his data, it will break all three abruptly. When this happens it is usually done to a person who is not completely analytically aware, who is back down the time track and can’t defend himself ably. He is depending much more thoroughly upon his auditor than the auditor usually suspects. An auditor is prone to overlook this, even when he himself, on the couch as a preclear is depending upon his own auditor.

A person is very badly startled, for instance, by noises which happen in his vicinity while he is in reverie. This is because he cannot marshal his forces immediately in order to combat the situation. His defenses are down at this point. He is counting upon another human being to safeguard him from anything that happens in the environment so he can go back and find out what happened in his past life. And part of that trust is, of course, safeguarding the various life forces of the preclear himself, which can be interrupted.

I want you to understand this clearly so that you will deal very severely with the next invalidation or the next Auditor Code break that you run into.

I had a case one time who was in the basic area and was erasing. It had been a horrible struggle to get there, and then suddenly somebody very close to this person waltzed in and invalidated practically all of his reality! The preclear went into a state of apathy and seven months later was still not back into the basic area. So don’t underestimate the force of these vectors, or the trouble which can be caused by opposing them.

You are dealing with thought, and thought combined with MEST in an orderly and harmonic way is life. Thought communicates itself and goes into, handles and works with and around MEST along these three vectors. You are handling a person’s life.

I studied quite a few civilizations before Dianetics came into being, and I found out that this hard-boiled Anglo-Saxon civilization probably has cards in spades over any other I ever ran into on the subject of just common, ordinary, mean discourtesy where another person’s brains or rights are concerned, which is interesting, especially as we do a lot of talking about human rights.

I am reminded of the early days of the Puritans and the laws and codes on which those people operated. The blue laws, for instance, of an early Puritan town are something to behold. They prohibit people from rushing out naked into the middle of the street. They prohibit this, they prohibit that. And people say, “My, those were certainly moral people. Yes, sir!” But you wouldn’t hold with that too far if you saw what kind of a society they were really trying to get along in. This society was so bad that it had to have laws like that.

Every time you see a stringent law code, you are usually looking straight at a society which has something basically wrong with it which has to be corrected by that punitive code. Hence the Puritans. These people were trying to combat tavern brawling of the magnitude of a couple of people getting killed every night! Hopalong Cassidy never faced anything like one of the taverns of an early Puritan town!

They needed law and order, and the Puritans tried to bring it into the society. They made pretty good inroads on it. But the society in which Puritanism existed was the maddest, wildest, brawlingest society imaginable.

This was also the period when piracy was very high. Have you got any idea how bad societies have to be to support such a thing as the terrors of piracy, where suddenly a bunch of men from one ship swarm aboard another ship, kill everybody on board and tie the captain to a mast, string gunpowder around him, then laugh heartily and get onto another ship and sail off someplace? It sounds very romantic in the movies, but that interrupts commerce!

This society does a lot of talking about safeguarding human rights. But on close inspection one finds out that we don’t have very good rights, because these laws have to exist to enforce them. And these rights are fast deteriorating at the present time. There are the amendments to the Constitution — freedom of speech, freedom of the press — and now we have such things as “freedom from want” and “freedom from liberty”!

What are all these things? They are a complete redefinition of democracy. We must have had a bad time regarding personal rights in the society to have laid so much stress on them in the English-American groups.

Listen to children in the street and what do you hear? “You’re a liar!” “I am not!”

“You are too!” Polite little devils. “That’s mine!”

“Willie, you let him have that!” and so on. This society is impolite!

Or go down around the long shore district where this kind of thing starts to run in the raw, and you will hear such comments as “You dumb fool, you’re stupid!” passing for “Good morning.”

People in this society, which is a highly vital and virile one, are going forward on these vectors with such rapidity that they keep superimposing controls over things that should not be controlled, and part of this effort to control latches on to other people.

It’s like Christianity back in slave days. They said, “The way you get lots of slaves is to take them rum and Christianity.” So they took them rum and Christianity and they managed to fix them up pretty well! Of course, their brand of Christianity was a very strange one, but it was nevertheless very much to the point of people trying to control other people with something which was supposed to make people more or less free. So they used Christianity to try to control people.

Naturally, if some point in the society uses Christianity to control another point and another point and another and another, this will go along just so long before these points will counteract by trying to control the original point, and soon the whole thing will sink down and become more and more reactively controlled. A tries to control B. If he tries long enough, B pretty soon will try to control A, and that is the start of a dwindling spiral.

This business of human rights becomes a dwindling spiral. People try to defend these rights and they try to set it up so people will continue with these rights. Actually, there must be a tremendous amount of reactive activity in the society trying to deny to people these rights.

A tells B he has no rights. B then begins to tell A he has no rights, and the first thing you know, this declines to where you get a police state. There is nothing in it but force. The universe of thought merges and becomes more and more a material universe until at last there is just a material universe with a flock of cemeteries around, and that’s all. Thought has backed out. Too much force has been added into the equation.

The postulation of human rights is actually an effort to keep these three vectors from being interrupted so seriously as to undermine and cause an individual or group to deteriorate. That is actually, fumblingly felt, the aim of laws which safeguard human rights: the protection of these three vectors. Now that it is known what they are protecting, I hope they can codify it better, because a serious crime in such a society would be to walk up to somebody who has just lost a friend and say abruptly, “Bill died.”

Rights. The right to do what? The right to live, the right to talk, the right to communicate and the right to investigate — all of these things are very important. Any one of them interrupted too badly will leave a highly charged lock that, up the track, can be called an engram.

In processing you should go back and try to find these-things and try to get them off the case. Unstop each one of these three lines as nearly as you can and you are going to have a much better acting case.

You wouldn’t, for instance, try to educate a person to love children who has engrams which tell him to hate children. Pain is telling him to hate children, and now you are going to educate him? That is not possible. You would have to introduce more pain on one side than is on the other, and you would get the kind of equation which is practically the world of law in operation. Engrams force an individual in a certain direction and something has to happen to keep him from going in that direction, so social force is applied in the opposite direction. But of course the more social force that is applied to the individual, the more engrams get implanted; so more pain drives him in the original direction, and more pain has to be applied in the opposite direction again, which makes more pain in both directions. And in dealing with this sort of thing you are dealing of course with force, which is native only to MEST, and the type of force used, physical pain, is native only to MEST, So the end product is MEST — matter and energy existing in time and space.

But these things are antipathetic to thought. They are the things that thought is trying to combat, so they force thought out. That is death.

It is interesting that when there is an attempt to regulate a society by the infliction of pain, it goes into a dwindling spiral.

The navy in Napoleon’s day had gone into a dwindling spiral of having to increase the magnitude of punishment, up to a point where they had such interesting things as keelhauling, yard hauling, flogging through the fleet, and the most weird inhumanities in the name of keeping things right.

It was also very interesting that they would punish a man up to a point where he would finally tell the crew that he had done wrong. They would beat him into a statement. That these people, just before they were hanged from the yardarm (which could practically be ordered by the second mate, it had gotten that bad), would come out and confess demonstrates that they must have been pretty badly beaten down. They must have been dwelling on the brink of going into a spin in the first place, to be forced into one in that fashion. It didn’t take much to tumble them over.

There was a society which had gone on this basis of having more force this way to more force that way, back and forth.

A society can be pretty well forecast as to what will happen. It will either suddenly recognize that it has got to interrupt the existing code, just reorganize the entire code and throw out everything that has to do with punishment completely, or the society will blow up totally.

People come into a society sometimes and are roundly cursed for trying to reform it. Up in Montana, for instance, in the old days, the cowboys very badly objected to people coming in and reforming the area. This was because most of the people who came in to “reform” the area actually came in to get a little more money out of it by getting rid of the boys who had a monopoly on the crime before they got there. That was the way they were doing a lot of the reforming. This then spread around that it was a very bad thing to reform the society, and they invented this horrible epithet reformer. So there was a terrific antipathy to anything labeled “reform.”

Actually, that society if just left to itself would have simply killed itself off and ceased to exist.

Here was a society thoroughly engaged upon the application of force to prevent force from happening on an individual level. Bill says that Gus should not exert force against Bill, and the final argument is a slug from a .45. There you have really got a society on the skids. They talk about it being young and virile — it was suicidal! It had a civilized world on its borders — that is to say, the East. But nobody modified that society itself. It actually died and passed away and was supplanted by people from the East.

That is what happens in a social order by just the interruption of affinity, communication and reality, and it certainly happens in an individual. The more interruptions you get along these three lines of communication, affinity and reality, the more you inhibit thought from acting smoothly within the organism, and the less thought is actually available to the organism in the business of living. It gets to a point rather rapidly where a person grows old and looks it.

The society as a whole does this, and the individual does it in the same way. He puts forward force in order to live; he gets force back. He puts out force; he gets force back again, and that is his normal business of living.

It’s bad enough just in terms of wear and tear, without any engrams being entered into it. But then engrams start getting entered into it, and it’s no wonder that in this society people of sixty-five can’t play baseball!

My main concern here is to give you the picture of the seriousness of breaking affinity, communication and reality with your preclear, to show you how to rehabilitate the affinity, communication and reality of your preclear and to show you also that there are actually three types of high-powered locks that you can call engrams — not just painful emotion.