Now we want to take up any specific question which you might have with regard to the processing and the phenomena with which you have been intimately associated for the last few days. You might have had something happen here.

Well, how's it going today?

Yes?

Audience: Good. Fine. All right.

Male voice: On the Start, Change, Stop one — process, on the Change section, on the — when you say, "Did you change that body?" Um — ran a difficulty on the idea of changing the body. What about adding position after that? What was wrong — what would be wrong with adding position after that — body position ?

Good, huh?

Oh, I wouldn't. That question has come up before. "Did you change the body?" "Did you change it?" "Did you change its position?" It's come up before. It was already thrashed through a year or two ago.

Well, I seriously doubt that you will all make it, because a lot of people have died doing this. Quite the reverse is true, a lot of people have died because they didn't do it.

Well, the idea was occasionally you get somebody that you could implant. And he'd eventually get the idea that he could change his mind. That's as sensible an answer as any other. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Change that body's position." There's this — there's this, however — there's this definitely: Change is the one you run the least of and is bound to get trouble, and I think all you smelled there was trouble with Change.

Our main problem, as a matter of fact, in the handling of cases is trying to handle cases. Cases kick back. Why? Let me answer that elementary question: Why do people blow sessions?

Now, I've just in this lecture covered elsewhereness, haven't I? Hm? This whole idea of elsewhereness is for the birds. And all you'd run Change for is to unsettle his smug complacency that he is now able to start it or stop it — particularly to unsettle his stoppingness of it.

Well, they've got a bank that's had them out of control for years, decades, eons. See? They got a bank, they think it belongs to somebody else. It's had them out of control. See, it's kicked them out of control. They're being mauled all over the place. The bank says, "Under no circumstances may anybody be permitted to control anything. Confusion! Rrrah, that's what we want! Hah, hah! Uuulhh, sluup."

You should know right now that SCS is not a perfect process. Stop-C-S is. You understand? Stop-C-S is a very fine process. But Start-C-S, just SCS normally and generally run, doesn't even vaguely get where Stop-C-S does. Why? Stop-C-S is a sort of a hold-it-still — an arrivingness, a thereness. It answers up all the considerations that we need answered up. And Start-C-S doesn't. It puts no emphasis on stop. It puts equal numbers of stuff on start and change, you know? And change itself is very unsettling. And for you to get into an argument on the subject of change in Start-C-S is awful usual. See, I mean, that's a very usual argument.

And you, the auditor, go in there and you say, "Control." And the bank says, "I am going to blow!" Preclear never does. Interesting. The preclear never does say, "I am going to blow." But the bank says, "I got to go! I got to go! I got to go!" Got it?

I'm glad you brought it up because I wish to tell you that your Start-C-S is simply run to get a preclear under control, not as a therapeutic process here.

Now, a great deal of experimentation has demonstrated two interesting things: Running confusion does not resolve confusion because it Q-and-As with the bank; running stability, control does win because it complements the thetan.

Female voice: I thought so.

Now, this has been sorted out at great cost, with much ardure and with considerable question on my part that it would sort out this way. But very exhaustive tests have been made in this wise: To get rid of confusion, did one erase the confusion or did one simply establish a stability? That was the question, the research question.

If you were running it as a therapeutic process — therapeutic — you'd be running Stop-C-S. And you'd graduate into Stop-C-S with a little Start-C-S, just to get him under control again. Start-C-S is the thing that gets him under control. Stop-C-S would make him eight feet tall on a slow freight, see? We're not running these processes to be therapeutic on Start-C-S and Connectedness, see?

And the answer to that is very, very powerfully true. And after a great many tests and much doubt it turned out to be, unassailably, you handle the stability — you bring about the stability and you ignore the confusion.

CCH 0, Present Time Problem, Start-C-S and Connectedness are being run simply to get a preclear under control.

It's quite remarkable — a thetan responds to and is closer to these things: motionlessness, keep it from going away and solids. Odd, but he's closer to a solid than a moving, ephemeral mass. It's because a solid is an exact opposite. An ephemeral mass is an in-between maybe. It's halfway between. All right.

Yes?

It turns out that if we handle a confusion we upset the stability of the thetan. We apparently make it better because we damp out the confusion, but we still have done nothing for the thetan. We've given him less bank to control and exert himself over, perhaps, but we haven't done anything for him. We've just made the job a little easier, maybe. And in the final run, we weaken him.

Male voice: Would you care to relate the thereness and elsewhereness and hereness and newness with a games condition, insofar as hereness and nowness might be considered, to some degree, a no-game condition, and elsewhereness a game condition?

Keep It from Going Away we always run. We never run the reverse: Throw it away. Now, that was very hard to establish — very, very hard to establish. Would anybody get anyplace throwing anything away? And the answer is "No."

Right. Very good. You've answered it yourself.

Yes, but what does this do to Christian generosity, Christmas, communication? Well, it says you can take it or you can't. Then if you're having a rough time, you can't take it, because you can't take it anyhow. If you're in remarkably good shape, you can give away your shirt with no liability. But brother, you better be able to have a shirt before you give it away. If you give away a shirt because you can't have one anyway, you just sink yourself one rung lower on the ladder.

Male voice: Okay. But we're dealing with hereness and nowness.

So, it's pull it into your chest. Keep it. Don't let it go. This is the activity at which the thetan believes himself to be very good. In this wise he traps himself, true. But this is the motion he is good at, and this is the action which complements a thetan. And if you let somebody blow in session, you have let his bank dramatize the reverse. You've let the bank throw him away. You mustn't let him leave — both for your benefit and for his.

Right.

An awful lot of thetans run around and say, "Well, I'm going to leave, I'm going to go there, I'm going to do that, I'm not going to hold this point." Why do you think confrontingness is so good? This is just another keep-it-from-going-away. This is just "Keep me from going away." And if an individual can't keep "me" from going away, then we get this random chase-it-all-over-the-universe.

Male voice: Okay. Now then, are we getting away from games conditions then?

Now, we have, in essence, the activity of psychiatry as being an epitome of something nobody should ever do. Psychiatry is just a name for a mechanism that we have inherited down through the long years. It has always been with us. Some religionists play it on this side of the fence, too. All they've got to do is violate these three principles — give a man more confusion; tell him to get out and go away; make it less solid. All they got to . do is violate those principles.

You said it.

They keep it from going away for the thetan. "Put him in an insane asylum. Huh-huh. See, that's helping him out, isn't it?" Like hell it is! Push in masses on him. Those are the very things that got him where he's going. And chase him all over the universe. Well, he's got to go to Earth now. You know, blow him out of his head, blow him into some other environment, kick him out, kick him out, kick him out.

Male voice: Okay.

When a fellow starts to blow he decides that your duress — something in him decides that your duress must now mean that he must obey a basic psychiatric implant that he must leave. You see? You start hitting him, he believes the response is that he must leave. And you get, also, the mechanism of exteriorization. You hit a guy hard enough with a .44 Magnum or something like that — some mild tap, and he says, "Well, I've got to leave now."

You know why? It's because Creative Processing, as we're doing it, evidently runs out the basic pins that make games condition necessary to process on the preclear.

You know, it's highly doubtful if anybody ever dies. See, it's very doubtful if anybody ever dies — that's doubtful. But it is a sure thing that thetans leave, and when they leave, things die. See, that's true. The other is not establishable at this time. I don't know that somebody cut in half with chain shot and bisected and quartered and paired with hand grenades and everything else, I don't know that this fellow . . . One, I don't know why he couldn't heal himself at once and, two, I don't know why the body has to die. The mechanical answer, as held by the medicos back in sixteen-hundred-and-something, when they were arguing about the circulation of blood and other things, the mechanical answer of the heart stops pumping, you see, the mechanical answer of the body cells start to break down — these are only signs, you see? These are only symptoms. And they have mistaken the symptom for the cause.

Audience: (various responses)

Evidently the cause is the thetan leaves — evidently. And when he does, all these other things can ensue. Now, you have reality on that. You know that communication broken off from a body part will let it deteriorate. Right? Hm? Well, how about a fast leave? How about a fast break-off of communication from this body part?

See, we've graduated into a series of processes which bypasses it.

And we get something that's very, very interesting about all this, very fascinating. I've been investigating the field of telepathy. Fascinating field. I don't know that there's anything but telepathy, you see? I don't know but what all communication isn't basically telepathic communication.

Male voice: I see.

Because we say, "Well, communication depends on space." I don't know that it does. What does the space depend on, then? Well, it depends on space. Well, this is cute. Well, space is a viewpoint of dimension; we've got a pretty good reality on that. If it's a viewpoint of dimension, then who thinks that who's thinking? See, somebody must think he is looking at a dimension. But if he's looking at a dimension, how do they get agreed-upon space, since there's no space to talk about or cross, you see? Communication, then, doesn't ensue to somebody who has yet no space. See, thetan two comes along and he wants to see the same space as thetan one. Well, thetan two doesn't have any space to talk across, yet, does he? So, the easy way out of this trap is very simple: He gets it by telepathy, which is communication without space — good explanation for what telepathy is. Communication without space. A relay of ideas without a via through the mechanical physical universe. It's a communication without vias. And what is telepathy? Well, evidently telepathy is a very easy thing, evidently it's so easy that you can all see to some extent.

That's why the condition of Clear can be obtained.

I've been fascinated by several phenomena that turned up as a result of this. Explanations. How does a person know there is any place to exit to? — speaking about a blow. Well, the funny part of it is, if he doesn't know he is there, then he couldn't know very well that he had a place to exit to, don't you see? But the place he exits to must seem, for some reason or other, more real and secure than the place he is. And so we get the phenomena of exteriorization based on a belief — not a telepathy, now — that there's an elsewhere. But no confidence in the there. See, no confidence in here, but a lot of belief in an elsewhere. Get the idea?

Male voice: Yes.

Well, a thetan has to have a confidence in here. He'd have to have a confidence in a motionlessness. He has to have a confidence in solids, for some reason or other. And he has to have a confidence in being able to telepathize, in order to do any of it.

Second male voice: Wow.

Every once in a while somebody says you're goofy because you think you can read thoughts. I don't know that you ever do anything else. I think the one single action which we can undertake with aplomb is the reading of thoughts. Think that's the common denominator of all actions, where they are a community of actions. Telepathy.

Male voice: But a Clear then can, more or less, drop down to games any time he wishes to play . . .

I've got a whole series of experiments laid out to perform on this. It's much more important now to get a Mutnik up to Sputnik and do all sorts of things with this mechanical world. But I think it'd be much smarter to find out what we were trying to get up. These are very practical experiments, and they're based on this: The improvement of eyesight is the criteria. The improvement of eyesight. And we take a few cases who have normally bad eyesight, and we process them merely in the direction of mechanics — flows of light, space, this sort of thing. We process them in that direction only. We take an equal number of cases in more or less the same state of normal dishabille and we do nothing but attempt to raise their ability to telepathize. And then we see whose eyesight gets improved. See, do the people get improved who were doing exercises in telepathy or do the people's eyesight get improved who were doing mechanical exercises? It's an interesting experiment.

Certainly. Certainly.

I've already performed some tiny little section of it, and not a conclusive answer but an answer which just says that the experiment ought to be performed, and it was in favor of telepathy.

Male voice: Okay. I understand.

You know, eyesight has been the most resistive thing, the most resistive thing to improve. You can turn somebody's eyesight way up and then it turns way off. And processing occasionally varies the ability to see, but the whole case has to be improved before eyesight starts to get better. It's quite interesting. It's almost the last thing to respond. You would expect this, because the space of this universe is one of the most set things we have anything to do with. See, the space is, so therefore, eyesight depends basically upon space, you see, so that you'd have to alter ideas concerning space; and the person would have to be in pretty good shape to alter ideas concerning space in order to get any real permanent change in eyesight, don't you see? So eyesight is quite resistive to improvement. It's one of the last things that improves. And could we just sail forward and simply improve the fellow's idea to give and receive ideas? And if he could give and receive ideas easily, why, then would his eyesight improve? I believe that it would.

It just cuts games to pieces. It's something a fellow has to persevere through. That's all there is to it.

Oddly enough, a scholar taking all of his ideas off of a printed page and so forth quite normally gets very bad eyesight. This is traditional. Well, that doesn't add into the experiment very well. He is evidently improving his idea — his idea reception ability — because he's doing it all the time and he must become very familiar with it. But I think that would be on a basis explained — he gets stuck in mechanics on the basis of a stuck flow. And I did my first experiment on this the other day and found out that he had violated solids very thoroughly. The page was always invisible. He never reads the page. He reads the print. And therefore, the print sits there on an invisible sheet, you see, and he never looks at the sheet. So you ask one of these boys that's done a lot of this to mock up a sheet of paper and keep it from going away, and you have the most gorgeous slabs of invisibility you ever saw.

Second male voice: What I wanted to say was — in this thereness as opposed to hereness, wouldn't it be an idea when such a blow is blowing up to remind the preclear of hereness? I mean, one could get even as basic as possibly to say, well, "How about being here?" or "Come into present time."

One of the most disturbing activities you can engage upon is to take some fellow who's very well studied and has read a great deal, and have him mock up pieces of paper and keep them from going away on six sides of the body — oh, for an hour or two. You will discover that the paper is totally invisible, and you have to merely persuade him to mock up the idea of the paper anyway, and though it's totally invisible, and get the idea that it is there.

Mm-hm.

This invisibility possibly is one of the basic invisibilities in the so-called blank field. The person has a blank field, he's probably just stuck on an invisible page, don't you see? That's probably the commonest source in this society of this invisible field.

Second male voice: It's very apparent that it is the bank being there.

Now, to go right at it and remedy havingness on paper, however, is not indicated — that's merely an experimental audit. It can be done, however, and it's quite interesting that after a while he is able to see a page. He's able to see a sheet of paper, able to mock one up and have a sheet of paper. Enormous automaticities and that sort of thing sets in. Basically, he has looked at something which has been controlling him, not something he has been controlling. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised but what some of the ideas of God didn't come from the fact of somebody having read too much: an invisibility telling them what to do — isn't that a description of one of the later gods that have been invented? Invisibility that tells you what to do and how to be immoral and other things.

Oh yes.

Well, now we get into this same basis of confusion versus the stability, and a thetan goes in the direction of stability and motionlessness and improves his ability toward motionlessness, why, he gets better and better and better and the confusion sags away and disappears. And we go toward confusion and we get a limited process, and the confusion gets worse and worse and worse and then it gets better a little bit and so on.

Second male voice: So couldn't you do that as a direct approach?

You can argue with it and say, "Well, a thetan should be able to mock up a confusion, too," but evidently it's something he shouldn't have done in the first place. It's quite amusing. It's quite amusing that there are two activities of which a thetan tolerates only one. Since all things are a consideration, this must be part of that consideration, but at the same time we do have some facts in addition to considerations.

Ah yes, if you can do it as a direct approach, but you're doing it anyhow with everything actually that you're doing. That's why, you know, you mustn't linger too long on the basic steps of approach to Step — in your Intensive Procedure — 5, 6, 7, so forth. You just mustn't hang around. The staff auditors never got this last week, at all, and they had a dreadful time. They all made it, everybody's profiles improved and everything else; but they were doing it on a basis of twenty hours doing an approach, you see, and five hours of doing some processing. You get the idea?

We do have some facts. It must be that there are some facts. The first two or three Axioms of Scientology are facts. They are above the level of consideration, don't you see? Since they describe the ability of the thetan to consider, you see? And he has to have a consideration in order to conceive himself solid. So therefore, his state — his existing state without mass, without wavelength, without actual location and so forth — this must be a fact, see. So that's a fact above a consideration, which is what makes Scientology able to handle the thetan. See, otherwise, we would still be dealing in the realm of considerations.

And the twenty hours of approach was just cutting the preclear to ribbons — knocking out his games condition, lousing up his general status, putting his bank right where he was and chewing him up like mad, and THE BANK OUT OF CONTROL AND ITS STABILIZATION: Q&A PERIOD therefore, those are not therapeutic. They're simply to get the preclear under control so that he can do the other. And it's a ratio — if you've got to have a ratio here — and it's not a good thing to give a ratio, because you do it as fast as you can do it. You can do it also by altitude, you see? You can almost totally bypass those approach steps, see? And you can just use altitude. You go around telling people what a good auditor you are, long enough, and you've got enough altitude, obviously. Some of the people use this.

Well, now, apparently there are some facts mixed up with this one, not just considerations. There's some more facts right there with the first Axioms. And the fact of motionlessness is a better fact than confusion, see. Probably confusion is a consideration, and the motionlessness or stability is a fact. Do you see that?

Female voice: Maybe I shouldn't ask this as I'm a pc, but I was wondering how much communication there ought to be in SCS. Because, as a pc you can start talking out all your life computations of what kind of problems you prefer to what kind of problems and . . .

Now, similarly, hereness, newness is evidently a fact, and thereness and elsewhereness is evidently a consideration. Do you see that? So hereness and newness is a fact. Now we get up to a less reliable point, and it isn't anywhere near as important in processing, either. It's quite interesting. You'll find that the most important things in processing are in this order: Keep It from Going Away, Hold It Still, and Make It More Solid. It's in that order. Keep It from Going Away is the most important in terms of mechanical processing. Hold It Still seems to be a mechanism that keeps things from going away, but is in itself a valuable mechanism. And you'll find out that Make It More Solid could almost be omitted. It can't be, but it could almost be, and we're evidently going away from the basic state of a thetan. Hereness and newness and keep-it-from-going-awayness are almost the same thing, don't you see?

Well, that's fine. A pc merely, however, is just supposed to be a pc. And he. . .

We must assume, then, that a thetan is here and now always. He's always here and now, and he's never there. But he begins to dream of there and exteriorizes. And then you can say all of his trouble stems from exteriorizing. (pounding) Every difficulty he has ever been engaged in has stemmed immediately and directly from exteriorization and abandonment of his concept of hereness and nowness. Because hereness and nowness is evidently me-ness. And thereness and wentness and over-elsewhereness and so forth is evidently somebody-elseness, see? So the second he exteriorizes, he becomes somebody else. The search for self is, "Hold that line!" Get the idea?

Female voice: Well , . .

Everybody's been going around, and for generations, for ages, particularly here on Earth they say, "Be yourself" — I suppose they've been doing this for trillions of years — "Be yourself. Be yourself." Well, funny part of it is — probably used as one of the biggest operations there is, but there's no more therapeutic thing a fellow could be than himself. But what would himself be? Would himself be anything? No. Being himself would be here and now. And when we tell people to come up to present time, when we tell people to occupy one space — one point in space, something like that, we're telling him, "Be yourself." See?

. . . could do this, and it's actually — if the auditor recognizes that all he's trying to do is put the pc under control so that he can be audited on some therapeutic processes to take him up through the moon, see, fast, why, he'll shut this off. Otherwise, he could monkey with it for the rest of his life, you see?

This is the mechanical statement of "Be yourself": occupy a point in space and be now. Well, that's the way it sums up — that's the way it sums up. Therefore, you mustn't ever let anybody blow, because the fellow is trying to tell you that he isn't. He's making the postulate "I am not," when he makes the postulate "elsewhere." You see?

Female voice: But if the auditor wants to know what's going on ...

Now, you make a fellow blow when you're too mean to him, too cruel to him. All you've got to say to him is, "You aren't. You aren't. You aren't. You aren't," and he'll get the idea that he's elsewhere, see? Then he makes it a fact mechanically. But basically it was nothing but an idea in the first place, see? We examine this from the viewpoint of telepathy, and we get into the more interesting strata of philosophy. I think if Kant had ever gotten into those realms, he would have needed a Boy Scout compass. It gets pretty confusing.

You're . . .

If space is a telepathic consideration, then there's no hereness. But there must be hereness for a thereness to occur. So there must be a basic hereness which is an integral part of a living thing. There must be a basic hereness for him to feel so strongly about hereness. But if there's no thereness and no dimension except by telepathic idea — and every evidence points in that direction — then there is no orientation of here, no orientation of this point called hereness. There aren't three other points to get a fix. You see this? So this tells you that man's search is for reassuringness that hereness is hereness. And space must have developed totally on the idea of thereness, with no hereness connected with it. This is one of these gorgeous philosophic rat races.

Female voice: . . . then the pc is going to start trying to figure out what's going on.

If you can — if you can wrap your — well, you might as well say "brains," everybody else does. If you can wrap your brains around that data, you are actually battling a philosophic edifice at a level that Spinoza and Kant boggled at, which makes you smarter than Spinoza and Kant. Congratulations. Congratulations.

Well, let me — let me tell you this — let me tell you this: We're up against a brand-new thing, here. Our approach processes are so good, you see — they're so much the real thing, they're so much better than even we have had, you see, in the years prior to '56. The approach processes are so hot, that they're apparently very therapeutic. And the preclear sees this and he sees himself getting over things and he sees himself changing and he says, "Whee! I'm on my way. Fine!"

Well, now, as we go on here, we now enter in and we've been entering into our ideas concerning the way we ought to run these particular lectures, and I am asking you to bear with me. Wouldn't you rather have some of these questions answered here as we go on through the rest of this series of lectures? Hm? Now, actually, I have just answered a question; I have just answered a question concerning somebody who asked me — more or less asked me, "What is a blow?" You know, "How does a person blow a session? What is the mechanism of it?" I've tried to answer that question for you. Did I, to any degree?

The auditor mustn't fall into this trap. So, it's perfectly all right for the pc to conceive that he is on his way and to take full advantage of the therapeutic aspect of these approach processes, but the auditor shouldn't. See?

Audience: Mm-hm. Yes.

If Freud had had these approach processes, man, he'd have had it made. He wouldn't have had to have finished his career with the pathetic paper he finished his career on. Do you know the paper he wrote? Did you ever hear of the paper he wrote just before he closed the shop up — gathered himself his marble orchard piece?

Now, we have a question here: "Is there a gradient between a thetan and a thought?" And I've just been covering this. Which is to say, there is such a thing as a fact. See, there must be a fact before we get a consideration. See, so the first Axioms are facts. They are. They would not be modified by consideration, don't you see? And the fact is still there. You might get a semblance of change, you might get a distortion, you might get this and you might get that, but in the final analysis you could only modify considerations, couldn't you? These facts are still facts. So a thought — a thought is simply a consideration or product or conception of a thetan, and a thetan is a fact. Now, therefore you couldn't very carelessly say "a thought" in comparison to a thetan, and you couldn't say that just for this reason: There is no bottom or top to a series of things, and here the person has conceived a thought, you see, to be a thing, and then something goes on into a mass, don't you see, and something goes on into something else, you see, and he's conceived that it would be part of it. There is no gradient scale at all. There are thetans and there are thoughts. Ugh. I have spoken.

Male voice: What's the name of that piece?

Well, here's another question here: Somebody says, "Since theta can't be wrong, basically, how did he get invalidated in the first place, since if he knowingly not-knows for randomity, it's done by him anyway so it can't be wrong or invalidatory. Thus, what is a motivator, a ded, a dedex and so forth?" A thetan makes up his mind, you know, makes up a consideration that he is right or he stands for this or he stands for that. And then somebody else tells him and goes through some hocus-pocus, like, oh, science — science is a wonderful hocus-pocus to prove something — and proves to him that that consideration is incorrect and, therefore, we get down to denial of self. And there is such a thing as an invalidation. There is such a thing as a bad idea concerning things — there is. And that is merely the denial of self. The denial of self. Here is a total rationale, 100 percent rationale: denial of self. That's all that's wrong with a person. He has denied himself.

It's "Psychoanalysis, Terminable and Interminable." A sad piece, if there ever was one. "Did it go on forever?" Same question some of us were asking in 1950 when we were erasing engrams. "Did it go on forever?"

For years he went along and he said, "I stand for the Black Shirts." Somebody comes along and says the Black Shirts are very bad. And he says, "Yeah, they're very bad. They're no good."

Yes?

Don't get confused between his saying the badness of Black Shirts and the goodness of Black Shirts means that Black Shirts are good or bad, don't you see? That has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that he denied himself. He was something, he had mocked up himself as something that stood for Black Shirts and now he says they're no good. So now he has said, "I am no good." And the only way he can say, "I am no good" forcefully is to be incapable. Denial of self is almost the total action, if not the total action. It works the other way too, you know. For years he said Black Shirts are bad, and somebody comes along and tells him they're good and makes him believe it and promises to take away his house and kiddies or something of the sort if he doesn't say they're good, and he finally says, "Well, Black Shirts are good."

Male voice: This is on a different subject, but first and second postulate phenomena . . .

He set up a piece of randomity whereby he basically believes something. He now says he basically believes something else. Now he has made it difficult to find out where he is. See? So he denies himself in this wise. For instance, if I went into a country and there'd been a whole bunch of Nazis or something of the sort, and these Nazis are — been running around running things — or Fascists or something or Communists or Democrats, something. And they were all — had been very dedicated to this subject. They'd been very dedicated, and just been hot. We don't care what it was, some ideological buffoonery. And they'd just been having a good time, dramatizing this thing and saying how wonderful it was and fighting a war about it, and all of a sudden, why, they lost their army or something. And you walk in and — whole bunch of people there and one group says to you, "We were — we were Nazis," or Fascists or Democrats or whatever it is, "we were — we were under force and we were persuaded against our will." And worm, worm, squirm, squirm, belly-to-the-ground, you know?

Yeah.

And the other group says, "We were Nazis." A very sick conqueror would kill all the fellows who said they were Nazis and pat on the heads all the guys who had their bellies on the ground. And then try to run the country.

Male voice: ... is this a fact or is this a consideration? If it's a consideration, why is it so damn general?

The butchery of a man capable of a forthright thought, of course, brings about a dwindling spiral in the whole race. If everybody who stood for anything or everybody who wished to persevere in any way or anybody who had constancy or consistency and so forth was killed off as fast as he rose, you would eventually get a selection of only the very weak and the very incapable.

Well, it's evidently fact.

It's very amusing that when we took over Sicily and Italy, we put into power anybody we could get our hands on. And people came bellying up, you know, "We were Fascists against our wishes," and you know, that sort of thing, and "We were really against the Fascists," and all this sort of thing. The devil they were. They were right in there running execution squads along with everybody else; but they're denying themselves, don't you see? And our military patted them all on the heads, you know, and they said, "Well, good, boys," and the gang that had just declared, "We're still Fascists, or we're Fascists, we were the mayor," and so forth, why, our military just threw all those fellows out, and they put all these self-denyers in, see?

Male voice: A fact?

Wow! They have a picnic! Do you know who they put into force and office in Sicily? They put in the Mafia, the Black Hand, 100 percent. All the offices of government in Sicily were filled for a short time by the Mafia. Isn't this wonderful? Well, of course, they're noted for their vendetta, and so they merely used their official position just to grab people out of the bed in the middle of the night and shoot them and stab them and knife them and send the cops around and terror them — oh, it was a gorgeous mess.

Mm-hm. Evidently a fact.

And somebody on the staff, some reserve officer probably, looked this over and he decided that we hadn't done right. You know, somebody who was not part of the actual establishment must have had to have done this. Maybe a regular — they were in scarcity in the war. He says, "We've put the wrong people in here, somehow," and he looked them over real quick, and he found this datum that they'd put the Mafia in office. So he did a very sensible thing. He grabbed every competent Fascist he could lay his hands on and slammed him back into office. The hue and cry down here in Washington, you would have thought that they had assassinated the Vice President. You never heard such mourning and weeping as went on at the fact that we'd actually put Fascists and Nazis in office; after we conquered the area, we put the enemy in charge again. Military government had enough brains by this time, having experienced a wave of terror under the Mafia, they stood up to all of this barrage and said that — the only men that can fill the job in any way.

And by the way, this is a misnomer, and you should know in all fairness to you that it is — these numbers have never been well-rationalized, you see?

These fellows actually, really only had one liability; they went back to the business of running the country, but they had only one real big liability. They'd been used to calling Rome for the hot dope, see. And they always had been very used to calling Mussolini up and getting the right answer, you know? "What do I do now?" see? And Rome always had a policy for them of one kind or another. They never — they had lost the power to act on their own initiative. Nobody ever encouraged them to. So that was their only liability. Isn't that interesting? They didn't have a liability of revolt, inconstancy, treachery, bribery or any of these other darn things that they might have had a liability in. These fellows were still saying, "We're Fascists."

And that is to say, you start from a fact and then you get a postulate which is contrary to the fact. So you get a point of self-denial which then starts into a games condition, see. That's all you have to know about your first and second postulate. I don't know if that answers your question or ...

So you can add up to this that if there is any real actual thing called aberration, not dependent on somebody else's idea of what's crazy — in other words, aberration independent of agreement — if there is such a thing, why, then it is denial of self. It's an interesting principle.

Male voice: Yes.

I've tried, by the way, just for your information, to work out a large number of processes that handled willingness, which is a very high button and probably allied to this denial of self or denial of things button, you see, and tried to work out processes that would directly process willingness and directly process denial of self. And I haven't made the grade. And I haven't made the grade. Evidently it's too senior an idea, it's too high above too many other ideas, or evidently, maybe like trying to process a preclear with a tremendous present time problem. And evidently his present time problem is mechanics, and you have to handle mechanics on the case such as we're handling with our Intensive Procedure right now, before you can attack such things as an idea of denial of self or willingness or something like that.

All right.

But I tried to short-cut that thing and slash right back through it, and I've been at it for about five or six months, trying to cut the Gordian knot there of getting right straight to denial of self, getting right straight to willingness, without any of the other material being used, you see? And I found out that there was no — that I couldn't — I couldn't get there directly; it was like a present time problem getting in the road of it. And although I haven't abandoned the idea that it can be, you see — I haven't abandoned experimentation — we do have something horribly workable in the Intensive Procedure which we're now using right here. This is very workable and even in terms of the Western world is not too slow. It's not a slow haul. As a result, why, we've rather sabotaged this project of discovering a direct route through to increase of willingness, a direct route through into knocking out self-denial. Do you recognize when I say self-denial, that it's been made into a virtue?

Yes?

Keep It from Going Away and withholdingness and self-denial are all related. And probably Keep It from Going Away has its greatest power resident in this one fact alone, and that is self-denial expresses itself mechanically as withholdingness. See, self-denial is withholdingness, but it's not withholdingness from self, you see? It's just withholdingness. And if you rehabilitate a person's ability to withhold you take over for some reason or other his invalidations, you see, the inflows. The automaticity of inflow — you take it over and take it off automatic and you evidently run out all this denial of self. It's very involved, and you'll understand it much better when you've been processed on it about five hours; don't look so puzzled.

Female voice: How much under control should that bank be on Connectedness?

Somebody asks what's a motivator, a ded, a dedex. Well, if you get the idea that you're just everybody else, if you — you are everybody else, which you might be, and then you kick somebody else in the teeth, why, you kicked yourself, didn't you?

No, it isn't the bank that you want under control. The bank will come under control on your Creative Processing steps. You want the pc under control. Now, how much under control should he be? That you have him under control to the degree that he will do a subjective command without wiggling or departure. And that's all you want. And with a lot of people you have that at once, see? Actually, with the bulk of people you have it at once. If you were to look at profiles, you would find those profiles even on the middle ground of an APA sheet will do it at once-. But those profiles which lie along the bottom will not do it at once. So to be sure, you just make sure everybody will do it.

Truth of the matter is I worked this out to a very fine point and I found out that you proceeded further on the basis that everybody was an individual. See, you proceeded further if you worked on individuation, you got further than if you proceeded on "We're all one."

Female voice: Are you looking for exteriorization in SCS?

It's not proven either way. But if you're sold on the idea we're all one, why, motivators, deds, DEDEXes, overt acts ... I notice this person omits overt acts, here — that's very interesting. If we have this overt act thing all knocked out — I mean if we have to establish it, it's a consideration. You know, you can make somebody guilty of overt acts for the last thousand years by simply describing to him why he shouldn't? You actually key in withholdingness on him, is what you do. And overt acts are so much the product of consideration in actual play that it takes a great deal of yak to establish them. They otherwise don't exist. The guilty conscience of the tiger who has just et the lamb ain't, until you've explained it carefully to the tiger.

No. No. You get it, though, don't you?

There are some amusing processes that have been worked up on this interestingly complex basis. Let's see, one of the processes on the basis that just being told you had committed overt acts was about all you needed to do — let's see, "Mock up your mother and have her say something that would have no effect upon that wall." I think that was one of them, on the basis that the mother was the one who had described the motivatorishness and the overt-actishness of Newton's law. And mother had described this law, time after time after time, and said, "Well, now, if you keep hitting little Johnny, sometime you will get hit. You wouldn't like that." And the plain reason that would occur to the child — that nobody was hitting him. He was hitting little Johnny, which was a totally satisfactory state of affairs. He was permitted to get confused on this point that he was hitting little Johnny — he was hitting him.

Female voice: Well, I don't know. I try to get it. . .

Great artists have devoted a great deal of time driving home this message. The fellow who wrote the poem concerning "Do not send to find for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." Well, it's perfectly true. But how did it get so blasted true? See, that's an interesting thing. How did it get so true? Well, it isn't native. It isn't a fact, don't you see? It's a consideration. And if you divide up facts and considerations, you'll know that facts can't be altered, and considerations can be. Then you have to say, "Well, how many facts are there?" Well, there are probably a few more facts than we know exist — it would be highly presumptuous of us and very limitative and extremely dangerous for us to say we have established all the facts there are.

No, well, don't worry about it. You get exteriorization. As a matter of fact, Stop-C-S is the damnedest exteriorization process you ever had anything to do with. I've seen more people fly out of their heads — I've seen lots of people fly out of their heads on Start-C-S. It's almost impossible to keep them in. Hm! Connectedness, and so forth.

We're not the same sort of scientists, I hope, that were bred in the European universities in the Middle Ages under the Scholastics, which the American university is totally patterned on. Do you realize that the American university follows a pattern that's been abandoned in Europe for many centuries? It's interesting — interesting, but true. Look up the Scholastics sometime. And then look up the way an American university is made to function. And you'll find out the American university follows in the tradition of the Scholastic. European university doesn't; it follows in the tradition of the Academy — the Grecian tradition.

Of course, you have a treat in store for you. You have an exteriorization process that ends all exteriorization processes in subjective Keep It from Going Away. Only it has the lovely, lovely aspect of not letting the preclear realize it. The preclear goes ahead and bangs out of his head and flies all over the doggone place and tries to locate the body. And he says, "Let's see, in front of that body . . . Now, let me see . . . The body, the body, the body . . . Oh yes, there it is! All right. In front of that body, I'll mock up that." And they do this and they never say, "Well, you know I'm out of my head." They never cognite on it at all and they're out someplace, lord knows where — eight miles away, you know — putting things in front of the body, in back of the body and above the body and below the body. And the person knows all about the phenomena of exteriorization. They've told you they've never been exteriorized. After a few sessions and so forth they'd say, "Well, we'll get up to exteriorization, now, someday." It's quite remarkable. They never recognize it, because it's so smooth, see.

Well, the European university once followed in the tracks of the Scholastics — once upon a time followed in the tracks of the Scholastics. And they found it didn't work. They found, after a while — I don't know, there was some kind of a race between France and Italy, I think, and Italy had a better catapult than France, and France immediately got a big scare; and they got all the lords and nobles together and they decided they would have to have more appropriations to build catapults, you know. They got pretty frantic — pretty frantic, and so they said, "Well, we're going to give a hundred billion livres to the schools around here and have them take all the peasants and educate them into building catapults." You remember this whole thing that happened. Anyway . . .

If you want somebody to bang out of his head rather impermanently, just have him ask him — ask him to keep his head from going away, see, just keep his head from going away. And to make a second terminal just to monkey with, why, keep his knees from going away, you see, and keep his head from going away with his hands. And keep his knees from going away and keep his head from going away — he'll come out of his head. There's no doubt about that. I don't care how stuck he is as a black V. He might not ever come out again on the same process, but he will blow out of his head.

They did it, and then they lost. They lost. They'd given their money to a set of universities which were run on the principles of Scholasticism, which is, "We know all there is to know, and there isn't anything else anywhere to know, and we have the finite total limit of it, and it's all perfect, and you don't have to look at it anyway." Scholasticism. And you get this marvelous thing. I've forgotten who it was, that — two scientists involved in, one was a scientist and the other was a theoretician. And some fellow had just glimpsed the eighth planet and rather excitedly reported it to one and all. He was a fairly reputable fellow, and he had his paper thrown out because another paper had recently been issued to this effect: "Seven is a perfect number." This was Scholasticism.

Female voice: If you ran it long enough and . . . Would he stay out?

We don't see clearly or cleverly really how specialized and peculiar the American educational systems are because we've all been subjected to them to some degree. But if you started — if you wanted some good mental gymnastics sometime, just start looking over and trying to find something peculiar about the American educational system. And for a while it'll escape your notice because you've been put to it for so long, but then you'll find out it is the damnedest, funniest educational system that you ever had anything to do with. It's the weirdest educational system; it's very arbitrary, and it's way out and beyond. Well, we've had them before. Scholasticism was one of these weird educational systems and so forth.

Oh yeah. You'd have to run it and run it and run it. It's a long haul, though. I mean, that's a long one.THE BANK OUT OF CONTROL AND ITS STABILIZATION: Q&A PERIOD

I'm sure the American Indian, the Mexican Indian had schools and methods of education which were also as wildly outlandish and peculiar, but he thought they were ordinary because he had been educated by them, see? Hence, it's quite remarkable — to establish a status quo in education it's only necessary to have a few generations that have been educated by that system. And then that system itself becomes this thing of "There are no further facts," see? "There is no other way to educate," don't you see? "We are educating in all the ways there are to educate. And those consist of: All the children in unison must count from one to a hundred every morning, see? And books must always be read at the back of the classroom, you see? And in order to teach somebody his alphabet it's necessary to give him a blow on the heels for every letter he learns, as it goes through his mind, you see? That's how you teach a person the alphabet." You know, you could dream up a whole bunch of things like this, but you wouldn't get as outlandish as educational systems are, and as peculiar.

Now, subjective Keep It from Going Away in six directions — that one works it up on a gradient scale and knocks out all those things which kept him pinned in his head in the first place. You see, his head isn't keeping him pinned in his head. See, he isn't pinned in his head because of his head. He's pinned in his head because of this second universe I was talking about — the mind. The mind pins him in his head, see? So he's actually pinned in the mind, he's not pinned in his head.

Well, the American university has developed a peculiarity of its own. For instance, it no longer believes that an ability to do something has any relationship to a study of it. Now, that's a wild one. But it's nevertheless true. They would blink if you told them it was true, because you would have rooted a datum right out of the middle of their guts. Now, for somebody to tell you blandly that he's studied the subject for twelve years and is therefore an expert at doing something is totally non sequitur. The remarks have nothing to do with each other at all. Well, admittedly you have to study something or look at it or be familiar with it. Admittedly if you're familiar with it for a long time and continue to be familiar with it, you'd be quite familiar with it. But your ability to do something with that particular subject or in that particular field is your ability to do something, it is not dependent on length of time at all. It might have taken you fifty years of study to get up to a point where you could do something in that field. Well, therefore, it'd be nonsense to say that anybody could do it in four years, don't you see?

Yes?

I'd say that the length of time that some of the scientists put in to learn what they learn could not be crammed into the throats of anybody in university in twenty-four seconds, see — twenty-four semester weeks, or anything like it.

Female voice: I'd like to know if this procedure that you're using in this — in the intensive will do away with all the other steps?

And yet they pretend to do this, so it's outrageous. But on the other hand there's no reason why the fellow couldn't have gone to school for a year, you see, and learned all about this. The point is, did he learn about it? That's the only point. Can he do anything with it? Does he understand the subject?

Oh no. No, no.

For instance, they give a PhD in American universities, which is quite remarkable. A PhD is a remarkable grade. It's a remarkable degree because it says, "Doctor of Philosophy." Go down here and rake out a few of last year's PhDs and say, "Okay, son, philosophize."

The procedure which we're using does not do away with all the processes we have. I'll tell you at once what one of these things would amount to. Let's take the case that this procedure does not undercut. For instance, this procedure does not undercut a lot of cases. They don't start at the bottom there with a present time problem, see; they're not in communication. Now, you couldn't talk to them about help. Take a person who's lying there unconscious. You certainly can't start with this procedure. You've got the CCH 1, CCH 2, CCH 3, CCH 4. You have somebody who can't even vaguely get the idea of keeping anything from going away, you know? I mean, he just can't get the idea. You have to come around to objective Keep It from Going Away. And there's a tremendous number of processes which we have and all of them have their place.

And the guy will say, "What are you talking about?"

Female voice: Starting from any real low cases but once they're able to do these processes, you wouldn't use any of the other, you know, processes?

You say, "Philosophize. Write me some philosophy. I have a business up here, and I don't have any philosophy to run it. Write me some philosophy to run the business."

I wouldn't waste time on them. You get up in a much faster process. See, everything you wanted to do with a case is done by a case with this subjective Keep It from Going Away, Hold It Still and Make It More Solid. And everything you've wanted to do with a case is done by those processes anyhow, and so there it is. I mean, at those ranges then, yes, you would abandon these processes. But how about just picking out somebody out here, and he has a headache? Oh, I can tell you sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety processes that you could run on him that would do something with a headache, see. And the general use of these things in assists — the use of these things to pick up a case, the use of these things to knock out a specific aberration without putting somebody into session for Clear — one shouldn't overlook those. Although, I dare say, a lot of these things will disappear which are quite valuable. For instance, wasting male bodies has cured more homosexuality than you can shake a stick at.

He'll say, "What?"

Male voice: I had an offer for it — a homosexual up in Princeton . . .

He doesn't understand that philosophy, actually, at one time had a very, very basic use in the society. It does have a use. As a matter of fact, the whole country out here is going nuts for the lack of some good philosophy, see? Nobody can orient this thing; there's no policy for why things run. You get the idea? Nobody's dreamed up a put-together in the field of the mind to match up the mechanics, don't you see? And none of these guys have the idea of philosophizing, regardless of about what.

Right.

But they will give you the philosophy of somebody else. They'll quote Kant and Nietzsche and Skip-skop Schopenhauer and the rest of these fellows, and they'll quote all this, and it doesn't strike them as odd at all that knowing about philosophers is different from being able to philosophize. A Doctor of Philosophy, you see, would be, then, somebody who had a lot of philosophers by rote, do you understand that? Well, that would hardly be the case.

Male voice: . . . and I turned it down because I wasn't quite sure what to run on him. And I was running up to straight processes and whatnot, but. . .

Now, a philosopher could fill many niches, and there could be a tremendous amount of philosophy. But a speculative philosophy which leads to a doingness, which puts people in a position to do speculative philosophy would be as about as close as you could get to philosophy, see? You got that? So try to compare what we're doing here, which is basically highly philosophical, compare what we're doing here or have done in Dianetics and Scientology to sitting in a classroom, passing an examination on what Skip-skop Schopenhauer said, see? No utilitarian application, no doingness connected with it, wasn't required that you understood it at all, you see? It's a wealth of difference.

They're the roughest cases in the world. They're the cases that Freud said in his twenty-eighth lecture, last paragraph, that they were too far out of this world. He called them "detached people." He was trying to cope with a remote viewpoint and he didn't realize it — a fixed remote viewpoint. And what we've got here on these Creative Processes that we're now doing, not only does this specifically, but it knocks out all these remote viewpoints quite incidentally. But you shouldn't have closed it up — you should have — I mean, you shouldn't have knocked it off. Why didn't you write me a letter? Because we've handled a tremendous number of those doggone things. It's awfully hard to get those guys to sit still, though, you know?

Now, that doesn't say that philosophy has to be practical. Doesn't say they have to do anything about it. But slavish committing to memory of a series of facts does not constitute philosophy or education. And we get the whole world falling in to the areas of facts and invented facts, or supposed facts or invented facts. And you could also have the — just the invented fact, of course, would be a consideration. And there evidently are some facts, which I think is something that we have not stressed enough. There are some facts. We do know some things that are. And we do not know all the things that are. We know they are apparently relatively few. That is to say they're not — they don't form three-quarters of your knowledge. They probably at this moment form about a billionth or a trillionth of your knowledge. You see, I mean, it's some very — it's evidently a very minute ratio. And the remainder is apparently and only this, apparently, consideration. That is to say that stems from that, and by the process of agreement becomes a fact. And you're into the whole field of mechanics.

Male voice: Yeah. But would you waste — would you have them waste male bodies?

Well, people's consideration as what is right and wrong is more important than what is right and wrong. If you run out their consideration, you get an alteration of what is right and wrong, and that's very fortunate, because most people who are right think they are wrong today.

Yeah.

Okay, we'll take up some more of this later.

Second male voice: In a bracket.

Thank you.

Male voice: Waste them in a bracket?

In a bracket.

Female voice: Doesn't he have to be able to mock them up?

No.

Female voice: No.

No. Old Expanded GITA was gorgeous in that it would operate whether the guy could get a picture or not.

Female voice: He has to find ways to waste them?

Yeah, that's right. Mm-hm. There's a dozen ways to run it, but all of them were effective.

Yes?

Male voice: This is a little bit off the track, but I'd like to know what kind of things did you use to deal with willingness and things that you've tried.

Deal with willingness? Well, I'm afraid that my handling of willingness is crude. No, I'm not being smart — it's crude. We don't have a good answer to willingness at this time. Let's not be — let's not be optimistic. Fellow who — one has to have some willingness to sit still or we can't audit him, and we're still up against that.

Now, the CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 do promote willingness. And a lot of it depends upon the degree of participation.

Now, we ask, "What is willingness?" Well, we have to ask the idea of what is — what are we trying to make willing, a bank or a thetan? Evidently, a thetan is always willing, and if you simply persevere along the line, you will find the willingness is there. It is our automaticity, however. See, his willingness is our automaticity. It's the only thing that's on automatic right now. Willingness. He has to have some willingness. But we can rather safely assume — and we have never seen the contrary — that a thetan is basically willing. See, he is basically willing, but what suffers is trust: his fear that you will not persevere; the feeling that you may leave him up in the air, see. And as you proceed onward and show him that you are trying and that you are sticking with it, you are doing the best you can and that you will not be gainsaid, then makes him willing. See, his willingness is at first tentative, very tentative, and you have to prove that it was well placed before it takes place. Do you see that?

Well, that's the modus operandi we use, and when I say I belong to the old crude school, I do. I'll play tricks on preclears to make them more willing. I told one not too long ago, "Well, it's all right with me. You can sit there and be audited or go to jail. See, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other." Fellow had been sent up — been placed in my paws by a district attorney very short time ago. I said, "It's all right with me. I don't care which one." "Oh," he says.

I said, "Yeah." It's just as blunt as that. I said, "It doesn't matter to me. I'm perfectly willing to sit here and do the job but, you can go to jail, it's all right with me." I said, "It's probably easier to sit there than it is to sit in jail." He agreed that it was, and we went on and got some auditing done. Crude, huh? That's backing up a hearse suddenly, but, of course, I was operating THE BANK OUT OF CONTROL AND ITS STABILIZATION: Q&A PERIOD from some standpoint of too much altitude as far as he was concerned. We couldn't get into ARC. I'd been painted up to him as god knows what, see. And he was in a state of fixed awe, you know? Didn't work at all.

I heard on the monitor up there a preclear one day who was also a criminal. This was another person along with this other person, came to us from rather peculiar circumstances. The auditor got this guy from, "Help me? No. Nobody could help me. I might be able to help myself but nobody else could help me. Help somebody else? No. I couldn't help anybody else. That's impossible. Nobody helps anybody else." And he ran the bracket himself, see? And explained it all out, factual — snarl! One of the wildest things you ever listened to. I never heard anybody as 1.5 and as ornery on the subject of help. Just the most casual question on it. "Well, I'd take some medicine. That might help me. You couldn't help me. You don't know what you're doing," you know? Wow!

The auditor just kept chewing away on this thing, and as the little bird wears away the rock, he finally got the guy to admit that he could help him. He was just clearing Help on brackets. I think it took him two hours or two-and-a-half hours. And at the end of that time, the fellow said, "Yes, you could help me. I could go and get a couple of Fräuleins and a couple of fifths of Scotch, and you could come along and help me forget things and have a good time." But he actually had entered this at zero and he actually had walked it upstairs with Help to a point where there was an admission that a help could — that help could exist.

We skipped the case after that. It was not that important to us. We had established one thing, and that is that the gradient scale of Help would have walked him into an ability to be audited. We could have worked him up to that. We had demonstrated that. We didn't have, on the limited research budget that we travel on, we don't have many people we don't have very much to do with, and we have to take some wild shortcuts. And that was one of these shortcuts. We simply said, "Well, we could have cleared Help with this fellow, as ornery as he was, up to a point where he could have been helped. And we demonstrated it." So, maybe just clearing Help is your total answer to willingness.

If I found some old granny sitting in the middle of a family, that was chewing everything up, you know — rrrhh. I ran into one of these one time. Boy, she wouldn't let anybody in that family get audited, she held the purse strings on the thing, she was folly, and nobody realized she was totally out of communication. She was the worst case I ever walked into, and everybody thought she was wonderfully good shape. If I ran into such a case again, I wouldn't argue with her about Scientology. I would simply start clearing Help. And every time I visited her and got around her, I would clear Help for ten or fifteen minutes. And I would just saw through that bank, because Help is one of the neatest little meat saws you ever had in your hands.

A fellow has been left on too many asteroids with no relieving squadron, he knows help is impossible.

Male voice: Any preferential, specific command to use on Help with it. . . ?

Help is a two-way comm thing. It becomes a liability to issue too much of a command for Help. There are — there is an understood command in Help, and that merely guides the communication. It's "Could you help anybody? Could I help you? Could you help me?" Just a bracket sort of a question, you see? And that is the middle motif but if that is all an auditor does, he's — maybe not win.

Male voice: Okay. What about the how? Is that important?

Oh yeah, you can run into how. It's a two-way comm process rather than a process, right? "How could you help me?" "Has anybody ever helped anybody?" Most every auditor neglects that outer bracket and, boy, is that thing hot. "Have people ever helped people?" I had a guy sit down and 1.5 for half an hour — he was a perfectly good pc, and we just hit this one by accident and he 1.5'd for about, oh, a half an hour on the subject: Nobody had ever helped anybody and everybody was out to gouge everybody. And this nebulous everybody finally even got to him. And he finally said, "Everybody — now, who am I talking about?" Which is an interesting cognition all by itself.

Female voice: I'd like to know a little bit about this because I tried using it and I had — with one preclear, I thought I had very good results.

Right.

Female voice: But another one was a psychotic, and I found I couldn't use it on all the brackets — just on a few.

You couldn't use it on all the brackets?

Female voice: No.

Well, that's possibly because you were using it as a process.

Female voice: It wouldn't make it — it wasn't real to him, all the other brackets.

Well, that's interesting. There was a low-reality case.

Female voice: Just "you," "myself". . . "Could I help somebody else?" That's as far as it could go.

All right. All right. That was as far as his reality on people went.

Female voice: You just work that until. . .

Yeah. See, all of these buttons are hot as firecrackers, therapeutically — you understand that, don't you, class? I mean, they're all hot, and it is a tremendous temptation to sail along the line, see, say, "Boy, have I got this case rolling!" You know? Zing, let's go! And you find yourself about eight or ten hours of processing later, improved, yes, but you haven't gotten where you're supposed to go. They're all derailers, and nearly everybody running this Intensive Procedure is getting derailed right there in the early stages because of the tremendous power of the buttons and CCH 0 and Body Control and . . .

Auditors at first started just to get on an E-Meter. And then they found out they could clear the breaks and stops and communication points on an E-Meter. And they'd start clearing these things up. And they found this E-Meter again, and it's a hot instrument, you know? And you can run a person right on an E-Meter with two-way comm, see. Slow freight, but you can do it. And they were so fascinated with this because they were getting further with preclears than they'd gotten for some time that I had the devil's own time dynamiting them off the E-Meter and getting them over into clearing. Fabulous.

Of course, you clear — you only have to clear one person and see how far you got, to accomplish all these other things, then, to not worry anymore about whether they're therapeutic or not, see. You then have a definiteness about your approach for which there's no substitute. That's what we're doing right here in this class.

Okay. That's our time.

Thank you very much. I'll see you tomorrow.

Thank you.