Thank you, thank you. How are you this evening?

Audience: Fine.

Well, this evening we have come along here to the eighteenth lecture, and there are only a few of you now who aren't getting it from time to time, accidentally. And I want the rest of you to get up to a point of where you can do it accidentally now and then, because the truth of the matter is it comes in handy occasionally. In an auditing session it's handy, you know, to occasionally in an offhanded sort of way, just as though you intended it, to throw an intention out, something like that, I mean. It does work a little bit better; you don't need many of them, you know. And every once in a while sit up briskly, you know, and put your feet on the floor, your hands in your laps and look squarely at the preclear; it wakes him up when you do this. And when he makes an origin, why, scratch your head; at least that shows some sympathy for the situation. And when you get — when you get to the end of the session, why, if you happen to think of it, tell him so. That's really about all you need to know about auditing, you know.

When you compare 1950 auditing with the auditing that we are doing today, it is not even in the same universe.

Male voice: But it worked.

That's what's amazing about it, it worked. I suppose many of you really don't know — I've just insulted all of you and invalidated you. Excuse me. Apologies and so forth. I understand that I have insulted you. Thank you!

Female voice: Whoo-hoo! We didn't feel invalidated. We thought we'd been acknowledged.

Oh, dear. I wonder if you realize entirely how various mechanisms of auditing today are themselves therapeutic. That is to say, they get things on the road and do things with a case.

A duplicative question all by itself will get the case progressed. Acknowledgments all by themselves will progress a case. And we take these other things and detract — delete, rather, from the session the element of surprise. You know, starting him into session, comm bridging him from process to process and taking him out of session smoothly and so on. The discovery that they can sit there that long without being amazed, surprised or upset by a sudden boo-boo by the auditor is in itself very, very therapeutic.

Furthermore your altitude actually depends on the excellence with which you can do what you are doing. You want to know what altitude is, you ought to see some of the awe that I get every now and then. Somebody said they saw a professional auditor working on somebody. And they write in and say, "Ahh," you know, "gee-whiz, I didn't know that anybody could do anything like that," you know? And it was amazing at the congress when professional auditors got up on the stage, well trained, you know, and went through this. We're very used to this and we didn't get, really, any audience reaction unless we looked for it. But the audience sat there and went — they didn't know what to make of this at all, this was above any imagined perfection that they had entertained at all.

Well, if you don't think this sort of thing registers on a preclear — it registers tremendously that somebody can sit there and turn out a good job of auditing on them and so on. And that all by itself says, "Well, there's somebody in the world that can help me and knows what he's doing." All a preclear needs to find that out — somebody is willing to help him, and he does much better by it.

Well now, this evening we have arrived at the 18th lecture of the 18th ACC, August 7, 19-5-7. And the title of tonight's lecture is CCH. (It's a good title for any lecture.)

Once upon a time we had something called ARC: affinity, reality and communication. ARC is with us today and we have the understood level of it: control, communication, havingness or control, havingness and communication, if you want to get the comparable parts. Affinity — control; he just steered me down the street; he must like me. Havingness — reality; solids. Ability to own or possess solids. It's reality on its lower levels. And then we have, of course, communication is communication, and it is nothing but communication. But communication is a very precise thing.

Now, the aspect of communication alone is the one thing which has remained unchanged here for seven years. Communication in Dianetics 1955! was better delineated. And we understood a lot more about it and we began to use it as itself and understood its great importance.

Now we have come up against another great importance and that is reality. And first we had — that was very good on reality — was this thing called havingness. And at that time we thought havingness was one thing and reality was something else. But the truth of the matter is they were the same item. The ability to have a reality is merely the ability to possess, in most cases. Now, what is the ability to possess — and you'll laugh when you look this over because it's entirely too simple — and that is simply the ability to withhold. And that's what havingness is. It's the ability to withhold. Of course you run it with only that in mind and all of your other considerations on havingness will have a tendency to stick.

You shouldn't explain this to a preclear. He will stumble into it sooner or later. He said, "Well now, let's see, I can have that." At first he says, "I can have that only if I could withhold it from everything under the sun, keep it close to my chest, pull it in to me and never let it go forth from now till the end of the universe. That would be a proper havingness. That's good reality; that's a good reality, that's right, it'll never disappear — good reality. Always mine, no other thetan could touch it, no other person could ever have anything to do with it, nobody could look at it, and I've — we've got it made, see, and that's why we could — it's real."

What's real then? Well, we look at a person and we start to run Havingness on him and he will find first only those things very close to him and very intimate are possessible by him. He'll just say — he says, "It's — if it's within a quarter of an inch of me I could have it." What does he mean? He means, "If I could have it within a quarter of an inch of me and keep it there forever, then it would be real." It is not real unless it has this much persistence.

Now, persistence is the one thing that is comparable to a thetan who can do nothing but survive. It is a quality that enduring objects hold in common with thetans. Now, when thetans wish to associate bodies very, very closely with themselves then they make bodies endure. Havingness shouldn't have to endure at all, to be. An object, a solid object could be conceived to exist for an hour, for a day, and it would still be a solid object, but a thetan doesn't feel this is the case. He doesn't feel that he would have any communication, duplication ability on a solid object unless he at least had endurance in it. Got that?

So we want suits that will last, watches that will run forever. The only violation of this is the American automobile industry. American automobile industry violates this and they do not know to what degree actually they damage themselves with this. We see new cars all over the place all the time with new styles and new improvements, but the funny part of it is, they are understood to be, each time a model comes out, a more enduring car than the last models. And the truth of the matter is they are becoming much less enduring.

Somebody was talking to me the other day about this convertible I drive around and casting snide remarks on the subject. I ought to get rid of the thing, you know, it's really declasse.

And I did a comm lag on it myself. It took me a couple of days to think up the answer and I just happened to think of it this afternoon. The answer was, I'll get rid of that convertible when I find new cars out-dragging it. When we start up from stoplights and I no longer am passing this year's Oldsmobile, this year's Cadillac, this year's thisa — and we won't even call it Fords and Chev-rolets. And when I cease to out-drag those things rather easily, I'll turn it in.

Well now, there isn't any real consideration of endurance, it's a consideration of changing styles. And people go on the bent of changing styles all the time and that changing style is in itself supposed to be an improvement.

General Electric has some lightning that they group together into the symbols "GE" on the television screen and say, "Our most important product is progress." I'm glad of that, I'm very glad of that. That's all they've got to sell, they say. Well that's fine, but there's undoubtedly a great deal that could come out of the scientific world to the possible benefit of man. But I want to show you just exactly where it goes.

They used to say, "Well, peacetimes are made so much better, you know, because of the war developments. You say that wars are all for nothing. Well, as a matter of fact, look at all the scientific encouragement which took place during the war. Look at these tremendous developments which are now of use in peacetime." As a matter of fact I can't find anything that was ever invented in a war, in complete reversal to this. War, however, would use and develop some of these ideas on some sort of a necessity level, about which we are going to speak in about two seconds max. Most misunderstood thing in the whole of this science is necessity level.

But here we have — here we have this consideration that progress has led to what? Let me point out to you that progress is always slanted at a higher endurance. Eat more Wheaties, run more blocks. You get the idea? "We're progressing toward an electric light bulb" they would have you understand, "which will burn longer, for less." Of course the modern electric light bulb, you screw it in, you take it out and throw it in the wastepaper basket, you get another one, you screw it in, you take it out and you can — they last three or four pages before they go. But that's an exaggeration; I had one last six pages.

But there's no tungsten in them because this is all being taken up for critical war material, I understand, or something like that. Their war has now not only given us the total progress that we have, but now it's taking away from us all the progress that we have and it's going to go on this cycle very easily and smoothly up to the point of boom! And that of course is the progress that GE is aiming its lightning bolts at, I suppose. They're busy building atomic thisas and atomic thatas and they're having a great time with it.

But this thing called progress understands that we're going to get a greater endurance. Now, you as a preclear also have a little bit of an understood thing here. You understand that if you get enough processing your body will go on longer. Well, that is to say you probably understood it once. Just having taken a glance at your minds I find you don't understand this. Now, some of you say, "Well, if I get enough processing I won't have one at all, and I will be able to endure without one." Now, that's all very well, but the point is that havingness is cut down to the degree that one has to insist upon this Q-and-A with his own survival, with every havingness, see?

We've got a piece of mest that lasts forever. Piece of mest that lasts forever — therefore this has some comparable duplicative value for a thetan. He said, "Look, I have something in common with that piece of mest — it lasts forever." The Egyptian making a mummy tried to make the mummy last forever. Somebody said in a story one time, I think The Mummy's Hand, the name of the story is, or The Mummy's Foot, said the dream of Egypt was eternity. Well that's for sure, they tried to make everything last forever. And there's . . . But these masses which they erected, on a forever basis, aren't doing very many of those Egyptians any good. They're off someplace else, probably, long since.

Now, let's take a look at this duplicative factor in communication. An individual finds something in common, in other words, an agreement, which brings us back to reality. He finds something in common with the things he can communicate with. He conceives that there must be something in common between the two points of a communication line and this isn't true at all and isn't a necessary adjunct. When you start running duplication at a thetan, ask yourself, "Why does he improve?" You're running out duplication. You're showing him he doesn't have to avoid it, that he can tolerate it, and as soon as toleration of duplication becomes possible, then he loses the idea that both ends of the communication line, of which he is one, must have an agreement. Then you can get something in the order of postulate communication, which you're doing with Tone 40 on an Object. Postulate communication.

But the greater agreement a thetan believes necessary between the two ends of the communication line, the lower down the scale he goes until he even gets down to — well, I don't know — AEC engineer. Yeah, I imagine these AEC engineers go home and explode. I imagine they get their thoughts on a sort of a radioactive scale and do their mathematics and so on at the rate of consumption of so many millicuries. Get the idea, they're communicating on some sort of a communication line and they think to stay on the line that they have to duplicate something that is on the other end of the line for a communication to take place. Do you understand this?

And you get the idea that the way to talk to a woman (and this is true) is to — and we had this for years, we knew all about this — we would have to talk to her about womanly things. In other words, we'd have to put some womanishness into the communication in order to talk to a woman. Or to talk to a man you'd have to put some mannishness into the communication line to talk to the man. You get the idea? Well, that's just Q&Aing with the universe. No wonder you get stuck in it. It isn't true at all that a woman has to talk to a man mannishly. There's many a girl has failed to get her man — the Northwest Mounted Police and women have the same motto. And that's very true — they've gone completely on the rocks because they insisted on talking to the fellow about guns and camping and duck shooting and pipe smoking and that sort of thing. As a matter of fact, she didn't know enough about the subject to talk about it and he kind of thought she was silly. And he went off and married some girl that was always talking about the delicious cream pies that she could get down at the — down at the local restaurant. That's about all she ever talked about — and it just misfired. And the number of girlish men who marry women are very few. Now you know, that's for true. Women are always marrying somebody with hair all over his chest.

It's the workability of the situation — the work — general workability of the situation as far as a thetan is concerned is overstressed. You get the idea? Well, they start going downhill on this and they think, "Well, let's see. That wall, for me to look at that wall, the wall would at least have to have some expectancy of endurance in order to match my potential of survival." You get the idea? And then they find out the wall doesn't endure so they feel they must be wrong about their survival and they themselves invent death for themselves. Get this?

In other words, they set up an agreement line. They agree with this thing over here to get a duplication so we get a proper communication with it and then they find out that their original postulate on the thing was for the birds — it's denied, the thought on the agreement snaps back on them and they have to perish. You see that? And there's where perishing comes from. It comes from tearing down things which were to endure forever.

You could probably cause a great many deaths in a city, just to take one of its principal landmarks and one day in a sort of a careless frame of mind go down and take some bulldozers and knock the thing flat. Lot of people measured the fact of their communication, their own endurance and so forth by it. They've already done a flop on it see? A flip-flop on the line. Somebody knocks the monument down, they kick the bucket. Get the idea?

In other words, they originally went into agreement, by choice, with that and assigned survival to that wall so they could communicate with it easily. Well, that's fine, they assigned survival to it and then one day somebody knocked down the wall and this was the first death the thetan suffered. Only he didn't die at all, but to make a liar out of himself he turns on a forgetter mechanism so that he won't remember. Well, that's as good as death as far as he's concerned.

Now, it isn't necessary actually to duplicate anything on a communication line, or have any agreement at all on the line. There's no necessity of doing this. No need for it at all. Communication can occur, and there's where Tone 40 Auditing comes in. You assume no duplication on the line. You assume that this — you don't have to be crazy to process the lunatic. You got the idea?

You don't assume any necessity for a duplication and yet you can communicate, can't you? Well, I'm just showing you that other considerations about communication are possible than the ones Homo sapiens had. Communication is essentially the act of transmitting an idea, or withholding one. Receiving one, or refusing to. And you have your interchanges, all interchanges possible. Got that? I mean, it's just as simple as that.

All right now, if we lard this thing up with a tremendous number of extra evaluations, lots of conditions: "I can't talk to you when you look at me like that, George." I don't know why, he — see? That's just an oddity. "I can't read a book when the temperature is over 95 degrees." Here's the — here's just an oddity. What does that have to do with reading a book? You say, "Well, I can't talk to that man until he has given his consent." I don't know why not. You see? You say, "Well, you'd violate attention." Yes, Homo sapiens has these considerations. Why abide by them? There's no reason to abide by them at all. You're lying within too many restrictive barriers for communication to take place.

So when we look at havingness, we are looking at the bottom rung of a series of considerations concerning communication. And we get to the bottom of CCH, we find that control is anytime I touch it, it touches me. Anytime I start it, it starts me. Anytime I stop it, it stops me. Anytime I change it, it changes me. Instantaneous reaction. And that is reactivity. That's the basis of the reactive mind. Reaction. Total reaction. In other words, we try to control it, it controls me. We have a society of mutual instantaneous control every time a control is effected. Every time it seeks to control me I seek to control it. Now, on the communication line, with which and what do we control it? Exactly what it is controls it. Well, with what and which does it control us? Exactly what we are controls us. You get the idea?

So we get a communication, an agreement, you might say, without space. We get reactivity. We start to process preclear, we're in the valence of the preclear at once. We change the preclear's mind about cats, we change our own mind about cats. We don't change his mind about cats, afterwards we can't change our minds about cats. See how silly this thing is? There isn't any rational inspection, no choice involved with it and so forth. It is anything that happens, why, that is what happens to me. You see? Or that is what happens to it. Reaction. You put up a red flag in the bank and somebody else puts up a red flag in the bank. This is a stupid sort of reactivity.

Now, you don't even have association there. You have two conditions, one where you get rather good equality. That is to say, you put up a red flag, you only get a red flag. And then you get an identification beyond that point which is when you put up a blue flag, that is as good as a red flag which is as good as a green flag which is as good as flagpoles and which are of course all the same as blondes. Now, when it skips over to blondes and it's "all the same as," then we say the fellow is disassociating. No, he's totally identifying. All right, we get reactivity, then, at this bottom rung of CCH.

Now, the road out of this circumstance where every — one has to agree with everything which he faces, in everything it is, on every agreement it has — we get into an interesting condition then, where reality is a total, total, total, total solid which endures forever and will never disperse or disappear. And control which is counter-control as fast as it is control. We control it, it controls us. It controls us, we control it. It's sort of dancing together in a very tight schottische.

These three factors merge together and give us thinkingness as she ain't done. Or as she is done automatically. It's automatic thinking. What's the best thing to do in the situation? Well, the answers to all problems are the problems themselves. When you think that a solution is the answer to a problem you have already started on the road downward. You keep kicking in cures then. Therefore nothing is ever as-ised and we get this agreement across the line interrupted, changed, altered and we get alter-isness occurring on either end of a comm line. How do we do that? Something presents itself bright blue. We say, "Ah-ha! It should not be bright blue, it should be purple."

And we get something or other and shoot it along the line which makes the thing purple. Then we're very surprised when somebody runs us on the backtrack and we find a blue object sitting there. Why'd we find a blue object sitting there? Well, the only way the blue object would disappear at all was to notice that there was a blue object there. So a nonrecognition is an unfinished communication cycle.

So the whole of the dwindling spiral depends upon unfinished comm cycles. You follow this? But to get a comm cycle that won't finish it is necessary to mock up this idea that we have to duplicate everything across a line, see? We're on this terminal and we have to duplicate things on that terminal. In other words, we have a concern then with every terminal we confront in any way. And in that way an unfinished cycle of communication does occur. And I don't know how many people are in this universe and in the state they are in simply because nothing was said yes to on the early part of this line. But look, the consideration of duplication must occur. Now, if one makes the consideration of duplication and then says he cannot duplicate, he sticks the consideration of duplication, doesn't he? So all he has to find out how to do is knowingly duplicate and these cycles start to run out like mad. And a duplicative auditing question — making an individual confront a duplicative auditing question all by itself starts to strip apart this mechanism. And he'll finish tremendous numbers of cycles of action that the auditor never inspects.

His acknowledgment, furthermore, sweeps — the acknowledgment on the line sweeps away and finishes a tremendous number of suspended and incomplete communications. And you're doing something with auditing without inspection. Why? Why can you do this without inspection? Simply because you're taking the elements of how one got into the trap and undoing those elements. Those elements have to do with obsessive agreement on either end of the line, which we call duplication; with finishing off communication cycles which were never before finished and with not solving problems, but by just recognizing the existence of problems. And you just do these things in auditing and you could practically wind up a case with just those things. Do you understand?

So that auditing tools today aren't just a method of addressing a preclear so that he will think we're experts. It's actually — starts to rub the case out the moment that the auditor starts to handle it. He uses a duplicative question. Well, the preclear starts to go nuts on this question after a little while. I don't know if you've watched somebody when you just sit down there and you calmly say, "Notice that wall. Thank you. Notice that wall. Thank you. Notice that wall. Thank you. Notice that wall. Thank you." And he'd say, "Batter bap brp." Well, the reason you don't get straight protests on it is it is beneath his recognition. He does not recognize a duplicative question until a lot of time passes in auditing, and by that time he's in good enough shape to tolerate it.

But you're actually cutting his bank to pieces just by saying, "Do fishes swim?" or "Notice that wall." And every time you make a boo-boo on an auditing command and don't duplicate, you actually hang up that cycle of communication. Every time an acknowledgment does not go through, you have left one more thing that has not been finished.

So it is tremendously amusing to watch somebody learning to be an auditor go right down the groove on the right question, without recognizing that the right handling of the question is more important than the question. You should follow that. I mean, just good auditing procedure, the early TRs strung together, are themselves the session.

All right now, you come along and you put some significance into it, you know, you make it interesting one way or the other and you say, "Well now, get the idea that all the lamps in the room are at the other end of the room. Fine. Now get the idea that all the lamps in the room are at the other end of the room. Fine. Now get the idea that all the lamps in the room are at the other end of the room. Fine." And you say, "Boy, I've really got a button here, this preclear's unwinding." I don't care whether you got a button or not, doesn't make any difference whether you got a button. You're just willing to sit there and audit him. Why, I don't care what question you ask, or what command you give, if you're handling these elements properly, this case is starting to come apart.

Now, it's true that there must be some recognition of the elements, that they are occurring. And sometimes a preclear is so armor-plated that he doesn't notice any part of it, including the auditor. Well, so it's kind of necessary then to get through to him rather positively, definitely and succinctly. It's all over his head, 'tisn't real, there's nothing there and so on. All right, you tie in with something like the Reality Scale and you give him a reality on a comm line, you give him a reality then on terminals at the other end of the comm line and he finds the auditor. Then he gets up to a point where agreement will take place and he starts to get out of the woods.

Now, this has to do with how close together and how positive must the manipulation of the preclear be and so we get into manual auditing. We get in right close, vis-a-vis. Now you start saying, "Give me your hand," making somebody sit that close to you and repeat the action over and over, is — also makes him confront, doesn't it, rather positively; and wild things may happen just because of this. Doesn't matter much what you were doing, you would still get results if you'd pat him on the shoulder and put your hand back in your lap and pat him on the shoulder and put your hand back in your lap. You got it?

What I'm trying to show you is that auditing is itself a resolver of cases. Now, the three elements of auditing that auditing must embrace are communication, havingness and control. And because these three things are being used deliberately, they tend to pull out of the unknown band into the known band. In other words, they come to view.

Communication — communication takes place — the Reality Scale gives us the havingness level of the communication, and control gives us the positive-ness of the affinity on the line. We must be fond of the guy — we just knocked his head off.

Now, when you look this over, you will see then that an argument about auditing commands must end with "Is it doable?" Not much, "Is it therapeutic?" but "Can it be executed?" And as we have pushed people up scale with CCH we found rather definitely that there were certain auditing commands that couldn't be executed above a certain case level, which was kind of remarkable.

And we found that old time 8-C becomes utterly silly, after a while, on this basis: We say, "Look at that wall" and then insist the fellow turn his head. What's he doing turning his head? For what? What's the matter, can't this thetan see a wall? And he actually could obey the auditing command and be invalidated by the auditor and thus auditing would start to lose ground.

So the auditing command must agree with the reality of the situation, which is that the preclear (being), is himself without mass and that he is handling mass. And if we indicate that he is to — well, let's get a sample command here. You say, "Now, touch your body on the forehead." Well, you'd say offhand, "Boy, that's an executable command, isn't it? 'Touch your body on the forehead,' that's a very simple command." Yes, it's executable up to the time of near exterior or after exterior, then it's not executable. Why? He may be — have a thousand bodies around, he's got old mocked-up bodies, he's got bodies in the next county, he's got bodies on the brain and you say, "Touch yourself on the forehead" and tzuhhh. "Touch your body." He'd be perfectly licensed to say, "Which body?" or "I haven't got one, thank you." Do you see that? So the command then has a limitation.

Now, you could say, "Touch that body." Now, there might be some limitation on this, but it works. We could say, "Touch that body on that forehead." Now we get this thing about "look at the wall." Now, to be absolutely sure, we'd have to say, "Through that body's eyes" or "Through those eyes" or some such thing, indicating them, "look at that wall."

Now, the second we pronounce a truth of this magnitude, why, we're raising hob with the process as well as the auditing procedure. And a combination of these two become absolutely deadly. The two together are irresistible. He might get away with it, you see, if he just had auditing procedure and nothing else, but now we add in an auditing command and then we direct the command very directly toward a truthful state of affairs. We tell him to do what he is doing! When he looks at that wall, he of course looks at the wall through the body's eyes. But we tell him to look at that wall through the body's eyes and after a while he realizes he's obeying the command. Well boy, is that control. Look at the control factor involved in this thing.

Now, it's quite amusing, the control factors involved with "Sit in that chair." This has a certain level of unworkability, but a thetan can still mock himself up sitting in that chair, you get the idea. So you don't go out through the roof on it. Now you say, "Touch that chair" and if you expect him to touch it with his hand — he's already sitting in it, isn't he, when you tell him to touch it. Well all right, he doesn't even have to twitch to obey the auditing command. You assume that he's enlivening the body and you assume that through the body he touches the chair, and he's done the command whether he even wiggles. He can't get out from under. Have you got it? He just can't get out from under, that's that. He has to do the command willy-nilly.

And there are several auditing commands of this character. Now, those are very reactive commands. They are directed directly at reactivity. They command the thing which is in existence. Total reactivity, you got the idea? This thetan, dead in his head, is sitting in a chair and we tell him to sit in a chair. Well, he's all mocked up sitting in a chair and then we say thank you as though he has complied — which he hasn't done anything else but — and he can't get outside of the control. You see this? He can't get outside the control.

Now, there are several other commands that work in the same way. These commands are, oddly enough, all recognized by preclears as wins and they work on a baby a few days old. Now, Scientology parents are always trying to lead the kid and make him better and get him up scale and get him squared away, and they neglect the fact that the fellow is operating within the considerations of being a baby or a little boy or something like that. And they never give him a win. And after a while the kid gets absolutely wog, he says, "Why can't I please my parents?" Said, "In the state that I am in I do not please my parents at all."

So I've done this several times now, that I've taken a child, put the child in a chair and said, "Be a little girl. Thank you. Be a little girl. Thank you. Be a little girl. Thank you." After a while, kid says, "Hh-hh, hh-hh, ha, ha, ha, hh, I got it made." Little baby, he's lying in a crib, you say, "Lie in the crib. Thank you. Lie in the crib. Thank you." Well now, that's not a very exact auditing command. Let's explore the command and we find out that it is not a very good command, it simply has a workability. Because in the first place a thetan isn't lying in the crib and a thetan isn't being a little girl.

Now, if you refine one of these commands down — and I'm just giving you the clue on how you do this rather than the whole parade of commands — which exactly fitted the facts, you would then have a total reactivity control command which would be 100 percent win and the preclear would regard it as 100 percent win. Now, if you said to this little girl — these commands get clumsy sometimes, and involved, but you should explore them and look them over for their workabilities. You could say to this little girl, "Now have that body be a little girl. Thank you. Have that body be a little girl. Thank you. Have that body be a little girl." And you'd find out it'd probably work faster. See, that's exactly what's going on, you acknowledge it, you say that's fine, they have the sensation of winning and therefore don't have to hang up forever on it.

Got a report the other day, some little kid had been audited and Mother said that before she could study to be an auditor she'd have to grow — up and she promptly grew three inches. That was taking her mother very literally.

But your responses on the part of the preclear at the lower end of the spectrum are reactive responses and it's the reactive responses that have him pinned down; these are unknown. So you give him wins on the reactive responses and you've got it made. So you give him wins on the level — lowest level. Your fellow is actually sitting there and he's doing something and you told him to do it and then you thanked him for doing it. From just an existing state, hung up, you are now acknowledging the state, you're giving him a win with the state, you are telling him that it's all right for that state to exist, you're putting him into communication because that state is the communication and his considerations on duplication tell him that therefore that is communication. The only communication to that state is a statement of that state. You get the idea? And you have very well a perfect auditing command.

We had a flop on one the other day. I sent to an auditor in a very far place — rather tragic flop because I told the auditor to do — who had never heard of Tone 40 processes or anything like that — I told the auditor to run a command, and which was one of these total reactive commands, you know, just tell the preclear to do what the preclear is doing and thank the preclear. And the auditor wrote me back some gobbledygook of some kind or another, a very involved supersignificance, and had completely misinterpreted the process. Didn't even think the process could possibly be doable because the preclear wasn't doing anything.

Now, get obnosis. Obnosis is that an individual sitting in the chair is doing something. Now, don't get so obsessively on change that you never command existing state. You've got the idea? So you say, "Through the body's eyes, look at that wall." What's he doing? He says yes. All of a sudden he says, "You know, there's something obstructing my vision, you know?" After a while it turns out that they're his eyeballs, something like this.

Now, why would that take place? The individual — now get this — the individual is obeying a series of commands which culminate in this state. And it is a series of commands which wind up with this state. The state he is in is in obedience to the commands. All we have to do is utter the commands and we as-is the original commands. Next thing you know, the fellow doesn't have to look through his eyeballs. Why is he looking through his eyeballs? Well, it's all very well for you to say, "Well, that's just the way people are built." No it's not the way people are built, that's the way thetans are ordered around. Whether circumstances or gods, demons, devils or sergeant majors, somebody has ordered him to look through eyeballs.

Now, let's go back to repetitive — repeater technique, old repeater technique. Are you aware of the fact that the auditor can take a key phrase on the case, the preclear's always saying this word — this series of words like, "Oh well, all women are alike," you know, "Oh well, all women are alike." And you say, "Well now, how are you getting along?"

"Well, I'm getting along all right except for my wife, you know. Well, all women are alike."

He couldn't even really get it in there squarely, you see, but he got it in there anyhow. And you say, "Well, what is your opinion of women?"

"Well, oh well, all women are alike." Well, this can go on forever unless there's some knowing direction at the phrase. So the auditor can sit there and say, "Oh well, all women are alike. Oh well, all women are alike. Oh well, all women are alike." And the engram starts to run. This is pretty wild, isn't it?

Now, you could sit there and repeat the Axioms at a preclear, with an okay and a good acknowledgment at the end of each axiom, (this hasn't been done, by the way, and it should be done experimentally) and practically blow his case to smithereens because he's obeying every one of them. Just old repeater technique, you get the idea.

So you say, "Through that body's eyes look at that wall," the only thing that gets him out of the problem is the problem, and the problem is an obedience to an order, which is "Through that body's eyes, look at that wall. Look at the mest universe only through that body's eyes. You can only see while looking through eyes." Now, that's the order he is obeying. Now, there's no sense in hanging glasses on his nose, there's no sense to tell him to look some other way, there's no sense inventing a system by which he can look another way. Let's just say, "Through that body's eyes, look at the wall." And he says, "Well, er, oooh."

Once in a while an individual goes completely hectic when you do this sort of thing to him. He's nicely seated in the chair and we say, "Now, have that body sit in the chair. Thank you."

All of a sudden he says, "Errr. Why, I'm doing it!"

And you say, "Good. Fine. Have that body sit in the chair."

"But I'm doing it!"

"Well, have that body sit in the chair. Thank you."

What's this franticness? What's this franticness? All that's running off is the duress which makes him obey the command. Other considerations add up to duress and when that duress starts to come about we get the situation known as a blow. Now, he'll blow through. Now, we — somebody has told him in some complicated fashion that unless he does so-and-so, and so-and-so — methods, magic, mysticism, punishment, consequences, if he does not look through a body's eyes he will not see any universe. Now he becomes very anxious to obey this command, "Look through a body's eyes." And for a while, because he's off on the subject of duplication — he's learned that duplication is dangerous and he mustn't do that anymore — he's only frantic because he doesn't think maybe he's looking through the body's eyes. There's something wrong with his performance of the order and that's the only reason he's going crazy on it. The other things can fly off, he can handle them fairly well, but he starts to distrust himself. Well, it isn't himself that is there to be distrusted. What's there to be distrusted is the fact that he thought he was obeying the command and here's somebody giving him the command as though he wasn't obeying the command. And he right away tries to insist to you, but he is sitting in the chair.

And you take some swivilian [civilian] Homo sap someplace or another and you say to him — he's sitting down in the restaurant — you can produce some of the more interesting effects, tap him on the shoulder as you go by his table and bend over and say, "Sit there and eat your dinner. Good." Practically blows him out of the water! But if you were to sit down across the table from him and repeat the command several times, his tendency to get up and run, to leave, to stop eating and so forth would all fade away and he would probably laugh about it. The funny part of it is, it wouldn't be a laugh because he found out you were all right, it would be a laugh of relief. He had discovered that he could obey the command.

And you understand that only — the only persistence of commands contain in them "try." So the real original command said, "Obey the command" and then sat on his head so he couldn't. Get the idea? It said, "Now lift your head out of the water. Slam! Good. Lift your head out of the water. Lift your head out of the water. Lift your head out of the water. Lift your head out of the water. Lift your head out of the water." And this guy is floating around with his head in the water.

You come along to him and you say, "Lift your head out of the water." He will — then he'd get frantic. And then he — after a while he would lift his head out of the water. Don't you see? But he knows this is not an obeyable command.

This is the way people get crossed up very, very madly. But what is his condition? His head is in the water and his command to himself finally was, "Well, damn it, I'll keep my head in the water. I will show them." So what you have to do is come along and say, "Keep your head in the water. Thank you. Keep your head in the water. Thank you. Keep your head in the water. Thank you. Keep your head in the water. Thank you."

And all of a sudden he says, "Well, that's what I'm doing! But I'm supposed to be doing something else." Now, the something else he's supposed to be doing can usually be neglected, because that wasn't what loused him up. It was some force, duress, or cross order and if you release either side of any of these things they have a tendency to spring. You got it? He was prevented from doing the command, actually.

Now, an individual who is looking through the body's eyes and can't see well, cannot obey the command and is up against one of these shuttles. Got it? All right, supposing the thing did hang up so that the command to lift his head out of the water while his head was being held underwater, and the command "Hold your head underwater" got so entangled with each other that it was just a total confusion and he went into a total confusion on it. You could probably speed the thing up by giving him both commands. You got that?

You'd push his head under the water and you'd say, "All right, keep your face underwater. Keep your face underwater. Thank you. Keep your face underwater. Thank you. Keep your face underwater." And then you grab him by the hair and you'd pull his head out of the water and you say, "Now, keep your head out of the water. Thank you. Keep your head out of the water. Thank you. Good. Keep your head out of the water. Thank you." And you're just working both sides of the same command — series. You got that?

Then the thing would for sure just brush off and disappear. You got both sides of it. Now, quite often it disappears on one side only.

Now, I'll give you some kind of an idea of this when applied very directly to a straight mechanical principle — it's nothing but a mechanical principle. And that is this, "Don't give me your hand." Or "Don't give me that hand," the more exact command. He isn't giving you his hand and you tell him not to.

Now, you're doing something else here, you're getting much more significant, because you're going into withholdings, which is right on the button of havingness. See, you can sit there and say to a preclear, "Don't give me your hand. Thank you." And expect every now and then that you get an explosion on the part of the preclear, an anxiety that he must throw his hands upon you. He must reach you. You got it? You'll get an explosion the other way too. You say, "Give me your hand. Thank you." And he's got the idea that he mustn't give you his hand. You've seen that happen. Well, let's look at the reverse and we would see what would happen on the reverse.

Now, somebody has run bad 8-C on him. They have prevented him from giving a hand, or reaching with anything, while they were telling him to reach. Got the idea? They say, "Now Johnny, don't reach for that light cord. Johnny, don't reach for that light cord." Put his hands up on the light cord. Don't you see? Now they say, "Now Johnny, reach for that light cord," and hold his hands in. Now you've got two postulates which are — or two commands which are so intertwined that neither one can be obeyed without countering the other one. If you split up just one side of it you will have done quite a bit. But if you split up both sides of the commands you've wrecked the whole incident.

Now, in view of the fact that we know that "withhold" has greater validity, in terms of havingness, than "reach," we find out that a very workable process rests in this process, "Don't give me your hand. Thank you." It's a withhold process, isn't it? "Don't give me that hand" would be the process, "Thank you." "Don't give me that hand. Thank you. Don't give me that hand. Thank you." You're liable to get it. But don't you take it, because that would be a violation of the auditing command.

Now, you say that's a violation of communication. No it isn't a violation of communication. It isn't a violation of communication for this reason: communication is occurring, isn't it? Well, I can assure you if somebody is obsessed with keeping his hands to himself, on the subject of hands the only command he will obey is "Keep your hands to yourself." Do you see this?

Now, postulates of one kind or another, to the tune of billions and billions and billions and billions of postulates, different kinds, shapes, sizes and descriptions, have been uttered at people and then crossed up. This is the way the physical universe works. They say, "Lift your head out of the water," and push the guy's head in the water. Now they say, "Push your head in the water," and lift his head out of the water. They pick him up and put him in the Sahara Desert and say, "Drink." They throw him in the Atlantic Ocean and say, "Never get wet."

Now, it's got to be crossed up orders or there won't be any confusion. So an individual after a while becomes very allergic to orders of any kind, and any time you issue any kind of an order he's all upset. Now, we take the basic background laws of existence, which got him into this in the first place, and use those for our utterances and of course we're pulling out from under him the rug of all these other confusions. We're saying, "Well now, just try and find a confusion now, son."

Now, we could run communication and break communication at a CCH reactive level. Doesn't run well on upper levels, it doesn't run long or persistently, but it nevertheless runs. Quite remarkable. If you tell somebody to withhold things you'd certainly better build up his havingness. You're going to run out his havingness, his automatic withholdings. You understand that? His automatic havingnesses are going to be shot. You could make him quite ill by overstressing this without running some Havingness. So "Keep that Object from Going Away" and so forth are definitely necessary at least as Havingness, or Trio or something of the sort. Now, we run two things then, one against the other, and we're all set.

Now, does it apply in other ways? Now, yes there are some other ways here which are quite amusing. One of them is self-determinism and other-determinism. An individual cannot make up his mind really whether he should run totally on self-determinism or other-determinism. After all, privates in armies do fine up to the moment they get killed by running totally on other-determinism. But that's fine, privates in armies only do all right when they quit the army and follow their own instincts. Now, those two things are crossed, aren't they? Is it better to run my own life or have it run for me? Now, this is just one of those unresolved questions.

Here's another one: is it better to have or not have? Of course, if you have something, then you will lose it and that will cause pain. You'll find many preclears telling you something like that. It's better not to own anything at all. But he's got to have in order to live but he can't have because he can't live. But the best way to live is not to have anything because then nobody will tackle you and kill you. You see the basic confusions.

Now, let's look for those basic confusions in the three bottom levels at CCH. The basic confusion of control is to be controlled or to control. So if you ran a permissive control like Trio, you would do very well to follow it up with Locational, which is total attention control. See, you've let him be permissive, let him choose. All right, now you start controlling him with his attention and you'll find out that he'll spark up on it; there you've run both sides of control, see?

All right now, is it better to have or throw away? Well, that's the Trio. Is it better to not communicate or communicate, and you could run both sides of that on such a thing as "Give me that hand" and the other one would be "Don't give me that hand" and you'd have run both sides of the communication. Thus you would have unraveled a tremendous number of confusions and it's only these confusions which keep the thetan stuck in any kind of a track. He can think his way through anything as long as it's logical. It becomes logical to us when we know both sides of all the puzzles. And they are contained in CCH.

Thank you.

Thank you.