Thank you.

Well, this is the 27th lecture of the First Melbourne ACC, isn't it? By golly, it is, isn't it? You're getting along.

And here we are at the 28th lecture, Melbourne ACC.

Now, I haven't anything to talk to you about today at all. I've just shot the bolt. See? I've given you all the data. You know everything there is to know. You all feel totally bright and alert. And your fundamentals are all in good place and position, everything is fine.

Your progress at large is pretty fair thanks to your excellent Instructors in whom I have every confidence.

Every once in a while somebody tells me that we change things all the time in Scientology. Every time somebody tells me that I'm liable to be just nasty and mean enough to ask them the definition of a cycle of action. Of course they can't give me that. So I ask them, "What's the dynamic principle of existence out of Dianetics?" Well, they can't give me that. So I say, "What's an engram?" And they say, "Well, an engram — an engram, that's uh — a trace on a cell." And I say, "Well, what do we change?" "Well, you just change all the time. You change everything, you change all the time." And I say, "How the hell would you know?" It's pretty mean, isn't it?

Good!

If you are under the belief that continuous study on the subject is study of enormous changes, you had better look at your fundamentals. The old Tone Scale — the old Tone Scale, it's a later version of an additional scale — Know to Mystery Scale, the Chart of Attitudes, all these things are right there in place.

Now with all due respect to that, now I want to tell you what I'm not satisfied with.

I wonder if you've realized that in asking somebody "What could you confront?" you're asking them a process which is directly and immediately and exactly the first principle of Dianetics, 1938. Well, you didn't know it went back that far did you? But it did. A book written back about that time which was never published and never been made available, which contains some hazards and various things. But it — there was no hazard about that.

Aside from your case gains, which we won't worry about because there are no cases in this class, your general performance of the TRs which is pretty bad and your rather diffident approach — ARC breaks going all over the place — you're neither as clever nor as poised as I want to see you.

That was where the whole thing broke. All the mystery broke down, because all forms, types of livingness did have a common denominator, and that was all I was looking for. The most identified thing would be the most common denominator, wouldn't it? So we had to find a crosspoint where all things — all living things could agree. And all living things do agree on that one thing, the dynamic principle of existence is survive. That's it.

You're doing all right in these other categories, I'm just teasing you. But I'm not teasing you now, this could go for any Scientologist, but his cleverness and confidence, willingness to tackle cases and so forth, could definitely, defi­nitely be improved. Hardly anybody here whose general approach and will­ingness just to tackle them head-on and so on couldn't be improved.

So, now clear back in 1952 I was doing stuff about dichotomies, Scientology 8-80, the black and white days, the plus and minus, the anatomy of mystery is contained in that. See? So 1950, we had the opposite side of survive, which was succumb. There was survive and succumb. You see? But succumb really isn't the opposite side at all. Succumb is not wanting to sur­vive. Isn't it? Well, survival is totally bound up simply in, as far as a thetan is concerned, confronting. If something survives, he can confront it and if something doesn't survive, he can't confront it. And sometimes something survives too damned well, and he sits there confronting it for thousands of years, saying "I have a black case." Right?

You go along the lines of improving your technical accuracy, your accu­racy in giving acknowledgments and that sort of thing, actually some of these demonstrations I've given you here have technical errors in them. The last demonstration I gave you had an ARC break in it. Not necessarily the best auditing I do by a long ways. I actually wasn't trying to audit, I was trying to show you something. I was trying to do something specific with a case which is just a little bit different — no alibi.

Audience: Yes.

But you go in the direction of making sure that you get an acknowledg­ment in every time and making sure that you sit there every time and hold your E-Meter just right every time and go — all of your TRs every time and all of this every time, and so forth and you're not measuring up to my stand­ards. It's something for you to think about. You're not measuring up to my standards.

Well, you're right in the middle of the cycle of action, the dynamic princi­ple of existence of Scientology is create. See? As soon as you found — the thetan found out the basic thing, the common denominator to all thetans is creation. That's the common denominator. That's something all thetans are doing, one way or the other they for sure are creating. Now, they may think that they are simply imbibing and pulling things into them and doing all that sort of thing but I assure you they've even got to create something to pull the things in on. So creation is that.

We take all those things for granted. That's just something that you ought to be able to do or not do as the case may be. You understand? Because auditing, technically, is what you can get away with.

Now you take these two things together and add the factor of counter-creation and we get destruction. A creation which is counter-created against too heavily, considers itself to be destroyed or can be considered to be destroyed.

Now, let's take up your state of mind and general handling of cases and let's find fault with that, shall we?

Boy, are we in the midst of fundamentals in this 1st Melbourne ACC.

Audience: Yes.

Now, a process on which we have more data than practically any other process, any other single process, aside from the old Dianetic processes of engram running (we have more data on that than anything else, of course) but the basic modern, you might say, process on which we have the most data is Confront. And boy we got lots of data on confront.

I never saw such an incurious lot of people. I'm not trying to restimulate your curiosity but I'm just saying, "Well, I never!" You're not curious enough. You just aren't.

The only new data there is on confront, is that I recognized that there's a similarity and that you can bring together confront and survive. Survive is a continuous confronting. Your license to survive is a license to confront. You have the right to look at the environment in which you are. And if you don't survive you don't have the right. And if somebody destroys your possessions and so forth, then you can't confront them, so, that they are not surviving, you feel you're not surviving and so forth. And they — they interlock very, very smoothly.

Now, listen to me. Every case is a story. A very long story. A very compli­cated story with tremendous plot twists. And not one single case you will ever face is an easy case. Just get over thinking they are or that you'll someday find one or that someday by some necromancy I conduct in a laboratory someplace, I will push a button, all cases will become easy cases and you simply stand off and chant at them with a small facsimile of an E-Meter in your hand, and they will all go Clear. They aren't! They aren't! That isn't the way cases are.

Now, you could say, "Well, what wouldn't you mind surviving?" Or, "What would you permit to survive?" or something of this sort. You have a — quite a model sort of a process there. And "What do you want to have succumb?" or something of this sort.

All cases are rough cases.

But there's something a little bit awry in it, because basically the word survive cannot be translated smoothly into several languages. Did you know that? Well, they're surviving all right, but they can't express it anymore. Isn't that interesting?

Now, you as auditors shouldn't be setting any example as a rough case. But, you'll find out that every case has its doglegs, and its zigs, and its zags, and its fantastic complications.

Audience: Yes.

And if you're not interested or watching, and if you don't know what those cases are, you're going to miss! And miss! And miss! And miss! And then you're going to stick yourself on the track by blaming Ron!

Russian is one of them, the most suicidal race on earth next to the Japa­nese. I'm not going to hammer and pound away at the Russians here. Don't worry about it. They — but they don't have a word for survive. How you would put together "survive" or "survival" in Russian would have to be something on the order of "continued existence" or something like that. You'd have to use two words. They don't have a basic word. Japanese also has trouble with this as you would well suspect. Because the Japanese, he's over there on a com­pulsive duplicate but he's nowhere else that you can find him at once and immediately on the cycle of action that he's totally recognizable; although he is surviving and so forth.

Now, auditing is your ability to read and straighten out a pc. How do you suppose anybody could ever fix a radio set without ever looking in the radio set? That would be pretty rough, wouldn't it?

Now, the Russian and the Japanese and the South American and any-body else however, do confront. And even a blind man confronts. It's the same order of thing. Survival gives us the degree — gives us the — whether or not something can be confronted. So confronting is the action and survive is the state of mind. So the action process that processes best is "Confront" not "survive." Do you follow me through?

Well, now we could get around this by training a lot of blind mice to run on a certain pattern and then never wiring a radio set up in any other way but that.

An individual can simply change his mind on the subject of survival. He can simply say, "I'm not surviving." You see? There he goes! Similarly he could say, "I'm not confronting." But in any language under the sun you could express "confronting." And as a matter of fact, you can run confronting on a very small child.

Now, minds consist basically of postulates which, of course, are also con­siderations and agreements, matter, energy, space, time and forms. That's what minds are. That's all they are.

You say, "What would be all right to look at?" And "What wouldn't you like to look at?" And you'll get the same process you're running on your pcs. And it'll run on a little child just a little bit after they learn the language. And this is some of the earliest words they learn. "Look." As a matter of fact, you see a little baby — my kids are particularly prone to do this. They are always trying to make people confront things. That's right.

And a thetan is just a thetan. And the thing he does best and worst is create — postulates, considerations, agreements, matter, energy, space, time and forms and the significance and complications thereof. Now, that's all!

Now, if they are having a bad time, they try to make people confront them in themselves. They get woes and worries and upsets and get safety pins into them and that sort of thing. But if they are in any kind of fair condition they start pointing. And they'll show you this and they'll show you that and they'll show you this and they'll show you that. And you walk up to little Arthur and you just say, "What can you confront?" and something of that order, why, he'd know right — right away practically what you were talk­ing about. But you wouldn't say it verbally. You'd look at him questioningly and point around. You know? And then he'd point at something. In other words, it can come right down to a mimicry in language.

But boy, the things he can do with that simple number of factors exceed anything any electronic brain will ever turn out as a number. That's for sure — the complications.

Ah! Then that lets us out of the symbol band. Doesn't it? That lets us out of the never-never land of symbols. Doesn't it? So your old Know to Mys­tery Scale on a complicated verbal process tends to hang up on symbols. The meanings of the words, the symbols of the words. And most processes below the level of effort are figure-figure processes, and they're stuck right straight at symbols. They're noplace else but symbols. And you can invent some very, very, very tricky processes. Very tricky processes. But unless you can immediately demonstrate them in space and energy, matter and time — unless you can do that with great rapidity, unless it translates at once, unless you can draw the com­mand, you've got a "stuck in symbols." So you just might as well drop out all those complicated processes, because they stick the pc in symbols. Do you see that? But any process, which is a good process, can be instantly graphed.

Now, basically, the only reason a case is a case, is because it's an overt act. That's simple enough, isn't it?

Now the old comm process is your communication — is a parallel process, has certain workabilities and it's a parallel process. It's right there. It's not as good as your "Confront." Don't believe that it is because it's the communi­cation formula. And the communication formula is very important and all that sort of thing, but it too vividly takes into effect, cause and effect, and all that sort of thing. Whereas Confront doesn't take in Axiom 10, but separates out Axiom 10. And the communication formula tends to kick in Axiom 10 if you can figure that.

And the basics you're operating with are simple enough. Well, for God sakes, learn those well, so the complications of these various basics that you get into in cases don't throw you for a loop!

It's much better to run an assist with "From where could you confront" — pardon me, "From where could you communicate to a (blank)?" meaning a body, if the mass is right there present in the room. "From where could you communicate to a (blank)?" — if the mass is right there, see. Some of the mass is there.

And you say, "Well, there must be something else." You've lost the second you say there must be something else.

For instance, we wouldn't say "From where could you communicate to your arm?" You would hang the fellow up on that arm that he just burned. You see? And actually it doesn't heal up because he burned it because he's dramatizing an engram he got in the burning of Rome, while playing a fid­dle. It won't run. But you've got his arm there. See? And as long as you have some of the mass present, why it particularly helps out the havingness factor involved. So that you find tremendous workability on "From where could you communicate to a (body part)?" It's utterly fabulous! I just couldn't overesti­mate it. Run smoothly by an auditor on an injured person, it is one of the fastest assists you ever had anything to do with. But of course if the injured person is too discombobulated that he can't even go that far, he can at least look at the fingers. But they are both kind of look at processes. But you have him — Touch Assist — "Look at the fingers. Look at the fingers." And he's writhing around and so forth, why, he'll come out of it best. But you are ask­ing him kind of to confront the surface of the member and the fingers at the same time. And he'll pull out of it.

Now the most basic overt act there is is to make somebody guilty of an overt act. That is the most fundamental overt act there is. It's to make some-body guilty of an overt act.

But for a lasting change to occur in somebody's sciatica or lumbosis (those two very famous Scientology diseases) — you see, there — it's illegal, you know, to cure several diseases. Did you know that? It's against the law in most Western countries, for instance, to cure tuberculosis, cancer, venereal disease. Let's see, what else? There's a whole long list of them. There's twenty-five of them in California, and there's only about twelve of them in London. They have more diseases in California obviously. It's really against the law to cure these things, you see. If you say you can cure these things, why, you can be immediately arrested and thrown into the clink, you see. So, it's not possible. So, better not try to run these on that disease that's listed as incurable because it will cure up. That's a joke.

Hence we get victim with its tremendous power. Because victim is an effort to get the perpetrator to duplicate the horrible state of the victim.

Now, you can do the same thing with a confrontingness process over a long line. A confrontingness process runs something out — would be — on some-thing on this order. "What arm could you confront?" You see? Now if you wanted to take all the confusion that's going to come off the thing, it would be "What arm could you confront?" plus (alternate, you see) "What arm would you dislike confronting?" or some such verbal version. See?

But all a victim is trying to do is to make somebody else guilty of an overt act. So that you could run a whole case with this one command:

So that's confront — not confront. That's reach — withdraw. That's make and break communication and so forth. And it'll produce, it'll produce — oddly enough, it'll produce a different engram chain than the "communicate." In other words, you get different actions on the process with more or less the same end goal as with the communication process. This is very funny — I mean it — the fellow arrives at the same place by a different route, slightly different route. They're obviously different processes because "communicate to" bears the connotation of "reaching across the gap to," which is the com­munication formula, which is Axiom 10. See? Production of an effect. And communication is an effect. Whereas, Confront lets anything happen. And you get a different style of automaticity running off as you run the process.

"Think of someone you've made guilty of an overt act." Or any variation thereof

Now this is interesting to you basically, because you have received recently, information concerning a victim. And you haven't heard anything, for instance, in this course about victims. Well, that isn't because we've dropped all the victims in the world. And there's a process that you don't have which is an absolute killer on victims, and would finish off anybody that's got victims unflat with great speed, you see. And on a different route, would simply be "What victim could you confront" and "What victim would you dislike confronting?"

That's very complicated. You see, that's the apparent effect-point has flipped to a cause-point. But that's the basic cause-point of aberration.

By the way, there's a bit wrong — something a little wrong with the sec­ond command on "dislike confronting" I find, because it tends to implant the person to dislike confronting. You know? He gets into an hypnotic trance and he goes "I dislike confronting." So I have been using it "rawther not." "What victim would you rawther not confront?" It's quite British. But it gives a milder, broader meaning to get into the semantics of the thing. You see? Actually, I would advocate using "rawther not." This factor didn't come to view, by the way, to me until, I think, day before yesterday or something like that, and I all of a sudden said that. Oh, well! — noticed somebody was getting "I don't like to confront that." You know? So we just flipped it to "rawther not" and the person forgot all about disliking it, which I thought was quite amusing.

Causing somebody else to be guilty of an overt act is the most overt act one can overt.

Now, your basic process on a victim would be then, just that, "What vic­tim could you confront?" or "What part of a victim could you confront?" They're two different processes, I call to your attention. One is segmental and therefore lower, works a little bit further south. "What victim could you con-front? What victim would you rather not confront?" These are very, very good. And it gives you a brand-new look at victims, and of course puts the fellow obsessively and continually in the winning valence the whole way. It just starts jamming him into the winning valence. And of course, that's one place where, on any aberrated subject he doesn't care to be. So when you run that, don't be surprised to find him continually out of valence and it's one of these processes that runs consistently and continually out of valence and then gradually eases into valence.

And these cases sit in front of you as a demonstration of how to make other people guilty of an overt act. And that's all a case is.

Now, "What could you confront?" runs a person rather rapidly into valence. But "What victim could you confront?" runs him very rapidly out of valence. Get the very slight nuance here, and then runs him back into valence again. You can get different results here with almost the same proc­esses. Quite amusing! And it should be called to your attention because you'll find other ways of varying this sort of thing around. And you look this over and see what the pc's doing. There may be something that you would care to add up about this that — there it is. And this fellow says "Confront? Confront? What is that? What is — what does this confront mean?" And he's having trouble with the command. Well, "look at," for heaven's sakes! You know, "Observe" if you're running it at Oxford. It has innumerable synonyms. Innumerable.

It's a composite of efforts to make other people guilty of an overt act, culmi­nating in the almost perfect combination of how to make people guilty of overt acts.

Confrontingness in general, has enormous, broad, wide workability. Communicatingness has a subordinate ability. It's a lesser ability. I wouldn't say which one goes the furthest south. I really wouldn't. But the old ARC Straightwire process goes a long way south. And you ask somebody to simply "Recall a communication. Recall a communication. Recall a communication. Recall a communication. Recall a communication," you know, not that you made or anybody else made. You never saw anybody flip in and out and around valences so fast as he will on that particular process. He goes from cause to effect to cause. And of course, every time he goes to effect you got a lost command. Every time you run a motivator you wasted time. Got that? So every time he goes to effect it's a lost command.

That sounds pretty horrible, doesn't it? That's what a case is. That's what a reactive bank is built out of and that's its basic postulates and considerations — is how to make somebody else guilty of an overt act.

But nevertheless, a psycho particularly, who cannot regulate his behav­ior in the bank at all and so forth, is going to ram around the bank and give him too much trouble to run it the other way. So he'll run it wrong. So probably the lowest level verbal process there is — "verbal" process there is or thinkingness process — and that's what you're learning in this ACC, by the way, is thinkingness processes. You noticed that? Communication of thinkingness of one kind or another, communication rather than manual handling of or moving of objects of. Confront is awful close in to handling objects. But, it really isn't. It's still a think process.

Why do the police arrest people? That's to show those people that their acts are overt acts. That's why police arrest people.

You get, "Recall a communication," is just about as far south as you can get on a rough, rough case. On a very, very, very rough case, you had better run something of the order of that process, "Recall a communication" or "Recall communicating" — now, that fits him, you see, over at the other side, and get your gains in that particular way, and bring him up to a point where he is really cooking on all front burners.

Why have you struck an animal or another human being? Why? Why have you struck this person? That's to make him guilty. So much so that if you strike some people, they know they've done something. See? That's just automatic. You hit them, they know they've done something. See? They feel guilty at once — bing! You say, "Bang! Bang!" They say not "What have I done?" but "I have done something." See? So much stimulus-response.

Of course, a Scientologist's ability to estimate a psycho is probably the poorest in the world. That's right. That's right. These Scientologists can't estimate psychos. That's it. But don't feel chagrined about it because psychi­atry was never able to and never will be able to.

Now, you bang at a case and he knows he's done something. You bang at a case too hard and he assumes too hard that he's done something. Right?

Now, what's a "psycho"? Well I think psycho actually is a dirty word. Probably no more than that.

Audience: Yes.

As far as we're concerned, ability to handle the process, would be that by which we classified a case. And in the old Science of Survival chart, we look over that "ability to handle engrams" column in the old chart there. That's very true. But a lot of other processes could be put in on that same column. I've just never done it. You put a lot of other processes on there, and you'd find out these things would get thinner and thinner and thinner and finally disappear out of the think level entirely. And they'd have to go into some manual operation or some vis-a-vis situation and you'd get eventually down into the last-ditch communication which is mimicry.

Now the reason they put people in prisons is to make them aware that they've done something. See? The reason they beat people, kick people and so forth is to make them realize they've done something.

Psycho is spinning around in a cell so you jump in the cell and spin around. Actually it's not so good, however, to mimic a psycho's disorderly con-duct. The trick is to mimic his orderly conduct. If he's doing anything orderly at all, do it. And if he's doing something disorderly, don't do it. I mean there's a lot of gen on this sort of thing. But you could probably bust up people that are pretty far off. I don't know how far you could go breaking up a catatonic schiz. I never completed a series on this, getting somebody to lie down in exactly the same position as this person has been lying in, motionless, for a long while. You know — months or years. Getting somebody simply to lie down in the same position almost within, well, a bit within view of such a person if the person was looking. And get this person to lie down there for a certain period of time every day and then get up and leave. Lie down, lie there for quite a little while and then get up and leave — you're kind of match-terminaling the thing. A lot of experiments would have to be run along this line. But we have not been too interested in institutional activities.

Well, the reason people get sick is to make somebody else realize he's done something. And we get the old service facsimile. But let's redefine serv­ice facsimile as that facsimile most used to make other people realize they are guilty of overt acts.

Now, anybody who can successfully do a thinkingness process, is not a psycho. He is so far out of the range and realm of the field of psychiatry, a psychiatrist wouldn't know what to do with him. That's right! And nearly everybody you find Scientologists classifying as psychos are still capable of doing a thinkingness process and handling it. That's quite an interesting observation. You can do that.

So therefore, a service facsimile is totally itself an overt act. You recog­nize it as such and when you start auditing it out of somebody, you realize you're taking away from him the source of his overt acts and you're removing one more overt act from the world, so you'll think you're doing a good thing — and by golly, you are! Get the idea?

Because many people think they are totally mad, they start doing a thinkingness process of some kind or another and they decide "that they're totally mad, totally nuts, totally insane, utterly gone." Look, that's the one thing a psycho never decides. When he's decided that, he's confronting the fact. So he's — it's breaking up right in front of your face. If he had any impulses in this direction, why they're going and going rapidly. A person who could do that isn't crazy. Get the idea?

But it's much better — that was Dianetics style — now, it's much better Scientologically to get the person over doing this.

Now, that means if all people who can run a thinkingness process are sane — that, you could only say, would be a very relative statement because they are not responsible. But how can a person be sane without being some-what responsible? Well then you'd say that a person who could be responsible for his own person and his very limited environment, if he can be responsible for just his own person, limited environment, then you'd say for sure he wasn't crazy. See? He is then — but the only reason we have the word "crazy" or "psycho" is to say whether or not somebody could be trusted to take care of himself. It wouldn't extend to any other dynamic. So if a person could be trusted, within limits, to take care of himself, not given too many exterior stimuli and shocks, then you'd say that person isn't crazy.

See, why is everybody running around trying to make everybody else guilty of having done an overt act? Well, you'd say this is a social discipline. It may be social discipline but it's pretty crazy.

But a person who couldn't take care of himself in a — an environment, in any way, in spite of the fact that it was a calm environment, well, you'd say that person was nuts. And that would be about the make and break of it. And that's about as close as you can come because he would be a social liability of some magnitude. But the second we go into social liability on the upper dynamics, we get into the most fantastic complications because we are trying to label as sane people, normal people. And they are not sane on all envi­on all dynamics. They just aren't! That's it!

Now every case that sits down in your auditing chair divides into two categories, two broad categories:

There's hardly a person alive, who could be born into the world at this time, outside of Scientologists, who could be said to be "sane on all dynamics." In other words, able to be responsible on every dynamic? See, that's what that would immediately say. Able to be trusted with that particular zone or sphere of action. Now we're getting — this is getting pretty scarce isn't it? Why, I — I don't know, there are probably a few men on earth who would be — could be trusted with a government — probably be trusted all right with a government — few men.

Those who are obsessively going to make you guilty of an overt act, as a highly specialized case, this is what we call the ARC breaky case. All he's trying to do is make you guilty of an overt act. Your auditing of him makes you guilty of an overt act, see? And that's his total mission! And everything he does and puts up is to make you guilty of an overt act! That's the person who is ARC breaking at you. He's trying to make you guilty of an overt act. So after a while, you begin to consider auditing an overt act and you stop auditing. Do you understand? Because these people have been sitting there convincing you that it was an overt act.

But these same guys might have their own domestic relationships in flinders, not be at all trustworthy on the second dynamic. See? The responsi­bility factor.

You get too many of these cases and the next thing you know, why, you fall for it, and you say, "Well, I'm guilty of an overt act. Auditing is an overt act and I shouldn't be plowing into minds this way. And I shouldn't be doing this because it is an overt act. And look what I did to poor Jehepsuba. Smashed her, I did, ruined her completely. She went away from there and spun for 19 days. So, it's a hell of an overt act, see?"

So if we extend the responsibility factor out through the various dynamics, we start to establish some view of what we mean by a Clear. And we start abandoning the idea of sane. The sane are not the normal. The nor­mal are not sane. That's it! Because you have to select it out by dynamics. What dynamic are they sane on? And as soon as you start picking over what dynamics they're sane on, it becomes painfully obvious that normal people are strictly fruitcakes on several other dynamics. You get the idea?

Why do you think she spun? Made you guilty of an overt act, right? Well, you get a good reality on that one and you'll never be fooled again along this line. It's the pc's overts against the auditor that make the thing aberrated.

The zones — this would all be under the heading of zone of responsibility. What zone of the dynamics could a person be responsible for and be trusted with? See? What would this be? So, all sanity comes under the heading of our ancient old, good heavens, goes way back when, processes that have to do with full responsibility. And you never saw Dianeticists run away as fast and get themselves lost, as when that first article was published in Advanced Procedures and Axioms, entitled — the little — little subarticle in the book, entitled "Total Responsibility" or "Full Responsibility." Man, they look at that thing and just practically blow up. And some of these people were quite sane, maybe on the third dynamic. But terribly bad off on maybe the first and sec­ond and so forth. And you told them "Well, they had to take full responsibil­ity, or be able to take full responsibility." And they just blew off in all directions. And we had to look at a new fact then. That was quite an acciden­tal discovery. I wrote this book and issued it and found out that the book was terribly, terribly, terribly unpopular and found out why. And it was just that one article. With many people it was very, very popular.

Now of course, an auditor can throw a bunch of overts against the pc in controlling the overts which the pc is throwing against the auditor and the auditor can play this game in reverse.

Well, it was the first organized release, if you please, of Axioms, and the first organized effort, as they will tell you in certain European centers — it was the first organized effort at stating the laws of the mind. And we get a lot of credit for that. Just that all by itself. But it's the old Axioms of Dianetics we're talking about which appear there in Advanced Procedure and Axioms. And so that book should have been quite popular. But the fact that it had the idea in it of being fully responsible drove people batty. And we found out that that thing which had the greatest public appeal was, "You're not responsible." And we went back over old Book One and found out that Book One never tried to make anybody responsible for anything, but just said they were nothing but victims from the word go.

Every once in a while you'll find yourself doing Code breaks and you say, "Well, I didn't intend to do a Code break." Yet you did one!

So, now a person who is not responsible on a dynamic has no other choice than to be a victim on the dynamic. Now victim is so far from being abandoned that a brand-new understanding of sanity, processing, analysis, adjudication of Clear and so forth, comes right straight out of it.

Well, how'd you Code break? Well, it was an ARC break as far as the pc was concerned, but your Code break was entirely prompted by an effort to handle the overts of the pc. And you tried to handle the overts of the pc, you became guilty of an overt yourself. So, you get this one sawing back and forth and it blows you out of auditing and blows people out of session, and gets everything going round and round because the only source of a blow is too many overts — by the pc — not the auditor.

A person who cannot take responsibility for an area has no choice but to be an effect in the area. Of course, he doesn't have to be obsessive cause in the area either. You know? There — you can get above cause too. But there's — there's the gist of it. A person who cannot take responsibility in any dynamic area would be a victim on all dynamic areas. And that would be an absolute insanity. Abso­lutes are unobtainable, but that's it. That would be an absolute insanity. He'd be a victim on every dynamic.

And the next thing you know, you haven't got auditing in progress, you've got a contest in progress by which the auditor is trying to convince the pc that the pc is guilty of an overt act, and the pc is trying to convince the auditor that the auditor's guilty of an overt act. And nobody wins on this one. Nobody at all. Nobody would ever win on this one.

God was after him. Spirits and devils were after him. The MEST universe was built specially and totally to entrap him and serve as a cell for him. The sea was there to drown him, all living things there were to poison him and strangle him and choke him. Walls existed to trap him. Time existed totally and completely to do nothing but stretch him out endlessly in his agony. Man-kind existed as a total trap which could individuate in some way and drag him off in various directions — a terrible thing. Man ought to be a different species entirely. On the third dynamic, of course, why, groups were formed mainly to penalize him and enlist him in forces and to make him do things he didn't want to do. On the second dynamic, the second dynamic was there in order to destroy things and people. The family existed as a total trap. And he existed himself as his own worst enemy.

Now, let's be very factual about this. There was a good reason for man to begin this one. He was actually trying to protect others more than himself.

Now, that person's crazy, any way you want to look at it. That would be the works! See? And yet he can run a thinkingness process, perhaps, in one of those areas, which would be your road out. There's nobody that bad off that can still talk, by the way. I mean if you, hearing this tape or this lecture and so forth can get an idea of being causative in any direction, why, you probably don't fit in that category.

You see, it's impossible for a thetan ever to get trapped on a theta trap. It's only possible for a thetan to believe that other thetans get trapped on a theta trap and then commit an overt act against people who plant theta traps which, of course, makes him then get caught on theta traps. You get the cir­cuitous thing that it has to be.

But the difficulties of classification were of course the difficulties of not knowing what it was all about. So we get words like insane, neurotic, para­noid. Aw, you — it's just — they're just swear words. You might as well classify them as just swear words. Because if nobody — if nobody knows the anatomy of these things, then how in the name of common sense could he delineate them one way or the other?

There is no trap will ever be made, none could ever be constructed — the way the rationale goes of the mind — no trap could ever be made of any kind that would just plain, ordinary catch people. See? Or just ordinary, just plain catch thetans. A thetan wouldn't stick on one!

For instance, I did find in one single instance the legal definition of insanity to be superb. The legal definition of insanity is "to be able to tell right from wrong." And I ran across a psycho, who knew she couldn't tell right from wrong. That's quite interesting. I don't know whether it had been the legal definition that had been — she had been instructed in it or something, but she couldn't tell right from wrong.

There has to be this other rationale. You see, he has to believe thetans get stuck on it. And then he has to have overts against people that put them up or overts against traps, or he himself has to start this thing going so that he puts up traps and gets people to believe that people get stuck on them and then to get them to do overts against him, so that they get caught on the traps.

Now, when you start looking at what's right, then you have to say from which side of the counter-create. See? At what period of time? And when you look at wrong, well for whom? Where? And what? And our road out of this morass was the optimum solution. And the optimum solution is covered in Book One, has not been covered since, and it's still — still with us and just as good as it ever was. It's the viewpoint one takes of the effect that establishes right and wrong to a very marked degree unless one can operate or subdivide life and find out what parts of life are benefited and what parts are not benefited; then we can get some sort of an adjudication because it's not Aris­totelian black and white. Believe me. Not black and white logic. It's full of grays and whites and jet blacks and foggy blacks and they're not necessarily all in sequence either. They're just a smooth fan from black over to white. You see?

See, that's the only way a theta trap will operate. Take it from me. A person can never be trapped in anything that he has no overt act against. It just isn't possible to be trapped by something you have no overt act against. That's it.

Quite amazing, I mean, we have found man out, in other words. We have found him out in his most queasy quarter. He didn't know who was capable of sound conduct, judgment or action. He hadn't a clue. And yet in democracies they're going around electing presidents and the heads of armies and all of that sort of thing. And in the businesses, why, they're busy promoting this person and that person and so on and going through all of these actions, and they haven't a ruddy clue. They just — you just put everybody's name in a jar. Anybody that has a body is a person. See? That's by definition. And if the body was delivered in a country, he's a citizen. See? He has rights, which psychiatrists can then take away if they say he's crazy. But they have no defi­nition for what's being crazy. You see? Well, it's very silly.

A criminal is perpetually being arrested by the police. Perpetually, snap­snap-snap!

You put these peoples' name in a — in a big glass jar. You just put every-body's name in a big glass jar and you have them reach in and pull them out. And if nobody says — nobody says, "Well, I know something bad about him," why, they say, "Well, that's it."

We had one person who — we didn't have him but he was around — and one fine day he was standing on a street corner and son-of-a-gun if a couple of cops — he was just standing on a street corner, it was broad daylight and everything — a couple of cops come up, take him, put him in a squad car and take him down and interrogate him about something or other that they didn't even know what it was. They just knew the thing to do was to pick him up, and take him down to the jailhouse. They just knew that. They just looked at him. It wasn't even that he flinched or anything, he just — bang!

Well, of course, they get on a big national election basis, when they pull this man's name. It's a bunch of guys that don't let anybody else in on it, that have a jar and they pull that man's name out and then they together, operat­ing with another set of guys who pull another man's name out, and who don't let the public come anywhere near ever looking at or having anything to do with those glass jars, you see, say "Well, these are your candidates. Free elec­tion! Free country! It's all free! All free. (You vote for anybody else and we'll shoot you. We'll arrest you.) You say that Doakes over here — you're going to put pressure on to make Doakes in charge of things around here. And ahh, that makes you a pretty raw revolutionary." "But we're not revolutionaries!" "We've got you totally pressed down to observing the salient points that you have Candidate A and Candidate B. And Candidate A doesn't stand for any-thing you know anything about. And Candidate B doesn't stand for anything you know anything about. Now, vote!"

Well now this fellow, of course, has tremendous overts against cops. And his overts against cops eventually add up to a total overtness against cops which make him stick anyplace cops say. See, that is the place to stick — jail.

Well, I don't know. Let's — why don't we try to run the complicated eco­nomic machinery of earth with a pair of dice. You know? And say, "Well, if it comes up "seven" we'll push lever sixteen. And then if we hired a monkey to tell us what numbers that appear on the dice and another monkey who was out of communication, to go over and pull lever sixteen, we'd have about the way they think things ought to run. Orderly, very orderly.

You're never going to get a criminal in any other frame of mind than being a criminal by putting him in prison. You cannot put criminals in prison and have anything happen. They remain criminals. They are confirmed as criminals because now they know that it works.

Now going into this a little further, your fundamentals of Dianetics have never fitted together better than they fit today. As a matter of fact there are many areas that we could look into now and — oh, just dozens of phenomena. We just say "Well, that's very interesting. And we know where it fits. And it's not as important as it used to be." So the further you go along the line, the better idea you have of the relative importances of things.

It's a very, very dull thing, a very, very dull thing for police to put some-body in jail for two years and then let him out, and then put him in jail and let him out, and put him in jail — because they're going to put him in jail a second time. And they put him in jail again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Most fabulous thing you ever watched.

So let's take a look at survive. And we'd have to have survive and destroy or survive and succumb, you see, as opposite things. That would be "Willing to look at — willing not to look at." See? And then if we had a person who was willing to look at anything on all the dynamics but who could escape from looking at them if he didn't want to, we'd have a sane man. And oddly enough, would have nothing to do with whether or not he was intelli­gent about it.

There are people who have never been arrested who are guilty of overt acts against the society but they kind of punish themselves. But this game called "cops and robbers" is a game which plays itself off in an exact way but it has to do not with the society at large. The criminal goes around, makes sure that there's some police handy and robs a store. See, he plots it all out.

See, if he could look at all of these zones all the way up from the first to the eighth dynamic, if he could look at all these zones or not look at them at will, in other words, his power of choice over his lookingness was there, you see, we'd have a sane man. And oddly enough, they're only there because he's helping put them there, so of course he has a control zone over them too. And naturally, because he's willing to look at them, he's smart. He'd be intelligent about them as well.

He always leaves clues. Why, Sherlock Holmes never could have operated if it hadn't have been for this basic mechanism. The criminal always walks in carefully, looks all around, finds a nice, wide place on the glass showcase and takes his thumb and rolls a print off on it. Always does.

So we find out something else. We used to worry about what intelligence is and so on. And just in the last couple of years we did find out what intelli­gence was. "Intelligence" is nonrestimulated stupidity. And that's what it is. I hate to have to tell you that. But that's a technical fact. It's not a joke.

All a cop has to do is look for where the criminal wrote his name and address. And police work is as good as you can find the name and address on the crime. That's about all it is. It's fantastic.

You can write up an IQ test that restimulates stupidity. I'll give you an idea. You say, "If pieces of cheese are tuppence a pound, and there is no cheese, how many rats would it take to stuff a glass fruit case?" That'd be question one. And question two, 2 x 2 = (blank). Question three, 2 x 4 = (blank). And question four would be "How long is a piece of string?"

People don't even commit crimes to get anything. They go in, they — they get five dollars or something like that off of somebody, or two pounds or something, and they — they get that and — but they don't use it for anything. They take it out and throw it away.

All right. Now, let's reverse the order and we get a different grade. We put the real stupid one first and then put a couple of easy ones and then put a fourth in. We don't care what. We'll get one grade. Now, if we start out the test with "2 x 2 = (blank). 2 x 4 = (blank). How long is a piece of string?" And the question one (previous one) and you've got a higher grade. Because the people who'd give it the way I gave it the first time will miss two and three. They just go wog! You know, two times — and then it gets to two times two. And they say "Two times two ... ? Choo-choo!"

They go and rob a hock shop, something like that, they take all the clocks and junk they got — you'd think they'd sell them for money or some-thing like that. They don't, they leave them in garbage cans and give them to girlfriends and break them up and pick their teeth with them. It's the most fantastic thing you ever saw.

Now, you can restimulate this not-know or mystery sandwich any way you want to. But one of the ways to restimulate it, is by educating the chil­dren only to look at things and never take their attention off of them. That is going to make a lot of dumb yokels.

And they'll steal some of the most unlikely objects. And they'll do some of the most unlikely things. It drives cops almost batty trying to outguess these super-unpredictable people. And the cops still think that men steal money because they want money. That isn't true. Men steal money because they want to go to jail. Because those who steal money because they want money are never detected by cops.

How would this be? Because they've got an unbalanced thing, and they'll put them into mystery. And the children will go around all the time wonder­ing what everything is, you see, we get restimulated mystery. They're always supposed to wash their hands and watch very carefully that their hands don't get dirty. And nobody ever says, "You don't have to observe your hands." See? And if they're going on a sort of a stimulus-response training, why, they'll wind up with a fixation on hands, wondering what is wrong with them. The opposite side of the dichotomy is never run, you see. Nobody ever said, "Unconfront your hands. Thank you." Nobody says, "Now, make sure your shirt is clean. Is your shirt clean? Now, you don't want to go to the party with your shirt dirty. Do you? Now, you don't want to go to the party with your shirt dirty. Do you? Now make sure that your shirt's clean. And don't roll in the dirt because you'll get your shirt dirty. And keep your shirt clean. Keep your shirt clean. Keep your shirt clean."

Now, here is this oddity of overt acts versus a particular segment of the society. And if you were to take the police out of the society, then the people who — and just remove the police from the society totally, no police in the soci­ety at all. I know this would be pretty gruesome in the present state but you do that and you'd have an awful lot of criminals walking around trying to find out who they attack now.

Person after a while will be wondering all the time if his shirt's clean.

See, they'd be very puzzled, and they'd be very upset, and they wouldn't know what to do. Because the fine course of human affairs has been totally interrupted. There's no jail to go to, there's no cop to spit at. See, here we go.

He won't ever know if his shirt's clean or not. Get the idea? Because — not because it isn't clean — dirty — the dichotomy — it's "Confront your shirt. Con-front your shirt. Confront your shirt. Confront your shirt," in such a way as to prevent something. And this of course locks him up in just confronting his shirt. And you ask — come along and you ask this fellow as a Scientologist someday and you say, "What shirt would you rather not confront?" you know. And he says, "Wow! Any shirt. All shirts. No shirts. The devil with shirts. Shirts!"

If you ever see a criminal, you face him with a cop, he'll go into one or two states: He'll absolutely go ravening mad, or he'll totally succumb and go into utter propitiation and terror. See, it's a violent reaction against law and order.

And we get the old Dianetic idea, given in the July lectures at Elizabeth, New Jersey, I think is the only time it has ever been mentioned to amount to anything; is fixed and unfixed attention. That was covered pretty thoroughly. We have mentioned it from time to time since, but it was covered pretty thor­oughly back then; fixed and unfixed attention.

Now, similarly, if we put a great deal many more police in the society than we have, we have people all of a sudden going into criminal activities who weren't going in before. There's enough police around to make lots of overt acts against. See? It's this crazy game starts up. You get the idea?

Well, attention and confrontingness. You'd say, fixed confrontingness and unfixed confrontingness. So you get a process like this working quite remark-ably "What would you like to confront?" And this is always surprising to pcs. It's not as good as the process that you are running "What would you — What could you confront?" and "What would you rather not confront?" This is not as good. But it's amazing. It's amazing, because it always turns out that the thing he picks out that he likes to confront, is he doesn't like to confront it.

So that law and order shouldn't be this game. Law and order should actually be picking up the people in the society who are guilty of overt acts against it and rehabilitating them. That's — would be the only effective police work that anybody ever did.

Now, you'd have to run that process — if it were totally successful on recent tests and so on — you'd have to run it with the other side of its dichot­omy, otherwise he'd run out liking to confront it and then he'd run out every-thing he'd like to confront but he'd be left with a lot of things he hated to confront. And there is that particular liability to that process. It worked won­derfully however for the first week or two of an intensive. The guy can always find obsessive confrontings. What he'd like to confront, you know, boom!

Similarly, similarly, insanity is based on this fact. You get people — will actually go to a psychiatrist and get an electric shock and go back the next day and get an electric shock and be told to report at ten thirty on next Tuesday and they will be right there to get another electric shock even though it busts their spine every time. It's the wildest thing you ever saw — the repeater along this line. Guilty of an overt act in that direction and it just keeps on being guilty of overt acts in that direction one way or the other.

And you'll find people just plowing straight into their banks. What in their minds ... "What's in your mind? What's in your mind? Now watch your mind. Now watch your mind — now, keep your — keep your attention on what you're thinking. Now, watch what you're thinking now. Keep your atten­tion on your mind. Keep your mind under control. You mustn't let your mind go out of control, you know. You must keep your attention on your mind because if you didn't keep your attention on your mind you're liable to go crazy. You see, your mind goes crazy if you don't keep your attention on your mind" and so forth. "And it can go out of control. And so therefore you'd bet-ter keep your attention on your mind."

Now, insanity is the below death manifestation of "Look what you've done to me." See? Insanity is below death. And you start curing up the insane or start bringing them up through the band, they start talking about dying, committing suicide and so on.

Nobody ever says, "Take your attention off your mind and look at the ruddy room." See, nobody ever says that.

This was something that Freud knew nothing about and it almost wrecked him. They have carefully kept very, very secret the tremendous number of people who undergo psychoanalytic treatment who commit suicide in the first three months. It is an enormous number, big percentages.

So you get the opposite side of confrontingness and so forth as a mental bail-out. You just run Alternate Confront "What would you like to confront?" and then you could probably say, "Dislike confronting" because you're run­ning the opposite.

The psychoanalyst always says, "He came to me too late." Now, if he got any effect at all, he started bringing people up through death. Well, he has to bring them up through death rapidly enough so that the individual starts to live.

Now, where — where does all this end? What does this leave us with, this résumé I have just been giving you here on processes that work and what you do with them and so on? Well, it leaves us with a tremendous amount of tech­nology. And after you have satisfied yourselves of the relative workability and usability and effectiveness of some of these processes and particularly this Confront Process and particularly, selectively being able to create back into existence, into restimulation something to confront — as soon as you've seen how this works and you're satisfied about this whole thing, and — a lot of things are going to fall out of the hamper.

Insanity, however, is a manifestation or mechanism put up to show people they've been guilty of being cruel — being cruel, unreasonable, thought-less and so forth.

You're going to see a tremendous amount of things occur mentally and so on, that you've never seen happen before. And then would be the time to go back over all the data again and read it. See? Just read all the books you got on the subject, just up to present time. See?

You'll find it manifesting itself in such a place as — well, more wealthy families are victimized by it, or political families are more victimized by it than poor families. Because a poor family, can — a boy can always come along and shuffle by in some terribly disreputable shoes. See?

You find yourself sitting there saying "Yes. Yes. Well, well, oh yeah, that's obvious" and so forth. And "I wonder why there's, so much importance being laid on that? That's relatively unimportant. And that! Well, I never thought that was important before. Gee-whiz! That was important, wasn't it?" And just shake out the relative importances.

But how about the rich man's son? He can't drive by in his Cadillac con­vertible to show the old man that the old man is guilty of an overt act. See? He can't show the old man is guilty of an overt act. It's not possible. See, MESTwise he's cared for in this way and that and they very often go into neu­rosis or psychosis or something of the sort to show how mean they were. They've been out-succumbed, you might say, or something of the sort.

Now, that's about all that ever changes in Dianetics and Scientology, is the relative importance.

Now, this is a crazy thing about insanity, that it is as crazy in its ration-ale as it is. And there's nothing to understand about insanity except that it is a method of convincing someone they have been guilty of an overt act — and that is what insanity is.

But the things that were considered important in 1938, 1950, hah! First Melbourne ACC way up here almost into 1960 — and they're obviously — obviously the most important factors. We're still dealing with a mind which is composed of pictures, spaces, time, facsimiles, engrams, mock-ups. Still dealing with bodies and the influences of pictures on bodies and dealing with something new that came up at the end of 1951 — a thetan. He emerged into view after enough processing had been done and so forth — why, began to find out what people were; what other people were. And the anatomy of this uni­verse has just very recently been emerging as one of these open and shut, "My golly! Is this easy!" sort of things, you know. I still had questions about what this universe is all about.

Now, oddly enough, and horribly enough, the person may be way, way, way back down the track, they're trying to convince. The person they're try­ing to convince, basically and originally may not be in PT at all. But there must be people in PT who are substitutes for those past people, otherwise the manifestation doesn't come about.

And there's only about one major question left that hasn't any open and shut discovery. Now, individuation, separateness and all this sort of thing to the contrary; people believe that they are obsessively separate. So therefore, if they ran it all out, they would be obsessively the same person. There's obsessive togetherness. Socialist commies get stuck in this thing. "We're all common people." And then the commissars come along and tell them, "Well, some are more common than others."

So, you can always find somebody in present time that the person who is manifesting insanity is trying like mad to convince they've been guilty of an overt act. See, these would be the late locks on the same dramatization. But insanity can be a winning dramatization in this particular fashion since it carries with it no responsibility and so forth. Probably has its own ideas and payments, and so on, but you don't have to understand its complications beyond just this one complication: that insanity is a demonstration to some-body else that they've been guilty of an overt act and is the basic mechanism that shows they have driven them to a point where they can't even die. They're really gone. They've lost their reason. See, they went!

Here's the — here's the basic difficulty there, the mishmash, the togeth­erness. The obsessive togetherness comes about from a terror of separate­ness. See? One finds himself getting more and more individuated, more and more individuated. He's moving on out of the human race. So he turns around and comes smash, crash, back in and despite ridges and everything else, is going to be part of the human race again, you see. And then he indi­viduates out and he comes back in. He never gets adjusted between these two points, because he didn't have processing or anything else to do it. He could politic on them, but he couldn't understand them. Now, that's very common by the way. I think if everybody had understanding you wouldn't have any politics.

Now, to cure an insane person would sound then theoretically and tech­nically very easy. All you do is — have to locate those people. You just have to locate those people that the insane person was trying to convince somewhere on the track that those are the people were guilty of an overt act. See?

Where an individual is getting more and more and more separate and feels himself slipping into an individuation, a very heavy individuation, it's because he has a lot of overts one way or the other. And he does a flip and he becomes obsessively driven into the (quote) "mass" which of course is unfor­tunately for him nonextant, doesn't exist. And he finds himself actually driven nowhere. And he makes up this idea that there are "the masses," and he keeps talking about the masses, and all that sort of thing. And New York­ers, of course, believe in masses. Londoners believe in masses. They believe in masses because they get in subways and undergrounds and on trams, and they walk down the streets. And they know there are such things as masses. But you never saw such individuated people in your life.

It's a last protest. Let's say some fellow has been very fond of a doll body or something like this, and he has lots of overts against doll bodies so he can lose this doll body. And somebody starts zapping and pounding up this doll body and punching it and so forth, and it's getting beyond the state of repair. And this fellow starts to then act in an aberrated and protesting fashion of "Look at what you've done to me, you shouldn't have done it," sort of a situa­tion, you see. And they keep on punishing the doll body, and they keep on mishmashing it up, and he's identified with the doll body, and he keeps show­ing them more and more and more.

A fellow can live in an apartment right next door — years, and you don't even know the guy's name. He doesn't know who you are. The only time I ever met my — met my neighbors, when I had a nice place up on Riverside Drive — the only time I ever met my neighbors — very simple, I was running an electric typewriter and they were trying to listen to all of Hitler's — all of Hitler's speeches. And they had shortwave radio that was so sensitively attuned. They were refugees from Germany, and they were still fixated on Germany. They'd never arrived in the United States. See? And there they were, see, sitting on Riverside Drive, New York City, but they had never arrived in the United States. And all they did practically, was sit in front of their set and listen to Hitler's ravings and screamings and so forth. And this was one of these great oddities.

He's gone past the point of dying. He can't die. He figures out that he can't exteriorize. That wouldn't show anybody anything — that's the easy way out — so he just stays in there and goes mad. And this proves to those people conclusively that they're guilty of an overt act of great overtness.

I ran an electric typewriter. Electric typewriter creates static, and the light company came up one day and traced the static they were complaining about, which wouldn't have appeared on an ordinary radio, to my typewriter, and asked me to put a static suppressor on it and so I did. And after that, turned their radio off by turning on my electric shaver. That was just about as close a communication as I got into on anybody on Riverside Drive.

Now, in view of the fact that that is a below death mechanism, an audi­tor is peculiarly susceptible to being dragged in with it. When the pc starts to look like he's spinning — or starts to look like he's dying first — why, the auditor's liable to feel that he's doing something too extreme and is guilty of an overt act. That's just the double mechanism, see, at work.

Now, you'll find down in the Village, however, that they like to put thirty, forty bodies in the same room, then they're having a good time. See, if they got thirty or forty bodies; it doesn't matter what anybody's doing, you see. Nothing to do with that. And they're doing that same thing now in the Lon-don basements. They're still — they're still dramatizing air raid shelters in London. And some of the nicest bistros, and so forth that you run into, you'll go down a flight of steps and get into a basement or something, and there's nothing but maybe a little rug and then somebody's — it's all cement. No tea is served apparently. There's nothing happening down there; everybody goes down and sits on the floor — there are sixteen, eighteen, twenty people in this tiny little cubicle. I was going to open up a chain of air raid shelters and charge for space.

The auditor's restimulated in his former beliefs and convictions that he has driven somebody insane or killed them, you see? He — that's restimulated, so he believes he's doing something bad to the pc and you get this thing going back and forth.

Now, this obsessive individuation and obsessive togetherness are much the same thing, one caused by the other, and one influencing the other. And the — the world is in this to such a degree that at this time there is no way or immediate evidence of presenting completely and conclusively the fact that everybody is separate from everybody else — that each is a separate individ­ual. Now, there is no proof of this at all, because there are such mechanical mishmashes, why, it gets in the road of practically every proof that you have. And that is an unsolved question in Scientology.

If the pc has been driven below death — well below death too many times — why the pc will start to spin as a protest to auditing and that sort of thing. Therefore you have to take some care that the mechanism isn't acci­dentally or artificially turned on. The mechanism is best turned on by dis­obediences of the Auditor's Code one way or the other. Particularly those lines that have to do with eating and sleeping and times of auditing and that sort of thing. He'd have to have some lineup on that.

I mean, we have no proof of this effect at all. We don't know of this fact. We don't know whether or not everybody is all separate or if they are all one person. Got the idea? We don't know this.

However — however, this person is trying to convince the other person, originally and early on the track just as a gag. See, a person was trying to convince other people just as a game, you see. But that goes into a (quote) real rationale (unquote) or a "reality," (unquote) and people actually feel, and hurt and so forth, and their pains and hurts and so forth are supposed to telegraph to the other people they've been guilty of an overt act.

Now, we have our suspicions. We have our ideas. And it seems to be pretty clear-cut, which direction it is. But, it doesn't add up to scientific demonstrable proof of an open and shut variety. You get the idea?

As a matter of fact it's very funny what you can do to restimulate overts — you sometimes miss predicting them. A dog comes up to you and growls, you say, "Ow! Ow! Ow!" and start backing off and so forth. Why, if he's a friend of yours, why, he'll look at you very hurt, you know, like "I didn't mean to do that, I was just playing," you know, that sort of thing.

Quite interesting, quite interesting that that hole would still be left in the research work. But we've gone along far enough to know now, why it's a hole. And it's a hole because obsessive separation, obsessive togetherness, together, obscure any clinical experiment which would bring it about, except as people got up broadly along the line of OT. And as human beings, why, you're the — probably the first people that will find this out with any subjec­tive reality: whether you are everybody else or whether you are yourself. I'd get a little clearer, however, before I tried to make up my mind.

However, if he's a very low-scale dog, he will come up high enough to become very savage! And you start backing off and say, "Ow! Ow! Don't! Don't! Don't!" and so on, why, it just makes him as brave as brave can be. You know, he starts redramatizing overt acts against people. And he'll come over — all over the top of you. See?

Thank you.

You can startle a little baby half out of his wits. A little baby grabs hold of your finger or something like that, or is twisting your finger around and say, "Ow! Ow! Don't!" you know? The baby is liable to look at you and say, "What, I'm guilty of an overt act! Here I am only this size and I'm guilty of an overt act!" Well, then he finds out you're just playing a game with him, so he — well, he gets all right after a while but you have to keep it up for quite a while before he understands it's a game. I mean you have to do it over pe­riods of days. You can't all do it in a minute, usually. After that it gets to be quite a game. And you pat him on the head and he's liable to say, "Ow! Ow! Ow!" and grin at you, and so on.

But, this complication makes it necessary, even more necessary, for you to understand what a pc is all about as a complication. He's a complicated case to that degree.

You know his mechanisms. His case state is that state of case best calcu­lated to make somebody else, somewhere, feel guilty of an overt act.

Now, in view of the fact that it may be copied from another person, it could be a valence. He's copied another valence that had this as a successful convincer. And this successful convincer you see, is copied from somebody else — therefore he took the valence over — but that makes who guilty?

Who now is to know that he or she has been guilty of an overt act, see? That's complicated.

And don't break loose until you as an auditor sort it out. You've got to find out who the pc has been guilty of overt acts against — that's just an entering wedge, see, that's a little light touch-off — followed by, "Who is the pc trying to convince is being guilty of overt acts?" See, that's the more funda­mental thing.

And you start sorting that out on an E-Meter, it takes a lot of cleverness, observation and curiosity on your part — lots of it. And you're not going to find out that it was their schoolteacher in the seventh grade. That school-teacher might have looked just like Messalina or somebody or other but it's way back, or it's upside down and backwards and all cockeyed and weird. And the pc doesn't understand it but oddly enough, the pc wants to understand it, and the pc's overt act of becoming stupid, you see is an effort to get back at the other person; and convince the other person they've committed an overt act to show them that they've made him stupid. See? And he hopes that their duplication (the communication formula enters in here — on the victim basis) that the duplication will bring about a state of stupidity in the other person.

It's quite an overt act being a victim. It's all covered under victim, see? Well, you look over these complications and unless you — sometimes the pc is so wound up and so upset, and so forth, and so grogged, and can't make it out, that you just run Confront, Confront, Confront, and you just run lots of Confront, Confront, Confront, and it doesn't start shaking out at all. See.

Now, it will eventually shake out one way or the other, see, on a long haul. And as your Instructors — Dick was looking into and so forth — Continuous Con-front will evidently run on a lower-scale case than we thought it would run on, see? It'll run way down.

A person who isn't making progress on Confront evidently can make bet-ter progress — I don't know what the end view of this is — but can evidently make better progress on "What could you continue to confront?" See, Contin­uous Confronting as another thing. But that's beside the point.

This Confrontingness as it shakes out and so forth — undoubtedly you could shake it all out and just run Confrontingness and it'd eventually all unwind somehow.

Except for this one thing: The factor of your interest is so missing that the pc practically never gets the acknowledgments the way he should. He gets the idea the auditor doesn't care and it doesn't matter, and he runs kind of flat, and he runs with no enthusiasm or he — and he's not in there pitching. And furthermore, the auditor isn't looking at this too and — isn't looking it over — so you don't get the add up of minds over this material situation or series of significances. And not getting this add up of minds, of course, you don't get fast auditing.

And I tell you that it will work out if you just run Confront and Contin­uous Confront, things like that, see? It would work out eventually.

But works out much more rapidly if the auditor hunts it out and looks it over. Because this adds in the auditor's interest, which, of course, adds in a speed of running.

So, there are two more factors. The pc is now running on known factors instead of "What wall?" An auditor can always settle a set of facsimiles back on the track and get them out of the road and handle the immediate bundle. By just locating things accurately in time, he can always get rid of a patch of facsimiles.

And also the auditor's interest bearing on the thing speeds running. And your pc sits there and just grinds away and all of a sudden looks up and says, "I think I was Cromwell."

Ah, look, this is no time to say, "Yes, good," and go on with the next command.

And it takes a nice piece of judgment. You mustn't go in and immedi­ately audit, "What part of Cromwell would you be willing to confront?"

But he's come up with something. And it's worth your while and his to just look this over. Chances are you find out he wasn't Cromwell — he was Cromwell's executioner. That's usually how it goes on the track, see? He'll stay convinced he's Cromwell for some time. On the other hand, he might have been Cromwell! See?

I know of a case that I'm absolutely certain was George III. This case doesn't suspect it. And gives a rather different story for that same period. But it's very unreal and so forth. I think this guy is George III.

Every time he gets anywhere near England he starts to go crazy. You put him in a post of very high command and he goes stiff as a board. He's a tremendous guy. Quite an interesting thing. I've never looked it over on the case but I'm still interested.

Now, every pc is a story and not only one, you might say he's volume after volume of novels. And he has all kinds of complications and interweav­ings and so on.

And you start pushing a fellow for OT, you get him all cleaned up and he knows all the score, he knows everything he's doing and everyplace he's going, he's got it all straight and the knowingness of his immediate past goes back for oh, three, four thousand years, and everything is fine and you get him all cleared up and he's feeling wonderful. Well, great! Great! That's just fine.

Now, all you've got to do is start moving around on the meter and get smart enough and run a little Create on anything that creaks and you'll throw into restimulation a whole new novel.

Now, of course, he'll be able to handle that novel much better than he handled the first one, you see. He'll be able to go much faster but, at the same time, you better look into it. See, now you restimulate, selectively restimulate some factor of an earlier period.

Now, to pass over a period without finding out much — most of every-thing there is to know about it that's really important — who was in it and what was it all about — is not, of course, to just let the pc run on automatic telling his life's histories over and over and over. Because he'll — all he'll do then — that isn't just bum auditing, it is itself an overt act because you let him as-is his havingness.

Something I've never told you, is when you're having difficulty with a pc's havingness reducing on a Confront or Communicate Process, you should run "Think." You shouldn't let the pc talk because communication has a tend­ency to as-is the havingness.

And you could sit right there and watch a pc who has just found out that he was Cromwell. Only he wasn't Cromwell. Or was he a staff auditor of Cromwell's? You generally find out it's the fellow that killed Cromwell, or he's the guy that really dished in Cromwell's plans or something — it's all skidded sideways. The overt act — motivator sequence in the thing gets it mishmashed. Whatever you find, he just found this out, see?

Now, it's all right to find out the rest of it selectively, as long as you're controlling the find out with this meter! You're controlling the find out with the meter.

But, just to let him run on, and on, and on, means that you must be acknowledging very weakly and he's still trying to make you interested. He doesn't feel you're interested because he's trying to interest you, see.

So, that's different than auditing. He must have felt originally that, you see — or maybe he feels you couldn't possibly be interested so he doesn't even tell you. See, and then you go by and you wonder what this is all about and it's kind of snarling up and he finally tells you, "Yes." You say, "Well how have you been making out for the last hour, since I asked you a question?"

And he says, "Oh, I uh — I um — I've been looking at this same facsimile. I've been confronting parts and not confronting parts of this same ..." The guy's been running an engram for an hour — same picture. Boy, if you find yourself guilty of that one, then remember what I'm telling you: Get inter­ested. Get interested in the pc's case.

It must have been that you just didn't have a clue what was going on with the case and you sure better find out!

Now, you'll get some wild, weird and wonderful stories from pcs. And remember this: some of them are true! And they're all based on some sort of a mishmash like this:

He's in bad shape because he was a German in the Franco-Prussian War and fought against the French. And then became a Frenchman and fought against the Germans. See? And you can find him in 1914 just having a ter­rible time fighting against the Germans — only he's a Frenchman this time. Get the idea?

Well, he can't stand this situation anymore, so he becomes an English-man. See? And he — he has terrible occlusion on the fact that the English were fighting the Germans in 1914 — 18. He just doesn't seem to ever react on this one. Never thinks about that because that would put him back in the same condition he was in the life before, you see, when he was a Frenchman fighting the Germans. he said — so that's bad.

So he's just stepped out sideways. Somebody'll tell him that most English kings have German ancestry. He's liable to write great treatises demonstrating this is entirely incorrect. See? He goes way off into the left field to prove this isn't so, and so on.

In other words, he's got various methods of not-ising or he just doesn't notice it at all. Well, when he goes along a long time and then he gets stupid or something and re — forgets his past and forgets it all, or runs into a light­ning bolt or something happens and gets brainwashed and goes over and picks up a German body, everybody says, "What a sickly child."

See, he doesn't know anything about being a German body but there he is being a German body but he isn't being a German body and so forth.

And then we find out the house he was born in was the house that — he was the artillery captain that shelled it to bits. See, he shelled that chateau to pieces you see — when the Franco-Prussian War. But it got rebuilt and then he carelessly picks up a body in that same house. Something stupid like this gets lashed up where your time and space is identified, overlapped, and your overt act — motivator sequence gets overlapped, so he doesn't know who he is or where he is, and he's a lost dog.

Well, you're finding lost dogs. See? You got to fish him out of all this crisscross and he needs lots of help. And it's quite a story; it's always well worth listening to.

If you don't get these things as stories, you get nothing. And he could just go on and it would all work out at some fabulously — it would work out — but at some fabulously slow rate, and so forth.

Now, if you're auditing a machine case that is sitting right about in there, and never anywhere along the line touch, crack-up or have anything to do with knocking machines out of existence, why, you will have the pleasure sometime of finding that your pc has been confronting beautifully all the way along the line. He's just been confronting beautifully. He is a machine and the machine has been confronting beautifully and the auditing command had nothing to do with him and nothing happened to the case. Apparently he was doing just dandy.

Now, when you find these machine cases, you want to crack them up. You crack up a machine case.

All you have to do is, "What part of a machine could you confront?" "What part of a machine would you rather not confront?"

Even that, you just find the fellow sitting here at 2.5 and you decide he's a machine case and you start running a machine, just as that, you know, no further research into the situation at all.

Naturally, you get more and more this way, and more and more that way, and all of a sudden whirrrrrrrrrrrrr — wham! Something's going to happen somewhere along the line there.

Now, you just keep running the auditing command and saying, "Well, Ron will be responsible for anything happens. If anything bad happens, why it's Ron's auditing command, and therefore he's responsible for what hap­pened here." You're probably in a comfortable frame of mind but you're not getting anything done.

No, it's got to be your auditing command and it's got to be your pc and you've got to know the story of this pc. You follow me?

Audience: Yes.

Now, as I say, it's lots of novels. Now, that's purely a writer's simile — that pcs are storybooks. It's — but it fits quite well.

And if you've ever taken any interest whatsoever in reading storybooks, why go ahead and read them, and of course you always have taken such an interest.

I only feel sorry for those pcs who have auditors that are only interested in space opera, you see, as books. Because they'll inevitably grab ahold of space opera bits and pieces and start examining them and so forth. They'll wind up learning a lot about space opera but they may be auditing the wrong part of the track.

Maybe their pc, unfortunately, was the best minuet dancer in the French court and that's where he's stuck.

You've got to read the book that is there to read. You know, it's just like it's in print, you can't open a book up to the first chapter and read another book. Some people are able to do this in some way but it's pretty poor read­ing. You've got to read what's there, you've got to find out what's there and it's always rewarding both casewise and in interest.

Now, I berated you and I saw you all cringe and say, "What have I done wrong?" and so forth. And the only thing that I see broadly that you're doing wrong is being more interested, much more interested in keeping your — your E-Meter tone arm properly poised, or something of this sort, or keeping your confronting correct.

I love these people that are obsessively doing a TR 0, trying to use an E-Meter at the same time. I mean, it's the most gadgeous thing. They ask a question looking straight at the pc, you know, and so on. And then after the needle has ducked, they look down and they say, "Well, there's nothing there."

No, you ask the question and watch the reaction and then look at the pc.

But going through these marionette type responses of the pc — they have their value, you understand. I mean there's a right to do this, nobody's down-grading that, but you're just expected to know how to do that. And it has nothing to do with you being able to lean over and find out what the ruddy hell is going on, pc? See?

Every once in a while the pc says ... And you say, "What was that all about?" Well, that isn't quite the auditing question, you understand, the auditing question, "What would you confront?" And the pc went this way, and then you got interested enough, you said — the pc went that way — and you said, "Let's see, I'm supposed to acknowledge and I'm really interested in what that was about and so forth, and the proper procedure is that I acknowledge. Good! Fine! Thank you! Fine! Good! Thank you! Thank you! Good! Fine! Thank — thank you! Thank you very much! Thank you very much! Now, what was that all about?"

Of course, the pc's blown into the next county and wouldn't know on a bet. You just as-ised the whole works.

No, I'm afraid it had to be like this. The pc went like this, you know, and you say, "What's that all about?" Well, he hasn't answered the auditing ques­tion. The important thing is that you want to know! Get the idea? You want to know!

And the only procedure about wanting to know is that you ask him in the current language you're speaking. See?

That's it. You want to know. Now, you go on a discipline, well fine, a discipline is a discipline.

And I'll tell you that somebody who hasn't been through various disci­plines ca — he'd play hell doing this. He just wouldn't be able to make it. You know? He wouldn't know whether he was supposed to hang the E-Meter this way or this way, or confront standing backwards to the pc, or lie down on the floor and look up at the pc. He wouldn't know anything about this. See? He'd be all thumbs and he — unaccustomness and so on, and falling all over himself.

Well, you're out of that now. I've just graduated you from that stage. Do you hear me? You're out of that.

I expect you know how to do that. And I can turn you in any day of the week a letter-perfect job of auditing. You'd be the envy of each — any Academy Instructor you ever saw.

But if I get interested in a pc, I am interested in the pc and I am not interested in him via TRs. The only via I use on the line is usually English. Get the idea?

Audience: Yeah.

Even though sometimes I may ARC break a preclear slightly, or some-times I may become much too emphatic and afterwards find I was being much too forceful, I — talking too loud, or something of the sort was wrong with all of this, you know? It's me that wants to know. You got that? See, it was me that wants to know.

And I don't think you'll find any pcs I've audited that will tell you I wasn't interested in what they were doing. They knew I was interested. They usually audit fairly smoothly. Sometimes they balk! "You're too damned interested," you know.

And sometimes I begin to believe that a pc is not doing anything along the line and rightly and wrongly my interest will carry me over to putting the pc under a heavy control of one kind or another. And very often maybe the control is too heavy! But they sure did the next auditing command!

And sometimes I think a pc's lying to, me or something like that. Well, it's a Code break! But it's I that thinks he's lying.

Now, look, I didn't surrender my thetan just because I'm an auditor. I don't think the pc's with it, something like that.

The reality that you get in a session is because I don't counterfeit my own reactions ten times a minute. I can audit, I don't have to prove that to anybody.

In five hours I can get more done — any professional auditor in the busi­ness in 25 hours. This is very well-known — been authenticated.

Well, how come you're still trying to prove you can do TRs? See? We're not interested — not this stage of the game. All we're interested in is you doing something with that pc. Get the idea?

Audience: Yes.

I don't care whether you do it standing on your head. Do it!

I don't care if at halfway through the thing you totally, wrong-headedly decided that you were being totally wrong-headed in the way you were going about the thing and do a flip.

Well, if I'm satisfied you didn't flip because you chickened but changed because you thought you ought to, to find out some more or to get a further progress and so forth, I'd be the last person on the world to chew your ears off.

But if I thought you just got scared and thought you were going to kill the pc or drive him insane or something if you kept on with the process — you'd hear from me. Pcs don't go insane on processes.

But about the only crime you could really commit as far as I'm con­cerned, is not getting anything done! And not being interested in the pc you are auditing and auditing that pc, not a textbook pc. Do you understand?

So, auditing is auditing, and it facilitates getting something done. But ritual, for its own sake, should be left to the pope!

Well, just get right in there and audit. You can't hear what the pc said, well put your ear over close to his face! And he seems to be trying to blow or something of the sort, or appears very nervous, well hold him in the chair! And you don't think he's listening to you very good, give him a solid comm line of an arm.

But you're an auditor, and as such you are not an unimportant person, and as such your interest in the case is essential. And that's first, paramount and foremost, and you're going to get the most auditing done by auditing! You understand?

Audience: Yes.

Well, do it! Do it! Do it!

Thank you.