Well, I hope two things from that lecture: that, one, you do not instantly assume that this can be run very sloppily because there are only a couple of important points to it. And the other one, you don't overly give value to the other processes in it. And I hope you don't do either one. There's a nice middle ground, there.

Well, I'm glad to see that you're all in such fine fettle today. I understand a few of you, as auditors, having a little trouble running Help. If you have too much trouble, I'll cry because there's nothing simpler, but I'm going to give you a rundown right now on the key processes of clearing. The key processes of clearing.

Now, I've seen them over in London sweating away on flattening SCS. It has nothing to do with clearing — nothing.

This is what, by the way? This is February something or other . . .

Why are you running it? Well, you're going to run a subjective process on the guy, aren't you? And you sure better have him under control. Well now, if I tell you — a good theoretician on this subject that knows some of the reasons why — just: get the preclear under control before you start running a subjective process. See, you should actually be able to proceed from that point.

Audience: Eleventh.

But the other day an auditor was unable to do so. He didn't proceed from that point. Do you know what he did? He had a preclear who was sitting there juggling the cans of an E-Meter like they were dice boxes: The cans were banging together, the preclear was crossing his legs one way and then the other leg, and then they'd all of a sudden have to lay down one can and scratch one side of his body, and then he'd scratch another side of his body. And I took a look at this preclear, and he was just going like a whirling dervish. It's just incredible that the man could have been in this much tumultuous motion and never have noticed it.

Eleventh. Good. AD 8.

But what was much more incredible, the auditor didn't look there and find out he had a factor which was totally out of control. In this alone, he would have seen that the preclear was not under control — preclear didn't have his body under control at all. And, actually, I had to tell the auditor, "For heaven's sakes run, 'You make that body sit in that chair' until it is flat." Horribly enough, it had to be run for — let me see, I don't know the exact period of time — it was somewhere between fifteen and twenty hours. "You make that body sit in that chair."

It might have been thought that a great many processes were necessary to clear somebody because there are so many angles and complexities to the mind. And it's very amusing. There have been tremendous efforts made in the last seventy-six trillion years, or seventy-three trillion years — tremendous efforts made to keep people from finding out what they were all about. And these, themselves, are booby traps.

And after a while, the fellow could sit there and approximate the conditions necessary to auditing. So you could say all these other processes are necessary to make somebody approximate the conditions of auditing, you see?

Amongst them was "it would take an enormously long time to do anything." Hence you get Tibetan Lamanism — Lamaism — twenty, thirty, forty years. Interesting, isn't it? Because by the time the fellow got thoughtful enough to hear about it, why, he might be thirty or forty, and so that made it impossible, didn't it?

Now, there are lots of ways you can do that. And I would be thoroughly ashamed of you if you didn't suddenly pull one out of the hat that you already knew. And you say, "Look, this guy can't create energy," you know? "He's doing something weird here, and he just doesn't — it's an automaticity of form and energy" and so forth. And you just use one of — I could think of a half a dozen processes where you could handle energy just as such. It's kind of a dangerous thing to handle, but you could handle it, don't you see? The creation of energy: You have him mock up an energy particle, you know, just a little, tiny energy particle, and know that he mocked it up. And move it around and change its color until he knew that he mocked it up. And then have him mock up a couple of energy particles. And then have him mock up some masses of one kind or another. And he would have been able to mock up energy, wouldn't he?

So they could always say, "Well, you didn't come to us soon enough." That, by the way, is the standard cliche of psychoanalysis and psychiatry. They say this about practically every case. As a matter of fact, I never heard them say anything else.

So this is a sentient activity, this business of clearing, isn't it? You know the important points. The important point is survival. I just covered it. And subjectively the thing that undoes a bank is, "Mock it up and keep it from going away."

A guy comes to them, treated for two or three months, goes out, takes arsenic and kicks the bucket, blows out his brains, hangs himself, drops in front of a truck. A tremendous number of suicides follow the first three months of a psychoanalysis, for instance.

Then, of course, you get the two chief methods of doing this — and he'd certainly better be good at them — which is, "Mock it up and hold it still," and, "Mock it up and make it a little more solid." You got that? Those are the two principal methods of doing it. And he's got to be good at those because those are the ones he's going to be using most of the time. But those are just drills on what he's already been doing. Right?

And you ask this boy what happened here, and he says, "Well, he didn't come to me soon enough." Well, it's an old gag. I suppose witch doctors back in savage tribes have said, "Well, the patient didn't come to us soon enough."

But you should be able to put the rest of it together. You actually shouldn't have to have — beyond the exact outlines of those processes, you shouldn't have to have a big scale that says it goes from this to that to this to that, in order to get somewhere else. You see? If you know the conditions you've got to create in the preclear or bring about in the preclear, then you certainly should be able to bring them about. Right?

But Lamaism had the perfect answer. They had such a long look that nobody ever lived long enough to find it out — whether or not it worked. Do you get the idea? And I think, by this mechanism alone, they kept themselves afloat for twenty-five hundred years. It's an interesting mechanism, isn't it?

If you were just going by rote and some kind of a formula, it'd be like a pilot flying blind that never knew where he came from or where he went to, you know, or what passages he should be taking in order to get there. Wouldn't it? And if you haven't got a good grip on exactly what you're trying to do, then you'll do one of two things: You will either wander over and suddenly specialize in SCS — say, "Well, it's SCS that's doing it, and we'll do SCS," see? You could do that. Or you try to do the exact clearing processes without doing any supportive processes to make a gradient scale of possibility, and you give the preclear a big lose. Get the idea?

Somebody says there's a goal there, but you can't persevere long enough to attain it. Well, specious and spurious as this is, it did keep somebody afloat but it's not very honest. Because Lamaism would never have attained it. Never. They were going toward an inverted eight — an inverted eighth dynamic — and brother, that was something.

Now, we have about the best rundown you can get of this in the procedure that you're using right now, but — pardon me, in the one you're using, the one that's been modified. And the procedure on which we are doing our best work is HGC Procedure of February 6, 1958. That contains all of these steps.

"Be one with all the cockroaches; be one with everything." It's all very well if you, on your determinism, could get the idea of being anything you saw. You'd be in pretty good shape. But if on everything's determinism you had to be it, that would be pretty — you'd be in pretty terrible shape. As a matter of fact about as terrible a condition as anyone could possibly envision. Stark, staring mad would be like a light headache compared to the condition you'd get into if you had the other one.

Now, that is going to suffer a modification. And we're going to drop out Union Station, Destroy. Had some careful tests made on this, and it doesn't particularly answer the situation. It's answered faster by Survive. And we find out that you never have to process Destroy if you don't want to. But spotting people and being able to brace up to doing something to them was quite beneficial. Don't you see?

Now, these are booby traps of one kind or another. And another one is, "You mustn't have anything to do with the mind because something terrible will happen to you." Now, I don't think there's a person here who was not subjected to that, one way or the other, along through the years. "This is something you mustn't tamper with."

Okay. Well, I'm not continuing the lecture. This is your half-hour.

Kill the man who tells you so. Don't bother, don't wait, because he's beyond help. That's for true. He has a pitch and he knows it. Because it tells you you mustn't touch or look at your own mind, and it is another invitation to go into an inverted eight.

Yes?

The mind is too complicated, perhaps, for Wundt, Pavlov, psychologists, psychiatrists and so forth, but in actuality it was too simple for them. They were of a complex stupidity that could never grasp a simplicity.

Male voice: These Clears that have already been made without having the Help bracket flattened, do you think that Help bracket will turn up null on the E-Meter with them, or will that have to be flattened?

The main difficulty that may occur, as the years go on, is that somebody summarizes the number of points that have to be covered in a mind and then says, "Clearing is complicated to get a complete and thorough Clear because the mind is too complicated to be reached by any simple series of processes."

I think it's pretty null. Because, remember, we've had the Help button here for a long time. And the fellow always hits that with CCH 0 if he's doing a thorough job. And all of these Clears have had that hit.

You hear me now?

Now, you understand that this Help button is simply being punched up like mad . . .

You watch this carefully, because you're drifting right straight back to "the mind is too complicated," and you're drifting right straight back to "it takes too long to achieve." Got that?

Male voice: Yeah.

And I'll tell you here and now that there are basically just two processes involved in clearing, and all the rest of it is window dressing and rococo to permit it to be done. And don't you ever think anything else until you've got enough experience to see it with a clear blue gaze. You hear me?

. . . brackets and all the rest of it. But you should realize that for eight months it has been riding in our drills. This exact process you're doing is eight months old, on Help.

There are just two processes. One permits the person a sufficient stability to stay in-session, permits him a sufficient communication along the various dynamics to grasp the substance of the situation and knocks out his destructive machinery. That process is Help.

Now, when an auditor at the HGC ran into a wiggle-woggle on Help, he just beat it to death, see? We didn't understand that he could beat it to death and get a Clear. You understand? That — didn't know until a relatively short time ago. But the material itself was sitting there. Evaluation of importance is what took place.

Took me quite a little while to find out how you run Help. I had to watch you people, by the way. Now I'll watch you some more and find out how to do it wrong. (laughter) That's a dirty crack because all of you, nearly all of you are doing wonderfully well. But I can be allowed a few dirty cracks, I hope.

Now, I can answer that in this way: is, these people were null on Help in the rudiments. And we found that all of those cases, finally, that had been hanging up, that had fields and all of this, weren't null on the Help button. I had to do a fast look and find out what was the common denominator of no-null here. And the common denominator of no-null — I didn't do this systematically; I did this theoretically and then went and looked, and sure enough, it's the common denominator — is the Help button.

Help is survival. We are evidently straight back to the old survive-succumb. I had a look at this myself yesterday. And I was quite interested to see that destroy was an alter-isness but help wasn't. Now, help could be an alter-isness low on its own scale, but fairly high on the scale is not an alter-isness. It is simply the create-create-create section of the cycle of action. This stuff wouldn't even stay there unless you helped it stay there.

Did I answer that. . .

So in order to have, you have to help, regardless of interpersonal relations. This is then true on every dynamic.

Male voice: Yes.

On every dynamic, if you want to have a dynamic there, you've got to help, and you've got to be able to help. And because the second you stop helping it disappears, then the entrance upon the idea of destroy brings about a persistence of rubble. It's pretty wild when you look at this.

. . . clumsily, or ...

An individual who will not help and who is dealing totally with destroy will, after a while, not be able to see. One, he would stop seeing when he stopped helping because the create-create-create part of the cycle of action, as given in the Fundamentals of Thought, would no longer be carrying him along. But in view of the fact that he's alter-ised — alter-ised with destroy (very destructive alterations) — he would see only debris.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Now, you've run into a debris case: skyrockets and pinwheels or the fellow has a vast view of a bunch of purple, he doesn't seem to be able to see much else. There's no condemnation of him. He's just fallen for the Q and A.

All right.

Somebody said, "I will destroy you," and he was a fool — he reactively said to them, "Well, I'll destroy you, then." You trace this back, you'll find out he or she has been a member of armies or cat clubs, and they've gotten into this Q and A with the games condition of destroy. You know the proper answer for "I will destroy you"? It's "I'll help you." The other person will then either collapse or get in line.

Male voice: Thank you.

You saw this in Christianity: "Turn the other cheek." Maybe that helped somebody, I don't know. Never helps me when I'm booting somebody around and he turns the other cheek. It usually makes me mad.

You bet.

But, "Love thy neighbor." Do unto thy neighbor as you would be done in. (New England interpretation.)

Any other questions, here?

All of these phrasings were gropings toward something — they were gropings toward something. In Buddhism you'll find them, gropings toward this and that. You'll find all manner of facets of this button, because it's quite a button.

Oh, come, come, you don't know all there is to know about that yet, do you?

But they could have said it much better had they said "What we would say — is, 'Help one another.'" Now, you would have gotten a show on the road with that. See, "Help one another."

Male voice: This new procedure at the HGC of processing only with Clear as a goal — would you like to say anything on that?

As soon as a man tries to destroy, he alter-ises and he inherits the debris.

Well, they shouldn't be processing — the auditors themselves shouldn't be processing with only Clear as a goal.

There was an amusing incident — it wasn't amusing to Hannibal or the Romans, but it was amusing to me when I read it. The great Hannibal decided to get even with Rome after he had invaded the Italian peninsula.

Male voice: Right.

And there was a huge valley which produced tremendous quantities of food, practically the mainstay of Rome itself. And Hannibal went in there, and just to get even with Rome, he laid the whole thing waste. He destroyed the lot.

They should be processing as only OT as a goal.

And then he found out that Fabius, the Roman general, was sitting on all the passes. And here's Hannibal with an army of about twenty-seven thousand men in a valley that a bird couldn't have lived in, and they started to run mighty short of chow.

Male voice: Yeah. But what I mean is not accepting a preclear for anything less than Clear.

He was almost defeated by his own destruction. That was the battle where he tied torches to the horns of the cattle and drove them up over another pass so as to draw Fabius aside and himself escape. But he managed to escape it. But it took Hannibal to: one, be stupid enough to destroy in order to get the Roman allies to join him (they never did permanently, you know) and two, destroy enough so that he didn't have anything to eat. And of course, typical to this concatenation, he had to come up with a brilliant stroke of military genius and get a pass open slightly so he could get his troops through quick and get out of there. This is a wonderful example — the effects of that campaign stayed with him quite a while, too. He inherited a lot of debris.

That's correct. I'll tell you why: they won't go anywhere else. That's really Q-and-Aing with the — with the people. They walk in, say, "I want a week's processing." Registrar says, "Well, what do you want to do in this week?" The guy has got a black field four or five light-years thick. He's — can't make mock-ups, gets an impression of something or other, so on. He says, "Well," he says, "a week. I'd like a week's processing so I can be cleared."

We get some politician. He speaks of flag, country, mother, other sacred symbols, and he comes down here to Washington, never goes near the Senate chamber except check in once in a while — pork barrel, pork barrel, pork barrel.

Well, now wait a minute, see? It'll take — it'll take a week or two to get this boy under control, to get his machinery straightened out, and then maybe you'll get started on a project. But he won't settle for anything else. So we have to answer up to this reality. We know this guy is going to "free-week" on through to Clear — scream, scream, scream, you know? "Well, I didn't make it this week" and so on. Well, you have to sign him up for what's real.

In every piece of news and emergency, he sees an opportunity to get some more pork barrel. He sees, "Ah, everybody is interested in missiles and rockets now. Now, I — let's see, I could get a big bill out. And I know Joe. And we could get a — then get — use this emergency, and Joe would get a certain amount of money, and then we get this over here and . . . Hey, you know, that's a pretty nice stunt. Maybe I'll get myself twenty-five thousand shares of General Electric." He does.

So, therefore, it comes about that we can only go in one direction — Clear. He's going to say Clear. Well, in order to get him to Clear, we've got to say OT.

He never does anything about the emergency. He uses the emergency in order to accumulate what he considers wealth.

We're going to go toward OT as far as we can go in five weeks. We therefore have two new — brand-new auditing packages. We always had one week and three weeks, didn't we? We have one, three, five and seven, now. And we even know about what the condition of case would have to be in order to boot somebody through at one of these levels — read it from the E-Meter and so forth.

Well, the joke is on him. He keeps saying, "Well, you only live but once" — the sucker. And after he's utilized every emergency to pad his own pockets, after he's used everything that should be investigated simply to get his head in the papers when it should be on somebody's pike, after he's gone through these shenanigans, he leaves just a little more debris — just a little more.

The Director of Processing now takes an incoming person and boots him through a rather simple series of tests, completely aside from the APA and intelligence tests, and pegs it. And this fellow might have signed up with the Registrar at one week, but it's contingent upon acceptance by the Director of Processing. Director of Processing looks him over, knows very well he'll go for Clear.

Well, he kicks the bucket and he lives again, and he kicks the bucket and he lives again, and one fine day he's trying to get a job as a street sweeper, only the country has been drained dry and gutted. And he stands there starving to death — lives some miserable existence. He says, "I wonder what could have happened to this country?"

And this has happened, every case that walks in: "Yes, well, what's your goal?" the Director of Processing will say.

If there is an interested God in the affairs of this particular country, I trust he has a sense of humor. It's quite wonderful — it's quite wonderful that these men who do these things actually inherit them again and again and again. Maybe if they had a truer perspective, maybe it would rather restrain them from their rapacity. But I'm afraid each one would have to be cleaned up on Help.

"Well," the fellow says, "nothing, I ... Nothing, I just wanted to be cleared." And he's signed up for half an intensive or something. So we just let the Registrar sign him up for anything: Sign him up for an hour, sign him up for a month. It doesn't matter what. The length of time is decided by the Director of Processing. And the Director of Processing then sends the preclear back to the Registrar with a reality of sign-up, and will not accept him for auditing unless he has established the length of time necessary to clear him. Because halfway through, he's going to start talking to students, he's going to start talking to other auditors, other preclears. The next thing you know he's, "What is this thing, Clear? Oh yeah, I want to go there myself. That's where I want to go."

And all I'm trying to do is demonstrate to you that you can resolve or understand any situation on the button Help if you recognize it as a survival. There's nobody going to put anything there but you. If you put things there which destroy other things, you get in trouble.

Well, you certainly better have enough time to put him there. Now, that's exactly what we're doing.

The United States when it built an atomic weapon got in trouble and has been in trouble ever since. It even came up to a point of getting John Foster Dulles. I mean, a cataclysm to end all cataclysms. It built something that was totally dedicated to destruction. And now it seeks to propitiate all the small nations with gifts of food and that sort of thing. It's sort of like, "We didn't do it. We didn't do it."

Yes?

The hell they didn't do it. They aimed a knife straight at the throat of all life forms on Earth. And they will never recover from it, that I assure you. That is why I am perfectly happy to curse the government, although it's something like kicking a dead dog.

Male voice: On the process "What action could you take against that body?" — that is working on the Destroy button, right?

They will never recover from this amount of threat and generating this amount of fear. Probably nationalism itself will cease. Probably these peoples will go on in one form or another, but under some different scheme, because a terrible sin has been perpetuated against man.

Not necessarily. That is a command which is susceptible to tremendous rephrasing: is "With what could you touch that body?"

You would have to figure out defenses against this weapon. You would have to take extraordinary actions to nullify this weapon before you could even begin to climb out of the mudhole of the destruction threatened. It's tremendous. It reaches every person on Earth, it reaches every cat, it reaches every life form that breathes in air. It probably does not reach all of the animals of the sea.

Male voice: Well, that's a different process.

And I was speculating the other day and wondered whether or not these sea cycles didn't start with all land animals being wiped out by fission. Sea animals, still there. We have to go pick up a fish and eventually graduate out on the beach and start the evolutionary cycle all over again. I mean to check, by the way, with E-Meters and so forth, the possibility that these sea cycles aren't to some degree mixed up with fission, radiation, and if there aren't many of them. There might be many of these evolutionary cycles as described by Darwin and as confirmed by us.

No, it's practically the same process. It merely means willingness of inflow. The process would be better stated if it were described this way: "Increase the preclear's willingness of inflow toward the body."

Now, here — here's a point. Here is morality. Here is sin. Here are all the incalculable small zigzags in the thinkingness of a preclear. Here is the basic warp of his intentions. Here are all the things man is worried about, essentially; all in this basis of, "Is it right to help people or should I really destroy them?"

Male voice: All right, that clears it up.

Now, all of this pursued from this one point — a very interesting point: Did a thetan actually and natively desire to as-is and knock out everything? Or did a thetan natively desire the survival of many things? Now, what did a thetan desire? Which one?

Got it? Okay.

Now, we could answer that by opinion. We could have an opinion on it. But I tell you that the opinion which is normally used as a scientific fact isn't one. It isn't one at all.

Yes?

We had to know whether or not a thetan was really going toward the destruction of everything on all eight dynamics, you see, that had any mass, space, energy, time connected with it. In other words, was he really going to some nirvana of nothingness or was it all right for something to survive? That's an interesting, interesting question, and that question is at the crossroads and was the crossroads of Dianetic and Scientology research.

Male voice: What processes above Rising Scale do you have and recommend for above mest Clear? OT processes above mest Clear?

It was an opinion. Just like "Man is basically good" might have started out as an opinion. But here was something that needed proof before processes could be engaged upon that would confirm one or the other.

Well, a continuance of the exact processes that are being done will get a very long distance. The next process above that is Rising Scale, and that happens to be the highest process there is in Scientology. There is no process higher than Rising Scale because it is straight change of postulate by the pc, which basically is all there is, anyhow.

And the process that came up in the train of research that proved it was "Havingness." Havingness was the little tag that was left out. Now, here — here you have survive and havingness. If a person benefited from havingness, he then benefited from survival, right? And if a person became upset when his havingness ran down, then again, his goal must be toward survival.

Male voice: And that then is an unlimited process?

But if all you had to do was take everything a person had, kill his body, fix him up so he couldn't see space anymore and make him well thereby, then of course the goal was in the direction of "Nothing must be left." See, in other words it was proper for him to make nothing out of everything, don't you see? And then that would have been the direction of processing, and you would have gotten a Clear, per se.

Very much so.

The oddity is, and the horrible — the horrible jest is this: People think that's the direction they're going. But those people are inverted.

Male voice: Okay.

Out of disgust and despair alone will a person abandon his mass and possessions and engage upon succumb activities. Disgust and despair — he's given up, he's quit, he's through when he starts that. That he can engage upon them at all is quite miraculous in that he can really destroy himself. We look at the other side of the fence here, and we have to make up our minds that it's all right for certain things to survive.

Yes?

Now, oddly enough, you can't run that as a process. It would be the key process but you can't run it as a process. "Is it all right for that wall to survive?" "Is it all right for you to have facsimiles that survive?"

Male voice: I had one pc at the Guidance Center, you remember, that went awful high on throwing stuff away.

Well, it's not because you eat everything up that you look at — a lot of people believe that. They believe a facsimile dies because they look at it and they have the power of as-ising it. It's not because of that. It's because of something else. That if they don't create-create-create, it ain't. You see that?

Mm-hm.

If you stand still — if you could actually stand totally still and gaze totally at that wall and in no way contribute to it, you understand, you'd very shortly have no wall. See, this is the ne plus ultra.

Male voice: "Mock it up, throw it away."

Well then, a person thought it was because he was doing something to the wall or because his look was "acidous" that the wall disappeared. That wasn't so. He just stopped contributing. All you have to do is stop contributing anyplace and you get a vanishment.

He took over an automaticity which, of course, gave it to him. You have to have these various adjudications. If he's got a machine that's mocking — that throws away everything that is mocked up ...

So as he looks at the wall, he's got to contribute to it a little bit. You've got to hold it there. And nearly every thetan there is, is dramatizing this.

Male voice: Well, it wasn't quite that. I had to convince him that he could throw something away.

He has to hold his aberrations in place in order to inspect them; he has to keep adding to them in order to look at them. But he does this on such a "left hand mustn't know what the right hand is doing," and his irresponsibility for it is such that he can actually keep aberrations in place. That is the marvel.

Yeah. Well, you're talking about a Remedy of Havingness. You get the same thing if you run enough "Mock it up and keep it from going away." But there are the lower harmonics. Remember when we were running Trio and we had to run the third button of "dispense with"? And one case was reported to me, I think, of two hundred times "dispense with," to five "continue its," to one "have it."

In insanity, if you start hitting a button with the materials you have right now, you will see some insanities just fold up — just (snap) bang. And you'll say, "Where'd they go?" Well, think of the tremendous effort it must have been to hold them there. Actually, they're such an unnatural condition, they crack up fast. It's also true of a psychosomatic illness. It's such an unnatural condition that it is easily broken up if you just know the button. Why? Because he has to contribute to it to have it. Do you see this? All right.

Male voice: That's about what this case ran on.

Then there were these two directions: Either the thetan's total goal is to have nothing and everything be as he is (because he does not have mass or energy or space or time), or it was all right to have some things survive. But there was no process when we found out, finally, that it was all right to have things survive.

Yeah. Well, a case will run these things. A case will run these things. And my explanation for it has been that you're exercising an automaticity, and if that automaticity existed that got rid of all of his havingness and you took it over, then he would have more than he was having before. You got the idea?

So we found this — I found this was all right with everybody; I found this was the one thing which made them go on ticking, the one thing which made them capable in any way, which made them happy — was it had to be all right for some things to survive. But how do you run it?

Male voice: Yeah.

Now, we could think of a lot of ways of running it, but every process there is that is a good process must obey several little rules, and one of them is this — one of them is this: Does it increase havingness?

But because this hasn't worked out in every case, and Keep It from Going Away has worked out in every case, see, we have to decide in favor of the "Keep it from going away" as the constant denominator, and the other one as inconstant in its results. You'll find cases that will throw things away happily and apparently get much better because they were throwing them away. You'll find cases. But all of a sudden it comes and grinds to a halt. And, boy, they'd better not throw away one more pinpoint of flyspeck. See? They've had it. They're right there.

So you ask somebody, "Is it all right if that wall survives? Is it all right if the table survives?"

Now, you have to run the other. One of the basic discoveries been made in the last few months is that "Mock it up and keep it from going away" or "Hold it in" — he does it on his own automaticity — solves all of the throwaway processes. And that's an interesting thing to have discovered: that the common denominator was "Keep it from going away" and the sporadic was "Throw it away." You got it? Got it — okay.

And he says, "Yes." And he looks at it for a moment, see, without contributing to it.

Female voice: We all have some idea on how to diagnose a level of case, but is there going to be any specific information written on that?

"Is it all right for this chair to survive? Is it all right for this ashtray to survive? Is it all right for that door to survive?" He looks at it for just a moment, you see, without contributing to it. He puts the survival on it when he is the author of it. You do that very long and his havingness goes zzzzt — nothing.

Yes, there is. There's an FC Policy Letter of, I think, February the 8th or 10th which gives the number of weeks per case and the type of case for each one of those assignment of weeks. It hasn't been broadly publicized. As a matter of fact, it's just, I think, been issued — only two or three copies of it.

In other words, the process itself just runs him out the bottom fast, although it's the perfect process. You get the idea? It's the perfect process that won't work. That's the trouble with nearly every perfect process. It's only perfect theoretically. In practical application it's nonfunctional, which makes a sort of a liar out of the whole thing. In other words, you have to have another process and there have to be some other ingredients to get any gain for a case. All right.

What I intended to do with this, by the way, was let this thing drift for two or three months and then cook up an exact scaled test whereby we had an exact estimation then borne out by processing. You know? When we get more data, we'll make a more accurate one. Now we've, now, have just approximated it, don't you see? And then been generous, see, and so as not to be caught in the soup.

So it was all right to have things succumb. Well, was anything really dangerous to a thetan? Yes, having nothing — having nothing, no interest, nothing to do, no place to go, no problems to solve — nothing. Interesting, isn't it, that there was a direction he could go that he better not go, and that was the direction of nowhere. Nowhere and nothing. The motto of a thetan: "Anything is better than nothing," according to a thetan. That's his motto. "Anything is better than nothing."

We sell somebody three weeks, you know? And you as an auditor sell somebody three weeks, you see? And you're going to do these wonders in three weeks, and then you didn't quite make them at the end of three weeks. You all of a sudden find yourself having to give him a week, don't you? Just to complete the contract. Well, he's upset because your estimation was incorrect, and we'd better make a generous estimation and sell him the right number of weeks in the first place, regardless of whether he took them or paid for them.

Well, he gets so afraid of having nothing that he makes it, and you get a destruction. But even destruction is still having something because you can alter-is debris and help it to persist. And his ideas of what he actually can have downgrade to a point where he says, "Well, I can have it if it's broken up and twisted up and nobody else wants it. Then I will be able to have it. So the thing to do is to destroy everything down to this level, and "Us Hitlers and Mussolinis and Stalins and so forth, if we just mess things up enough, nobody else will want them and we'll have something." You get the idea? It's a very, very degraded state. But destroy, oddly enough, is still a method of having. Fantastic. It is also a case of "who would want it?" But it is still a method of having. Very, very low on the scale.

This is the other thing the Registrar is ordered to do up there. It doesn't matter how much he actually buys, he must sign up, you see, for an adequate number. Therefore, his expectancy matches the reality of the situation. This is all we're trying to do.

Any civilized peoples eventually come to some sort of an attitude toward soldiers. Maybe early in their career or something like that, when they can afford a lot of destruction, they say, "Well, soldiers are fine." Then they get to a point of where the Chinese got to when I knew them and they say, "Well, horrible diseases, locusts and soldiers" — data of comparable magnitude. Fascinating, fascinating. Dedication to destruction. Well, you can only afford dedication to some destruction when you have tremendous havingness.

Female voice: Thank you.

If you've got a thousand sets of glasses and you don't consider them very valuable and you break one, why, you say, "So what." But have just one glass left of one set that was owned by your great-grandmother, and you thought was very pretty, and break it and see how you feel. You get the idea?

You bet.

So that when individual possession drops low, then destructive agencies lose face. They lose face. And you get the soldier losing caste. You get other agencies of destruction losing caste. And you get more and more concentration on "Let's preserve it." Greater and greater concentration on "Let's preserve it"; greater and greater disgust by the general populace for destructive agencies.

Yes?

And by the way, with a whole world crowded up so everybody is wearing on everybody else's elbows compared to what it was a few thousand years ago — actually I think Houston now has about seven or eight times more people in it than Rome, or maybe it's twenty or thirty times more people than Rome (you know Texas). With everybody rubbing on everybody else's elbows, how would you like to be the fellow that's standing there with the bomb that would destroy everything? Do you think you'd be popular?

Female voice: A Clear would be Tone 4.0 or as good as that, wouldn't he?

No, you wouldn't be popular even if you had butterfingers and kept dropping hostesses' cups and saucers. There was a time when no host or hostess would have thought very much if you dropped a saucer or two at a party. Well, they think so today. As a matter of fact, you're liable never to be invited again.

Well, that was the original test of Clear, was somebody 4.0 ...

Now, the people are getting anxious about this point of survival. Per person, there is evidently less to have. The cities are more crowded. The countryside is less yours, don't you see? You try to make it up in cumbersome possessions like cars and junk, one kind or another.

Female voice: Oh.

Now, individual then starts to pull it all in to his chest, doesn't he? He starts to pull in as his survival goes down. Then he becomes more and more anxious — the survival of things. He wants it in where he can inspect them closely, get the idea?

... or above.

He'll use tricks in order to get something to survive. He's no longer relaxed. Why? Because he isn't permitted to contribute to stuff that's way out there. He can't see worlds, he can't see great green fields. And these things are not his anymore, and he can't contribute to those things anymore, and so he gets stuff in close. You find model railroads and that sort of thing.

Female voice: Good.

Even when I was a kid I often used to wonder why kids played with trains because I used to go down and play with my trains. You know, they were man-sized trains, they were real trains. Brakeman never came along and told me, "Little boy, you're liable to slip and get your foot underneath the car and cut your foot off," and horrible stories, horrible stories. They never said that. They'd say, "Whatcha doing on top of the car? Come on in the caboose."

Yes?

I quite regularly would ride up to a small switching town just outside of the place where I was and ride back again in the matter of a summer's day. It was interesting that nobody was trying to deny me trains or kick me off, and I wasn't very old. It was perfectly fine.

Male voice: Can you see how a preclear in running Help could, in actual fact, be running out havingness?

Now, what do you have to do to have a train? You go down here in the B&O yards and you'll find all the brakemen down there are running a can't-have on you about trains. They've got trains pulled in to their chests, if you can imagine it.

No.

Also, trains are getting scarce. We're told down here in an investigation — investigation and the public relations activity are the same thing in the Senate — and the railroad boys down there were saying that unless the government did something and took things off the back of their neck, why, they'd have to give up their railroads. They'd have to turn them over to the government because they could no longer run railroads with the government aiding and abetting all the railroads' competitors and refusing to let the railroads earn a living.

Male voice: By what squirrel can they be doing that?

Well, however this was going, here was the government running a can't-have on the railroads. Railroads didn't realize the government is its own business and its own organization, has its own mest and hasn't anything to do with the rest of us. By golly, they were still under the belief the government had something to do with the railroads, you see?

Oh, it's easy to do. It's easy to do because when you're auditing him he starts doing some other things that aren't in the command, which would mean that your control of the preclear would be poor. Or he is doing some mass-chewing. Or because your communication with him is so as-ising — in other words, just the fact that you're communicating with him gives him an as-isness of mass. You understand that?

And the railroads actually were trying to pull the railroads in to their chest. And the government was just trying to pull what it had — not even railroads — in to its chest. They're both anxious about havingness, you see? And as a net result, if you went down here in a — the B&O yard, why, and tried to walk through a couple of freight cars, you'd probably get a nightstick wrapped around your skull. It would not be smiled upon, that's for sure. In other words, you can't have those railroads. You can buy one if you buy a ticket and it's all in good order and so forth, but things aren't that way anymore.

So any process can apparently run somebody down in havingness. Therefore in running Help, if you were suspicious of this point, it wouldn't be the Help that was running it down.

Now, after a while they'll get down so low, they'll start abandoning. See, here was the railroads trying to abandon the railroads to the government. Well, they'll get down to an abandonment point where there's nobody around and everybody can walk off with the equipment and nobody owns it. The equipment is still there but it can't be observed. You see the points which are being followed here?

You should turn around and run Connectedness. Run a button, bridge to Connectedness. You know, run one of the bracket and bridge to Connectedness. Run Connectedness for a while or some such process — Havingness or something — objective. And then bridge back into the second button and — of the bracket, and then Connectedness. You see, there's lots of ways for this to run. This would prevent that from happening, and probably should be done on a very low-scale case.

At first there's lots of havingness. There's lots of things you can contribute to, so then, therefore, there are lots of things you can have. And then people get anxious about this because there are too many people to have these things. Somebody gets anxious about it — destruction, things like this come up — and we get down on a little bit lower plane. And we get the idea of individuals who have to have these things. They have to have their stamps all over them, you see, and they have to have barbed-wire fences built around their possessions. You see? And then we go down a little bit lower and we find these — even these individuals are starting to throw things away. And the final thing comes out — simultaneously with arriving at "only one" on the Tone Scale (I mean, on the dynamics) — simultaneously with arriving at "only one" on the dynamics, we arrive at the same time at destruction of everything.

Yes?

But a destruction is a final effort to have. Now, that sounds real funny. But you could have Hitler sitting there with a Germany he hadn't even bothered to put back together again and racing all around Europe to have something. The guy was nuts. Wasn't he?

Male voice: Uh . . . Oh brother, it disappeared. . . Oh, yes!

Audience: Yes. Mm-hm.

As-ised, huh?

The one smart thing for him to have done was to consolidate a Germany that was in shreds. He hadn't begun to put Germany back together again. He hadn't given the people the light car he promised, he hadn't built any autobahns, he hadn't seen that his structures and manufactories were up to standard, he hadn't vaguely entered into the field of foreign trade the way he should have.

Male voice: Yeah. Would there ever be a situation or could you — would there — would it be likely to turn up a situation wherein a preclear was so relatively out of control that you would have to run SCS before you run the Help?

Yet he was in possession of the world's chemical production. See, he had the most of it there. He had a tremendously well worked out espionage trade system which was hand in glove — espionage and trade, side by side. He could control trades one way or the other. He frankly was on the road to having everything anybody could have dreamed of in Germany — a prosperous country — and he took the rest of Europe. Well, what did he want with the rest of Europe? And, well, he obviously couldn't have the rest of Europe because the next thing you know, he declared war — and this was his final insanity — on England.

Hmm . . . Well, I can tell you there are a lot of preclears you're going to have to run CCH 1 before you run anything else.

He shouldn't have done that. That was real stupid of him. Because he didn't yet have a Europe consolidated. His SS boys were still blowing their brains out trying to get enough people killed so they could have law and order. You know, I never figured out how they figured that out, but they did.

Male voice: Yeah.

Well, they didn't have Europe, and here they were trying to bite off Russia, England, other countries — wow! And what were they doing biting off Europe when they hadn't yet had Germany? And I don't believe if you'd asked Mr. Hitler, "What part of that body could you have?" — I don't believe he could have answered you within a couple or eight or ten hours of comm lag. Because, brother, he didn't have anything up close anymore. You see this? He wound it all up in destruction, and I guess he could have that but he's not around to enjoy it as such. He's probably flubbed it, and he's probably shoveling coal up in the Polish mines or something now.

Now you're talking about anaten preclears, and that sort of thing.

He's a very fine example of somebody who had to destroy in order to get that much alter-isness, so he could at least have some debris. And the rest of the world thought he was trying to have Germany, thought he was trying to have Europe, thought he was trying to have Russia, England, do you see? The rest of the world thought he was trying to have something. And they were right, but they never knew this: He was only trying to have debris.

I'll tell you a funny thing. You know the arrangement of the bracket in HGC of February 6 — Procedure of February 6 — the bracket is simply listed as itself, not in the order it's supposed to be run. "How could you help yourself?" is not the best first button to run on a cycle — he goes immediately out of control, don't you see? "How could I help you?" "How could you help me?" are easily the senior brackets to this. And you let this "How could you help yourself?" cruise on to a later point of the bracket.

So they would give the man respect. He shouldn't have even had the respect of his own people. See, he wanted debris, that was the only thing he could have. He couldn't have had a single manufactured product of any kind.

You've got to — there is no substitute in auditing for knowing what you're doing! I have less and less inclination, if I ever had any, to can it all up so it could be done without understanding what you were doing. Less and less inclination. I think you could probably can up Clear Processing so that you could make a Clear without understanding it, but. . .

Well, all right, this Help thing parallels all this I've been talking about here. It parallels this scale, and as you run Help on people, you see this scale for the first time with great rapidity in any one case. This Help button run in brackets will run up the gamut.

Male voice: Without either of them understanding.

Now, all you will see if you're observing very poorly is that it runs from Destroy up to Help. The answers will be: "All right, how could you help yourself?" and the fellow will say, "Destructiveness, destructiveness." And you'll say, "How could you help yourself?" "Destructiveness, destructiveness."

. . . wow! Yeah, without either of them understanding it. That's very good.

After you've asked him the question twenty times, why, he may get the first one where he says, "Well, I could help myself." And he gives you a method of helping himself, you get the idea? But in the space of about twenty questions, he'll run out of the destroy and into the help. Well, it's one of the fastest processes you ever looked at.

Any other questions here?

And it's tricky that it runs at all. Funny part of it is, you are not inventing methods of help. Notice the type of process it is. You're actually as-ising old postulates, more than anything else. Now, you shouldn't have your preclear looking for old postulates. You don't care whether he invents new ones or old ones, but you're running the significance out of the case. That's what you're doing. You're actually running significance out of the case.

Yes?

Now, you don't care what the significance is, but it just happens that it approximates these havingness scales and it goes from the bottom on up the line. You'll run up through destroy, and you'll generally, on any button or any dynamic, get yourself a few destructive replies.

Male voice: Well, when I asked you about how we should set up Clear Procedure project for the people in the field, you said they should make technicians out of them.

And they're liable to go by harmonics. You're liable to get propitiation, destruction, help. First answer — you should be alarmed at this because you won't find it very often: First answer on, "How could you help another person?"

Yes, you can, as long as you are standing at the backs of their necks. But remember, we're not clearing somebody without understanding it. There's somebody there who's understanding it, didn't they?

"Well, I could buy him a yacht."

Male voice: Okay.

Well, that's perfectly all right, but you as an auditor should well apprehend that about five or ten questions later the response is liable to be something like this: "How could I help another person?"

And namely, that'd be you, wouldn't there?

"Yes, I repeat the auditing command. How could you help another person?"

Male voice: Right.

"Well, I could take a small knife and I could peel off all of his skin, an inch at a time."

And they run into some difficulty and you straighten it out. This is the way a clinic in the future would be organized, which is quite interesting.

You'll see this thing running through these harmonics. The fellow goes through — instead of contribute, he's got propitiate. See? Way down low.

I'd just love to do the US Army. Boy, wouldn't they wind up to be a fantastic organization — after you'd totally flattened Help! But supposing you were doing somebody like the army or something of this sort. And they were — well, there are just too damn many preclears, that's all. Well, you'd take some auditor that knew his business and you'd give him ten or twelve technicians. And then he could keep it monitored and keep it straightened out.

And then he comes up to being covertly destroying, and then he runs up into "destroy hell out of," and then he runs out, "Well, we'll destroy it but we might let some of it live." And then we run on up and we finally get into help. And then we get a gradient scale of help.

We'd probably introduce an earphone system — this is just how to get it done, you see? We'd give them a rote procedure and then we'd give them a little earphone that the monitoring auditor could talk through, you see? And he'd listen to the session on a speaker. And if he gave instructions to the auditor, he'd just tell him. You get the idea? Well, he could run an awful lot of preclears just by dropping around back of the chair. Don't you see? You'd tell him — straighten him out, tell him which way to go. Now, that's what a technician would do. And a technician, I don't think, could be trusted over the hill. That answer it?

Now, we're actually as-ising postulates and significances, and we are not handling mass, which is quite remarkable because it's a significance process. And we thought that there was no possibility of a significance process ever working, and suddenly here's a significance process that works. Wild, isn't it? All right.

Male voice: Yes.

Now, that's one process. But remember, there was a common denominator of all these stages of survive and mass, and that was keep or have. See? Now, the common denominator is not "throw it away." That is an unreal, an unnatural action — it is over here on this succumb side. You see, we already decided that havingness was okay. Well, not-havingness is not okay. See? It sounds so — so blunt. It's so true, though. To get rid of things, to sweep things out, to break things up. These things are never all right casewise.

There would be two ways of approaching this, but neither one of them escapes sensible auditing.

You can often afford them. You can recover from them. In the natural course of thetan events, you'd better not try to keep everything you've got because it'll bury you someday. You get the idea?

Male voice: Right.

But it is never, casewise, all right to run a process that throws things away. You see that? It's just never all right. That's it. I mean, it just never works. The more you throw things away or run destructive or pitch-it-out processes, why, the lower the case is going to go on an APA and IQ and the rest of it. I mean, just make up your mind to it.

Right.

The fellow's ambition is to get rid of, at once, everything he's got. "Well, fine," you say, "if you just approximated this as the mind goes, we just have it made."

Yes?

Well, I'm probably the first investigator along this line that has cottoned to this and has not Qed-and-Aed with what everybody wanted. Everybody apparently wants to get rid of everything, when you finally start picking them up in mental health, see? They apparently do. You go along with that, boy, you've had it.

Male voice: Just on a point of interest — interest, on your ideas on the US Army: the British army just bought their first extinction pass. (laughter) They've agreed to get this started, in Aldershot, with Colonel White.

There is no process of "get rid of it" which can be safely run over any length of time at all. Even Dianetic engram erasure, for heaven's sakes, left you the energy without the significance. But let's take a look here at this and find out that the common denominator of therapeutic action is to keep it, which is to say contribute to it, which is to say survive. And you'll find all of those things working out on one single auditing command which is, "Keep it from going away."

Oh yes?

"Keep it from going away" might mean continue it. It might mean hold it there mechanically, close to you. It might mean a lot of things, and therefore it should be cleared with the preclear quite often because it now means something else.

Male voice: He bought what I'm calling a Power of Command Course.

He'll do one thing with the command, he'll do another thing with the command. And if you tell him what the command means, why, you're being very foolish because the command is rigged to go one way and then the other way.

No kidding! Tell us more.

"Keep it from going away" might mean continue it. It might mean simply contribute to it. It might mean hold it from leaving the geographical position of the body. It might mean an awful lot of things, so you just better start clearing it.

Male voice: Well, I haven't got much more. He's writing to you on the NAAP — National Academy of American Psychology . . .

I spotted one here last week where the command had not been cleared regularly. Because it can mean a lot of things and it is purposely a double-entendre. And if you ever run this into some other language, for heaven's sakes pick up something that's equally a double-entendre, you get the idea? It's a pun process. We don't care how he keeps it from going away.

Right.

Now, you get the idea of the fellow who — he can't have the green fields anymore, so he has to have possessions close up. He holds those possessions to him. That's one method of keeping things from going away, isn't it? Well, he'll take some of these possessions and he'll put them into glass jars, or something of the sort, so they can't disintegrate. In other words he'll continue them. That's keeping them from going away, isn't it? Prevention of departure by any means or vias.

Male voice: . . . for more information.

Now actually, you have to do most of these things, or all of them at once, in order to get the command totally executed. So that he executes parts of it before he executes it totally shouldn't be a matter of surprise to you at all. As a matter of fact, it's the common course of processing on it.

Right.

So we get the other process that is the hot process. The other process. One process here was simply the whole process, which is survival. We get the idea of continuous survival. The fellow will give up a reactive bank that he's possessing reactively and obsessively if he can have any bank.

Male voice: But briefly, it'll — / sold him on the idea of educating NCOs . . .

So you have to make him sure that he can mock things up, you know — and so that these things that he mocks up will continue, that he does have the ability to continue these things — before he'll give up obsessively created pictures, don't you see? It's just a matter of mass. He doesn't want insanity or anything else. He doesn't want conditions. It's all a matter of mass, energy, space and time. These are the things he wants.

Right.

And as a result — as a result — the idea of help must be straightened out so that he won't destroy. And then you have to straighten him out on the basis that he can create and possess and pull to him other things — masses.

Male voice: . . . and my intention is to run a Comm Course and Upper Indoc . ..

Quite remarkable, but he has to have an assurance that he can do this. Otherwise, he won't come out of the woods and he won't give up all his automatic gimmicks and gewgaws and so forth that he's been keeping around. And his anxiety is always an anxiety about havingness; his anxiety is always an anxiety about continuous survival, continuance and so forth. Those are his basic anxieties — all of them center around this one thing.

Very good.

So you got to have survival and havingness in the processing. And the individual himself has to be fully aware that he is creating something and that he himself is keeping it from going away before we get a breakthrough on a case. He doesn't dare give up the automaticities of yesteryear before he's got them today, you see?

Male voice: ... on them.

Now, you can take Help all by itself and you can produce a new brand of human being. So here is another method of arrival. There is a method of arrival on this, then. I mean, it's someplace you can go which is a direct approach.

Very good. I'm sure you'll be successful.

Now, oddly enough it's a possibility that clearing Help, all by itself, would make a Clear. (I told you there were lots of routes.) And there's a possibility — and this has been done previously — that simply having him mock things up and keep them from going away, regardless of "Hold it still" and "Make it solid," will make a Clear. Got that?

Male voice: And when I get back I'll be sorting this one out. It's one of the things . . .

Now, it's an oddity, but in running Help you have to sustain it with running a bit of Connectedness here and there. You have to run some Trio; you have to do something else. You got this? Because if you tried to run that for 125 hours, you'd find his havingness was "went."

Good.

Just by talking to you it would go, not because he was running Help. Help increases his havingness all the time. It gives him new ways and freedom to contribute, and the freer he is to contribute, the more he contributes, and his havingness will continue to go up.

Male voice: I heard last night that, you know, he's nibbling.

But just talking to you at the same time he's doing this will take enough edge of it off so that you'll find that you cannot run it on a forever basis without chopping his havingness to ribbons. So you have to run some Connectedness or some form of Objective Havingness while you're running it. In other words, he's — needs a booster; it needs an assist of one kind or another.

Good. Well, that's — that will take a lot of sorting out.

Now, as we find that this can run the lowest but doesn't reach the highest . . . By the way, its payoff starts to fade out when you get in the range of Release or something like that — I mean, its payoff flattens. It runs a curve of very high gain very early in the running of it, and then that curve eases off, you see? You need another process to pick it up and make it heavier, stronger, up along the line, and you've got the subjective "Mock it up and keep it from going away."

Male voice: True.

If you get this just straight and you get this squared away in your belfry, you will see exactly how each one of them integrates toward survival, and that we're really processing only the dynamic principle of existence of Book One. Odd enough, but it's in both cases. We're putting the man, however, in charge of it.

When we look over the potentialities between destroy and help, we find out that the function of an NCO toward his own troops is to help them. Oddly enough it's to help them destroy. Now, I don't know where we go from there. (laughter)

Now, having to be in charge of it low on the scale is itself an expression of anxiety. And when he gets good enough and he's secure enough, he won't care who's in charge of it, and we've gone to OT above cause and effect.

Yes?

Now, the key processes that you're running, then, are all based on survival. The first one is Help. It takes care of destroy, which is simply an alter-isness and still another effort to have something. And the other one is "Create it." Now that, by the way, if you wanted to get real, real good, you would — you'd recognize something about this "Create it," and that is that it itself could be a step all by itself. You know, just getting the fellow to create it and know he's creating it, and the form is simple and so forth.

Male voice: Start a school for people in the army and then take the graduates from that and run them onto OCS.

But it's part and parcel of the broader step "Create it and keep it from going away." "Mock it up and keep it from going away." Now, we have slipped a little bit when we realize that "Mock it up" still means "Create it," you know? Some people think it's a sloppy "Create it" but it's not. It's really "Create it."

Oh yeah? Now, tell me this again.

And you have to establish his ability to do any of this "Create it," and he keeps it from going away and so forth, before the step works out.

Male voice: Start a school for soldiers that. . .

And it could be said that if an individual could be reassured sufficiently concerning the survival of his possessions, that he would be Clear instantly and at once, and that is probably the only one-shot Clear there is. But in this turbulent world, I don't think it's going to happen in the absence of your processing, since it hasn't happened for the last umpteen billion years.

Right.

Thank you.

Male voice: . . . are in the army.

Right.

Male voice: Then run those graduates onto OCS.

Oh, sure.

Male voice: You'd have a valid point there. These people change so much in your course that they're ready for OCS.

Oh yes, yes very definitely.

Audience: What's OCS?

Male voice: Officer Candidate School.

Officers. That's where they make the "ociffers."

Okay, what else have we got here? Yes? First question for you.

Female voice: Is it necessary to bring up tone to tone on Help, as well as null to null?

A careful auditor — a careful auditor normally does. And lately I've been finding out they recovered tone rather easily on Help. And if you're having difficulty, it's because you're overrunning a part of the bracket.

Could I recommend that you read Scientology 8-80, on flows? Now, you — all of you, look over flows.

Now, here's what you can do with a fellow. It's too bad we're not running with an oscilloscope, but they're so fantastically expensive. They tell you the direction of flow. "How could you help me? How could you help me? How could you help me?" The fellow will come up to a point where the needle is very floppy, very loose. And you'll find out, if you run it much further, that the needle will start to tighten, tighten, tighten, tighten. What you've done is overrun the flow. Stuck flow is what you've run into.

So therefore, you don't flatten any part of a bracket on Help, you merely loosen the needle.

Male voice: Loosen?

Yeah, and you'll get that needle pretty floppy so that you actually have to turn down sensitivity. And then later on, you'll find out you had to turn sensitivity back up again if you overrun it. It's a nice point of judgment. And you get the needle so it's nice and floppy, you'll find out he's more or less recovered tone. And then tone will start down again and you won't get it up again on that end of the bracket. You've got to turn around and run it the opposite direction.

Let's say you're processing a pastor. He's been helping people and helping people and helping people, and nobody ever gave him any help. All right.

Now, you decide, very dully, to run him on "How could you help me?" The needle might have been fairly fluid to begin with, but it'll just freeze because you're running him on a stuck flow.

Now, the thing to run him on is quite something else: is, "How could I help you?" This will be a terrible shock to him. He's already overrun it, you see, in life. And as you run it back at him, he's liable to go anaten and everything else, but eventually the needle will get unstuck, and that is the time to leave that edge of the bracket. You don't null, null, null, null, null, null, null with this Help. You simply get it better, better, better. Every time you get the needle action better — the sensitivity is wide and so forth, he appears to be fairly free on the thing — you go on to the next side of the bracket. And what you do is run the bracket many times around rather than run each one flat.

If you could run — if you ran a bracket this way, you'd make a mistake. An hour and a half on "How could I help you?" Oh, I'm afraid that's much too long. He'll overrun it and stick the needle again, and you'll get trouble with your tone arm. Your tone arm will have risen back up to where you started, but then it will fall off again. And now you won't be able to get the thing up easily. So you say, "Well, the process that got him into it, why, huh! get him out of it, so we just run some more of it," see? But you get stuck flows.

And the idea of a flow is quite an interesting mechanism, and the fellow can overrun a flow, and it sticks. Anything running too long in one direction will eventually stick. The easiest thing about it is, if you were running water on a slight grade into a pool down here, you would eventually get the pool so full that the water would no longer run. See? Now, that's just a physical universe — a crude manifestation.

Electrically, if stuff runs too long down this line, something will happen to the line. The electricians call it electrolysis. It starts to carry away particles. It starts to chew things up. There's more and more resistance. And it's expressed in terms of heat. The line gets hot. Don't you see? The resistance rises; it's harder and harder to get a flow to go through that line.

Well, you should be able to read that on the meter because the meter suddenly starts to say, "Freeze, freeze, freeze." And I could take any one of you and freeze the needle on flows. I can just freeze it so doggone tight that somebody would say, "Boy, how did we get this low-toned character in the course?" You know? Just on a basis of, "Get the idea of pitching something at that wall. Pitch something at that wall. Pitch something at that wall." And after a while the thing would tighten.

Now, mocking something up and keeping it from going away is not a flow. Only for a while will it act as a flow, and that works itself out. But a thing like Help acts as flows. It's quite amazing. And this I was going to take up with you tomorrow, but you're running it today so I better tell you.

Run those needles loose; run them loose and switch. And as soon as I tell you run them loose, you'll see what I mean, second you get it on a needle, because it's very apparent. It means that your needle action, which was fairly mild to begin with, is now getting pretty strenuous. It means that you could actually turn down your sensitivity knob over here; see, you could turn down that sensitivity knob because the action is now too wide.

Well now, after a while, if you continue to run the same direction, see — "How could I help you? How could I help you?" gets fluid after a while, and then it starts sticking. See? And you'll find, then, that it would be necessary to turn your sensitivity back up again. You say, "What's happened here?" Well, what's happened is, is you ran through the null that — we're working with Help on a null of flows, which is quite different than a null of no needle actions.

I probably should have taken this up with you yesterday, but you got it now?

Audience: Yeah.

You're still looking a little baffled. Is there anything wrong?

Female voice: It's all right. Thank you.

You got it made?

Female voice: Yes.

You'll just have to see this action on an E-Meter to understand it. For instance, I picked up a case one day and I ran Help, "How could I help you?" and I ran it two times. That needle was sticky to begin with, and it got an awful lot sticky. And I said, "Well, at this point is it all right with you if we bridge? How could you help me?" And the needle just — plaaaah. I mean it — all of a sudden here we had a needle going all over the place. That's fine. That's fine. And I went on to other parts of the bracket, and then came back to this first part of the bracket. And this time I got it to flow, and the needle got loose on it.

Theoretically, part of clearing is to have a totally fluid needle.

Male voice: This brings up a point: At the start of the course when we were first talking about E-Meters, the idea was pretty much to set the sensitivity at one point and, by God, leave it there so that you get equal readings all through the thing.

Right. Then you would for sure see . . .

Male voice: Yes, I know.

. . . the tremendously expanded action of the needle.

Male voice: Yeah. Well, I've already seen that.

Right.

Male voice: My feeling on it now is that I could do a better job of auditing with occasional variance of the . . .

Well, do so. Do so — it's your meter.

Male voice: Okay.

You bet. It is!

Male voice: Yeah.

Just so you know what you're doing.

Male voice: Yes.

The reason you give somebody a bunch of fixed sets for a meter is so they can tell what's varying. Now, if they want to vary things after that, that's fine.

Male voice: Okay.

You bet.

Okay. Yes?

Male voice: Would you clarify a little bit for me how goals and help are connected or associated?

Well, you've just popped a question that I hadn't even had — ever examined.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Never examined this question. Goals and help: You'll find out that the true goals of a person would be to help, I am sure.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

And goals could establish where he was on help, just by listening to him for a short time, and would be more of an indicative thing than it would be therapeutic. We've already tested goals out and found out that it's not necessarily therapeutic. It feels so good, but it isn't necessarily therapeutic.

Yes?

Male voice: Thank you.

Second male voice: Would it be the reason Help is on a flow basis because it's basically a "contribute to" and involved with other people, whereas the "create" is strictly involved with oneself?

Right. You could say that if you were clearing somebody, Help would run the dynamics, and you would get a takeoff from the first dynamic on up with "mock up" and "create." You see? I mean, that's a first dynamic rehabilitation. Help takes the higher dynamics.

The reason why cases get along better when you flatten Help first is because normally you've taken out a bunch of inversions. You haven't taken out the other at all. When he really gets up to a first dynamic he can create, and then he could take off through the rest of the dynamics just through that, and they would all work out eventually. Hardly a case around that isn't running on some inverted dynamics.

Yes?

Female voice: When you process "Action against that body," wouldn't you run into the same phenomena of the stuck flow on the meter?

"Action against that body," stuck flow on the meter — if a person was running it with the actual particles and the actual flow you would certainly get it. You would certainly get a stuck flow phenomenon. That's right.

Yes?

Female voice: You mentioned striking out the Union Station processes at the HGC. Did I get that correctly?

Yeah, that's out.

Female'voice: What about us?

Oh, you don't have to do it. It's not a bad process. It's good, it gets you acquainted with people, gets you around, gets you some air.

Yes?

Male voice: Well, if you run Help to a floppy needle on each leg. . .

Mm-hm.

Male voice: . . . where do you stop?

Your needle will eventually null.

Male voice: Oh.

You eventually get no reaction on Help at all. But the road out is the middle of the flow. See? I mean, it's not stuck this way and stuck that way, it's an unstuck needle. And then you get a more unstuck needle; eventually you get an unactive — an inactive needle, totally inactive. Floppy needles eventually cease to be there at all.

Yes?

Male voice: Would there be a relatively null point — not a stuck needle, but a relatively rising point of a relatively free needle — somewhere in the middle of that flow ?

Yeah.

Male voice: That would be the place to leave it.

Yeah. Well, you'll get a phenomenon which is quite amusing to watch, where the fellow takes a whole tone with a tone arm drop, on one single question that isn't very significant at all.

Male voice: Yeah.

And he'll get a whole tone drop, and then he will blow the charge on that, and the needle will soar upwards to a whole tone rise. Boy, that's a real floppy needle. Wow, that's wild. And that's the time to just get off of it.

Male voice: Yeah.

You say, "That's fine. Let's bridge. Let's bridge before we get into some trouble around here."

Male voice: Good.

Okay, we've had it. Thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you.