Thank you very much.

Okay. Twelfth November, 1st Melbourne ACC. And this lecture is one you're not going to forget for some time.

Ah, you've been having a bad time trying to get needles and tone arms and so forth. Haven't you?

Audience: Yes.

All right. Have you got a reality now there's a little gen to be genned? Hm?

Audience: Yes.

And that there's something to be known about this. Is that right?

Audience: Yes.

Do you — do you think there's maybe — maybe something more to be known about this?

Audience: Yes.

You think so? All right.

Today I'm going to talk to you about the rule of the weak valence.

Now, that's highly technical and it's something very, very new. It hasn't appeared before, but you find the foreshadows of it in Dianetics: Modern Sci­ence of Mental Health, under "Allies" and that's the first shadow of this. It's the rule of the weak valence.

Now, let's take a look at the communication formula, which is cause-distance-effect. Cause is source-point. Cause is source-point. Effect is receipt-point. Right?

Audience: Yes.

Now, that gets confused in people's minds with the cycle of action. So any cause-point can be confused with a creation-point. Right?

Audience: Yes.

And any effect-point can be confused with a destroyed or destruction-point. Right?

Audience: Mm-hm.

But basically all cases are hung up on their overts, not on their motiva­tors. That which ye have done on any and all dynamics which you considered discreditable is what hung you up. And that is a tough bullet to chew. That's a hard one to front up to.

It's so hard to front up to that people don't blow Clear — swoosh. Becausethey'll tell you consistently that it was what happened to them that counted!Now, they're not responsible for what happened to them. Isn't that right?

Audience: Uh-huh.

They're not responsible for that. But they are responsible for what they did to others, right?

Audience: Yes.

Now, why is it — why is it, if this is the case, that anybody ever gets slipped over to the receipt-point of the comm formula?

Well, mechanically, it works like this. They outflow and outflow and out-flow, and then finally become the cause of their own effect. In other words, they become the effect of their own cause, whichever way you want to say it.

Now, here's cause. Here's distance. Here's effect. And they keep going from cause, over the distance, to the effect. And cause, over the distance, to the effect. And cause, over the distance to effect. And cause over the distance to effect. And the next thing you know they slip and they get over here into effect. See? They slide down their own comm lines. Got the idea?

Audience: Yes.

And they wind up at the receipt-point.

Now, did you ever hear, in a European restaurant, the waiter say, "Thank you," when he put the plate before you?

Audience: Mm-hm.

That's just about the wildest thing you ever listened to. Waiter comes along and he puts your food down in front of you and he says, "Thank you."

And I can discombobulate those fellows most dreadfully, that when they put the plate down just before it touches the table and they have a chance to go through with their routine, I say, "Thank you!" with a good Tone 40, you know.

And it almost knocks them silly. And for an instant I'm sure that those fellows have a confusion between me and them.

Now, they have actually put food down on tables traditionally over such a period of time that they have to be at the receipt-point of what they caused. They're slipping down their own comm lines so they acknowledge what they did themselves. See, they give themselves their own acknowledgments. This is a very silly — silly situation.

And you'd say offhand that didn't have much bearing on cases. Well, brother, it has every bearing on cases because it explains valences!

And this is what a valence is. It's the thing or receipt-point, which has been targeted by the cause-point sufficiently that whoever is at cause-point has slipped into the receipt-point.

Now, you've been looking at this in terms of victim. Victim is, of course, a destroyed or threatened with destruction receipt-point. That is all. That's all a victim is — somebody who, having been at receipt-point, has been tar­geted from a cause-point. Victim.

And, of course, the rationale behind victim is totally vicious. Being a victim is the last hope that your disability will be duplicated so that you slaughter the cause-point, because the cause-point duplicates you at receipt-point.

In other words, you object to being treated so, or used as an effect. You object to being an effect, you see. So instead of saying you object, you appear wounded or hurt in some fashion and the automaticities of duplication bring about the same hurt, and so forth, in the cause-point. You got the idea?

You might as well stop feeling sorry for the fellow that's going down the street on crutches, because I absolutely assure you that on a whole track look, nothing ever happened to him that put him on crutches. See that? It wasn't that he did it to himself either. He mocked himself up on crutches hoping to get at something that was cause-point, hoping that it would then wind up on crutches. You got the idea? It's just a way of getting — getting his own back. Got that?

Now, that's mighty cruel to state it that way, but the truth of the matter is that his difficulties are caused by his overts and that's one of his overts. See? Being wounded, being upset, and so forth, is an overt because he hopes the observer will in turn get around to effect-point and be wounded or upset. Got the idea?

Hence, we have the anatomy of the overt act.

And the anatomy of the overt act is not very complicated. But the main thing you've got to figure out is, "Who is the victim?"

And you run this process very much, that's one of the first things the pc comes up against. "Now wait a minute ... victim ... victim ... Let's see, was I the victim because I was pretending to be wounded or was I the victim because I wounded somebody and then he convinced me that I ought to appear wounded? Now, let's see, which way am I the victim?" See, it's rather fabulous — rather fabulous. You look at it and, of course, it really all blows up in smoke that there are no victims. But it's a great apparency.

But anything you see anybody doing, or any condition you see anybody in could be heartlessly, brutally, and cruelly — undoubtedly with those adjectives — but nevertheless truly a version of Axiom 10; production of an effect.

Anything you see is an effort to produce an effect. Anything!

Oh, you get out here, you see an ambulance and it's picking up dead bodies all over the street and so forth. And you say, "Well, boy, the amount of mishmash there, that's certainly no effort to produce an effect! Those — those people lying there stone dead, and so forth, they're certainly not trying to produ — ." Oh, the devil they aren't!

You go back far enough on the track and you'll find little arguments of this character.

"You're wounded."

"No, I'm not wounded."

"Well, look, there's a bullet through your body!"

"Oh, is there a bullet through my body? I didn't know I was wounded. Oh, there is a bullet through my body!"

"Now, you see, that proves you're wounded. Okay, now you have to lie down." And so on.

"Well, I don't have to lie down — I've — because I'm — just got a bullet — hole through my body."

He'll actually run into quote — well, they're just light locks on the whole track way back when, see, before all this had become so obsessive. Big argu­ments about "Who's dead?" "Which one's the victim?"

Well, of course, as soon as the fellow is a victim, he decides he will be a victim because he gets back at the fellow that's arguing him into being a victim. Don't you see? And the only reason he gets wounded is so that he can produce an effect on the fellow wounding him. I'm afraid that's a fact. That is the solid truth of the matter.

But, the rule of the weakest valence is this: that that apparent effect-point which most easily receives an inflow will become the basic valence you must remove from the preclear.

Look this over. Cause-distance-effect. Cause-point is emanative. Now, if you just draw — draw a little circle there with emanations coming out of it, like it was an electric light bulb or something like that in a comic strip, you know, that's cause. Now, draw a line and now draw a point. And now draw arrows going into the point like it was an electric light bulb pulling light in, not shedding it out. Got that? Do you see that now? That's cause-distance-effect. And that effect-point which you drew is the weakest valence. It'll actu­ally have the least mind because the mind itself is a sort of a buffer. It'll be pulled down to practically nothing.

Now, that's the easiest thing to communicate to, because all you have to do is practically open your mouth, and the communication arrives there with no volition on your part whatsoever. It pulls the communication in just like a magnet. See?

And, of course, that's basically the most overt, overt act there is on the track: to mock up one of these super comm line sponges.

You get a person who is — not necessarily a person who is terribly bad off or otherwise, but you'll get a person occasionally who will only listen and never originate. Got that? You've seen people, they'll only listen and they will never originate. They will never say anything at all.

Well, now, if you reduced that down to the point where they appeared to be highly introspective about anything you said and hardly even agreed with you at all, they'd sort of pull your comm line straight in.

You know, dog lying on the sidewalk wounded. Inevitably people walking by say, "You poor fellow. What happened to you?" And he just lies there wounded, you know. Got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

See? That's a communication automaticity.

Now, that's a minimum of effort required from the cause-point to reach the receipt-point. It's almost as if this receipt-point has provided a bus there at cause-point, with no effort on the part of cause-point, and the words are going to be trolleyed right on down the distance line, straight to receipt-point and taken care of right there.

You know, like banks or something. Banks! Save your money, save your money and they just take your money and take your money and take your money!

Or governments, and so on. They just take your money and take your money and take your money and take your money and take your money and take your money. And actually, it gets to a point where all you do is have to put out a coin, you know, and if you let go of the coin, it wouldn't fall to the ground. Get the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Well, that's one of these super vacuum receipt-points.

Now, that receipt-point, of course, is the least emanative point. So, it offers no resistance to a communication.

Now, this mechanism is mechanical. It is below the level of the rationale of "Who's a victim?" and all that sort of thing. This is simply a mechanical arrangement that is set up.

And you get these receipt-points, you see, that just seem to sponge up anything that come their way at all. You'll find they're the parasites of the society, those that just — totally sponges, see. They're the parasites, they're the alcoholics, they're the officials. You know, they just slurp — slurp — slurp. Get the idea? They never emanate anything.

Now, you're not one of these people, because you emanate. See? You can put out too.

Well, these people really can't put out. Odd things will happen with these people. They learn something, you understand. They learn the house is burning down. And you come by an hour or two later and say, "Good God! The house burned down!" They'll say — they'll say, "Yes, I knew that."

You say, "Well, why didn't you tell me?"

"Oh ..." You know, just a brand-new idea. Tell somebody something? You know? You've seen this ...

Audience: Yes.

You've seen this person? All right.

Now, let's go further than that. Let's take something which seems to absorb — I'll have to bring down this goddess, Kali, I bought in India, that I mean to show you and so on — something that absorbs anything put in its direction, such as a black screen, or something like that. The reason I men­tion Kali is she's black, destruction and so forth — symbolism, she's pretty interesting.

And here's a black screen that never lets anything out that comes into it. Never. Nothing ever gets out of it, it only goes in.

And you get a pc and he's sitting there, and — my God, he can't see any-thing, you know. And everything is just flying in — everything is just flying in like mad. And he says, "I just don't understand what this screen is," you know. There he sits, fixed, you know. "I don't understand what this screen is. What's — what is it?" You know?

Well, actually it's something that has steadily, currently, constantly, habitually demanded his attention to such a degree that he now can't even see what it was that was demanding his attention. Got that?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Well, that's the weakest valence, that's what he's looking at. That is the weakest valence.

Now, basically the rule of the weakest valence is, in order to establish the person, you split off the weakest valences, not the strongest valences!

You wonder why every time you try to run a strong valence off a case, nothing happens. See? Nothing happens.

Fellow says, "Oh, my father was a terror. He used to come in the house and he'd say, `Where's the whiskey?' And he'd — No more whiskey!' Why, he'd just scream and the walls would fall down and so forth and he was a terrible person, and I — it's undoubtedly — if I could just get rid of his valence I'd be all ..."

Oh, to hell with it! How could he possibly get in the valence? The valence is emanating everything off of it! Got it?

Audience: Yes.

Hm?

Now, this is the anatomy of the dwindling spiral. People don't go into the strong valences, they go into the weak ones.

Now, let's look over the mechanics of it. It's too easy to go into a weak valence. It's so easy, you just relax and you go slurp! Got the idea? The weak­est valence would be the most inflowing valence, in the preclear's opinion.

See? Now, the very easiest thing, person, anything to talk to, address, or anything like that, would be something he would consider assisted his com­munication lines. See, it assisted the inflow.

It says, "Oh, you're going to say something? Slurp!" Grabs the words right out of his mouth, see? Boom! Awful fast.

Now, a person has to be pretty darn bad off during the period that these snaps happen.

Now, me talking to you, at this moment, could no more establish for me or for you valence shifts, than a man in the moon. See? You can sit in a chair, you can look, you can talk, you can understand what's going on and so on. I can stand here and talk. I'm alert and so on.

We get the engram of valence shift because valence shifts occur, because of the overt act — motivator sequence, when somebody sets himself up as a vic­tim at a very low level of reception. In other words, near unconsciousness or unconsciousness or dead.

Now, the number of needles right here that are banging and theta-bopping as you try to set somebody up to get his tone arm on a Clear reading at his or her sex, is amazing.

Have you noticed the number of theta bops you're getting?

Well, man, did you ever have a dead body answer back?

Furthermore, there's so many mysteries of what happened to it. See, there the guy lies, there's not a mark on him and he's stone dead. Everything is present, cash is in his pockets, everything is in the apartment that should be there except one saucepan.

See, and you say — you kind of ask him, "Look, why are you dead? What — what's you dead about?"

He doesn't say a word!

Get it? Well, that's a real weak valence.

But not everybody's weak valence, of course, is a dead body. Very far from it. Most of the weak valences, I think you'll find, are composed of allies that took care of you when you were sick. Or you took care of them when they were sick. Or vice versa or back and forth or something in the overt ... Who's — who's the victim, you know, that sort of thing. The big question of "Who's the victim?" comes up there.

To establish who's the weakest valence, you simply ask the person that you're processing, "Who's the weakest person you know?"

I'll just ask you now, and you can remember what you said.

In this lifetime, who's the weakest person you ever knew?

Go on, answer it for yourself. Who's the weakest person you ever knew in this lifetime? You got one. Do you remember one?

Audience: Yes.

Huh?

Now, who — who actually got the facsimile of that person right inside their skulls? Did anybody here get the facsimile of the person you thought of right inside your skull? There's one. There's one.

Now, that's the weakest valence to be run with a valence splitter. Just change your case around, just pshew!

And the rest of you didn't think of anybody at all? You didn't think of anybody at all?

Audience: Yes.

You did think of somebody?

Audience: Yes.

You didn't find anything sitting in the middle of your skull though? Huh?

Female voice: No.

Well, all right, you don't have to have it sitting in the middle of your skull.

Now, look-a-here. You are up against, in trying to clear somebody, merely the problem of eradicating a bank. You understand? But in making OT you're trying to rehabilitate the ability of the person to postulate, to handle and be at cause over matter, energy, space, time, life, forms, and so forth. You understand?

Well, now, you add this up to what I just told you. An OT has horse-power, doesn't he? Hm? That would be an emanating horsepower, wouldn't it? See? See, it's out. Right?

Audience: Yes.

Well, the trick is this. The bulk of the people you process will simply sit there with the characteristics of the weakest valence and process the weakest valence. And they don't get processed at all!

And the reason they do not suddenly come up the line and develop tre­mendous horsepower all over the place, is a very simple reason — is because they just go on being this weakest valence. Got it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Of course, the weakest valence doesn't have any horsepower! That's what's the matter with it! The more you outflow, the more it inflows. It's a short circuit.

Now, when a person takes over a valence, they take over a package of characteristics. It's a package of characteristics.

Take over Grandma's valence. All right. Grandma did not like oatmeal. Grandma could paint a little bit. Grandma detested oil fumes. Grandma was hypercritical of young girls. Got the idea?

And just any characteristic you see on an APA or an OCA profile, any characteristic you see, Grandma sat at a certain point on that profile. And the person that's sitting in Grandma's valence will answer their idea of where Grandma sat on that profile.

It's almost as if, if you gave the profile to Grandma to do and then gave the profile to the person who was in Grandma's valence to do — of course, it wouldn't be quite the same, because this — it's only this person's opinion of the other person's valence, you see — you'd get something like the same pic­ture on the profile.

And the picture on one of those OCA or APA profiles is a picture of a valence. That's the sneaker about those profiles. Basically, those profiles are not an indication, not an indication at all of a person shifting up or down when they change. They're an indication of valences sliding out and in. You got it?

Audience: Yes.

As long as you're in the human level of processing, see, and we're not in this class, you see, we're not in that level, we're not going at the same targets, we're not doing the same thing — as long as you're in that, any shift that you get will be as a reason of having shifted the valences.

So, don't expect somebody to come up progressively, tickity-tickity-tickity-tick. They don't at all. If you, in processing, graduate them to higher and higher valences then you get better and better pictures of the profile. Got the idea?

But they don't do a gradient of their own ability because their own abil­ity is never in question! It's all there a hundred percent, their own ability is, and has never waned from the moment they decided to mock up the whole ruddy universe!

But I'll assure you that the Mr. and Mrs. Weak that they've picked up down the line couldn't mock up a ruddy universe. Right?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Because every valence is the product of a succession of victim tricks.

And one of the first of the victim tricks is, "I'm weak! Poor, weak, little me. Big strong you and poor, weak little me" — in an effort to flip this valence over to the cause-point!

See, Big Thetan Exclamation Point comes along, he's picking his teeth with a thunderbolt, you know.

This little sneaker that couldn't even vaguely have been hurt by a thun­derbolt, you know, thunderbolts would go straight through him and not even part his hair, see. He says, "Oh, you've hurt me!"

And Big Thetan Exclamation Point says, "Hurt you? How could I?" "Well, you just did. See, I can't wield around any thunderbolts. Not like

you. They just — just go right into me and stay there because I'm weak. I can't

resist them and therefore you're a bully for shoving them at me!" "Well, I didn't shove any thunderbolts at you!"

"Well, I don't know. What's this thunderbolt doing through my chest?"

And Thetan Exclamation Point walks off and he says, "You know," he says, "there must be some kind of a weak variety of thetan! I didn't remem­ber putting a thunderbolt through his chest, man. He must have kind of just sucked a thunderbolt out of me. Wonder how he did that?"

And the person being the weak, little thetan, and so forth, why, he goes over behind a rock and laughs like hell and picks his teeth with a thunder-bolt, see?

But a synthetic thing has been created. A valence has been created, which was weak and couldn't emanate thunderbolts in which at least one thetan came to believe. See, it's a — it's an invented thing.

Now, people for various reasons and explanations start wearing these invented valences. And then you run into more and more invented valences. And then people start believing in these things, and they believe that they're them, and they believe that this is right and good conduct — that much restraint. And they — next thing you know, why, you run into nothing but a universe full of synthetic valences, and there isn't a real person in the lot. Get the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

All right. So don't you walk up to somebody, sit down in the auditing chair and say, "Now, you can't do very much here, it says on the meter. And you are having a hard time, and we will improve you now by processing you." And so on.

Well, it's only indirectly true. See, what you're confronting there is a synthetic thing. It's a valence.

Now, a synthetic valence had an old, proper terminology, but it's just — it's just a dreamed-up thing. Any valence is just a dreamed-up thing, and it's the power cutdown.

That's why I say, "Process the thetan, don't process the bank." Because what can you do for a weak valence? Nothing.

Now, you can process the preclear so as to shed a valence or change a valence or mock up a new valence and so forth. You see, that's an entirely different proposition.

But the road to OT depends on the shifting of valences. And that's why you've heard me hitting this so hard. And it probably was a kind of incompre­hensible to you at first why I kept talking about create-survive-destroy, and then the next minute was talking about valences and — and you know this apparently didn't make very much sense. But the road to OT must lie through shifted valences.

Now, you've got two processes that shift valences like mad.

The shotgun case, pretty well off, starts shifting valences around just on, "Think of entering a mind." "Think of not entering a mind," and so forth. You get a shift around.

Now, some of you have run that, haven't you?

Audience: Yes.

Kind of beefy isn't it?

Audience: Yes.

Yeah. Well, you're just sort of shooting valences off in all directions and — and squaring things around, and running out the basic reasons why a person got into valences in the first place.

Well, that's not necessarily the cure-all but it certainly gets somebody whizzing on this subject. See, they get someplace on this subject.

Furthermore, auditors should never have a compulsion to be in some-body else's skull while they're auditing them. You'll find, I think, after you've run this for a while — I think right now some of you could tell me this is true. In spite of the fact that you have run out an obsessive desire to audit people, you are now more interested in auditing. Is that true?

Audience: Yes.

Yeah. It's an interesting fact, you know. It's the graduation from had to to able to. You know?

Now, the public at large out there is basically on the reverse kick, which is why you lose them on the co-audit all the time.

The reverse kick is mustn't. See? Mustn't invade that mind, that's impolite!

Matter of fact, doesn't matter if you run over people with a car in Eng­land today, doesn't matter if you stamp on them in the street, kick them in the shins, or, doesn't matter if you cost them their jobs, or drown them in the channel. None of those things matter. Just don't appear to invade their pri­vacy with any direct communication and you're a very polite person and well-accepted socially. See, they're on a stuck flow backwards.

You can always tell a freer country than others. Accents are basically no more and no less than degree of withhold of communication. And you could actually plot out where countries sit on their general social level by the degree that they outflow or what part of their face, or in front of their face they speak from.

You know, those that are speaking way back in the back of their heads, wow! They're — they're pretty rough. That's obsessive separation or individua­tion, you see. That's obsessive, "Not enter the other fellow's mind."

But it doesn't matter whether people are on the obsessive, "Don't invade the privacy," or obsessive, "Invade the privacy." In either case, it's obsessive and not under the control of the individual.

So that process of "minds" is most beneficial for the auditor. But it also runs out all the whole track psychiatry, and it's got a lot of sidepanels one way or the other. But also it starts taking the lid off of weak valences.

The one that really slaughters the weak valence and moves tone arms all over the doggone place is a Dynamic Assessment — assessment by dynamics. And then look for the weakest valence on that dynamic which seems to be the most susceptible to change. The dynamic that reads a little different than all other dynamics, why then, find the weakest possible thing there.

It's apparently — you'll very often find it will be registered as the most "mindless thing." See, the thing that's got the least mind. Well, therefore, it'll have the least mass. Therefore, it'll read the silliest on tone arms.

You get your negative tone arm when somebody has retreated into a weak valence which doesn't have any mind at all and therefore no responsi­bility, and it can't outflow at all. It just inflows. See, and this poor pc gets parked that way.

Now, actually, we were examining a pc yesterday who does not have Vic­tim flat. And the only reason that arm is low is just because Victim isn't flat and that's all. Because in running Victim this pc has flipped from cause over distance, to effect at some point of the victim chain, and it's just a temporary situation and he's flipped over into a weak valence. That's all.

All you'd have to do is discover this weak valence, split it and let it go. Or continue to process the Victim — process that turned it on. You understand?

Now, somebody can go into a bedpost as the weakest valence. Now, if you try to figure out why it's the weakest valence and argue about the fact that the pc thinks it's the weakest valence, you're going to be in trouble on this assessment from here on out! Because it's the — just like it's the pc's opinion of whether or not he's done a discreditable act — see, it's his opinion that makes it an overt — just as that, so it's his opinion that makes it the weakest valence.

And somebody comes along and tells you, "The weakest valence, well, that's the eighth dynamic. Yeah, eighth dynamic, that's the weakest valence." You say, "That's fine. You sure of that?"

If you explore it out, this person absolutely considers it's the weakest valence.

Because he got the idea that he went to church to put nickels in the collection plate. See? And they told him all the time he was a little kid that "God wants this and God wants that." And he finally got the idea of God as a total vacuum that pulled everything in on him. And he didn't read the part about thunderbolts at all, see? And he tells you that would be the weakest possible valence. Well, of course, it'd — that's his opinion. He'll have some rea­son why it's his opinion.

Now I know of a weak valence that was a very vivacious aunt and nobody ever considered her a weak valence in the family. As a matter of fact, she was lying all over the family like, why, I don't know, like somebody open­ing the front door and throwing handfuls of marbles all over the floor. You know? Terrifically aware of this person's presence.

But, for some peculiar reason to the pc, this was a total inflow valence. And the pc, for God's sakes, picked up all the symptoms of her husband that she married later on, since that husband would be the closest thing to that valence, you see. So, we had a pc with a bunch of somatics that nobody could identify because they weren't even the somatics of the weakest valence. They were the somatics of the husband of the weakest valence.

These are pretty weird considerations. But the pc then must have consid­ered "husband" to be a fairly weak category. So therefore, the husband of the weakest familial valence was weaker than the familial valence, so that was a weaker valence yet. Got the idea? And he just skidded from bad to worse. You got it?

Now, you can find these right in current lifetime. And when they're reg­istering badly on a tone arm, in the early stages of processing, when they're registering too low, why, the person is in some kind of a weak valence. We don't care what predisposition there was in the person's life.

Now, you can clear this tone arm down with overts. The tone arm can go right on down with overts.

And if it keeps right on going down with overts, you finally say, "Hey!" Because what you've done is start to plow up the weakest valence. There it is. And you've just sunk down to what the pc thinks it ought to read on the meter.

It's actually a total no-responsibility valence, so it doesn't read anywhere on the tone arm. Because it pulls in everything, it apparently is totally mindless.

You can ask a pc, "What or who thinks the least?" And you very often will come up with the weakest valence. See. You can ask the pc for just the weakest valence. And very often the pc just gives it to you. Hey, "Who's the weakest person you've known in this lifetime?" You see?

Now, if you want to get it for the whole track, you'd have to get him to describe the weakest object or thing and so forth based on a Dynamic Assess­ment. See?

You could get it with two-way comm for this lifetime and run it without a meter. But if you want to get it for the whole track, then you're going to have to do the old Dynamic Straightwire type of assessment. Get that change of needle read when the person's sitting there and on everything — it can get this bad — on everything, why, he does a stage four, see. All — this is all the needle does, see.

Everything, it does this. Well, when you mention the fifth dynamic, ani­mals, see, the needle does this. And you mention "material objects," and the second time you mention "material objects" the needle goes right back doing this. See. And you can go over the list of dynamics and parts of the dynamics, over and over, and each time you come somewhere in the vicinity of the fifth dynamic and so forth, the needle goes up. That's a different needle.

I don't care if it comes out of the case and ties a bow in itself. See, it's merely a different needle! You're looking for a different needle! Not a stuck needle or a dropping needle or a high needle or a low needle. You're just look­ing for a needle that registers differently from any — everything else.

And the way you establish whether or not it's a different needle is you can reestablish the pattern by asking about other dynamics. You can ask about, you know, you were getting the needle ... and so on. That was the standard pattern. And you got it, finally, on the fifth dynamic to come up here.

Now, the question is, do you go back to the first dynamic and say, "Well, about — how about yourself?" and so forth, "Do you consider yourself a weak person?" or something like that, which would be an idiotic question, but you could ask it. And the needle finally settles down, see, and the needle finally settles down and then it's — goes back to its original pattern. You go up that fifth dynamic, you get change.

Maybe you'll find two dynamics that'll register different. Sort out the one that registered more different than the other. See that? Very often, two or three dynamics will be identified and they're all the same thing to the pc.

Now, sorting out the weakest valence ... Aah, auditing!

You've taken off the case the reason he can't throw thunderbolts any-more. See? He's got all sorts of rationale.

"It's nicer to be powerless."

"If I really got active, somebody would be hurt, so I had better remain inactive."

All kinds of explanations, you see. "Well, people have always liked me better — people have always liked me better when I was quiet and well-behaved and, therefore, I'll be quiet and well-behaved."

Well, what's being quiet and well-behaved? Well, obviously, being quiet and well-behaved is being a stick drifting down with a river. I don't know what's quiet or well behaved about a stick, but that's what he's being. He's being a stick.

He seems to think the stick inflows and he thinks all sorts of things about a stick you'd never think about a stick. But that's his case, see?

And up to the time when you get up on top, you've got just as silly ones in some other direction that he wouldn't understand at all. You know? You got the idea?

Audience: Yes.

So, there are these wild differences in cases as to the consideration of what's a victim, consideration of what's a weak valence, consideration of what real weakness would be, consideration of what the weakest thing or — is, con­sideration of what the safest thing would be. All of these things, you see.

The running out of the weak valence, bah! There's just tons of processes, I mean, that you could use. You know tremendous numbers of processes that would be successful on this.

Supposing you said, "On the whole track assessment, oh, the weakest valence is a coconut." All right, it's a coconut. That's what the pc says, so that — that's what the E-Meter says. Everybody agrees on this and so on.

Well, you could do more confounded things with this weak valence than you could shake a stick at.

One of the things that you could do with it, one of the crueler things — we'll come up with later — would be, "What part of a coconut wouldn't you mind creating?" See, "Would you be willing to create?" You get the idea? "What part of a coconut would you be willing to create? Thank you. What part of a coconut would you be willing to create? Thank you."

The person is going this way. Decayed coconuts start falling all around him. Now that would be one thing.

You could say, "From where could you communicate to a coconut?" See, that's another one. A somewhat lengthier process to some degree but not quite as violent; smoother, so forth.

Or you could just tackle it head-on with a valence splitter! And this is the one I would recommend at this time which is, "Think of a difference between yourself and a coconut." "Think of a similarity between yourself and a coconut." "Think of a difference between yourself and a coconut." "Think of a similarity between yourself and a coconut."

You'll find that the first commands on a weak valence just don't do a thing — of that one. You know? He knows he's separate. Separateness is a total automaticity on it. He knows he's directly identified with it — identification is a total automaticity. He never had a question as easy to answer. Oh, it's an easy question on a weak valence.

"Oh, it's so-and-so and so-and-so, you know."

You ask him the other question.

"Well, that's so-and-so and so-and-so, you know." And so on.

He'll tell you after a dozen questions, "So what, nothing's happening. Nothing's happening at all, you know." And, "What's the difference between myself and a coconut? Well, so-and-so and so-and-so, and — ah — coconut ..." "What's the similarity between yourself and a coconut?" "Well, it's so ... It's so easy. What's this lung doing coming out of my chest?"

And it gets worser and worser and harder and harder and easier and easier and more automatic and less automatic, and it goes back and forth into many vicissitudes on that particular command. Now, you can run that one on a specific terminal or a general terminal.

You could run it on an executioner. Of course, the weakest terminal around an execution is usually the block, you know, or the gallows, or some-thing of that sort.

People are always picking on the executioner as the valence they must be in. Hell, no! They're not in the valence of the executioner. They're usually in the valence of the rope or something. That's right.

I ran into one fellow one time who was having an awful lot of trouble with valences because he couldn't quite make up his mind whether he was a man or a woman. And it went back to an execution where he was hanged and he had his total attention fixed on a young, very good-looking girl in the crowd. And, man, he moved straight out of that execution, and the second they hanged him, he blew out of his head, blew into her head because she fainted, you know. And then that was very pathetic, so he moved off and pre-tended that he had died from the young girl who was lying there fainting. Well, that was a slippy one!

And I remember Dick one time running a case who was — of somebody being beaten. And man, that girl was this and that and everything else you could think of. And Dick always could tell what was the next valence coming up, because she'd telegraph it. If there was a dog in the engram or something like that, why, the pc, long before she mentioned the dog, you see, would start going, you know, scratch or you know.

Dick would say, "Well, is there a dog in the incident?"

"Oh, yes. Yes. How'd you know? Woof!"

Well, they — they go into these things and you'll find weak valences then on the perimeters of engrams. And they move out of that perimeter and they move over into the engram, you see. And it gets worser before it gets better sometimes and all sorts of things occur.

The Different — Similarity Process is the smoothest valence splitter. It takes quite a little while sometimes but it's a very smooth one.

And if you can pick up any low needle on the weakest valence and then run a valence splitter on it, you will ping the needle up, I'm sure much faster than any other single way that you could do it. Okay?

Audience: Yes.

Now, have you learned anything in this hour?

Audience: Yes.

Okay, use it!

Thank you.