Although you will find the sequence I described to you (counter-effort, emotion, thought) to be invariable; the conditions resulting from it are quite complex. There are 3 circumstances:

Tonight we have some information to go over. The material I have given you so far is relatively easy to follow and understand. Tonight we get into the meat of the thing, and actually get the data. There isn’t very much of all this that you have to know. What you do have to know, you must know well, because you can hit explosive spots in a PC that won’t give you time to go look it up.

1) An individual has something done to him,

We have a situation in auditing once in a while like a pilot in a plane that’s in a spin with only a few hundred feet to go before hitting the ground. The pilot is sitting there thumbing through a book marked, “How to Fly” and saying, “I was sure it was on page 16 ”. Anytime you have to look something up in mid-flight, at the very least it discourages the PC. If only to instill confidence in the PC, you should know your tools well enough to predict what is going to happen.

2) then he turns around and does it to someone else or something else,

There are several speeds of knowing. Knowing that the technique you should have used was in a book with a green cover, is too slow for the PC that is lying there with the doctor bending over him saying, “His pulse is very faint.” That is the wrong speed of knowing. Then there is the speed of knowing that most people tolerate, but which should not at any time be tolerated by them in auditing; and that is the speed of knowing where the auditor says, (after the PC says or does something) “Yes, I know what that was.” The auditor is saying to himself, “Yes, I know what he has done or is doing.” That is not good enough. The speed of knowing which you must have in order to audit (or to perform any aerial acrobatics) is to know at least a few seconds before it happens, what is going to happen. You know from what is happening, what is going to happen, and this is the speed of knowing that is called prediction, or prediction speed. Some auditors have a prediction speed of 2 or 3 seconds. That’s not fast; that’s slow. Just 2 or 3 seconds before the PC throws up, he knows, “The PC is going to throw up.” Some auditors have a prediction speed of 30 seconds. That is pretty good. The PC started into this incident and looked a little scared, and a little bit tensed and strained, and the auditor thinks, “Yep, I’ll bet we are now going to hit that thing which has been worrying him so much, and the next motion will be for him to double up in a ball.” If the auditor is any good, he will shoot the question to him right there that will finish the whole job; he is just that much ahead the whole time. Then there is the speed of knowing that goes up above this level and goes into terms of hours. The PC walks into the office, and with this speed of knowing the auditor says to himself, “Oh boy, here is an apathy case that is going to try to run heavy incidents, and isn’t going to want to have anything to do with overt acts, but won’t be very antagonistic about it.” So, you choose your course of action accordingly. You estimate what you are going to do with this PC by putting him on the tone scale. The tone scale will tell you what to do.

3) and then he says, “I shoudn’ t do that.”

When a PC walks in, there are various ways that you can estimate what he is going to do. After a while it gets instinctive, you don’t even have to think about it. The fellow sits down, and before he starts to talk to you, you know that the next half dozen phrases are going to be a good solid backhanded slap. He will say, “I was talking to Mrs. Jones, and she says that you are really good at this (and by being able to predict, you don’t go up scale or uptone on this comment, which would have permitted you to take a down curve on the slap when it came) and so you don’t become an effect of this fellow, that you noted sat down in the chair rather deviously. He is a 1.1 so you know he will cuff you after the big compliment. So he says, “Mrs. Jones says that you know all about your business, and that I should have great confidence in you. You’re pretty dumb if you’re stimulus-response enough to say, “Oh, thank you,” because the next words he utters are, “But of course I always knew that she could never estimate people, and as a matter of fact, the last doctor she recommended had just lost a patient, and of course you can’t be sure about this, because nobody really knows about themind. Of course you probably know a lot about Dianetics, and a lot has been said about Dianetics, but is there anything to know even if you could know anything?”

So, he holds himself from doing it again, and he brings the facsimilies of the first time it happened to him, and the times he did it, close together - and they wind up in a ball; no matter whether they are ten billion or ten minutes apart. One is the motivator, the next is the overt act. The same similar efforts. The person received an effort, and he thinks that he should be able to use any effort he ever received.

If you as an auditor knew your tone scale, you would know all about what that fellow was going to do. I had an auditor come to me the other day who had been out among the aborigines, (you people ought to make a point of getting out more among Non-Dianetic people) and he said, “It’s just wonderful, you know it is just wonderful, they act right on the chart!” He was actually surprised. The reason you should go out among humans is, that people familiar with the chart are very careful not to follow it at their own level. I have known some to go so far as to be openly antagonistic and hostile, because they were afraid to be devious.

Prediction speed depends on only one thing. You could say, “It depends on my mental acuteness,” or “It depends on my powers of observation.” Don’t think by practicing powers of observation or awareness in present time that you will get any better at it. Those things just add facsimiles, and the more facsimiles you have, the dumber you get. Big muscles are a sample of this, you get them between the ears too. Knowledge of the subject which is so precise so as to admit no indecision keeps you moving on the track steadily, and you never get any maybes. You actually tend to hang yourself up on the track every time you try to solve a case. Why? Because you don’t have enough data to make a clear decision, so you become less bright about auditing rather than brighter. There are certain basic fundamentals, and I’m trying to cover fundamentals. In addition to that, I have concentrated my attention on the reduction of the fundamentals to a simplicity, so the simplicity will cover a wide area of data When you reduce to a simplicity it permits a kind of thought known as: “Approximation,” one of the earlier new axioms. “Also” is another kind of thinking and these are both the same.

In comes the effort. It comes in and hits him. He makes a facsimile of it, and he feels that he can put the facsimile into play at any time. So, one day he starts to put it into play (to finish the cycle) and he gets to X (see Figure (b) ) and he says, “NO” - and when he says No on it going out as in Figure (b), he stops it coming in in the original facsimile. Why? Because when it was a counter-effort he tried to stop it from coming in, and so what does he use to stop it from going out? The same force that he used to keep it from coming in, in the original incident. So, this on Figure (a) is the motivator, and is very antipathetic to his survival, being a heavy counter-effort. And as it comes in he says, “No, no, no, you can’t come in,” but it keeps coming in anyhow, and he makes facsimilies of it coming in, and his attempts to stop it, and his failures to stop it. He makes a facsimile of every step of the sequence of the entry into him of this counter-effort. Later, in a similar situation where he wants to do it to someone else he will say, “I want to put this person into apathy, and here is a good strong counter-effort;” and he will start to give him this good stong counter- effort. You will get a co-generation of energy there, and he will say all of a sudden, “I don’t want to put him into apathy, because he is me and I am him, because here it’s happening to him and it happened to me, so therefore I must be the same as him.’ This is very simple and very sensible. You will find that all people that get motivators and try to use them as overt acts come to the conclusion, “I am he,” until they get a cross-identification with the whole human race. They think everybody is them, they pick up all sorts of restimulation. When they have lots of motivators that they have tried to use as overt acts they will eventually come to the conclusion that they and the rest of the human race are the same person. In other words, their individualism is squashed. Why is it squashed? It comes from the counter-effort, and he tries to stop the counter-effort from coming in. He makes a facsimile of it and then starts to use it one day. He decides to put somebody into apathy, or out of action, or nullify them; so they take this thing that has happened to them and they start to use it. He finds the other person putting up the same resistance that he put up, which identifies him with the other person because of an interchange of energy. There is an actual energy flow and the victim says, “No, no, no,” and the person doing it feels, “No, no, no,” as an energy flow, not as words or anything, but as an actual energy kick back. As soon as this energy flow (kick back) hits, it mechanically restimulates the other side of the motivator. So it makes the person who is doing the overt act the same as the victim. It gives him a confusion of identity. The second he gets this confusion of identity he says, “No, no, no, I mustn’t do this to me.” So, he holds it up, he tries to pull it back, he tries to say, “I didn’t do it,” and he feels regret. (Regret is the action of trying to make time run backwards) So, he stops it. It was on the way out, but now he has a facsimile that holds it from going out. Who is he? Is he the person holding it or the person putting it out? Well, he must be both people. If he is both people he must feel sympathy for the person he was doing it to, this makes him the same as the person he was doing it to, because anything you feel sympathy for, you identify with yourself. So it becomes an unsolvable situation unless you have the reduction and erasure techniques of processing. You have these techniques, and you can resolve this. It could not be resolved before.

Extrapolation that is to say, you know one fact, so you can derive many facts from this one fact. You’re actually doing an approximation of the whole problem, and you just take this one simplicity and you approximate everything there is out from that, and you’ve got all the answers. That’s a good handy way of thinking. If you persist in looking at text books to give you the answer to every problem that comes up, you aren’t going to be able to do much about it. You develop the facility of being able to know a few data that you know are important, and you extrapolate and approximate your answer. Practice it. For example, “I wonder, what do cats sitting on the back fence have to do with attention unit flow?” You can figure it that way just relate back to simple data. Well, these cats are interested in survival. If they didn’t make new cats they wouldn’t go on in the genetic line. Therefore, they pay attention to each other, and they howl on and on like that well, I guess that’s aesthetics for cats, because they attract other cats around so we can have new cats. So, the attention unit flow comes out as a voice for a cat which is trying to draw in other cats. So, it must be on a vibration level which interests other cats. And sure enough, check up on it and you will find that the vibration level of the howl is restimulative to other cats. Silly, but it shows what I’m getting at. If you think this way, prediction thinking is very easy.

So, the overt act (a) becomes involved with the motivator (b) and the two of them lock together and make “maybe.”

Just go around in the society, and pick out some things (why are cars this way? why are doors that way? etc.) and ask yourself, “How does this relate to the body of knowledge in which I am interested?” Just keep reducing data down to the simple data that you know, and it gets clearer and clearer to you. The next thing is that you won’t have to know the simple data, because you will work it out in reverse (by approximation of the situation) and you will have answers to all sorts of things. So, your PC is lying on the couch, and you know that this and that is wrong with him. How do you know that? Well, you know certain basic data, and you know what shape the PC is in, and all you do is mockup the bridge between what is right and what is wrong. You say, “Well, this and this must be on the bridge.” You know these incidents operate in certain ways, because people operate in certain ways. You know this PC is scared, so you know there is a hollow spot. He says, “ you know, I’ve been afraid all of my life that my moth” You say, “Where is the hollow spot in your body?” He says, “Oh, right here in my neck. A sort of hollow spot in my neck! What has this got to do with my mother?” You say, “Well, can you feel the stuff emanating out from the back of your neck?” It sounds non sequitur to this fellow; he doesn’t know what you are talking about. He’ll think, “Oh, you are dealing in black magic!” Well, deal in all the black magic that you want to for public consumption. Find a guy in apathy and give him sympathy, and agree with him that I is too bad, and the world is in horrible shape.

It hangs up then on the time track. That is a standard situation. When you try to take apart a balled up time track, or a balled up situation, or a compulsive thought level, or an inhibitive thought level, you will find a motivator and an overt act in one way or another mixed up in the bottom of this thing. You will find them inter- locked. You start to run a PC through one and say, “Ah, we’ve got a nice bop on the E-meter, and the E-meter says he did this, and it was on such and such a date.” You have gotten all the information around this overt act - when, who he did it to, etc. and you start to run it. So, he goes through the act, and often when a PC s~arts through these overt acts he gets weak, and goes into his own apathy level. If they are severe overt acts such as choking somebody, the PC will start at the first moment of it and then will say, “It’s funny, but my arms feel all limp.” The odd part of it is that if he is choking somebody he is trying co force them into apathy, and so this person is exuding an apathy wave. He is trying to force somebody into apathy. As he does this his intention matches the return wave. He says, “Go into apathy,” and the victim goes into apathy and emanates the wave length of apathy. So, the apathy wave hits the person doing it and makes him feel weak. The second he feels weak he says, “It must be happening to me,” because how did he feel when it was being done to him in the motivator? Weak. He wanted the answer to this problem: “Here is another being. How do I put the other being into apathy? I have a very sure way of doing so. I was put into apathy once by being choked. Therefore, the way to put this person into apathy is to choke him.” A simple solution, and so he chokes him. His intention is to put the person into apathy. The person exudes apathy. The apathy comes back at him. He says, Therefore, I must be in the motivator - Oh, no I’m not, I’m in the overt - no, I’m not, I’m in the motivator - etc. And that’s the way it acts in auditing.

You can hang up somebody’s mind merely changing the rules on him. Just change the rules of conduct. Keep telling him you should be more polite, be polite, be more agreeable to people, be polite, get socially acceptable, like people, learn to associate with people and get to like them, and get people to like other people. If you really sold this package to someone you would have a psychotic on your hands. He could carry it out to that extent. Why? It is Enforced A.R.C. Actually all possible aberration is involved with ARC at various positions on the track. So, go around and say, “Love thy neighbor; do you hear me? Love thy neighbor. See, everybody is good, everybody likes everybody, and you have to be socially accept able. You will find out that if you like people they will like you.” Oh brother! You can work it in reverse, and it is just as bad. Inhibit people from liking people. Spread a lot of entheta around about people so that people will spread a lot of entheta around about people, so you are inhibiting ARC. Therefore, by inhibiting ARC you have done the same thing, and you will get the same results. I am not kidding with you when I say that you should look at this as a distinct and possible course of action, without wincing or drawing back or anything like that. I’m not advising you to use black practices, but you had certainly better know what black practices are, and be high enough on the tone scale to take care of your own case.

So, you run it through; you make this fellow run choking somebody. You run through again. He says, “I feel hands around my throat.” There is something else that complicates it. As a matter of fact, as his hands closed around the other persons throat, the cells in the area of that throat exude an area of pain and they will mirror a wave of pain into the cells of your PCs’ throat. The cells in the victims throat start to emanate pain. What are the most likely cells to pick it up? The identical cells in the throat of the person doing the overt act. That is a tiny, mild manifestation. But as he feels this slight impulse it adds to the confusion of the person doing the overt act. He thinks, “Am I the victim again? No, I’m doing this. I was the victim. No....” He doesn’t know, and he starts going down tone scale. Why doesn’t he know? Because the bottom level of the (motivator when it happened to him) was “I don’t know”, so he just doesn’t know what is happening. He gets very confused.

Enforced ARC for example This fellow comes in and he says, “You know every night my wife comes home from work (this fellow has been laid up with a broken leg for 6 months) and she says, “Oh, how I have to work and slave to support you and you’re just no good, and if you were a man, etc. etc. “ and after ; while I feel I’m getting depressed about her saying those things.” And then there is the guy that says, “Of course this has nothing to do with my married life, but every night when I go to bed, my wife starts telling me about the good times she used to have with the boys in college.” You as an auditor must know exactly what is going on here.

You start to run him through, make him choke somebody. He feels all weak. You make him cut off somebodys’ head with an axe or something. He will say, “Oh, I wouldn’t want to do that.” You make him go through it, and he will say all of a sudden, “Gee! My neck, it feels horrible, I got a somatic, etc.” You can go on and force him through the overt act of choking somebody, but you are to some extent, defeating your own purpose if the person insists on running the motivator. I ran some tests on this, and the thing to do is: run him doing the overt act, and then you run the motivator. You run the motivator until it starts getting very sticky, slows down, and gets hard to audit. The moment it slows down and gets hard to audit, switch to running the overt act. Make him run the overt act until it becomes hard to audit. Then switch to the motivator again. You are reducing them selectively, each one to each ones’ level. If you run one of these overt-motivator ball ups on the track that way, you will find that you get a very speedy reduction. Now, if it is the combination of the overt act and the motivator which is really basic on this case, or if it is at least one of those which is tending towards basic, you will find the locks flying off like mad, long chains of locks. And he will keep trying to tell you anything to keep from running that overt act. He hands you a picture of a brown stone house and says it must be in New York, and there is a girl putting a scarf around her neck. You say, “Go on, go on, choke her again.” He will say, “But, I didn’t choke this girl.” So you say, “Look, let’s choke this girl back here, this cave girl, go on choke her, choke that one.” So he says, “Well, all right.” And he starts in again and says, “No, it’s this fight I had with Og. Yes, I know that is what it is, it’s getting much more clear to me now - yes, I was getting choked by Og.” He starts to gurgle and choke from being choked by Og (see, he has a motivator now .... “See, I’m not such a bad guy, I have an excuse) but when he starts to get pleased from ~eing choked by Og, you know he is justifying to you the fact that he choked her. So, as soon as he looks pleased, less agitated, as if the incident was reducing, get him right in there again choking her. Say, “Go on choke her, bang her head against the rock, watch the blood fly, get your fingers In her throat, now can you feel your fingers sink into the flesh, now can you feel her veins and muscles giving in, caving in, or anything like that? Oh, you feel her jaw breaking. OK. Choke her some more.” And the moment he seems even slightly satisfied with choking her, say, “OK, now get the time Og choked you.” You’ll find he will be a little reluctant, “Oh, I’m having .... I mean .... it’s running out here, so .... In other words, don’t let him feel relieved about either one of these things until they are gone. Just keep jockeying from one to the other, one to the other. It happened to him, and he made it happen to someone else.

Supposing you knew a datum which underlay every ocher datum on the whole chart of attitudes, on all of this conduct, ARC, and so on? That would be a handy thing to have, wouldn’t it? It can be summed up in one word, lNVALlDATlON. Invalidation covers the entire chart of attitudes, and when we say invalidation we don’t mean that invalidation is the reverse of validation. When we say validation, we are talking about a level not very high up the tone scale. “I keep having to validate this fellow. Yes, I validated him, I told him that he was right, and it made him feel much better.” You know what you are saying when you say that? It’s “I gave him a license to survive.” So, validation is just giving someone a license to survive; invalidation is giving him a license not to survive. They are two levels of tone, and we know those levels as: Enforced ARC (for validation and Inhibited ARC (for invalidation).

You will go back on the track and find some interesting incidents. You will find incidents of tremendous force, electronic fields, and everything else, back there on the track. It’s really wonderful, people sit around in insane asylums and say, “You know, I have the feeling that every time I go to bed I feel these electronic fields, and I know that Western Union has some wires wired up to my brain and they are reading my mind, and etc. etc.” and the psychiatrist says, “Give him another electric shock.” The horrible part of it is that the guy is running evidently, an actual incident. He was psychotic; he got caught up in the overt act, maybe in the motivator side. There he is being hit by these fields, and it was just as real as stamping on the floor. Believe me, it is real to them. All the psychiatrist would have had to say was, “All right, let’s get the time you shot the electronic field at somebody else.” The fellow would say, “I’d never do that.” “Well then, let’s get the time you wanted somebody dead.” If he is a good patient, attracted to psychiatrists, he will say, “You”. (laughter)

Invalidation has a mechanical force background, and this mechanical force back ground produces the concepts which are listed at the bottom of the chart of attitudes, such as: I Know Not, I Am Not, etc. Validation isn’t very much above that. So, validation and invalidation presupposes that someone is interfering with the self determinism of another. It actually isn’t too serious. You see, “Every aberrated thought is preceded by a counter effort.” That axiom needs hat extra word in it; put “aberrated” before the word “thought” in the axiom. Thoughts can exist without a counter effort preceding them, but they will be very unaberrated, and way up tone scale on the aesthetic band and above. So, you know this fact: if the PC has an aberrated thought, then there is a counter effort earlier on the track. Not a counter effort that says “that”, but just a counter effort earlier.

There should have been some co-ordination between all these people in insane asylums claiming to be in electronic fields, and something that happened on the track with somebody being hit by electronic fields; co-ordinated with the dramatization of the psychiatrist hitting people with electronic fields (shock). Somebody should have figured out there was something there. It’s something on the order of everybody walking down Main St., and there is a boulder 8 yds. wide and 10 yds. tall sitting there in the middle of the street. Nobody can get around it without going to all sorts of trouble and danger, and the main reason they go around the boulder is to explain to everybody that there is no boulder.

Oddly enough, you can get a counter effort right now in present time that would be instantaneous with the emotion or the thought. The emotion would come later, and the thought would come later. It goes: Counter effort, Emotion, then Thought. See Diagram below:

When you get a PC into one of these electronic incidents he will go through the whole cycle of the tone scale. He will have the most wonderful time, he will feel invalidated, he can’t believe it, and he will feel degraded. You want to know why criminals are criminals? It’s because they have lost respect for themselves. How did they lose respect for themselves? By getting into an incident where they are degraded. How are they degraded? By being hit by too much force, by being invalidated - that is degraded. They become a criminal only when they have lost self- respect. Only when a man has lost self-resect will he indulge in criminal acts. So, the best thing to do with criminals is to give them time and space, more time, and more space. Or you can put them in electric chairs so the next generation will have twice as bad a murderer on their hands. In this society of ours we have solved everything except sanity.

There are electronic fields back on the track. When your PC goes into one, you might for your own edification (and perhaps amusement) watch him sail into cne of these electronic fields full tilt. One that is good and solid, such as one I will describe later called: Theta Traps. Watch him go into the “Theta Trap” or the “Body Builder.” Oh brother, and then don’t give him an opportunity to run anything like an overt act. Oh no, make him run the incident, just to find out how bad it can get. It will stick, and it will be gluey, and he will feel this way and that way, and he will squirm, and he will run attentlon unit flows coming in at him and going away from him, and he will twist and turn, and his reality will go to pieces, and his sight will darned near turn off, and his teeth will feel like they are about ready to fall out, his stomach will get all hollow and he will be scared to death, he won’t be able to go to work the next day, he will get sinitus, he will get migraine headaches, and he will get everything he is supposed to get. Just keep on running that incident. Don’t let him go over into anything else, just keep him in the incident solidly and strongly, and keep him going through it. Eventually you will get apathy. Actually, it is probably possible to audit that incident all the way out as the motivator only, not touching the overt act. It would probably only take a thousand hours. You want to know how bad it can get? Try one of those. Boy, you will think merely being hit by a streetcar, dumped into a concrete mixer, or stirred up by the teachers’ paddle is just nothing.

At the bottom (a) the MEST universe with a lot of matter in it. Then up a little higher (b) the MEST universe with some energy in it; free energy, energy flow, and I’m talking about energy that goes through electric lights, comes out of speakers, etc. Then we get (c) free energy of such a fine wave that only a theta being can create it. It’s so tiny it is almost one over infinity wave length. Up at the top is the theoretical or actual theta which has no wave length at all. It exists, and from it comes what we call energy. Understand that we call energy “energy” when it is gross enough to measure on a meter. That is at (a) and (b), and if you had a fine enough meter you could measure energy at (c). The emotional band is at (b), the center o the emotional band being .024 cm. Down here at (a) is matter. Counter effort come into the field of matter, or it’s matter being hit by a free energy field which cause an impact which in itself is capable of being matter, or it’s free energy hitting free energy which creates matter. Volney Mathison was telling me a few minutes ago in regard to ridges and hollow spots, about seeing two hurricanes close together in the China Sea; that these hurricanes were pulling apart leaving a hollow spot, an he said, “You ought to have seen the pattern of solid ridges caused by those two tumultuous currents of air. Where those two crossed and met, there was solid wave formation in the sea” You can take two free energies, and bang them together and get matter. Or you can enturbulate one energy with another energy and get matter That’s at (a). Or you can have free energy flowing along and hitting matter, making an impact, and that’s what we generally mean by a counter effort; matter hits matter or a wave hits a wave, etc. Counter effort is down at (a), Emotion is at (b) in a more or less free energy level, Thought is up at (c).

No incident has happened to any human being for hundreds of years that equal the magnitude of some of the real incidents on the whole track. There isn’t any person who is alive today, who has had an incident of sufficient rnagnitude to be called a first line incident. I’ve tried to straighten out a lot of PCs by auditing this life only. I have gotten terrific releases, way up the tone scale on some of them, but I haven’t made them sane. They have manifested clear memory re-call, and they have done all sorts of things, but compared to how high a person CAN go, it ain’t worth doing. You can play around all you want to with this life, but it just isn’t worth it for the amount of energy you put in on it. Besides, you can straighten up all the overt acts, the maybes, and everything else in this life in a few hours. If you can’t, you shouldn’t call yourself an auditor. There is nothing much to it. Oh, they are mad at papa, mama, teacher, or that sort of thing. They have hit somebody over the head with a brick, bat, etc. that’s about all - nothing! Go back on the track, and find out where it’s really rough.

So, the progress of a counter efforts’ transmission into a facsimile is: the counter effort hits (a), it is expressed as a counter effort, and there is a free energy travel (b) through the body, and this free energy is recorded (c) as a facsimile. What you’re doing is going up the steps (A), (b), (c). Hit, and the free energy travel makes the facsimile, not the counter effort. n other words, the guy doesn’t get hit, and that becomes a facsimile. It’s transmitted in these three stages. Now, when he thinks of the facsimile, he turns it around, it goes through the free energy state and then it records in the physical universe. When he wants to hit something, he takes a thought at (c), it goes through (b) which is the endocrine system (which is the switchboard for this), and he then exerts it on matter. So, there is the thought going one way, or the other at (c). Let me express it a third time even more plainly.

Now, it’s no wonder that people say, “There is no such thing as a past life - No!” Because a past life way back is solid invalidation. They really put you down to the last tiniest spark there is, and that is being invalidated, so of course you could not believe in it. Furthermore, if you believed in past lives, you probably would have to run one, and that’s intolerable. People will even go on to the shabby solution called death, to avoid the type of incident that can happen. But if you know about overt acts, motivators, and deds, there isn’t much stress to it. To get a PC out of it there really isn’t much stress. You audit the one, you audit the other, you audit the one, you audit the other, etc. etc.

Someone was telling me that they were having a lot of trouble auditing Fac. One. They have been running it about 3 months now, and they haven’t audited it out yet. That is silly. Way back somewhere, that PC must have turned that gimmick loose on not one but many, and that probably isn’t even a motivator-overt act situation, It is probably a DED, which I will describe in a moment. This Facsimile One, which could hang on for Lord knows how long, just being audited itself as a motivator - the person is saying, “It happened to me, it happened to me. Please don’t let me think that I could have done this to anybody else. No, no, it just happened to rne. I’m the victim. I’m perfectly justified.” This is what the PC is saying when he says, “It hurts my chest, now I feel it in my feet, now I feel it here, oh the somatics are horrible, they are beyond endurance.” Just interpret those remarks into: “Boy, I sure need a lot of alibi, because if they ever found out what I have done with this!” Do you get the idea? You interpret that remark of, “Gee, this is a tough somatic. Oh, it’s killing me, etc. right into that situation. It’s - I need to be justified, I need to be justified. You say, “Oh gee, it won’t audit out.” NO! “It won’t audit out,” means (I did it). They are simultaneous conclusions. If it won’t audit out - he did it. And that will stand UP and solve anything.

A counter effort occurs, or you have a heavy counter effort somewhere on the track; you can pretty well count on its showing up later on the track as a heavy emotion. There will be an incident there somewhere that will be an emotional incident. Above the emotional incident (later on the track) will be a thought incident. All of this stemming out of this counter effort. For instance, the counter effort could be being hit on the head. Then some sort of an emotional incident comes up.

So the fellow has a bad migraine headache. Well, you can Sit down and audit him out of a bad headache. You can even do it with straight wire - get him out to a point where he won’t get migraine headaches; to where he will stay pretty stable. But if you really want to get rid of all the migraine headaches there are on the case, you get the overt act-motivator situation with regard to migraine headaches. And then don’t let him run it as a motivator happening to him,but let him run it half and half. What did he do to give people migraine headaches? That’s what you have got to solve. Then you have to run the motivator of him getting migraine headaches, and the action of him doing it. Back and forth, back and forth. I hope I have stated that forcefully enough, because there isn’t any way to overstress it’s importance.

The counter effort incident and the emotional incident get tied together, and from then on he has thoughts on the subject. By the way, you can also use in concept running, intention running. You can run the PCs intention, or the intentions of others, and it evolves into straight concepts. So, here you have this fellow hit over the head when he is a little boy. Later on he has an emotional upset with his wife, and he begins to get headaches. Pretty soon he decides that women are no good. Those are the three stages. You start to disentangle this as an auditor, and you find out that he got hit over the head when he was a little boy by a girl not dissimilar in coloration to the woman he married. Everything went along fine until one day she said something that angered him, and he suddenly thought, “Boy, I’d like to bash her head in.” An emotional upset has lurking in it at least an overt thought, but he doesn’t do it. He restrains himself, and after that from this chain of events, the only thing he can conclude is, “That women are no good!” because he can’t solve the problem, it’s a big maybe. What is the maybe about women? “Women are maybes. Maybes are no good, so women are no good!” There is an example of simple straight forward thinking. want to stress how reasonable and rational this is for you, because this is what thinking is in our society, and what you will generally handle.

You can resolve cases best, by finding the heaviest counter-effort incidents on the track, and find out when the PC turned those incidents into efforts. You find that combination and you will see tracks straightening out, whistles blowing, bells ringing, perceptics turn on, and he comes on up the tone scale. The two of them audited out one after the other in combination? one after the other, one - two, one - two will relieve rather easily. If they are relieving hard for you, you are auditing one of them too much.

This is what people call thinking. They will say, “Well, I have the very best reasons in the world to completely detest my parents. Do you know that my mother yappidy yap, yappidy yap, and my father beat me with a club 5 times a day. Oh, it was terrible!” You will get some guy who has been divorced, and he will tell you the damnedest things with not a word of truth in them. Or some girl who has just had a big blow up in her love life. She will come around to you, and she will say, “And do you know that he did so and so, and so and so, but what I really couldn’t stand was what he used to do with Agnes.” Oh! They will just go on and on. There is a vague string of truth in the story, he actually did do something like that once in a while, but not to this extent. She has to have reasons why; that is the pattern, and this is what you are looking at when you look at this person doing this, and what you are looking at in their mind. Don’t start getting so human, don’t backslide in other words, to HomoSapien to such a degree that you say, “That’s true, that that is going on in their mind, but the right thing for me to do is to feel sympathy.” Or even worse, “It goes on that way in most peoples’ mind, but this girl is a poor pathetic thing, and therefore this couldn’t be what is going on in her mind.” No, ’m afraid the rules don’t change to fit. This fellow belongs to the YMCA, so therefore his mind couldn’t be caused by this standard HomoSapien pattern set up? No, this belongs to the standard pattern. If you can, out of your own experience see this pattern enough times, and work it out enough times looking at people, you will begin to have confidence in the data. The second you have confidence in the data, it will relate to other data which you have observed, and a lot of that data will blow, rearrange, realign, and the next thing you know, you will handle this instinctively. You just think “Bang” yes, that’s what is happening. And by the way, it’s horrible when that sort of thing starts going on in your mind. If I were HomoSapien I would be scared of any one of you, if I thought this sort of thing could go on in your mind, whereby you could simply look at a human being and know why he is acting that way. Nobody would be able to fool you. Nobody could come in and tell you a lot of lies, and get your sympathy or anything. Furthermore, you would get efficient. You might even do something overt, and that’s not fair. You wouldn’t be restrained all the time, and that’s not good. I’m very glad I’m not in that position when I give you this data.

You will find yourself very prone at first to say, “This poor fellow, look what is happening to him. Yes, let’s audit it happening to him again.” If you are a sadist, do it that way. When you do it this way (running it happening to him) you are saying, “Yes, I need justification for my overt acts too.” It’s a fact that you as an auditor can actually fight yourself from auditing out an overt act of a PC, but by doing so you will put him through the tortures of hades. There is no reason to do that.

So, first is the counter effort. Later, whether by seconds, hours, years, or centuries there will be an emotional incident, and then there will be thought, coming for ward towards Now. You get this situation every time you have a counter effort. This is not the invariable pattern, but I will cover that later in this lecture. This is a standard pattern, but not “the” pattern. It is one of three patterns.

Theoretically, if you’re auditing heavy incidents - see, you could get away with it in this life, because there aren’t any heavy incidents in this life. You could audit out all the incidents, effort, counter-effort, very light processing, get rid of somatics, get him well, and he will stay that way. But you have to put in too much time to do it! You can take off every lock, but I don’t know how many hundreds of hours it will take to get it finished. Why should you spend all this time on a case? It isn’t whether or not you believe in the whole track. It’s: Why do you spend that much time on a case? If you audit with the whole track, and you audit with an E-meter, the case resolves. It resolves on the basis of a very heavy overt act, and a very heavy motivator. You audit one against the other, and they are usually electronic incidents.

Just disabuse yourself of any question about this. It simply says this, when a fellow is hit, struck, or impeded in some fashion so that he receives a counter effort, you can count on this occurring, and this will occur invariably in greater or lesser degree. It can occur so mildly, so slightly, that you wouldn’t even notice it. That would be a very sane person, but usually in a very aberrated person it is quite marked. It is quite severe in what It does to his mental pattern. So, when a person receives a counter effort you can count on there being an emotional incident later on, which will be of a degree that we call a secondary. That is the source of secondaries.

Do not forget this one: Understanding has a great deal to do with the release of a heavy facsimile. Understanding what it is, and where it is. Understanding is very difficult to achieve on an incident which has heavy force in it, because invalidation is there, disbelief is there, not-know is there, just from the fact that it is a heavy facsimile. If it is a heavy facsimile, it is in the catagory of don’t know, isn’t, unreal, etc., the bottom of the tone scale. They are present for both the overt act and the motivator. But they will bang on an E-meter because the somatic is sitting there, the attention unit pattern is sitting there, the whole thing is right with the PC. You don’t send the PC back on the track to find these things, because the second you get the apathy in both the motivator and in the overt act locked together, you get something that is timeless. If the facsimile is capable of really bothering him; it is sitting right with him, right there. If you are real good at it you can read it like a sign board wrapped around his head.

This is the package of thought that comes up the secondary is so worrisome, it just churns, and churns. It is saying maybe, maybe, maybe in one way or another. Did it, could it, should it, couldn’t it, didn’t it, wouldn’t it, etc. When you get that sort of a situation, you get the fellow thinking. He thinks, “Should I have hit Agnes? No, I shouldn’t have hit Agnes, well, if I had hit Agnes, of course it was terrible, she shouldn’t have insulted me that way.” Or, “Poor old grandfather. My life was wonderful until grandfather departed, now things are all so different. If he had only been alive things would have been different.” You hear this in a whole section of the Country, “If Lee hadn’t surrendered at Appomattox, Virginia, I would now own 163 slaves. You see my great grandfather ” Maybe, maybe, maybe! It is sitting as a big emotional secondary. Actually, the counter effort there was Gettysburg. The high tide of the Confederacy got smashed back. The Confederacy almost won that war, right there at Gettysburg. They realized it, and “Bang” there was a big counter effort, but they kept on going and they didn’t get emotional about it for a long time. Almost 3 yrs. and all of a sudden Bing, Lee surrenders, a big secondary, and after that maybe, maybe, maybe, for almost 100 years. That is in a culture, and a culture aberrates in the same fashion. They are snapping out of that now.

He hasn’t got this facsimile at some unimaginable distant point in the past. It occurred then, but because it has apathy in it, to that degree it is timeless, and therefore capable of riding in present time. You are going to find incidents in which your PC will be saying, “Timeless, there is something in here which says there is no time or something of the sort, there are a lot of phrases and a lot of words in it.” No, that isn’t in the incident. All there is to it, is: that anything which is in apathy is timeless. It just gives him the sensation ot it being timeless, that’s all. Nobody has to be told. We aren’t interested in who told who anything, because if you start to audit thought before you start to audit emotion, and you start to audit emotion before you start to audit effort, in a heavy facsimile, you will fail. Now, you take this balled up facsimile, and you are going to audit out the thought, then the emotion, and then the effort

So, when you see a person thinking very violently on a subject, obsessively, compulsively, or when you find this person unable to think on a subject, which is the same thing lower on the tone scale. When you find any aberrated thinking going on in this person, or there is something wrong with the way this person behaves or thinks about life (which is non survival) you know that this is the way that persons time track looks on that subject. (Refer to previous Diagram 10) Here is the thought in present time, back on the track a way is a secondary preceded by a counter effort. That is the pattern you are looking at, and to audit it out you have to audit it on the basis of the motivator, the overt act, and the DED. That shows you the various combinations that underlie this. But this Diagram 10 is what you should see as you audit. How you take it apart is: I) the motivator, 2) the overt act, and 3) the DED. You look at a PC and you find out that they are not thinking where they should be thinking, or that they are thinking where they shouldn’t be thinking. Either way, back of that is a secondary, and earlier is the counter effort. This applies to one life too. This is in the first book: “Every painful emotion engram had lying under it a physical pain engram, and you can expect when you audit an emotional engram to find yourself at any moment auditing a physical pain engram on which it’s sitting, although they may be 20 yrs. apart.”

.... Oh No! You won’t have the PC last very long, because you are trying to do it completely in reverse. It’s like trying to pick up a coal bucket that is full of coal but is upside down on the floor. Pick that coal bucket up by the bottom and you are in bad shape. You want to get the coal up with it so you can empty it out, otherwise it will go all over the floor. Like the coal, the PC will be all over the time track and he won’t know whether he is in Podunk or Arslycus, he will be in bad shape. So, you should understand then that you are not even vaguely interested in phrases. Sometimes you will get interested in a concept. A concept will come up and he will say, “This is a concept.” The reason you are not interested in a phrase is that the heaviness of the facsimile will give him a concept. You will see that manifested, because sooner or later out of the facsimile will come a concept anyhow. The facsimile is sitting right there with a concept. A concept is timelessness. The fellow keeps trying to run this apathy and he says, “Tt’s timeless, it’s just timeless, it goes on and on and on.” Well, you tell him then to run “The concept of timelessness.” He will get right into the middle of it to the point where he feels it is timeless, and he will run that particular line, and he will get off it. So, you can run the concept, but it is sort of a last resort. Don’t run it on this basis: PC says, “There is no time, I guess it is somebody here saying ... there is no time.” The PC runs it ... “there is no time, there is no time ... I think I’m getting worse, there is no time, there is no time, etc., etc., new somatics, etc. You start to run words and perceptics, because when you run words you are running perceptics. When you start to run concepts you are running something that can be run, but don’t try to run a perceptic out of an incident that you don’t have the effort off of. Get that very clearly then, that you will get every kind of a thought or concept imaginable out of these heavy efforts. If it is sticky, if it won’t audit out, you then know that he has done it to somebody else. That applies to both the overt act or the DED. Either one. If you find your PCs are not getting well rapidly; if they are not getting rid of incidents rapidly, then you get some auditing, because it means you are instinctively avoiding running some overt act that is probably going to be pretty obvious the second you look at it. So, you test how you are about overt acts by the speed with which your PC gets well, how fast does he run an incident. It could be, and is to some degree a psychic situation, but even more importantly - it is a tacit agreement situation. You say, “I’m not going to audit that out of him, because I need it as a justifier myself.”

That’s anatomy, that’s mental anatomy. That’s the way facsimiles pack up on the track, you might say in ridges. These are 3 ridges, and each of the incidents could be considered a ridge separated by a hollow spot. There are pushes and drives and other things; in other words, the 3 patterns of attention units are visible here. The fellow receives the counter effort and tries to use the counter effort, and it is a very smooth outgoing flow. All of a sudden something stops him from using the counter effort. Then grandma dies, and after that “life feels so empty” to him, (a hollow spot) and as far as thought is concerned, it’s just another ridge. You will find a Key Incident sticking him on the track for each of these lines: Counter effort, Emotion, and Thought. The key incident that you find may be so bad that earlier track (way back) is supplanted, and there is another incident there that may be 200 yrs. back, and then an even earlier section of track has 3 or 4 kinds of incidents, and it is all balled up with the original counter effort. As this all balls up together you get the aspect of confusion, or a MEST pattern of matter. So, way back is an even earlier section of track which is balled up with one or both of the other earlier sections, and with what the fellow is thinking about in present time.

The DED situation could be called a justifier situation, if it weren’t for the fact that the motivator and the justifier would be synonyms then too. I am going to tell that the difference between the overt act and a DED (a deserved action).

And there is a simplified picture of his, time track. To take this time track out and get it untangled, you have to know just the data I am giving you now. This is a picture. You should be able to get a map of this in your own mind any time you see this sort of thing occurring in your PC. Maybe it is of minor magnitude. Maybe you wont find it in this lifetime in sufficient magnitude to separate the incident and line up the track. Don’t be surprised if that is the case. You can always straighten out a track in 4 or 5,000 hrs. of light auditing, or you can do it with 20 or 30 hrs. of old kick ’em in the teeth auditing. But this is the picture of the pattern.

You see that the maybe winds itself up by the person identifying himself with the victim, and the emotional levels intertwining, the person defending, resisting - it is all tangled up. So you run one, you run the other, and the maybe will spring apart. They will go to their proper places on the track, and after it becomes “un-maybe’d” the situation resolves and drops away with great speed. An incident that isn’t involved in, or surrounded by maybes will blow with rapidity. If you find a PC whose locks don’t blow easily, whose secondaries don’t blow at first glance, whose standard effort actions don’t blow - don’t release readily and rapidly, you know he has got an awful lot of maybes in the bank, and it’s just got him all glued up. Those maybes are what are holding the locks together, and so remember that you resolve maybes. When you are auditing, you are auditing maybes, and a maybe consists of motivators and overt acts or deds. The pattern of it lies on the track as counter-effort preceding the thought and the emotion.

The thought is out in clear view. You know if you are running a ship through a channel you look for the channel marker buoys. I mention that because it is of the same order of simplicity of logic as what I am giving you here. You sail down the time track, and standing right there in present time are all the buoys you need to run the channel. If you don’t know this, you just aren’t going to make any progress.

Now, the counter-effort, the emotion, and the thought, are in sequence.

It is absolutely senseless for you not to recognize that you are looking at sign boards when you look at this PC. You aren’t looking at something that has to be detected minutely. Your first look at this PC should give you some sort of clue to the sign boards. You don’t need a magnifying glass for this. In fact, there will be times you sort of wish you could back off from it a certain distance so that you would not have to look at it so closely. Once you have gotten these clues, your best method of unraveling the case is on an E-meter, because he doesn’t know what he is telling you. Only you know what the things look like, and you should know what to ask him.

Look at the Diagram, and you know that the 3 big sign boards should be there, You know that the PC has a dent in his shin, he talks incessantly about the stock market, and everytime you say the word “father” he gasps. These aren’t exactly mild signs, so you should know that he is packing a strange injury which he is holding on to for some reason. If you were doing a one life time job just to give him some relief or alleviation you should say, “Well, when did your father go broke in business?” “How did you know that?” he says. Then you could ask, “When did you kick him in the shins?” He would say,” Oh, I never did a thing like that well, once maybe.” And again he will look with wonder and say, “How did you know that?”

The earliest on this is the Counter-effort, then the Emotion, and over here is the Thought. By the way, don’t blink when your PC sometimes won’t get a bop on any incident less than 59 trillion 865 billion 933 million 468 thousand 722 years ago. I saw one, one day that wouldn’t bop unless you got almost that accurate. He really had that maybe spiked.

You people go out among the aborigines with a book, and you know how to read and they don’t. You read that book to them and boy, you are a genius. So, you look at your PC, and you just read him like that book e is obsessed by what? The stock market, making money, trying somehow to be a success, and never seems to be able to make it, but he tries and tries that is his thought level, his computational level. Well, what got him with such an obsession about money? You know he feels bad about his father, because you asked him about his family, and he pointedly didn’t mention one of them, or stresses one al out of proportion to the others. If father is pointedly there or not there, and you spot the emotional reaction when you get to father as you are running down the list of family, and there is some obvious deformity. You add those 3 things together, and they may be on the same chain. They sometimes are not this obvious, you may have to dig around for quite a while. But in the process of searching around for hours, even with an E-meter, don’t lose sight of this map. It isn’t that the map has gone wrong, or been thrown away or changed, or this man has a different brain. No, the map hasn’t changed, you are just running a denyer. So, don’t get upset about not being able to find out what is wrong about the PC, for you are just running an inhibited thought line.

Now, here is Effort, here is Emotion, and here is Thought (see Diagram above). Thls is the pattern for anything, you understand. Get that clearly, because this incident, the DED, is different from the overt act. It’s really a different manifestation, but it comes in this same sequence. There is one part of it that is backwards. Before there is any Counter-effort, there are a whole flock of overt acts, (and the Diagram above becomes as shown below.)

It is something he can’t think about. You put him on the Emeter and you ask him this and that, and he feels fine. When that doesn’t happen, you ask him the questions, what about father, mother, sweetheart, etc. and you get no surge (read) on the Emeter at all. You get no action at all. You ask him about accidents, and he tells you he has never had one or been unconscious. He says he never lost anybody, makes a practice of not feeling bad, and just gets along fine in life. (You notice he has dermatitis over 90% of his body!!)

Don’t be dull about this thing. There are still groupers, denyers, bouncers, and holders. Actually a bouncer and a denyer are mechanically the same thing. So, he has one of 3 kinds of a continual thought computation. It’s either

There is a whole bunch of overt acts earlier than the counter-effort. Here, in the next sketch, Diagram C, is the normal motivator-overt act situation, with the motivator all balled up with the overt acts, but preceeding them:

1) “I must think about it”,

2) “I am unable to think about it,” or

In this normal case of motivator-overt act situation we get first the Counter-effort, then the Emotion, and then the Thought, as in Diagram A. But in our Ded, as in Diagram B, we have the counter-effort after the overt act.

3) “I have to avoid thinking about it.”

The person, without having any facsimile of it happening to him, uses a facsimile of doing it. This is perfectly easy to do. It is a situation that is overlooked, because everybody knows that a person is just stimulus-response, and nobody can think up anything. The fact of the matter is that people can imagine, think up, and do things. You face somebody with some kind of a task to do, and- he does not depend upon experience to do it. He will, if he is in good shape, think up a very correct solution to the thing, and go ahead and put it into action witll no experience at all. Now this makes people very spooky, and when they run into one of these fellows, they say he is versatile.Let’s take a this life situation. A little girl is used to playing with dogs. Just out of pure cussedness, nothing else whatsoever; the little girl is sitting on the floor and a little dog comes up and sniffs around, and the little girl with no motivation whatsoever bends forward and bites the dogs nose. This dog has never done anything to the little girl. The little girl just got the idea at the moment to bite the dogs nose, and did so. Snap! This dog by the way, doesn’t go around snapping. He just got snapped. The dog goes “Yipe, yipe, yipe,” and the little girl is unperturbed, no remorse, no nothing. A little time passes and another dog comes along. The little girl is sitting out in the yard and growls at the dog or something, and the dog bites her on the nose. The odd part of it is that the little girl is far more prone to carry, to carry that dog bite to her grave than she would otherwise. Because she can say, “There I was sitting there, and I didn’t do a single thing to him, and he bit me.” Now how is this? This is a worse situation, far worse than the normal motivator-overt act situation. The normal M - O situation at least seems logical. This DED is apparently illogical. The DED has a more short lived reason why it goes into a ball.

A guy can be awfully obsessed on the line, “I’ve got to keep thinking about this, so I won’t think about it.” Or he is just completely dodging it, it’s way off to the sides; he won’t have anything to do with it, it’s just gone.

You will hear little kids saying, “He hit me.” “Well, he hit me first.” See? “He hit me first,” makes it alright. Everybody goes on that basis. As a matter of fact, all law operates on that basis .... “He did it to me first, so therefore I can do it.” You put that up as a defense and the judge says, “Dismissed”. In other words, that’s logical, we all know it is logical, we have accepted it as the “modus operendi” of the society because it is basically orderly. A fellow gets kicked in the shins, he kicks somebody else in the shins, he doesn’t feel much remorse. Actually the motivator overt act situation, unless it has very high effort magnitude on it, can go on and on without hurting anybody. A fellow walks down the street and somebody shoves a sword in his gullet, he falls in the gutter and dies. In the next life he is walking down the street, sees someone doing something he doesn’t like and he will stick sword in that fellows gullet, that guy falls down in the gutter and bleeds to death.

You just ask him what he can’t think about, and you will get the drops just as big. You have had him on an Emeter for quite a while without getting any computation on the thing, and so you start asking him what he mustn’t think about or shouldn’t think about. “Is it true you shouldn’t think about your family?” Bang! “What member of the family ?” Bang! And you are off to the races. So, he had to avoid thinking about father. You will find him avoiding father, father is missing on the track. You will find overt acts that he scared his father, that his father scared him, all sorts of ball ups on the thing, and all on the denyer basis; fear, run away, leave, can’t stay around basis. Of course that is what his thought processes are doing, and so what kind of an emotional situation do we have? We have a departure. Somebody left somebody on the subject of papa. You may find a divorce when he was five. A big terrific scene, and Oh, Boy! You just start to talk about this thing, and he starts to leave. This is something he must avoid at all cost, he must not think about this. So what do we find it lying on as the counter effort? Don’t think there isn’t one, there is. If you are auditing one life you will find out it is generally very early in infant life or in the prenatal area. And you will find it is a real bang crash situation that is on the same chain of leaving. So of course you couldn’t get at any of the 3, because the attention units are just bouncing from them. And how can the PC have done any thinking? Everything he thought about was leaving. He’s got to run, he’s got to go, he’s got to go somewhere else, it doesn’t matter where he is going to run, or go, or do. Or he may be on the second phase of it, “I must go, but I can’t go, and I have to sit here.” Those 3 incidents are the pattern. Always! Eventually this pattern balls up with motivators, overt acts, and deds until he just gets completely blank. This is true of one life, but why is it you have to audit so far back to really get releases on cases? And why is it that everybody is so sensitive to invalidation? And what is invalidation? The technical definition of invalidation is: “Invalidation is a condition occurring from the cancellation of any thought, emotion, or effort by any counter thought, counter emotion, or counter effort. That is tremendously basic. Invalidation is cancellation of thought, emotion, or effort. One’s own thought, emotion, or effort is invalidated when one’s own thought, own emotion, or own effort meets an exterior thought, an exterior emotion, or exterior effort sufficient to cancel out his, or tends to cancel his. That’s invalidation.

So what, he walks down the street and sticks someone else in the gullet. After a while, he will get careful about the gullet. He will begin to defend his own, and he won’t like to hit other people in the gullet anymore. He will start sticking them through the abdomen. He will even get to the point finally .... see, they start out using the teeth, then the fist, then a dagger, then a sword, and then a spear. See, they get further and further away from this guy, the victtm. You get an energy flow of pain from the fellow, so you want to be further and further away from the victim.

Demonstration with Bud E. on stage. Bud tries to put his arm down from a raised position, and is denied this by a counter effort from Ron. Ron’s effort tends to cancel Bud’s effort. Bud says, “What are you trying to do, invalidate me?” Bud successfully put his arm down, therefore he was not invalidated. This emotional set up takes place. Bud made the statement when he succeeded. He was, in essence, saying to LRH, “Now do you feel invalidated?” See, it’s forward motion antagonism. The emotional surge followed the successful effort, followed by the stated thought.

You get to rifles, long range guns, and then to such a coward ridden society that you use atom bombs. You are mad at somebody clear accross the world. That’s the nearest to you that you can be mad at anybody. Everybody else you have to be in ARC with.

The reverse of this would be in this line. Bud tries to lift his hand and fails.

Now, this motivator overt act situation is very orderly, and you will find that these situations are quite usual. It is the unusual situation that is going to give you trouble. You go along sticking fellows in the stomach, and ultimately you will wind up with ulcers or something, but you keep on doing it and everything is all right. But one day something unusual will occur that will ball-up up these fights. You lunge at this guy on the stairs with your rapier and he leaps aside, and behind him was standing the landlords daughter, and your rapier goes right straight through her. A mistake! You will say, “I didn’t mean to,” and in the process of regretting you get it mixed up with all sword fights, and you make a solemn promise to yourself - “I will not stick my rapier through anymore landlords lovely daughters.” And actually every time you see a woman slightly sick to her stomach after that, you get kind of sick in yours. And you have a very sympathetic feeling towards girls with long flaxen hair. You hate to see blood, and you don’t like women to wear too much lipstick and other thlngs, things that grow out of this thing. It is a maybe situation, and gets balled- up badly. Each one of these killings is balled-up a little bit until all of a sudden the overt act itself becomes an indecision and a maybe, and that sort of retro-acts because the guy tries to figure it out - “All the women I ever knew stuck me through the stomach wlth a rapier. No, they didn’t, no, that won’t fit. It won’t figure.”

Emotionally he would go down scale towards “I know not, I am not, I can’t believe it, I distrust it, It is not,” and he would become effect and be invalidated. Now, here is validation, “Try to raise your arm Bud.” (While telling him to try to raise it; Ron is lifting Bud’s arm up for him.) Notice that in either case, ARC was in play. That is the whole play on the tone scale as far as force is concerned.

Then we have this DED of the little girl being bitten on the nose by the dog, and she says, “I didn’t even . . “ You see what she has done? She has tried to go backwards in time to where she bit the dog. She flinched like the dog that she bit flinched. That makes her the dog that she bit, and she doesn’t want to be a dog that is bit so she thinks, “I must not be a dog that is bit, therefore it happened only to me. It didn’t happen to a dog, it happened to me.” She is having a terrible time differentiating. She is saying, “It was a dog that bit me. I am not a dog.” - because the other side of this situation is most horribly, a dog. She is liable to start saying “Woof” at any moment if she lets herself go. Why? Because people who are bitten severely in the nose with teeth, are dogs. That is her definition. She has delivered this counter-effort, and actually it will squirrel her on the subject. You try to run this one incident of her getting bitten in the nose - there she is, a sweet innocent little girl sitting on the front lawn, and this nasty dirty filthy brute comes up and bites her without any provocation whatsoever (of course they took the dog out and shot him afterwards) and she said, “Well, he deserved it, he really deserved it.” That would really make a rough incident. It would be quite aberrative in somebody’s track. They take the dog out and shoot it, and this means that for biting the earlier dog the PC is the one that should have been shot. You see, it won’t figure any way you look at it. Here is the dog being taken out and shot. She can’t be the dog, because if she was this dog she would be shot, and if she was the earlier dog she would be bitten. She was bitten anyway, but she shoudn’t have been bitten, and besides- she has got to be justified. She has got to justify her existence to a degree, and what she is saying is, “I never bit that dog.” She doesn’t even remember biting it, and the way she says it eventually (when this piles up and gets the emotion on it) is, “I deserve to be bitten!” It won’t reduce either.

In the columns of the Chart of Attitudes (beautifully arranged and ready to spin the reader.) You know, I have seen people read that chart and spot themselves at a certain level, and spin down to that level, because that’s where they thought they were. They weren’t at the level they thought, because a person doesn’t spin, dive, or get unhappy about it, if they really are where they think they are. It’s just that they pick a harmonic down from where they are, and spin down to it.

You run and run this incident, and it reads the same on the E-meter. So, you run it 5 or 6 more times and it reads the same on the E-meter. So you say, “What’s the matter with this PC?” There isn’t anything the matter with this PC that an auditor who knows these techniques can’t blow. He should have suspected the first time that he didn’t get good action on the thing, that it was a DED. The person has to deserve it. He deseves it, so therefore he has to have it. “I deserved it,” is the last ditch! It goes like, “I’ve got to have it, and though I offer it to you to be audited, I’m not going to let it reduce, not me. On the one hand it would get me shot, and on the other hand it would make a dog out of me, so you just go to the devil auditor. I will sit here all day, and I will run this all you want, and I’ll even get tearful about it, and I’ll get worse. I’ll show you that that dog really did it to me, and though he probably deserved everything he got - I really deserved everything I got, I must have deserved it.” But she didn’t! She didn’t deserve this thing at all, obviously. It is labeled correctly, a deserved action, and not sarcastically. If she goes around biting dogs in the nose, she certainly deserved to be bitten, according to our standard laws. So, it is a deserved action. She has one waiting for her. She bites the dog in the nose, and when she gets bit she says, “I really deserve that one.” It’s just waiting on the track for the deserved act to happen.

Now, take the various columns of the Chart of Attitudes; down along the bottom is, “invalidated”, up a little bit is, “validated”, and well up the column is self determinism. Self determinism is composed of ARC in a gradient scale, and all the other gradient scales on the chart. All of this is dependent upon magnitude and force, and all of this goes back to counter effort. If one overcomes his counter efforts he is winning, and If he isn’t overcoming his counter efforts he is losing, and he would “know” or “not know” accordingly; “believe” or “can’t believe” accordingly, etc.

A person will keep these things because they are deserved, and they will raise the most ruckus about having them, “Oh, I suffer so.” Have you ever known a person that “suffered so?” Sometimes I wonder a little bit about all of the suffering I see going on, but since I have come to find out about the DED, I don’t wonder so much anymore. I’m afraid I’m losing my sympathy button. I tried to keep it, it’s valuable. Somebody comes up to me and says, “So an so, and so and so.” I say, “Well, audit it.” I mean that, I don’t sit there and coax them to tell me more, I just say, “Audit it out.” Therefore, if you are auditing a motivator and an overt act in which the motivator is prior to the overt act, it will resolve. You read it on an E-meter, and this is why an E-meter is very valuable, because you can ask for time bops .... “When did this incident occur, that happened to you?” “I’m not sure.” “What is the order of magnitude, was it hundreds of years ago?” No motion. “Thousands?” A little jump. “Twenty thousand?” No motion. “Greater than twenty thousand?” A tiny bop. “Less than twenty thousand?” No bop. Gradually you narrow it down and narrow it down. It happened 22,000 yrs. ago. “When was this other incident?” you say. “ Did you ever use this incident?” “Oh, no.” and Zing goes the meter. “All right, when did you kill this baby?” or whatever it was that happened. Like, “I was a dear little baby, and I was lying on my bed, and one day this big Saracen (an Arab or Moslem at the time of the Crusades) jumped on me and cut my throat.” All right, let’s go to the time you killed a baby.” “Me? Oh no, not me. Oh no, I never killed any baby.” Zong, says the E-meter.

The reason that you must know this pattern is so that you know the value of a counter effort, and the tremendous role it plays in aberration. The reason you have to know, this is very simple. It is because every time your PC gets into a heavy effort situation you know what is happening. We are talking about HEAVY effort (which is not a this life situation) we are talking about REAL counter efforts, not the mamby pamby situation of being run over by a truck, etc. A heavy incident could be heavy, successive, crowding waves of unmanageable, untamable force hitting a person over and over, and he can’t do anything about it. He starts to run away, for it is invalidating him. How invalidated can you get? DEAD! The amount of force that can be exerted against a being that can’t die demonstrates to you adequately why sooner or later that organism invented a way of looking awfully dead. You take a being that can’t die, that has immortality natively built in the amount of force that you can throw at it is so great, and the time that it can endure that force is so long, that it will pretty soon invent some kind of symbol called a body, that it can kick off and say, “It’s dead. I don’t even know about it; leave me alone now.” We have it refined down to a point now where a single rifle bullet going through the head will kill a person; he will actually abandon his body at this slight scratch. There fore, when I tell you there is order of magnitude of effort on the track, and that it doesn’t compare with the effort that hits the physical body; you had better take it into account in auditing. The point is, that your PC in each one of these incidents, goes through the whole cycle. As he is depressed by counter efforts overcoming him, he goes through and down every column on the Chart of Attitudes (simultaneously) until he gets to apathy at the bottom. And he goes through (simultaneously in each column) every concept on all these columns as the force hits him; in other words, that thing which forms these things, all these columns, and so forth.

An E-meter is so valuable on this because people won’t tell the truth. This actually is the basic reason for Iying. You get a person that chronically lies, and this is the reason.

Each one of these columns is first the emotion (low on the scale), and then the thought manifestation coming from any counter effort doing anything to a person. In other words, it is an extrapolation from invalidation. It is what counter effort does to a person, and that is described as the simultaneous lowering on all columns of the Chart of Attitudes, and he goes down to the bottom as he is being invalidated.

The motivator and overt act lines up with the motivator earlier than the overt act - then you audit it as a maybe, but you check on it. When you think you have found the classical situation, you just check on it to this degree; you have the motivator located at 22,000 yrs. ago, and you know that the overt act is 10,000 yrs. ago. So, obviously the motivator is before the overt act, and everthing is in beautiful order. Before you plunge into this be a little more careful about it. Ask if there are earlier motivators. You will usually find one, and then you ask for an earlier one each time, Remember what you used to do when you had somebody travelling on the time track? You asked for an earlier one, and each time you asked he would give you an earlier one, and you would keep on going back. Each one had to be spotted to reveal the one under it.

The first thing you know, your PC is saying, ”this doesn’t have any reality to me any more; I can’t believe it; it isn’t true; thanks for auditing me this far, but I can’t believe this.” What is he going through? He is just going through the strata Can’t Believe on the Chart of Attitudes, very simple. You should keep on slugging him through, and the first thing you know he will get brighter and brighter, and he will go on up the tone scale. But, you could audit him through an incident with things getting less and less real, and he doesn’t believe it, and he knows less about it, and he feels less about it, and he is more and more effect, and less and less cause. He is just going down the tone scale as you run these successive waves of force, until he is really down into apathy, but you just keep on auditing him, and he will come up and up. Some of these incidents have such magnitude and force that you had better know all about motivators, overt acts, and deds, otherwise, you can’t even touch them. They are almost as solid as a human body. (joke).

So, you keep going earlier, “Did this ever happen to you any earlier than this?” You ask for an EARLIER incident, not the earliest. It invalidates him to ask for the earliest, and then the E-meter can’t give you any truths. It’s invalidated the second it bops, because it isn’t the earliest. There was one under it, but this was the only one it could give you at the time. So back we go, and you finally have the earliest time it ever happened to the PC, it’s in the bag. Then you say, “OK, now earlier than this, did you ever do it to anybody?” You will be surprised how many times that needle goes Zong. Otherwise, there you are fighting like mad, trying to audit the classical situation when it is really a DED situation. It’s deserved; this motivator is deserved. There it is, and you will find out that only 8,622 times did he ride into the burning villages and find little kids running down the streets, and he thought it was such fun to cut their heads or legs off with his sword as he went by. Fun.

Now, where we have this invalidation (any invalidation) on the thought level, it is merely a person giving another person a symbol; a symbol of words or thought saying, “I’m smashing you in a little bit; I can smash you in.” Emotionally it is, “I can overcome your free energy.” And on a MEST level, “I am knocking the devil out of you.” That is invalidation all up and down the line. You will find people that become uncertain of their own survival (low toned on their own survival) and all they can do is invalidate. They are just saying, Be dead, be dead, be dead.” You say, I was working on a PC the other day and got pretty good results.” He will say, “Well, they very often spin in afterwards, you know.” Or you will say, “I sure feel good these days,” and he will say, “Well, you do look awfully good; you look like you might last 3 or 4 years.” You start to cheer him up; he answers in a funeral tone. People will do this. Here is something that you have had a 1.1 do to you, and you didn’t even know it; you start through the door, and he is in your road. You start to take a chair, and he is in it. Have you ever had that happen? You just start to make a motion in any direction, and you can’t quite figure out why, but for some reason or other he is in your road. Of course it’s no overt act on his part, and boy would you be a dog if you started to ball him out for it. This is the lower, insidious method of invalidation, but it’s just on the tone scale of invalidation, and follows the natural course. He is escaping (via attention units) from a hollow spot from the posit ion you are in, but he Is being there too. He is escaping from it, but he is there too. In other words, he is just starting the eddy of an outflow. He is at that point on the tone scale. If you really jumped him, he would collapse or run, one way or the other on the tone scale. As it is, you generally think the best way to handle him is not to notice it; sort of avoid it, keep on letting him do it. That is dull by the way because it keeps you in ARC with a 1.1 which is very non survival. What you could do is say, “What the hell are you doing in my road?” That would be one way, and the other is to say, “You poor fellow, you don’t look well today.” Or you can validate him by saying, “I’m going to help you out. Any of these things will change his tone scale position.

This is why he has been pleading with you later than that to say, “There I was laying there, and they dropped me on my head,” and “There I was minding my own business in my little crib, and mother ....” There is why every AA on the bank is on the same track - “They stabbed me, they did this to me, they did that to me, I’m in terrible shape ....” That sort of a situation can more or less resolve out of the motivator-overt act situation, but it is a cinch when it comes out of the DED. You find out how many times earlier he did it without it ever having been done to him, and you will find very serious things. Your PC who doesn’t want to get well, that classic example. That statement made by the great minds who have been worrying about minds here on earth, that statement, “That nobody wanted to get well, and people wanted to keep their aberrations.” Take a look at this answer, because this is why. It’s mechanical, a completely mechanical situation. The person saw somebody do something to somebody and thought it was a good idea, or he simply thought it up himself and figured, “This is a swell way to put everybody into apathy.” They hadn’t done anything to him, there are other counter-efforts perhaps, but not on this chain.

Now, here then is the essence of this: you see this fellow thinking or not thinking up here in some level; you know there is an emotional pattern behind that (a secondary) and earlier than that there is going to be counter effort. I won’t say how much earlier, but there is going to be a counter effort incident earlier than that. One stems out of the other, and each one is an invalidation. If you have ever been bruised, it was an invalidation of the continuation of your existence, something that light. If you are very sure of your own survival, you are almost impossible to invalidate. If you are not even vaguely sure of your own survival, if anybody even looks at you, you tend to feel invalidated.

He has never had happen to him, whatever this gimmick is that he has thought up. There is no motivator on it. He is mean, ornery, and cantankerous from completely other things. He has a lot of motivators, but not on this subject. So, instead of dramatizing, this person does the incurable and horrible thing of thinking. He thinks. He says, “l’ve got a wonderful idea, I’m going to poison them all.” So he starts dishing the arsenic into the grape juice. He gets away with it for years, for centuries. Pretty soon he has this down to a pat technique. If you have trouble with the rulers of a city, you have them all to a banquet, the girls come in, fill their wine cups (they are your girls) and PRESTO they are all dead. What a wonderful way to solve a situation. Of course, each time it gets a little bit worse for you are getting counter- emotion from these people, and it’s piling up, which isn’t too good. But the situations continue to happen with sufficient magnitude (they are going to get you, so you get them first) that you can justify yourself, and you keep slipping the arsenic to them. Eventually you will start searching around for something that kills them quicker, for you don’t like that slow way they writhe. So, one day quite accidently (in some life your cook feeds you some slightly over-aged fish that gives you a very mild case of ptomaine poisoning). By golly, you just rave about that the rest of that life. For some reason or other you just can’t seem to get it out of your mind!! Do you see the solution there? There is a little tiny DED sitting there. You knew you had it coming. You had really built the odds up, all along the track. You know that sooner or later you are going to get it, and when you do, you say: “I’ve had enough now, it’s perfectly horrible, I’m not to have anymore, do you understand? I’m not to have anymore, do you understand? I’m not to have anymore, I’m sick, and I know that I have killed 8,622 people at one time or another with poison, but this ptomaine is so painful, so horrible, so terrible, it has upset my life to such a degree, it has cost me my ......etc. and that is enough payment.” This is equity, and with this little case of ptomaine he tries to buy off for thousands of years of hellishness. Every time anything else happens, he gets this mild case of ptomaine. Or it stops being ptomaine and he starts having gas, and he reads the Alka Seltzer ads. You get the idea then?

The best way to invalidate somebody is of course to really manhandle him, because that starts the whole bottom of the chain going, and then it can go through the vicious cycle of later on getting emotion, and even later on it can get thoughf obsessions.

Now, here is this fellow who was a squadron leader of some invader force. They keep jumping onto these planets, and swamping them up, and having a good time with the babes. They just keep this up, and they have a lot of fun. It doesn’t occur to them for a long long time that they are even vaguely like these other beings, that they have anything in common with these beings. After all, they are invader forces, look at their shiny holsters, look at these helmets, look at those sleek ships. And look at the natives, they live in grass shacks, wicky-ups along river banks, they have pow-wows in wierd temples along the marshes, and worship snakes. You walk in, and their priest says, “The great God “KA” will now spit at you and knock your head off if you don’t stay away from us.” You say, “I have more power than your great god KA. I can stand here 50 feet away from your god KA, and strike from him his head The priest doesn’t believe you, so you just pull out your gun and shoot the head off the great god KA, and the priest says, “Allah, at last we greet you.” You say, “Well, let’s get down to business bud, where are the vestal virgins?” This scene by the way, may seem to you to be comedy in the way of space opera, but I am afraid that it has been enacted more times than any of us could count.

Invalidation plays it’s most important role in the fact that it tells you at firs glance where your PC is on the tone scale, by: How invalidated does he feel? This is the amount of counterefort in restimulation He has got as much countereffort in restimulation as he has a feeling or a tendency to feel invalidated. His sense of reality, or his willingness to accept or belive an incident when he is being audited, is in direct ratio to the amount of countereffort he has in restimulation. His ability to perceive is in direct ratio o the amount of countereffort he has in restimulation. All of this is invalidation, and it goes straight on down the tone scale.

You have a good time, life is rich and full of adventure, etc. and you find the tiniest little things to call motivators. The beer is warm; you shoot the tavern keeper. You see, according to you, he is that low on the tone scale and you are that high. The truth of the matter is, there is that disparity, and every time you shoot a tavern keeper you come just a little bit more down the tone scale.

Here then, is your job as an auditor. You recognize that he has a countereffort in restimulation. You must know that he may have SO MUCH countereffort in restim ulation that you could only audit a secondary, or you could hit the emotional level of the countereffort. Or he might have so much countereffort in restimulation that you can only hit the thought level (straight wire), but by hitting the thought level you can reach the emotional level, and from there you can hit down towards the counter effort level. That should tell you practically everything you need to know on the sub ject of diagnosing the case. An Emeter will sit there, and tell you everything you need to know as to where the incidents are You just have to know that this is the patern of incidents, and that this patern of incidents does not vary.

The paths of overt acts certainly raise hell with you eventually, but you can go on for thousands and millions of years shooting tavern keepers, and blowing up towns. “This is the thing to do,” you think. It would just never occur to you to be otherwise. You are aberrated along a certain line. You feel that it is your mission to take over a certain part of the area. You are under orders or something of the sort, and how you conduct these orders is something else. You will do it on a high ethical level, but who are you ethical to? You are ethical only to your comrades in arms. You are in ARC where you are supposed to be in ARC. You wouldn’t think of turning around and killing a crew member, you would go through a lot to help the guy; but those beings down there! You have nothing in common with them. In reality you DID have something in common with them; they emanated when they were hurt, and you got a kick-back every time you fired a pistol. A every time it hurt them, to a tiny extent it hurt you.

We have to know the anatomy of a thing before we can neatly disect it. This is the basic anatomy of aberration 1, 2, 3. Then we have to know - To what peculiarities is this anatomy subject to? How many growths? How many complications can this anatomy develop? The answers will be covered in the next lecture.

You were very silly; you didn’t know Dianetics, and you didn’t run these things out.

So, you came down tone scale until pretty soon the ship crashed or something, and you found yourself living in a wicky-up for a while. You would make it a nice looking wicky-up and rule the area for a while, but pretty soon it would start looking worse and worse, and you would find yourself perfectly content to live in a mud hut. Why? Because you went into ARC with the kind of people you hurt. One day one of them did something to you, and it makes you so sad. Oh, that they would do a thing like this to you, and it is so painful, etc. Maybe there had been a bunch of slingers out, and while hunting for rabbits one, of them hit you on the head and gave you a slight skull concussion, and boy - they never heard the last of that. Of course, earlier than this the heads of umpteen dozen vestal virgins had been blown off with wild abandon. But you are not going to pay for that; you want to pay for the whole package with one bang on the skull, and you say: “This is terrible, this is horrible, but I really deserved it.” An auditor will be amazed sometimes at the lilly white acts that are called motivators. This fellow will say, “I am in horrible shape. You know I have to be awfully careful about the things I eat; I have to eat special food; I have to be careful not to sleep in a draft, but worst of all is this pain I have in my ear. My mother used to grab me by the ear and swing me around.” Let’s find the numbers of times he bit the ears off things before his mother did that.