And this is the second lecture of the seventeenth ACC, February twenty-sixth, 1957. At least that's what it says on my watch, it says seventeenth ACC. I want to talk to you about the reality scale and the whys and wherefores of hand contact mimicry as you will see them involve, evolve and revolve in pc's. And this is a very simple subject and one which really doesn't require any vast amount of lecture. For a very, very long time we had the ARC triangle. It might amuse you, but we had affinity as it's first corner, which was followed almost immediately by reality. We had affinity and reality, and afterwards had communication. And then for about two years we comm lagged on which was the most important corner, and a lot of people thought that reality was the most important corner. But it came about that communication had dominance, when we could process communication. In other words, evidently communication was the most important corner because by processing with communication we could do some astonishing things.

Let me tell you some of the astonishing things you can do processing communication, two way communication. Preclear has a problem, you make him talk about it. If you don't go to a point where you excessively reduce his havingness, he'll have a tendency to desensitize on the problem. This is one of the oldest therapies known. You go and tell a friend you're in trouble, and you feel better. See? It's very old. It's by the Catholic church, they permit you to tell god and they reduce your havingness for having done so. And this is an old, old, old, old therapy, communication. However, in Scientology this thing took on a new burnished radiator cap, and some understanding came into view here. Instead of...nobody knew before, what, what it was, was it the magic that was used or just what it was in communication that made things communicate and made it therapeutic, and so forth. They didn't know anything about this.

Well, we isolated the various parts of communication, and they turn out to be about eleven, and they're in the communication formula. And we isolated, much more importantly, the Bill-Joe interchange of two way communication. Now those are very important isolations, they are tremendous. These took place at the time when I finally isolated communication as being probably the most important part of the ARC triangle, in terms of what we could do with it on a preclear. See, it was most important at that time. That was about 1953, '54. Now what, what, what can you do with communication? Well, a lot of people go around, they don't have any reality on Scientology 'cause nothing's ever happened to 'em. I mean, you know, the only reality they could have is if somebody walked up and shot 'em in the guts with a forty-five caliber Colt, why they'd say, "Well, I've been shot in the guts," you know? Bang. And then they'd say, "Well, there is something to Samuel Colt's inventions."

This is the idea, their idea, of what it takes to get reality on something. They can't examine something, they, it, the reality must have a mass. It must have an impact. It must have a very heavy effect. Witness axiom 10, which is quite true, "The highest purpose of the universe is production of an effect." All right. Now, remember that you can reduce havingness by communication, but within that framework, let us take somebody who has no reality on anything happening to him. Of course he has no reality of anything happening to him, he's in the high game condition which means no effect on self, total effect on others. So you're tryin' to plow through his consistent postulation that there must be no effect upon himself of any kind whatsoever. And if you get through that barrier, then he says, "I have some reality on this subject." This is quite amusing. You mean if you destroy his no effect on self, then he'll believe you. This is totally idiotic, but that's the way it works.

Alright. Now, we get this fellow, he has no reality on Scientology, but he's got a tooth ache. We have him say hello to the tooth. Have the tooth say OK to that hello. Have the tooth say hello to him and have him say OK to the tooth, which makes a two-way comm. Just that. Have him do this a few times and the tooth ache goes pwoouf. Now we take a heavier mass than this, like an arthritic leg or something of this character, we can go further than this. We can make him get rid of his arthritis even by simply putting him in apathy about it. Arthritis is a ridge illness, and therefore you go up or down from the ridge, and you've got it made. As a matter of fact, anybody wishing to specialize in arthritis patients is a cynic curer. All he has to do is push 'em all into apathy. Just invalidate 'em. Any time they say, "You know, I think I got my arthritis from sleeping in the woods when I was very young," you say, "Well sleeping in the woods," has been "scientifically proven." Use that word liberally, scientifically, because it's the most meaningless word in the language today. "Scientifically proven that dampness and woods have no connection with arthritis. Actually, it's food." And he agrees with it and he says, "Well, I have noticed that after I have eaten buckets of lime, that my arthritis turned on more strongly." And you say, "Well lime wouldn't do it." You could hammer and pound him like this until he was sitting there very, very quietly and unable to wiggle in any way, and he wouldn't feel his arthritis. Well, he wouldn't feel anything else, either.

Now, there's a very simple way of making somebody's arthritis turn on with violence. And you just walk up to 'em like this and wiggle your hands in front of his face. And of course by giving him this confusion outside of his body, he holds harder onto the body and that is what arthritis is, it's a solid hold. All right. Now, you take an arthritic and you start to say hello and OK to this arthritic leg or joint, or something of this character, you are actually attempting to as-is or knock out of existence my communication, a lot of actual calcium. So it isn't going to work. Not well or easily. But you take slight little somatics, little conditions, or fears of things, and run two way communication on them and you get some fabulous results. Let's say somebody's afraid of a stove. Have him say hello to the stove and have the stove say OK. To that hello have the stove say hello to them and they say OK to the stove, and after a while they won't have any fear of touching the stove. Now oddly enough, they will receive less effect from the stove, even if hot. That's quite important. That is quite important. It tells you that the body does not naturally lend itself to injury, but injury takes place only in a highly aberrated condition. You should be able to take a body and throw it up against the wall hard enough to crush it's skull in and have it drop down to the floor and stand it on it's feet and have it walk away. Providing you aren't holding in suspense the image picture of its hitting the wall and being injured.

Now I'll give you an example of that, give you and example of that. I want you to look at this ash tray. I always use ash trays in my examples for the excellent reason that they're always handy. Now, I'm gonna raise this ash tray and then I'm gonna put it back on the desk. Is that action now in existence? (No.) Is it in existence anywhere? Where? You've got some pictures of it, haven't you? You got some pictures of it. It is you that make things survive. This universe doesn't make things survive. Only you make things survive. You're the survival kid, from a way back, and it is your holding the engram in restimulation which permits it to have an effect. We'll go into this later. You're so dog gone hepped on the subject of survival that it's just marvelous to behold. That is because a thetan cannot do anything else but survive.

Naturally, anything that's surviving, he can go into good communication with. As we look back at the past, we find people like to look at the pyramids. Well why do they like to look at the pyramids? Well, they're surviving! Well there's, the preclear's surviving and evidently the pyramids are surviving, so there is a medium of interchange. Now, a thetan looking at a solid is much happier if the solid is surviving, if it has some duration. If this solid has duration, then the thetan can have a means of communication between himself and the solid, in spite of the fact that the thetan can't be solid. So, people really don't have much of a tendency to look at and study and examine very closely, things of very finite survival periods. Things that die right now, things that vanish right now, that sort of thing, they don't fix on these things to any great degree. But they could do this, they could say, "Look, it became nothing, just like I am, and therefore I have another communication point with it. Eh heh. It was a solid which became unsolid or ceased to exist, and I don't exist, so therefore I have evidence that something else ceased to exist and I don't have any mass of existence and so therefore there is a tiny communication point." Therefore these sudden disappearances stay hung in the bank. You get that? It's a disappearance, that is different than something with a finite life. Things with a very finite, small life are not very important, but solids which suddenly disappear are quite curious to a thetan. He's saying, "Look, I couldn't communicate with it because it's now nothing." Hence we like magic shows, and such things.

Alright, now let's add these factors up. We'll find out that this nothingness tends to survive only when arrived at under that circumstance. There was something there, now there's nothing there. So, that I give you a MEST and you make a picture survive, but it's not any longer moving in MEST. MEST has very, very finite duration, so we have to rig up all sorts of things so it'll survive. So it'll continue. And people like to have things continue, but after a while, when things have not continued with them for a long time, then they get into another kick. They only hold on to, "It was something and suddenly became nothing." So therefore they hold on to losses, and the whole track at length becomes a concatenation of losses. Do you see this?

Well now, communication, oddly enough, has always attended one of these losses. It is not true, basically, that communication as-ises or destroys or knocks out any mass. But communication has always accompanied the vanishment or destruction of mass. So the preclear gets this, these two things involved and then he goes through an automaticity of havingness mass vanish when he communicates. You see that clearly. It's not, you must get this clearly. It is not really true that communication as-ises mass. See, this is not true. The only thing that as-ises mass is as-ising mass. But communication always accompanied this, and after a while the preclear gets one very, very solid conviction. He thinks there's one conviction that is the last conviction that he is dedicated to, that he would never surrender, and that is the fact that if he talks to something, something disappears. It's not true. But it looks that way to a preclear. And on almost any preclear that you walk up to, you can then produce an enormous amount of vanishment by communicating.

Alright, for instance sound is another aspect of communication, which is fabulous and which you would enjoy inspecting some time. You realize, the first sounds were evidently those, in this finite experience in this universe, were those which accompanied explosions or destructive actions. Electronic particles traveling through space will carry with them sound, even in the absence of air. Sound does not go through vacuum. Unless you have some carrier for sound, it doesn't reach you at all. Therefore, a sudden electronic explosion was usually the first acquaintance with sound. Now, it's true that he had to put sound there, you know, in order for sound to be there, and all these other things, but he has a number of experiences whereby something blew up and therefore disappeared, and sound took place. So you'll find any preclear willing to swear that sound is disintegrative. And you very often find practical engineers or good engineers or Westinghouse engineers or Einsteins, or other unlearned people, sitting around with this conviction that high velocity sound or high pitched sound will disintegrate mass. You'll find this is rather consistent as an effort. They're always trying to disintegrate mass with sound.

Well now, sound is a peculiar mechanism of communication. See, it's just one isolated, not always present mechanism. There, it, not all communications contain sound, by a very large statement there. It's true. They don't all contain sound, at all. But sound is a disintegrating factor, so communications with sound combine the destructive aspect of sound, of which the preclear's convinced, with the as-ising aspect of communication itself, of which he is, again, convinced. And between the two of them you get an awful loss of havingness, if you're not very careful. Most serious blunder you could pull with a new preclear that you didn't know too much about, would be to talk back and forth with him about his problems. Now he'd probably talk about soda fountains and he could probably talk about the latest book, and it probably wouldn't upset him at all. But you start talking about his bank and you have a lot of mass disappearing. Mass disappears. Communication, verbal, tends to as-is or knock out the masses in the bank of the preclear. You see that?

We used to take inventories. We don't take them any more. Makes the preclear talk too much, and about every tenth preclear we get hold of just can't stand that much communication. The mass start going to pieces and we depress him to a point where we have a hard time bringing him back up the battery again, so we just start right in auditing him. We don't discuss the thing very much. Now, if he has present time problem which is terribly, terribly pressing, well, you could do something with this if you didn't talk about the problem too much. If you ran problems of comparable magnitude to it you'd probably add to his havingness, but if you just started talking about this problem, in other words, use two-way communication to handle this, you'd shove him right on out through the bottom and you could probably make him nuttier than many a store boughten fruit cake. Just by making him describe his problem over and over. He'd be in a mess.

Now the way we got away with it with running engrams, was quite peculiar. The person was having to put the engram there, to some degree, in order to run the thing. And this made him capable of confronting the incident and so, brought a discharge of the fixation he had for that incident, and yet did not rob him particularly, of the incident.

If we took the significance out of the mass we still had the mass, and we were running the significance out of the mass and therefore we were able to run engrams. It's interesting. But where a person couldn't afford to lose anything, he couldn't even afford to lose significance, and so we couldn't run an engram, you got it? Well, communication bypasses this in many ways. Goes much further south, you might say. And we have a condition here whereby we see an individual dropped through the bottom just by too much yackety-yack with the auditor, on the subject of his particular phobia, or bank. This tells you, by the way, at once one of the most condemning facts. And if you wish to carry this out, if you wish to experiment with this, you will understand this is the condemning fact of psychoanalysis. And psychoanalysis is interestingly, one hundred percent destructive. That's an awfully wide statement for Ronnie to make. That's pretty dog gone wide. That's one of these "it is a fact statements". I very seldom go over board on such a thing.

But I wrote a PAB about this one time. I had a couple of PABs. It made me very suspicious indeed. I started digging up all the factors utilized in psychoanalysis, and in digging these factors up I discovered this fantastic thing that I couldn't find any factor present which was therapeutic. All the factors present were apparently destructive.

Now, you'd think that somebody just going accidently into mental research would sort it out, and fifty percent of the things present would be destructive and fifty percent of the things present would be constructive. But evidently, none of these were, are present. Beyond the fact of telling a friend your troubles, there is no therapeutic rationale behind it, because you get the as-ising of mass. Now where Freud achieved any result, and let's be generous, let's be charitable. Let's say that this Viennese medico, thrown out even by the doctors, and that he had in his favor, let's say that he did achieve some results. Let's find out how long it took him to achieve 'em. Ha ha! They were magic results! Magic. Old woman walks from Bavaria, if you haven't got any data, for heaven's sake have the case come from Bavaria. It's very hard. They don't have many roads or addresses, and nobody can look them up afterwards. Anyway, an old lady came in from Bavaria and talked to him for a few minutes, and just ranted on and on, and all of a sudden said that she felt better and got up and left. And Freud I think, I'm being facetious now, but on this sudden resurgence of case, why he abandoned Broyer's hypnotic thing and he invented a thing called Mental Catharsis, which has been with us ever since, and which swept in and up through the years as the very thing. Well of course if you have a little bit of something be good, well naturally a lot of it would be good, wouldn't it?

Freud, as far as I can discover, never had any results from cases who went longer than a very few hours in psychoanalysis. In other words Freud's results were the magic results. A person came in and said, "This is wrong, and that's wrong," and then felt better and went away. Now, on that rationale, the modern psychoanalyst builds all of his hopes of success, and he has not examined duration of communication as the chief factor in communication. If you let the patient talk too long, if you let him talk too much, he's going to go out the bottom, and that I guarantee. Now you yourselves can make the experiment. Have a person who's had a recent loss, oh this is, this is just killing to make it a loss, you see. Have a person who has had this recent loss sit down and tell you about the loss. And then sit down and tell you about the loss, and they get a little frantic about this time. They'd be trying to leave, so you'll have to make 'em sit down again and tell you all about the loss. And you just watch that old Tone Scale read along. They were able to converse with you when they first started, and you'll just watch 'em go right on down the Tone Scale. Bong, bong, bong, bong. bong. Now they're not running out an incident, because I carried it long enough to be assured of this fact, and I've run it on other things besides this loss. It just happens that it works tremendously, swiftly and well as an example for you on the subject of communication.

In other words, they talk themselves down the Tone Scale. And you can actually watch them go down the Tone Scale. You don't have to take up loss, you just take up a preclear who's in bad shape and have him tell you about his problem, or something. And he drops on out the bottom doing this. You can watch him go right on down scale. You just make him tell you about it and then make him tell you about it, make him tell you about it. Now remember he's not looking at a picture, he's not returned on the track. He doesn't have anything to sight there. He's just looking at you and you're not real anyhow, and he tells you over and over and over about this, and of course he just chews up all havingness in the bank. And it's an experiment that you can make, and possibly an experiment you want to make.

Really understand this. Just make somebody tell you his trouble over and over and over, and you will understand at once why Freud got spectacular results in a very few hours, and why nobody's gotten any results since on a great many hours. They just knock their havingness, to pieces. They're probably, there's still a few hundred people in the United States who are still in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis has gone out under press campaign, lately. Phillip Wylie criticized everybody to such a degree that he fell into the two-way flow mechanism, you see, and felt something was terribly wrong with himself. And the psychoanalyst got ahold of him and I suppose he's... I saw him the other night over TV, and poor guy can't even talk. We'll have to get hold of him someday. Anyhow, just the hour after hour after hour, of course this is going to reveal things to somebody, but it is naturally going to introvert him, too. Now it's interesting that brain washing as done by the Ruskies, is misdone. That's the biggest joke of this half century, this brain washing.

The ... will talk out enough havingness to throw himself in an introverted condition. He never gets any inflow on it, he just keeps self criticism, you see, they make them criticize themselves and they talk this way. If you criticize yourself, you see, you're addressing it to the bank. Now get again, this mechanism of having somebody tell you his troubles over and over. See, you're addressing it to the bank, and it's the bank you're as-ising. You're not talking about a book up here, more or less in present time, you've got his mind concentrated upon his bank. Now you make him talk and out goes the havingness. And he goes right on down scale, with great speed. Now please understand this, as auditors, know what you're looking at. You're just looking at the vanishment of mass, and a thetan believes that to be recognized and to be able to prove things and to be able to demonstrate to the world that he is there and things have happened to him, that he has to have mass.

And so we get the third corner here. Affinity is actually the consideration of distance. Communication is an interchange of ideas. But reality is what is it about and what it is proved by. And that's reality, and it takes that extra corner. And looking all around now, I would say that the weakest corner of the ARC triangle, from our viewpoint at this time, is A. Affinity. This is the weakest. This has the least monitoring effect upon a preclear, but is the most strongly demonstrated. It is not a good entering point. Affinity is not a good entering point. You got that?

You just take it for granted in ARC that you have to act civilized to a preclear in order to get him to go through the jumps. But if you're going to work exclusively with loooove, I don't know, take up Mysticism. It's not gonna work. Been given many a whirl. Maybe love was a cure for something at some time or another, and maybe we have the cure for it, who knows? But, actually, actually I did have somebody. I did run somebody out of love, one day. I just did it as an experiment. Ran 'em out of love and ran 'em back in love again. I mean, it was very interesting. It was the space of two or three hours when they weren't in love. They were one of these desperate cases that is going to die if so-and-so and so-and-so doesn't happen with you. I gave 'em back the case of being able to love it or leave it alone.

But C and R run out A, or re-establish A. And A is very easily monitored. C is less easily monitored by A and R. And you pull R and C apart, and you've got nothing. You have no reaction, you have no universe, that's the end of that. So C and R, communication and reality are very, very closely associated. And reality has a scale, and because C is closely associated with reality, reality then again, after '54 started to take a certain prominence. But it has not been until very recently, 'til the end of '56, that this became untangled as a problem, and that is this: Reality is a scale in it's own right, and that scale begins at the top with a postulate, which postulate continuing, can make a consideration. You realize that a consideration is a continuing postulate, don't you? You can acquire considerations by other means than postulating. All you have to do is agree with an existing postulate or an existing consideration, and you too can have the consideration. You didn't have to postulate it in the first place. You have that?

Alright. Now the next step down, see it's a postulate, continuing postulate as a consideration; next step down from there is agreement. And here we see this vast panorama of everybody agreed with everything, which mixed them all together in the same time continuum, and we have time and its manifestation as actually an agreement. It's an agreement on certain considerations. In other words, it's a special consideration. It's a postulate, a consideration, and then couple of guys or more have this same consideration. And having it then we have a specialized consideration, it is shared in common, and this we call an agreement. And that is all an agreement is. It's a shared consideration. So the second we get into agreement we get into a third dynamic, double terminal sort of an activity. See where we go there? All right. Now, having accomplished that we get solids. We get proof of the consideration, and that takes place in spaces and solids. But reality actually is the solid aspect, whereas A is more closely associated to the spacial aspect. You see that? Alright.

Now, we get this old R, which we've had around here for seven years, becoming a very respectable, well defined thing, which is consideration, agreed upon consideration and a solid. Alright. Of course all that begins with a postulate. So we have this Scale of Reality. You must know this Scale of Reality, you'll be expected to know this Scale of Reality. You're working with it right this minute. Now, at each level so far enunciated, a certain kind of communication is necessary for communication to take place. In other words, if communication's going to occur, a certain type of communication must occur to match any particular level as we go down the Reality Scale. And look at this. Postulate, well what kind of communication is required there? We'll just call it; it is a communication, even though it's kind of a first dynamic. And you might say it's a communication aborning that didn't go no place, and if it comes back and sticks it becomes a consideration. See that? Postulate to consideration. Now if we had an awful lot of people around with the same consideration, and each knows that the others have these considerations, we have this mechanism known as agreement. And then because they wish to prove it and convince one another, they get something that can enter the phenomenon of sight. And the other phenomena of touch, smell. Here we have spacial relationships established and confirmed by mass.

Now what happens to somebody who is no longer convinced, even though the mass is there? What if you took somebody and convinced him utterly with various duresses and conflicts and arguments and communist propaganda, or something, that there was no wall present, where would he go? What would happen to him? Is there any lower part to this Reality Scale? Well yes, there certainly is. The one just below that is a line. The mass called a terminal tends to vanish and the line between a couple of terminals tends to take place and appear. And then below that we get no terminal, no line. And don't mistake that for a postulate condition. And every piece of trouble you will have with a preclear at any time, is to get that lower order taking place as a higher order.

In other words, you get this person selling you a beautiful bill of goods because there's nothing there, but he's in a postulating condition. He has become the total effect of his postulates, total effect of his considerations, total effect of all masses, total effect of all lines. And now he can't even see lines and masses. Such a person is liable to tell you, "My thoughts affect things thousands of miles away." It's true that an OT can affect something thousands of miles away, that's for sure. But he isn't an OT, he's got lumbago. OT's don't have lumbago. That's the... And you start to process him, and what happens? A line shows up. You process him longer, and shadowy things show up at either end of the line, and the line starts to disappear, and the terminals start to appear.

And then you process him a little bit longer, and boy do those terminals become solid. And after he is able to make a terminal have an effect from him, so that his confidence in this is unassailable, he can only then enter in to the world of agreement. Only then are his agreements binding and valid. Only then can he make them or break them. Up to that time he is obsessed by any agreement of the past effect. He's the victim of all the upper scale, at any point he is on the scale. And that is true of the tone scale or is true of any other scale. A person, you know, does not move up level by level of the tone scale. He broadens up the tone scale. You understand that? He becomes the whole scale, he doesn't just go up click, click like climbing stairs, you know. There's a big difference. So that a person who is in good shape can postulate, consider, which is to say continue a postulate, agree, make masses, or make masses disappear, or make lines between masses appear or disappear. Now he can do all of those things. So you actually; any point you find him on the scale, he can do the points from there down, and you win for him the ability, again, you make him willing to have the ability again, to do the points from there up.

Now the Reality Scale is very important. It tells you that communication down below no line, no terminal, is almost totally first dynamic communication. The person actually gets convinced that if he thinks it it arrives in Chesapeake Bay, you see. He gets a telepathic idea of his own thinkingness. Naturally, all terminals there are are all there too, and all lines are there too. We have people in insane asylums that tell you that the United States government has tapped their, their brains, Western Union has run in a line to their brain so that they can tell what he's thinking, you get all sorts of line manifestations, so naturally the fellow gets totally convinced of telepathy. It's quite an interesting forgone conclusion. Now I'd say, however, from our standpoint at this time and what preclears can recover, it would that preclear who doesn't even believe in telepathy any longer, that we have to worry about. Doesn't even any longer believe in telepathy. He's, he's gettin' pretty bad.

Now, what's the state of a case at any one of these levels? Well, it patches up, matches up, right there along side of the old tone scale, the, the sub-zero scale and the original tone scale in their continuum, you see, from serenity clear on down to wait, wait not even unconscious. This, this level is paralleled by this Reality Scale. And there's also a series of communications which go down along the whole line. And let's take our preclear at point where he doesn't know you're there and doesn't know the room is there and doesn't know he's there and doesn't know that he has a body sitting there and he just doesn't know, but he's performing on some social machinery. Now, where is the entrance point?

The first thing that you can do with this preclear, we believe now, that would recall to him an ability, would be the recognition of the existence of a line. Not the recognition of the existence of a terminal, but the recognition of the existence of a line. Hence, you're against the preclear's hand. That's a line. By establishing a line he can come into cognizance of the terminal. Your arm's liable to get awful real to him, unless his hand and arm get real you're not gonna find anything else gettin' real.

It's wonderful how well you can sit there and talk at somebody who is a total blank. Doesn't mean that a person responds to hand contact mimicry only when he is in terrible shape. Anybody oughta respond to hand contact mimicry. Let's take some fella who is in pretty good shape but he had an awful case of eczema on, on his hands, and you doin' hand contact mimicry. Well, he's forgotten about having had this happen a couple thousand years ago, he hasn't known about it since, and ever since that time he's been very careful what he touched in the form of a human hand. He just doesn't like to touch human hands, see? It's just a peculiarity. It's one of these one button sort of peculiarities. You run hand contact mimicry on this boy and in bad shape. Well now, Caesar he'll straighten up, see? He'll at least run that out. Now we go and look at our friend Julius Caesar, the fellow who foolishly, stupidly; that guy was a bad politician, refused to be king of the Romans and let in Augustus. Now this boy it is reported, cut the hands off, the right hands off of fifty thousand Gauls so they couldn't take up sword against the Romans. It's kind of a common practice on the back track, the removal of hands and so forth.

Let's take proof of, let's see it was trial by fire, where the individual, if he was innocent, would receive no burn if he put his hand into the fire. Of course there's, everybody was guilty, I mean, that is more or less. It was a sound mechanism, by the way. A fellow's more likely to receive a burn if he is restraining himself into some back track situation, than if he's in present time.

So we take trial by fire and loosing the right hand and eczema and add it up to the fact that mama spanked these hands, and all of this sort of thing, and we'll get all these hand things standing there as extra to the technique we are doing. We're doing contact mimicry which is not concentrated upon freeing up his hands, we could do that much more easily, by the way, we could simply have him hold onto his right hand and keep it from going away, and hold on his left hand to keep from going away, hold onto his right hand and keep from going away, on his left hand and keep from going away. Go this way for a while and you'd free up those incidents rather easily. This isn't the one you're doing, so don't get it there. But you do hand cognite with most anybody who hasn't had his hands cleared, and you're going to get some results, you're going to get some action. That's for sure. Well, now you must demonstrate between the particular momentary regain of something as he slides out of an incident, and he comes up himself in his own capability of recognizing the reality of a communication line and then a terminal. And he's two different breeds of cat. But anybody is liable to get some results from this.

Alright. Now as we look over, then, the Reality Scale, we find out there's an immediate use in processing. Of course a solid communication line is very fine, but what if you break it? Well you can break it so slowly that the person doesn't notice that the hands have ceased to be lines and have become terminals. There's a little space between the two hands. There's an inch between your hand and the preclear's hands, see? Just an inch, and he hasn't noticed, to any great degree. Affinity starts to take place, because we've got some distance, but the affinity you will find will be first worst and then best with the terminals close together. The hands take the place of terminals in this particular way. "Look at me, who am I?", is a rather up scale process you will notice here by now. You'll find out that's, that's pretty high scale. Now the use of hand contact mimicry is then not relegated to indoctrination, it is not relegated to the preclear who's totally insane, I wouldn't use it on a preclear who's totally insane, by the way. I would use anything; I would work on attention as a point there. Mimicry and attention. He'd do something, I'd do something, finally get his attention. Then I might go into hand contact mimicry 'cause it's gonna take some attention, and that's gonna be almost accidental at first, and therefore they're very hard to process, these boys. I don't know, I haven't made the test. I suppose you could sit down and just start right out with something and sweat it through one way or the other. You might very well do it.

Alright. But this process is not one that you would address to the insane or the very bad off, or something of the sort. This would be addressed to any person that you wanted to be sure of results. Now obviously you start to run 8C on somebody, you developed somatics, you oughta be running 8C on him, I mean, that's all there is to that, see? The person did run this process, he is coming up scale, obviously, his auditor is getting more and more apparent to him, obviously. But how about the preclear who's not in too good shape and who can run 8C very, very easily. Well, you're probably running his body, that's probably what's happening, and hand contact mimicry would be the point you drop back to. Hand contact mimicry is the point back to which I would drop at any time I became very suspicious that I was auditing over the head of the preclear. I'd go down scale to this. I've gone way over his head, therefore I've given him a loss, so therefore momentarily I would consider he was in bad communication with me and his reality on me possibly could be graduated up to a line now.

Hand contact mimicry is something you could do after a bad auditor blunder. You go to sleep while you're auditing the preclear, some auditors do. I don't like to myself, I like to audit. I get my sleep other places. But you do pull a blunder and he considers this a blunder, and so forth, ask him what you did wrong and he will tell you, sometimes quite vociferously, and so on. Now, instead of risking a big wroow-row beyond just a little communication on the subject, the smart thing to do would be go into hand contact mimicry. That re-establishes affinity, it re-establishes the Reality Scale, and that would bring him on up the line. It's just a, it's just something to use. Now, this process, hand contact mimicry, is then something to use. This is something to use.

This communication stunt of hellos and OKs to a tooth ache, are very fascinating. Hellos and OKs to a bad tooth, however, will as-is mass. You must always ask the question, how much havingness can the preclear afford to spend. So we come to this conclusion: That you can jockey C, communication, against reality, or as we say, havingness. Crude sort of a statement of it. And by jockeying those two things, one against the other, with good A with the preclear, we can, of course, graduate him up scale. It's quite interesting. And thus, you are using the ARC triangle very quietly and very deftly. R and C on the triangle, and we call it havingness. Call it havingness because we understood this reality to be something else, we understood this reality to be something else. Havingness was different. Havingness was one thing and reality was another thing.

Now you can recognize that in essence, reality, reality contains a level known as havingness. And actually, in this little band of mass there is a scale inside the reality scale. Now when I said it went down from postulate to consideration, agreement, mass, line and love, I was pointing up your attention on this thing called mass. Well, what do you know, there're several different characteristics with regard to mass as it sits right there in the middle of the Reality Scale, and we have what's known as the Havingness Scale and that fits in the middle of the Reality Scale. And that has to do with the consideration of mass. And there are a number of considerations of mass, all of which fit right square on the scale. But it's what you do with mass, so therefore, we could, I suppose, write this thing from postulate down to nothing on the Reality Scale and include in it, sluunk, these various considerations with regard to mass, but we're liable to lose the point. We actually should write them side by side, and these conditions over here, relative to mass as a special characteristic of reality, we ought to write that little scale over here. And that we call the Havingness Scale instead of Reality Scale, and that scale is quite an interesting scale in itself.

It starts out probably with waste or maybe with substitute. You pays yer money and you takes yer chance, because it is so messed up at that point of mass that it is very hard to get a preclear to come up uniformly with some other preclear, as to which one is the lowest one. And it possibly goes this way, it possibly goes: Waste, substitute, waste, substitute, waste, substitute, waste, substitute, until you get up to the next one. You get this idea? Just as you find a great many false emotions jammed in at the level of apathy on the Affinity Scale, when you've, sure you've seen this, so do you find this waste and substitute kicking around and kicking at each other on the Havingness Scale. So which one comes lowest, substitute or waste, I don't know. Could be one, could be the other, but it's probably waste, substitute, waste, substitute, waste, substitute, you know? There's several of both.

And now we get up to the, you could put of course the DEI Scale in here, if you wanted to. However, it goes simply on desire to havingness. So we have waste, substitute, havingness, by which we understand desire, want, acceptability, right to have, all of these things. Whereas the waste and substitute are simply only I on the DEI Scale, see?

Now we say, "Where's enforce?" Well enforce actually lies around in the vicinity of waste and substitute. You start forcing havingness on somebody, you're running into a no game condition for yourself. It's quite interesting. All right. Though as far as you're concerned, you can run it this way, better way of running it, although these scales are still themselves. Better way of running it is: Waste, have. It's the next one up. You can waste something until he can have it, and that phenomenon is something that you can demonstrate any day. Person can't have something you can have him waste it enough and he'll find out after a while, he'll say, "I can have it." All right, now if we go from waste and substitute on this little Havingness Scale, up to havingness, well where, where do we go from there? What is the next important way stop on this Havingness Scale? And that is again, as all of these things are, is something to do with mass. You could call it the Mass Doingness Scale and you'll probably have it more closely described.

And that next one up the line that is very, very important is confront. Now that's awfully important. A person who can't confront something is liable to have to have it as his highest expression, and if he can't confront it and can't have it, it's a cinch that he will waste it. And if he can't even waste it, it's a cinch he'll substitute. There we get Freudian and other sublimations and then all of that. Nnyaaa. Sublimation. They never knew what they talked about. This is not sublimation I'm talking about, this is fact I'm talking about, and that's fiction. They had the idea that you put something down and, and the force and power of it's being down sort of erupted on the surface and made you do something else, and everybody was haunted by a sensor and a savage beast with a club in his hand and; actually barbaric mental ideas as represented up to the middle of the twentieth century are, are full of, of good belly laughs. I think they're almost as funny as the, as the days when they, before Columbus sailed the ocean blue they were sure that the ocean was inhabited by strange beasts and that if you sailed far enough you'd sail off the edge of the world, and all kinds of oddities. And very few of us actually have made any vast study of those oddities, but it's some you ought to go in for fauna and flora and archaeological artifacts, and so forth. Why look 'em up some time, they'll be very funny to you. Much funnier, by the way, than I have ever represented them to be to you. I've been quite honest about this.

But this thing called sublimation is substitution. I mean, why get sublimative about something that is easily done? If a person hates women, it is a cinch that he just probably hates a woman and substitutes for her, all other women. But this is not a clean statement of it for this reason, you get identification, which is substitution of one woman for another, and then you get disassociation. I mean, he can't even identify any more. Hence, your lower waste level. He's wasting now, a substitute. You'll find a preclear after a while will, on some subject, disassociate.

He has a terrific disassociation now. He says that ash tray isn't that ash tray. You get the idea. He says this ash tray is a camel. Well now, that's disassociation. He can't recognize a thing for itself, but it must be something else, so we must understand that as an action of mass to lie on the lower end of the Havingness Scale. Just as simple as that. Now as we go upscale further from confront, what do we run into? We run into something oddly enough which is pretty dog gone high. Much too high for this society at this time, this particular moment here, 1957, that's contribute to. People, if they are prevented from contributing to something, go down scale.

Now contributing to something is getting rid of mass, it's somebody else is going to have something besides yourself. And you take a person sitting down at have or below, and you make him contribute a little bit and he get's to be a sick puppy, he'll just go on down into waste and substitute. Got the idea? He's; but it is a very high manifestation. But it holds true all up and down this Havingness Scale, that if an individual is prevented from helping and contributing in some fashion, he get's very ill. So it's not in auditing, but in real life. You tell an individual, "Well, all right, we're not going to make you pay your taxes anymore." You would say, "Look, that's wonderful." You would find a convulsion would take place in the society. They would be sure now that the government was about to eat them up, 'cause you violated the communication formula. Now don't you see how communication is weaving into mass, here? Confront, what is that but attention? Havingness, what is that but being a terminal which can communicate. And lower levels of that are simply confusions on the subject of terminals.

But let's go on even higher than this confront and what do we get to? We get to create. So the Havingness Scale which fits at that innocuous word mass over here on the reality scale, consists of the doingnesses with regard to mass. And they begin at the top with create, go down at once in contribute to, go down into confront, go down into have, go down into waste, go down into substitute. And if you wrote that down as a scale you would be quite right, but all that belongs over here on this mass. These are all things you do with mass.

Now probably there's a bunch of doingnesses with agreement, ask an attorney. There's probably a bunch of doingnesses with postulates, and doingnesses with, with lines, ask the telephone company. And these things probably too, form up other scales quite similar over here to the Havingness Scale and when you had all these doingness scales paralleling this Reality Scale, you would have this difference: The thing, which is the Reality Scale and it's aspects, which would be this Doingness Scale. Considerations of mind with regard to these things in actuality would be over here, on this other scale. We mustn't confuse the thing with what you do with it.

Many a collector has these things so beautifully differentiated, that he drives his neighbors mad. He realizes, for instance, that a pistol is simply a thing, an artifact, something he collected, something that is there and it has no doingness connected with it of any kind whatsoever, it just is. Well, batty or sane, he tells you his pistol is. And his neighbors all say, "Look at that fellow, he's got all those guns and he never fires a single shot." They're insisting that he do something with his isness. And yet these are two separate actions. You can have without doing, it's pretty hard however to do without having, which is why reality is so important in running on the preclear.

Alright. Now I hope you understand these two scales, and I hope you will take them around with you on auditing and look them over a little bit, and understand what they're all about. Because we're still talking about ARC and as a matter of fact in this unit we'll be talking a lot about survive, which is old hat. But my goodness, it's certainly been polished up and it certainly has a nice new band, and it certainly fits on a lot more heads than it used to.

Thank you.