Well, this is the last lecture of the 1st Saint Hill ACC. Usually such lectures are devoted to farewell addresses. This one we’re going to send you, not stop you.

You have been working for the past three weeks on Theory 67 Scientology. The theory number, of course, is evolved from the fact that you have the sixth dynamic and the seventh dynamic as the primary inversions of all cases.

Now, the number is there to make you keep the theory in mind. The primary overts are against MEST. This is the first thing you should know about this particular theory. The primary overts are against MEST. That is to say, it’s MEST that takes the brunt of overts against thetans. You get the idea?

That is the way the person’s mind conceives it to be, because you have an inversion on the sixth dynamic. You understand?

Audience: Yes.

This is not necessarily factual. This is very apparent.

The way to unwind a case, then, according to Theory 67, is to reinvert the sixth dynamic to obtain a freedom of action of the seventh dynamic.

The whole of the dynamics are seen in Theory 67 to have inverted at six, so that all dynamics then are derived from the sixth dynamic, as inverted dynamics. You see this around you everyplace. There are many examples of this in Western and Eastern science today: you see most scientists depending utterly upon computers of one kind or another, mechanical brains. You see them espousing biological theories which have to do with “man arose one fine day from mud as a spontaneous frogation,” or something of the sort You see most of the psychological theories which are presented as a derivative of man as an animal, and if you know enough about rats, you’ve got it made. That the total motivating factor of the mind has to do with the actions of the brain. Images come in through the eyes and are seen through some sort of a mirror, which is viewed by some sort of a mirror, which is viewed by some sort of a mirror, which is viewed by some sort of a mirror. And out of that we get decision and judgment such as that being demonstrated today by the politicians of Earth.

Nothing looks at anything in other words, because there’s nothing — nothing there.

Now, it is interesting that those people who most closely and slavishly follow along the various lines of materialism are in the worst shape. I wish to give you this as a supportive datum. If you today were to interview some of the scientific giant brains, you would be fascinated to find it a relatively unprocessable case. The person, then, who has the most overts, you might say, against the sixth dynamic could be conceived to be in the worst condition.

Now, these are merely supportive data to Theory 67, and again I repeat: the theory advances the fact that a case is best taken to pieces by regarding it as an inverted sixth dynamic and that all will reinvert through an address to the sixth dynamic and that the dynamics will appear, then, as they should.

This problem is complicated by the fact that the seventh dynamic is enmeshed in the sixth dynamic. If you see everything as an inversion or see a bad case or a humanoid case from an inverted sixth, you will see that the seventh is an inverted seventh. It’s not a pure seventh, but it is an inverted seventh through the sixth. Now, it’s Theory 67, not Theory 76. You got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, you’ll find that an inverted dynamic there on the seventh is best freed by removing the sixth from the seventh, not removing the seventh from the sixth. This is highly important. It tells you that the more thinkingness you permit a pc to engage upon, the more figure-figure he engages upon as he comes along in processing, the less sixth you will free.

We already know that in this planet at this time the exteriorization of a thetan from a body, although it is attended very often for a few days by an enormous resurgence and a tremendous freedom, reverts again.

In other words, it’s not a stable gain. The exteriorization processes are fascinating. They shouldn’t be forgotten — old Route 1, and so forth — these things shouldn’t be forgotten. But they are unfortunately addressed to a being who is not inverted at the sixth.

Now what happens? You blow — in interest of exteriorization or moving somebody out of his head, you blow the seventh dynamic out of the sixth dynamic, and you get a recurrence of interiorization subsequently, over which the person has no power. And just giving you this as a supportive datum, because we know a great deal about that, you can see then, that thought freed out of the sixth dynamic, thought being an inversion of the seventh dynamic, you see, that the thought freed out of the sixth dynamic of MEST would not necessarily stay free at all.

In other words, we pick up somebody’s fixed fixation that “all horses sleep in beds,” and we get him totally sold on the idea that horses sometimes live in stalls and he admits this very freely, and we pick him up sometime later and we find that his best-held datum is that all horses sleep in beds.

Now, I don’t say that this is necessarily a thing which would follow normally and naturally because I know of the vast majority of cases which have had fixations and ideas flicked out in processing, and so forth, have remained stable in that particular fashion. But how about the fellow you can’t change? He changes for a moment in the auditing chair and he’s the same way the next day? Got that? Well, that’s the case I’m talking about.

It is easier to free a thought or an idea out of MEST than it is to free a thetan. But the easier method of doing it is to take the MEST off of the thought, not the thought out of the MEST.

Now, if this is the case and if our primary target is the sixth dynamic, then it would follow that Overt/Withhold run on the sixth dynamic or any part of the sixth dynamic — matter, energy, space, time, form and location — would discover to us a considerable resurgence on the part of the individual and a considerable shifting of his ideas. And so it works out in processing.

If you were simply to open up on a case and, well, let’s assess the case, find out which of the items of the six items of the sixth dynamic — matter, energy, space, time, form and location — which one of these things assesses best, we would get into a condition here where Overt/Withhold run (well, I don’t care how conceptually or otherwise) against the part there that fell on the E-Meter and on which the person considers himself most failed at the moment, that Overt/Withhold run on that part, let us say, space, would produce a very interesting change of ideas and gain of a case.

It is an elementary proposition. Now, Overt/Withhold we already know can alter considerably the health of a being and it does not necessarily, the way it has been handled in the past, change his graph to any great degree, but that’s merely on the targets on which it has been used. It has been used, basically, on targets which were beings. Overt/Withhold is normally and generally run on beingness targets, and so we get no enormous change or resurgence of a graph. We do get a change of ideas and attitude. But the change of ideas and attitude, given a new series of occurrences, are susceptible to a return to status quo. Got the idea?

In other words, we clean the husband up with regard to his wife very nicely and we swamp him all up, and then we find him a few months later with a new series of overts against his wife and feeling almost as bitterly about it as before. Why? That is because Overt/Withhold has used, in this particular case, a seventh dynamic terminal. You have a seventh dynamic. You have the husband and the wife being treated as beings and the overts are against a being. Now what about overts against form?

Well, the form, of course, would be the MEST representation of a beingness. And form itself is a somewhat of a bridge item between the sixth and seventh dynamic.

So let’s see how it would work this way. We assess the person ... Let’s say we wanted to run the wife out of the husband: We assess the wife. You know, we’ve got the husband on the E-Meter but we assess a wife, and we find out what MEST is most closely associated with a wife. Got the idea?

You could, perhaps, even do this in its highly simple form, which is matter, energy, space, time, form and location — which one of these things are most associated with the wife. Or you could just ask him. Oh, he might say a house or he might say most anything, don’t you see? All right.

Let’s run Overt/Withhold on what we assessed for the wife, not for the husband. We don’t ask him what trouble he has in life, we ask him what the terminal we’re going to clear up is most closely associated with on the sixth dynamic, and then we run Overt/Withhold, you see, on the husband against that terminal. This is very much of a via type assessment, don’t you see?

This is only answering up a highly specific problem. We as an auditor wish to obtain the highest possible recovery for this person with regard to the present time problem he’s having that interrupts his processing.

You know, after a person has a present time problem the third time with a specific terminal, it’s about time you did something about it. The best way to do something about it is to run Overt/Withhold.

Now, we haven’t forgotten the tremendous technology which we have accumulated about Overt/Withhold. This is an enormous amount of technology. This technology is all brought to view in view of the fact that havingness is duplication, ability to. And Overt/Withhold clears up unwillingness to duplicate. So these two things are crossed.

Now, I advance, as a probability, that the only reason we got no real case gains on Overt/Withhold, in terms of raised profiles, is because Overt/Withhold was routinely and consistendy run on beingnesses, and being run on beingnesses, you were, of course, trying to take the seventh dynamic out of the sixth dynamic. You got it?

So if you were to run Overt/Withhold against MEST, direcdy, or as an association with certain terminals you were trying to free up in the case, I think you would find another story entirely.

Now, Overt/Withhold against MEST, if the pc can be made to answer the questions, will all by itself bring the person up to a point of being able to have the immediate environment, that I assure you. If you were to assess the sixth dynamic and run Overt/Withhold on whatever you found drop, you undoubtedly would have cleared up a considerable amount of his difficulties.

Now, in addition to that, you have an enormously complicated series of presessions, all of which are Havingness Processes, and I am sure that most of your pcs will be found in those presessions and the additional one of “Look at this” with the right hand, “Look at this” with the left hand and asking each time, “Find something around here that that isn’t duplicating or that this isn’t duplicating,” whatever the auditing commands of it are.

It is actually sort of a cross between a think process and a CCH, and it’s a very good process. I think it would probably improve anybody’s havingness.

You take a coin in one hand and a pencil in the other hand, and you show them — because anything that could be covered by the auditor’s hands so that they don’t remain in view, and don’t wave your hands around at the person because he’s restimulated by motion, don’t you see? Minimal motion while running this, please.

The auditor then would open his right hand and say, “Look at this.” He’s indicated it, of course, by opening his hand. And “Find something around here that isn’t being duplicated by this,” whatever the auditing command is in the presession. And then closing that hand and opening the other hand, saying, “Look at this.” You see, it’s just one, two, one, two, one, two, one, two. It’s a Havingness Process.

Don’t get any idea that it’s a Communication Process. We used to have the idea that it was a Communication Process, it’s not. It’s a Havingness Process. Therefore, it has entirely new value.

Well, if you can’t get them on the routine presessions with their Havingness and Confront lineups in those, well, you have that presession in order to fall back on. You’re very wealthy.

The cases that start running and stop running are hung up on Overt/Withhold on somebody, something, you, Scientology, the principal persons in Scientology, auditors, MEST, things of this character, and that would have to be cleared up.

But this offers you a considerable difficulty because you will get cases with overts and withholds of such magnitude, before processing, that practically no havingness will blow the case out of the rut. Got the idea? Well, that’s the case you’re going to have trouble with. That’s getting the case started.

But a case that has been started can be recovered if the case stops in the process. All you’ve got to do is clear it up with Overt/Withhold. Make sure that those — make very, very sure that the overts connected with auditing, and so forth, are clean and stay clean.

The best way to run present time problems and ARC breaks are now, I tell you, Overt/Withhold. That’s the best possible process on present time problems and ARC breaks.

“What have you done to me? What have you withheld from me?” Is also runnable in this fashion with a pc who ARC breaks too easily. “What have you done to an auditor? What have you withheld from an auditor?” You just keep it in the profession and broaden it as a terminal, see.

You’ll find there’s quite a few cases scattered around that would suddenly get off the pad with a swish if you just ran just that What have you done to an auditor? What have you withheld from an auditor? Bing-bing, bing-bing, bing-bing. And all of a sudden, you’re going to get a freer motion. Why? Because the phenomena of duplication is involved. If a person has overts against an auditor, he’s unwilling to duplicate an auditor and so won’t follow your auditing instructions, or if he does follow your auditing instructions, won’t apply them very well. There’s not going to be any bite to the process. All right.

Now, just giving this thing a fast run, the way you’ve learned here to handle presessions, you go right on and handle them that way, but nobody anyplace tells you that you are a muzzled auditor. This has been a problem that’s sticking in your craw a little bit.

You said, “Well, if you run a presession, you can’t do anything else.” That’s true, if you’re running a muzzled presession.

On the other hand, your propensities toward yak by Theory 67 can get you into a remarkable amount of trouble with the pc. Why? Because you’re simply dropping the pc’s havingness. It isn’t what you’re saying. It isn’t that you’re not being witty. It’s just that havingness is dropping out.

Now, I want to show you how critical havingness can be on an individual. You say to this individual, “Well, have you done all right since the last session I gave you?” You’ve had it That was too many questions. Too many questions. You just lowered his havingness, just right there, ting because he answered it.

I first connected up with this about 1956, and already had evolved a theory that people could talk themselves down Tone Scale by as-ising what havingness they had. So I overtly let some people, one after the other, talk. Just let them talk. Just go on talking in a session. You know, they run down a little bit and I’d nod sympathetically or something and keep them going.

You never saw a Tone Scale in such full view in your life. I mean, no matter what — these were all critical havingness cases, you could call them now. I didn’t call them then, I merely called them borderline cases.

They’d start in, didn’t matter where, boredom or enthusiasm or something like this, and they’d talk themselves right on down the Tone Scale. Brrrrrrrrrrrr. Sometimes only took them fifteen, twenty minutes to get to apathy.

Very often when people have you pinned down, conversationally, you sit there and wait, you notice this: they stop talking when they reach apathy. You’re waiting for them to reach apathy so you can get on about your business. Well, that doesn’t happen to be in the cards now for you as an auditor. Doesn’t happen to be in the cards.

In the first place, as a person shifts up and down the Havingness Scale, and by the way there is no Havingness Scale, one has never been written, as such, 100 percent. The closest thing we’ve ever done to it is the Scale of Substitutes, and so on. There would have to be a new Havingness Scale written up, and I’ll write one up when we’ve got enough data in, that is a complete scale.

But you, sitting there, letting a pc talk, would watch a pc go up and down this scale, and you’ve got no business doing that. Oddly enough, it’s less harmful on your part, for the pc, for you to exercise some control than to let the pc run down. Got it?

Of course, there is such a thing as a fairly high-level case can talk a lot of stuff out; they can as-is it I think probably the cases that Freud had anything to do with were damn near OT. They must have been because it couldn’t have been people whose havingness dropped, don’t you see.

They would have been people who could talk without dropping their havingness, and there are not too many of those. All right.

Nothing against that, we’re finding out things along the line.

Now, havingness then, might possibly, because of the pc’s continuous talk on the subject, run down, when you’re running Overt/Withhold.

In other words, we’re not running a pure Overt/Withhold. We’re running instead a yak, yak, yak — that’s the overt A yak, yak, yak, yak, yak — that’s the withhold. A yak, yak, yak, yak, yak — that’s the overt. You get the idea? Or a think, think, think, think, think, think, think, think, think, think — there’s the overt Think, think, think, think, think, think, think, think, think, think, think. There’s a withhold. And it’s sort of like the frog falling down three inches every night and climbing up three inches every day and falling down three inches every night, and he’s just is not getting anyplace, don’t you see? Because his havingness is blowing off as fast as he’s getting the overts and withholds off.

Now, there would be a way to get around that, that I can recommend to you: You could take any process that you have established — and by the way the first thing to do with a case is to find out what Havingness Process the case can run on. Nothing changes this. You — perhaps looking at me like I’m giving you all kinds of new data. The only thing I’ve given you brand-new here is that you can run Overt/Withhold against MEST; that’s new. But the rest of it, you’ve been taught straight along here. All right Would be to run something like this: we’ve assessed the fellow is having trouble with his wife. Wife has something to do with homes, we find out. This is what he says wives have to do with. You got the idea? And this is what falls out, and so forth, so we start running an Overt/Withhold, let us say, against home. All right. “What have you done to a home?” we ask him.

And he goes, “figure, figure, figure, think, think, think, think, think, think, think, think, think. I once flooded a basement.” All right You say, “Thank you.”

Now, you’ve got the Havingness Process established. And you say, “Where isn’t that wall” or whatever it is, see, whatever the Havingness Process is. “Thank you. Where isn’t that wall? Thank you. Where isn’t the ceiling? Thank you. Where isn’t the floor? Thank you. What have you withheld from a home?”

And the guy goes figure, figure, figure, think, think, think, dank, dank, dank, figure, figure, figure, figure, figure, figure, figure, figure, figure, figure. ‘Well, in a past life I used to take all my money down to the pub and I never gave any to the wife. I withheld money from the home.”

And you say, “Thank you. Where isn’t that wall? Thank you. Where isn’t that ceiling? Thank you. Where isn’t that floor? Thank you.” Got the idea?

Audience: Yes.

Well, you could whip even one of these chattering phenomena. I don’t say that is the way to run all Overt/Withhold. I’d say that’s the way you run a critical havingness case, though. And I just wouldn’t take the chance early in processing a case when I didn’t know anything about the case.

I’d go ahead and I’d say, “Well, we’re going to take up your problem just as soon as we’ve established some things. We have some drills here and I’m going to ask you some of these things about these drills just to see if you can do them.” (I wouldn’t let him in on anything.) “Just see if you can do them, and here’s the first one.”

“Look around here and find something you can have. All right That’s good. Thank you. Look around here and find something you can have. Thank you. Look around here and find something you can have.”

You’re looking at this E-Meter see, and it’s just dank. Not a tremble, you know.

You say, “Well, that’s fine. You did real well on that Now we’re going to take up the next — the next drill. Don’t even bridge it out, see. Take up the next drill, check the thing through and just watch it there for a few questions, and you’ll see the tone arm move on the needle. You realize you can see the needle start moving before the tone arm starts moving, you understand. And you give him this, and you start getting a good, fast, needle action.

You say, “Ah, that’s good.” And you run it for a little while, and you’ll see the tone action show up. And you say, “Well, that’s fine.” And just keep running it Just don’t interrupt it any. And say, “Well, you’ve passed this one, so we can keep on with this one,” and carry it on, and you’ve got him wheeling.

Now, when you’ve really got that wheeling and the case looks like it’s really going to settle down and you might possibly get a Clear read just on havingness alone, that — if you’re lucky — that’s what’s going to happen, you see.

Why, you say, “Now we’re going to pick up the Confront Process.” And we have to give you some tricks with this.

Well, the best thing to do is to take the Confront Process that went with that Havingness Process. But watch it very carefully, and if it doesn’t give you the needle reading which is going to give you a fast tone arm read, and so forth, you get off of it quick in exactly the same way, and get another Confront Process.

Now that you’ve got this pair well established, and you’ve got the case moving, why, you can go on and do anything you want with the case.

You could run those two things until the person apparendy was setded down, and then you could pick up Help, as you saw earlier in this course. A very easy way to run Help is, of course, run it on an assessment — this is a slow way, but an easy way — on an assessment of the sixth dynamic. The six parts of the sixth dynamic, and run Help on whatever fell with the pc. That’s an easy way to run it. Or if the case is running exceptionally well, go in with what you’ve really got to run sooner or later, and which really gets the show on the road, and that’s Help on Motion.

So if your case was moving very well, probability is you go on to Help on Motion. You just go on through and clear this case up.

But, if you’ve got a very critical havingness case, and you had to pick an offbeat Havingness Process, and that sort of thing, then the probabilities are that this person is going to get ARC broken with his environment while he’s not being audited, or he’s going to ARC break with the auditor, and so forth.

Why? Because he’s already having duplication trouble. Well, if he’s having duplication trouble, you’re going to have to counter your duplication trouble with running O/W.

You find the likeliest targets for Overt/Withhold, and you start running O/W. And I frankly would run O/W in the place of Help. Got the idea? It gives us, I think, Regimen 6.

Don’t do anything much with Help there. You’ve got to stabilize this case and I think you’d get a faster run of it. You’re going to get the case stabilized and you’re going to get the case out of this propensity for ARC breaks all the time, and so forth, and get the case so that it won’t be knocked down by the environment faster than you can build the case up. You see what a losing situation this would be? You’ve got to get this case’s overts off because the environment will knock him down faster than you can process him up, don’t you see, and he’s got a tremendous long run ahead of him.

So O/W would be indicated there for quite a while, but I would recommend to you O/W on the assessed parts of the sixth dynamic. This is rather fabulous. You haven’t run that in this unit, but it is — I think you’ve been very good auditors, and you’ve been very nice, and you’ve all done very well. Your auditing has been very good, and so forth, and so therefore, I think, why, you might as well have this one, too, before you get out of here. Because it’s a small killer. You assess — this fellow has trouble with superiors — this seems to be his history. He’s a bom revolutionary. Now, I don’t want you to min all the revolutionaries on Earth because revolutionaries are bad people or anything like that because I think a few good revolutionaries around are very healthy, indeed. I think they keep — make the government into a bunch of citizens. Might be citizens in a new state, but they keep them on the ball. I believe with Thomas Jefferson there probably ought to be a raw red revolution every twenty-five years just to keep things going right.

(Now that, by the way, is cut out of all the textbooks. Some reason or other the US Government never bothers to publish that particular sentence.)

Now, if you run, let’s say, “superiors.” You run into this as what he apparendy has trouble with. Let’s say he’s had four PTPs or three or two PTPs show up on a superior. Ah, that’s enough- That’s enough, you know — a couple is good enough.

This is practically an assessment all by itself. This individual has PTPs with a boss. Well, let’s find out how it’s phrased. What is a boss? Is it a superior? Is it a captain? Is it a leader? Let’s trot out the semantics here and get this thing sailed into right.

Now we find the habitual MEST of a boss. Is it matter, energy, space, time, form or location? What is the MEST most closely associated with a boss? Ah, that’s good. Space. It’s always the boss’s space. That’s good. All right Skip the boss. Just forget him, and run O/W on space. And you’ll make it with a boss.

Get the covert knock-apart Now, of course, you’ve just — you’ve run a PTP, but you’ve run a lot of track with it. You haven’t, then, hung up on this specific terminal. I’ve been trying hard, by the way, to find some method of assessing which you would find easy to do, because HGGs, frankly, have a rough time with assessing. And if the poor D of P doesn’t keep on the ball all the time with assessment, and he does and so forth, you’ll occasionally get an offbeat assessment of some kind or another.

And so we need this technically. I know that if HGCs can occasionally get into trouble with an assessment or something of this sort, well, you certainly can. So what I’ve been trying to gain is an assessment which is easy to do.

Well, the best assessment there is, is assessment by present time problem. That’s marvelous. If the pc has a hot chain that goes into restimulation easily, why, of course, it is the present time problem that shows up that hot chain.

Now, we can broaden the thing out further — oh, of course, there’s nothing wrong with you running Overt/Withhold, of course, on just what he said. He has trouble with the boss. He has problems with the boss. You can run Overt/Withhold on that exact boss. It’ll at least cool it off, but it won’t particularly advance the case.

Now, by converting what he said in the PT problem to the most familiar environment element, see, “What’s the trouble with wives?”

“Well, the trouble with wives is motion.” Because motion can be in there, too, don’t you see. He objects to this frantically. He tells you they’re always in motion.

“You’re sitting down, you’re minding your own business, and my God! In comes the broom, the broom, the broom. And they start sweeping the hearth, and they sweep the hearth, and they do this or they do that. They rush upstairs and they rush downstairs,” and so on. All he’s telling you is motion, motion, motion. That’s the trouble with the wife, man.

You can run O/W on motion, and the first many that he gives you will intimately concern the wife, you see. What’s he done something to, you see. Well, “What motion has he done something to?”

Well, he’s done something to a motion of a broom. He took the damn broom out the other day and broke it in about four pieces. Rarrh! Rrrhl.

So that is simply an advance that is relatively experimental, but I think you’ll find it’s quite useful. You possibly might even go so far as to run O/W on just the word “MEST” on a Scientologist, but it would produce some sort of a result, but he’ll mishmash sooner or later on the thing. You should be a little more specific on that.

This experimental workout, however was done, I will tell you, on the word “MEST.” That was the word that was used. O/Ws on MEST. “What have you withheld from MEST? What have you done to MEST?”

Now, this gives us a fairly easy look at duplication and havingness. And you’ll find that once you’ve done Overt/Withhold on some part of a sixth dynamic, that havingness, ability to have, comes up, and the rapidity of the process result will increase — it’ll get very rapid.

Now, completely aside from these methods of boosting up havingness, remember that havingness boosts up on its own process and there is no substitute for a straight Havingness Process.

The earliest Havingness Processes — I think the earliest one was “Notice that (blank).” That was quite a process and is still very interesting. You’re going to find some cases around who turned on somatics running that. And the rule is, that that which turns on somatics gets them turned off by the same process.

In other words, if somebody turned on somatics running “Notice that wall,” why, your Havingness Process is already set up for you. It’s unflat, that’s all. “Notice that wall.”

Because a process that turns on somatics is a process that’ll move around the tone arm. Let me tell you, they go hand in glove.

All right Now, there isn’t so much for the various theory and so on, the practice of it You have done a superbly good job of auditing presence in this particular unit, and I’m very happy about that You have undoubtedly made more profile gain than any other ACC that has come along, there are more cases off the pad, you might say, than in other ACCs. I haven’t a due how many reached the top on this particular unit I think one or two of you may be beyond it, but we — I have no complaints. I only hope that those cases that got started or began to get started toward the end of the course, and so forth, will get some more processing, and that the Havingness Process and so on that cracked up the case and made it run, and so forth, is given to the person so they can get some more processing on this line.

Now, there are various phenomena of case improvement which we have not taken up or done much about And one of them is that cases run through bands of unconfidence. They go through bands of unconfidence. And this is a serious manifestation because the common denominator of all difficulty is insincerity, if you’re talking about a high postulate level way up at the top, you see.

On one hand, you have conviction, on the other hand, you have an insincerity. That’s the downscale manifestation.

In other words, they don’t believe it’s worthwhile. They don’t believe they’re there. It’s the manifestation of not-is. “It isn’t worth doing,” and so forth, and a case can get parked in one of these bands. Oh, they feel like they’re pretending. They feel like everything is false. They feel the world is a very false place. They feel that the existence in general is just set up as a shabby joke. All of these various manifestations come under the heading of a feeling of pretense, you might say.

The case thinks it was getting on all right but then realizes it was only pretending it was and. .. You get the — you get the tippy characteristic that goes on. Well, a case that’s gotten started late, being a little bit rough to start, has probably got some of that along the line. And it might discourage someone from getting a bit more auditing straightaway or getting it cleaned up.

And I just want to point up that particular phenomenon as the — probably the greatest halter or restrainer of cases that are just starting to make it.

They’ll go up, and then they’ll feel like “Well, now, they really know it’s all false,” you see. And they say, ‘Well, there’s no point in it because it’s all false,” and so on. And you as an auditor are going to run into this rather consistently with these processes because you’re getting more cases off the pad than any other set of processes we’ve ever produced. So you’ll see this band flickering through.

And you should make a considerable point out of insisting that a case that’s halfway through one of these bands goes ahead and goes all the way through. You understand? Because when there’s a feeling that it’s all false and it’s all pretense, and it doesn’t matter anyhow, and so forth, when this feeling is there along with all other aberrations, why, the individual has a tendency just to say, Well, we’ll just ride it out” And essentially you’ve just wasted a human being by not pushing him on through. Because they actually haven’t any volition at that point to push through. All right.

We have done very well. Perhaps some of you feel that you have not had experience with all of the processes that have come out, and that is perfectly true. However, you’ve had a better run at it than would be usually found in a course of this sort In the first place, the first part of this course was devoted, not to an experimental unit, but with considerable sincerity, just going along using the processes which had been advancing cases in HGCs. And it was found out that with student auditing, and so on, that these same processes were too weak to make much of an effect on this unit They were some twenty-five cases out of forty that were not moving satisfactorily and wouldn’t even have vaguely made any part of it by the end of the unit had we kept on exactly the way we were going. So I had to speed up the research line very rapidly and issue with rapidity at midcourse this Theory 67 and so on.

Well, you’re better off for it, and you have proven it out rather well, and I think you will find it a very good set of tools. I think you’ll be able to make an approach to cases that you’ve not made before, and I think — I’m very happy to say, I think we’re through with failed cases in Scientology. I think you’ll agree with me. You might have to grind at it a little bit, but you’re not going to run up against “there’s nothing that can be done for them.”

And the quicker you get a reality going, of course, on a case, why, the more steadily a case will stay with processing.

So if we can get a reality going on a case at the havingness band right first off, why, you’ll find them getting interested in keeping on with it where they might not have before. They might have fallen away and failed.

Furthermore, we know now how we can keep a case from practically spinning in. There are actually — been less blows in this unit than in any other ACC in history, which is a very good sign.

I wouldn’t put it down to the fact that you were all in apathy because you sure weren’t.

Well, that about wraps it up as far as the technology is concerned. You’ve got another auditing session, of course, after this. Make the most of that one. And you have tomorrow with your testing, and so on. And I’ll be very interested in those tests, so make sure you turn your tests in.

But I want to thank you all here on a technical line for following through so well. And I have absolutely no complaints on what you have been doing, and I want to thank you and particularly your Instructors for carrying out the way you have.

Thank you very much.