Okay, what questions do we have here?

Male voice: This is a comment and a question. In playing around with this help thing and the CCH 0 in general, it's suddenly — light turning on, you know, up here . . .

Yeah.

Male voice: . . . that you have a trinity there, with goals and problems and help, that is very closely interlaced one with the other. And in some cases it might be worthwhile to sort of work around the three to find your best entrance point.

Yes. Yes, that is very, very true. They do have a seniority, one to the other, however. And one of the senior points is that Responsibility should generally be run on any specific subject after Help. You shouldn't necessarily run Help first, but you must always run Responsibility after. That's an interesting sidelight on this. I'm doing some experimenting with it.

You have a terrific weapon in Help. You can run a nine-way bracket easily with a person; you can run it less easily with a psychosomatic. But you can run a several-side bracket on a psychosomatic and knock it out with tremendous speed. The old lady has a bad lung. Now, you just start running Help about this lung. Of course you may run into the automaticity of lungs, as one of your class members did one day, and you get a takeover of the breathing automaticity, but you shouldn't really be interfering with the breathing automaticity. You'd run Help on this psychosomatic.

Let's — something much easier, something much easier — fellow has a burned hand, we just run Help on this hand, back and forth.

Male voice: How?

Oh, "How could that hand help you? How could you help that hand? How could that hand help somebody else? How could somebody else help that hand?"

Male voice: On the terminal rather than the . . .

Oh yeah. You go on and on and on and on and on about this hand, you'll find that burn suddenly receding so rapidly, and these resistant psychosomatics disappearing so rapidly upon this, that you will understand the anatomy of a miracle cure was enough Help. And you'll get immediately an explanation of Christ's miracle-curing. And that is the basis of a miracle cure. Very rapid.

But a miracle cure was sporadic only in that it left to chance which side of the bracket was going to be stepped up. And wherever the fellow was ready for an inflow bracket and somebody showed up who he thought was capable of helping him enough, you got an immediate cure.

And you got things like, "If the finest knight in Christendom will gaze upon this illness, why, at once it will cure." And you had some fellow who was very, very good in the lists and knocking fellows' blocks off all over the place and able to persevere against all demons, dames and dragons, and suddenly, why, he'd knock out the heavyweight champion of the particular area and time. And he'd suddenly find himself the top knight in Christendom. Christendom was a place where they had heard about Christianity but hadn't practiced it yet.

Well anyhow, you'd get people all over Europe being dragged and put in baskets and so forth, and carried to where this fellow was. And he'd actually have to hold a soiree of some sort or another, and they'd be carried by in long lines. And part of his duty was to gaze upon injury, illness and whatnot. It was not, really, an effort to aberrate the man. But people would be getting well all over the place, see, which made a very handy miracle.

You also got trial by fire. But unfortunately the fellow who won in such trials had to be an OT. Put his hand in the fire, and if he wasn't guilty, it wouldn't get burned. So they figured out OTs couldn't be guilty. They were right.

When we look over this wide picture of psychosomatics and realize how much we have worked on helping psychosomatics, we find out that we have left help on automatic. Naturally it would be the last citadel recovered, see? Because it was what we were trying to do. And our sincerity in doing it was so thorough that we never looked at it, and so we never got processed.

Okay.

Yes?

Male voice: You could say, so faith healing really ought to be called "Help healing."

That's for sure. That's for sure.

Male voice: That's what it is.

By the way, faith — that's a good point. Faith has nothing to do with it, except this: It's faith in help.

Male voice: Yeah.

When you invent a god of vengeance, you do your people in.

Male voice: Yes.

Yes?

Male voice: How specific should you want to be as the auditor on the method of help ?

It is a repetitive process, and it says "how." And the "how" must be left totally up to the preclear. And if he thinks he has answered how, he's answered it. That's how specific. Does that answer your question? — no.

Male voice: No, I want to know when I, as the auditor, am going to leave it.

When you're going to leave it flat?

Male voice: Null.

Well, it just no longer bops. It's an E-Meter process. You will find that it runs up through, very ordinarily, obsessive destruction to propitiation, to destruction, to help. And you leave it when it is well in the clear.

Now, you can run a bracket in two ways. You could flatten totally each side of the bracket and never touch it again — that's improper. That would be a very bad run.

You could run it the total opposite of that: One question of each all the way around — improper. Very improper. It gives you too jumpy a look. The fellow is just beginning to consider this. He never would have time to clear the question, you see, and it'd just take too long to clear each question as you went down the line and so on. He'll run into an aberration that will be so thorough that he'll just boggle at the question for five, ten commands. You know, he — daah, daah. "How could other people's hands help other people?" Or "... another person's hands help another person ... I just don't (mumble). Just don't get it." You know? And then he finally gives you a weak answer.

So we have a matter of auditor judgment. And the best answer to it is "a few" — a few commands or several commands or many commands. But it certainly answers it this way: an acceptable minimum of charge. We don't want this thing dropping fifteen dials. So it still drops half a dial on the question — all right. If half a dial is what the fellow was normally dropping the first pass-over, we would just let it — get it back to dropping half a dial. You understand that?

And then the next time through, you see, why, we could settle, this time, for no drop on the dial. You get the idea? We'd make up our minds how far we were going to run this.

But it has to do with observation of the preclear. And you're not going to leave him in a bog. Nor are you going to waste too much time bridging and clearing commands. Because you're going to have to clear the command and bridge for every one of them, and that might take an awful lot of doing. Don't you see? So as long as you've got it bridged, you have to flatten it somewhat.

What do you mean by flatten?

Well, the fellow isn't jumping in the chair or screaming in a low pitch when you leave it. See?

No, it is not possible to give a total instruction as to how that is run, if by that we say omitting all judgment. You see, it still requires a considerable amount of judgment to run Help. A lot of it.

Now the oddity is, is there's a whole other bracket if we're going to flatten the whole idea of Help. We've got to run a different process than CCH Ob to finish it all off. We've got to run Help against the dynamics, which I've already talked to you about. And if you run Help against the dynamics, you're liable to run into some things you never touched with the first run of the process.

I had a preclear the other day almost go through the floorboards on the idea of help on the third dynamic. Fellow couldn't conceive it, he just couldn't get the idea at all of helping a group. It just was a total boggle. And after he got through with it for a long time, he suddenly realized that he had a tremendous ridge right through the middle of his head, and that that ridge was moving every time he thought of helping a group. And then he found out that a group wasn't — one of the first cognitions. And then he found out what you meant by a group, and then he found out how you could help a group. And he got this thing sorted out. But it took him about an hour and ten minutes to sort out a group. I never saw such comm lags. Wow! First comm lag was fully twenty minutes. You know? The fellow would keep saying, "Group — help — daah."

You'll find some people who are having familial trouble will get hung up on the second dynamic. Whereas they apparently go clean all the way across the boards on helping everything in brackets, and they're all happy about it. And then all of a sudden, you just say, "Now, how . . ." You see, you take care of the first dynamic in that bracket, but there's nothing in there that takes care of the second dynamic. So you run the bracket pretty flat and then you say, "All right. Now, how could you help a child?"

"Oh, that's easy. You'd feed him, clothe him, work your fingers to the bone."

Now we get over on the other side of the bracket about this child. You see, you run the bracket with the same pattern on a dynamic; you run it the same nine ways.

"How could a child help you?"

"Duh! A child help me? What a new, unusual and strange idea! Well, well, well, well, a child help me. Well, well . . . There ain't any way." You've got a stuck flow on the subject.

Some very unusual computations will fly off of a case running this Help, any way you want to look at it. And I think because it is so rough a button, it probably has more combinations of aberration on it than any other button we know about.

Now, I thought we had all the buttons on the ARC triangle. Sure enough, it covers all possible aberrations, but the signficance of "Help" is left out of it. And you'll probably find more aberrations on help, responsibility and goals than you will on the ARC triangle.

Yes?

Male voice: You said run Responsibility after Help?

Yes, that's for sure.

Male voice: You mean a specific . . .

I was speaking of a specific psychosomatic.

Male voice: Oh.

And I would then also add this up to the dynamic run. After — you flatten Responsibility on all dynamics if you're running one of these dynamic runs. All dynamics. "What responsibility do you take for children?"

It's quite interesting that an individual may not be able to run Responsibility — then run Help, and then he can run Responsibility. But in Help you have a sort of other-terminalness. When you finally flatten Help, you still have another identity; you have another thing, don't you see? And when you run Responsibility, you knock out the final barrier. "Responsible for it" is very close to being it. So you finish it off with a responsible-for, don't you see?

You could say, "How could you help a child? How could a child help itself? How could a child help you?" And go on and on and on with this child. And finally get it so that it wasn't bopping and seemed to be all smooth. And the fellow . . .

The funny part of it is you can unsettle the process again and now flatten it so it can't be unsettled further by running responsibility for a child. "How could a child be responsible for you? How could you be responsible for a child?" Well, he'll bop, always, on "How could a child be responsible for you?" because this isn't one of those three-way looks. His own responsibility for the child is the only thing that's important, see? Whereas in Help all the brackets are important. Okay?

Yes?

Male voice: Two questions about Clear. One, is there any point in running subjective Remedy of Havingness on a Clear who knows he's handling his own pictures anyway? And two, would you get needle reactions, theta bops, on GE pictures on a Clear?

There aren't any GE pictures, to answer the last one first. There just aren't any.

Male voice: Now you've really confused me.

Now I've really fixed you up. You'll find that out in the final analysis. There are no GE pictures. Horrible discovery I had to make.

Male voice: Yes.

Now, you can be a tooth and mock up the pictures that a tooth ought to have, and you will get the pictures the tooth had, and all of this sort of thing. But it's still a mock-up.

Male voice: Well, would you get reactions to it?

Hm?

Male voice: Will you get reaction — needle reactions, on the mock-up?

Now let's answer the first one.

Male voice: All right.

I've answered the second one. Now let's answer the first one and it answers the rest of that. And that is, there is an OT drill of "Make a Picture Affect the Body," at which time you get a neat meter reaction. That's not a Clear drill, that's an OT drill. In other words, you can mock up a picture and make the picture have an effect on the body, and you get a needle reaction. You got that?

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Now state your first question again, there.

Male voice: First question was subjective Repair or Remedy of Havingness.

Yeah, that's right. All right. Now, that answers up that one. Yes, there is an object in running it. But that would be the only object in running it.

Male voice: I see, thank you.

You bet.

Yes?

Male voice: Looking at this Help on the dynamics, on a nine-way bracket on eight dynamics, when do you get around to Step 5? In the third week?

If you're flattening each command totally before going on, the answer is, yes, third week. But it isn't necessary to do that.

Yes?

Male voice: Okay. It looks to me like we have gotten down to a simplicity and then back up to a complexity that is to some extent defeating where we had arrived.

No. If you will notice, it's CCH Ob. That's way early in an intensive, isn't it?

Male voice: Yes.

Well, your preclear is pretty complicated early in an intensive.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

And his complicated lookingness here has to be taken care of. And actually, evidently, every part of it is necessary. It's not a complexity, it's the number of terminals that could be associated with the idea of help — that's all we're trying to reach for. And we'll find out that he's only stuck three or four ways. If we think we're going to get equal charge on each one of these things, why, we're quite mistaken. There are several of them that are just totally uncharged. But there are a few of them, two or three of them, will just be whammed-up like mad because you get the phenomenon of stuck flows operating here.

Male voice: Then in the running of the dynamics on the bracket, if you got two or three answers to one leg of a bracket on one dynamic that didn't show any particular charge, you just drop that right fast then . . . ?

Yeah. That's for sure. Only I'd ask it about five times, just to be sure.

Male voice: Of course you would.

Yes?

Male voice: Seems to me that this — way we're running Help at the moment — "How can I help you," for example, is — it has a slight barrier to it because of the fact that it's a bit sloppy. In other words, basically, the first postulate would be worth working at. Now, why shouldn't we run it "Can I help you ?" and get an answer, and then "How ?" Because that's going to tighten down the help angle.

Waste of time. We've done some experimentation with that.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

And the fellow always just automatic — propitiatively says, "Yes," or he's in terrible shape and says, "No." And we only get two answers to it. And he's already made a postulate. And we don't want him to make any of those postulates. See? We don't want him to monkey with it, see? We just — because he's liable to say, "No," and he'll slow himself down for an hour.

Male voice: And of course, you work on it the beginning of the intensive.

That's right. It's the beginning of the intensive. You're not running this on cases in good condition, ever. If you want to take care of Help all the way, toward the early part of the intensive, you take care of the psychosomatic difficulty the fellow is having, and this has a tendency to impress the living daylights out of him. He's always had a sore back and you just run Help, several brackets, on the back. And all of a sudden, why, the back completely changes its manifestation. And we get — the guy says, "Wow, what's this?" He notices that that evening, he doesn't have a sore back or the vertebrae have all straightened out or something like this. It's a big punch. Well, he's willing to go on.

Male voice: Thank you.

You bet.

By the way, it might interest you about cleared staffs that we're going to clear staffs on two points — and this is data that you could use. After March 3rd, we're going to mop up "on post." That is to say, we're going to use Help and Responsibility on post for each staff member. In other words, we're going to clear them on post. Well, you'd be surprised, but it only takes a half an hour up to two hours to clear them on post. There's no vast time element. See that? Well, that's the first one.

And then on a co-audit basis, why, go the rest of the way through to Clear, which is quite interesting. But the organization isn't waiting on that. You will see a rapid, fundamental shift on staffs and difficulties and ease of doing business, in just a very short space of time.

Yes?

Male voice: How do you clear a man at his job ?

You'd run Help on every terminal his job associates him with immediately and instantly — that is, merely the closest terminals to his job. Don't go off into the rest of the organization only because you're giving him, then, an organization clear. We're just clearing him on post. So you'd run Help any way you could on the terminals immediately intimate to that. And then you would flatten Responsibility on those same terminals. That moves him right into a beingness. Quite interesting. He can assume a beingness at will, if he does this.

Yes?

Female voice: Sir, do you have any comment about clearing a command? Part of what I had in mind would be clearing it word for word, versus clearing it entirely.

Well, you'd never clear a command entir.

Female voice: And the other would be, what sort of a clearing to accept from a preclear, or any?

You'd never clear a command entirely. You never say, "Walk over to the other side of the room and put your hand on the wall. Now, what does that command mean to you?" He's just left in a fog. You clear it piecemeal. You clear it word by word — how. You'll be amazed. He'll all of a sudden come up with something on how. Could. "What do you mean, could?"

You see, you give him a clue of what you're doing. You say, "The command is, 'How could I help you?' Now, we're going to clear this command. Now, what does how mean to you? What does could mean to you? I? Help?" Wow! "You?"

It's a very odd thing; if you clear a command, you will knock out all the old circuitry difficulties we used to have. We used to have circuitry difficulties of who was auditing what. And if you clear each command as you go along, these — it's a constant clearing of I, and it's a constant clearing of you. And all of a sudden the fellow will find himself, just in clearing commands. It's too valuable a piece of auditing to overlook, and we're rather heroic in the way we overlook this. Rather heroic.

Female voice: Would you ever stick a preclear onto the clearing that you started with?

Hm?

Female voice: Would you ever stick a preclear so that he continued thereafter using the clearing that. . .

Uh-uh. You're unsticking him.

Female voice: Okay.

And if he starts saying this . . . You know, there's another angle to this that just your good sense would tell you about. He starts somewhere along the line saying, "Let's see, how could I help you?" You asked him a question. You said, "How could I help you?"

"How — could — I — help — you?" Well, he hasn't got the command.

So, you say, "Now, I'm going to repeat the auditing command," or "I'll repeat the auditing command. How could I help you?"

And he says, "How could I help you?" Boy, we'd better clear that command! Get the idea? Just bridge out of it. Clear the command all over again and so forth. Don't leave him at a stuck point. But ordinarily clearing a command unsticks him. It gives him a sufficient familiarity with the words that he's not stumbling.

But somewhere along the line he's liable to fall out of a valence, into a valence, the command goes boggling, we don't know where he is or what he's doing. And his usual manifestation on that is to be puzzled. Well, his puzzlement is very often occasioned by the fact that the command needs clearing again.

Female voice: Mm-hm. One idea I had about that was on this, "You get the idea of making that wall connect with you." Well, the auditor could clear it until all he wants is an idea — if he starts clearing it word for word.

Yeah.

Female voice: Well, then you're starting the process at the end, aren't you?

What's this? You're starting a process at the end?

Female voice: Well, you're just getting these ideas like he tells you to, and that's all you're doing. You're not making it — you aren't . . . You're just here, and you're getting these ideas.

Well, that's what he's asked you to do.

Female voice: That's right. Okay. Well then, maybe that's all you want. Very good.

Maybe. All right. All right. Ever hear of Rising Scale Processing?

Female voice: Sure.

All right. Now, I've taken somebody who was eight miles deep and without a diving suit and run Rising Scale Processing on this person — altered his ideas and everything else, all over the place. He hadn't a clue what was happening. No cognition came up along the line. He was a different person when I finished. Get the idea?

Female voice: Yeah, I do. Thank you.

"Get the idea?" That's a joke!

Okay. Well, that's it today. Thank you very much.

Male voice: Thank you.