How are you this fine, beautiful, cool evening?

Audience voices: Dandy. Good.

Good.

And this is the eighth lecture of the 18th ACC. And this is July 24, 1957. Tonight I'm going to talk to you about styles of auditing. About time I did!

There are three auditing styles. The first, which we will not letter or number, is called Informal Auditing.

Informal Auditing — with no slur intended — that would be the kind of auditing done by a Book Auditor who had simply read something of the subject and plunged in. You know, it is still auditing; but you'd have to say that it was informal. He has not been trained to audit, he doesn't have any vast view of precision in the auditing, he sees no particular reason to maintain the auditing commands stable — no stability necessary. Duplication: he has — not impressed with that and so forth. Nevertheless, funny part of it is, this kind of auditing does get results and, therefore, we would have to dignify it with some kind of an appellation and that we would call Informal Auditing.

Then there is Formal Auditing. And this is that type of auditing which is done by a trained auditor, which pays attention to duplication, which handles the origins of the preclear, which gives the auditing command best calculated to handle the case at this particular time in the auditor's opinion and which carries on in such a wise as to permit two-way communication to as-is many of the preclear's problems and difficulties as they come up. Formal Auditing has a dependency upon two-way communication for its workability: it depends upon acknowledgment in order to sweep away many of the difficulties which the preclear has and depends as well upon a very high maintenance of ARC with the preclear, that he knows is being maintained; and quite in addition to this consults the power of choice of the preclear and increases it. That's Formal Auditing.

The next type is Tone 40 Auditing. And Tone 40 Auditing is of considerable interest to us because, although it is the highest toned auditing, it is preferably addressed to the lowest toned cases. The highest toned auditing — the lowest toned case. Now, Tone 40 Auditing will work on anyone. And one who becomes expert in Tone 40 Auditing will find that he will use his facility with attention — intention in his Formal Auditing, and that is as it should be. But Formal Auditing is not Tone 40 Auditing; and Tone 40 Auditing is not Formal Auditing. It is itself. And the highest toned is used on the lowest toned case, preferably.

Now, does this mean that Tone 40 Auditing would only be used on a low-toned case? No. But it is the only thing which could get to a low-toned case. And we'll go into the anatomies of this later. Therefore, when faced with a comatose, psychotic, highly neurotic, or immature case, or an animal, you would have nothing — no choice in the matter: you would simply do very good Tone 40 Auditing.

Now, people as they come up the line, all the way on up respond very well to Tone 40 Auditing. There's no particular reason to say that it is only used on people who are completely missing from amongst us. But its greatest effectiveness is upon these cases; and it is the only known form of auditing which reaches them and, therefore, it has its proper bracket amongst such cases. And it has this to recommend it: run on a high case or a low case, it blows circuits out of the preclear that he himself has found difficult to handle.

But when you have no case but only circuits confronting you, you have no choice at all — you have to run Tone 40 Auditing. Tone 40 Auditing is why we can say we have gone all the way south.

But Formal Auditing is much faster than Tone 40 Auditing on cases above a certain point. It is faster because it uses the preclear's ability to as-is, under the artificial conditions of auditing, things which have been troubling him and which would continue to trouble him outside an auditing session. And so we get this two-way comm, understanding, acknowledgment, all combining to sweep away much of the difficulty and debris which have been bothering him.

Now, Formal Auditing combined with an excellent process would be the fastest means of handling any case above 2.0. That would be the fastest means of handling the case. It would not be faster to handle a case above 2.0 with Tone 40 Auditing. It would produce a different result, it would do different things, but it would not necessarily be faster. Don't you see?

Now, to understand this clearly is vitally necessary since people believe that Formal Auditing with acknowledgment, handling the origin of the preclear and so forth, is a sloppy Tone 40. It is not sloppy Tone 40 Auditing! It is itself and demands, if anything, greater ability on the part of the auditor and the handling of his tools than Tone 40 Auditing does. Particularly it demands of the auditor that he know his theory and be able to put it into practice. And when the preclear comes up with something, to put the exact adroit question to make him come up with a little more of it, to put in the exact adroit question that makes him come up with the rest of it, and then with a cheery "okay," to continue on with the session. The preclear saying, "What do you know! You know, that's right, I always have hated ducks. Yup, that's right. Yeah, we got someplace in this session. I found out I hated ducks. I didn't know it before." But whatever cognition he achieves, his knowingness is increased and because he's being rather permissively handled — only apparently, let me assure you — his power of choice is quite important.

Now, you should realize that below 2.0 there is no power of choice. You say, "Well, we should all be self-determined." Well, that's fine, that's fine. This is not the same statement as: "You should always consult with the preclear's self-determinism." It's not the same statement at all. Because below 2.0, you ask this succinct question: What self-determinism?

Well, I can tell you what his determinism is below 2.0 and that is why you can draw such a chart as the Chart of Human Evaluation. Zoom — draw it right across the boards. The reason for this is very easy to establish. It's a patterned determinism below 2.0, which has as its end product: "Give 'em things they can't handle and they'll become so engrossed with those that they'll never get to me!" They are automatic mechanisms which have been developed on an identical pattern by everybody, because they were the exact things that could be handled least by other Homo sap. And those things which were least able to handle became, at each point of the Tone Scale as it descends, the pattern of that person's behavior. And when somebody finally does handle or invalidate a slightly higher level, they drop to an exact pattern lower level. And so you can draw people below 2.0 — whose only goal, by the way, is to be terrifically unpredictable; that's their fondest hope — people below 2.0 — that they will be totally unpredictable. They think that's the way to be and they develop this pattern which is totally predictable!

And the totality of the pattern is: here's something you or they can't handle! And this is so horrible, so terrible — or at covert hostility — so indirect, that nobody could handle it and, therefore, these people consider themselves safe. Safe as can be. There they sit in the middle of a bunch of precomputed experience which nobody could handle. And below 2.0 you never talk to the person, you just argue with one or another circuit. That's all. And these circuits can be the most confounded things. You get somebody in propitiation: "Oh, yes, I'm trying to get well. I'm trying to succeed all I can. And the auditing has done me a lot of good, lot of good, and of course my headaches are on stronger than they were at night and I'm not seeing very well now like I was before the session, but ah — but I know you're trying and it'll all get better, I... I know that." What can you do in the face of such a circuit? One: recognize it's a circuit. And two: use Tone 40 Auditing.

This is not a matter of judgment when you're using CCH. You can always start with CCH 0 or 1, as the case may be. If he's out of communication, you could always start with 1 — CCH 1 and proceed on up the line. And CCH 1 either won't succeed at all or it will blow his head off. And when you've gotten up to the ones which require a little bit of criteria or judgment on his part, such as Book Mimicry, you can always go back down to the bottom and go over it again to see if it's just a little more there. You can always do this circle on the lower CCH processes; and you would pick up any case there was and you wouldn't get any sleepers.

You know, you do get sleepers: person appears to be in good shape, they get perfect mock-ups; they're what we used to call the wide-open case; they — mock-ups are all perfect, they described everything perfectly — just nothing to it. And you just audit engrams and they didn't change and you audit more engrams and they didn't change and you audit more and more and more and mmmrrrnnnmmrrr. They were usually giving you this: "Yes, they're trying hard to get well" and "they'd succeed if it wasn't for the number of blunders which you made in session," and so forth. Nothing was real to these people at all. Nothing could have handled them that we know about now except Tone 40 Auditing. You were just talking to a circuit; there was no preclear present. You'd have to wake up the preclear. Well, how would you do that?

Use the lower CCH processes with Tone 40 Auditing. Preclear says something, it has only one end in view: to give you something else you can't handle. That's the only goal, something else you can't handle. You got that? Something else. And you kind of handle that a little bit, scares them to death, and they come up with something else you can't handle. And they'll finally get frantic in the number of "can't handles" that they hand you one right after the other. You're validating circuits and we've known for years that you mustn't do that. Well, Tone 40 doesn't do that. It just takes it for granted that anything the preclear says is a circuit and skips it: says, "Well, here I am processing the preclear and I'm just going to process the preclear."

Well, oddly enough, a thetan will respond to Tone 40 that won't respond to Tone 4.0. All right. So, we just process straight away up the line and you'll find out this person has all sorts of actions and reactions which are quite in the line of good progress. After a while they say, "Well, you don't want me to say anything. That's what it is. You just don't care what happens to me!" Well, that's just another circuit.

Anybody who is in good shape should be able to stick his hand out. Anybody who's in good shape should be able to walk around the room by the hour touching walls. Anybody who's in good shape should be able to do Hand Mimicry extremely well. And anybody who's in good shape — and this in the first four steps of CCH is the killer — should be able to do Book Mimicry very well, without much stumble. And they can run up the line on these lower CCHs until they hit Book Mimicry — and here you're doing a more or less formal audit — and they'll fall all over themselves trying to make a duplication of the motion with that book! That is quite amazing. But that has happened to many of us and is simply a matter of sight-muscle coordination, which a person should be able to do. But this one in essence is a test of: how well coordinated is this fellow?

Well now, if somebody blows on Book Mimicry, you've almost had it because you would have to get ahold of the book and make — with his hand on it — make it do the duplication of the command which you just did, back and forth, back and forth. And that's the way you'd handle it until you considered it a little bit level, and then get him back there on Give Me Your Hand. (Which is not the auditing command, but is the name the process was known by originally.)

All right. An individual with excellent coordination — exterior — may also be unable to coordinate the body that well; he might not be that interested. It's quite interesting to notice that a thetan in terrific condition, just getting the idea that he might do something with the body, would present almost the same picture on Book Mimicry as a body-plus-thetan in mediumly awful condition. That's because you've called the body in as part of the process — the handling of the body is part of the process. All right. But anybody would fall through at that point and his willingness would become very apparent at that point. You see that? You find out that people are in pretty good shape if you went up the scale from CCH 1, 2, 3, get them into Book Mimicry, which sits at 4 now. And you'll find out this fellow will keep trying, try to get the coordination a little better, try to square it around a little better. Won't do him any harm. He'll get very interested in the process.

And you'll find somebody that just — you just were very careless in passing him up the line — will hit Book Mimicry and they will just say, "No!!!" It is just too horrible to contemplate. Too horrible to contemplate. And you just know you went too fast and you pick it up at the bottom again and graduate it up to Book Mimicry.

But the first two: CCH 1, CCH 2, are definitely Tone 40 processes and must be run as Tone 40 processes and must not be run with Formal Auditing. See, they definitely are Tone 40 processes and they must be run that way. Now, some of the remaining steps also run as Tone 40 processes, but don't have to be; they also can be run as formal audited processes.

All right. Now. An auditor's power of choice, then, is present to a marked degree from CCH 3, Hand Space Mimicry, upwards — Tone 40 or not, as the case may be. But it's either Tone 40 or Formal. It is never a sloppy Tone 40. Never! And you don't Tone 40, Formal Auditing. They just don't cross. If your intention is good while you're doing Formal Auditing, you can say, "I am using Tone 40 intention." Well, that's very interesting too. Why aren't you using Tone 40 intention all the time? Your preclear will respond better if you use Tone 40 intention — respond much better. But it's Formal Auditing you're doing and the difference between the two is simply this — I'll describe these two auditing styles; we won't bother describing Informal Auditing — but the two auditing styles of Formal and Tone 40 can be described in this fashion: Tone 40, you might say, is between the thetan (who is being audited or who will discover after a while that he is being audited), and the auditor; and all else is considered circuitry. That's it. It just is, as far as the auditor's concerned.

Now, we get a process going and all of a sudden (Tone 40, you know, you're asking him for one of the body's hands and taking it and putting it back in his lap), you freeze the process. Give the command. You thank him for it and you retain hold of his hand and you say, "How are you doing?" This, that, the other thing, so on, still holding on to his hand.

You say, "Aha! But you've lapsed into Formal Auditing."

Oh no, you haven't. That's all for the auditor: he's simply trying to establish state of case. Now, naturally people can blow circuits and do all sorts of things while one of these freezes is going on. It'd be strange if they didn't. But it's not for the preclear — one of those freezes — it's all for the auditor. You understand that? All for the auditor. He wants to know where he is on the Know to Mystery Scale. He wants to know where the preclear's getting to. He wants to know what all that twitching in the preclear's left leg is all about. Just to find out if the preclear is changing or is moving in the session; that is what is desired. So give the command for the extension of the body's hand, take the preclear's body's hand, thank him. Without putting his hand back in his lap this time, ask him how he's doing and so forth. All we're trying to do is just that: just establish the state of case at that moment.

When we've established it, we couldn't care less about what else is happening. We might even spring a cognition, we might do anything in it; but it's all for the auditor — all for the auditor. We put his hand back in his lap and repeat the command and go on with the Tone 40. And the preclear says, "Well, I feel a little bit tired now," and we go on with the process. And the preclear says, "I have a pain back of my left ear that's killing me." And we go on with the process. You understand that?

Because we more or less determined that he would advance these things anyway to protect himself. He's just doing a protection mechanism where these things are walking forward on an automaticity of protection. And until we were very well assured that this preclear was actually capable of some self-determinism and personally capable of some criteria of one kind or another about his life and what was going on would we, then, engage in Formal Auditing.

But we wouldn't then run CCH 1 or CCH 2. We would run some upper process and we would do it on a Formal Auditing basis. And when the preclear said, "Oh, wait — wait just a minute, I — huh-huh . . ."

You say, "What's going on?"

And he says, "Well, I just remembered. My father used to beat me three times a day and twice on Sundays. I never remembered that before."

You say, "Well, you got a somatic that goes with it?"

And he says, "No. No. Yes! Yes, that's what that is. That's what that is. Yes."

"Well," you say, "all right. Now, how are you doing now?"

And he says, "Oh, I feel a lot better."

You say, "Fine. Thank you." And get on with the process. You see?

What'd you do? He said something, you answered him, you asked a ques-tion, you amplified what he said, you make him say a little bit more on it, you made him realize something about what he had said. In other words, you've fished a cognition. And you, having understood it thoroughly to your satisfaction and therefore his — which is very interesting because if you don't understand it to your satisfaction, why, you've never understood it to his; it's downright magical this particular fact — and then you sail on with your process, give him the great "Okay," and away we go!

Now, what if the preclear says, "I'm terribly tired now," and so on? Well, naturally, under Formal Auditing, we'd just knock off, wouldn't we? Because we're not enforcing auditing commands, are we? We'd continue. But, he'd never find out that it was over his dead body! Do you understand?

He said, "I'm awfully tired now."

And you say, "Well, we have been sitting here for quite a while." It's a fact. "We have been sitting here for quite a while and we've got quite a little while to go." And he'd say, "Well, I guess we have."

And you say, "Well, let's get on with it." It wouldn't [be] the way you'd handle it in Tone 40.

He'd say, "Well, I'm a little tired now."

And you'd say, "Extend the body's hands into my hot paw." (Whatever auditing command you're using.)

Now, here's a vast difference. Here's a vast difference. It's a difference of understanding of people. And unless you understand that people lie below self-determinism and rise up into it, you would not understand that these two auditing styles are addressed to, really, two different states of case.

Now, the same case can be a different state of case. And what is absolutely wonderful to me is that many auditors never realize that a preclear changes. And I often wonder why in the name of common sense they're auditing him. He's changing all over the place. He's just change, change, change, change, and the auditor keeps on treating him at 1.1. Well, the auditor actually can slam him back down to 1.1 with very, very bad ARC. Fortunately, he can't slam him down there permanently again. It isn't in his power to do so. He'll knock him down there maybe just toward him, but the person will respond out in the environment at large. This is quite an interesting thing. We have to understand, one: that people can change, before we can audit.

Now we have a devil's own time — there's some old cult or another, they existed in the middle twentieth century, that insisted that nobody ever changed at all. And the funny part of it is, it's almost impossible to teach people of that belief how to audit. One, they couldn't possibly take it seriously because their stable datum is that no change is possible. So why should they audit anybody? Well, that is an extremity. That is an extremity: the person who just believes — by personal conviction, by training — that everybody remains the same no matter what happens. And now, that would be an extremity.

But there is this middle ground where, "Well, I know her, she's awful 1.1, she always has been 1.1 and she always will be 1.1," and yet the person has received auditing; they're probably now 1.5 and they'd bite your head off.

It's almost incredible that auditors will still run a comm lag on this, but they rather tend to. Even I find myself doing this occasionally. It's very difficult; if you're of the kind of temperament that must have everybody exactly characterized and pegged at all times, then you're sometimes uncomfortable in Scientology because you meet Joe and Joe is, oh wow! You know, he was one of these apathy cases and it was all sob when he got happy, you know; he'd cry, he'd come clear up to tears, you know. And you'd meet Joe, and you'd say, "Well, I know Joe."

And one day somebody comes along and says, "Well, I was audited by Joe the other day, and I feel fine!"

You say, "What!"

And, "Yes. What's the matter with Joe?"

"Oh, I don't know. There's nothing the matter with Joe really. (Code of a Scientologist! Code of a Scientologist!) Are you sure you feel all right?"

Well, Joe got audited by somebody and Joe is now about 3.2. And you meet Joe and you say, "How's the weather out in your part of the world?"

And he says, "Well, it's probably going to have the usual spring weather."

You've moved him up into conservatism, you know, and you say, "Can this be Joe!" And you say, "Well, I should have Joe around here; he'll impress the public that I see and people come to the group and everything; he'll impress the public because we need a good, conservative member of staff." You know? And two months go by and you get ahold of Joe and he's running the group for you and everything else; and you stick your ear in one night to find out how he's running the group and he's saying, "Boy! This is the dog-gonedest subject you ever had anything to do with! It's terrific!" You know: adjectives, adjectives! Somebody got hold of him and processed him and he's up in enthusiasm. Just Scientologists aren't reliable, that's all; they keep getting better.

It's quite an interesting thing, though, that people continue to overlook this. Actually, they have tremendous background, backlog of experience that tells them that people remain the same, you see. Their mother never changed — not in all the years they knew her! But it's quite interesting that somebody can get a stamp on him that says 1.5, you know, or somebody gets a stamp on him that says 0.5, and people just stamp this on him, you know, and everybody agrees on it and you got a total group reality on the fact that this fellow is some below-2.0 tone. Everybody but the guy. He gets some auditing and even though he's doing well someplace or another, why, people tend to hang up on this one just a little bit. And it comes as quite a surprise and sometimes rather upsetting to find out the fellow's changed on the scale.

That's one of the — one of the things, by the way, that I have a little trouble with. I have a little trouble with that because broad judgment on a certain person is liable to hang up just because amongst many people you don't have as rapid communication as you do with one. You see? And a lot of people have the idea somebody's still hung up somewhere on the Tone Scale and it'll take them several weeks to find out this is no longer the case. And then they find out this is no longer the case and we have a different attitude toward the person. But during that period there, it's quite marvelous that the person has gotten into good enough shape to take the beating he gets. Because sometimes he does take a beating.

So anyhow, it's necessary to appreciate this fact that change occurs. And even more so today because change in CCH is more rapid than it used to be and a person can move out of these rather tenuously held — do you know it's awfully difficult these days — pardon me, it probably always was difficult to hold a low-toned position. They actually blow up quick. You hit them in the middle and they tend to explode and I don't know how one manages. It must be awfully uncomfortable. But before Scientology he was able to hold on to it quite easily and quite well; in spite of himself or anybody else he would just go on through life at this level and eventually sag down maybe half a point to grief or something like that, and finish his days as a weepy old man or something. But these rapid changes are discombobulating.

Now, I can tell you a process that will break somebody from a psychosis to a neurosis rather rapidly — if you can run it — providing he is actually holding on to some very strong psychosis. And that's one that you know well and which we know now as — you knew it for a long, long while. It's just ARC Straightwire, which is now a training drill. It's a fascinating process. But you get somebody who's spin-spin-spin and if you put the question to him and he does get the question and he does answer the question, he's liable to go click-click-click and he's just neurotic.

And I never used to give up a psycho as a bad job, way back in the old days. I would just never give them up. I would always keep asking this embarrassing question of auditors on staff and around in the field and so on when they tell me about this case they're having an awful lot of trouble with. I'd say, "Have you run ARC Straightwire on the person?" (There are some people here who've even heard me say that.) "Have you run ARC Straightwire on him?" Way back when, you know.

And they'd say, "Well, no. It's almost impossible to get his attention that long."

"Well, try it."

We had one that was hanging around the Foundation. He'd been around the Foundation. He was from someplace way up north somewhere; and he'd been out on a lighthouse or on an iceberg on duty or something for years, and he was strictly spinny. Oh, he was awfully spinny. He just came in — he didn't walk, he pirouetted — and he came in and they audited this on him and they audited that on him and tried anything they could think of to audit on him and so on. And they — suddenly I noticed him one day in the shop and I said, "How long has he been around here?" And somebody said, "He's been around here for several weeks. He's had quite a bit of auditing. There's several of the student auditors who have audited him and so forth, and nothing much seems to happen to him." And I said, "Well, that's very interesting." And I walked into the room where the fellow was sitting there and I just told him, I said, "Now, recall a time that's really real to you." You know? (snap) (snap) (snap) About five questions and he said, "Whoooo, where am I?" That was the end of that case.

It wasn't because I was that good. I gave him his first smell of reality of the bank, don't you see? And that's how that old, creaky process used to work — and would work today.

Well, we've had for many years a process, which if you could get the question to him, would produce a rather phenomenal result when addressed to a psychosis. And this has always given me the idea that a psychosis is awfully frail. And of recent years, I've had the opinion that states below 2.0 were very frail: they broke up very fast. Well, what would cause this opinion?

These states are an assembly of circuits which have just one common denominator. And when you can get the common denominator of a lot of objects, you can handle all of them. And that common denominator is: you can't handle this and neither can I. Unhandleable manifestations. Well, naturally, we get the idea that these cases crack up fast to the degree that we can handle these manifestations. And when we get better and better and more and more practice and less and less dismayed by these horrible things that, oh, I don't know — well, you couldn't imagine a Scientology practitioner winding up in a spinbin from some auditing or something. I mean, it's pretty hard to figure out. You'd say, "Well, why didn't he go see a friend if he was feeling bad about it, or ... ?" It'd be kind of unbelievable. You just wouldn't believe this easily.

Well, this is the first thing that is believed in psychiatry. "Well, I don't know, he's in there consulting every day — he'll be down in Ward Nine here in a couple of weeks!" They believe this is going to happen. Why? Because these people are handling conditions which can't be handled by classifying the conditions which can't be handled. And this is their idea of handling the condition, is just to classify them. You'll see them all sit around and say, "Well, he's got Kraepelin's disease. Yes, that's right." "He's got Menninger meningitis." And they'll classify these various things of one kind or another, and this gives them some sort of an illusion of handling them. And then they notice one day that the fellow's still spinning. But they've classified him! They put him in the schizophrenic category. And the fellow insists on spinning, so they say he's willful.

But when bluntly called upon to handle one of these they considered an unhandleable thing — and it does tend to kick them into the spinbin. I'm not running down psychiatry for a change; I'm just telling you about an accurate observation of this. And you look down into any sanitarium and you see somebody down walking in circles, well, it'd be a head nurse and you'll see somebody else walking in some other cell and that fellow, one time he was the head surgeon of the place, and so forth. In other words, they wind up in their own spinbin.

Now, Scientologists wouldn't do that. Not today. It just wouldn't happen — it's not thinkable. We find it a little bit difficult to understand, I'm sure, how they would wind up there and how they would give up that easily. Well, it is hard to explain unless you're content with this explanation, is: they Q-and-A with the circuit. And the circuit says, "It can't be handled," and they say they can't handle it. And if they can't handle it, therefore, it is more powerful than they are and they wind up in the condition that it says. So the circuit is boss.

Now, somebody the other day wrote a book on laughter, and he says that laughter is a complete and entire manifestation of neurosis and is nothing but neurosis and laughter is neurosis and people who laugh are indisputably neurotic and there's nothing can be done about it and it's all that bad over there. And he's written a whole book on it and he's proved it conclusively from beginning to end, totally overlooking the fact that the only psychotherapy which is reported in the Middle Ages was: get them to laugh! And he's criticized all the comics of the day and everything else. He laid it all out: "Well, one is nuts if he laughs."

Well, let me assure you that laughter has been known to be therapeutic as long as man was. I get a bunch of guys together, go out sailing, something like that. The boat gets sopping wet and everything goes to the devil and you haven't anything to eat for a day or two and you finally drag up on the shore and get into the shelter from the storm and they sit there looking exhaust-edly, and the only real agreed-upon sign that is given that, "Well, it's all over and we're okay now," is they'll start laughing like hell. And I've seen people laugh like fools. How could we get into this much trouble — look at us! And the only thing with which they can reject all this is laughter. So their inability to laugh — if they are unable to laugh — is actually suppressing any release from the duress they have experienced. And this has been just known by man just for more years and decades than you could easily count.

And this fellow comes along and tells us, evidently with a straight face — and furthermore is given a full, great big page of review, very serious — and he says that it's neurotic! Well, that's wonderful because laughter is about the only thing that could handle most anything. Got it? It can handle most anything.

All right. So this guy has Qed-and-Aed with a circuit which says, "Laughter is bad" so that the circuit can't be handled. And if you were reading the book, you would be reading nothing but a circuit. Furthermore, I'm sure the book reads that way. I'll have to get a copy — I'm sure it does. Something like Gertrude Stein's poetry, or something: "Is a girl, is a girl, is a girl, when I was a rose, oh thunder!" Gertrude Steinian poetry.

But here is an example. An individual — I'm giving you this as a social example, I'm not trying to come down on psychiatry — here are these people who are totally confronted with nobody-can-handle-its, see, and they go into the terrific duress of electric shock and knives and things that bore holes in the skulls and all sorts of things in some fantastic effort, even though they know none of these things do any good whatsoever. And they'll tell you they don't do any good for the patient. (And I think these things are mainly designed to give the psychiatrist a little relief.) But, you see, they get frantic with this situation.

Now, there'd be two ways they could handle this sort of thing. One would be simply to realize that it was something there which was not supposed to be handled. It was something that was not supposed to be understood, either, since understanding and handling come awfully close together. Remember I told you that your understanding of a psycho would be advanced if you realized that a psycho was being un-understandable. See? Now, you can understand something that is not understandable: well, that's psycho. Well, we just put our oar in here just a little bit deeper into this puddle and we find out there is something there which is a concise delineation and motto and that is simply this common denominator of all of these circuits and machinery and behaviors and so forth, is "You can't handle it." See? Not supposed to be handled. Nobody's supposed to be able to control, handle it or anything else. It's a total barrier.

Well, think of a bunch of fellows going up against that sort of thing professionally, one way or the other, and just describing what can't be handled all the time — doing nothing but that; they'd get swamped sooner or later, wouldn't they?

Well, there is a way to handle it. Many ways to handle it. Many, many, many ways to handle it in auditing today. But chief amongst those is bypass it.

Now, the mayor sends the cops. Right? The cop's a robot. You shoot a cop, you'll just have more cops. You got it? There's a cop, cop, more cops, more cops, more cops. They're robots, because nobody sent them — I mean, pardon me — the person who sent them can't be contacted. See, there's nobody there in authority while you're talking to a cop. Right? He's got his orders which came from Lord knows where. Well, you have a totality of handling cops if you start to handle cops. Got the idea? You just handle one cop, you get another cop. You handle that cop, you get another cop. Shoot another cop and you get some more cops. You get the idea? And then get the FBI in it and they want publicity. In other words, evidently the more cops that you would handle to get them out of the road, why, the more cops there would be. Don't you see? Well, the answer to it is to talk to the mayor. You could probably do something about the situation if you could talk to the mayor. You got that?

All right. Now, we get a situation here then where the person that needs auditing is the mayor. And if you audit the mayor, you don't get more mayors. In other words, there's a finite end to the situation. You audit the mayor, you got him. Then maybe he'll send his cops out and have them pick up cigarette butts or do something useful!

Now, the other part of the analogy is, is only those people who are weak or vicious — uniformly, routinely and always — use police. In other words, the more scared a person is, the more he would really try to get something to front for him. Wouldn't he? He himself couldn't front up to anything, so he'd get some employed force of some kind or another to front up for him; and he'd just get more and more people fronting up for him. But the weak, the very, very weak resort to police.

It would be a strange day when you would call for the cops to do anything. It's not any critical thing to call the cops, but at the same time it's not something you do every day. If somebody is parking in your driveway, why, you leave a note on the car or something. Or you let off his brake and let him slide into another car up front. In other words, you do something about it yourself.

But the very, very weak person wouldn't do that. He would go around and he would tell the cops. And the cops can then not tell you who sent them: they're not supposed to. And don't we get an interesting situation!

I'm putting it on a third dynamic level only for one reason: not because I hate cops — they're beneath my dignity — but simply to give you an analogy of what is happening with the thetan. He gets very, very weak and he sends out circuits. And the circuits are totally irresponsible. They are not what sent them out. And you can audit them and audit them and audit them and you'll get noplace, noplace, noplace. And that was the basic secret behind validation of circuits. Do not validate circuits, remember? And you start talking to circuits and validating circuits, you just get more circuits. The thing to do is to go talk to the mayor. Got it?

So Tone 40 Auditing just bypasses all the cops and goes and talks to the mayor. You got the idea? No matter what the cops say, Tone 40 Auditing still talks to the mayor. Got it? Now, that is what happens.

Now, if you think a person is forevermore going to send out circuits to front for him, then you have actually invalidated the results of your own Tone 40 Auditing. Sooner or later the fellow woke up. As a matter of fact, as you run Tone 40 Auditing for the auditor's benefit — freezing the process every few commands — you'll find the fellow will go up from the mystery, right straight on up the line — up to know. He goes up rather rapidly. He comes up out of the subzero scale, he comes up to apathy. And sometimes if you don't check with him like this, you fail to note how he is arriving. And he comes up through apathy, he comes up through the minus Tone Scale in the misemo-tional band and he comes — starts coming on out the top.

Well, he still has things to handle. He has all the debris of all the things he mocked up that weren't to be handled. Don't you see? And there's tag ends of all of these things all over the place. And now he'll start cogniting on them, however, and he'll start mopping up. But he himself is now confronting life; and on that person you use Formal Auditing. That's the way it splits up.

Now, it's quite fascinating that this can be laid out this neatly. And it was just for this unit that I managed to get it laid out. Because it wasn't this neat just a few days ago. Because it hadn't been articulated: it was merely being done. There's a big jump between doing something and talking about what one is doing. Sometimes actors can act right up to the moment when you start to explain — or you ask them to explain acting; then they're liable to fall to pieces. I can get at any automobile driver that's got a lot on automatic out here and ask him how you drive and get him so he couldn't even start his motor. Just crack up the machinery a little bit by asking him to explain it.

So, between being able to do something observably, there's a little period of confusion ordinarily before you come out and are able to articulate it cleanly. And we've gone through that period: we've just passed through it with regard to these auditing styles.

Now, it actually doesn't require a great deal of judgment on the part of an auditor as to when to use what style. Because if he always started with CCH 1 and went up through 4 and then went back to CCH 1 again to find out how the fellow was doing on it, he would wind up with having mopped up the case — providing he didn't spend too confounded much time on every case doing this but only did it when he found it was necessary. And if the auditor kept checking up on the preclear — on how the preclear was doing — and by what the preclear was saying, evaluated his position on the Tone Scale and went on up the line. This is all almost routine. But an auditor could make a tremendous mistake by continuing Tone 40 Auditing to the end of time and never shifting off onto Formal Auditing at all. Because he'd deny the preclear the benefit of as-isness in two-way communication. An individual, then, would get ahead a lot faster if he was given Formal Auditing than Tone 40 Auditing, but would still progress. You get the idea?

Now, we face up to this: that there is probably a fourth auditing style. That style will be discovered when it is needful. That I am fairly sure. But I could adventure at this point to tell you kind of what it would be like. It would be nonverbal, totally exteriorized auditing. And they would have a very definite series of steps that should be accomplished while doing it. And I could just give you that nebulous a shape to it because, for sure, we have run into this horrible position: one, accurately and well applied, Tone 40 Auditing used with CCH lower steps, moves a person up to Formal Auditing, which when well applied, moves the person on up the line so rapidly that we have found that most of our auditing commands (as originally issued in the spring of 1957) are relatively unworkable after a period of time. They're insufficiently precise. So these have had to be reworked. Why?

Because an individual doesn't just blow out of his head, which anybody might do. He picks up an understanding of himself as himself rather rapidly and gets up to a point where people, who are rather routinely exterior, normally exist most of the time. In other words, we take this fellow who is dead in his head and slogged out and knows everybody is after him and carefully strains his coffee every morning and feeds some to the cat because the restaurant owner might be poisoning him, and we take this routine, ordinary, run-of-the-mill Homo sapiens and we move him up scale rather rapidly to a point where he will function well and do well and is a bit exterior. And we move him up to a point where it becomes inconceivable to him to be totally identified with a body and he doesn't see how this could work anyhow. And the auditing command right about that point — if it's wrong — becomes incomprehensible to him. Such a command as "Touch that wall" is found to be unworkable. "Give me your hand" is unworkable.

I can sit around all day and "Give me your hand," and you'd never pay me the favor of thanking me for it. And then you would say, "Well, I mean your body's hand." But you didn't say so and therefore I'd have to hold on to the beginning of the session throughout the remainder of the session in order to execute the auditing command. I'd have to say every time, "Oh, you mean — you mean give me that hand down there. All right. I'll lift the hand and give it to you." And many other commands are in this same category.

People move up top precisely, too swiftly under CCH to show that we can no longer afford to be totally hopeful. The auditing command must be terribly precise. Thus CCH as developed in the spring underwent some changes, and this ACC has catalyzed these changes and these changes are now being made in HCO Bulletins coming out on them and the CCH you see in the Student Manual is accurate and does express those changes. They are correct in the Student Manual which is published in the middle of '57 — being published right this minute. They're correct in it, but they're not correct on this unit's sheet.

But then it's about time you got over the fact that a command was a magic incantation, anyhow. You have to give the command which will run all the way. Well, in view of the fact that these auditing styles do pull a person up all the way, then, I can tell you that if this alters the precision of command and demands a much higher precision of command, it will someday demand, for an all-the-way-north case, a highly precise type of auditing for the all-the-way, almost all-the-way-north case. And what kind of auditing will that be?

Well, I'll just tell you it will be a nonverbal auditing of some kind or another, not necessarily a non-MEST auditing but certainly a nonverbal auditing. It'll probably have different types of communication; we'll probably have training drills that teach you to do more than squeak while out of your head; there'll be other ramifications to it. But the day has not arrived when we either have it or need it particularly. And we will just let it come about in the course of events.

To bring a case from all-the-way-south up to Homo novis, comfortably exteriorized, it is only necessary to know Tone 40 Auditing and Formal Auditing.

And the only thing I wish to tell you here in this lecture is don't confuse the two. They are definitely, immensely different, one from the other. If you use Tone 40 intention while doing Formal Auditing you are not doing Tone 40 Auditing. Please, please understand that.

The two auditing styles are actually quite simple. Tone 40 Auditing is taught in the Upper Indoc and CCH A unit. Formal Auditing is taught in the Comm Course and CCH B unit.

And you're learning in this ACC unit two auditing styles. Please take them apart, examine them, look at them very carefully, understand them and use them well. Because you will need both of them to get anyplace with a preclear today.

Thank you.