All right. Today we're going to take up clearing from scratch. From scratch, see? First, find a pc. This is always the difficulty.

The auditor has to find the pc, you see? That's the first step. Because once you take the cream off — the existing Dianeticists and Scientologists in the world — and you start down to the next higher stratum, you'll find out it's a lower stratum.

You'll be surprised. These people are having help trouble. Irresponsibility, irresponsibility, irresponsibility. Here in the United States, we have a great democracy which is based entirely upon the idea that "somebody else will do it." Get the idea? A democracy is only a democracy when everybody does it.

Now, the help factor, the irresponsibility factor and so on, therefore becomes much more important the moment you step outside the ranks of Dianetics and Scientology. These people at least believed that help was possible, don't you see? So that, immediately, at one fell swoop, separated them out.

And although each one of them has probably told himself, "What is wrong with me is I am on an obsessive 'help mankind' or something, and this is very low scale, and everybody's assured me all my life that I ought to get over it," or something of this sort. I can reassure you on the basis that, truth told, it's a very high-level manifestation. You have to develop that in people who don't come in and sit quietly to be audited.

So, let's be factual. There is a big jump here between somebody who is willing to be helped, who is willing to help and the next rung down.

Now, you may very well find that a much larger hurdle today than actual clearing. We've got clearing whipped. The time factor may be highly variable. I have put it between the margins of somewhere around thirty hours up to about two hundred and seventy-five hours. I had no real data to support this beyond just more or less an instinct, looking over cases and estimations and so forth. I think time will bear me out on this, that some extremely difficult spun-in case would require perhaps as much as two hundred and seventy-five hours. And the average case, probably, in the hands of a good auditor, probably would be somewhere around fifty, eighty — somewhere in that span.

That's the way it looks. I don't see the slightest chance of reducing it any lower. Now, that is why a couple of months ago you heard me talking loudly about "Operation Clear." Because as far as I was concerned, we'd hit the time minimum.

There's just so many things you have to do with a preclear; there are just so many things that have to be covered with a preclear. And if that is the case, then the minimum time to cover them would be the minimum time toward clearing.

Now, this is quite a difference because it's probably — we were looking originally at fifteen hundred hours on the average. I was looking at an area of time which was far too great for me — something in the neighborhood of about a hundred and twelve to a hundred and twenty hours. And I just wasn't going to sit still for a hundred and twenty hours multiplied by a hundred and fifty million, that's for sure. That was too long a look — that was too long a look even for a case that could be handled rather easily.

Now, the thing which you will find will devour the most time is this Help button. Now, you get a case — now, it devours the time covertly, however. It's not the amount of time which you have to spend clearing the button Help. It's the amount of time the preclear takes getting around to a realization that it can happen. Therefore, anything that speeds that up is fine.

Now, the Help button is the restraining button through three-quarters or nine-tenths of the intensive. You see, you're no longer addressing it, you're no longer clearing Help, you're off of that button. You couldn't clear it that long in the first place — the havingness would go to pieces. See, you just couldn't go on and on and on clearing this button, your case would go on out the bottom even though he did have a few cognitions.

You see, it's an argument between cognition and havingness. And cases that are below 2.0 — and I used to say the average case was 2.8 on the Tone Scale, and I now think it's .8 — and from 2.0 down you get a tremendous lag on havingness because the person believes he has to have in order to think.

That is a primary symptom of a case below 2.0 — a person thinks he has to have in order to think. You get a — there's a whole philosophy in the world today about this, by the way, it's called dialectic materialism — or psychology. Same breed of cat. Almost exactly on the same premises. In Russia they call it dialectic materialism. Over here, that isn't popular, so they call it psychology.

I'm not being sarcastic. I invite you someday to read a textbook on dialectic materialism, turn right around and read the basic psychology textbook of the University of Illinois. Read them side by side. I've done that.

And it is a matter of great amazement to me that nobody came along and realized that there might be an area or a beingness possible where havingness wasn't a monitoring factor.

And instead of even speculating this, they went down the other way, and they said havingness was the only factor. In other words, mass: "An idea is the result of two or more forces in collision." Dialectic materialism — that is an "idea." Oh, wow. But this is simply a psycho manifestation that takes place below 2.0.

So, in that area, you get havingness as being a very critical factor. And you know that two-way comm knocks havingness out. So your first caution in all of this is not to talk the person out the bottom. He won't get any cognitions. Your two-way comm reduces the havingness that he thinks he should have in order to get a cognition, don't you see?

Now, any mind will respond to mass, simply on the consideration that mass is. All it has to do is make the consideration that mass is, and you'll get some response between a thetan and mass. See, there's some response.

But for a long while, as you go downscale, you get the idea as being dominant. And then the idea becomes a parity with havingness, and then the idea drops out and the havingness remains — till you find a US industrialist saying, "Well, I can get all the ideas I want. That's very easy." Oh, can he? You start singling out the number of ideas on which US industry is dependent and you come up with a very small number. And you come up with an awfully few men.

Ford, right on down to the end of his days, was always in there pitching with ideas. He'd walk down to the plant, he'd walk through the plant and see some machine operating, stand and look at it for a while and then say, "Ahh!" And call a machinist over and roll up his own sleeves and get good and greasy. And they'd take out a cam, or something, and shorten it, and all of a sudden the thing didn't go haywire anymore.

The man was in there pitching. He'd look at an assembly lineup and he would put some other item into the lineup, or he'd take one out — something of this idea. He was in there pitching. His ideas were very pertinent to what we call the assembly line system.

He's not the author of the assembly line system. It was invented in the American Revolution — the first assembly line system. It was the making of guns with interchangeable parts, and an assembly line was set up. That was about the first time that'd been done. Up to that time guns were all handmade. Some chap with a British background came over, he got this idea, and we had the first assembly line.

Well, that's been improved and improved and improved. Well, what improved it? Not the number of pieces of mest that went onto it, you see, that didn't improve it a bit. Now and then it bogged it complete. But, the truth is, the number of ideas which went into its refinement.

Now, the Russian has it worked out this way: That if you simply massed up enough pieces of mest on the receiving end of an assembly line and shot enough people on the line, then these people would see absolute necessity in dreaming up the idea that would move the assembly line. I'm not joking, that's their idea. That's their idea.

Take Christophe. His idea of building a citadel down in Cap Haitien — one of the more gorgeous pieces of castlery that a Frenchman designed. His idea was to kill enough men and you would move the rocks up there very fast. And I think he got rid of — I don't know how many men — thirty-five thousand, somebody told me one time, but he might have misplaced the comma. It may have only been thirty-five hundred. But that's quite a casualty list for just one pile of masonry.

In other words, he heaped the mass on them, and they finally got the idea to move it. In other words, it's some kind of an effort to make a thetan think by hitting him like crazy, see? You just beat this thetan enough, he'll get an idea. Do you see, this whole idea of punishment becomes an end in itself and is a philosophy in itself. All right.

Now, you take a preclear who has the consideration that he should be beaten before he gets a cognition, and you don't beat him — of course, if you beat him, he wouldn't get a cognition either. He's merely got the idea that he should be beaten before he gets a cognition. He doesn't get the cognition. And you run into the difficulties which the, ha! American, ha! Psychiatric Association ran into a long time ago. Everybody was so begging to get mass, punishment, force, pressure before they had an idea, that the psychiatrist succumbed to that philosophy and hasn't had a cure since. He doesn't even get his 22 percent.

Now, here's where you should anticipate — not postulate but anticipate that difficulty will show up — is on this line of where you are going to clear people who don't volunteer. That "volunteer" means level of help — believes that some help is possible, no matter how covertly — still believe that some help is possible, or he wouldn't have shown up.

Now, it's not too grim, because we've had insane people show up, and with some dim idea that they ought to, on whatever premise. But that was still a very, very covert help. They usually show up on the basis of "help you," which is quite amusing. They can't see the door. They fall through the chairs and stumble and flip and scream and so forth, and they're helping you. Yeah. Great. But they still have some kind of a covert inversion on this sort of thing.

Well, as you know, insanity is a random thing. Insanity is just a can't-reach — must-reach, can't-withdraw-must-withdraw situation which carries with it a certain emotional, effortful stress, and actually doesn't belong on the Tone Scale. It's quite interesting, but it is not a part of the Tone Scale.

Pain, on the other hand, is. Pain is at 1.8 on the Tone Scale. But insanity is anywhere below 2.0.

You take some insane people, and because they are basically not very low on the Tone Scale, you can undo their insanity — (snap) just flip. There's nothing to it. You get them out of this can't-reach-must-reach situation, and there they go. See, it's — there's nothing to it. You can tell these people, "Come up to present time," they all of a sudden are sane. It's as nebulous as that.

You take this other fellow who apparently is not terribly insane, he's merely apathetic or something of the sort, and you sweat your teeth out trying to get this can't-reach-must-reach to unfold.

Now, the position on the Tone Scale of the person does regulate the length of time to recovery. But it doesn't elucidate the state you find him in. You got that? It doesn't elucidate the state you find him in. It simply determines the swiftness of recovery.

Now, help is on the Tone Scale. And as you go down the scale you get less and less help. And you get harmonics on help below 2.0 which are quite interesting and which are well worth somebody's study, someday. And these amount to this: What is help, definition of? It can get pretty gorgeous — it's inversions on the idea and so forth.

The way to "help" a horse is blow his brains out, you know? The way to really "help" is to kill everybody. See? And you get all sorts of wild inversions on this.

With all due respect to the randomity connected with Help, this is the button which must be cracked, pressed, gotten into the lineup, before you'll get very much done with a nonvolunteering preclear. Now, when I say "nonvolunteering preclear," I'm probably — if there's two and a half billion people on Earth today, then we're talking about 2.4 billion people, see? I mean, it's that sweeping. I'm not merely being sarcastic. I think the percentage is that high. So how do you — how do you get a volunteering?

Well, religions in the past have used many mechanisms — threat, duress. The Catholic Church at one time thought it was necessary to have seven types of duress and mass in order to drive people in the front door. There were seven hells. And these were — for a spiritual activity there was certainly an awful lot of mass connected with those seven hells. In other words, they used fear and duress and so forth. And it's no wonder that their ethic and moral level was able to disintegrate into the Inquisition, and things like that, you see?

They were based on another basis entirely. But this came about through their anxiety to reach people. Give them that credit. Their anxiety to do something, then, let them on to the specious premise that the end justifies the means.

And as a result, we got all sorts of gimmicks whereby people would volunteer. Now, remember that volunteer is not help. Don't get the two confused. Volunteer, as we desire it, is in the band of help possible. That's volunteer. If help is possible, if they can be helped or they can help others, then you find them volunteering. So just abandon this word volunteer as simply an action without very much significance because you can make people volunteer at a pistol point, you can make them volunteer for cash, you can make them volunteer for many, many reasons.

For instance, the US, I'm sure, looks on conscription as a volunteering of youth to help the country. I imagine there are generals sitting around saying it to themselves, "Isn't it nice that all those young men volunteer?"

I imagine they think of it somewhat in that line. If they thought of it properly, they would say, "What the hell are we doing accepting these people in who are unwilling to be here? What is the matter with us?"

They could get another type of volunteer: They could simply tell people in prisons, "Well, we'll — all you have to do is enlist, and we'll knock off the sentence for you." Obviously, that person would volunteer, wouldn't he?

In other words, there are many combinations by which you could bring about a volunteering. And very few of them are worth having around. After you have made ten thousand preclears volunteer by telling them they're going to be atomized or perforized or zapped, and they've sat there and burned up a lot of auditing time as volunteers and didn't get very far, you will come to the eventual conclusion that there are easier ways.

Now, the fact of volunteering then, we can neglect. It is simply the symptom of something else. It is Help. Help is the button. That one goes all the way up and all the way down. Because it's the lowest rung of the third dynamic, and auditing is a third dynamic situation. The third dynamic is gone when only destruction is present. That's gone. But before the third dynamic disappears, there's still some tiny little bit of help remaining. When the help goes, there goes the third dynamic.

Interpersonal relations, social interchanges, all of these various items have in them, if they are actually being done — you know, if somebody's doing them, if it isn't all just on automatic, if it isn't a Japanese "(sniff, sniff) I withhold my foul breath from your honorable face," you know. That is not a third dynamic activity. It's just something he does — has no reality at all.

The third dynamic exists so long as knowing, willing help exists. And when knowing, willing help disappear, the third dynamic is "went." That's it. It's gone.

Now, after the third dynamic disappears, there's still an awful lot of people that run around looking like they're part of the society and behaving on social patterns and demonstrating some variety of manners and filling certain positions. And it sometimes takes a civilization as long as seventy-five years to find out that it hasn't been there. That's right. And then they just say, "Well, what happened?"

Now, one way to test a civilization would be to go into an industrial establishment and start interviewing people who are working there and ask them what they are doing there. And if the preponderance of them tell you that they are earning their pay or waiting to get paid, brother, you're looking at a plant that is going to "went" in a very short time. One fine day, their airplanes won't fly anymore or their automobiles won't run.

See, if that's the only reason they're there, the only reason they're present is to make some wages — in other words, if they have no actual interest in what is going on in the place. You know, it'd be good enough if they merely wanted to be with some other guys. You know? Somehow or other it'd still function. But if they're just there on the first dynamic, the next thing you know the foreman is going to have to show up with a club. And the club will become the mores on which that plant operates. And if it's not permitted to operate in that fashion, it'll cease to operate.

So went Greece, Rome, all kinds of things — Carthage before Rome went. Slavery became the rule of the day, and boy, I'd hate to have anything to do with a slave society again. There's a high liability. High liability — people who are unwilling. And the more unwilling they get, the more stupid they get.

You just take a look at them. You can start falling over them. And one day you're taking a nice, comfortable bath, minding your own business, and slave comes in with the proper replacement of water and dumps it into the tub, only it has ice chips in it, you know? You can thank your stars it wasn't boiling. No coversion intended. They're just stupid, they tell you. Quite interesting.

Well, now listen. This will make these remarks on this a little punchier: When help goes, destroy comes in. And it's just like you're looking in one of these funnels, you see, where this measures the amount of help up here at the top, and then there's less and less help, and then finally you get down to a point at the bottom where there's no help; you get an immediate opening up, here, of destruction. You get more and more destroy.

You can say about a thetan that he will do something. At almost any level of the Tone Scale — that's a truism or a maxim, rather than an axiom — he will do something. And the sum total of his doingness can be measured, for our purposes — well, this isn't probably even a philosophic truth, it just happens to be a processing truth — is, help goes down, and when it disappears, you get destruction opening out. There may even be overlaps, and thus you would get oddities of human behavior.

A person becomes uneven on the eight dynamics — very uneven. Three dynamics he is still on help, and five dynamics he's now on destroy. See, you get — it isn't a smooth picture, but wherever, in any zone: help ceases, destruction begins.

And now, a person who apparently is dominantly capable of help may still have several zones of destruction. You see, it's very far from a smooth picture, it is not a simple view, beyond the fact that you can get the common denominator of it.

Now, we express help and destruction in these terms: survive and succumb. But to make survive and succumb work — there's the two opposite ends of action — you have to summate the thing under help — destroy. Now, it is help and destroy which work in processing. Quite amazing.

Now, fitted right with this there is another cone shape, you might say. If you could see survive pinning on down like an hourglass and then spreading out to, as an inverted cone into destroy, you would also see the same pattern with survive and succumb. We're now talking about the both of them, survive being parallel with help, succumb being parallel with destroy, just to fit this into prior theory.

And you would get another V which would go all the way to the bottom and which unlocks all four of these items — help, destroy, survive, succumb. There is one thing that unlocks all of these items — rather fantastic.

As you fit then, these two double Vs with their points together, you could superimpose upon them a single V which went all the way to the bottom and which had, at the bottom, zero. See, there was no distance, no affinity. You know why I graph things like that? Affinity is a consideration of distance, and it works out very well.

And that single V that embraces all of these provides you with another key for processing. If you can't get anyplace with Help and Destroy — those are processing buttons. And by the way, almost any Homo sap or any Scientologist or Dianeticist could be run with some profit on both Help and Destroy, because he still has areas — no matter what his overall thinkingness is — he has, way on the backtrack "lessons learned" that you have to destroy and all of that sort of thing, that will still persist. And he still has been rebuffed in helping things and being helped to a point of where he will regard it with some askance, particularly after you've pulled a boo-boo or two in the session.

You get yourself an intermingling of all of these factors in any case, right up to the point of OT. And then OT defeats the allness of it by being able to postulate them — postulate them in and out of existence, which is quite interesting. Up to the point of OT, fixed considerations are fixed, believe me.

Now, where and how would we run this single button that embraces that? Well, you could run it practically with any process or technique type that we have ever had. And it's a button we've known about for a very, very long time. Only we've never been able to run it successfully because everybody practically died before we really got it run. It's a murderous button.

Well, back here in Advanced Procedures and Axioms, which was printed in 1951, we find on page 25 an essay on responsibility. And Scientologists have rather uniformly turned their backs on this particular button because it's become so painful to run.

Now, we get the idea of full responsibility, here. Let us survey fundamentals: self-determinism, self-confidence, "I know," "I am," all of this sort of thing. There's the cycle of responsibility, there's rationalization. And here we are on the field, in this particular subject of responsibility.

On page 27 in the article it says, "Occlusions are resolved by full responsibility on the subject. This includes occluded persons." It's 1951.

Now, we had to know an awful lot more before we could use it because the button is too rough. Now, although then, this is terribly pervasive as a button and very useful, it is very rough. It's a rough button — Responsibility. But an OT would only be an OT when he had achieved the exact things laid down in this particular article written in 1951 on the subject of responsibility.

Well, what does responsibility mean, and why is it so horrible, and what does it have to do with getting numerous people into processing?

Responsibility is raised and lowered by the duress — below a certain point on the Tone Scale — responsibility is raised and lowered by duress. We say, "Well, Johnny, you're responsible for your little sister."

And Johnny says, "Yeah, yeah, yeah." And his little sister falls downstairs and gets a bump on the head, and there was a consequence of his not being responsible for her, so now he decides that he will be responsible for her.

Now, what have you seen there? You've seen the very earlier thing I was talking about, which is to say, force and duress had to enter in before responsibility could be lined up.

Now, supposing he had pushed her downstairs, and his mother came around with a hefty biceps and a big hairbrush, which looked about a yard long to him, and said, "Did you push your little sister downstairs?" Now, I'll show you how the human race gets itself beautifully involved, and where all this comes about. "Did you push your little sister downstairs?"

And he takes a look at that hairbrush and he says, "No." His mother, by use of force, and the mechanism which she knows so well, always works — which is force — by the employment of that mechanism defeats the whole of his training pattern. She now teaches him irresponsibility or refusal to take responsibility.

And they do that by saying responsibility must be joined up with force. "If you're going to take the responsibility for something, you must be willing to get your head knocked off." This is absolutely true and is quite workable as long as one knows he's a spirit and knows he has no head!

Now, the old formula for processing somebody was to find an ability and increase it. Remember that? Well, the formula of handling responsibility which now permits us today to handle it, is find a zone of it and improve it. Find where it already exists and improve it. And don't take any delusory step with it.

In other words, don't have the fellow say — well, you say, "Well, look around here and find out something you could be responsible for," which is, by the way, a substitute for Trio.

And by the way, there is no such thing as irresponsibility. There is only responsibility and less responsibility, and irresponsibility would be said — a foreign thing. So you see, the collapse of the dynamics depends merely upon the narrowing of responsibility, not the encroachment of a thing called irresponsibility. There is no such thing called irresponsibility, thus we don't have irresponsibility matching up some kind of a cone pattern as I gave you here with survive and succumb, and help and destroy. You see, there is no such thing as irresponsibility. Although a fellow will get a glee of insanity every once in a while that he thinks is irresponsibility, and he'll try to label it and so forth. However, you don't have to pay any attention to it, you just run responsibility and it discharges.

There isn't any — there isn't an automaticity called irresponsibility, you got the idea? There is merely a withdrawing from responsibility. And that which still remains over there for which you are not responsible, then, may seem to have a flavor. It may seem to have an attitude. You see? But that is merely the tag end of life being pulled out of it by you. That is just the end of responsibility.

It's quite interesting that this works this way because nearly everything else is on a dichotomy. You know, it's survive-succumb; it's help-destroy; it's "I am"-"I am not," you know? But there is only responsibility. There is not responsibility-irresponsibility, see?

You could make a person irresponsible, but the way to make him irresponsible is to punish him for being responsible, and you've done the whole trick.

I've conducted enough experiments before this was written in 1951, and since 1951, to see where it fits. And the reason we haven't used it is basically the fact that it didn't — it just didn't have a process that would permit it to be run. In other words, it itself was too strong a button. And we had this delusory factor, and this was written before we had certainty as a principle.

Now, you have to take a certainty of responsibility and improve it. You have to find some zone where the person is certain he is responsible to some degree, see, some certainty of responsibility, and then you've got to improve it by certainties. You can't run it on a delusory factor.

Now, a delusory factor is one of these things: you say, "Well, give me a problem of comparable magnitude to you falling downstairs."

And the fellow says, "Oh, having to pile up all the Rocky Mountains in South Africa."

Aw, come on. He doesn't even have an idea that he can pile the Rocky Mountains in South Africa, see? The funny part of it is, it works on a problem of comparable magnitude. You can let this delusory factor go on and on and on and on and on. It'll eventually work itself out to some rational certainty, which is quite interesting that it will occur — but it will occur.

But it won't on responsibility. Responsibility is just too beefy. And it just never works out. You ask somebody, "Look around here and find something you can be responsible for."

And he says, "Oh, I could be responsible for all the automobile accidents that are happening in town or I could be responsible for all the deaths in the hospital and I ..." He's just hoping. He's just wishing.

Test him out, at the risk of invalidation — this is not good auditing but it's good research.

And you say, "You could be responsible for all the automobile accidents that are going to happen in town, is that what you said?"

"Well, something like that," he says.

You say, "That's fine. Now, supposing that you, while trying to park outside this building, put a scratch two inches long on the fender of a new Jaguar. Now, what would you say to the owner when he came out?"

He'd say, "Oh, I'd say it was an accident. It was a mistake." The only rebuttal to that is, "Then, obviously you can't be responsible for all the automobile accidents in town."

It ain't real. He's just talking out of his — out of the hot air in his hat, that's for sure. He had no certainty on it at all.

Now, one of the places to begin this responsibility gambit and to enter it into help — because help can be entered into through responsibility, see, it's a lower rung, because I said it went all the way to the bottom, and it's up to you to merge it into help, sooner or later. Well, the use of the Responsibility button will discharge destroy. Fascinating little gambit, here. And you use it on a PT problem because if a person conceives something to be a problem he still has some real responsibility connected with it.

And you can take a person who is not there as a volunteer, but he was "druve" in by the wife, or he was yanked in by the fact that civil service requirements state clearly that a person now has to have an IQ of 110, and you're the only person around that can give it to him. See, he's got duress. He doesn't really want anything. He doesn't want anything from you or doesn't want to give you anything. He wants some wages, or something, some place else, see? That's why he's there. This is for the birds. This is always hard to process against.

You can sneak it in and sneak him into session and into help, just as covertly as he is trying to use you. And the way you do that is find any area where he has a PT problem. That he considers it a problem, even intellectually, tells you that he still has a feeling that he's responsible for something. And the PT problem is one of the best mechanisms you ever saw for uncovering a latent responsibility. Cute.

The auditing question on this — and this is one of the reasons why you've been given this particular method in this ACC for handling PT problems, is this particular method may not be the best method to handle the problem, but it's for sure the best method of handling the case at that level — an overall look at responsibility. Now, we'd say, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" Well, it's a lead-pipe cinch. The individual, of course, is able to be responsible for some part of that problem, otherwise he would not even intellectually consider it a problem, do you see that?

So, you've already asked for and received an area of responsibility without shaking it down at all. And you have an ability to be responsible. And if you work hard enough on any preclear, you can always find or blow into view a PT problem. You sometimes have to even border on a break of the Auditor's Code, but you can eventually find it. You don't have to create one to find it. You'll find some place in his area he considers he has a problem. It possibly isn't even bopping on the meter until you get to really sawing at it and worrying him with it.

"Well, I have a little present time problem, my mother is down in Alabama and she's ill."

And you say, "Well, in good hands?" The way to damp it out, which is not what you're trying to do with responsibility, would simply say, "Well, is she in good hands?"

"Oh yeah, my father's there, and the village doctor, and there's nothing I can do about it."

"Are you worried about it? You're not worried about it, are you?"

"No." And that would be the end of the PT problem, see?

Well, let's handle it this way. He says, "Well, now that you've questioned me for fifteen or twenty minutes, I do remember that my mother is sick down in Alabama."

"Ooh," you say, "what's the matter with her?"

"Well, she has a swelling under her armpit."

"Oh," you say, "cancer?"

Well, you could blow this up until he's practically frantic. You could, in other words, as an auditor practically create a present time problem at will. And you'll get it so it's bopping all over the E-Meter, too. You'll be getting real responses on it.

And then you could run this one about responsibility. You've provided something to run it on. "What part of that problem could he be responsible for?" Well, that he was worried about it told you that he still felt some responsibility for it, which he wasn't in total apathy about.

Now, all apathy and lower-scale manifestations are, are absence of responsibility. And you have done a neat trick: You've gotten him onto the Tone Scale somewhere above apathy. See? He won't go in at apathy. There is hardly any responsibility left — there's some. You see, and you can shove him right on upstairs with this.

Now, after you've run this PT problem until it is again flat, you will find he has a renewed sense of responsibility. In other words, you installed something. It wasn't actually that you vanquished the PT problem as itself.

Now, I can give you a lot of processes which simply vanquish a PT problem: "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to it." "Mock up the terminals connected with it." You know, add mass to the PT problem. "Invent problems worse than that." These are all good PT problem things. Connectedness will actually run a PT problem, much better than Locational, by the way.

And in short, there's this tremendous number of things you could do about the PT problem. But you really didn't give a darn about the PT problem. You wanted to get an edge into the case on this subject of responsibility. And you wanted to improve it somewhat.

And after you've improved it to that degree you will — may find him, at least in your vicinity and in talking to him, somewhere in the vicinity of help. And if you pick him up, cleverly, as you have flattened the present time problem, and bridge him right straight over into help, you'll find out that you have a willing volunteer.

It is a trick. Even though you did it by postulate, it's still a trick. It's all the more baffling if you only do it by postulate, you know? People have a tendency to consider doing things by postulates real and doing things by mechanical chicanery tricks. And I don't make that subtle differentiation.

The total trick is overwhelming somebody that didn't want to be overwhelmed. That makes it a trick. It's the overwhelmingness that classifies the trick, not how you did the trick. And if you want to go around overwhelmping everybody, all right. This is a very covert overwhelmp. But any time you can overwhelmp somebody upstairs, do it. Overwhelm him to a point where he got well. It's quite an amazing thing.

Now, let's take this up just a little bit further. Let's define responsibility a little bit better. The definition of responsibility as given in Advanced Procedures and Axioms, 1951, is, "Definition: Responsibility is the ability and willingness to assume the status of full source and cause for all efforts and counter-efforts on all dynamics."

Now, that's a pretty severe definition. But it's still the definition.

Now, because it was stated so sweepingly, we had a definition which belonged in the same rank with Operating Thetan. And the fact that it discouraged everybody when it was uttered in 1951, tells us that it was best uttered in 1958 when we already had the definition of OT, and we weren't walking through a lot of mass and morass and sticky mud to get there.

Now, you can clear the word responsibility with a preclear and clear it any way you please, and it'll still come out to being "willing cause." And what's Operating Thetan? Willing and knowing cause.

You could clear it on the basis of, "Well, what are you willing to have caused around in this room?" "What are you willing to have happen in this room?" is a little lower way of stating it.

Now, you can take somebody who has psychosomatics, and you will find that that part of the body which is ill — not necessarily because he is doing it knowingly, and because he's a mean dog, and because he has a subconscious mind and because it's all evil everywhere — life is fairly complex and any body gets kicked around. He has a psychosomatic illness. We will find out that there is some combination resident in the area of "destroy" toward that body part, which the preclear can take over in processing.

In other words, he's got a leg that is a bad leg. Now, if it is a bad leg, then the leg is on a destroy kick. Got that? We don't even care how or why or anything else. It's on a destroy kick. And the person doing it, inadvertently or knowingly or unwillingly or willingly or any other darn thing — it wouldn't be knowingly or willingly or he wouldn't be able to really kick in there that tough — he is still causing it. No matter how directly or indirectly, he is still cause at it. And unless he assumes cause-point with regard to the leg and its illness, it won't recover very easily.

We have a thousand processes which make him do this. But the most direct one is, "What part of that leg could you be responsible for?"

Now, you could even get worse than that as long as you retain certainty. Certainty is the keynote of this. You can't have this going off into a bunch of delusory hogwash — certainty has got to be there.

You say, "What action against that leg would you be willing to cause?" Now, another phrasing of it, which is the same thing, would be (and this is one of your more amazing things), "With what could you touch that leg?"

You, you see. With what could you touch that leg? And you will find out if the leg is on destroy, that a touch is almost impossible. And it may have to go downstairs to a breath or a thought. Or "I could — I could get a feather within a foot of it." You get the idea?

So we have our whole communication formula demonstrated before our eyes. He's unwilling to communicate with it. He's unwilling to touch it.

Truth of the matter is, on an inversion, he is taking it up to pieces and tearing it off. But his willingness and knowingness do not include touching it, but his unwillingness and unknowingness, full at work, are willing to tear it off and tear it into shreds and feed it through a hamburger grinder. Do you see that?

So if you just asked somebody who had a lot of psychosomatic illness — illnesses, "What action would you be willing to take against that body?" Or running it like Trio, "Look around here and tell me some action you would be willing to take," you will wind up with the whole idea of responsibility. He'll tell you what action he's willing to be responsible for, not what action he's willing to take. So it becomes another method of raising an individual up into the levels where he can be audited.

Now, if a bad leg, a bad stomach, a chronic headache, alcoholism, psychologosis or any other ill has driven him into the auditing room, he is driven there by duress. And the actuality there: He isn't there to help or be helped. He is not there to help or be helped, he's got the idea that his leg needs help, so he brought his leg in. And he sits back, no participation, total irresponsibility. And the fact that he came in and let you help the leg is the clue to the irresponsibility. See that? So you would get tremendously more people if you were healing people than if you were clearing them.

Well, there's enough sickness on Earth to drive nearly everybody into your door. And I hope I've given you some understanding. Spiritual healing, or healing with the spirit or anything like that is totally legal almost anywhere in the world, except Moscow where they don't have any spirits. They've got it all on automatic. That means one of these days we'll overwhelmp them. Interesting view.

Now, if people are going to be driven in on this irresponsibility — you know, cure their ulcers, something — if they're going to be driven in to you on this irresponsibility, because they want you to help something they've got which they're being irresponsible for, which is why they want you to help it, you really don't have preclears that you can clear — which explains the first Foundation difficulty with preclears. You got it? People were coming in there in droves with psychosomatics.

Well, what we need is a bridge which moves the person from illness to help. And I have given you that bridge, here. That is a very workable bridge. A thousand ways that you could work it — you merely have to know the mechanic of it, which is simply that you graduate him up into help on the road of responsibility.

And an individual's irresponsibilities fall away, and he eventually gets into a position where he can be responsible enough for himself, his environment and his auditor that he can be audited toward Clear. And if you can make that grade, you can clear people. And completely aside from Intensive Procedure or anything you are doing mechanically, you have to know this fact in order to find a preclear.

Thank you.