Well, any questions?

You know, I probably will never say another word about this. I probably will never again mention this bridge. I have a habit of doing that sometimes. You will find strewn back through the last eight years not more, probably, than sixty or seventy lectures which cover the subject, and which probably have never been mentioned again. You know? It's too easy to go off on byroads and examine interesting trees. Much too easy.

You realize all that's significant that has happened here is that the anatomy of what a thetan is doing exactly, which keeps him unclear, has been paralleled. But that wasn't possible unless we had the definition of Operating Thetan, and it was the definition of Operating Thetan which was the triumph. That was a weird one and that happened just a couple of months ago. And now this other one puts a tremendous number of preclears in your grasp, which goes along with it and is the only big barrier toward clearing I know.

You're going to get a lot of people who are on obsessive destroy. They'll turn up in your midst — they're on obsessive destroy. They'll 1.1 at you, and chew you up and try to spit you out, and wreck what you're doing and make you unhappy, and all this sort of thing, you know? Well, knowing how to handle such a person in an auditing session is quite valuable. And I'll probably never mention it again.

Male voice: Has any evidence turned up so far to indicate how one might recognize where a preclear goes over the hump to the point where it starts sorting out on its own?

Unless you set it up, you'll never have the — you'll never have the evidence.

Male voice: Okay.

I'll tell you how to set it up. I did already, but I'll repeat it. Before you start auditing him, you shoot him around on the track and find a couple of pleasure moments and find out how thick or how valuable or how solid those things are. And then at the end of each day's auditing or something like that, you give him another look at them. And somewhere along the line, they will get more solid than the room in which you're auditing. And then all of a sudden they will disappear, and he will say, "Well, do you want me to mock them up?"

You say, "Yes."

"Well," he'll say, "they're nice and solid. Yeah, the colors are very bright. Now, what do you want me to do with them?"

And you say, "Well, just cease to create them." And that'll be the end of that. Now, there is the most reliable test, and it's one that you set up yourself. You know when he's over the hump.

The other test, which happens on automatic, is sometimes a pale scream. The individual says, "I'm getting worse. I'm getting much worse. I am much more upset than I was. The pain I have in my back is much more terrible."

Well, what's happening? His facsimiles are getting more solid, that's all there is to that. And, of course, as he is mocking them up and you're improving his ability to mock them up, why, of course, they're getting — they're getting vicious. And if you just keep on with the same course that you're going on, why, you'll get him over the hump. It's quite amazing. Quite amazing. He can really get sick as a pup on this particular one.

There is a way to short-circuit that and take it easy on him, and I've just given it to you with Responsibility.

Clearing the fact that he is creating what he is keeping from going away, and paying some attention to that, to a marked degree pulls a person off of this hump phenomenon. He knows he is creating what he is creating, and therefore he will know that he is creating more and more and more, and he'll eventually get to the realization that he is creating his facsimiles too.

There are several roads to Clear. I mean, I know several of them. And it's been — the difficulty here has been sorting out the roads to Clear that you would use. See, that has been the main thing. And we already have, as a matter of record, the fact that you would use, and auditors in general would use, every one of the processes we're using with no protest. They thought it was all — they thought they were all good. I even know some faster roads to Clear but, broadly, auditors are not willing to use them.

Yes?

Male voice: Has anybody tried clearing fields with: "What part of that field could you be responsible for?" or a similar process?

Well, yes. But that is actually a violation of the havingness factor, you see? You're liable to as-is it all. Somebody suggested last evening — she suddenly remembered one. "How does it seem to you now?" She remembered that old as-iser. And that has been tested on fields, and it clears a field for a short time and almost kills the preclear.

Male voice: Okay.

Good.

Yes?

Male voice: What you were saying about responsibility is certainly borne out by an experimental — processing I've — process I've used about a year and a half of "Tell me something you are not responsible for." Inevitably, the preclear will discover that all — that all responsibilities as he sees them now are enforced responsibilities. He does not want to be responsible for anything.

That's right. That's Mama with a hairbrush.

Male voice: That's right. And that is — that is a most important factor. And then they will always come up — they'll be responsible for other people's creations, they'll just run one after another.

Mm-hm.

Male voice: And then you run off a creation process, and he'll come back and he'll run them off and inevitably end up "The only thing that I'm responsible for is what I decide I'm responsible for right now."

Yeah.

Male voice: And then that generally runs from two to four hours and produces a tremendous change of case.

Now, you've got a process right here, which is spotting destruction, running a destroy factor, which is an integral part of your Intensive Processing. "Destroy a mock-up," do this, do that, any kind of destroy. "Invent a way to destroy that person."

Male voice: How carefully would you clear this mock-up in Step 5, here?

Hm? Clear . . .

Male voice: Automaticity of form.

The automaticity of form?

Male voice: Yeah.

I would get him certain that he had mocked it up. And that certainty is so overwhelming and very often so startling that it's very easy for an auditor to detect it. And if he doesn't detect that mechanism, then he could consider that he's facing the automaticity of form and, as you added yesterday, color.

Male voice: Right. So then, how much would you beat on this? Or would you let the process finally resolve this?

Well, I'll tell you. All of my Creative Processing — I can only answer this subjectively; I cannot answer this on broad auditor experience. Most of the things I tell you are on fairly broad auditor experience, one way or the other. They've been thrown out and some people have run into similar phenomena. This one I can only give you a subjective one on, and that comes from Creative Processing way back when.

With what care I would make somebody mock something up until he knew he was mocking it up. Even at the risk of shaking him up; even at the risk of questioning his validity and so on. And I would work this over, very carefully. And, actually, if you look at this, I was asking him to take responsibility for his mock-up. All right.

Now, this is a question which is answered by just "How careful are you willing to be?" It's more a question for the auditor to answer because it'll all come out in the wash, anyhow. Almost anything you're doing, even crudely done, will sooner or later come out in the wash.

Male voice: Right, I know that.

Now, it's only, then, in the interest of shortening processing that we are working with these precision points. And asking a person to mock up something he knows he can mock up may get around to a very involved stick on the track. See, I mean, you may occupy far too much time on this point. You can do it more covertly by insisting on simple forms. You say to the individual, "What can you mock up?"

"Oh," he says, "I could mock up a wedding cake."

Well, it's not up to you at that moment to say, "Can you make one?" But the probability is he can't. He couldn't draw one, sculpt one or anything else that would look like anything. But he can mock up a wedding cake — oh yeah?

And you say, "What else can you mock up?"

And he says, "Oh, I could mock up a Cadillac."

For a preclear just beginning on this road? An industrial designer, yeah, he could mock up a Cadillac, see, because he could actually be the author of the various forms and lines.

Furthermore, both a wedding cake and a Cadillac are such patent copies. He's mocking up a wedding cake he's seen, a Cadillac he's seen.

So you say, "Fine." You say, "Fine. That's — that's good. I'm very happy you can mock up a wedding cake and a Cadillac. Now, what else can you mock up?"

And the fellow says, "Oh, I could mock up a beautiful lake there is up in Canada, and it has all kinds of islands and wildflowers and so on."

You say, "That's fine. I'm so happy you can mock that up. Now, what else can you mock up?"

And the fellow says, "Well, I don't know, I — I could mock up a bone button."

"Oh?" you say, "Huh! Mock it up."

In other words, without invalidating him in his teeth, you let him eventually fall into a simplicity. Now, that is the smoothest way of going about this.

And most preclears walking in on processing are not being good auditors or auditors at all, and having no clue about it and so forth, will make a mystery out of some of the most obvious things that you do. They just will not have a clue why you're doing these things.

A fellow can tell you, "My main difficulty is, is I can't tell the distance from myself to any wall." And so you can work him for four or five hours on telling the distance between himself and that wall. And then he can ask you at the end of this exercise why you were doing it. He doesn't connect his statement with your action. And you can get awfully obvious, and he never — never drifts into it at all. So it doesn't, then, become evaluation, does it?

Does that answer your question?

Male voice: Yes. It does.

Beat it to death, more like.

Female voice: How about people who do paint and sculpt?

They very definitely have a complexity of form. They have still — they've still got form under control. And you'd let them get away with it a little bit further — as long as they weren't mocking up what they'd already built out of mud.

Male voice: I observed an interesting thing this morning which ties in very close with this responsibility. At first glance the phenomenon was that I could make something rapidly come to null almost as I wished, not immediately but rapidly. But looking this one over, I discovered that all the time I was prepared to mock up this thing and take responsibility for it — which meant hell sometimes (the bank was going god knows where) — it was very difficult, and I was getting a steady drop. And we got toward the end of the session and I thought, well, I'd better get this thing sorted out, you know, quickly. And was mocking it up on a sort of sideways glance, you know what I mean ? Just sort of — psst — there it was, and it was made more solid, and to hell with it. And the needle came along up. Now, this is an interesting factor in this responsibility. It appears . . .

You were charging at it. Actually a fellow himself, all by himself, can't charge at it.

Male voice: Yeah.

Because it's just some more enforced responsibility, as somebody said. That was why the button was too beefy for anybody to handle.

Male voice: I can just see that.

It has to be a very gradient, gradient scale. And it has to start with certainty. By the way, I don't know of any process today beyond Creative Processing — the certainty that you do have a mock-up there — but I don't know of any thinkingness process today which demands of us certainty, except this one I've just been talking about — Responsibility. There you have to have the certainty.

Male voice: What I really was wondering about — that is, how the auditor would control that phenomenon which undoubtedly can occur.

Well, he would notice something was going wrong or he would notice something was going haywire, and he would control it by breaking it down to two-way comm.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

And finding out exactly what the preclear was doing and tell him to knock it off if he didn't think it was contributive, or run the process he was doing fairly flat, and then go back and do something which paralleled this other thing.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

See? And that must be the difficulty with regard to it. The gradient scale of responsibility is handled just on a gradient scale and with certainties. And because it is so pervasive it, of course, comes up under numerous processes.

Male voice: Yeah.

Yes?

Male voice: What about an undercut with respect to a mock-up and a concept? In other words, one could have — one could with closed eyes draw a concept of a cube or any simple article, and now — but actually they'll see it there in the same color of field and would be liable to draw a line into the same color field. It would be like drawing the concept into that, sort of. It would. . .

Perfectly — you will find that it is a long route, but that it is perfectly feasible to do just what you were saying and keep it from going away and hold it still and make it more solid and so on. It's perfectly feasible and will come out in the end faster than a preclear will come out with throwing up an automatic mock-up, turning on some automaticities to handle it and so forth.

I had a fellow run this one. He said, "Well, I can mock up a black disk in the black field."

And I said, "That's fine. Let's test it for a little while before we use it." And I merely had him mock up black disks.

And all of a sudden he said, "Oh," he said, "that's a — I used to have those things by the thousands when I was a kid. They were punched out of pieces of tin, and I used to get them down at a tin yard that was real near by, and they were these black japanned disks, and we used to use them for all sorts of things."

"Well," I said, "we started out on a black disk. Now, how do you suppose you could fix up a black disk that you know you mocked up?"

And the fellow said, "Let me see." And he drew a crude circle and did some ink splashes across it. You know, actually — just as though he had a hand out there and a pen, you know? And he did some ink splashes. And he had a black disk that he knew that he had mocked up — he had made. And we graduated him from that point upward to the first mock-up he knew he had made.

That answer it?

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Okay.

Male voice: Thank you.

You betcha.

Male voice: Could you read the responsibility of the gradient scale, please?

Gradient scale of responsibility? It is anything or anywhere that we can get an entrance of certainty. He is certain he is willing to be responsible for.

And now that normally tries to take place on an inversion. Somebody will say he's willing to be responsible for the whole universe or the US government or something of the sort. And that is so delusory that it is nonacceptable. You must have something that is quite real. The first step on it is always something that is quite real, really, both to the auditor and the preclear.

And then, it would be impossible to predict where this would finally break through and where the original delusions would become fact. But sooner or later along the line they would become fact, and you would have — the final formula would be willingly and knowingly responsible for life — all forms — matter, energy, space and time. And we would have an OT.

Male voice: I haven't got a gradient scale, but I've got the top and a bottom.

You've got the top and the bottom? Now, between the two — the things between the two are determined by the increasing certainty of the preclear, which varies from preclear to preclear. You will find that they advance up the dynamics, and the dynamics are probably the gradient scale there. Okay? Is that better?

Male voice: Thank you.

You bet. All right.

What else have we got here? You know this, huh?

You know you don't have to clear anybody? Here's a new thought for you. You don't have to clear anybody, do you know that? You don't have to. But in the last week I have found out that people get ragingly mad, people selected at random out of the public, if you threaten them with survival. If you try to give them a method of surviving through the atomic bomb, they get ragingly mad. In two particular instances, they have called official agencies and reported the person that brought it up. The second case resulted in jail, just because somebody said there might be some method of surviving an atomic bombing. No more significance than that. Quite interesting, isn't it?

Well, I say you don't have to clear anybody. It's not an — absolutely necessary that you clear a single soul. But I'll clue you: there's no salvaging the existing society, as itself, by any makeshift mechanism.

You really — it basically comes down to this: You have to start from scratch and make one, and just consider the old one shouldn't impede you too much. And I've actually, myself, had to come to that conclusion subjectively and objectively, both, within the last week. Been forced upon me. Very interesting conclusion, isn't it? It'd be something that I might say for propaganda purposes, you know, to get everybody in there and get them enthusiastic, or some doggone fool thing like that. And I'm not saying it from that basis.

When people start to call the police and federal agencies and report them because somebody comes up and says to them that it is a possibility to survive a war with Russia, your populace is on a succumb pitch that nobody could walk upstairs against with any patchwork quilt. You see, nobody could walk up and say, "Well, we'll take this part of the society and we'll groom that up, and then we'll take this agency and we'll fix that up, and then we'll take this idea and we'll move it in on them like this and we'll polish that up . . ." Oh no. Can't be done. It'd take you the next eight billion years, and you'll all be dead by that time.

Somebody had his hand up a moment ago. Any more questions on this?

It's a rather grim look. It's a rather grim look to realize that we have had federal agencies and the local police sniffing down our necks, here, in the last week because we were trying to propose survival on a house-to-house basis. We were just doing it as a little test. It was quite amazing. Boy, that's — that's wild. That's wild.

Now, if you are going to clear more than two or three people, why, you're going to have to have some extraordinary means of doing so, or attracting interest that already exists — sickness. Everybody's indoctrinated into the fact that he ought to get rid of it. Which means our next book that ought to be written — whether it will be or not is another thing because that depends on me — but the next book that should be written should be something that says, "The Spirit Heals," or "The Art and Science of Spiritual Healing" or "Strategy and Tactics of the Spirit."

Male voice: Would you find a lot of basic difference between the livingness of a garbage collector and a — a cleared garbage collector, and a cleared explorer or a cleared tycoon, or something?

Oh my, yes.

Male voice: You would, eh?

Yes, because I don't know that the hewers of wood and drawers of water will change, particularly, in station or position simply by being in better shape. It's not necessarily something that would happen.

Male voice: So our goal in Clear Procedure would still be the able people of the society?

Yes. Yes. It has nothing to do with the professional action, social level or any other darn thing. Weirdly enough, the greatest response we get in Ireland — the best people there were the longshoremen. Longshoremen get in and pitch, everything in the groove, these men could still help. It was odd, they could also still handle mass, couldn't they?

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Interesting.

Female voice: How does your survival club project look, in terms of what you just said?

That was the survival club project that was being tested. And it looks totally flat, totally unworkable, no takers anywhere.

Male voice: What was the reaction of the federal agencies that were reported to?

A little bit peeved. Restrained by the fact that the courts restrain them from taking violent action unless they can find it in a lawbook. The action of the local police and detectives and so on, who moved in on this particular sphere — they moved in on the other fellows — was simply to take very angry action against them for not having some kind of a solicitor's license or something of the sort, which I don't think was legal either. It didn't have any bearing on it. There's nothing — no onus resulted against any of us or organizations because of this. It was just a measure of temper, and the temper ran from annoyance to rage and didn't run into any other temper. But it was the fact that somebody was actually proposing the fact that you could survive an atomic bombing that was making them mad. So a person who gets mad because you tell him he's liable to live is nuts.

Yes.

Male voice: Since England as a nation — the English as a nation — still running this wild kick of "socialism helps everybody and everybody gets helped," how's the Clear project going to work there?

I don't know.

Male voice: Looks like a dull thud from my end of it. But I'm just taking a look at that.

They all know they can't help anything — they've been told so, so many times by the government.

Well, this is another one of the same type of pickup I've just been discussing. There's another factor in England which is gorgeous and on which we will immediately rely, and that is the fact that everybody believes that something can still be done for some types of illness. That has been carefully built up. And you go into the psychosomatic assembly line, and you just start pushing people from the psychosomatic assembly line up to a higher ambition the moment they actually can get into it. Unless you run that gradient, you don't get any broad response at all. I never before saw the gradient or knew why it was connected.

Male voice: Well, from what you've been saying it looks to me that you might — it looks to me like responsibility as blame — right between that point help kicks in. That's the make-break point on help: responsibility as blame, help, control. And . . .

In that area.

Male voice: When people get into responsibility as blame — no help.

Mm-hm. Well, you have to tell them they can blame it on everybody, like Book One did.

Yes?

Male voice: Then you get into healing.

Then you get into healing. But healing comes right there, responsibility as blame, certainly.

Male voice: I read a bulletin that says you were going to, after a while, license only cleared auditors.

Well, that is when somebody applies for a church for a state or something of that sort, why, we'll only issue it to a Clear. That doesn't affect any existing contract.

Male voice: Okay.

But it may affect a review of them in a couple of years.

Yes?

Female voice: Where — on that — I have had quite a lot of success on just two-way comm, on getting people to notice the difference between blame and responsibility.

Yeah. It would.

Female voice: And therefore — real fast.

Clarification of data.

You're basing that, however, on an ability to do two-way comm, which not all auditors like to do. And the other one is that two-way comm below a certain level is nonfunctional.

Male voice. Mm-hm.

Right.

Yes?

Male voice: If a person has graduated from the HCA and is now taking the ACC, just what does he — do they have to do to receive their doctorate?

To do what, now? To ...

Male voice: To become a Doctor of Scientology.

You have to turn in a thesis to the HASI Arizona. You have to turn in a thesis and three case histories. Your Instructor had that all figured out. Ten case histories, isn't it, or something? But he's got that taped. Actually, that is not consecutive to an ACC. An ACC is simply — we never look at applications which don't include one. But teaching an ACC in Washington, DC, cannot lead to a doctorate directly, but we just never pay any attention to people who haven't had one. That's the way that adds up, so that the degree is still available. It is also still issued in London. There are certain requirements which are laid down by the HASI Arizona and so forth, for its attainment. And there are quite a few of these. They're not particularly arduous, but they nevertheless are very definite.

Thank you. Thank you very much.