Well, today, today I’ve got some good news for you. I can give you a formula for cracking any case that’ll sit still and answer questions, and give you the basis of common denominator of cases when they do or when they do not advance. This is fairly important information, and as a matter of fact, is a bit of a milestone because I’ve been working on this for about five years now, trying to find out what the basic difficulty was in cases.

And, first attack on this was very interesting and was an almost accidental discovery of havingness, just as such, and then a following out and an exploitation of havingness and working with it, and many disappointments with havingness and an inability to get havingness associated with other phenomena. Trying to make havingness constant, because havingness wasn’t constant.

You could run somebody with seventy-five hours of “Look around here and find something you could have” and the case would not remain stable at the new gain. A case would slump after a while. It would never go back to where it was before, but it never continued the gain. Well, I found out what that is, too.

Let’s start in here from the beginning of this and take a look at havingness. Now, havingness could be many things and is — the formula of it is covered in Scientology 8-8008, 1952 — scarcity and abundance in all things. You’ll find out that this formula all by itself does things. You can use them in mock-ups and you can use them this way and that way, and other things, but a general rule has emerged over the years, is that Objective Havingness is the only havingness which advances a case. Subjective Havingness does not.

There are possibly some ways and means of running Subjective Havingness by mock-ups which do bring about significant changes in cases, and there are various ways of approaching this problem. But just the blunt “What could you have?” subjectively, or “What part of something could you have?” subjectively — get it out of your heads right now that it does a damn thing for a case. It’s very spectacular, but forty-five cases have been run, all of which experienced no gain of any kind whatsoever on profiles or IQs by reason of running Subjective Havingness, and all of which suffered a loss of havingness. You got that? I mean that’s a very, very interesting point for you to remember.

Because it’s an enormous temptation when you’re dealing with a bank to say, “Well, what’s wrong with this bank?” Obviously, the individual can’t have something and therefore if he can’t have it, it’s his bank that’s preventing him from having it, so therefore Subjective Havingness is the answer. Well, it’s not.

It’s one of those things that sounds terribly logical and isn’t anywhere. For instance, I was just horrified to see a profile or, I mean, to hear of a report of somebody — this was one of these that just shouldn’t happen — running somebody on Subjective Havingness, we are getting this kind of answers: “I could have confidence. I could have trustworthiness,” you know.

No, it will not change, vary or do anything for a case except perhaps worsen it.

So when we’re talking about havingness now, we’re talking about Objective Havingness. Got tbat cleanly and clearly? That’s Objective Havingness of the universe in which we all protest You got that?

Audience: Yeah.

All right So for our purposes, over the broad line, Havingness could include all of these older processes. Well, of create and remedy and havingness, and so forth, there were a great many of them. They could include those things. They do, do something about changing somebody’s mind or getting him less worried or something of this sort And they were all included under the heading of Havingness.

But let us have it very straight now. That havingness, when we talk about havingness from here on, we are talking about Objective Havingness. Okay?

Audience: Yeah.

Because that is the only havingness that changes a profile or prepares a case. When Objective Havingness drops very markedly, it must be repaired. And no process will continue to operate if Objective Havingness has dropped below the ability to have.

When Objective Havingness drops too low, the case does not advance subjectively. The Subjective Process being run will not improve the case if the Objective Havingness of the case has dropped. You got that as a rule? Because it’s a very, very important one.

Once in a while, you’ll be running a pc who will all of a sudden go into the negative tone arm area — 1.5 on the tone arm dial. Oh man, you goofed, that’s alL You just goofed.

The havingness of the case dropped below the ability to have the environment in the course of running a Subjective Process, and this is mirrored and registered by the fact that the tone arm goes to a minus read.

So if it got to the minus read, you goofed. If you didn’t notice it by the time it got down to 2.0, why, I don’t know what you were doing.

Any bad read on the tone arm dial, any read extremely above or extremely below the Clear read of the person demonstrates something is wrong with havingness. Got that clear? Something is wrong with havingness.

The common denominator of all cases is the relative ability to have. And the case that runs well can have things, and the case that does not run well cannot have things in the objective environment in both cases. That is all there is to it.

A case that runs very easily can have things. And a case that runs very arduously can’t And that is it And if any case is hanging up anyplace, and you’re finding it very difficult to handle this case or move this case, all of which can be denoted now by action in the tone arm, if in running this case you do not get action out of the tone arm, then there’s something wrong with the havingness of that case or it’s gone Theta Clear, one or the other.

And the cases that can’t be freed, the needle — when the needle isn’t freed or doesn’t free easily on a case or isn’t free, you haven’t got a Theta Clear. That’s it. So it wouldn’t matter what the tone arm read. If while running the case you got no action or movement in the tone arm, regardless of what it read, with a stuck or sticky or a slow moving needle, something is wrong with that case’s havingness. Now that’s the common denominator of that. And by havingness I mean again subjective — or the Objective Havingness which is being prevented by subjective phenomena. The subjective phenomena cannot be resolved by a subjective process and havingness can only be resolved by Objective Havingness.

Now, this is a nice little problem that cases set up here and it’s been a hell of a problem to crack. But I am satisfied now that it’s cracked. I’m satisfied now that we’ve got this.

I’ll go over this again.

If the case is not progressing, there is something wrong with the Objective Havingness of that case. Progress is measured by the relative motion of the tone arm or change of condition of the needle action.

Needles go sticky, and they go free, and they go sticky, and they go free. Well, if this fellow’s needle goes up to the middle of the dial and then falls rapidly down two divisions on the needle dial, and then goes up to where it was before, on a rise, and then falls rapidly down, and then goes up on a rise and falls rapidly down, hour after hour, you’re a knucklehead for not having noticed that it didn’t change in ten or fifteen minutes. Got the idea? There’s something wrong with havingness.

In other words, if you get a consistency of needle and tone arm response which is nonoptimum, unchanging, there is something wrong with the person’s havingness. All right.

If havingness gets this important, then we sure as the devil better know what havingness is. And fortunately for you, I can tell you. That’s very lucky for you because I didn’t know, till a very short time ago. As I’ve told you for a long time, I don’t know what havingness was.

I couldn’t express what havingness was. I said it might be thirty, forty, fifty different things, but just what it was, was something else. Just exactly how to express it — bing! That was not in our repertoire.

All right. Here it is: Havingness is the ability of the pc to duplicate.

And once you get yourself wrapped around that one, you’ve got it made because you have the overt act-motivator sequence at the same instant.

Therefore, a person who is guilty of overts has lowered havingness. A person who has lowered havingness will be guilty of overts. Simple as this. Because overts depend upon the ability to duplicate, which are cut down and so become overts. All right.

I’ll give you an idea. You shoot somebody. This fellow falls down and you don’t Well therefore, obviously, you are restraining a duplication. He falls down and you don’t You caused his death, not yours. That’s a nonduplication.

Therefore, when somebody comes along and raises a pistol in your direction, almost with no volition on his part, it’s going to go off and shoot you and you’re going to die exactly the same way you hit the other fellow. And there’s how you get the motivator. Because you’ve got one which is an arrested cyde-of-action which is all ready to roll, and you just go ahead and complete it, just like that You got that?

Audience: Mm-hm.

That’s why motivators, why we have been so suspicious of people who get all of these motivators. Well, how do they get these motivators? They must get these motivators because they themselves are running on an automatic, out of control duplication. They’ve lost the ability to duplicate it consciously and they will duplicate it unconsciously. Why? Because they didn’t duplicate it when they did it. So they’ve got a duplication waiting. And if you executed a prince eight billion years ago, and one day you get to be — and this is never auditor touched, duplication never figured out or anything of the sort, all of a sudden one fine day, they — somebody comes up to you and puts a coronet on your head and says, ‘You’re the prince now.” Heh.

Don’t be surprised if you get very nervous. And be completely amazed if somewhere in your career of being a prince, you’re not executed.

That’s why somebody like a presidential aspirant has accidents all over his family and why the other presidential aspirant is busy getting over an infected knee, right this minute, see. Only he isn’t getting over this infected knee. All he did was bruise his knee and it got infected. Well, what is this? You get that — how that snuck up on him? He’s been in some high position, quite analogous position someplace else on the track, of course. But more important, he’s been in a position where he has a tremendous overt against somebody in the same position as the one he is seeking to occupy. So he’s doing a duplication of a victim’s position.

Now, actually, all it’d require would be a bunch of overts unknown to the existing president You could even work it out in one lifetime. If this boy has a bunch of overts against the existing president and he’s standing up to be president now, he’s nervous. Right at the crucial campaign time, why, he gets himself laid up in the hospital. Well, he’s being a little premature.

Now, let’s look at this again. When you do things you yourself are unwilling to duplicate, they are overt acts. The definition of an overt act is “That thing which ye do which ye ain’t willing to have happen to you.” Because you’ve got a held duplication on the time track, and therefore it can now happen to you. You’ve set it all up.

All you’ve got to do is go flip on the valences, and there you are. Boom! Got the idea?

Audience: Yes.

Well, this is the dynamite back of the overt act-motivator sequence and that’s brand-new news. That is brand-new. Because apparently it would be a series of postulates which had to do with “Do unto others as ye would be done at,” you see?

Apparently, it would be Christianosis. Apparendy, it would be all kinds of do-gooder and reform mechanisms of some kind or another, and you would look in vain for the overt act-motivator sequence as a preachment or as a method of this or that Actually, it’s in the formula of communication. When you bought the formula of communication, you bought the overt act-motivator sequence. The thing which is deadly about communication is duplication. And that’s all that’s deadly about communication. You can communicate till hell freezes over if there’s nothing wrong with the duplication. Got that?

Audience: Mm-hm.

That’s good news. You know what’s dangerous about communication.

What’s dangerous about communication is to communicate in such a way as you are unwilling to duplicate either end, one or the other, of a communication. And if an unwillingness to duplicate is entering into this point which carries with it mayhem, injury and broad knockouts on the dynamics, why, of course, it becomes an upsetting communication because it sets up a potential overt-motivator sequence. All right.

Now, let’s take a look at that. Therefore, the individual — you can say now that the individual loses the power and ability to duplicate by committing overt acts.

So a case is bad off to the degree that he’s been bad. And we already know that, but we didn’t know quite why. It’s a refusal to duplicate.

All right. Now, let’s look at havingness. Havingness is the ability to duplicate that which one perceives or to create a duplication of what one perceives, or to be willing to create a duplication of it But it’s duplication.

Of course, for a thetan to be a wall is kind of silly. But for a thetan to be willing to make a wall is not silly at all. And of course, that’s all right as duplication.

Now if you did a complete and perfect duplication of anything you were looking at, it would disappear. That is a perfect duplication. That’s a duplication of its moment of creation right straight on through as it is now. If you just get somebody to look at a chair sometime and say, “Now make a perfect duplicate of this chair,” which is to say, duplicate the time it was created and its creation and all the other things and just make a perfect duplicate of that chair, it will disappear to him. It’s quite interesting.

So havingness then, to have something, must depend to a large degree (and here we are in assumption of the situation), it must depend, to a very large degree, on the ability to partially duplicate. In other words, you duplicate it where it is right now, rather than do a perfect duplicate of the whole works.

Now, wherever, wherever an individual is unwilling to duplicate walls because he’s butchered up walls, wherever an individual is unwilling to duplicate another person because he’s butchered up people, wherever a person is unwilling to duplicate a machine because he’s butchered up machines, you get a no-have. And until you’ve got that cracked, the case isn’t going to move.

Now, that is why in Melbourne we were trying to bring the tone arm down to the Clear read before we audited a case and we were having some success in doing it — and I’d already had some success in doing it before Melbourne by running the overt-motivator sequences off of a case and gotten rid of the overt acts, to some degree, and brought the tone arm where it ought to be, near the Clear read.

Now, on the other side of it, this didn’t work on low arm cases, and it didn’t work on some cases because they didn’t have any concept of their responsibility in having done the overt act. Not only were they guilty of a great many overts, which is nonduplicates, not only were they guilty of that, but they were also tremendously guilty all the way through of being totally irresponsible for it.

Not only did they do it, but they also said they didn’t do it. And we add those two factors together — you had an irresponsibility for the overt which then did not permit the overt to be run, and so you couldn’t get an adjustment on a tone arm in a large percentage of cases.

I don’t know what that percentage was or what it was down in Melbourne. I’ll say at a guess it was somewhere around 30, 40 percent that you didn’t bring the tone arm down to Clear read and stabilize it Maybe it was closer to 20 percent.

But you couldn’t bring that tone arm down just by picking up the person’s overts and withholds because you didn’t have enough responsibility there to do it.

Now, to try to run it out by responsibility became impossible because the person was in a wrong valence and every time they ran the thing, they said, “I am responsible,” which meant “I, mother, am responsible,” so, therefore they were saying, “I am irresponsible for the action” and responsibility ran as an irresponsibility.

Now, where do we have a clue to break this point down? Well, it’s havingness. It’s Objective Havingness. If you can’t break it down on the overts, and so forth, you must be able to bring it down on the havingness. But any case can be brought down on the havingness, even if they won’t do anything whatsoever about the overts. Now why?

It’s because the individual who is in a valence can get the valence released by havingness. But in many cases, the valence doesn’t release by running the overts. That doesn’t mean that 80 percent of the cases don’t do spectacular things just by getting the overts off, you understand. There’s tremendous numbers of them do come down to Clear read just by getting all their overts off. But there’s enough of them that don’t to tell us that the better road is Objective Havingness.

Any case which has a very low tone arm, any case which has a very high tone arm, any case which has an unchanging tone arm in processing, hasn’t been cracked from the viewpoint of havingness. You haven’t run a process on this case that the case could have the walls and the ceiling and the floor and the people. Got it?

Tone arm doesn’t change, no Havingness Process has been run that changed the havingness level of the case. Get that. Because that gives you an auditing career instead of a worry.

You know what to worry about. That’s it. If that tone arm isn’t flying around as you audit the case, that tone arm remains consistently high or consistently low, Objective Havingness has not been touched. There’s been no reality on a Havingness Process.

Right now you have twenty-seven or twenty-eight presessions developed just for this unit, each one of them that has, all but Presession I, has a Havingness command. The simplest Havingness command is “Look around here and find something you can have.”

That, by the way, run for a day or two or something of that sort — well, let’s say ten, twelve hours on a case, on an awful lot of cases, does give you the tone arm shift. Somebody who is reading consistently at 2.0 — 2.0, 2.0 — a man, and he should be reading at 3.0, but he’s reading at 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, and you just run “Look around here and find something you could have.” It may take six, eight, ten, twelve hours of processing. “Look around here and find something you could have,” before you get him moving off of 2.0. Got the idea?

Now, there is the basic process, and that process will be more successful for the larger majority of cases than these other processes. But this now leaves us something on the order of about 60 percent of the cases. And we got about 40 percent or something on that sort with just “Look around here and find something you can have” — or “could have.”

Well, we’re still left with about 60 percent of the cases that don’t crack on that one, well, you have something on the order of twenty-six other Objective Havingness Processes right here at this time. Twenty-six other processes. They are not categorized for you at this moment to make it easy, to say this is the way the scale goes or something like that And perhaps they won’t be, because cases get into very complex havingness problems.

There is another one: “Find two objects in this room that are similar.” And that is another one of these which is an old — the old self-audit one, remember? Which by the way is pretty spectacular. But why does it work?

It increases the fellow’s havingness because it brings up his duplication. He starts increasing his duplication, so of course it raises his havingness. Any time you can increase a pc’s objective duplication of anything, you will raise his havingness. That’s the formula of how to raise havingness.

So the doors are wide open on how you crack a case. But there are enormous numbers of ways to get the fellow to have the wall.

And as I say, right now you have about twenty-seven of them. They are different processes of one kind or another, and I’d run one for a little while, and if it didn’t work, I’d run another one, and if it didn’t work, I’d run another one, and if it didn’t work, I’d run another one. These things normally work, we’ve been finding out, in the first few commands.

I mean, if they don’t work in — well, if they didn’t work after half an hour, why, I wouldn’t carry on with it So I wouldn’t bother about these cases that didn’t move off 2.0 until you’d run twelve and a half hours of “Look around here and find something you could have.” I’d take the easier course and find something that did move them. Got the idea?

Even though they might eventually move on this other one, they also might not, and you’ve got twelve and a half hours of processing up the spout. Well, it shouldn’t — with some experience — it shouldn’t take you more than maybe two or three hours on a case now to find a Havingness Process that did work on the case.

Cases are in various states of dishabille. The walls are dangerous. You get the walls being emotional toward the pc. That’s right You get all kinds of odd combinations of reactions, and there are various processes which take these things apart.

But I’d try to size up the case, take the most likely one, run it and if it didn’t change the case then pick up another Havingness Process and do it.

Now, this is your basic formula then for advancing and moving a case. And running a case — starting and running a case.

One: Find a Havingness Process that works. Get it to work so that you’re getting a tone arm action that is adequate to what you think it should be. Tone arm is starting down toward the Clear read of the pc. You’ve got a Havingness Process that is biting. Oh, you can tell by the pc’s interest, you can tell by all sorts of things. You have to watch it, however, because it might not be the Havingness Process. There might be another one that would have done better, don’t you see. So if it’s kind of stally and it worked, and then it doesn’t work, why, you’d better fish for another one. Got it? It was just one-shot, it worked, and so on.

The reason cases that are having a bad time, you know, can’t run on the same process more than once is because, of course, those cases can’t duplicate. You got it? So they get a tremendous gain on process A and then process A ceases to produce some sort of a gain, well, it didn’t improve their duplication enough. Got the idea? So therefore, that wasn’t the Havingness Process you should have been running on the case. You got the idea?

So these processes that start and then stall are probably not the right process in the first place. All right.

Having established this Havingness Process to your satisfaction that you can remedy the havingness of this pc with an Objective Process that has to do with the walls, the room, something of that sort, you now fish for the Confront Process.

Now you’ve got the Havingness Process, you’re satisfied with it (This is a safe way to run a case.) You’re satisfied with it You fish for the Confront Process and of course the basic one of those is simply general confront. And it’s easily the best one. “What could you confront? What would you rather not confront?” Bing-bing, bing-bing, bing-bing. That is the best one. But there are lots of cases that won’t be able to run on that one.

See, you have black fields, and they’re this, and what could you confront, and this fellow just tells you the first thing that flashes into his head. There’s no participation by the pc, and so forth.

But there are Confront Processes and there’s one for every Havingness Process. So I’d go through the list of the Confront Processes to see that one which best matched up. I’d take it at first glance, I would take the Confront Process that matched the Havingness Process in the presession. That’s your best selection.

But if it didn’t change the tone arm as the case is run, why, you’d better go fishing for another Confront Process. You got the idea?

All right Now having established the Confront Process that adequately moved the tone arm around all by itself, and the Confront Process that moved the tone arm around all by itself, you now have the presession for that case. Right?

So you run those two processes until the pc’s tone arm is at Clear read for his or her sex. In other words, you get the tone arm established and straightened out for the pc’s sex. In other words, you get it to read at Clear.

Having done so, you now add Help on Motion to the case. Now there’s many a case that’s been all straightened out with processes which didn’t include motion and didn’t include help that all of a sudden go blooey the second Help and Motion are applied to them. But your case won’t go blooey to the degree that its Havingness Processes and its Confront Processes cease to run.

In other words, you’ve still got those two. So you’ve just added this new Help on Motion Process to the thing, and it changes the bank around and the confront changes the bank around, and the havingness keeps the fellow from going through the bottom of the barrel.

The best proceeding on use, here, is to run these two presessions just fished around with, you see, as presessions, not as Model Sessions. You know, you just pick it up and say, “Well, I’m going to begin the session. Now I’ll begin ...” you know, and keep right on going this way. Don’t take up his problems and all this sort of thing because you just cut the person’s havingness down — it’s all meaningless anyway.

That’s right. You’re taking up the problems of a circuit that you’re going to get rid of in a few minutes anyway.

Now, let’s look at this more factually. When you’ve got the Havingness Process, the Objective Havingness Process that works, and you’ve got the Confront Process that works on the case, these are used in a presession form just to get the tone arm down there somewhere around Clear.

Now if you, of course, notice he’s got a PTP and if you notice madly that the person has got a big ARC break or something like that, you could still take it up on this somewhat very informal basis and kind of get it discussed out or straightened out or something like this, but just give it a brush-off, you know? Try to keep the case running on that Havingness and that Confront Process. And keep those two going until you get that tone arm to Clear read. All right.

Now, now having done that, let’s move in here, let’s move in with a Model Session when we finally are going to run Help on Motion.

Now we take it up dress parade. We know we’ve got the case boxed. It’s all right to talk things over with the case, it’s all right to take up PTPs, you’ve got the case running. So fine! You run it in a Model Session and here’s our first process, however, is Havingness. A Model Session — you open up the Model Session, you run this person’s Havingness Process that you’ve already established, you see.

Now you run Help on Motion, which is Alternate Help on Motion Amd then you run this person’s Havingness Process again, then you run this person’s Confront Process again, and then you run this person’s Havingness Process again, and then you give him some more Help on Motion. And then you give him some Havingness after that, and then some more of his Confront, and some more Havingness, and again more Help on Motion.

And, boy, you’re just booting that case — you’re just booting that case along like you were a polo player, you know. Pow! Pow! Pow! Right on down the line.

A case couldn’t get into much trouble if you did that And if you don’t establish the havingness point, and if you find it’s impossible to establish the havingness point of a case, why bother to establish the confront? Why bother to run Help on Motion? Why bother? Got it?

Audience: Yes.

I wouldn’t sweat over the case. I’d either send them in — decide that, well, try to figure it out. Try to figure out a Havingness Process that would work, carry that to any extreme degree, so forth. If I couldn’t go any further than that, I wouldn’t do anything else. There’s no point in it. Because you’re just going to get the case into trouble. Case can’t remedy his havingness, so it can’t run. That’s it.

Now, of course, we’ve given broadly now the big secret of how everybody can have a case that can’t run. Well, I’d defy anybody to do some of these Havingness Processes without the tone arm changing.

Now, if of course his havingness is just — just can’t do anything about it and so forth, then you have one point on which you can work, you have one point on which you can work and that’s duplication, and that takes you into the CCHs. See, all the CCHs, particularly CCH 3 and CCH 4, are duplicative processes.

So I wouldn’t take them in to finding the Confront Process and running Help on Motion just hoping something would happen. No sir, you haven’t established havingness, so you aren’t going to do another blessed thing but run them over into the CCHs, Tone 40 auditing, and you’re going to carry them through the CCHs, putting them on an E-Meter occasionally to find out if their havingness has shifted, and checking out new Havingness Processes on them occasionally. Got it?

Audience: Yes.

But you’re just not going to carry on with any formal auditing on this case, you’re just going to skip it You’re just going off into the CCHs and that’s — now at last, we can say what establishes when and where you use the CCHs.

Well, it’s established, clearly, by whether or not a tone arm shift is accomplished with Havingness. And if you can get the pc’s havingness remedied with an Objective Havingness Process, why, you’ve got it made. And if you can’t do this after reasonable trials and hours and planning and testing, and so forth, if you can’t do this, then — then you shift- to the CCHs. And you just carry through the CCHs, and so forth, with the stress on the duplicating processes of the CCHs, which are 3 and 4.

You do lots of 3 and 4. Put the person on the meter occasionally, find out if 3 and 4 are shifting him around, which they would, of course, and checking them out newly on Havingness Processes which didn’t work on them before.

Now, when you’ve finally got the person (with 3 and 4 — CCH 3, CCH 4) up to a point where their havingness can be remedied, where it does change the meter, and so forth, then you just proceed as I have given you before — that’s when you run the CCHs there. And when you stop running them is when these processes bite — when verbal processes bite, there’s no point in carrying it on further than that.

You’re going to have some weird things happen running the CCHs. The extreme machine case, by the way, is liable to get rid of his machinery running CCH 3 and 4. And you should be aware of this and you should run the process long enough to actually get the pc really rid of the machine, you know.

You get it half out of their heads so they’re functioning, and then you go on to a Havingness Process that didn’t work, it just goes back into their heads again, don’t you see.

Now, there’s some judgment then involved in that type of case, but this isn’t too much stress because some of you, I am sure, are going to give up on a case, the Objective Havingness of which probably could be remedied, and just go into the 3 and 4, don’t you see. You won’t establish it first, before you got some experience with this and you probably won’t establish a Havingness Process that does remedy their havingness. But, I wouldn’t worry about it Don’t get frantic about it. If you can’t do it, why, go off into CCH 3 and CCH 4.

Now, there is how you run a case. There is the background of cases, and so forth, and it’s all wrapped up in a package, and if you learn this so that you can do it experientially and understand it completely in the next year, I’ll think you’re very good.

Thank you very much.