Now we want to take up any specific question which you might have with regard to the processing and the phenomena with which you have been intimately associated for the last few days. You might have had something happen here.

Yes?

Male voice: On the Start, Change, Stop one — process, on the Change section, on the — when you say, "Did you change that body?" Um — ran a difficulty on the idea of changing the body. What about adding position after that? What was wrong — what would be wrong with adding position after that — body position ?

Oh, I wouldn't. That question has come up before. "Did you change the body?" "Did you change it?" "Did you change its position?" It's come up before. It was already thrashed through a year or two ago.

Well, the idea was occasionally you get somebody that you could implant. And he'd eventually get the idea that he could change his mind. That's as sensible an answer as any other. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Change that body's position." There's this — there's this, however — there's this definitely: Change is the one you run the least of and is bound to get trouble, and I think all you smelled there was trouble with Change.

Now, I've just in this lecture covered elsewhereness, haven't I? Hm? This whole idea of elsewhereness is for the birds. And all you'd run Change for is to unsettle his smug complacency that he is now able to start it or stop it — particularly to unsettle his stoppingness of it.

You should know right now that SCS is not a perfect process. Stop-C-S is. You understand? Stop-C-S is a very fine process. But Start-C-S, just SCS normally and generally run, doesn't even vaguely get where Stop-C-S does. Why? Stop-C-S is a sort of a hold-it-still — an arrivingness, a thereness. It answers up all the considerations that we need answered up. And Start-C-S doesn't. It puts no emphasis on stop. It puts equal numbers of stuff on start and change, you know? And change itself is very unsettling. And for you to get into an argument on the subject of change in Start-C-S is awful usual. See, I mean, that's a very usual argument.

I'm glad you brought it up because I wish to tell you that your Start-C-S is simply run to get a preclear under control, not as a therapeutic process here.

Female voice: I thought so.

If you were running it as a therapeutic process — therapeutic — you'd be running Stop-C-S. And you'd graduate into Stop-C-S with a little Start-C-S, just to get him under control again. Start-C-S is the thing that gets him under control. Stop-C-S would make him eight feet tall on a slow freight, see? We're not running these processes to be therapeutic on Start-C-S and Connectedness, see?

CCH 0, Present Time Problem, Start-C-S and Connectedness are being run simply to get a preclear under control.

Yes?

Male voice: Would you care to relate the thereness and elsewhereness and hereness and newness with a games condition, insofar as hereness and nowness might be considered, to some degree, a no-game condition, and elsewhereness a game condition?

Right. Very good. You've answered it yourself.

Male voice: Okay. But we're dealing with hereness and nowness.

Right.

Male voice: Okay. Now then, are we getting away from games conditions then?

You said it.

Male voice: Okay.

You know why? It's because Creative Processing, as we're doing it, evidently runs out the basic pins that make games condition necessary to process on the preclear.

Audience: (various responses)

See, we've graduated into a series of processes which bypasses it.

Male voice: I see.

That's why the condition of Clear can be obtained.

Male voice: Yes.

Second male voice: Wow.

Male voice: But a Clear then can, more or less, drop down to games any time he wishes to play . . .

Certainly. Certainly.

Male voice: Okay. I understand.

It just cuts games to pieces. It's something a fellow has to persevere through. That's all there is to it.

Second male voice: What I wanted to say was — in this thereness as opposed to hereness, wouldn't it be an idea when such a blow is blowing up to remind the preclear of hereness? I mean, one could get even as basic as possibly to say, well, "How about being here?" or "Come into present time."

Mm-hm.

Second male voice: It's very apparent that it is the bank being there.

Oh yes.

Second male voice: So couldn't you do that as a direct approach?

Ah yes, if you can do it as a direct approach, but you're doing it anyhow with everything actually that you're doing. That's why, you know, you mustn't linger too long on the basic steps of approach to Step — in your Intensive Procedure — 5, 6, 7, so forth. You just mustn't hang around. The staff auditors never got this last week, at all, and they had a dreadful time. They all made it, everybody's profiles improved and everything else; but they were doing it on a basis of twenty hours doing an approach, you see, and five hours of doing some processing. You get the idea?

And the twenty hours of approach was just cutting the preclear to ribbons — knocking out his games condition, lousing up his general status, putting his bank right where he was and chewing him up like mad, and THE BANK OUT OF CONTROL AND ITS STABILIZATION: Q&A PERIOD therefore, those are not therapeutic. They're simply to get the preclear under control so that he can do the other. And it's a ratio — if you've got to have a ratio here — and it's not a good thing to give a ratio, because you do it as fast as you can do it. You can do it also by altitude, you see? You can almost totally bypass those approach steps, see? And you can just use altitude. You go around telling people what a good auditor you are, long enough, and you've got enough altitude, obviously. Some of the people use this.

Female voice: Maybe I shouldn't ask this as I'm a pc, but I was wondering how much communication there ought to be in SCS. Because, as a pc you can start talking out all your life computations of what kind of problems you prefer to what kind of problems and . . .

Well, that's fine. A pc merely, however, is just supposed to be a pc. And he. . .

Female voice: Well , . .

. . . could do this, and it's actually — if the auditor recognizes that all he's trying to do is put the pc under control so that he can be audited on some therapeutic processes to take him up through the moon, see, fast, why, he'll shut this off. Otherwise, he could monkey with it for the rest of his life, you see?

Female voice: But if the auditor wants to know what's going on ...

You're . . .

Female voice: . . . then the pc is going to start trying to figure out what's going on.

Well, let me — let me tell you this — let me tell you this: We're up against a brand-new thing, here. Our approach processes are so good, you see — they're so much the real thing, they're so much better than even we have had, you see, in the years prior to '56. The approach processes are so hot, that they're apparently very therapeutic. And the preclear sees this and he sees himself getting over things and he sees himself changing and he says, "Whee! I'm on my way. Fine!"

The auditor mustn't fall into this trap. So, it's perfectly all right for the pc to conceive that he is on his way and to take full advantage of the therapeutic aspect of these approach processes, but the auditor shouldn't. See?

If Freud had had these approach processes, man, he'd have had it made. He wouldn't have had to have finished his career with the pathetic paper he finished his career on. Do you know the paper he wrote? Did you ever hear of the paper he wrote just before he closed the shop up — gathered himself his marble orchard piece?

Male voice: What's the name of that piece?

It's "Psychoanalysis, Terminable and Interminable." A sad piece, if there ever was one. "Did it go on forever?" Same question some of us were asking in 1950 when we were erasing engrams. "Did it go on forever?"

Yes?

Male voice: This is on a different subject, but first and second postulate phenomena . . .

Yeah.

Male voice: ... is this a fact or is this a consideration? If it's a consideration, why is it so damn general?

Well, it's evidently fact.

Male voice: A fact?

Mm-hm. Evidently a fact.

And by the way, this is a misnomer, and you should know in all fairness to you that it is — these numbers have never been well-rationalized, you see?

And that is to say, you start from a fact and then you get a postulate which is contrary to the fact. So you get a point of self-denial which then starts into a games condition, see. That's all you have to know about your first and second postulate. I don't know if that answers your question or ...

Male voice: Yes.

All right.

Yes?

Female voice: How much under control should that bank be on Connectedness?

No, it isn't the bank that you want under control. The bank will come under control on your Creative Processing steps. You want the pc under control. Now, how much under control should he be? That you have him under control to the degree that he will do a subjective command without wiggling or departure. And that's all you want. And with a lot of people you have that at once, see? Actually, with the bulk of people you have it at once. If you were to look at profiles, you would find those profiles even on the middle ground of an APA sheet will do it at once-. But those profiles which lie along the bottom will not do it at once. So to be sure, you just make sure everybody will do it.

Female voice: Are you looking for exteriorization in SCS?

No. No. You get it, though, don't you?

Female voice: Well, I don't know. I try to get it. . .

No, well, don't worry about it. You get exteriorization. As a matter of fact, Stop-C-S is the damnedest exteriorization process you ever had anything to do with. I've seen more people fly out of their heads — I've seen lots of people fly out of their heads on Start-C-S. It's almost impossible to keep them in. Hm! Connectedness, and so forth.

Of course, you have a treat in store for you. You have an exteriorization process that ends all exteriorization processes in subjective Keep It from Going Away. Only it has the lovely, lovely aspect of not letting the preclear realize it. The preclear goes ahead and bangs out of his head and flies all over the doggone place and tries to locate the body. And he says, "Let's see, in front of that body . . . Now, let me see . . . The body, the body, the body . . . Oh yes, there it is! All right. In front of that body, I'll mock up that." And they do this and they never say, "Well, you know I'm out of my head." They never cognite on it at all and they're out someplace, lord knows where — eight miles away, you know — putting things in front of the body, in back of the body and above the body and below the body. And the person knows all about the phenomena of exteriorization. They've told you they've never been exteriorized. After a few sessions and so forth they'd say, "Well, we'll get up to exteriorization, now, someday." It's quite remarkable. They never recognize it, because it's so smooth, see.

If you want somebody to bang out of his head rather impermanently, just have him ask him — ask him to keep his head from going away, see, just keep his head from going away. And to make a second terminal just to monkey with, why, keep his knees from going away, you see, and keep his head from going away with his hands. And keep his knees from going away and keep his head from going away — he'll come out of his head. There's no doubt about that. I don't care how stuck he is as a black V. He might not ever come out again on the same process, but he will blow out of his head.

Female voice: If you ran it long enough and . . . Would he stay out?

Oh yeah. You'd have to run it and run it and run it. It's a long haul, though. I mean, that's a long one.THE BANK OUT OF CONTROL AND ITS STABILIZATION: Q&A PERIOD

Now, subjective Keep It from Going Away in six directions — that one works it up on a gradient scale and knocks out all those things which kept him pinned in his head in the first place. You see, his head isn't keeping him pinned in his head. See, he isn't pinned in his head because of his head. He's pinned in his head because of this second universe I was talking about — the mind. The mind pins him in his head, see? So he's actually pinned in the mind, he's not pinned in his head.

Yes?

Female voice: I'd like to know if this procedure that you're using in this — in the intensive will do away with all the other steps?

Oh no. No, no.

The procedure which we're using does not do away with all the processes we have. I'll tell you at once what one of these things would amount to. Let's take the case that this procedure does not undercut. For instance, this procedure does not undercut a lot of cases. They don't start at the bottom there with a present time problem, see; they're not in communication. Now, you couldn't talk to them about help. Take a person who's lying there unconscious. You certainly can't start with this procedure. You've got the CCH 1, CCH 2, CCH 3, CCH 4. You have somebody who can't even vaguely get the idea of keeping anything from going away, you know? I mean, he just can't get the idea. You have to come around to objective Keep It from Going Away. And there's a tremendous number of processes which we have and all of them have their place.

Female voice: Starting from any real low cases but once they're able to do these processes, you wouldn't use any of the other, you know, processes?

I wouldn't waste time on them. You get up in a much faster process. See, everything you wanted to do with a case is done by a case with this subjective Keep It from Going Away, Hold It Still and Make It More Solid. And everything you've wanted to do with a case is done by those processes anyhow, and so there it is. I mean, at those ranges then, yes, you would abandon these processes. But how about just picking out somebody out here, and he has a headache? Oh, I can tell you sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety processes that you could run on him that would do something with a headache, see. And the general use of these things in assists — the use of these things to pick up a case, the use of these things to knock out a specific aberration without putting somebody into session for Clear — one shouldn't overlook those. Although, I dare say, a lot of these things will disappear which are quite valuable. For instance, wasting male bodies has cured more homosexuality than you can shake a stick at.

Male voice: I had an offer for it — a homosexual up in Princeton . . .

Right.

Male voice: . . . and I turned it down because I wasn't quite sure what to run on him. And I was running up to straight processes and whatnot, but. . .

They're the roughest cases in the world. They're the cases that Freud said in his twenty-eighth lecture, last paragraph, that they were too far out of this world. He called them "detached people." He was trying to cope with a remote viewpoint and he didn't realize it — a fixed remote viewpoint. And what we've got here on these Creative Processes that we're now doing, not only does this specifically, but it knocks out all these remote viewpoints quite incidentally. But you shouldn't have closed it up — you should have — I mean, you shouldn't have knocked it off. Why didn't you write me a letter? Because we've handled a tremendous number of those doggone things. It's awfully hard to get those guys to sit still, though, you know?

Male voice: Yeah. But would you waste — would you have them waste male bodies?

Yeah.

Second male voice: In a bracket.

Male voice: Waste them in a bracket?

In a bracket.

Female voice: Doesn't he have to be able to mock them up?

No.

Female voice: No.

No. Old Expanded GITA was gorgeous in that it would operate whether the guy could get a picture or not.

Female voice: He has to find ways to waste them?

Yeah, that's right. Mm-hm. There's a dozen ways to run it, but all of them were effective.

Yes?

Male voice: This is a little bit off the track, but I'd like to know what kind of things did you use to deal with willingness and things that you've tried.

Deal with willingness? Well, I'm afraid that my handling of willingness is crude. No, I'm not being smart — it's crude. We don't have a good answer to willingness at this time. Let's not be — let's not be optimistic. Fellow who — one has to have some willingness to sit still or we can't audit him, and we're still up against that.

Now, the CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 do promote willingness. And a lot of it depends upon the degree of participation.

Now, we ask, "What is willingness?" Well, we have to ask the idea of what is — what are we trying to make willing, a bank or a thetan? Evidently, a thetan is always willing, and if you simply persevere along the line, you will find the willingness is there. It is our automaticity, however. See, his willingness is our automaticity. It's the only thing that's on automatic right now. Willingness. He has to have some willingness. But we can rather safely assume — and we have never seen the contrary — that a thetan is basically willing. See, he is basically willing, but what suffers is trust: his fear that you will not persevere; the feeling that you may leave him up in the air, see. And as you proceed onward and show him that you are trying and that you are sticking with it, you are doing the best you can and that you will not be gainsaid, then makes him willing. See, his willingness is at first tentative, very tentative, and you have to prove that it was well placed before it takes place. Do you see that?

Well, that's the modus operandi we use, and when I say I belong to the old crude school, I do. I'll play tricks on preclears to make them more willing. I told one not too long ago, "Well, it's all right with me. You can sit there and be audited or go to jail. See, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other." Fellow had been sent up — been placed in my paws by a district attorney very short time ago. I said, "It's all right with me. I don't care which one." "Oh," he says.

I said, "Yeah." It's just as blunt as that. I said, "It doesn't matter to me. I'm perfectly willing to sit here and do the job but, you can go to jail, it's all right with me." I said, "It's probably easier to sit there than it is to sit in jail." He agreed that it was, and we went on and got some auditing done. Crude, huh? That's backing up a hearse suddenly, but, of course, I was operating THE BANK OUT OF CONTROL AND ITS STABILIZATION: Q&A PERIOD from some standpoint of too much altitude as far as he was concerned. We couldn't get into ARC. I'd been painted up to him as god knows what, see. And he was in a state of fixed awe, you know? Didn't work at all.

I heard on the monitor up there a preclear one day who was also a criminal. This was another person along with this other person, came to us from rather peculiar circumstances. The auditor got this guy from, "Help me? No. Nobody could help me. I might be able to help myself but nobody else could help me. Help somebody else? No. I couldn't help anybody else. That's impossible. Nobody helps anybody else." And he ran the bracket himself, see? And explained it all out, factual — snarl! One of the wildest things you ever listened to. I never heard anybody as 1.5 and as ornery on the subject of help. Just the most casual question on it. "Well, I'd take some medicine. That might help me. You couldn't help me. You don't know what you're doing," you know? Wow!

The auditor just kept chewing away on this thing, and as the little bird wears away the rock, he finally got the guy to admit that he could help him. He was just clearing Help on brackets. I think it took him two hours or two-and-a-half hours. And at the end of that time, the fellow said, "Yes, you could help me. I could go and get a couple of Fräuleins and a couple of fifths of Scotch, and you could come along and help me forget things and have a good time." But he actually had entered this at zero and he actually had walked it upstairs with Help to a point where there was an admission that a help could — that help could exist.

We skipped the case after that. It was not that important to us. We had established one thing, and that is that the gradient scale of Help would have walked him into an ability to be audited. We could have worked him up to that. We had demonstrated that. We didn't have, on the limited research budget that we travel on, we don't have many people we don't have very much to do with, and we have to take some wild shortcuts. And that was one of these shortcuts. We simply said, "Well, we could have cleared Help with this fellow, as ornery as he was, up to a point where he could have been helped. And we demonstrated it." So, maybe just clearing Help is your total answer to willingness.

If I found some old granny sitting in the middle of a family, that was chewing everything up, you know — rrrhh. I ran into one of these one time. Boy, she wouldn't let anybody in that family get audited, she held the purse strings on the thing, she was folly, and nobody realized she was totally out of communication. She was the worst case I ever walked into, and everybody thought she was wonderfully good shape. If I ran into such a case again, I wouldn't argue with her about Scientology. I would simply start clearing Help. And every time I visited her and got around her, I would clear Help for ten or fifteen minutes. And I would just saw through that bank, because Help is one of the neatest little meat saws you ever had in your hands.

A fellow has been left on too many asteroids with no relieving squadron, he knows help is impossible.

Male voice: Any preferential, specific command to use on Help with it. . . ?

Help is a two-way comm thing. It becomes a liability to issue too much of a command for Help. There are — there is an understood command in Help, and that merely guides the communication. It's "Could you help anybody? Could I help you? Could you help me?" Just a bracket sort of a question, you see? And that is the middle motif but if that is all an auditor does, he's — maybe not win.

Male voice: Okay. What about the how? Is that important?

Oh yeah, you can run into how. It's a two-way comm process rather than a process, right? "How could you help me?" "Has anybody ever helped anybody?" Most every auditor neglects that outer bracket and, boy, is that thing hot. "Have people ever helped people?" I had a guy sit down and 1.5 for half an hour — he was a perfectly good pc, and we just hit this one by accident and he 1.5'd for about, oh, a half an hour on the subject: Nobody had ever helped anybody and everybody was out to gouge everybody. And this nebulous everybody finally even got to him. And he finally said, "Everybody — now, who am I talking about?" Which is an interesting cognition all by itself.

Female voice: I'd like to know a little bit about this because I tried using it and I had — with one preclear, I thought I had very good results.

Right.

Female voice: But another one was a psychotic, and I found I couldn't use it on all the brackets — just on a few.

You couldn't use it on all the brackets?

Female voice: No.

Well, that's possibly because you were using it as a process.

Female voice: It wouldn't make it — it wasn't real to him, all the other brackets.

Well, that's interesting. There was a low-reality case.

Female voice: Just "you," "myself". . . "Could I help somebody else?" That's as far as it could go.

All right. All right. That was as far as his reality on people went.

Female voice: You just work that until. . .

Yeah. See, all of these buttons are hot as firecrackers, therapeutically — you understand that, don't you, class? I mean, they're all hot, and it is a tremendous temptation to sail along the line, see, say, "Boy, have I got this case rolling!" You know? Zing, let's go! And you find yourself about eight or ten hours of processing later, improved, yes, but you haven't gotten where you're supposed to go. They're all derailers, and nearly everybody running this Intensive Procedure is getting derailed right there in the early stages because of the tremendous power of the buttons and CCH 0 and Body Control and . . .

Auditors at first started just to get on an E-Meter. And then they found out they could clear the breaks and stops and communication points on an E-Meter. And they'd start clearing these things up. And they found this E-Meter again, and it's a hot instrument, you know? And you can run a person right on an E-Meter with two-way comm, see. Slow freight, but you can do it. And they were so fascinated with this because they were getting further with preclears than they'd gotten for some time that I had the devil's own time dynamiting them off the E-Meter and getting them over into clearing. Fabulous.

Of course, you clear — you only have to clear one person and see how far you got, to accomplish all these other things, then, to not worry anymore about whether they're therapeutic or not, see. You then have a definiteness about your approach for which there's no substitute. That's what we're doing right here in this class.

Okay. That's our time.

Thank you very much. I'll see you tomorrow.

Thank you.