What's happening there? You're running through the actual circuitry of the guy's own bank. And it is a map. So you could see very easily if you put a command into one part of the person's bank, it's liable to come out anything.

Let's supposing you put the command "Walk" into one part of his bank. It's just as likely to register "Don't walk." And we get what we call an inversion. The only thing that will go through the various circuits and motivate muscles is the command "Don't walk." We say "Walk" and all it does is restimulate "Don't walk." See this?

So, monitoring a body out here at a distance is complicated to the degree that the body may not be responding on the same line. If you get real smart about this, you could simply tell the waitress, "Don't you dare come over to this table" and they come right over. Not necessarily complete positive/negative, "Come over to this table" may mean "Powder my nose." See, all kinds of complications could occur.

In dancing, it's a great oddity, if the dance instructor were to watch, occasionally say, "Now you put your right foot forward. Now you put your right foot forward." And the dancing instructor sets the example and puts his or her right foot forward, to find the person then getting rigid without putting his right foot forward.

And the early days of instruction would be quite routine, quite ordinary. The person doesn't do it right away, so it takes a little coaxing, a little coaxing. What are you doing? You're running out the reversal here. The very fact that he's supposed to put his right foot forward means "stick," see? When we get "Walk," we get "Don't walk." We say "Walk," we get "Don't walk."

Now, the oddity is, you take a person that would be very hard to teach how to dance, you say, "Put your right foot forward" and you're liable to get him tossing his head, you know. Well, just as easily, you say, "Put your right foot forward" and the person begins to talk!

Now look at that as simply stimulus-response machinery going into action. You can monitor a body. The only thing that would kick back against you monitoring a body would be the fact, is the body monitorable?

To make that a little more plain, it is very easy for you, let us say, to run a steam engine. But what about a steam engine that doesn't have any fire in the boiler?

Now, let's say it's very easy for you to start a car and drive a car.

Well, what about a car that doesn't have a crankcase, no gas in the tank, battery dead? Get the idea?

So there could be impediments to your monitoring a body which would have nothing to do with your own strength and power.

Of course, you always feel-thetan gets real cocky, he feels "Why, I ought to be good enough," so I just simply say, "Whooh!" and the person's monitorable then, go ahead and monitor them. Still haven't done anything for the individual.

You're trying to do something for an individual, that's the first and foremost thing you must learn. This individual is not a body, this individual is a thetan-something without space, without mass, without time, without wavelength and that is what you are working with. A person is as bad off as he believes that he is mass, energy, space or time. He's just that bad off-direct and exact coordination.

How do you return his beingness to him as a thetan? You restore what we call his self-determinism, which in Scientology of these later months has become pan-determinism, which is the willingness to monitor two or more identities, whether or not opposed. Perfect willingness to monitor the French army and the German army, which are fighting violently together at the same time. Perfectly willing to monitor both sides at the same time.

You have an opponent, he is fighting you bitterly, and your perfect willingness and cognizance and knowledge that this opponent is fighting you and yet a perfect willingness to monitor his fighting of you. What would happen if you got perfectly willing about that opponent fighting you? A fascinating thing would occur: the fight would cease, the conflict would cease.

Most all men are involved with fighting themselves. This is all they are fighting. They will tell you, "I'm out here fighting the universe, I'm fighting God, I'm fighting space, fighting time, I'm fighting my job." If they're fighting anything, the first thing they'll be fighting is themselves.

You can just say that as a broad statement about any person. You just look at this person and you say, "Well, he's fighting himself." It's something like saying, "Well, I'm looking at a person." I mean, same level of truth. I'm just looking at somebody, "Well, he's fighting himself."

This is a great oddity. The restraints and denials which you put upon you are the only things which aberrate you. So therefore we can say with great smug truth that you did it all yourself. We can say that very smugly that "you did it all yourself."

The only trouble is, you did it by misownership. That doesn't say how you did it by yourself. You said you did things that other people did. You said you didn't do things which you did, which is the denial of self and which then gives you energy masses which fight you.

See you're still doing it, but how are you doing it? You're doing it by misownership.

You're saying, "The deeds which I do, I don't do." This makes them perpetual. "The deeds which I didn't do, I am saying I did do. I am guilty of my grandfather's death." You weren't even there. You didn't have anything to do with it at all, therefore it stays in restimulation. It stays extant.

Remember, the individual himself is the only being who is checking himself. Understand this very clearly because, otherwise, auditing would never work!

You would have to have Grandpa and Grandma and Papa and Mama and the US Government and the income tax bureau and the Federal Boys Institute and everybody else present. The generals of the armies-you'd have to get all the personnel there ever was all the way back down the track. You understand that?

You'd just have to get everybody in the whole world around an individual before you could do anything for him. You would have to get anybody who ever thought a thought about this person to change his mind concerning that person. You see that? If this other thing weren't true. But it happens that this other thing is true: that an individual did it all himself.

And how did he do it by himself? He did it by himself very, very simply. He misowned or miscalled the actual authors of all the deeds which are in restimulation. If a deed is in restimulation, he must be miscalling the authorship of the deed.

The army really did chew him up during the war. The army put him into bad condition. And he's saying, "All right. I did it myself. I put myself into bad condition." And so he stays in bad condition.

So he put himself into bad condition because he didn't want to report to duty-another case-he didn't want to report to duty and go and get shot up. He showed some small reluctance to getting small pieces of lead through his anatomy and so he wound himself up in sick bay. He turned himself in to the hospital. And thereafter he's saying, "Look what the army did to me." He's sick! And he says, "Look what the army did to me." And he's still sick, isn't he? Well then, you know immediately that the army couldn't have done it to him.

You see that clearly? Very simple. But remember that the reverse is true. He's saying, "Well, I did it to myself. I wanted to be sick, I wanted to get out of fighting, I wanted to goldbrick and I did it to myself and this is how I got that way and this is how sick I am." And you look at him, he's sick, isn't he? He didn't do it to himself, the army did it to him. Get both conditions, hm? Both conditions.

But remember that above both of these conditions, he still did it to himself. He did doing it to himself on this via of misauthorship or misownership. You see that clearly? Therefore if some of these points are straightened out with an individual, his self-determinism begins to increase. But let's look at pan-determinism.

This doesn't happen to an individual who is perfectly willing to run the army or himself, because he can't misown something. How can a person who owns everything misown anything? Not possible then, is it? A person who is capable, willing or able to determine the course of anything is therefore incapable of misowning anything.

Now, if you just got that principle, if you see that principle clearly, you can see anything that is wrong with an individual because it's contained right there.

An individual is as sick as he has taken sides. An individual is as sick as he is partisan. The Roman Catholic Church is as sick as it will not be the Protestant Church. The Baptists are as sick as they will not be Methodists.

The Communists are as sick as they will not be the Catholics. The Republicans are as sick as they will not be Democrats. And when I say sick, I mean non-self-determined.

You could say, "Sickness-non-self-determined. Aberrated- non-self-determined."

The only way you can get a via into the line is to become a unit individual. That puts a via in the line, doesn't it? You can handle all of it, so you're being John Doe. Now, if you put a via into the line just to this degree, you have God. Here we have God. And you're saying, "He is a special identity that's going to punish me and he is everything." Drrrrrrh. You're going to get sick. Cinch. Cinch.

You're going to get equally sick if you turn around and say, "Now I am God and I'm going to punish that little squirt down there," see? An individual then has to have some unity with allness, everywhere, in order to retain some balance unto himself. See that?

He has to be something of himself and something of God. It isn't God in him or him in God. Therefore we get the oldest process, I guess, that any kid uses, and that's Beingness Processing.

A kid can be a choo-choo train and he wouldn't be too shocked to be Christ or God. Now, we catch him twenty years later and we say to him, "All right"-auditing session, see-saying, "All right. Now be God."

"Dzzzaaa." Can't do it.

Who can he be? Well, we only found him twenty years later, you know, he's only about twenty now, so who can he be? He can be John Doe. Well, let's catch him about twenty years later, now. Can he be John Doe? He can't be John Doe anymore. See this oddity which is occurring here? In other words, when you say he's losing his ability to be-when he's losing his ability to be, he is losing his pan-determinism. And as fast as he loses this pan-determinism, the less, then, he can take responsibility for, the less he is actually owning correctly and the more he's misowning it.

If he were totally pan-determined, he couldn't misown anything. He could say at will, "The Germans own it and Bill owns it and everybody owns it and I own it" and it'd all equally be correct. See that? It'd all be equally true, uniformly.

Why? Because he himself knows it isn't true. So we would get the state of aberration or the state of being Homo sapiens or less, simply as that state of "convincedness" of ownership and identity.

If you sit in the auditing chair and know-oh, a terrific conviction-that you are not that preclear, you're going to wind up restimulated. That I promise. Can't promise anything else except that: you'll wind up restimulated.

You sit there saying, "Oh boy, I'm glad I didn't have a mother like that-ha!" Hrff! Or "I'm glad I didn't belong to that church." Brrr. Of course it's perfectly all right for you to say that, you know, "I'm glad I didn't have a mother like that," realizing it would have been totally possible for you to have had a mother like that. Never restimulate you.

You're perfectly willing to have a mother like that, that you can comment like you look at a play, on it, but if you're totally convinced and deadly serious that it'd be a very, very dangerous thing for you to have had a mother like that, you'll get restimulated. In other words, you're not willing to be the preclear and be yourself.

Now, it's a very good thing that we are not operative in the field of psychiatry. We do not operate in that field. We have nothing to do with that field.

But if you were working with insane persons, you would get this great oddity: a tremendous unwillingness to be that insane person. Person out of control, uncontrollable one way or the other, mad. And we keep facing this all during auditing sessions when we're tired and disappointed or upset or anything else, we would be facing there, "insane people, insane people, insane people," you know?

And sooner or later it's liable to sneak up on us. We're liable to find one that we're not willing to be. By no stretch of the imagination would we be this gibbering thing sitting there slobbering all over itself and mouthing obscenities. And right at that moment we're done! We're done as a healer because we found something we're not willing to be. And at that moment restimulation can set in.

Now, let's look at this as a parallel of life. It tells you that somewhere back on the track you must have run into something you weren't willing to be-and I mean dead unwilling to be. Just not for anything would you be that thing! Bye-bye. There went your pan-determinism, which immediately got, in its more narrow sense, self-determinism. "Well, I can determine the course of myself but I'm not going to determine the course of those damn Germans." You know, this philosophy. When a nation is pushed to war, it inevitably winds up at the end of that war lower in tone than it was at the beginning of that war. That's just the way it works.

There's no reason for it to have to have a reason to fight, see? But it says, "Oh, these Germans are real bad, these people are real bad, they're real bad. We can't be like them, we can't be like them." And we get the other mechanism: we get an enforced "Be like them."

We finally wind up to where we feel forced to be them, because we've resisted them so hard. In other words, we've caved in. "Walk" has become "Don't walk." We've resisted walking so hard that we're now not walking. We've resisted not walking so hard that we're now walking. It's an oddity.

But that is not a cure for anything. That is an obsession and an obsessiveness and that is all it is. That's without determinism. We're simply working like a bunch of robots or machines.

Now, what ensues here, then, in all this processing? We're just simply, one way or the other, asking the individual to be more, control more, be willing to reach further, that's all. That's all we're asking him to do. So we come to these nine processes.

A thetan can see what he can be and he can be what he can see. That is an old saw-London, 1952. A thetan can be what he can see, he can see what he can be.

Now "seeingness" is not terribly important. After all, it depends on space and mass and flows or basically an idea, but that's kind of the entrance point, right there.

Unfortunately for a lot of things-I didn't say "a lot of people"-for a lot of things it is not an entrance point. An entrance point is far south from there for these cases. But I'm afraid that they're out of sight for ordinary routine purposes of living and certainly for ordinary routine pieces of auditing, they are out of sight. Something for you to realize, there.

It's not that you have a case level which is impossible for you to reach. There is no such thing. But you would have to start reaching it by the various laws of necromancy and spiritualism. You'd make them well by shifting over into their heads and deteriorating the mass yourself in some fashion and then flipping out and coaxing them into some kind of a communication or reaching in and pulling them out of their heads, which is a possibility. Or doing a mass-the Atomic Energy Commission seems to have some idea (not the Atomic Energy Commission, it doesn't have that idea at all) but the governments who employ atomic energy seem to have the mission of clearing everybody. Boom!

All right. Now-all right, that's another way now, but you see, that's clearing against self-determinism. So theoretically it wouldn't be very workable would it? Yet there are downscale measures.

You could take somebody and put him over here where he is not in total conflict, where he is at ease, where he can breathe, where the pressures of life are not hitting him continually and you will see him revive up to a level of where he can operate. You see that?

When you start going south-let's take a nervous breakdown or nervous collapse and we discover that one of the easy ways to handle this is not auditing as such. That's not an easy way to handle it. The easiest way to handle it is to give the person less conflict with existence and let them have some quiet for a while and they come out of it.

Eventually, one day, quite by accident, they'll open up an eye and there will be no saber-toothed tiger about ready to claw their throat out. So a couple of days later they'll carefully open the eye again, they'll find out there's nothing there but the bottom of the bed. So about a day later they'll open their eye and there's nothing there but a chair [sigh]. About that time they say, "Huh, chair. Not even anybody sitting in it. Yeah, what do you know, huh. Chair. [sigh] And it isn't going to hit me. Do you know that's something to think about. A chair. Yeah. It's not in motion. And the bottom of the bed, it's not in motion either."

The person sees a vase sitting there. The vase, by the way, is full of flowers. They don't see the flowers, they just see a vase there. They say, "What do you know, a vase. It's not broken. What do you know. Look at that. It's not broken. Ah, well. Feel a little better this morning."

The only thing wrong with institutions, by the way, which take on people who have nervous breakdowns is they keep picking on them-they keep doing things. They keep moving them around and putting them in things and restraining them and they're always in action. They get an environment in action against the individual! And that's a lot of malarkey. You don't want anything to do with it at all. If you possibly could do so, what you want to do is take somebody out where there's a lot of space of some kind or another and also some shelter that he can't tear up, one way or the other. And if you just let him sit under those conditions for a while, he would snap back to battery eventually or he'd die, but it'd still be on his own determinism.

So here we have about the basic level of entrance of a case, is give them a rest in some space, without anybody nagging at them at all. That's basic entrance. That's how far south you can go. You can't go any further south than that because they go out of complete visibility below that point, because they're dead.

If they're ever going to recover-this is something that you should know and something that I-. This is not a subject-on the subject of insanity, not a talk on that, but there is something you should know, because someday we're going to have every institution there is in this whole country. Now , we certainly better know something about it.

Although it seems to pose a considerable problem, although the problem seems to be desperately urgent, remember, there's one thing wrong with all these people: it's all been too urgent. Got that? You just look at a person who's insane, whether he's in apathy, lying still, drooling, screaming, no matter what he's doing, it's all been too urgent. It's all emergency and if you go feeding them more emergency, you'll just knock them flat again. So if you run an institution, just see there's a minimum of emergency anywhere. A minimum of action.

It's actually the easiest thing in the world to run an institution. You just have to have enough space-you segregate people along the lines of who are the people here who aren't going to harm each other. And who are the people that would mildly and who are the people that definitely would. And we just take a division along this line and we give them as much space as is possibly available within that framework and then we give them all kinds of quiet. See, and we give them no emergencies. We don't have alarm bells going, we don't have attendants coming in and out and slapping doors. We don't have people walking up and down halls and all of this kind of thing. We don't have examinations, madly-people being there. And we certainly don't attempt treatment. Get that last. It's terribly important.

Now, our subject is not the subject of the insane, but there is, to all intents and purposes, the only workable solution for insanity which we have in the shot-locker right now. There are possibly a lot better solutions, but they just don't happen to be here and now. So you take what you do know here and now.

We do know that none of the extant "solutions" which are being used are workable, simply by viewing the statistics-this is not an opinion of mine, it's just the statistics-that where these things are used we don't get recovery. So there's this low level of insane, the insane person who has decided to die and he's not changed his mind. And as long as there's urgency in his environment at all, he'll just keep on deciding to die because he can't tolerate any more motion.

All right. Therefore and thereby, to all intents and purposes, the lowest point south that you're going to go in your steps is step number one, which is called Locational Processing.

And you just do this with the guy. I don't care if he's sane, I don't care if he's exteriorized or anything else. Let's do this trick. Let's have him locate some things. And by this we don't mean walk over to them. He doesn't walk over to them and touch them. He doesn't go into action. There is no action going on in this process. We just have him locate some things.

We ask him questions like "How many walls have we got here? How many ceilings and floors? How many chairs in the room? And are there any pictures in the room?" And this sounds like something you'd use on a psycho, but it's not a psycho process. Don't get yourself confused there. It is the process which lies immediately below Two-way Communication and is a faster process than in Two-way Communication, because if you keep it up long enough, the person will start to talk to you. Now that's why and where you use it.

Now, you've already, as I've said, you've got to know these other things I was talking to you about: about a session in progress and all that sort of thing, but the funny part of it is your preclear may not know a session is in progress in some cases. He maybe had a bad time for a couple of weeks and is upset emotionally and yet he's getting auditing, and work out all right. Well, let's be quiet about the whole thing, let's just, you know, be calm about it and let's have him locate some things in the room. And you'll find out that he'll go into two-way communication faster than if you ask him questions directly. Why?

Because the whole environment is putting its attention on him, its attention on him and telling him, "By the way, put your attention on yourself, put your attention on yourself," see? And you come along with two-way communication and you say, "Well, now how long have you had this condition?" See, it's just more urgency, more "Put the attention on yourself."

So let's get his attention off of himself, huh? And let's ask him if they've got a floor here, see? And he'll play the same trick that he'd play if he were given a rest. He'll open one eye after a few days and say, "Look there's a bottom of the bed. There's no lion at the bottom of the bed." In other words, get him oriented a little bit.

Well, now, the truth of the matter is that you couldn't possibly go wrong if you started every session on every preclear in this fashion. You couldn't go wrong. Ask him to locate some things. Well, now of course, you have to ask him to locate some things in a way where he won't be insulted. Let me assure you that the preclear who can be insulted by an auditing question is having a very hard time of it-very protective. Person that can be insulted, it merely means he's very protective of self-tells you he's having a hard time, anyhow. So, just ask him to locate some things and don't expect him to say, "Yes!" The fact that he turned his-you ask him if there's a rocking chair in the room, he turned his head over toward the rocking chair. That's your answer. Now, you got that clearly? That's your answer. He actually looked at the rocking chair or he flicked his eyeballs in its direction. Or he sat right there and kept on staring at you.

How do you know he didn't notice the rocking chair? Don't keep nagging him about that rocking chair. Don't keep nagging him about it. Say, "Is it in motion?" or something like that.

You've asked him, "Is there a rocking chair in the room?" He's looking right at you and he didn't give any sign that he saw it. And you say, "Is it in motion?"

He's liable to do something odd on a question like this, he's liable to say, "Nuh-uh." Probably shake his head, something.

It's a great oddity, because he actually saw the thing from behind himself or had a feeling it was there or he noticed it when he came in and so forth. He's sure there's a rocking chair there.

Well, you just keep this up until he's eventually, actually looking at the thing. He seems to be picking up an interest in the environment, and the clue: when he starts to answer you verbally.

"Yeah," he says.

All right. Now, it has to go that progressive pattern, though. You'll have the fellow who comes in, you say, "Are there any chairs in the...?"

"Oh, don't be silly, there's all kinds of chairs in the room." He didn't see them. He's around, he's just yapping.

He gives you a lot of talk. Particularly, "What do you mean, asking me if there are chairs in the room? Of course there are chairs in the room. Do you think I'm crazy? You think I'm blind or something? I came in here to get helped. I'm not crazy. You think-zzzz." You know? "Chairs that are in the room." Duhhh.

Well, the thing to say is say, "Oh, I know you're not. I know you're not crazy."

"There any walls in the room? What would you do if I asked you that?"

"Of course there are walls in the room. Nonsense!" So on.

You can go on and the next thing you know, he comes uptone and you do something like this: "Well, is there a ceiling here?"

"Yeah."

He actually will come uptone on a closer gradient than that. Instead of, "Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap. Of course there are chairs in the room. Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap," he'll actually [pause]-and he won't answer you at all.

Remember this: that Locational Processing is not two-way communication. It's the introduction and invitation to two-way communication.

So you run it till you get somebody in two-way communication and when he's gotten in two-way communication, talk about his present time problems. Don't talk about his past problems.

Why don't you talk about his past problems? Because that's Straightwire and that's a step above. So you don't talk about that one, see. Don't talk about past problems, talk about present time problems. Talk about-you know, what he's there for.

It's an odd thing, but you'll probably find the Registrar if you're taking a preclear in a Center or something like that-you'll probably find the Registrar has gone all through this and frankly gotten noplace. Asked the person about goals in auditing-has, in other words, started a lot of processes just trying to get some information down there. Very often, the preclear is not up to them-comm lag about them and so forth. The preclear doesn't have to be crazy not to be up to this, see, just lagging, still lagging on this. And you start talking about present time problems-his main present time problem is, "What goals do I have in auditing?" You know, first time it ever occurred to him that he might have goals in auditing. Up to that moment he has just wanted to be audited, see?

So you get into a discussion with the preclear and let the preclear originate some communications to you and you answer these communications and you originate some to the preclear, but don't get off into an obsessive communication lag.

Now, I almost slapped an auditor's ears one day when I learned that a preclear that I had managed to get into two-way communication-I audited this preclear a very short space of time, but I managed to get this preclear into two-way communication at the end of about six or seven hours of auditing.

Now, this is fantastic for me to take this long, but I never saw such an obsessive comm lag in my life. "Brrr. Cha-cha-chat-chat-chat, chung. Brum-a-rum. Chow, chow, chow, chow. Yap, yap, yap, yар, уар, уар, уар, уар, уар, yap, yap, yap, yap!" In the first afternoon I audited her, in four hours I got in three auditing questions. Zrrr. But remember, I got them in. And I got them answered. Actually, this preclear was really not up to two-way communication or an auditing question, but this was when we didn't have some of these little ideas. And this auditor comes to me and says, "Well, I certainly helped her a great deal because I let her talk for three days and three nights to me to tell me all of her problems." Yeah. Boom!

This person does that all the time anyhow. That wasn't auditing. That was just an obsessive comm lag, that's all. That's all that preclear was doing-that was all the auditor was listening to. Preclear was not under direction by the auditor. There was no session in progress. Well, the auditor had just blown up three days and three nights of her time, that's all, of her own time.

If by these basic steps that we're going over right now, if we had had them, the auditor would have asked the preclear to notice something and then kept on at her, one way or the other, to notice this and notice that and so forth until this obsessive comm lag tapered off and quit. And then the preclear started to answer the auditor. And then we could have gotten into two-way communication, see this?

So we got two-way communication entered in this fashion and talking about the present time problem, we get the very, very next step.

Now, we're calling this a step now. We have to call this a step because it's so doggone vital in processing. I think it's R2-22, isn't it? Problems and Solutions. Problems and Solutions. Two-way Communication, Problems and Solutions-what's it doing there?

Well, it's doing it there because, by golly, if your preclear has a scarcity of problems, he'll just go on being a problem to you, an auditor. He has a scarcity of solutions, he's not going to give you any, and you just stopped right there in your tracks, as far as new cognitions or anything are concerned.

So we just use it, just as it's given in Creation of Human Ability or as it's developed, one way or the other: "Some solutions you could be to yourself." "Some problems you could be to yourself." It's equally important to run both of them, problems and solutions.

The oddity is you could change the thinking ability of a person by-start asking him for solutions.

Now, by the way, you don't ask them to give a problem and then have them give a solution to that problem-don't do that. Just ask them for a lot of problems and you get kind of - process seems to be a little bit flat, go on over and ask them for a whole bunch of solutions, one after the other. And the process seems to be a little bit flat, ask them for some more problems.

How long can you keep this up? Julia just told you, seventy hours we ran a test on it. We were getting there though. We were really getting there-changing this guy's aspects all over the place.

Here's an oddity: This individual had had hundreds of hours of auditing previously, none of which had been effective on his case!

And we just started moving in with Problems and Solutions as a very basic process and we chewed at it for seventy hours and we got a change of case.

All right. Your next problem in auditing, after a remedy of Problems and Solutions (I'm not trying to tell you all there is to do on these processes, I'm just trying to give you their stack up, why they are that way), is Straightwire.

Now we can examine the past. Now, there's a whole bunch of processes that have been given out, such as, Think a Thought, Consequences and all kinds of other processes which went in between Problems and Solutions, and Straightwire-that's where those other things belong.

You'll have to know this type of process. But it isn't even-on long examination, isn't even vaguely as workable as Problems and Solutions, and Straightwire. It's a tremendous amount to know about that little sandwich of processes right in there, which are Think a Thought, Consequences, Hiding, all kinds of things up and down and back and forth and around and around, see? Tremendous number of processes on the Think a Thought level. Oh yeah, guys have broken cases on it and so forth, but here's the oddity: they are not anywhere near as effective as Problems and Solutions, and Straightwire.

Problems and Solutions, and Straightwire are actually-make a dwarf out of these other processes, this other package. It's a small package compared to Problems and Solutions. You should know this type of process should exist, so examine it. But it's not as important as Straightwire.

Now, what's Straightwire? Just written a whole magazine here on Straightwire. There's more modern data on Straightwire than any other process you could name.

There are certain Straightwire Processes which are fantastically effective and which we will be using in Hubbard Guidance Center. We'll be using them because we've got to produce results in Hubbard Guidance Center. We've just got to produce results.

All right. And what kind of a process would be the basic process of Straightwire? Well, the most basic process we were using-we have used it already, you've heard of it: "Something you wouldn't mind forgetting. Something you wouldn't mind remembering," of which "Something you wouldn't mind forgetting" is the more important.

The most important-"Something you wouldn't mind forgetting" because the person is automatically forgetting.

So, we have to run some of this, but there are some other Straightwire Processes which seem to be fantastically workable, such as "Recall a moment of blackness" for the black case.

He's an almost impossible case to shake up. This is the only thing I know of that I could really count on today to shake his case up and change his visio tremendously and vigorously.

I could really change his visio with, "Recall a moment of blackness. Recall a moment of blackness. Recall a moment of blackness. Recall a moment of blackness."

Now, the only trouble is the process normally is not run long enough. Furthermore, it would have a tendency to bog a preclear who was running it, who wasn't in the other levels yet. See, if you said, "Recall a moment of blackness," and "Recall a moment of blackness," as a process on somebody who hadn't come up yet through the other levels of Problems and Solutions, you know, and below that, Two-way Communication, and below that, Location, you'd probably have an awful sick puppy on your hands.

Because these Straightwire Processes are beefy processes, and why anybody in psychoanalysis never realized this I don't know. But why didn't they take these neurotics out and simply execute them? They might as well have, as to give them a Straightwire Process which was not repetitive. That's why we're not even a cousin to psychoanalysis.

See, you're not doing psychoanalysis. That's one of the things an auditor always hangs up on. Straightwire is not a psychoanalytic process. You're not discovering hidden meanings so that you can go over them. You're just asking the person to remember.

And your next process above that process is the Opening Procedure of 8-C, which there is no need to stress particularly. And the next process, which is, again, Locational Processing, but realize what a difference-realize what a difference. Locational Processing and Opening Procedure of 8-C.

Now we're exercising the preclear. We're putting him up to a sharp trot. We're putting him over to the walls and around and around and around. You'll find out that they will develop, then, communication lags and so forth and do various things. Very many people could simply go through it because you would be monitoring their bodies.

All right. Let's go up a little higher. We get Opening Procedure by Duplication - good old Book and Bottle, Dirty 30, whatever you want to call it, Opening Procedure by Duplication.

We go upstairs from that and we get Remedy of Havingness. And Remedy of Havingness is quite important. A thetan must be able to tolerate masses. If he can't tolerate masses, he can't live here.

Now there's a Straightwire Process way back downscale again which I didn't mention, but it's the remedy of a thetan's spaces and it is a perfect butchery. This is one of the most violent processes I ever knew of. But you'll find out that if you can't remedy a person's havingness, it's because this Straightwire Process has not been run on him. The Straightwire Process of "Recall a moment of space." Easy, huh? "Recall a moment of space." A guy cannot move around, an individual cannot move around masses-he can't move around masses if he hasn't got any space to move them around in. And if he's terrified of space in any of its forms, above him, below him, in front and behind, too much or too little space, or space in general, he can't remedy havingness. He can't make mock-ups, either. And the odd part of it is, if you want somebody to watch engrams go up in smoke, this is the fastest way to tear engrams to pieces I know of without causing the preclear any great illness or discomfort - "Recall a moment of space."

So we get up here to Remedy of Havingness. Remedy of Havingness certainly will work by this time. And it works in this fashion today. We have him shove it into his body or shove it into himself, either way.

Now it's a funny thing, here's a thetan, a single dot out here someplace, and we tell him mock-up a mass and shove it into himself. So he goes ahead and does so, but he's a single spot. The second he is somewhere else, of course he isn't himself in that spot at all, is he? Well, that just plain, ordinary, gets the thetan completely over the idea that he is a single unit.

Anybody who thinks he's a single unit is kind of contracted. He's capable of any viewpoint and he could name any viewpoint himself and he certainly had better learn how. And he learns it in Remedy of Havingness.

And the odd part of it is, he'll be sitting there in a spot in space, he'll be sitting there just as nice as you please. He knows he doesn't have any masses around him. We tell him to mock-up a mass and shove it into himself-not pull it (get the distinction here), shove it into himself. And the first thing you know, he is somewhere else and that spot he was occupying did have some mass connected with it that he was not aware of at all.

In other words, he was packing some old tin cans or spare chains or something of the sort right where he was and he never suspected it until we started to remedy his havingness.

This will get him out of a theta body and it'll take care of all the various problems that an auditor runs into with relationship to the individual.

Now, there are many ramifications and much to learn about this that your Instructors know full well, but that is the basic process, Remedy of Havingness.

Now, there's actually another process, called Spotting Spots. If we run Route 1 simply under the heading of Spotting Spots, we find that everything in Route 1 contained in the Creation of Human Ability is really Spotting Spots, one way or another. It's various ways of Spotting Spots. But you'd certainly better have the preclear spot some spots just for the hell of it. So we've got an extra process in there. Now, if you add these up, you have a gradient scale of the return of pan-determinism. It's an oddity that it is a return of pan-determinism, because we don't discuss it very much on the road up. We could though.

Now, there's another process which could fit in almost any place above Straightwire, that an auditor should know, which is not one of the basic processes, but he should know because it kind of runs through all of them. Just the thing that stands behind all of them. We're trying to increase the individual's beingness, so you should know something about Beingness Processing, "What could you be?" You know, I've had a preclear comm lag for an hour and a half on that question. And the usual auditor, by golly, wouldn't have said anything about it.

He would have said, "Okay. Well, what can you be?"

And the person would have said, "Oh, I don't know. I could be myself."

And the auditor probably would have bought this and said, "It isn't a very good process for this preclear and we'll just skip it." Because this had just happened to the preclear before I took over the case. The case was not making good progress, so I took over the case and I says, "All right. Now "Tell me something which you can really be." And one hour and a half later we found out that this preclear could be just one thing, something this preclear had never been in this lifetime, could be a girl who served soup in Kresge's.

Now, don't ask me why, but this is all this person could possibly be on this Earth and this was not even vaguely related to anything this preclear was. And when we finally worked it up, we found four or five things that this person could be and then eight or ten and more and more and more and more things, till all of a sudden this person started to bloom, really started to get well.

So running as a slender golden thread through all of these processes are increased beingness. So you'd better know the basic process, whether you ever use it or not, you'd better know it, which is, "What can you be? Something else you can be?" Because this is another type of process than any of these other processes, so it is itself. This is asking the person to fling himself into one role or another or into life and be part of life-stop thinking about it, let's be part of it. You see how this is? All right.