Well now, wouldn't you like to know a little bit of technical development?

Audience: Yes.

It starts with why people don't progress in processing. I have already told you that it is a tremendous liability for any practitioner to work on any human being in order to render that human being well, better, improved, or just work on them without knowing all of the gen, all of the data about the subject. This is a tremendous liability.

Now, in the field of human relations, the data is a little bit more complex and a little less known than in several other fields. And the liability is considerably greater. The liability of a radio technician working on your radio who doesn't know very much about your radio — the liability is mainly yours. You'll lose the radio, it's the radio that catches it.

But in a human being, oddly enough, a fact which is not even known, I mean so little data is actually known to psychiatry that they don't know there's any liability in it, in spite of the fact that nurses in mental hospitals, and so forth, are routinely and regularly sent into the wards as patients. In spite of the fact that of all the creaking wrecks physically you ever wanted to see, you'll find an abundance of amongst medical doctors. In spite of this observation, they do not know that they don't know the triggers and gimmicks. They don't know those little odd bits and pieces.

The first thing which you must not do in any practice in human relations is fail. You can fail with radios. And politically, it is sometimes hard on people to fail with atomic bombs. But you can even fail with those without the tremendous repercussions involved.

No, the field of human relations — and I have understood this with great clarity since 1947 and have worked very, very hard actually on it since sometime in that period when I began to realize, without articulating it, that the one thing you mustn't do about this is fail. You mustn't fail along this line, that was the liability. Don't you see?

And I articulated this first, perhaps '52, '53, '54 — losses, and so on. And this came out very strong and clear about '56, '57. Talked a lot about losses and losing, and we started talking about wins, and so on. We knew more about it.

But this is the one field where you must not leave unknown any data. Because that unknownness becomes a liability out of proportion to merely repairing a machine.

Now if medicine and psychiatry, if other fields of practice, regard human beings as a machine they feel they can escape the liability of not knowing anything about human beings. And it's not true. Because regarding a human being as a machine is an overt act. So it starts right there, that's wrong.

That's why they say, "Well, man after all is only 97 cents worth. So he died, I mean, so what. So what, send the family a bill."

You know, this attitude can only come out of that. They have this mechanism of (quote) "lessening the overt." Lessening the overt. They try to make it less by saying what they're operating on is worthless, that it is unimportant. And you will find almost anybody with overt acts against people, organizations, offices, posts, positions or anything else are saying it is no good in order to lessen their overts against it.

There's two sides to this. It might be no good. It's like sometimes — we had somebody in the old Elizabeth Foundation about ten years ago, and he came in and he acted like a crazy man. He said some of the craziest things were going on. He kept talking about all these crazy things going on in his environment. And at that time we had a lot of people who were hanging around from psychiatry, medicine, and so forth. If you think I'm being hard on these men, I'm not. They just happen to be our precursors in the field.

The body of experience which they had in the nineteenth century, and so forth, becomes an object lesson to us. That is all. Our interest ceases at that point. We're not trying to become successors to them or anything else. But they did do a lot of things. And we do have that data. So we should be grateful to them rather than otherwise.

We had a lot of these fellows around, hanging around and falling in and out of auditing rooms, and so forth. And these chaps all took a look at this poor fellow, and they said .. .

Well, the auditor auditing him didn't think so. He thought, "Well, there's something, there's something going on here that I don't know anything about, and I'd better find out about it." Now, that was the smart thing to do, you see.

This fellow was a fairly wealthy man, and he was married to a fairly unscrupulous woman who tailor-made a psychotic environment around him, and made him think certain things were happening. She talked to him in his sleep and things of this character, don't you see.

It's like some poor guy that was undergoing the CO2 experimentation by some psyrologist or phrenologist or somebody, and they were giving him CO2. And in order to orient them, why, just before they went under, they'd say, "Where's the picture?"

And the fellow would look around and look over the fireplace, and he'd say, "Well, it's over there over the fireplace."

And then they'd put him out and go hocus-pocus or dance their dance with their gourd rattles — whatever it was, it's historical — and bring him out again and say, "Where's the picture?"

And the guy would go, "Mmmmmhnnnnnaaa. It's on the wall over there." And he thought he'd gone mad.

But this is the standard procedure they use with CO2. They haven't any overt act in mind when they change the position of the picture, they change the position of the picture. It isn't because he went mad while he was having CO2. They change the position of the picture so the fellow can reorient himself, and they can be sure that he isn't just remembering the picture is over the fireplace. You see, they don't know enough about the mind to know that a fellow sees what he sees.

And we got this case, the fellow thought he was mad because every time he'd wake up out of this CO2 series, and so forth, the picture was someplace else. And he thought he couldn't remember where pictures were.

In other words, this is a mad environment. There are always two things. So it might actually be true that the navy stopped advancing along about Nelson's day and hasn't done anything else ever since, don't you see?

It might be true, you see, that it isn't being run right. But on the other hand if it were an absolutely perfect navy in modern times, and you had a sailor or an officer, who had tremendous hidden overts against that organization, he would tell you it was no good.

In the presence of ovens, in the presence of hidden crimes and deeds, a person's power of observation becomes poor and he tries to lessen the overt. So, it isn't whether the navy is bad or good. It's just that the person you're listening to probably doesn't know. He hasn't been able to observe it, don't you see?

Well, people facing up to patients who don't know anything about the patients, who are consistently and continually being guilty of ovens about the patients, would be the very last people you would ever find any real data from about patients.

And yet, go down to the library and read the textbooks. Just go down and read the textbooks on old healing practices and you will be fascinated. You'd just be fascinated. You can pick up some old book on psychiatry or something like that which is just full of case histories, and all the data is there.

To a Dianeticist, he realizes he's just reading an engram the fellow is stuck in. And all the data is there, what the patient was saying, and so forth. And then you'll hear, "... and so we convinced this patient that this was not the case. And the patient still said, 'I don't know. It still seems it's awfully real.' "

Well, well, you look into — you look into these various views and we find, however, that where you don't know and you're committing overt acts against the thing which you are supposedly studying, you just never find out.

Perhaps the only thing that has happened here that is the least bit fantastic is that our subject matter has not become deranged by the study of the subject matter. In other words, we still are observing the subject.

Well, that was only possible because we were getting more wins than loses more often than not, but where an auditor has been practicing on-preclears for a long time, he has stacked up a few loses. He's stacked up a few, even though he got a lot of wins. And after a while he feels — rrrrr. He isn't quite sure what he's looking at. It — rrwwwrr. He knows there's something he doesn't know. Well, that was the state we couldn't be in. That is the state we must not be in.

First, starting in, we must know that there was little or nothing known about the mind in spite of eight-million-dollar advertising campaigns. We must know that. And we can see that readily by looking at the statistics. And the statistics are on a high, soaring climb all over the world.

Now two things influence these statistics — is more and more people are believed to be insane who were once considered merely eccentric. And the other one is that more people are going insane, and there are less people being treated for insanity effectively but are suffering from iatrogenic psychoses. Boy, isn't that a nice word? You never heard me use words like that before, did you? I didn't think I remembered that one. I think that's from three lives ago.

It means psychoses caused by the practitioner. Isn't that a lovely name though? Iatrogenic.

Now what do we find — what do we find in this area? We find that we ourselves have had so few of these, that is to say we've caused things to be bad so rarely, if at all, that we haven't been guilty of that much overt. So we're still in there pitching.

But where an auditor has had one too many loses, he hasn't had all the data available, he himself is liable to become liable to a nonobservation or a restimulation or something of this character.

It's just losses and the realization that he doesn't know, so he actually starts trying to find out. Well, he'll start trying to find out in himself or in others or in some other way and try to make up his mind about what this is that he doesn't know about the thing. And he's apt to drift or he's apt to find something or he's apt to do most anything, but the point is that progress stops right at that point. He's still looking, he realizes. So therefore the one thing we couldn't do in Dianetics and Scientology was to leave it not wrapped up.

All right. It at least had to be wrapped up to a point where the remaining data was insufficiently great to produce a spin on the part of the practitioner. See? We had to know enough so that if we did have to find out more, the more that we had to find out was data of minor magnitude. We certainly had to have the data of major magnitude, and that is the state which the subject and the field shortly will be, and the subject is in right this minute. In other words, there is no major data left undiscovered. There are probably tremendous quantities of minor data. Now how do we know that?

It's the grossness of error that keeps people from being Clear. It isn't the state of cases that we're clearing. They're "What wall?" you know. They're "Well, I don't know whether I ought to touch that tiger or not." The auditor wisely doesn't say, "What tiger?" because there's none in the room.

We're actually picking these people up from the basement on their profiles, and so forth, which you get on such people — they just lie flat over here on the left side of the profiles. And we're bringing those up with the clearing techniques we are using, and we're not even going into the CCHs to produce this.

But when you get down below that, we've still got another whole set of procedures which, operating properly, can bring them up to a point where they can be audited by something else. That still will bring them up, but factually the CCHs bring them up to the bottom of the graph. That's just about what the CCHs do.

Oh, you can — you'll get tremendous upper improvements, but the mechanics of auditing must be working in there as entirely independent of the process of the CCHs, don't you see? There must be something else working in there. Either the interest of another person or a more hopeful outlook or something like this probably takes place in there to bring up these tremendous increases on the CCHs. Not that CCHs are bad, but they — you know, you can run those on an unconscious person. A person can be lying there in a coma — been in a coma for seven weeks or something like that — an auditor can come along and by running CCH 1, and so on, can bring them out of a coma. It's happened many times.

The most notable time that it happened was in New Zealand where an auditor did this, visiting the hospital and bringing this person out of a coma. A person was pretty well up, getting up, was beginning to recognize things, and so forth, and instantly the heart rate and respiration rate were so improved that all the medicos in the hospital became very worried and kicked everybody out and closed the room down tight, and the woman died.

All right. The gross error in that wise was an environmental error. It was force beyond the control of the auditor — restraint of princes or acts of God or something like the old English sea contracts used to read, you know.

Well, we can even pick them up off the center of the Earth and bring them up to the basement. But that basement is what worries us. We're not interested in what we can do with somebody in an almost magical line, like a dead person lying there, an auditor comes along, says, "Dead." The pulmotor doesn't work, nothing is happening here, and so forth. And the auditor says, looks down at the corpse and says quite angrily, "Come on back here and pick up that body. What do you think you're doing?" And the person comes awake and . . . searches ... Sounds utterly fantastic, but that works. That's happened several times, too.

I didn't do it one time — overt act. That's been kind of sticking around. Every once in a blue moon I think about this — I didn't do it. The fellow had been dead for about twenty minutes or something like that, but it looked to me like he had so overtly gone and drowned himself that I figured out he must be having an awful time of it at home. You know, I just delayed long enough from doing it so that it — I didn't do it. And I picked him up and put him in the morgue.

But anyhow, the mechanics of this sort of thing are, of course, what would make headlines and what we are the least interested in. That's one of the reasons — the magical operation, the magic appearance of things, and so forth, magic healing.

Well, perhaps you may have wondered why we never push magic healing or why we never push magic recoveries or something like that. I'll argue with somebody who can suddenly push MEST or move MEST or something like that.

All right. You let me catch you — you let me catch you pushing all the people off of a bus or doing something in that direction, and I'll nail you back in your head with tenpenny spikes — they remember this. You don't want this kind of thing. Do you know what could happen to Earth right now? If we were just to go ahead and do nothing but magical operations, we would be pulling an awful overt act. We'd drive everybody down into propitiation, see.

I think when people have discovered a few pieces of life in the past, such as in Egypt or Chaldea — well, take Chaldea. That's an interesting side of it. Somebody figured out how to predict eclipses. Maybe it was one of you. And figured out how to predict eclipses and knew when the eclipses were going to happen. Instead of publishing it in the Chaldean astronomer's journal, it became a priesthood. And they figured out just the day before the eclipse and would make some pronunciamento to the local prince — and even when the Chaldean became the Babylonian magic man — say to this prince, "If you don't grant amnesty, freedom, liberty and 10,000 talents to the local temple, the sun will go out tomorrow, and we won't turn it back on."

And the local prince would say, "Yeah, pool Heard that before," you know. And then the sun goes out. And he says, "Where is that checkbook?" And the sun comes back on again.

Well, it was merely a piece of natural science. For instance, old Moses, interesting case in point. He was a Red Sea guide for a number of years. He was. He was over in the Red Sea areas, he knew all about the tides, he knew how the — they do it to this day in the Red Sea.

The tides there sweep out such a tremendous distance they leave the sands utterly bare and come in with an avalanche of water. Just a crash of water comes in and covers everything up suddenly just in time to catch the Pharaoh's troops, you know. All of that kind of stuff. Well, that's natural science. Nothing against Moses, he was a good guy, we all liked him. But he was not above a little hocus-pocus.

So anyway, that little bit of science moving in was adequate to take control of tremendous numbers of people. And it was a control which, apparently, never worked out for the benefit of people. It put them in mystery, unknowingness, and so forth. It did not free people. And anybody who did it, of course, himself was liable because he was causing an overt act. He knew very well how he was producing these effects, and he didn't say how. He skipped it. After a while the magic didn't work.

Oh, I could probably study up and bring up vases on the stage here and have them bloom fire, you know, and then explode or something of the sort, or ladies' hats appear in my hand or something stupid like this, you know. Work on it for a year or two or three and get to a point of where you really had a good grasp of these things and didn't flinch every time you touched a lady's hat or something like this, and you're out of your head. Make them sail around in the air or something like that, and come back and sit on the lady's lap with a message from God in it or something. -

Now, what would be the possible use of it? Oh, yes, you say you could produce an immediate short-term effect. Well, that's what we've just had too many times in too many places — immediate short-term effects.

Some fellow says, 'Well, I know best," and shows everybody that they should be in propitiation, and then says, "Well, the message from headquarters is something or other, and they . . ." you know, "And this is

what you do with your life, and you're all supposed to go out and immolate yourself on tigers," or something. Whatever it is, we don't care. It's just that it didn't restore to man any freedom, any dignity, decency or control over his environment.

And this was basically because of a misconcept about man; they thought man was evil. Well, there's a very interesting experiment that you can run, if you have some minor ailment in some part of your body or something of the sort. Let's say you have a knock in the head or something that hasn't gotten well. If you'll just run a Touch Assist on yourself for a while, just keep touching it and looking at your fingers. And you may have to do it for several days or something like this because it might be quite severe — or if you know of an old injury, something like this — you keep doing it, you know. Keep noticing your fingers, not feeling them but kind of looking at them.

You know, maybe it's back of your ear and you get so you can see your fingers. You know. And you say, "Well, that's fine. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah" Each time you see your fingers, you know.

Well, the funny part of it is what disappears is the bump. This is an interesting demonstration as to the goodness or badness of man. The bump disappears. Who's looking at it? You are. Well, what did you cause to have happen? You caused a bump to disappear. That's what you had happen.

Well, why didn't your head disappear? That's an interesting thing. Just think it over for a while.

It demonstrates that your presence or attention on anything is beneficial to a body. It's fascinating. I mean you look it over. You've got enough philosophy in those few words to have stunned Chaldea. They never suspected this.

And you find all of their mumbo jumbo is mixed up with the evil eye. If you walk down the street and look fixedly at some — well, if you look fixedly at a house door, why, you'd probably — they'd jump on you with staves and beaten you to death. I think you could still go into parts of Arabia and fix a baleful glance on somebody, you know, and have the gendarmerie come down and pick you up and arrest you for having an evil eye.

Now, we don't know what an evil eye is, but we know definitely that people heal things when they fix their attention on them and that things. only go wrong when they take their attention off of them. Now, how do you like that? It's a fascinating demonstration of the goodness of man.

If you were evil, you'd probably produce cancer instead of a bump. But you're not. You look at it and the bump goes away. No, man is basically good, and the more you punish man, the more you suppress him into uncontrolled, unwatched chaos. And it's the uncontrolled, unwatched chaos that is evil. You define it as evil. Well, nobody's got his eye on it, you might say, nobody is taking care of it and it just occurs. I'm afraid that evil is pretty well a demonstration of nobody taking responsibility for something.

Now anybody that would be crazy enough to come along and use evil must himself be about seven valences removed from anything he could control. So he might be convinced that he is chaos using chaos to produce chaos. And that would be a pretty good statement of politics on Earth today.

Now what is this — what is this factor then? It simply means that completely aside from the fact that if you know all there is to know about anything, it ceases to trouble you, aside from that — that's fact — but we have another factor here, and that is to say that if you put your attention carefully on something, you don't have to do much about it, all you have to do is watch it and know it and watch it, something of that sort, it'll straighten out.

It straightens out all out of proportion to the mechanics of what you do about it. Therefore, your power of observation or power of look or power of glance on a situation works way out of proportion to what it should.

The normally considered thing is, 'Well, if you study it very carefully — if you study it very carefully and then do something about it, why, it'll get all right." Well, actually, the reductio ad absurdum of this: if you studied something very carefully it would turn good. Therefore, we'd look in the most evil subjects to find the greatest number of unknowns or non-observations, which is why atomic fission is secret. It's all out of proportion to the observation.

You say, "Well, if we studied this, we would get to know about it and so we could do something about it. Well, the fact that our mere study of it leaves it in poor shape, says that there must be a bunch of tiny data, at least, that we don't know about yet or we're not sure about because it doesn't get well instantly." All right. Well, we're in that state right now.

We know enough now in order to do what is necessary to overcome the tiny data that we don't immediately and directly know about. Do you follow me? We're not in any critical stage. We still have to do something about it. We still have to audit a person to make him well.

Well, one of the reasons for this is quite interesting: is we take the responsibility for his lookingness, and it's only his lookingness that can cure his ills. But the auditor just makes sure that he looks, and looks in such a way as to make sure that he is looking, and things straighten out if the auditor does that. That is probably — might be an oversimplified statement of auditing, but certainly it's a basic statement on the subject of auditing. The auditor is necessary.

Well, I know the auditor is necessary just for this reason alone. That people start looking and get so happy about it, they stop looking. And it's something like you say to this fellow, "Hey! How would ... how would you like to . . . how would you like to take a trip to Cornwall?"

And he says, "Fine. I'd really like to take a trip to Cornwall."

And you say, "Well, you go down that road and you'll get to Cornwall, and the weather will be warmer and everything will be fine. And maybe even the sun will be shining down there in Cornwall."

So he says, "Good! Fine!" And he starts out and he's up here in London someplace and he notices a sign that says "Croydon," so he thinks he'll go to Cornwall through Croydon. He passes Croydon and he thinks, "Gee, isn't that nice," and he gets down someplace and he sees that it's very nice over in Kent. And he winds up in Kent and it's very nice, but he's not in Cornwall. He's not in Cornwall and you ask him — you ask him, you say to this fellow who just barely released, and so forth, "How you doing?"

"Oh, I'm doing fine. I'm just doing wonderful. I must be Clear. Just doing fine, fine. It's beautiful here in Kent." Well, what you've got to do then is point out the obvious fact to him that he's not in Cornwall. It's nicer in Cornwall.

And he says, "Well, I'm perfectly satisfied here in Kent." He says, "My lumbago, I hardly feel it at all except at night." You know, this kind of a thing, it — "I don't have the sensation of beating myself over the head with the hammer anymore, I just have a headache." It is so much better that it's wonderful.

Well, this would be good enough. Maybe you could just publish a book. And the fellow reads the book and he picks up a little — two little, three data, and it says, "Look at things and observe things, and life gets a little bit better, and . . ." And he's satisfied about it, and so on.

But he still has the liability that before he can do anything for anybody else, he has to know pretty well all about it. So much so that about the only overt act that we could pull now in Scientology is fail to disseminate it properly: (1) fail to disseminate it and (2) fail to disseminate it properly. That would be the main line of the ovens that we'd pull on it. There wouldn't be any other overt.

Actually, it wouldn't be an oven perhaps not to audit somebody. But it might be an overt to let somebody stumble around on it without showing him what the score of what he's fooling with is because, look, it took an awful lot of years — why, heaven's sakes, we're celebrating our thirtieth anniversary of research on this subject. And if anybody had paid the bill of the research in Dianetics and Scientology, why — duh, I don't know.

The way foundations do research this day, I don't know. Somebody was telling me the other day that somebody spent twenty-six million dollars to study something. Well, they'd just built the building for him to study it in, and he decided, well, that was it, he had done enough. Hadn't even studied it yet and twenty-six million dollars were gone.

Some fantastic bill, some fantastic amount of concentration, a tremendous coordination of data, an awful lot of research, codification — all of these things have taken place. Well, fail to disseminate it, why, it's kind of an overt act. If you know about it — that's for me. In other words, it could be an overt act for me to just not put out in any kind of an assimilable form what is now known about life and human beings, see.

If I just skipped it right now, it'd probably about cave me in. I was looking at this the other day and it becomes an overt act. Your responsibility cannot stop merely by knowing for yourself, simply because you were tied into a world which doesn't know.

Well, anyway, looking this over, we find that there are considerable numbers of data that we could do without. They're not broad, general data. For instance, we don't really have to know the name of the pc. We don't have to know his exact relationship to the general staff in a war a trillion years ago, you see. There's all kinds of particularities in data. We do not have to know exactly how a Martian loads and recharges a blaster. Don't have to know that.

But we sure have to know how a guy becomes and unbecomes a body or a being, and how snarled up he can get becoming bodies and beingnesses.

And we have to know how a man loses control of the material universe, and thereby loses control of an awful lot of his environment and so can spread a considerable amount of chaos that he didn't intend. It's quite interesting. How does he do it?

Well, he goes out of agreement with the physical universe, and that which you go out of agreement with, you can no longer control. Isn't that interesting? It's a law. It's a law — that which you go out of agreement with, you can no longer control.

Now you can go out of agreement with the actions of a car but if you're totally out of agreement with a car, believe me, it'll do nothing but act up. Try it sometime.

If you've got an old heap you don't care what happens to, and if you feel the need of an accident . . . No, as road safety organizer, Sussex, I can't, I can't go on with that sentence. It's untrue. No, here's the thing. If you withdrew all of your agreement from a car, you might say, pulled your knowingness out of a car — ha! — it'd ruddy well collapse as far as you're concerned. It's very remarkable.

Motorcycle shops are very alert to this because motorcycles are a little more tender than cars for some reason or other, and your motorcycle repairmen all apparently know this, I've asked a lot of them. They look at you sneeringly and contemptuously if you say to them, "Did you know that one person's motorbike runs better than another person's motorbike and that it depends on the rider?"

And they look at you sneeringly and say, "Who doesn't know that?"

Because there's two motorbikes, they both came off the assembly line at the same time, they're owned by two different riders. And one motorbike just never starts and goes to pieces and folds up in spite of how many repair bills he racks up on the thing, it just won't run. And the other fellow's motorbike seems to be running ten years later without ever anything having been done to it.

What's the explanation of this? Well, one of them is out of agreement with motorbikes and MEST. That's all. He just doesn't agree somehow or another. You put this to test. If you find anybody around with an old heap that won't stay together, why, you just ask him, "What part of that car are you in agreement with?"_

And he'll say, "Rararrooor. "

It's almost an immediate reaction that you get on the thing.

Well now, if you don't know the points, you can't do anything for the person, and the points are not very many. It's — the best, fast summary of them is the Axioms. Those are all important points. But there's some mechanical points which are purely mechanical, which I think also are contained in the Dianetic Axioms as purely mechanical points, which are also necessary to know. And first and foremost amongst these is the cycle-of-action.

The cycle-of-action is terribly important. And recently, I developed the double cycle. And the double cycle answers the problem of: there's two girls, one is Marybelle and the other is Annabelle. And you threaten to kick Annabelle and she does what you want, but you threaten to kick Marybelle and she practically scratches your eyes out. Well, is there any explanation for this which is fast and easily stated? Yes, there sure is. There sure is. It's a double cycle-of-action.

There are six combinations of the cycle-of-action. Be: Create-create, survive-survive, destroy-destroy, that's three of them. But then there's surviving in order to destroy, there's creating in order to survive, there's destroying in order to create. See, there's all these interactions. It's a double cycle. Any one part of the cycle can be combined with any other part of the cycle, and we get one of these weird ones.

Now the funny part of it is that a person sits on a double cycle, not a single cycle, which is one of the things that's been baffling about people. We say this fellow just manages to get along all right because he is surviving. And we don't know why everything goes to pieces around him. Well, this fellow is destroying there in order to survive here, don't you see?

Now another fellow is, we say, "Well, he just gets along all right, and he's very productive," and so on. Well, he's creating in order to survive. A weapons maker and that sort of thing, of course, creates in order to destroy, which is all very doubled up. But the funny part of it is that if you locate what part — what doubleness of the cycle a person is on, you punch what he's doing, and you get what he is.

Give you an example of that. You threaten to destroy him, and he decides to survive. In other words, this fellow is destroying in order to survive, so you threaten to destroy him, and you make him survive. How many people there must be like this since nearly all businesses conduct themselves on that principle. That must be a predominant number of people.

Well, what kind of a fellow is this in the workshop? In order to survive, he busts up the tools. That's true. In other words, when he really is settled down into this, if this is the only part of the cycle-of-action he's on — well, frankly, the military is the best example of it.

Did you ever watch military equipment, secondhand military equipment? Did you ever look it over? Did you ever find anything right with it? Now military equipment is all right as long as the sergeants are going up and down and saying, "Repair that truck!" See. "Change that tire!" Or you, of course, will be shot or destroyed in some way, or reduced to no rations for a couple of days. You get the idea? He threatens destruction, and he makes them make the things survive. But in essence, the equipment all falls to pieces because, in order to survive, everybody in the group has got to destroy.

Get one of these going in a greenhouse sometime, you'll have fun. All the plants collapse. But apparently the guy is going all right, you know, but everything seems to collapse. It doesn't matter much what's happening. It all goes wrong somehow. Well, that's — he's just on this double cycle.

There must be enough fellows in a plant that is successful — I mean, a manufacturing organization that's successful. There must be enough fellows in that organization — there just must be — who are creating in order to survive, to get something built. But if you take out the fellows who are destroying in order to survive and reorient them, production oddly enough doesn't increase in direct ratio to how much their replacements produce. It goes up something like 8, 10, 20 times.

All right. You've got a pc sitting in front of you who's destroying in order to survive. Oh, well, that's very interesting. He said, "You just did this to me, and you did that to me, and you've chopped me up, and you've thrown me out the window, and you've gunned me down," and so forth.

Well, if you really haven't done anything — of course, there's also the other condition you might have done something. But yap, yap, yap. Well,

this person is obsessively destroying in order to survive. The person thinks you want him to survive, so he destroys himself. You see, you can swap those two any way. Whichever end of it you pick up, he's going to pick up the other end. You get the idea?

So you say to this fellow, "Survive," and he tries to destroy himself, or something or anything. Now if you tell him to destroy, he'll survive, making his facsimiles stick. Now, if you tell him to mock up facsimiles, he can't. See, that's totally out of his perimeter. He can't create. He's not part of that cycle.

Well, there's an immediate and direct way to approach this, and this is one of the oldest techniques known. Very, very old — all of a sudden resurrected. I used to use it years ago. I think any old-timer has heard of this one way or the other.

There's the person who is succumbing, and you're trying to get that person to survive. And his direction is succumb, and your direction is survive, and so there's an immediate disagreement between the auditor and the preclear. And no matter what you do from there on out, you're not going to get anything done because the basic orientation is wrong for auditing. The person came to you and sat down in order to die.

Well, I used to use this a great deal. I used to argue them out of it, talk about them, have them mock themselves up dead. I used to do all sorts of things and changed them on the cycle-of-action. But I haven't done it since almost '54 to amount to anything, and here it shows up again as an undercutting step to Help in presessioning.

So presessioning — if you wanted to do a thorough job and hit all of the pcs — a person had to be able to sit there and give a reasonable, not totally crazy response. That's the condition a pc must be in these days. Only some of his responses are totally roaring psychotic. See, he's got to have a few reasonable responses amongst the thing. He can't be crazy all the time. That's how low you can reach with verbal processing though. All right.

Now, you do something about this cycle-of-action, whether by Two-way Comm or by a repetitive process. And one of the best processes, to reorient this thing, picks up all those points where he's trying to succumb. Picks them all up and knocks that out of your road so that you can go on auditing. I'll probably talk about that a little more later.

The next step is you have to clear him up on Help, whether he wants help or not. Now of course, some of — the help he wants may be help to knock himself off. See, that's maybe the kind of help he's looking for. And there must be an awful lot of these people, or medicos wouldn't drive big cars.

Don't get the idea I'm against the medico. We've almost ruined him in several places and we don't intend to go on doing so. I'm saying very factually we don't intend to. My God, pardon my French, swearing, but you don't want to set bones, do you? Well, I don't. Better be somebody around that can set bones. This guy is going to survive in spite of himself, I can tell you.

Now the correction of Help, whether or not to survive or succumb, is your second step of presessioning. The correction of Help. That's: Will the person receive help? Is help possible? Is it possible for him to help anybody? The key question if you're just talking to people just to disseminate Scientology, and so forth, and knock them out on this — the key question, of course, if you say, "Do you think you could be helped?"

And the fellow says, "Well, not, I don't think so," so on. It doesn't matter whether he said, "Not today" or something like this. All you have to do to him is say, "Whom have you failed to help?"

He gives you the answers — brrrrrp! "Oh," he says, "my father and my mother," and so forth and so on. He's in-session as far as you're concerned. (snap) Happens just that fast. "Whom have you failed to help?" You go-brrrrrrrp! That's still help. Recognition that one has failed to help is better than no concept of help at all. And he's on the subject of help and he can be brought up the line on this just with Two-way Comm or some process.

Your next line up is Control. Well, actually, Control has many harmonics. There are very low controls which occur and these are most of the controls visible in the society now that when people don't help, they jolly well get controlled. There's where most of the public experiences control. They are being controlled wherever they won't help. You got the idea? That's a nice, low, psychotic harmonic of control. They refuse, you see, utterly, to help in some particular direction so somebody comes in and says, "Well, we're going to arrest you unless you pay your taxes." You got the idea? Drives the tax department batty. A tax department finally becomes a department of chief and subchief executioners for the state, practically, because people are refusing to help all the time. As soon as taxes become exorbitant, people refuse to help the government with that much taxes. Then the government has to put on more and more penalty and this penalty is looked upon by the public as control. That's about — so they think control is bad.

Well, actually, they couldn't drive a car without control, so we get up a higher harmonic that control isn't bad. So there's all these rationales and arguments and they lodge in people's minds. And they'll argue with these quite a bit. But how can an auditor make him sit in the chair and receive auditing commands if he can't — if your pc can't accept a little bit of control? How is this, see? He couldn't.

So you have to clear up this point and then comes communication. Communication is a fascinating point because it won't occur if the person thinks it's going to be harmful. If a person thinks he's going to knock you dead by talking to you, he won't talk to you. And if he's guilty of a great many overt acts, he is almost certain to believe that his communication to you is bad.

All of his overt acts have as their common denominator, communication or lack of it. It's a communication factor. But if he has overts on the auditor, it's quite remarkable. If he has overts on the auditor, he won't talk to the auditor. He won't tell the auditor straight dope. Or if he has overts and withholds buried in his lifetime, he withholds them from the auditor, then he'll withhold all communication of the auditor that is vital communication. And he'll actually disperse to a point where he sees a green picture, he'll tell the auditor it's purple. Or he'll say he had a somatic in his stomach. He won't give the auditor the straight information. So communication is necessary to an auditing session.

And then comes the last one. A pc has to be interested in his case or what is going on. And if he's not interested in his case, his case makes very little forward progress.

So we get a summary of this. Look it all over, no matter which way it is. First, an auditor has to have enough information so that he doesn't fail. Well, if the pc walked off, the auditor at least knows why. He knows exactly why the pc walked off or what happened. He can understand what's going on, in other words.

The funny part of it is, if he is totally out of agreement with the pc, he can't control him anyway because of this factor about MEST and control. You have to have some agreement with a car before you can control it.

Well, it works with people, too. You have to have some agreement with this person or you can't control him or do anything with him at all. So you have to know that there is at least something there to agree with about this person. And the most basic thing would simply be the composition of the person. You know where approximately he is and what condition he's in. Well, that's enough. That's enough. If you merely know the mechanics of his beingness and more or less what shape he's in, well, that is agreement. And control can occur just knowing just that little. And he won't walk off, providing you know these other technical points of presessioning.

Now presessioning is very new. It hasn't been talked about in a congress before although there have been some bulletins on it. But this new step on presessioning is brand-new and hasn't even been announced.

Now that step is — as I said, has an old and ancient history. I've had people walk in and give me all sorts of things about this and say, oh, they wanted to be all OTs, and so forth. And before I'd gone very far, I found out what they really wanted. And that was if they just sat there in the chair, they figured out I'd probably bump them off or something and that was exactly what they wanted. They thought that was what should happen to

them in auditing. And if I tried to make them well, why, they'd go mad. But as I said, I'll talk about that later.

But straightening out this point — which means placing on the action cycle, which is a long and involved word — but you've got to place this pc on the action cycle and adjust the cycle so that you can handle him.

Your next one, which you could call, in short, adjustment of cycle. That would communicate and anybody could understand it. The next one is adjustment of Help. His understanding of Help on a button.

Your next one, of course, is adjustment of Control. The individual in other words has to be able to look at control and get a little bit closer to what the truth of control is before he's willing to do that. And you, in talking to him, of course, can adjust the control button simply by understanding what he's all about, oddly enough. You just sit there and understand what he's all about and you've got the Control button going. Frightening. It goes almost into a rapport if you go too far.

Anyway, as we look over this, we find these four buttons which mean in-session. Until you've got them all four adjusted, the pc cannot be considered to be in-session. But when you've got them all adjusted, he's interested. Up to that time, he wouldn't be interested. As long as any one of those four buttons is out of adjustment, the pc will somewhere or another become disinterested or is disinterested in his case.

If a pc starts looking bored, you will know at once that a button is out. That's all. There's one of these buttons is out. It's one of these four. He's slipped on the cycle-of-action to such a point as he is no longer in accord with getting well. He has decided the very best possible thing for him to do is kick the bucket here and now. And you're still trying to make him well and he's skidded.

All right. Of course, that happens often in an auditing session, but it flips back the other way. What you've got to know is that if it doesn't flip back, you had better slide the session to a graceful close, give him a nice break, and start the session all over again so that you've got the opportunity before you start it to run all the presession buttons again.

And you'll catch it there, and you can readjust it It's nothing to worry about If it goes on for longer than a couple of auditing sessions — you know, the pc is getting gloomier and gloomier and doesn't seem to be getting any better, and so forth, why, you'd better pay an awful lot of attention to this button.

There's just this: the cycle-of-action, Help, Control and Communication. These are the only things that have to be straightened out in a human being.

But completely aside from auditing, if you straightened out those points with every associate, or if you straightened out those points in every group, no matter what kind of a group, familial, business, military, it doesn't matter what, if you just straightened those things out, just those four, it'd operate practically like a cleared group, regardless of the state of beingness of the people who composed it, which is quite remarkable.

So these are the first prerequisites to auditing, whatever else one knows, and I would say, are really the first prerequisites to living. How can they live without them? And I think the answer is they haven't been living.

Well, these developments are brand-new. They have a lot to do with dissemination. You can go out and use these points on your friends, and all of a sudden they'll be mysteriously interested in Scientology when they never were before.

You can get people into session you never dreamed was possible before. You can do various things with these. They're all prerequisites to auditing. So go ahead and use them. Hope you have a lot of luck with them.