And this is the seventh lecture of the seventeenth ACC, March the fifth, 1957. And today we're going to talk some more about techniques.

Now the first and foremost technique that anybody knew anything about in this physical universe was a thing called communication. And communication was the solvent of all evils. You yourself found yourself confronted by a tremendous amount of mass and space, which you probably mocked up. And however you were such total cause on it that you decided that you needed some back flow, or something of the sort. And you were very happy to find somebody to talk to about it. And this cured a thing called loneliness, only-oneness, upset-ness, lack of game-ness. And communication was a great cure. And communication remains a great cure.

If you were very, very sharp, and you knew your Scientology from beginning to end, you could make communication a total technique. If you were that sharp. If you knew things from beginning to end. And you knew exactly what to talk about to the preclear, and exactly what to as-is in order to increase his havingness, and if you were sly enough, mean enough, wicked enough and bad enough, which I think is all the things you have to be to exert control, you would, undoubtedly, be able to use communication as a total technique. You'd just have to know everything, however. You'd just have to know everything across the boards from one end to the other. You'd have to be a genius on exactly reaching, and touching upon those exact buttons in the preclear's case, which could be as-ised without a reduction of his havingness. You understand?

And so in that way communication could seem to be a total technique. Now communication was a total technique once. See, it was a total technique once. Two-way communication. Now everybody has the idea that it as-ises things, that it knocks things out, and by various associations they have come to believe that mass can be disintegrated by communication. Actually space can come into existence by communication, so communication really doesn't as-is space. But it does as-is mass.

First sound a person ever heard probably was a sound he mocked up on the idea that there was sound. But after a while he got certain conditions by which sound could occur, and we have those occurring today in elementary physics. They don't occur in advanced physics. That's left the realm of the believable entirely. But in elementary physics, why, there are certain mechanics connected to sound.

And it is the mechanics of sound, rather than the mechanics of communication, which gives people the idea of disintegration of mass more than anything else. But we have the idea, rather current, that things disappear under communication. That is rather apparent, that this idea is consistent from person to person.

Salesmen use it in reverse, which is one of the things wrong with salesmen. They uses communication in order to acquire mass, but in view of the fact that they are really giving away mass in order to acquire mass has a tendency to balance it out, but it doesn't keep salesmen from going out the bottom. And that may seem a little foggy to you right off hand, but the amount of communication of which a salesman is enforcing, the amount of enforced ARC, the amount of pitch on the ARC, his idea of acquiring himself some mass and a new home by selling you something you don't need and that sort of thing, keeps him consistently upset on the subject of communication. And he is upset on the subject of communication. You have to handle a salesman with great care. He is grooved in a certain direction, and he has found that certain responses take mass away from you, namely money. And certain responses let you accept mass. And he has these very well grooved, and he's been taught these. And Dale Carnegie-ism is very much in our ranks.

But, he gets pretty aberrated on the subject of communication. When you're handling communication with a salesman you have to handle it as a very good auditor. And if you just start, straight out, considering the salesman in session, not selling you something, you have some remarkable luck because you do have a fellow who is down below communication as a therapy. All communication does for this fellow is to knock him flat. You understand? The more he communicates the flatter he knocks. And he's very confused on it. You got the idea?

So, communication then, from probably the top-notch bracket of aberration, right on down the line, has ceased to be a cure, through somewhat of a curse. Because two new things have been added. One of those is control and one of them's havingness.

The necessity to have. You mock up the idea of the necessity to have. Well, this is not compatible with communication. Well let's suppose we use communication as a cure long enough, and this fellow was tired of this universe and he communicated with somebody else about it enough so that it disappeared, and then he decided that it was a better universe than the one he has now. Then he would regret the universe which he has just lost. You get this involvement. And how did he lose it? He lost it by communication of course. So he says then, he says then that he has to have some more, and that communication is the flow of havingness, and we find havingness then running as the cure for communication. But oddly enough, havingness is a cure from there on down. We go all the way south then. We're dealing with very, very potent factors.

But now there is a whole group of preclears below the level of the ability to run Trio. Hm. You find lots of them. They can't run Trio. Things are insufficiently real to them to let Trio bite. And this is quite peculiar, because they'll sit there and give you responses. But the degree that it's working is so slight as to say the Trio is not working on them. Do you understand that? Hm?

So there's something else wrong with these people. Something else wrong with these people, from havingness on down. And that something else is obsessive change. And they have so much obsessive change from the ability to have on down, that they cannot "is" anything. They not-is everything. They cannot as-is anything. They not-is everything. Why? They obsessively change it. Alter, alter, alter, alter, alter, alter.

I point out to you something that's quite interesting, that change is part of control. Control, anatomy of. So where a person leaves the ability to have he goes into the realm of control. And we find that control works from there on down.

Now apparently havingness does work from there on down, apparently communication does work from there on down, but not so as to effect change all the way. You see, although a person can't run on it, his havingness is what is monitoring his health. Even though he can't run on it, even though he can't see it, take something away from him and he'll get sick. You understand that?

It's still a health monitoring factor. Although he's sitting around grumpily saying, "At no time would I permit Canial to speak with me." One day, why, somebody omits some; Canial omits speaking with him, and he feels bad. He sees definitely that a communication has been withheld from him. The butler comes in or something of the sort, and won't give him the message that's been left at the door. Man, does he get upset.

Now communication is not curative, but its absence produces a considerable reaction. You got that? A fellow's saying he doesn't want communication, but in its absence he gets very upset, because it's still working as an internal curative factor. Still keeping him going, even though he says he hasn't got it, can't have it, doesn't want it, that it's bad, that it's destructive. You understand? And he can tell you all these things, but this does not make them true as far as his case is concerned. Follow me?

Alright, same way with havingness. He tells you havingness is bad, the universe is bad, he doesn't want anything to do with it, things as they are are no good, nobody is any good, he isn't any good, you get the idea. He's going 'round and 'round, and therefore he should get rid of everything, and everybody should get rid of everything, and there shouldn't be any more, and that's that. And even though he's saying all those things, havingness is still terribly effective on him, and his health is running in accordance with his havingness. So one fine day this fellow is very ill, and one fine day somebody comes along and gives him a check for ten thousand dollars so he can buy a farm, or something like this. I suppose you could buy a gate to a farm for ten thousand dollars. But, he acquires some havingness, and he becomes well. Well what a great mystery is here. This fellow can't have anything, he doesn't want anything, he couldn't run Trio on a bet, and yet somebody gives him a farm and he becomes well. In other words, the havingness was still curative, but he couldn't run it.

Well alright. Now, now this is quite amazing. This is quite amazing. This is amazing phenomena you're looking at here, because the fellow is pretending that he doesn't want the medicine. Therefore he obviously is trying to succumb, we say, whereas by succumb we simply mean he's trying to make succumb his body or something like that. But we still find that the old curative remedies of communication and havingness work.

Now, medicine today, in the administration of drugs, is just a 1.1 method of havingness. It's just a 1.1 method of havingness and that's all there is to it. Look it up on the tone scale, and you've got the medical profession. They cannot directly give anybody havingness but they can let 'em have a few molecules in some overt capsule in a covert way. And they give them some havingness. In other words they can slip it to them. And it is so amusing, it is so amusing to watch them shift the formulas around. And to have an Abott and Lily and Parke and Davis and other such chaps. I suppose those were all men at one time or another, but long gone to dust now. Those chaps monkey up some derivation of something you see, and they put it in a capsule, and it's supposed to go in a certain direction and do a certain thing. And everybody gets beautifully persuaded on this, and it works for a long time. Sometimes these remedies will go for two, three, five years. Remedies wear out to the degree that they wear out the postulate, you see? They run into the resistance of can't have.

Now the cycle of medicine is quite interesting. Any new medicine brought out is wonderful today, and becomes outmoded and useless tomorrow. First it cures everything and then the next thing you know they find a few things it doesn't cure, and then they find a few cases that it doesn't help at all. And some, they find some cases that it actively hurts. And a big campaign comes out against this particular medicine, and it ceases to be functional to a marked degree. But here you merely have a significance of havingness. And that is about all there is to any of these medicines.

Now it is true that certain biochemical reactions will take place because certain agreements exist. Don't ever overlook this fact. You have various magical reactions. You take sodium, for instance, drop it in water and you get boom. Which is quite, quite remarkable that two havingnesses, water and sodium, are to each other indigestible, and create an explosion. Well obviously, water is a can't have of sodium, sodium is a can't have of water. And so, in all biochemical reactions we get this games condition continuing, of one kind or another, to some degree or another. And looking at a games condition, you actually explain all havingness and all varieties of havingness. Some things consider other things team mates, and some things consider other things enemies, and you do have "only one" drugs which are really only one.

Now being used medicinally by the way, radiation elements. Being used medicinally all over the place. It's quite amusing because this has been going on for some time, and they're now waking up to the fact that they kill faster than they cure. Well you have an "only one" element in plutonium. I think that one molecule of plutonium is at least critical of any other molecule of plutonium. And when they get sufficiently gathered together they then decide to be a part, with such violence that they set other things off too. The contagion of aberration runs rather rapidly into other elements. You get the idea?

Now can you get the idea of explaining elements and havingness by the games condition, and by team mates and allies, and that sort of thing? It's quite interesting to look at this because all of these things were mocked up and given this significance by thetans. And they are postulates in suspension. It's quite interesting. Some day when you're running this you all of a sudden see this, that the floor is made out of a series of postulates which are not-ised or alter-ised in certain ways, and that if you un-alter-is these, then un-not-is them, with sufficient violence or accuracy, that you would get something else, or nothing at all. But the moment that you can take them apart you can probably put them back together again, so it's; don't worry about the floor vanishing simply because you know what the floor consists of. If you're that good it also takes an intention. Everything is not still operating on automatic. You get so good that you can do this, you have to intend to do it.

But a thetan's insistence that no other thetan must come along and take apart the mass which he just mocked up has caused an enormous number of postulates, of conditions, of considerations, all of which add up to the fact that you mustn't touch MEST. Don't look at it the way it is. You see that? Don't look at it the way it is, and therefore it will be. Because it's sufficiently continually alter-ised that it then persists. And you get persistence out of this alteration. We alter what it really is in our own minds, and then we never look at it as it is. And so it stays there. And so we get all sorts of weird notions going. We have people saying that MEST is sacred. That's a funny one that preclears run into a lot. It's sacred. It's each molecule is sacred. People get the idea that they're all dead bodies of one kind or another. They're thetans that have dragged in everything on themselves and they're therefore fixed. They get the idea that it's all poison. They get the idea that certain things accidently combining with other things might cause reactions so horrible that nobody could confront them, so you'd better not combine anything with anything. Let's kind of keep it all separate. And they obsessively keep things separate, and they do that long enough they collapse. Quite amusing, because they're running basically on a law of reaction.

In other words there are tremendous numbers of considerations by which one must not look at things as they are. And part of havingness is not looking at things as they are.

But it's very easy to unbalance this. Things as they are? Well, if you looked at things exactly as they are you would get nothing. I give the experiments of perfect duplication as covered in Creation of Human Ability. The perfect duplicate. It's a duplication of something, with itself, in its own space, by its own postulates. And you get this, you get this mechanism of perfect duplication, you get nothing. So there's this little alteration necessary.

Now, this whole idea of time is simply an alteration. A parade of alter-isnesses. And you get enough alter-isnesses running automatically enough, and you have everybody going along on the same time span. Which is quite amusing. What's amusing about it is that it is impossible to put this on total automatic. Time is so difficult to do that it still requires a considerable amount of contribution from everybody participating in it.

Now what you find fault with in a preclear is that he's alter-ising, changing, shifting, altering, more than he needs to. Now I'll give you some idea of how this is produced. You take things away from a person so frequently and violently, consistently, and so irreparably, that he becomes very anxious about havingness, then he will cut in more alter-isness and more alteration and more change of consideration about havingness in order to keep it from being as-ised. In other words, by making somebody anxious about the solidity, or something of things, he goes back on this old mechanism of alter it to make it persist. And the more you take away from him the more he will alter things. You understand that? There is a coordination then between control and havingness. And it is simply that an individual's anxiety about havingness, the existence of things, causes the individual to obsessively change those things more and more and more and more. So we get, coincidentally, this thing occurring. The more people lose, the more they change what they have. And that is a quite, quite an interesting rule. The more they lose the more they change what they have.

Now let's take some fellow; I'll give you an example of this. We'll take some fellow. You've got to wrap your wits around this thing. This is, this is one of those things. This has been there, understood. I have never articulated it before, or lined these three factors up where they belong and given them their proper importance. We have known about isness and not-isness and alter-isness for quite some time, but we've never really got in there and slugged on a practical auditing level. And now we are. This is real, very, very practical. This is real down to Earth, you might say. I'm not intending any double entendre.

Alright, now here we get what happens to people when they become aberrated. They depart too far from the isness of things as they are. See, they go too far from it. So far, that nothing that they have is real, and they don't have it. In other words, they can alter things so obsessively that they cease to have them at all, because they can't have the thing that it, right there in front of them. They alter a chair into a window quicker'n scat. You understand? They go way over the line. Why? Because alter-isness is that which preserves, or continues, MEST. A little of it goes a long way.

Now the favorite is an alter-isness of ownership, which is an alter-isness of creativeness. Same thing. We mock up a wall and say, "Isn't that a pretty wall Joe mocked up?" As a matter of fact that's quite enough to keep the wall there, because our basic agreement on it is that when we alter-is something it persists. Joe mocks up a wall and you say, "Isn't that a beautiful wall I mocked up?" And then you get a persistence. It's very simple.

Continuance by various considerations made by thetans depends then upon alter-isness. So when a person becomes anxious about continuance, like Tom Sawyer's cat, he administers just a little bit more medicine, just a little bit more pain killer. All you need's another dose of this alter-isness. Oh my. Now it doesn't become one alteration of ownership, the ownership sails out into some incredible deity. It was, the wall was mocked up by Maug, or something of this sort. Maug, the great god Maug, and Maug mocked up all the walls of the world. And he is the god of walls. And if you touch a wall, why; now let's get a little bit more drastic about it. If you touch a wall you insult Maug. You get the idea? And the life hereafter we have to mock up so that Maug can punish you after you back out of your dead head. That's another alter-isness, you see?

Now let's just forget the deity of walls, and let's just make one deity for everything and make him so unattainable that nobody could ever do anything about him. You get this as alter-is, alter-is, alter-is? Just a little bit further out. Now we find out that doesn't work too well, so we add on to it the fact that all MEST was originally poison, and only by looking at it in a certain way with a certain squint in one eye will it not bite you. See? I mean, let's come back and start alter-ising all over again. Let's get rid of all these ideas about ownership, and bury them and put them totally on automatic. Who created it, let's get that all fouled up completely, moved clear across and out of the way, and start substituting new things. Now let's tell some real good lies about this stuff, and just get going on it. And just get it so submerged on alter-isness that nobody will ever get a happy idea, and suddenly look at it and have it disappear.

So, let's say that all molecules are basically poison. And that this is proven by the fact that they interact in certain ways. And we could go ahead and prove to beings that they interacted badly. That they exploded, and they did bad things to people, and so on. Let's grow a lot of vines, and name them poison ivy, and show people they shouldn't touch leaves by making these poison ivy, then, quite like other leaves, like plain ivy. Only let's always plant poison ivy with plain ivy and that'll keep the dogs and the little boys off of the stuff. You get the idea? Let's just mess this up something fierce. Let's just move it over one way or the other.

And now let's invent, let's invent a whole bunch of property laws, so that at any time anybody touches anything that isn't his, why he has some tremendous corporal punishment, and his MEST gets taken away from him. And we look at law, and we find that all law is based on havingness. But very little bit, and a very, very little bit of law is based on communication. But law exerts itself as control. Quite amusing.

Now you could actually postulate a number of ethics and morals and rightness of conduct and this sort of thing, but you're into the field of control. And it shows you how far south law has gone, because almost totally, disobedience of the law is about the only crime there is with regard to law. We don't any longer have law being adjudicated on simply an ethical level. Was is an ethical thing to do? There is one court, I think, left in New Jersey, with an old Dianeticist running it, and there is a court left in England called the court of Chancery, where things are adjudicated to a marked degree upon the ethics of the situation, rather than the law. The rights are weighed rather than the written law.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has gone in an entirely different direction, and they are now adjudicating things on scientific basis. Whether something is scientific or not is whether or not it is lawful or unlawful. This is quite amusing. I give you Senator Eastland's speech in the U.S. Senate concerning the anti-segregation decision. Quite amazing. Eastland points out, and several federal justices through the country up to this time have pointed out, that this is the first time that science; and I; it's very funny to call psychology a science because it is not. It's not based on known laws or isolated principles at all. It's just a bunch of observations, canned up and put in a book. And the United States Supreme Court took some textbooks on psychology, which were written by people who had already been indicted before the House, I think, Un-American Activities, Committee for Communist Activities, and which books, however, said that the Negro was as well off mentally as the white man. Which may or may not be true, but they had no right to use this, you see? And therefore and thereby anti-segregation was decided upon. And there have been several motions introduced so far into committees in the House and the Senate to this time, to impeach the entirety of the Supreme Court, except for the three justices who dissented. Because they departed from "disobey the law", and went over into "scientific adjudication". In other words, the law has gotten so low it's not trying to enforce what some people have dreamed up and are calling scientific postulates. You get that? You get how far afield this is going now?

It goes from ethics, where it started. Ethics and morays, down to havingness and obey the law, and then down to just obey the law, and now down to did or are people obeying certain scientific principles, and if they are not they are going to be punished by the United States Supreme Court. And those scientific principles is that everybody is equal. And I don't ever see that this has ever been proven. There are undoubtedly Negroes smarter than I am, there are undoubtedly white men that are smarter than Negroes. They, any series of tests would demonstrate the fallacy of these "scientific laws", but men are being put in jail and fined, today, for disobeying these decisions of the United States Supreme Court, based upon a fallacious law. And I'm only quoting Senator Eastland and others, as they have spoken on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Now there you get an alter-isness, alter-isness, alter-isness. You see, there we're really departing down the line. And the more people get anxious about havingness the further they depart down this line. You could draw up this scale if you want to, it wouldn't do you any particular good as a Scientologist, and understanding of it should be yours. But at first, one thetan makes a postulate, and then he enforces it or gets it agreed with, one way or the other, and it becomes a consideration. And then this consideration floats along as a good game, until somebody has this thing entering into the realm of havingness or the game or something, and he decides that this is absolutely necessary, so he enforces this consideration and makes it against the law to disobey this consideration. And eventually we wind up with the elemental chart, Mendell Yeaves' laws, elementary physics, elementary chemistry, and that is merely the sequence. It's interesting that this sequence comes apart under auditing in a preclear. That's the only thing I'm telling you, see? You see that?

Now, don't look dazed over this, because this is too easy. You've known this for a long time, that all things proceed from postulates. And I just happen to be telling you the involved way by which they do so. And the only thing I'm describing to you here, is how alter-isness plays its role in havingness.

We get a persistence of havingness by alter-isness. And we do that by enforcing the consideration back of it. And we just keep enforcing considerations, and then we alter some more considerations, and we, get it? We go on and on and on, down the line. Next thing you know we've gone so far that the altered thing, or the altering thing, that is to say we altered and then we got an altered thing, which wasn't the thing at all, but a substitute, and that substitute becomes more real than the object.

People look at a chair and see a table. People look at a light and see a chandelier. People look at a door and see a window. You got the idea? See, the substitute thing is the thing. And this is delusion. That is all delusion is. Is, things have been altered to such a degree that nothing any longer resembles anything it was basically intended to be.

Now we intend a board to be a table, and this would be good enough to make it a chair. You see that? Just the fact that we said it was a table would make it a chair. Alright, we say we are going to do an honest thing, and with many people, this then is an admission that we are going to do something dishonest. Do you understand this? It's just, bing, bing! I mean, it's that fast. They don't even do it consciously. We simply say, "We're making an honest effort to do something." And at once, to many people who are completely submerged on the subject of havingness, we get, "They are dishonest crooks." Immediate result. Do you see that?

Now, somebody can get into a basis, and you notice here I didn't mention the word either psychiatry or psychology. I think I was being very good. I didn't mention either of those words, aside from this particular paragraph. And they get to a point where their statement that they're going to do good makes them immediately destroy anything they touch. In other words, we now get from the communication factor, where the fact that one person says to another person, "I'm going to do good", and the other person at once says, "He means evil." See, we get, from there, we get a closure down to a point of where, just the statement or the thought that one is going to do good, makes him do evil. Do you understand this? He just gets the one-two, right in himself, not on a communication basis, but he gets it on a time span of a repeated intention. In other words, the alteration becomes at once accomplished on the single statement of intention. And no matter what intention he states, he will get another intention.

Alright, this fellow's trying to run a body. He says, "I'm going down to the corner", so he walks upstairs. You see that? We get an alteration. We don't get it of one person by another, by which consideration all other people besides myself mean evil. Most people today in this world are, to some degree, on that kick. "The fellows over there are bad." This is almost automatic today as a postulate. "His intentions, just because he's somebody else, are not as good as my intentions." This is quite interesting. It's how you breed wars, by the way. You'll find everybody in the universe believes that he himself has good intentions, and that other people have bad intentions. And they, if everybody believed this, then you would have a mythical second party in all cases. Which second party did not exist at all, so he could never be analyzed or understood, so you would have evil afloat in the world. Do you see how that would be accomplished? I mean, we've mocked up a second party who doesn't exist. If you read newspapers today you are made to believe that the rest of the world is pretty dog gone rotten. That's everybody believing that everybody else is rotten.

Alright. Now that's fine, but when you get a closure, when the communication ceases out of this, you get a complete closure of terminal, then the person who reports on the other person is reporting on himself. And he says he is evil. Now we have everybody being evil. See, it's not very much of a jump from A saying that B is evil, to a closure of terminals whereby A wishes he were good, but knows he's bad, to A's bad. You got the notion there? It's a rather pathetic picture, by the way. It's a rather pathetic picture, that everybody basically is good, you see? And that doesn't matter, doesn't matter to whom that applies. He basically is, actually, well intentioned, or ethically aligned. But he gets the idea that other people aren't, and therefore, to stay in agreement and live a life he has to be careful, and so forth.

For instance, I have never succeeded in doing business by contract. I have never succeeded in doing business by contract. I have only succeeded in doing business, where I have had to touch the stuff; it's kind of a drug, you know? You get drunk on it, very easily, business. And I've known guys who do it all the time, and who never do anything else. And, they get to a point where they will eventually do it totally by contract. Well I've never had any successful business by contract. The only successful business I have ever engaged in, as a writer or anything else, or in expeditions, has been by trust. I assume the other guy's alright and he means well. And he will do all right. And as long as I continue to assume that, and I never do anything else, I never have any trouble with him. But somebody has to come along and explain to me how he's bad, and give me some proof to this effect, and make my communication break down a little bit, in order to have the other party go bad. But no contract I have ever signed has ever guaranteed the performance by itself. Do you understand that? It's much more important with whom you do business than how you do business. This is much more important.

Similarly, in life, you can control any sphere where you recognize the first postulate, and you're tough enough to hang on to the first postulate, no matter how much the automatic second postulate turns on of the alter-isness. Do you understand that? If you're tough enough to maintain the first postulate, and to take any consequences to your MEST of maintaining this first postulate, you will always win because it is the senior, dominating, monitoring postulate. The other fellow is a good guy. And he'll wear himself out trying to prove otherwise sometimes. Some people did in Dianetics. It was quite amazing. There are two or three fellow that just, just knocked themselves out trying to prove that they were evil. 'Cause what? They never really succeeded in doing anything that had any great, long span effectiveness. You see that?

The first postulate, life is life, livingness is livingness, is more powerful than death. See, the cycle of action is more powerful at the beginning than at the end. If you maintain livingness and you maintain life, and you go on living and you go on acting, and you go on being and you go on maintaining your own ability to grant beingness and go on granting beingness, and granting livingness, and so forth, come hell or high water, you're unassailable. It's only when you break down and go in for this alteration of the basic fact, into a bunch of more consecutive facts, that you lose your grip on the communication line, and go into havingness. And there's how a person arrives into havingness. He falls for this death postulate, or the succumb postulate, as an alteration of the life postulate, in order to make life persist. But here's something very peculiar. It requires no effort on his part to make life persist, because life is survival. It's like, it's very, very funny. Would you work to make a hungry child hungry? In such a wise, why work to make a total survival being survive? You see?

Well, the only way you'd have to, you'd be able to work at this, would be to fall for the second postulate, and believe he's dying. Now what does a Scientologist who calls a thetan back to a body and makes him reanimate it do? What does he do? He actually won't fall for the fact of death. The guy's lying there, he's stretched out, he's pale, cold. There's no pulse, no heartbeat, you see? No breath on the mirror, and he says, "Come back here and take over this body." And the fellow says, "Oh, somebody's on to me." And he comes back and lifts an eye, and says what'd I want? It's quite interesting. But what has he done there, basically? He has simply not fallen for any consideration for the idea of death, which is a falsity and an alteration. Don't you see?

You see, that is a dreamed up fact. Life isn't dreamed up. Anything from there on is. And you fall for the dreamed up fact, and then you lose your ability to handle and monitor life, and you go into havingness as the thing. So in order to go into havingness you have to go into death. And your first consideration after you start fooling around with havingness is that something can die. Things can disappear. Well if you mock up something and say it's not going to disappear, that should be enough. That should be plenty. There shouldn't be anything else connected with that.

Now, where we have life, somebody has said, we have hope. Though I'm afraid we have more than hope. We have life. Now, how would we get into any kind of a situation whereby there was no life? Well we'd have to assume it. Now, we can say, "There's a mock up, it will persist," and that should be that. But instead of that we use a via. We say, "My postulate isn't good enough to make this mock up persist, I've got to enter into some kind of a nonsensical, hurdy-gurdy scheme of things, by which I say that this postulate was not made by myself, it was made by god. And only that way can it persist, because things which are altered persist." We have to make this other set of postulates, things which are altered persist, which is easier for other people to follow, we feel. Well, when we pick up something that's easier for other people to follow we've at once lost any faith in anybody else to respect the fact that you mocked up something, and therefore you said it'd persist, and we've already said they aren't ethical and they aren't alive, and so we went into some other system, and we're in the soup. And there's where all your alter-isnesses and alterations occur in havingness.

Now, but we know this, that if havingness is made to persist by change, then perforce control is lower on the scale of operational techniques by the auditor than havingness. But remember that havingness is all the way down. And remember that communication is all the way down, too. But, at this stage of the game, only control is observably all the way down. You understand, all three of these things go all the way south. But the tab that is left open, for you to audit, at first entrance into the case, is control.

The exercise of control, of course, takes over the automaticity of change. And so, to a marked degree, wipes out alteration. And so makes havingness possible. It's as simple as that. Control is start, change and stop. Alteration is change.

So, we run hand contact mimicry with somebody, and we are controlling his hands. Well don't be surprised if his hands become more real to him. What do we mean by more real? We mean, simply, that he is not so obsessively alter-ising hands, that he cannot have hands. He now can have hands. Do you see that? By control we knocked out some obsessive alteration. And having knocked it out, we then increase his ability to have.

Now it's quite remarkable, and we've just conducted a little test for your benefit, over at the HGC. Just did this one thing. We took "Look at me, who am I?", and ran it for a couple of hours, and it didn't flatten. And obviously on that person it was producing change, but on that person it didn't even evidently have a show of flattening within a week. So I asked the auditor to get off of that, now, and let's get on to SCS. And then, to return to "Look at me, who am I?" Do you got it? In other words, the object, the auditor, who would seem an object; by the way as people get better, other people become objects to them. Quite interesting. I don't know what another person is to a nuclear physicist, but any sane person under auditing, coming up scale, gets that as one of his first considerations. He says, "Well now I've been paying token grace to the idea that other people were alive," and all of this. And it's sort of an educational level. People become objects to him. They become more solid and more real. And after SCS was run on this preclear, the auditor caught the preclear looking at him rather fixedly, and examining him in a rather interested way. You got the idea? In other words, "Look at me, who am I?" flattened, by running SCS. Got that?

In other words, we found an auditor by running SCS. But remember that SCS was run with a heavy control factor, by agreement with the auditor. Much heavier than this auditor has ever run anybody before. Crrrrrunch! You understand? I mean, terrific control. Good ARC, tremendous control. That preclear could not bat an eyelash without permission from the auditor. Do you understand? That preclear was not permitted to think, act, spit, do anything, except follow the auditing command, at the instant the auditing command was given. Auditor lugging the preclear into the starts, you see? "Alright, when I tell you to start your body, why you start your body." And the auditor right there with an arm around the preclear, starting the preclear off. See? No other automaticity involved but the auditor.

Now it's an odd thing that on that SCS no power of choice was allowed the preclear. Why? Because we looked at the preclear's profile, and we said, "Power of choice?" And we're sure the bank has terrific power of choice, all of it alterations. The power of choice was resident in the reactive mind of the preclear as a bunch of engrams combining with a bunch of engrams. But there was no power of choice on the part of the preclear. Some hours of this and the preclear had an auditor.

Heavy control, you understand? Very heavy control. But very pleasant ARC. You don't run heavy control at 1.5. Heavy control isn't any good at 1.5, because 1.5 implies a doubt that you can do it. And where you have good control you don't have any doubts. Do you see that clearly?

So that control becomes doubly vicious by running it in a high toned way. It becomes violently horrible. You say to a person off handedly, pleasantly, nicely, smooth, cultured voice, you say, "Now when I tell you to start the body, I want you to start the body in that direction. Alright, start the body." The preclear goes this way, and the auditor's arm in back of the preclear, and the auditor starts the body. Just as nice as you please. This becomes horrible.

Faith in control has broken down the moment the auditor would say, "I told you to start that body. And when I say start that body I mean start that body. What's the idea of rrrowr, rrrowr?" See? Oh no. That's isn't an impressive level of control. That isn't impressive at all. You know what impresses people about control is effortless control. That's what impresses them about control. But when you substitute your body's arm in a friendly way you actually are not substituting a great deal of effort. They'll go along with it to the degree that your hand is friendly. Quite amazing.

I ran a rapids once in a survey vessel. I was sittin' in the navigator's chair with my feet up on the railing, smoking a cigarette. I wasn't looking at the charts or anything else, see? I wasn't doin' anything. I was just sitting there, looking at the scenery, commenting on the trees as they went by at twenty knots. It wasn't a particular part, I happened to know that that was a very, very safe channel, it ran very fast. Even if you went over the edge and went into the, tried to go into the bank of the channel, tried to steer yourself aground in this narrow channel, the bank itself had enough backwash to throw you back into the current again. I had seen freight cars on barges go through that at a high run, attached to a tug. Four and five barges attached. And those things were sloughing around like a snap the snake whip, you know? And they, you just can't hit the bank in there. You know? But to sit up there, casually, myself because I knew by experience that there was nothing. And to have a totally green crew, had never been near that place before, you see? Boy, was that impressive to them, you know? They brought me hot coffee afterwards, and you know, fantastic. White water frothed in there for about two, three miles.

You see, the accepted method of control contains some anxiety in it. Don't you see? There should have been some anxiety. You should sound like you're anxious about it all, you know. Sound like there was some chance that you wouldn't get through this one. Alright, it gives people the sensation that you yourself personally are pushing something through. And maybe if you were casual enough and positive enough, at the same time. Maybe you are.

Why is it that people have accidents when they're emotionally upset? It's because their control factor is dropped. But you'd say these people are at a high 1.5, they're certainly controlling things! Only are they? Ah, they obviously aren't, 'cause they have accidents. So it isn't necessary for you to be nasty to control people, just be positive. And this goes all the way south, right on down to a dead man.

Control must assume there is something alive there, when you're controlling people. Do you understand that? Because control, on your part, assumes the isness which is being controlled. Unless you can assume what is being controlled, you won't control it. So when you're controlling a human being, you must assume the isness that this person is alive, is trying, and can do it. And when you assume all those things, they can. That's the necromancy of it all. The dead body is assumed to be alive, and so it is.

Now because there is something there that is alive, you are not re-enlivening or rejuvenating anything, but this is the way it looks to people who don't know. So what else does it take? What else does good control take? It takes a splendid knowledge of all facets of the isness being controlled. When we control a large vessel, it actually doesn't so much necessitate the tremendous mechanical gimmicks around, as it necessitates the idea of your awareness that there is a mass there, which will obey your various proddings and commands. You see, just that.

Now we add a rather vast knowledge of its mechanical intricacies too, never forgetting at once, never forgetting that it is just a mass, and the control is just start, change and stop. In other words, don't get immersed in all the significances of the gimmicks. Gimmicks are just gimmicks. And they do not throw aside the basic fact at all that they only start, change and stop things. And we never fail to control an object, we never fail to control a person, and we can't fail to control anything. And when we can control everything, then we're not worried about controlling everything, because it's not necessary, because by that time we can have some things. And a person only gets worried about controlling things when he can't have things.

A person only gets worried about communication when he no longer can receive or give control. And then he's real worried about communication. He's somewhat upset about havingness, but he's terribly worried about communication. In other words, the amount of worry is progressively worse as we go from the curative levels down. See, a person's first relieved with communication, and then the further down scale he goes, the more and more worried he gets about the cure. Until the cure becomes the evil itself. So that extends from communication, which is all the way at the top, right on down through havingness and control too, and a the person who can't be controlled has just got the dog gonndest ideas about communication. If somebody says "Bear" to him, a bear is liable to appear and bite him. I mean, he's in a bad way. Communication is just too terrible to contemplate. It's all mixed up with havingness, becomes havingness, un-becomes havingness, does all sorts of things. You could even, for your own amusement, draw up a scale. What communication does as a person proceeds down scale.

Now we take havingness, from the moment a person can have something, and we go on down scale from there, havingness gets worse and worse. But we're entering into control. And the more, the way he expresses his concern or worry over havingness is a very simple way. He expresses it with anxiety about control. His control factor gets worse and worse, until the control scale itself goes into apathy, and everything controls him, but nothing controls him, because he can't... Well a fellow who can't control anything and nothing can control, is a fellow who will have to go a long way north before he can have. And the entrance to it is control.

If a psychiatrist was not himself so thoroughly involved with control, he would really have no trouble with insane people, and he would never have to employ such things as electric shock and other nonsense, which he knows full well makes nobody well. If he was capable himself of the level of control of a Scientologist, just running a psycho through an action, every day or so, would straighten the person out. It would be so easy to do. "How are you this morning, Mr. Jones?" Mr. Jones is gnawing the rug, and just his heels are visible from under the bed, and excreta all over the floor, and so forth. "How are you this morning, Mr. Jones? That's fine. Now, would you stand up here and let me look at your face, Mr. Jones?" And dig him out, and stand him up, and look at Mr. Jones' face, and say, "Well thank you, Mr. Jones." And let him go. Come back the next day and do the same thing. See? After a while he'd only have to say to Mr. Jones, "Well now, let's stand up here and let me take a look at your face", and Mr. Jones would, promptly. He would obey an order. And at that moment he could at least have the psychiatrist. Got the idea?

Well now there is the route out in insane people. You can run communication on them by running mimicry. You can run havingness on them by giving them things, and these have a certain level of workability. But there is nothing goes as far south as control.

But the way you have to do control is so precise, so unswerving, and so positive, that it admits of no argument whatsoever. And you will always stay at high-tone control of things.

Now if you only learned how to control people you would never have any trouble with children or workers, or anything else, because most of these people are below the level of havingness. And being below the level of havingness, they are, by older techniques, rather unauditable. But they're certainly not unauditable by control. But unfortunately for you, control is something you have to buck up to, and something you have to practice, something you have to understand, to get your willingness to do that completely by seventy-six thousand, million, trillion, jillion years of being convinced that you shouldn't. And that's a very easy thing to do, actually.

Now there's where these things fit. And there's where CCH fits in auditing, and there is where it goes. All of this flashes back simply to isness. Things are what they are. And they aren't anything else. If you can just get a preclear to conceive that, directly, you would bypass all others. But unfortunately, I'm afraid you're never going to do that. But if you get a miracle cure sometime that you just can't quite understand, how the man's leg un-withered in front of your eyes, boom, in some way you've got communication to intertwine with havingness, so as to admit of the isness of a leg. And the second that he admitted of the isness of a leg to that degree, his leg got well.

Now there's the route to miracle cures. And you don't have to go in that fashion. All you have to do is get him to control his leg, and the same thing will happen, if at a little longer level. But with greater positiveness for you as an auditor. Thank you.