[Start of Lecture]

I have a couple of things to take up with you here. And let's see, what is this, the 11th? 12th?

Audience: The 12th.

The 12th. Oh, Armistice Day was yesterday.

Audience: Yes.

Yeah, they always have an Armistice Day just in time to greet the new war.

I have a couple of items to take up with you. One is the attitude of the preclear and what we call happenstance. And the other one is what we are doing currently with processes. Now, both of these are quite important. And I'll take these up in the order of what we are doing with processes.

In doing an intensive, the auditor gets along best in using processes on which he himself has a good subjective awareness. And when he doesn't have a good subjective idea of the workability of the process, or what it does, and so on, actually he does rather poorly with the process. We can take three auditors, one of them has a good subjective reality, and two do not. They run three preclears — more or less the same type of preclear — and you will find, I am sure, that the one who has a subjective reality gets an excellent result, and the others get rather mediocre results with the same process. Quite remarkable, but is definitely part of processing.

Now, today, we are not using very many stunty processes. It would shock you to realize that 8-C and things of that character, the Trio, and such things are run-of-the-mill and routine. They are what is done.

Now, naturally what we've learned about communication, that is employed. What we have learned about various other factors, we employ those too. But we actually try not to employ these faster than we give somebody a reality on them himself. So it takes a little longer to put a process into actual action in the HGC than it once did. We want to see somebody audited on it; we want to see some results on the process. So therefore, we have a tendency to fall back on older processes.

Now, when I say „older processes,“ I mean, of course, anything over the last three years that produced a remarkable result.

Right now there is a research survey which has been sent around to every auditor in the world on what processes he himself gained on and what processes he has obtained gains with, and we will do another summary like we did about two, three years ago. I'm sure I know already what we will find in this project. Every one of you, by the way, should have received one of these things, and appreciate very much your treating it as a must to make out and return. I do want to know your opinion. If you don't have it in your hands, it's probably home waiting for you.

So here is the rundown on processes. Certain processes have obtained results, and those, then, are valid processes. That's all it amounts to.

We are no longer looking for the central button amongst all central buttons that makes cases go wham, because we have central buttons that make cases go wham, and there's no sense in looking for them anymore.

But to get somebody upscale is a human problem, not a mechanical problem. It's a human problem. And if you recognize that clearly as an auditor, then you will realize that the tremendous breadth of work in Scientology has — each process, each step of it — been aimed in the direction of paralleling what the mind is actually doing.

Now, of course, above all this, the mind is actually living, and the person is actually engaged in living. And therefore, the more artificialities that are added in, the more peculiarities that have nothing to do with the formulas of life itself, why, the less chance he has of recovering. Remember that.

Now, that tells you at one fell swoop that the introduction of steel pipes into people's legs is a poor solution. It tells you also that the use of any drug is a poor solution. These are only stopgap solutions. I don't care what the treatment is. If somebody has a broken leg, we put the broken leg back together again, that's for sure. But remember, it's a stopgap solution; it really doesn't necessarily cure the person of having a broken leg. It gets him into mechanical condition again.

Now, we don't know that the body would not snap back into this mechanical perfection if it were not being handled in some fashion by the mind or various reactions. You see, we're not at all sure that a body is meant to fall apart. We think this has to be assisted. And therefore, any one of these stopgaps, any one of these immediacies, is no more and no less than a cure for a cure. Now, you got that carefully?

That is to say, obstetrics: The body through many, many generations has been thoroughly educated into the difficulties of childbirth, you see? Therefore, we have to have an obstetrician in order to handle the difficulties of childbirth. You got that? In other words, we're curing the cures.

Now, you say the difficulties of childbirth are not a cure. Oh, yes they are; they're a cure for childbirth. If you look this over carefully, the girl who protests madly about the agonies and so forth of childbirth is basically protesting the continuance of the race just as much as Schopenhauer was protesting its continuance in The Will and the Idea. She is not being quite so philosophic or profound, but she is being a little bloodier about it. And she says, „Well, I was thirty-nine hours in labor. And there was no possibility of any relief except a Caesarian, and so we had a Caesarian,“ and so on, and so on, and so on. „And I haven't been well since, and here I am in this wheelchair,“ see?

Now, the current generation may not be the author of that cure for childbirth — which is what makes some of our activities difficult. It isn't the thetan who has the body at this time who began this, who began to narrow down the pelvic bones, you see, and so on. And somebody has inherited somebody else's grief. You got it? So there was grief on the backtrack; somebody comes along now and inherits that grief. Now, that person who has inherited it has a legitimate protest then; something has happened. But it's only legitimate up to this point: wouldn't have restimulated if he hadn't agreed with it. Got it? If she hadn't agreed with it, it wouldn't have restimulated.

All engrams that are in bad shape have two parts, parts A and parts B. Part A is the thetan's engram package, and part B is the body's engram package. And only when these two things match do you get a restimulation. In other words, there have to be — there are always two engrams present, not just one. Now, you see that?

All right, these things, then, are a cure for cures. Obstetrics, drugs, even Dianazene, or anything like this is a cure for a cure. The body knew how to stop everybody from using radioactive horse pistols. The body knew how to do this: It became terribly allergic and set an example of the horrible consequences of, you see?

Now, some radiation shows up and it continues this cure; it's a cure for the use of radiation. All right, now we, then, have to have a cure for the cure. And in almost all activities, we are doing just that: We're curing the cures.

Now, as auditors, we are curing the mechanisms which assisted the thetan and the body to remember, recover, and which rather insisted that life should be lived along a certain pattern. The environment in which that life should be lived, however, is no longer present. We have another environment. And we find it necessary now to live life on another pattern, which is forbidden by the mental image pictures and so on that have been accumulated in the mind.

But remember, these mental image pictures, each one of them was at one time a cure. It said, „Now, the way we've been getting in trouble here is this way. We will take a horrible picture of this, and then any time we go ahead along this line, why, this somatic will turn on and we will deviate. We'll no longer follow this dangerous course.“ Each one of these engrams, each one of these locks, computations, and so forth, stands across a track of danger, imagined danger.

But the idea of danger itself is a cure. See, that itself is a cure. Pain is a cure, and so on. So when you're indulging in therapeutic actions, you are always curing cures. Do you see that?

There are such processes as „Correct that wall.“ See, „Look around the room and find something that you could correct.“ And you get an undercut of the critical processes. It's quite interesting, but they are corrections of corrections.

Now, as such, an auditor must at all times be aware that his results then depend upon attaining some simplicity that is earlier than the first correction which he is trying to correct. In other words, he is attempting to undercut the whole subject of correction.

This, therefore, leaves us with certain fundamentals, certain simplicities, which we have attained and which we use. And amongst those we have 8-C.

Now, you understand that a cure of a cure would always result in an alter-isness. But the first cure was an alter-isness. So you have the track of what you're trying to handle is a concatenation of alter-isnesses. You see, this was the way it is. And that's why I gave you that talk the other day about — here is a mock- up, you know? It is; perceive it, see? That's all there is; there's no further significance.

Now, we have to alter-is in order to obtain a further significance or interest. But if we keep alter-ising from that point of isness of the first mock-up, don't you see — if we keep altering it — we get all sorts of things. We get persistence; that's just one of the things we get. We get interesting points in this thing, see? We get hidden meanings, hidden influences. The whole computation, by the way, of atomic damage is based entirely upon this one button: the hidden influence.

There is nothing more interesting than something which must be searched for and which doesn't exist. See, that is an interesting game. These things all come under the categories of games. That's one of the most interesting games there is: to search for something and be completely certain that something exists to be searched for which yet does not exist. And one can always be sure of a continuing game; he doesn't run out of game suddenly by finding it.

It's a terrible shock to find something — you're just getting all wound up to get mad at the maid or the wife or something of the sort for mislaying your hammer. You just got a wonderful game mocked up here. You're just going to clobber the whole works, knock the foundations out from underneath the house, scream, you know, and so forth, and show who is boss around there, and by golly you find the hammer. So you see, that sort of game comes to end. And the head — it's the liability of having an ending.

Well, the way to have a game with no ending is to have a hidden influence. So one of the things that you put into one of these isness things, you know — mock-up; there it is — is „There is something else about it.“ Got it? And now we have an interesting time of it. There is something else about it; nobody can establish what it is; expert opinion can be consulted in all directions, and this game can go on forever without the least chance of ever finding anything. Because, you see, nothing was there. You have the whole science of medicine, you see?

Now, this, however, is a liability. Although the thetan played this game then, he doesn't really intend to play this game now, you see? He's out of his time environment. He's — things have changed. There's been an alteration in his track. He's interested now in other games. He wants to do certain things; there are limitations on the body he's carrying around, and he wants to do something else about it.

Well, in other words, his first bent is to practice an alter- isness. Please get that. The preclear who comes to you wishes to practice an alter-isness on alter-isnesses. That's all he wants. He does not even vaguely have any concept of a simplicity. He's going to practice — he thinks you should practice — an alter- isness on an alter-isness.

In other words, he has an alter-isness he doesn't like. Now he wants to alter it. Got it? Now, if you follow through and do that, you are in the soup. Because you're alter-ising an alter- isness which existed to alter-is about eight thousand other alter-isnesses. And we're trying to walk back on a backtrack here of such horrible complexity that if you wished to invest eighty thousand hours of auditing, there is some possibility that you would have succeeded in straightening out every alter-isness with another alter-isness called auditing. Got it?

Therefore, auditing must be fundamental. It must be extremely simple. It must not get complicated. Now, the simplicities of auditing, then, must follow the basic computations of existence itself, mustn't they? That is to say, if you can parallel these items which are common to all isnesses and alter-isnesses and everything at once, if you could take something which has been there since the beginning of track, if you can actually measure up these various abilities such as communication, such as location, as possession — now, if you can just straighten those things out, then you are not really practicing alter-isness. You're practicing a continuance of skill. Got it?

Therefore, when you hit at these fundamentals, such as parts of the communication formula, and so on, you are running a continuance of skills. This was the best that he could do. Hate to say that, but that's the best that he could ever do. See, that was good. He could put something there. He could perceive it. He could communicate in all parts of the formula. He could engage in a game. He could create other things to do.

Now then, instead of altering all the conditions to which he is prone and liable, instead of altering all these conditions, you then must fundamentally advance into present-time abilities which have only suffered because of alter-isness.

See, he's alter-ised these things, too. He alter-ised communication for certain purposes; he alter-ised mock-up for certain purposes; he alter-ised perception for certain purposes, don't you see? Now, it's only necessary to get him to do them straight and anything wrong with him will branch out.

But the funny part of it is, there is the matter of his current interest: his immediate interest, his interest today, his interest now. His attention may be centered so thoroughly and then not centered so thoroughly, you see — having been centered, it is now no longer centered — on some sort of a condition that he's locked up. He doesn't move in any particular direction at all. There he is. He's just stuck right there.

In other words, he had a blow, and he can't free himself from this blow, although he is no longer aware of the blow, don't you see? And you have a psychosomatic illness. In other words, the fellow is in a little bit of suppressed pain or discomfort.

Now, just about as far as you want to go with this alter-isness is to relieve his attention, relieve his fixation, make him feel well enough to then practice better communication, mock-up, perception, duplication, interest, creativenesses, and so on.

He's not going to be able to do any of these things as wound-up as he is, though, in the chronic somatic. Now we call this present time problem. And you are very familiar with that mechanism. The individual who is entirely engrossed with a present time problem is not fit to audit on anything except the present time problem. You'll find out that when you don't flatten a present time problem, you don't have a successful intensive. That's all there is to that. I mean, it's as simple and as idiotic as that.

We say, „Is there anything worrying you lately?“

And he says, „Yes, I'm getting a divorce.“

And you say, „All right. Well, let's get a problem of comparable magnitude...“ (a little more smoothly than that), and he does, and so on, and then we say, „Well, are you worried about it now?“

„No, I feel I can do something about it.“

And you say, „Well, we'll go on and be audited.“ Oh, come on, auditor!

Is a present time problem flat as long as he feels he has to do something about it?

Audience voices: No.

That is the most silly thing in the world. You know, there isn't anything you have to do about anything actually. So the present time problem will really work out best if you flatten it to a point of where he could create a similar game. Got it?

Well, if you leave him at this point... This is an actual case history, and I'm really talking to you about case histories this morning. This is an actual case history; I ran into it in Dublin.

Auditor was on a long haul on somebody or other. And I said, „What's the matter?“

„What's the matter!“ he said. „I'm doing fine!“

Well, I'd seen his preclears for a couple days running and there was no change; there was just no change. The person might as well have been riding around in a streetcar as getting audited. So although it wasn't my position to do so, auditors are still auditors to me. And so I said, „Well, all right. Now, what are you doing?“ And we traced it back to finally he handled, he said, the present time problem. He handled it; it was fine.

And I said, „Now, let me see. This just doesn't seem to me right, somehow or another. I just smell something wrong here. How do you mean you handled it?“

And he said, „Well, I got her up to a point where she could do something about it.“ And he says, „That was good and she's going to do something about it now. She's going to go home and straighten up the situation — get a divorce, and so on. And so I got along with auditing.“

And I said, „Oh, come now! You think that's flat, do you?“

And he said, „Well, she's willing to do something about it. She was never willing to do anything about it before.“

„Well, now you go back and get hold of her and flatten that thing until she couldn't care less, till she can invent problems much more interesting to her than this situation with her husband.“

All right, he did — because they usually do what I ask them to do; not because I'm a nice fellow but because it sometimes works out — and by golly, he had been within twenty minutes of flattening the present time problem. Within twenty minutes. And he ran it just an additional twenty minutes: It went flat. She shrugged; she laughed; she thought it was a very amusing situation, and then kicked it overboard entirely and went right in, puppy to the root, and got rolling on some duplication, and that was that. And that case just soared. Do you get the slight difference there?

All right. Now, this alter-isness that we are practicing isn't what shows up on one of these analyses. Here's an American Personality Analysis. This is not an alter-isness.

If you think it is an alter-isness, then you're going to have difficulty with auditing. It isn't an alter-isness. This is a greater simplicity of preclear. Got it?

Now, you notice that the blue line there is a bit low and very low in a couple of spots, and the red line is pretty even there, see? Well, the red line is the second one, blue line is the first one. This, by the way, is only ten hours of auditing. All right.

Now, is this an alteration of condition? No, it is not. This is a return of condition.

Now, if you think, too, that „return of” goes in the tradition of „When we all get back to childhood, it'll all be much simpler,“ or the simplicity of a child, or something like that... A child is batty! He's in the terrible confusion of just having kicked the bucket. He's still half the time got a facsimile of the headstone they just buried his body under, see? He's upset!

One of the reasons — I've always had an easy time with kids at large, but one of the reasons I have a very easy time with kids these days is because I understand this. I know what the score is with the kid. I know that he's a bit confused, that he's a bit rattled, that he's not well adjusted, that he doesn't feel too welcome where he is, that his body is a sort of a purloined thing.

No, don't think of these simplicities of children, see? A child is not in a simple condition, but is in a terribly complicated condition. Now has to learn arithmetic all over again! See? Knows arithmetic but now has to learn arithmetic all over again. Nobody would ever believe this child if he simply said, „You know, I know arithmetic.“ It's just that factor alone which keeps people teaching him arithmetic; he never says he knows arithmetic. Don't you see?

All right. Now, this is not, then, an alter-isness, and going back to childhood is not a demonstration of simplicity. A thetan in simpler shape is a thetan in better shape. Got it? A thetan in simpler shape is a thetan in better shape.

And what you've done here is strip off some alter-isness. And this makes the gain. We have less alter-isness with the red line than we have with the blue line. See that blue line? See where it dips there? Well, that blue line is an alter-isness of the alter- isness of the alter-isness of the alter-isness, don't you see? And that's a big complexity which eventually became a confusion on some point or another with big identification.

All right, then, we strip off some of this alter-isness and we get a gain on that point. And that's a pretty good gain too. That's a gain of 15... Um... I guess that's a gain of 10, 20, 35 — 35 percent on „Depressed and Unhappy“; he's 35 percent happier, see? This is quite a gain, see? All right.

That's not an alter-isness that we practiced. We practiced a simplizization. Not a simplification; that would be different. A simplizization. See? We got him simpler. See that? And that is what makes that change, and that's all that makes that change!

When you understand that, boy, you're really going to soar as an auditor, see? Really going to soar. We didn't alter-is the alter- is. In other words, we didn't bring him in and put him on a massage machine.

Walked into a psychological clinic one time, and they had a new bed which wiggled sideways and jumped up and down — I mean the mattress did. And the psychologist said, „Isn't that an interesting bed? It was just delivered over here.“

And I said, „Yes, it is an awfully interesting bed. What are you doing with it?“

And he says, „Well,“ he says, „I've been reading some of your work.“ (A psychologist, it's always your work, you know? Ownership lies very heavy on their heads.) And „Some of your work, and some of your ideas.“ „And I found out that this thing will stimulate what you call Fac One every time.“ And he was using it for that purpose.

And I said, „What are you doing that for?“ And, of course, he didn't have any answer.

But he was certainly altering something. And he was just on an obsessive alteration. He could alter the perception of a case, and that was all he wanted to do. He just wanted to alter it. No further purpose, see? He could make a guy have a pain, who had a pain from there on out, see? And he thought that was a good gain. Well, maybe it was; maybe the guy couldn't have a pain before.

But the main difficulty we run into here is that healing and medicine have all been on this kick of alter-isness. And you inherit it as part of the environmental knowledge which comes to every person living in any environment. You without realizing it are in contact with the ideas of Freud, the ideas of William James, communistic ideas, socialistic ideas. Even though you have never examined textbooks or anything else as such. These things are woven into the woof and warp of the news stories, the magazine stories, and so forth.

I read a Western story the other day with a complete characterization of its lead, its hero: psychoanalytic — all about his repressions and his libido and his suppressed desires for his mother. Otherwise, it was a good two-gun western, but it just suddenly broke pace right there, and there we had it, see? All right.

Now we've got this tremendous number of ideas which are in the society. These ideas float through the society. These ideas are well known to the society. And we occasionally bite a bite out of some of these pies without recognizing we're eating any peculiar kind of pie.

Well, now if any idea is afloat, it's the modus operandi of healing. The modus operandi of healing is that if you alter something often enough, something happens. And it's true; it's true. If you alter something often enough, something happens. That's absolutely true.

Now, the difference between making something better and something worse is less alter-isness, more alter-isness. If you want to make something worse, alter it more. You just change it more, change it more, change it more.

I'll give you an idea. You have a living room, and you just can't figure out what the devil is wrong with this living room. You're trying to furnish the thing, and you're trying to set it up and make it look pretty, and it just dhtuh, you know? It just doesn't jell, that's all. It just looks like hell no matter what you do with it.

Well, it's an awfully good idea just to lug all the furniture outside, and just look at the room, and then lug the furniture back in again. Yeah, I know it's a lot of manual labor. When you bring it in the second time, you'll find out that there are three pieces of furniture that just don't belong in there, that's all.

Now, particularly if you do it on this basis: the simplicity of the idea. Instead of conceiving a vast design, or something of the sort, if you just lug in a piece of furniture that you know has to be there, and then put that in the right place, see, and then you lug in the next piece of furniture that has to be there and put that in the only possible place it can go in. Now you would merely conceive at this point that only a few more pieces can go in there and these have to be of such and such a construction and action, and you probably don't have them. Got the idea?

Instead of getting the whole thing cluttered up and just keep shifting pieces around, why, just unload the works.

Now, painters, painters learn this, and they learn it from me every now and then. I have a lot of pals that are painters, and there are three famous artists here in Washington, D.C. that were with me on an expedition. And these guys didn't get any rest as far as I was concerned because they were doing this weird one: They would paint something and then they would change it, and change it and change it and change it, and they'd have hash.

And I started rescuing their watercolor sketches. We had the first underwater color motion pictures and painted scenes on this particular expedition. I used to rescue these things before they got a chance to mess them up. The guy would sit there and he'd sketch, sketch, sketch, and he was going to finish these after he got back to the ship, you see? Sketch, sketch, sketch, sketch.

I'd come by; I'd send my messenger (cabin boy) over, telling them I would take care of them so that they wouldn't get damp going back to the ship or something of the sort, and then I'd never give them up.

And when I got back into this area, I had folio after folio after folio of (quote) „unfinished, unchanged“ watercolors and oil sketches, see? And I gave them back to them. „Boy!“ they said „That's the luckiest thing in the world! The luckiest thing in the world!“ They had finally gotten the feel of the area; they knew what belonged in these things. Where they were not finished, they would complete the painting, not change what they had, you see? And they had some honeys. They were very, very nice — very nice pieces of stuff. But they weren't changed out of existence. You got the idea?

They had a bad time from me. Sit around and grouse, „We can't — you won't let us change any of the paintings that we have. You won't let us mess up our own work. We'll just have to sit here and paint what we're now looking at in order to keep busy.“ You can understand how this would just... It just about quadrupled their production on the cruise, you see? See how this would be? All right.

Artistry is to a large degree simplicity. Therefore, simple processes are very — most prone to bringing out artistic elements in a case.

Stop-C-S has no peer if the preclear can stand it, if he can run it — if the auditor can stand it — because the simplicity is fantastic. Stop-C-S. And I know of nothing which does more in the long run for the artistry of an individual than Stop-C-S. Just like that.

It is simplicity. It recovers for him his ability to control masses. He controls the mass of a body. Do you realize that good handwriting is simply the ability to control a pen, not the ornateness of the stroke. Good painting is simply the ability to control the paint and the brush in rendering what he sees.

Now, there's many a fellow looks out across the water and sees a fine painting, but he doesn't execute it on the canvas. That execution requires control of his media to reproduce what he has perceived — not in altering it or interpreting it particularly, but in taking those elements in it which he considered beautiful and translating those things onto the canvas.

Now, that doesn't make a photographer out of a painter. However, it does this: A painter can pick up those elements which he wishes to be in the picture and put them in the picture. Or he can make a totally synthetic production. He can say, „A picture ought to look like this,“ and he paints it, don't you see?

Now, that requires control, and when you go straight out on control which would be flat-out control — is Stop-C-S, that's all. I mean, the Change is minimal compared to the Stop. The Start works out if the Stop is handled, so you've got Stop-C-S. What simpler process is there?

Well, what does it do? It permits him to stop without further reason or significance. It permits him to change without further reason or significance. In other words, it just strips alter- isnesses off like mad.

Now, he's been stopping a body via-via-via-via-via-via-via machine, see? You make him stop it directly, and he recovers his ability to be artistic. He can walk more artistically; he can behave more artistically, you see? Quite amazing.

The unit you are processing, known as a thetan, has a high concept of beauty, has a very high concept of ability, has an enormous capability in the generation of force, power, masses, control, thought, creativeness. And you're trying to take enough gimmicks off of this machine to let it run again.

Now, I don't mean to make any cracks about any particular brand of automobile, but there is an automobile known as the Cadillac. Maybe you've heard of them. And the last one of these I saw, I'm afraid — I didn't tell the owner at the time, but I stood there in a horrible state of shock. I didn't feel he'd keep this car very long. But I never saw so many things hung on a motor. Everything was hung on that motor — everything. You couldn't even find the pistons anymore, you know? They probably had omitted them. That was what I suspected — that there wasn't any motor inside all of those gimmicks.

Now, when you look at a preclear, that's what you suspect. You suspect there's no motor left at all. See, you see nothing but gimmicks; you see nothing but accessories.

I know my granddaddy was a wonderful old pioneer. He had been with the wagon trains and everything else of the West. And he'd „fit injuns“ all night and run cows all day. And he'd had it in many ways. But he survived up into the Model-T area, and life was not sufficiently interesting to him at that time. There was hardly anybody getting killed every day, and life was dull. Frankly, frankly it was dull. Hardly anybody to hang anymore and no cattle rustlers and... You know? Awful simple. And he was used to a cayenne-pepper diet, you see?

So he got a Model-T Ford. I know Model-T Fords run by the way, because in 1929 I had a 1914 Model-T Ford. See, it was already fifteen years old. And I simply pulled everything off of it that I could find to pull off of it, and left it in its pristine simplicity; it didn't even have a self-starter. And my golly, that motor ran! Gee, it was quite amazing. Fine motor.

But my granddad always had trouble with them, always had trouble. And he used to open up parts catalogues and so forth, and he'd start buying. And there was something in there which pulled in warm air into the carburetor, and you drilled a hole in the side of the carburetor and you drilled another hole in the side of the exhaust manifold or something. You connected a wire so as to get the hot exhaust gases to warm up the gasoline, you know? And then it was fancy spark plugs that you particularly packed very well with asbestos, whereas ordinary spark plugs weren't packed well with asbestos, you see? And there were other things. There were gimmicks in there that you put here to do that. And then you burned a great many fluids in your gasoline. Lots of extra fluids in the gasoline.

Now, my Model T, in 1929, would run on kerosene, but he seemed to have an awful lot of trouble getting it to run on — his to run on the best gasoline you could buy. You had to add fluids to it.

Well, by the time he got through with a Model T it was a wonder that it ever got anyplace. And it was quite remarkable because he got all over the West with one anyhow. But he was always stopping with this car in order to fix one of the accessories. And the basic car didn't go bad, but the accessories certainly did.

I put an oil radiator one time on a Jaguar racing car. I was very embarrassed, because just before a hot sprint — a race — why, it all of a sudden lost all of its oil out of the oil radiator; it just went splash and that was that. And it was a funny thing. There was nothing else ever went bad about that car but that oil radiator. And I just remembered at about the time it broke, „You know, I put this oil radiator on this thing, and it was running fine without it. And here its vibration, and so forth, has knocked it loose.“ So I grabbed a couple of pipes and got myself all plastered up with oil, and jammed the connections back together again, put some more oil in the crankcase, and tuned her up and got her on the starting line. That was that. And she ran like a dream.

Had me scratching my head for a long time. I never did take the oil-radiator core out of there however, and a certain length of time went by, and it shook loose again and jumped sideways into the fan blades. But that's all right. Here was an additive factor. One spends all of his time, evidently, repairing or acquiring additive factors. And if all of his time is concentrated on this, then the motor disappears, don't you see; the central motor power disappears.

Well, that's what happens, essentially, to a preclear. See, that's what happens to a preclear. He keeps dreaming things up and adding things on and does this by automatic and that by automatic. And you get these gains only when you've stripped off some additives. And you best strip them off by showing him he doesn't need them. And you get down to basic thetan. And he can do anything his machinery can do. It's quite remarkable; he can do anything his machinery can do. In fact, he can do an awful lot more than his machinery can do, and he can do anything his machinery can do or any individual machine can do, and he can do all of it at the same time. So it's quite a person you're putting back together again here. But you're not really putting anything together: You're taking something apart and getting somebody. You got it?

Audience voices: Mm-hm. Right. Yep. Yes. Mm-hm.

Well, the alteration of a case is something you want to have nothing to do with. When a case comes to you that's been too thoroughly altered — the doctor has put plumbing in there and so forth — take it easy, because you've got something there that processing will not as-is. Got it? Processing is not addressed to the disintegration of matter at this time. It's not.

And therefore, if you can — think you can get this preclear up to a point of where he'll take apart his various steel plates and braces and buckles and that sort of thing, why, all right. But your best bet, even with that case, is to just knock off and get away from the alter-isness there and get the best simplicity you can find in the case and improve it. Make it more simple; make it more powerful.

Just persuade somebody to just put something there. You know, just — if you did nothing but this, you would make more gain.

All right. That, then, is what one of these represents. You see this clearly? Do you have a better idea of this now than you did, hm?

Now, that is the fruit of somebody being simple.

Now, I'll show you one in here that is the fruit of somebody... Now, what do you suppose would do this in twenty-five hours? See that? You see that?

In other words, person was all the way down on many points over here at the beginning of the intensive and was all the way up on all points at the end of the intensive. But that isn't the story. That wasn't what this preclear was being processed for. This preclear was being processed to make this preclear more intelligent so that this preclear wouldn't have difficulties in taking an HCA Course. Got that? Because the preclear's IQ was 68. You imagine somebody taking an HCA Course with an IQ of 68? Be pretty rough, be pretty rough. And at the end of twenty-five hours this preclear has an IQ of 98. Now, the HCA Course will continue and take care of the rest of it.

That's a 30 point rise in the impossible sector of rise. Everybody knows that you can do nothing for a 70 IQ: You can't educate them; you can't make them any smarter; you can't change them. That's the difficult area of rise. It's much easier to raise an IQ from 120 to 150 than from 70 to 80. And yet this preclear went from 68 to 98 on IQ and got that profile too, which we weren't even shooting for.

We thought the HCA Course boys would take care of the rest of that profile, see? They thought they'd take care of the profile; we weren't interested in the profile. Only thing we were interested in was the IQ. So we ran a process we knew would improve IQ, and that was all we did, which was Havingness. And that's just twenty-five hours of Havingness by a very good auditor — Smokey Brand, see? Very good. Twenty-five hours of Havingness: That's the total action.

I said, „Smokey, we want to get this girl smart. She's a good girl, she is a good-hearted girl and everything, but she'll have a heavy time of it, and we want to get her sharpened up. And you know and I know about all that will do that is something on the order of Havingness. So you just go ahead and run Havingness on her, Smokey.“ So he did. By the way, Havingness has a lot of variations and forms but he ran off some valences with „can't have.“ See, anything that came up, he'd run „have“ or „can't have“ on it, you see? And „Look around the room and find something you could have“ and so on.

Now, there isn't any particular flip on this. What I'm trying to give you here is there's no great big new process, see? No gimmick, see? It is simply an old process done superlatively well. Now, that is the missing ingredient where these old, simple processes don't work: they aren't done well. Got it? So we lose faith in the process.

Procedure today is 60 percent; the process is only 40. Got it? Now, that's quite a remarkable case, but not something that would go into the „Scientology Times.“

Now, here is a case that is coming up off bottom, see? But the case is coming up off bottom. Three years ago — there are two or three of you here know this case — three years ago, case wouldn't move off bottom. Well, what's changed here? What has changed here? The only thing that has changed is that the preclear himself is being audited and was made to do some simplicities. That's all that's changed.

Now, that's a pretty good gain, you know, for a case that is as heavily down as this case. When they're scraping bottom like that, you don't expect them to change during the first week. This case has two more weeks to go, see? All right.

But let's look over here and find out what we got. And let's see here. Did anything else happen in this case, see, that — besides this profile? Yes, the IQ went from 123 to 142 with that. Now, nothing very difficult was run. You would be amazed at the simple things. „Look at me. Who am I?“ was run to get him in session. And then an old version that they've had over here in the clinic for some time of „Touch it and tell a lie about it“ -- you know, „Touch the wall and tell me a lie about it.“ In other words, get off some of the obsessive alter-isness. Get the idea? Then some two-way comm, and Hand Mimicry, communication and awareness of auditor, see? Found out we didn't have the session well enough started, so the auditor started the session all over again, you see, at the beginning of the second day. Interesting.

And then working off some more alter-isness off the case by getting him to tell lies about things. And then finally he decided that he could satisfactorily give the preclear a regular, real crunch process, „Keep it from going away.“ See, so he did keep it from going away on objects here.

Then we got into Hand Mimicry at the beginning of the next day. And he ran „Keep it from going away“ and a little bit of alter- isness. To handle this automaticity of alter-isness that kept coming up, why, he'd make him tell some lies about some things. And then at the beginning of the next day he gave him Hand Mimicry some more and a little more „Look at me. Who am I?“ He's still starting the session. You understand, this was one of these preclears that was impossible three years ago. All right.

And he kept it from going away: a chair and a table — bigger objects. And then the next day he starts the session all over again, see? Gets the session. And he keeps it from going away for four hours. And then he again started the session. And then finally got the preclear up to Havingness. Twenty-five hours; this case absolutely on the bottom, and Havingness was an impossible process early in the intensive. Auditor knew he had some time to go and so he did that, but he finally got into Havingness, and Havingness began to bite.

Now, of course, if he can get this case to have havingness, which case has never had havingness, this profile and IQ will go up some more. But where do you go up from a 142 IQ, huh?

And as far as these profiles are concerned, this case is being run very, very smartly. This is Al Kozak running this fellow. Running him very smartly. He looks over here, and he sees „Well, what do you know, this guy is 'Scattered, Nervous.' Way down at the bottom! Oh, he has no stable data.“ Hence you see all this „Look at me. Who am I?“ see? He's trying to give him the auditor as a stable datum, and he's winning. Won ten points worth — ten points worth of „Scattered, Nervous.“ Next week that'll come up some more, but he'll have to do some more of this. Twenty-five hours he's been starting a session. See that? And he's winning, all the way up the line.

Now, here of course is a rather fantastic case. I don't know if you can see this too well. This is the last one. The last one is right in that band right there, see? You can certainly see this evenness of this final gain, and you can certainly see the tremendous dip on that first one, way below the line, got it? All up and below the line there. Well, here's a wild jump from bottom to top in little fits and starts. Just a short period of processing and then twenty-five hours and then another ten-hour period of processing. I'm not at all sure what the total of it is here.

But we got, with this particular case — wish somebody would standardize these things — we got no significant gain in IQ; all we got was a gain in personality, which tells you that not enough Havingness was run. Perfectly all right; it was a good case, but just not enough Havingness was run in this case. But this is a havingness sponge, this case is. She's just a sponge on it.

And again we have one moving up the line here. But here's just a ten-hour intensive of somebody who walked in off the street. Ten hours. Got the case moving from very severely on the bottom to not quite so severely on the bottom. And probably the auditor handled some kind of a chronic somatic or something.

Female voice: The problem there was the gal can't read back dictation when she takes it.

Oh well, this was some kind of a problem. When they come in like this, they are ordinarily some kind of a specific problem. So I see there the problem was handled. You handled the problem; didn't handle the case. And you got, consequently, less gain because all the auditor can get in and do here was merely to handle the present time problem, see, and did handle the present time problem just to get the case underway, to get the case's attention a bit unfixed. Do you see that now. Hm?

Now, there is essentially what one is trying to do. He's trying to persuade the preclear himself that he can do it. That he can do it — he's trying to persuade the preclear of that, and persuade the preclear to do it. And when the preclear can do it and does do it, why, you'll find out that it doesn't have any further charge.

These IQ profiles, when they rise, means that the preclear has gone to a further simplicity. It's actually a stripping off of additives and a regain of simplicity. And more important than that, an IQ gain is simply this: He is thinking through less equipment, because the thetan would have an IQ, probably, that would be untestable; it would just be too high and too fast, don't you see?

To raise the IQ of something that knows everything already is quite a trick. But you get him to do it simply by letting him abandon some of the additives he's added as things that he absolutely has to have, this he knows.

And do you follow the course of cases here today?

Okay, thank you.

[End of Lecture]