This is the tenth lecture of the seventeenth ACC, March eighth, 1957. We are going to take up now an interesting subject known as valences. What is a valence? A valence is an identity complete with bank mass or mental image picture mass of somebody other than the identity selected by ones' self. In other words, what we usually mean by valence is somebody elses' identity assumed by a person unknowingly. And that is what we usually mean by valence.

Now the word could be much more loosely defined. When you hear a Scientologist talking about a valence he means somebody elses' identity that is assumed unknowingly by a preclear. And I think that any Scientologist will agree that that is usually what people mean when they say valence. "He was in his mothers' valence." Well, immediately we assume that he didn't know he was in his mothers' valence or he wouldn't have been there. And we approach it from an auditing definition.

Now the original definition of valence was simply an identity with its' various personality appurtenances. No more than that. Its' characteristics, its' inhibitions, complex picture of another identity. That was all we meant by valence. And the fellow could have his own valence. And we hear Scientologists saying "own valence". Well, that is a hangover of the old one. But when they say "mothers' valence" they mean something else. Let's straighten this word out.

Own valence is really not correct today. Really not correct. A person who picks up a baby that is about to be christened Bill Smith, is actually picking up a composite valence which has come clear up the genetic line. And it has had additives every generation all the way by some thetan taking over this genetic line sector and doing something with it, and then kicking it off and it goes one way, and the thetan evidently goes the other way. And we have this terrifically composite picture already when he takes over Bill Smith. Well! Is there anything more basic then which takes over Bill Smith, or is a thetan a sort of a personality-less nothingness? You see, he has no characteristics, he is totally a chameleon you might say, in that he simply blends his personality in everything else and he isn't there at all. And would that be the truth? No, that's not the truth. We look it over carefully and we find as early as Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health we were talking about basic personality. And today we still have it. We still have it.

A thetan can be convinced that he thinks of himself in some way, or he can think of himself in some way. And by the time you've audited him rather well on the subject of valences he's liable to come up with this differentiation between how he is, or what he thinks he himself should have as characteristics, and those characteristics which have been impinged upon him by whatever source. And he really does have, apparently, a basic personality, and this becomes quite manifest. But only after you've exteriorized him and done a tremendous number of things with him. Up to that time he has a tremendous number of characteristics which he considers more or less his. "I'm that way", this girl says, as she drinks another quart of gin.

And the hypnotist, by the way, is quite aware of these various changes. He found out that as soon as he began to follow in the path of Mesmer and Charcot that when he hypnotized somebody he suffered personality change. The person shifted in personality the moment that the person was to some degree freed of responsibility for immediate control and presence. Which is about all hypnotism is, it's freeing somebody from responsibility of immediate control in present.

Now, when we rehabilitate a preclear in terms of valences, we should understand that our goal is not nothing. But that we do have a very definite goal which would be bringing him into an awareness of his own basic personality. Now what that thing is, and how it got that way, and how he decided that he should have this as a basic personality, and that he should be these characteristics, and all the rest of that is another story. You're talking about manifestations now, and how they get that way. And these, until you, or unless you have singled this out in one preclear or another, winnowed him down like Tomlinson of Rudyard Kiplings' famous poem, on whom the devil wasted a great deal of coke to get the sins out of him and found there weren't any there at all, good pit coal was expended trying to find something that was Tomlinson. And there was no success was ever achieved. Well that's just a very sad picture. The picture of Tomlinson.

But when you winnow a preclear down to the last ramparts of personality you still have some. Unlike Tomlinson, he is something. He has a certain definite idea of himself. It's usually a much more proud idea than he has of himself as Bill Smith. It is usually something with a great deal more dignity and presence than he ever exhibits in life. You know, real life.

And we get this interesting picture. We get the potential on the part of a thetan of having every characteristic there is in the book. Every characteristic possible may be possessed by a thetan, and his personality consists of a very, very minor stress on one point, and a little more stress on another point, until we get something that looks like an individual pattern. So thetans all may be the same breed of cat, but when winnowed down they still do not evidently, represent a smooth, perfect curve. They think of themselves as having certain characteristics greater than other characteristics. And some of them deny having some characteristics at all which, possibly, are still there, but very, very minor.

Now this makes an interesting picture, because from that point on all that life or anything else can do is blunt characteristics. Life cannot exaggerate characteristics. Life can blunt characteristics. And when you understand that you will understand why auditing wins.

From basic personality forward, characteristics are blunted. And they're blunted in a peculiar way. An individual takes over certain identities, foreign to him, but claiming them. Such as first a body, which the Scientologist says, "That's his own valence." Well we could say it's his own valence understanding that is's a foreign valence. And then, he gets something of mamma's valence, and something of papa's valence, and something of grandpa, and Aunt Squeege, and we have this amazing picture forward, and if you think of them as additive, you are then capable of doing the job of subtraction. But they aren't additive to the basic personality. They are bluntive.

The monitoring job which a valence does on a person is to suppress characteristic, until he fits a shadow of the pattern from which he received the characteristics. In other words, a blunting job. He really doesn't take over the other valence at all. The other valence just blunts him down until he matches the pattern of what he thinks the other valence was, or what the other valence said it was.

Therefore we can have an actual valence, or something else which is quite fascinating, which is a synthetic valence. Synthetic valence is a description by one personality of a non-present personality. Father talks a lot about what a kind of person or not father is. A synthetic valence is thus created my mother. It's important for an auditor to understand this because it is another valence source of great importance to an auditor. And when we try to remove fathers' valence we get nothing under the sun but mammas' yak. See, fathers' valence was never present. But there was a synthetic valence there. And therefore an auditor should find out, as I will go into shortly, the most obsessive case in the childhood of any person, rather than the talked about cases.

You try to free a talked about case and you're in trouble at once. Why? You're discussing then conditions, not a terminal. The terminal was not what imparted the personality or the valence. The sub-personality. Here we have mother talking about father, and the preclear appears to be in fathers' valence. This is very fascinating, because it never runs by running father. It only runs by running mother. Similarly, visa versa. We have a preclear in mothers' valence, and yet we cannot find any mother. It's quite interesting, doesn't seem to relieve, doesn't seem to run. Why doesn't it run? That's because the person who originated and was source for mothers' valence was father. Father stood around all the time saying, "You're just like your mother. Your mother's an awful person. Your mother's a dog." Only he doesn't use the three letter word. And pretty soon, why, the preclear has caved in at that point in his life, and he has said, "Yes, mother is a dog, mother's a dog, and I'm just like mother, and mother's no good. And therefore I am mother, and therefore I am no good. And I don't like mother." And will tell the auditor, "Well the trouble with me is my mother. That's the trouble with me." And the auditor, if he doesn't understand his Scientology too well is liable to accept the preclears' word for it. And there's something very unusual. That case that tells you what is wrong with him is usually that case that is worse off. And if he knew what was wrong with him nothing would be wrong with him. So why should an auditor ever accept his say so; because it's the most unreliable thing in the world.

Now somebody who listens in Scientology, and all of a sudden'll get an awful cognition, and say, "Wow!" But then to some degree he's been audited, hasn't he? He's found out something. And then he tells you, "Yes, my Uncle Oscar is the hottest valence on my track." "Well how did you determine this?" is always a very, very good thing to ask about that point. "Well, I was talking to a Scientologist one day and he said," and here we go, you see? "And all of a sudden I realized that that dirty dog Uncle Oscar..." Well it's been slammed into view but hasn't been cleaned up. Now that person'd be pretty well off. Another person who was very, very bad off would not be able to carry the idea very far without changing it around. So it's a safe rule, only a safe rule for the auditor to do his own exploration for these valences, and audit them, conditional to changing his mind. That's always a safe way.

In the first place you're looking at a very, very, very composite composite. The valence was easily fixed to the preclear because the preclear is occupying a body which has a matching valence in one of its' past lives. This is very fascinating. But the thetan doesn't have anything in his past life that much matches that valence, but the body is wearing that valence. And how the devil did he get so aberrated on the subject of Uncle Oscar? Hm? How did he manage this?

Well he never managed it at all. The body did. In other words it had a series of pictures which were almost the spittin' image of Uncle Oscar, and then Uncle Oscar came around and pitched these things into view and he left a very baffled thetan. He left a thetan believing that he was responsible for certain things he actually has had no connection with at all. By agreement he has become associated with this identity. In other words, he agreed with the body and then automatically agreed with a lot of things the body had been associated with by concatenation. So, this person is utterly baffled as to how he keeps having to put off these habits of Uncle Oscar when he himself, he feels, has never really had any trouble with Uncle Oscar.

Now you can get a three-way play on this which is much more vicious. The thetan has something in his past which is a straight-out pattern of Uncle Oscar, the body in its' past has a second individual who is a very distinct Uncle Oscar, and then in this life thetan plus body, each with these two, each with these former identities, two different ones, meets Uncle Oscar, see, who is associative with these other two. Not the actual Uncle Oscar but one who seems to measure up to these two banks. And one can't tell the difference amongst them, and we have three ways from center by which the valence of Uncle Oscar arrives.

Now, supposing we really composited the felony, and took mother, who was very afraid of Uncle Oscar and his horrible habit of using Piper Hysic snuff, and told this composite we have already described that it was "just like Uncle Oscar, and would wind up just like Uncle Oscar would", and man, you've got a valence. That is the sort of a valence that turns auditors eyes red with trying. That is a roughie.

Any way you enter it it won't plot. And Uncle Oscar is never in view. The preclear never tells you it was Uncle Oscar. Never tells you that Uncle Oscar ever existed. Well, he'd made some casual mention, they also have some relatives around the house, but that was about as close as it came to mentioning this character Uncle Oscar. Well, we've got the search for Uncle Oscar is much more complicated than the search for Bridey Murphy. You can always take somebody, put him on an E-meter, find his name and address in his past life, and go look for his tomb stone. I mean this is one of the easier things to do. That's nothing. But looky here. Uncle Oscar is going to bang on an E-meter on mother. It's going to bang on an E-meter on home. It's going to bang on an E-meter on drink, or Piper Hysic snuff or something, which father also took. And the preclear doesn't know anything about it. Except morning, noon and night he fights the identity of Uncle Oscar.

Well now, we can say he needs opponents, that's why he keeps this around. Well that's part of the answer. Games condition. But how do we get at this? How do we take this apart? Well, first let us ask this question. Is it important to take it apart? Yes. Because most of the time when you're auditing a preclear he's sitting there while you're auditing him, he is auditing somebody, not something, he's auditing somebody else. In other words, auditor audits preclear, preclear relays the command by telepathy or necromancy over into the valence of Uncle Oscar and he's just not quite there. You never audit the preclear. You're auditing some valence that you know not what of. And until he at least makes some show of hitting the valence you're gonna have bad luck with this preclear.

Alright, let's ask again. Is it important? Is it important? Yes. There's something else here. The APAs which you get in profile, American Personality Analysis profile which we use before and after, is usually the picture of Uncle Oscar. It is rarely the picture of the preclear.

Now this can become very complicated and very, very upsetting to an auditor, to have a preclear who is apparently alright. Oh, of course has a little touch of TB, and has lumbago, and can't go into houses, and a few more things like that. Never picks up a glass, but breaks it. You know, I mean minor idiosyncracies, you know, kills people with axes. The minor preclear idiosyncracy, and we get the APA on this character, and we look at this character, and this character looked alright. You know, I mean, the the... And we get the APA on the thing, and the preclear's perfect. You know, it's right across the top of the scale. And in our happy little way we go ahead and we audit him with highly generalized processes, and the generalized process, and we audit, and we audit, and everything goes along splendidly. And we take an interim test at the end of the week, or something like that, and we find out the fellow's out the bottom. And if anyone in authority's around he says, "Now see what a bad job you did." He can't win. It's obviously impossible. What happened?

You might have broken out the one valence that was a total bar to his continued existence, which was a person who was totally sweetness and light. A person you would never suspect. A 1.1 called Aunt Magdalena, or something. And Aunt Magdalena sat around morning, noon and night, saying how good little good girls were, and how good life was, and the preclear came in with a black eye and a bloody nose, and found out that god would take care of it, or Jesus was looked over watching him all the time. And he never had a chance but to feel anything but sweetness and light. Sweetness and light, and light and sweetness. Sweetness and light. You fall down the stairs and break your neck, and it's all sweetness and light. The bank fails and you go totally broke and so forth, and "That's fine. That's just fine. There's nothing wrong with that at all."

Now this wouldn't be, this wouldn't be terribly aberrative all by itself, but it is combined with something else we discover now, for a preclear to be stuck in it. With obsessive change. And that could be so covert that a person would not immediately call it to mind. Sweetness and light takes this turn. "Oh, I see Rollo, you've got your rubbers on, well it's not raining outside, dear. Take them off." "Oh, you've taken your rubbers off, Rollo, well you can't go outside now. That's a little dear." "Now Rollo, you get your room cleaned up. When your room is all totally clean and fine you can go to the movies." "Oh, you've got your room all cleaned up. Well I was going to do that." "Movies, I never said anything about the movies." And you get dong, dong, dong, here comes the wagon. Because the preclear has a bad 8-C runner, an obsessive changer in his environment, and he's never spotted 'em. Preclear's sure what's wrong with him is his father. Father used to come home at night, child would be standing at the doorway to say hello, father would instantly throw him half the length of the dining room and stumble up to bed dead drunk. What is wonderful about this is there was practically nothing aberrative about it. It was a total certainty. I just love these preclears that come in and say "What's wrong with me is my father. He was a drunk, he beat up everybody, and so forth." "Well did he ever do anything else?" "No." Now I can assume one of two things. Either father occasionally beat people up, and occasionally didn't. And you could never predict what he was going to do when. Or, it's Aunt Martha. See, it's not father at all. So Aunt Martha talking about what a horrible man father is, and don't ever be like father, and you must change, and you must change. "Oh, that's, that idea you have is just like one of your fathers'. You say you want to got fishing, and that's just like one of your fathers'. Well you want to play baseball, well that's just like your father, and you mustn't do that." Yow yow yow yow yow. Anything he wanted to do was just like father, but father was a bum and didn't have anything to do. And between these two things your preclear can get caught.

A valence which sticks is a non-computive valence about which the preclear is trying to compute. It's non-computive, it'll never add up, it'll never work out, it does not justify, it wasn't justice, it probably wasn't injustice either. It just won't add up. And the preclear, rather priding himself upon his logic, has been trying ever since to add it up and keeps the valence in close in order to think about it, and then doesn't know he's doing that. And when you cover all this up and get this this messed up, you'll see what happened if you really get a center valence on a case and knocked it out. You would change the APA at once. And the APA might change up or down.

Now if it changed down all that happened was you knocked out some sweetness and light valence. And got down to a little gaudier one. And this can be expected in some cases. Somebody tells you, this is one preclear that registered like this. Went from the top to the bottom of the APA in one fell ten hours of auditing. Crash! Typical comment by this preclear, "The auditor asked me if I had ever been hurt. And you know I've never had any pain in my whole life?" Oh yeah? Is this total anaesthesia? Typical comment on the part of this preclear. "You know, one just has to be nice to people. One just has to be nice to people. Because if one weren't nice they'd all die." There were certain, certain little tabs sticking out on this case that were quite identifiable from the standpoint of Scientology. Where did the case sit on the tone scale? Well, just read according to good old Science of Survival tone scale.

No matter what the case was saying there are many other characteristics present. One, on a job this person was in total chaos continually. Two, could not approach people. Wouldn't have anything to do with people. Three, beautiful example of sexual brutality on children. In other words, tone scale was working but nobody could ever understand this person. This person was the sweetest person, and the nicest person you ever wanted around, and every time you got this person inside an office or something of this sort, the front of the building fell out. And when that case was audited a valence was pulled, the case went to the bottom, went totally nuts. And that was the first sign we had of the preclear. Up to that time it was totally some Aunt. Totally this other person. No self determinism left, just a machine. And it didn't work. But now something must have been activating or motivating the machine, and that of course was all the person did. Any time this person showed any sign of life, then the best thing and the most that happened was the machine got activated. Well the person's attempt to come alive was resultant in keying in, or activating, social machinery of one kind or another.

"Well the first test was totally dishonest", the preclear said. "I felt dishonest all the time I was writing it." I seem to remember this. Second test, preclear was being honest. Third test, they were up in about the middle of the scale, and for the first time in their lives doing well. That third test certainly didn't look like the first test. About another fifty hours of auditing were required on that particular case before the case rode above the original line. Boy what a different person, though. Entirely different person. It'd only be up two or three points, apparently, all along the line. Well tests are based on opinions, and when a preclear is giving a third hand opinion out of the mouth of somebody whose valence they're occupying or has made them occupy it, the test is not very reliable. Now the monitoring influence on this, when you have a test doing this and that, I'll give you a clue how you look this over. It's a very interesting one. Enough auditing will improve any test. Enough auditing will improve any test, regardless of where it started out. Because you can't fake the I.Q. test that goes along with the personality test. So you look at the I.Q. And if the I.Q. fell off quite markedly and spectacularly, and the tone scale test fell off, and the drivers' test given along with this battery fell off, and the AP and A fell off, you can assume the auditor loused it up. But not until. Just a profile. You're not justified in saying that anybody loused anybody up. Profile all by itself. The profile is simply the picture of a valence. And when you make the preclear a better person than he is you will make him himself.

A preclear is always a better person than he is being. The only thing that can happen to a case is to be blunted. That's all that can happen. Now a person could be blunted on so many personality characteristics or human characteristics that only one is left. And that then, is apparently very exaggerated. But if that is exaggerated, you must realize that it itself is blunted. And if the rest of the curve matched it in action, potential and violence, this must have been quite a person.

You don't find strong as an ox madmen in asylums who do not have many other potentials quite as violent, quite as strong, quite as unmistakable. But they have been blunted down to be simply strong madmen. And the only thing that's been left in view is madmen. Now somebody says, "This person is on a manic." Well, a persons' capability of feeling manic is only as good as they can feel good. And they simply are unblunted for a little while on this, and they feel wonderful. And then it wears out. It didn't mean anything except the person could feel that good.

Now a person has to be able to feel any way that they do feel. Always remember that. And a great many things will become much less puzzling to you in human behavior. You don't add a bunch of energy or dope or something to somebody, and then have them feel better than they can feel. See? At no time do they ever feel any better than they can feel, see? All they do, you see, is resume a willingness to express that. But their ability to express that must be there or it cannot be expressed.

This is the, what I'm talking about now, is a singularly wide departure from European psychology. It's very, very, very wide as a departure. They have the idea that any characteristic a person has is planted there by some kind of a mass, or a bump, or something of this sort, and that a person is as well off as he gets bumped because this gives him things to do and be. Well, I'll give you, you don't think that is correct, because I have stated it very bluntly. But if you look over the very, very smooth statements of that principle you'll find out that they boil down to just that.

For instance a writer cannot write unless he is aberrated. And if he's good and aberrated, and good and neurotic, then he'll write well. This tells you that his writing must have developed from being bumped, hit, knocked, shocked and kicked around. But if you take a writer and bump, kick, knock him around in life, you'll find out he doesn't write well. You bang somebody around on the subject of writing and he doesn't write better.

We can at any time conduct this experiment. We can take a painter and tell him night and day in relays that he can't paint. And for a while he will assert that he can paint, and then after a while he'll quit. You tell him long enough and often enough that he can't paint--well obviously then the European idea is, uh, to be technical, as technical as they are, for the birds! Must be. It just must be. Because hammers and pounds and knock arounds don't ever improve anything.

We see this in life all the time. We can even prove it in MEST. We take this desk, for instance, we throw it up against the walls, knock it out the window, kick it out into the street, let the students use it for a while, and what happens to it? It's not in as good of shape as it was in. Well, it got that characteristic from a thetan. Thetan thought things were this way so they imparted these characteristics to MEST. It isn't the thetan breaks the laws of MEST.

You can take a little baby and you can blunt his willingness to live, by being uncertain and unpositive and stupid in general. You can do it well enough so that he kicks the bucket. Well according to European psychologists, if you did it well enough he would be a genius. We must do that if he becomes nothing. And yet every way we try to test this thing we find out that Herr Wundt in Leipzig vast wrrong, but that's nothing new in Leipzig. Whether it's Kingsburg or Leipzig the Germans have an awful curve on the ball. That's where psychology was born, in 1879. It was born the day that Wundt said, "All thought derives from the body, and is a physiological subject. Therefore we will call it psy-chology." And there's been no psychology, no psyche in psychology since 1879. It's totally an animalistic subject. And we've made a breakthrough by just simply neglecting to consider this an animalistic subject from here on. We just considered it a subject. And some of the things we've learned result in changing human beings, which Mr. Wundts' forbears were never able to do. They could make the Third Reich, but they couldn't make anybody smarter.

Now the handling of a valence must be handled for success from the viewpoint of source of change. The source of obsessive change, and by this I mean physical change is to some slight degree effective on another person.

Source of change which is unpredictable is aberration. Unpredictable, you might say irrational, unlogical change. The source of that is the valence the preclear most easily enters. And that's all there is to the law of valences.

A valence, when it is a trap, became so because of unpredictable, illogical, irrational change on the part of somebody else. And that's the valence you're gunnin' for as an auditor. It doesn't do you much good, though, to ask a preclear, "Who lead a steady life in your family?" "Oh, father did, he was very set in his ways, and so forth." Later on you find father was about as set in his ways as a grasshopper dropped into a popcorn popper. The preclear has mocked up a counter blast to all this change, which is solid comm.

We ran a preclear one day that ran into a valence that obsessively planned. And all this valence did was plan. It didn't matter what the preclear said, the valence then planned it, wrongly, and irrationally, and forced the preclear to do it that way. And the preclear had gotten to a point where he just didn't dare plan anything himself. He just couldn't bear the thought of planning anything. Preclear'd play checkers, he couldn't plan one move ahead. He didn't dare. It was just not something he could face doing. Life had to be lived completely by random. All life became random. What would happen would happen. This preclear had enough luck charms in his pockets, and about him, and so forth, to have furnished a small museum. It was all happenstance. It was all unpredictable fate. And man, you talk about a rebellion against a valid valence. And this suddenly turned up, almost by accident in running a standard process. The preclear sat there and cognited on this person all of a sudden. The person hadn't even been pointed out by the process, as far as the auditor was concerned. And the person said, "Oh no! Oh no, no, no! Nothing like this." And had been brought to view the fact that there was an obsessive changer, totally unpredictable and irrational in his mother. And up to that time he had always considered his mother a sweet, pleasant girl who worked hard and tried hard. This was because mother also said that all the time, too. Mother was her own best advertising bulletin.

Now there you have an example of a covered up valence. You have asked this preclear, you've said, "Well who is the sweetest, nicest, who is kindest to you?" And he would have said, "Mother." And yet this preclear couldn't live any future. There was no future. That any future existed it would of course be bad. Which made the preclear the impetus of stopping on the time track every time he thought of the future. It was just enough for him to think of the future, and he'd get stuck. Now this manifestation had already been noticed by the auditor, and it worried him. The preclear would get stuck in twenty or thirty points of every session he was in. And these would have to be carefully separated.

Alright. It comes down to this. If you wish to change the personality of an individual you have to un-blunt it. What blunted the personality of an individual? Those valences with which the preclears' personality collided. And which blunt it. Other individualities and identities which have caused the preclear to withdraw into himself and out of that sphere. And then that sphere, that personality, then dominates every thought and action of the preclear to such a degree that there is never any slightest chance of coming out from under it, short of auditing. But the characteristic of that personality must be illogical, unpredictable, obsessive change. And a person who is a source of unpredictable, illogical, obsessive change is a valence into which other people will get caught up. It's almost a statement of time. Time is change. But actually, time isn't very aberrative to a preclear. It's the total source of aberration, but only when it's mishandled.

Now, a real good valence, one of these wonderful valences that just eats up all other life in its' vicinity, specializes on being unpredictable, illogical, and obsessive about time. And then we have a real mess.

Somebody comes in, two hours late, and bawls you out because you kept them waiting for seven hours. You say, "Nobody does that." Oh yes they do. Every time you're all ready to grab a cab or streetcar or something and you get on your way, and you have exact number of minutes for it, you are kept waiting. And that's only a little one. But every time that you have too much time that person would hurry you up. Eventually you'll jam track on the subject of time alone. To some slight degree. If you didn't ever know what this person was doing. It's only lack of knowledge and lack of understanding which lets any of these mechanisms occur in the first place, by the way.

Unwillingly assuming a valence is quite different than assuming a valence directly. An actor assumes a valence directly, and does so well. That which we call a good actor is simply one who can assume valences easily. And when an actor gets into bad shape he has assumed one and he hasn't gotten rid of it, because "it" was some sort of a harmonic on an earlier life or early this life valence that he couldn't get rid of either.

Somebody portrays a mother. Up to that time this person had been a wonderful actress. She portrays mother. Never portrayed mother before. And boom! We catch her as an auditor ten years later and she's stuck in the valence of that play. It was the key in of mother. This was the key in. Mothers' valence was sitting there, not collapsed yet, and the role collapsed it.

Alright, actress does fine, very beautiful, personable, just doing wonderfully and all of a sudden gets a role as an insane person. And doesn't come out of it. Vivian Leigh is an example of that. Actress after actress has done this. When they have played an insane person has not come out of it. Why? One of the things is there are very few insane people in the society, thus there's no mass associated with the condition. They've put the really insane people in sanitariums and get out of the road of the society. Well, you say, if they were around people could get into their valence much more easily. Well that is true, but when you publish movies and television totally based on insane people and then you give the people no insane people directly as mass to observe, you of course are denying the valence of mass and you're getting a synthetic valence situation.

One of these days people'll be going mad on brand new patterns that nobody can establish. But you'll get back at it, and you'll look it over very carefully and you'll find out they're mad from Dragnet-osis. Portraying, portraying Jack Webbs' (huh) idea of a policeman.

Now, there's no mass connected with it. Being no mass connected with it, it never had a chance to be havingness. And if it was never any havingness that it was an idea all by itself that it had more of a chance of being there, 'cause it never got a change to run itself out. It's quite amazing. An auditor who sits around and ponders all the time about insane people had certainly better put his collar on backwards and go on down to the local spin bin. If he's worrying about insane people just about the finest thing in the world that you can do is go man handle a few of them. It adds mass. But don't hold off and say, "Well I daren't approach them because I might key in.", and so forth. That's one you'll have to find out. And if you do actually go handle them you won't key in.

You have to be completely non-comprehensive on the subject of insanity before insanity can bite you, so that unknowingness is the valence glue. Mystery. The problem of it. The unknowingness of it. The unpredictability of it. This is all the glue that glues the valence on.

You could ask somebody, "What's your mother like? Good. What's your mother like?" And if you keep them explaining what their mother is like, they'll get more and more like mother. But if you say to him, "Sit there and get the idea of figuring what your mother is like." That's an entirely different auditing command. I want to call it to your attention. "Get the idea of sitting there and figuring what your mother's like." In other words, get the idea of figuring what your mother's like. Not answer what your mother's like, but you just get the idea of figuring, you know? And mother, to a slight, tiny degree will become unglued. Why? What's she glued on with? She's glued on with a mystery sandwich. Failed to see. And the sandwich spread in this case is mystery. See, obsessive change. "Now what is my mother all about, now what is she going to do? Now what is she going to say? Now what's going to be changed?" You know, puzzle, puzzle, puzzle, puzzle, figure, figure, figure, figure. The next thing you know the little kid's got mother as a valence. See, he's just too worried all the time. He can't feel any certainty in that direction, he feels puzzle, and as a result he gets a valence stuck on him. The same way a problem works. "What is the answer to this problem? What is the answer to this problem? What is the answer to this problem?" It's just glue, glue, glue, glue, and all of a sudden you press the problem all over your face.

Now there are many ways to run valences. There's an HCO Bulletin, there's a Washington Briefing Bulletin, which gives several series of steps to follow on valence. There are many things you can do to separate valences. The best one we have had heretofore, has been simply, "A problem of comparable magnitude to." That's good. See, that's good. Now I won't tell you that there is one superlatively better than this, but I will tell you that one on experiment has run that out. You always test a process on the grounds of what process runs it out. And you have a process that runs out all other processes, you will of course have a common denominator to all of the processes. As simple as that. And the one which apparently runs out all other processes is "Ought to be". And there's this kind of a use of "ought to be". "Alright, look at that chair and tell me how it ought to be." Now that's just objective "ought to be". Alright. That's very powerful. Why? because it's a future change sort of a situation. It's lower than "I'm supposed to". And "I'm supposed to", run off on a tape, is all behavior. And "Ought to be" runs out "Supposed to".

Alright. What is the valence use of this? Well the valence use could be many things. You could just run a second valence you have. It's the most elementary of these, if not the best. Certainly the most elementary. And when in a state of non compos mentis, and you can't think of the process, you can always run the other side of the bracket. "Now look at that chair, tell me how it ought to be. Alright, now how would your mother think it ought to be? Tell me how your mother would...," See? That's the other side. Now you could run those two things just that way on every object. You say, "Look at the desk. According to you how should it be? According to your mother how should it be? Good. Look at the chair. Now according to you how should it be? According to your mother how should it be?" And this was tested today, and ran very well. However, the definition of valence points out an even broader process to us, and that process is right in there with control, you understand? Control has to do with smooth, predictable change. That's what control is. Rather, you can't, you're stating a greater truth when you say that control is predictable change, than if you say control is start, change and stop. Because start and stop are, of course, necessary to change. It's quite interesting. They are, no matter how tiny a part of change sometimes, they do form a part of it. But you might say the thinking, or philosophic definition would be predictable change.

Alright. When we look over the definition of the aberrative valence we say there must be a process then would exactly fit this process. Exactly fit that definition. And when you can get a definition which is apparently true, and you can exactly fit a process to that definition, you have some rather interesting results. Always. Not, you don't always get the best process, but you can run just straight definitions with considerable interest.

Now we say, "An aberrating valence is one which acted as the source of unpredictable, obsessive change." You would just say that much. Alright, so what would be one of the ways that mamma would strip out of this bank in an awful rush? You would say, "Mock up your mother changing things. Good. Mock up your mother changing things. Good. Mock up your mother changing things. Good. Mock up your mother changing things. Good. Mock up your mother changing things. Good. Mock up your mother changing things. Good. Mock up your mother changing things." Awful elementary, isn't it? Mother's the source of change and you mock her up changing things. You see? Then you don't alter the alter-isness, and thus get a further continuance of the auditing process. And this is a killer on valences.

There are several others that work on valences. "Mock up your mother fighting that wall." It usually makes a preclear feel very good. "Invent an opponent of comparable magnitude to your mother." This is awfully good. "Mock up an identity that could withstand your mother." That's very good. Just using the word "your mother" as the blank there.

There are many things that you could run, many of them in this wise. The earliest valence splitter we had is just "Find some place your mother is not". And even that one splits valences. But one that came right along with that is quite amusing. "Where would your mother be safe?" And we run the protective mechanism out of it. But nothing is quite as fast as using "Ought to be", in whatever form. See, "Mock up your mother changing things" is just an ought to be. 'Cause mother seldom ever did change anything, she just usually, if she was an aberrative valence, she simply yakked.

People who are unpredictably changing things cannot control things. Which is quite interesting. You find the no-control valence when you find the unpredictable change valence. Because people who unpredictably change, obsessively, and so forth, cannot control. Do not control. Incapable of it. You find people who can't control unpredictably change too. Take the army. The army used to be a pretty good control mechanism. Used to use very good control. But as they fall off into "All sergeants are now big brothers", and go on down scale into "We're all pals", and "You don't have to salute officers because that's tiring to the arm", and when it goes on down the scale into a total civilian army so that Eisenhowers' friends can sell clothing to it, looks like the chief reason for its' existence, you get into some sort of a state here where it's going to be unpredictable. And we can, you might piece two things together from the standpoint of conduct to much understand a sticking valence much more easily.

You can say to a preclear, "Which of your parents used the most control on you? Controlled you the most?" And of course you never take what the preclear says, but this kind of sorts it out. He says, "Well, father. Father was awful on control. Just terrible on..." Run mother. Father did basically attempt to control. All mother did was unpredictably say how the control should be, but wasn't.

In understanding valences, one should not understand at once that all other beings than self are evil. The basic aberration of Earth is that everybody thinks everybody else is bad. And that's just a "bad over there". And if everybody thought that, and it wasn't true, you'd have an awfully mixed-up society. And we've got one. And they think that.

You should differentiate between the ability to be and obsessively being in another valence. The ability to be is absolutely vital to the game and to the continued good spirits of the spirit. And getting snaffled up by other valences which are aberrative is a penalty along the line which one doesn't usually expect to have happen. And when it happens, self is submerged, unwillingly, unwantedly, into doing a life continuum on another.

And those things which are least admired tend to persist. Therefore we get people doing life continua on the least admired valences there have been on the track. And that's why preclears are always telling you that they were Nero.

Thank you.