

LONDON GROUP COURSE TAPES (1953) 3/8




WHAT WE ARE DOING IN PROCESSING

A lecture given on 10 January 1953

LGC-2X

[Based on R&D transcripts only]


The second lecture on this subject talks about processing.
This is not a long lecture. It has to do with the whole
idea of processing and what we are doing in that.

Man can be said to be not quite optimum. Man very often
stops and scratches his head when he should be running and
very often runs when he should stop and scratch his head.

When you see somebody eating by pouring porridge into his
shoes, you would know he was aberrated. Isn't that so! It
is a little less obvious that a man is aberrated when he
simply says, "Now, let me think." Oh boy, is he nuts.

"Let me think." He thinks that thinking has something to do
with time, and he thinks the more you think, well, the
better the solution is going to be. That's evidently what
he's operating on. "The longer it takes me to think of the
solution, why, the better the solution is going to be." He
operates on that. "It must be a good book. It took him
eight years to write it."

And you know, the big joke on that last one is very, very
- is a very big joke. You go through the famous books that
man considers today to be classics and find out how long it
took that author to write that book in each case. You will
be stunned,

You had a fellow by the name of Dickens. Dickens is an
interesting fellow. He's what we'd call a fast-action
writer. He's a high-speed word mechanic, high speed. Do you
know that there isn't a penny-a-liner or a newspaperman
or a magazine writer working in the world today who comes
up to the production speed of Charles Dickens? And he did
it all by hand. It was all "writ by hand," so to speak.

That's interesting, isn't it? His stuff is still around. He
was slapping that stuff out at five thousand words a day.
I'd like to see one of these huh! - I would like to see
Charles Atwood Inkslinger writing at five thousand worlds
[words] a day. "It took him - must be a great book; it took
him twelve years to produce it."

No, it's just not sensible. When you're dealing with
thought, the better thinking is done in the less times.
Because thinking which is done in terms of energy is bad
because it's very reactive, very reactive, Heavy energy
thinking is very bad. A nation tries to work out its
problems by going to war with tanks and guns. That is
what's known as heavy thinking. And it's slow and it
doesn't solve much.

The more one gets into energy, the less applicable,
generally, the solutions will be. That's just a little
truism; happens to work out that way.

So that what a man is really saying when he says, "Let me
think," he's saying, "Let me look for data." Well, there's
nothing wrong with finding data with which to think. Well
then, the man would be the smartest who could find the data
fastest. Isn't that so!

Now, someone who says, "Let me think," he probably means
"Maybe" Or "I don't want to do it." He's using some sort
of a stall there.

But here he actually believes it takes him a long time to
think of something, and he's considered it carefully. Well,
if he considered it carefully, if he just went and thought
and thought and thought and thought and thought and thought
and thought - oh, no. Oh, no, he isn't considering it
carefully at all. He's lust being totally reactive and
sort of walking around in small circles and so on.

If he went and he got this problem and "Let me thin," and he
got the problem and then he said, "Let's see. Now, the data
associated with this problem are so-and-so and so-and-so,
and I'll have to go look that up and I'll have to think of
this and I'll have to ask so-and-so and so on. And I'I1 get
this data together, and then I'll know the answer and it's
obvious. Yeah. And there's the answer," That would be time
in thinking. Yes, it takes a certain amount of time to go
through the motions of acquiring data, and it sometimes
takes a certain amount of time to recall data. But the
accumulation of data to the solution of a problem is not
length of time spent in considering. And yet, man uniformly
has this level.

Now, there are other fellows that go around and they think out
loud, and they talk to themselves, or they think vocally in
their heads. This is wonderful. Fellow says, "Now, let me
see, I don't know quite where I should ... I guess I better
go down; I better take the tube. Yes. No. I better not take
the tube. It's only two or three blocks, I'll walk. No,
I'I1 take the tube. No, I just decided to carry this bundle
here. This bundle is very heavy. And I wonder what...?"
Actually? Actually.

The modern writer has gotten so daffy, Boy, is he a
reactive character. He puts down "stream of consciousness"
for all of his characters. And the world has really become 
convinced that this is the way people think. Well, it's the 
way crazy people think. (audience laughter) You take Gene 
O'Neill's Strange Interlude, for one play. There's several 
other plays and so on, where the characters - the characters 
say, "I hate you." And then sort of turn aside - Shakespeare, 
other modern playwrights do this - turn aside and say, 
"The reason I hate him is so-and-so and so-and-so and then 
so on," And they vocalize a stream of consciousness known as
- early in theater - as an aside, and later and very, very 
modern in theater, the stream of consciousness.

The only consciousness of a stream of consciousness would
be the passing and shuffling of energy. Energy doesn't
think, man thinks.

So this would be a real daffy one. And yet, you find
practically anybody doing this. So what's human aberration?
Well, I'm afraid it's being human, That sounds a little
extreme. Only thing I'm trying to deliver to you there is a
datum: is that insanity is not an absolute, neurosis is not
an absolute, aberration is not an absolute and sanity is
not an absolute, None of these are absolute data. All data
is relative to data. A man is crazier than others, A man is
saner than others. A man is more susceptible to correct
solutions than another man. You get the relativity here
we're dealing in.

Now, it is true that there is a state where everyone agrees
somebody is crazy. There is that level. There is a state.
And so we're dealing with what the society or the group
thinks is or agrees is aberrated, as our term of aberration.

Now, we've gone a little bit further than that in Dianetics
and Scientology, and we can actually graph a state of
ability to estimate correct behavior to solve problems and
so on. We can graph this with great ease and we can
demonstrate it in various ways. So we have an arbitrary
numerical value which could be assigned to this. But we
agree on that.

And so again the public at large simply agrees what's
psychotic, what's neurotic, what's aberrated and what's sane.

It's very amusing that the one they haven't agreed on most
is what's sane. You'll find practically nobody getting
together and discussing how sane anybody is. And if they
do, the subject of the conversation is found to be some
intolerable sourpuss who is merely terribly, practically
stubborn. They're very sane and very practical. That's right.

Did you ever run into one of these practical people? The
definition of being practical is not doing anything, I
guess, or that you can find them doing very little.

Now, in short, we don't have a basic definition here which
is susceptible to an unquestioned or absolute value, but we
do have definitions. And you could say sanity is the
ability to resolve problems. You could say a person is sane
when he can resolve problems with a predominance of
correctness, Person would be sane who solved problems. Will
solve problems in what way? Solve problems in the direction
of survival for himself or the upper dynamics. You see?

So, the relative ability to resolve problems relating to
survival would make a gradient scale of how sane a person
was. And that would - it requires a definition of right
and wrong which is an acceptable definition. This
definition of right and wrong is sufficiently acceptable to
have caused the committee on evidence of the New York Bar
Association to meet, and they are still in the progress of
considering changes in the rules of evidence, because these
new data have thrown out old data on evidence. We have
actually spearheaded in the field of jurisprudence with
this.

Sanity is the ability to tell right from wrong. That is the 
definition under law. That's sanity, the definition - tell 
right from wrong.

It's a pretty good definition, by the way. The fellow who
thought that up was very good. Because you get a little
kid, and you ask him what's right and what's wrong. And he
can tell you pretty well. He knows what's right and what's
wrong.

But if you find a real bad one that is completely - just
seems to be utterly uncontrollable, you ask him what's
right and what's wrong: one, he doesn't care or he doesn't
know.

Now, that's fascinating! Some children I have worked with
have told me bluntly, "I think my father and mother must be
crazy, because they say that it's possible to tell right
from wrong." Put that down. So it's a wonderful little
definition, actually, but it was completely useless as long
as we did not have a definition for what rightness is and
what wrongness is. It just put it - moved it over one
category. We had this definition that sanity was the
ability to tell right from wrong, and insanity or
criminality were the inabilities to tell right from wrong.
And then we never said what right - what was right and what
was wrong.

Wrong according to who? A man goes out and shoots a duck.
That's right according to the man; it's awfully wrong
according to the duck. All right.

So right and wrong is the crux of the matter. So we have to
define right and wrong. And we have a workable definition
for rightness and wrongness: That thing is right which
contributes to the survival of the entities or beings on
the greatest number of the dynamics. In other words, an
optimum solution, the rightness of that optimum solution,
or its degree that it is optimum, depends upon the amount
that it benefits the survival of the most dynamics. And a
problem is wrong in the degree that it inhibits the
survival along the dynamics, So maximal benefit to the
survival of all those things concerned with the problem
would be right. Minimal destruction to those things
concerned with the problems would be right. Maximal
destruction to those things concerned in the problem would
be wrong, and minimal constructiveness or benefit would be
wrong.

So you see, rightness, then, is that which assists
survival; wrongness is that which inhibits survival. And we
get these two principles and we find an astonishing number
of problems will solve themselves.

For instance, is it right for you to live? Well, that's a
nice question, but.,. All right.

Now that you are living, is it right for you to take any
benefit from others? Is it right for you to think about
yourself at all?

Now, that's an interesting question, because most people
will hedge and because of political this-and-that, social
something or other, they will say, "Well, hm, well,
humh-urn, huh."

You can almost ruin a man by simply demonstrating to him
that he is receiving some benefits from others.

You say, "Look, somebody's doing something for you." 

"Oh, no, they're not."

You find some people charming. Do you know that people
exist in the society and depend for their total ability to
live on this: They let people do things for them. It's the
truth! I mean, the blind man down on the comer serves a
very, very excellent purpose in the society; he stands
there and lets people give him something.

Never thought about it this way, did you? But you can think
back across your own past, and the most trying person you
knew was the person you couldn't help. And that person you 
could help the least is bound to be that person who is the 
most aberrative to you.

You take a man down here in an asylum and he is - terrible
condition. You go straight across the boards with him
trying to find out what you can do to help him. You get no
attention whatsoever from him. You're trying to make him
sane. You're getting nothing in return until you will give
him - perhaps you will be able to do this, perhaps not - you
will be able to establish something he can still help.
That's interesting, isn't it? There's something he can
still help. Well now, you wouldn't think that would make a
man sane, but it will.

If you were to take an E-Meter and put an insane person on
the E-Meter and just go over the things in the various
dynamics: "Can you help children?" "Can you help cats?"
"Can you help this?" "Can you help that?" You all of a
sudden might find out that he's able to help horses. Send
him to a horse farm? He'll be the sanest guy on it! Just
like that. (snap)

Doctors say, "Well, you can't tell about insanity because
you're liable to get an instantaneous remission at any
time." They've never looked into these so-called
instantaneous remissions. Once in a while they happen on
this basis: A patient faints and there's another patient
present. And they say to the second patient, "Help me lift
this person up," and the second patient does so and is sane
after that! Ha-ha, you're not dealing with something light
and tiny here; you're dealing with something that's very
powerful.

What can a person help? What can he still help in life?
That's not the highest level of establishment, but it's an
interesting one. And a person, when he believes he can no
longer help anything in life, believes he might as well be
dead. You can convince him then that he might as well be
dead because he can't help anything. He can no longer
assist anything in the world.

He's as healthy as he can assist things in the world. So
don't for a moment think that there isn't some end to all
this, because here in the field of sanity and insanity,
you're not just working for nothing, you're not working 
unappreciatedly. You sometimes sit down and feel very sad 
about the fact that you are, but you're not; you appreciate 
you. And quite in addition to that, many people do. 
Many, many people do. And it's only by convincing somebody 
he can't help that you ruin somebody.

Let's take a little kid. There's little Johnny and he runs
his legs off. Every day he runs his legs off for his
family. He just works for his mother until you just know
that he just couldn't ... And his mother is kind of mean
to him. And everybody is sort of... And you say, "That kid
is a setup. That's the one that will fold up,"

Because here's little Oscar over here - Oswald - and you
could look at this child and he's got everything and he
doesn't have to do anything, and he's strictly a fruitcake.

Well now, this doesn't follow. Here's the child, everybody
is mean to him and he works all the time, and he's sane and
happy and cheerful, And here's this other child over here
who nothing - he doesn't have to do anything and everybody
is good to him and they give him everything, and he's crazy.

Why? The difference between the two children is the ability
to help: One is permitted to help and the other one is not
permitted to help. And the one who's not permitted to
assist knows he's no good; he just knows that. Why? Nobody
will let him help, so of course he can't be any good.

Now, you want to know why people drive these omnibuses out
here and why people - why people sit at government desks
and why people teach school and all sorts of things? 

[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]

Continuing this second lecture. The idea of assistance to
others goes hand in glove with the idea of value of self;
one is as valuable as he can assist.

And because people throughout life evidently feel there's a
big scarcity of things they can help, they will prevent
others from helping. You can talk all you want to about,
"Let's all get in there together and help," but the point
is that when you go along this line too much, you
get - people will try to cut other people out. Somebody will
come up to you and say, "You really aren't helping
your class, but I can."

You know, they say this in various ways. They say, "Little
Johnny that you thought was getting along so well - you
know, you thought he was getting along so well. Well, he
died yesterday."

They're just trying to convince you that you can't help
people that way, and that's sort of - they kind of figure
out dully that that permits them to. All right.

So, what's our ... You just work on that operational level - 
we find out that the mind is running along in terms of energy 
in most cases. It thinks it's thinking with energy. It doesn't 
think with energy, but it thinks it's thinking with energy. 
Therefore, only because it thinks it's thinking with energy, 
not because it does, it believes that it is a sort of a
computing machine. Now, basically, as you sort out
somebody's mind, you'll find this to be the case.

The mind is there to pose and resolve problems relating to
survival. It thinks it solves these things with energy, so 
it works very mechanistically, And this isn't just from my 
viewpoint. I mean, this happens to be true.

The mechanistic viewpoint of the calculating machine is not
one which can be broadly used in terms of the human mind,
because a calculating machine is neither very able nor very
accurate. It's accurate within the realms of a mind
directing it to be accurate, but it can't protect itself
against bad data. So, therefore, it's not a very good computer.

Anybody can go up to the thing and say - instead of two
million, it can write two-hundred million on the
calculating-machine tape and punch it in, and it'll go on
stupidly computing on two-hundred million instead of two
million, and all of its answers will be wrong.

So, bad data, now, is very aberrative; bad information is
very aberrative. The evaluation, then, of information is
quite important. And one is as able to think as he can
evaluate, not as he can memorize, Don't ever lose sight of 
that. He is as able to think as he can evaluate; he is not 
as able to think as he can memorize.

You notice the interesting child who can come in and recite
the World Almanac from cover to cover, and yet who just
can't seem to take care of any of the most primitive
functions. You'd say, "Strange." Well, you're sort of
talking to a recording tape, and it all goes in and it all
comes out and so on. It's very interesting, but this child
is not evaluating.

Some other child is apparently incapable, you'd think
sometimes, of absorbing information, and all he does is
evaluate information, and he doesn't record worth a nickel.
And he's made the evaluation already. He's very hard on you 
sometimes as an instructor. You will make an evaluation... 
You instructors, you haven't got anything to teach him. And 
if he's made that evaluation at the beginning of his course 
or his school or his training, it's going to take you a long 
time to get anything into his head.

Now, he could evaluate and he wouldn't remember, and the
other child can remember but can't evaluate. And those
would be the two extremes of human aberration you had to
deal with in terms of education, in terms of righting things.

Now, let's take this idea of the adding machine again.
Let's look at aberration in terms of an adding machine. And
let's take an adding machine such as they had at Harvard
and aberrate it. Well, this adding machine they had at
Harvard - very interesting machine. Or maybe it was Yale
or Princeton or someplace or Oxford," I don't know. It
was one of these lesser-known schools. Anyway, they had
this drop of solder - aberrated the machine.

And this is what happened. One day they went in and they
put a problem on this machine. And it was the kind of
machine that calculated the square root of the length of
time it took for a photon to travel a circumnavigation of
the orbit exiture or something, you know - one of these
things with lots of factors and summations and all that
sort of thing, and the machine turned out the wrong answer.
So they put the machine - put it on again, and the machine
turned out the wrong answer.

So somebody put an elementary problem on the machine and he
merely says ten times ten, and he got a hundred. And he
says ten divided by ten, he got a hundred; five hundred
times ten, and he got twenty-five thousand. (Those of you
that aren't up on arithmetic, that should be five thousand.)

So then he put on two times five and got fifty. You know,
this machine would be considered aberrated after a while,
And he went on with this for quite a while, and then it
finally turned out that the number five on the machine had
a drop of solder shorted out on it, so that every problem
had the - was factored - multiplied rather, by five. 
Every problem you put into the machine got multiplied by
five. And every time it went across anything connected with
five, it multiplied by another five. Little, tiny short
circuit in the electronic circuits of a huge, big, giant
electronic brain.

And how did they repair it? Well, they just sawed off that
little piece of solder and disconnected it, and after that
the machine gave right answers.

Now, let's take little Johnny there that isn't studying,
isn't studying at all. How does this analogy fit with him?
He's got a held-down five someplace, That machine is
aberrated, that is to say, is giving wrong answers,
incorrect solutions to existence because of a held-down
five. What is this held-down five in the case of little
lohnny? Well, it could be a number of very special things.
You'd find those in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental
Health. You could call these - infinite number of
combinations that could hold down five, but it's a cinch
it's "hold-down five."

Let's say it's something simple like he made a postulate or
he made an evaluation when he first came to school that he
would never learn anything in that school. And he's
convinced of this because he convinced himself of this. And
everything that goes through that you're - expect him to
learn is tearing right across the lines and his "I won't
ever learn anything in school."

"Columbus discovered America in 1492. I won't ever learn
anything in this school," And you'll find all of the
information you are trying to pour into his head over here
in a big bin that says, "I won't learn anything in this
school." It's there, but it's over there in the bin. Now,
it's fascinating that one day you suddenly crowd at him
with some processing and knock out that datum, and he
remembers everything he learned in the school.

Now, that's - becomes very interesting, The mind works on a
series, then, of bins and trunk systems and bullpens,
to be technical - that's the technical terminology for
electronic brains, by the way - and it has these large 
compartments. You're dealing with data. Therefore, the 
storage rather than the origin of data is of interest to 
you, and the use of data in computation of new answers is 
of interest to you.

[R&D Note: bullpen: (computers) an area in early electronic
computers where material that didn't match up with anything
else was held until new material that connected with it and
made a complete solution was fed in. Used figuratively in
this lecture.]

Well, therefore, if you start dealing with a machine which
has consistently held-down data, every time you throw a
datum into his head, he says, "My mother is sick."

Did you ever have a little kid who is having home trouble,
family trouble at home, or a man at work, he's having
trouble at home - and somebody walk - and you say, "Two
times two equals four," On any kind of a problem that you -
or solution that you'd give him, it would go through his 
mind like this: "Two times two is four, and my mother is
sick at home. What did you say?"

And you say, "Two times two is four." 

He's - "When did you say that?" 

"Well, I just said it?" 

"What did you just say?"

"Two times two is four," 

It registered "Two times two is four, my mother is sick." 

Now, you could ask him, "What is two times two?" 

And he would say, "Two times two" - he'd be perfectly good; 
span of attention is way off, you see - "Two times two equals 
my mother is sick at home," and "Two times two equals my wife 
is angry with me," 

Yeah, that's right; that's how he's thinking, It's flagrant. 
If you want to plumb into this and to ask the questions which 
will spring it into view, you'll be shocked at what some people 
are thinking in offices. (audience laughter) Mail goes through
their hands.

Of course, it isn't so bad on the other level. When they've
had a good time, they can work. That's because the good
time runs out all their worries. They're not liable to sit
there, oddly enough, and say, "Here's a nice letter from
James and Connpany with a thousand - a thousand new reams
of paper has been ordered, and that's just fine. And let's
see, now what do I have to do? My, did I have a good time
last night. That's what I have to do now. Now, I had to have
a good time last night. Yeah, that's good."

No, they don't squirrel like that. Working with a different 
sort of a thing when you work with a worry or a problem or 
trouble because you're working with pain. Pleasure runs 
itself out. Pleasure is the enemy of pain. Pain sticks. And 
every time you have this abstraction, you get held-down data.

Now, there might be some terrific sort of a data. There
might be some little kid who is sitting there held in his
bike accident two months ago, and he's been stupid in class
ever since. And his grades have been kind of poor, and you
haven't been able to do anything for him and get anything
across to him.

You don't know where he is? You think he just isn't paying
attention. Well, the thing to do, of course, is to punish
him, to send him home and give a note to his parents and
sspprruuhh.

No, he's - happens to be lying on the pavement three
blocks from his house, and he's been lying there ever since
he fell there three months ago.

Well, you know he isn't lying there - he was taken inside
and given a lot of sympathy and so on. And he's been
sitting here in class and so forth. You know it, but does
he know it? Well, that's a good thing to check up on, does
he know he's ...

Because you're interested in what he knows about himself,
not what you know about him. You'll know a great deal more
about him from an outside viewpoint than he'll probably
ever know, so we better know what he knows about himself.
And we're liable to find him now stuck on the pavement. All
right.

These are held-down fives. Just think of that as an analogy
It's a crude one, it's relatively workable, it's a fast
explanation. What is it, then, that keeps a child from
paying attention, keeps an adult from being interested in
life, keeps somebody in an insane asylum there? It's a
problem of the held-down five. There's a datum which is
held down in the computer.

Now, if you want to be very brilliant, you can go through
this computer from one end to the other and you can look it
over very carefully and you can find - this, by the way, in
the first book was known as shooting circuits - you could
find the datum which was coloring all other data and just
go boom and shoot it out of the bank. You actually could do
this with marked changes in personality. What art, what
skill, Oh, oh!

Now, later techniques, you could do it by shooting out an
incident in which he was stuck. And with later techniques
you could put him into a condition whereby he wouldn't get
stuck that easily, and he would become unstuck somewhat
from where he was. And by later techniques, you could do
even more remarkable things with him.

And then we wind up with a very interesting battery of
techniques: one, we know what the held-down particle is
that is the held-down five. We know what it is. It isn't
seven other particles, it happens to be just one. And it's
the one that you wouldn't quite suspect, but you know it
after you've run into it. And what is this particle? And
why does it hold down five? We'll talk about that later.

But you want a technique that will just, no matter how long
it takes, unsolder those fives. That's all you want. If
you've got that, you've unsoldered the five and then you're
in good shape, and that is the goal of processing.

A person with all of his fives unsoldered would be known as
a Definition Clear. Why? That's an adding-machine term;
that's a electronic-brain term. You clear a machine when
you take out all of its former computations off the machine.

In other words, a fellow can think straight if he could
think without these colored evaluations before. He can
evaluate present time in terms of itself, not so much in
terms of its past.

Clear is a very relative state. Don't become confused by
it. It is not an absolute state. It merely means he's in
pretty good shape and he'll stay that way. That's all it
means. There are various kinds of Clears and they mean
things very specific.

Well, a preclear, then, is somebody who still has a
held-down five but is in the process of getting rid of it.
That means a person who is undergoing processing either in
groups or individuals, but it's most likely to apply to the
individual rather than to the group.

The auditor, the auditor is one who listens and computes,
and that's what auditing means: to listen and compute. 
Well, we still use the term auditor, but he's not doing 
very much listening in group auditing. And the truth
be told, today's technique, he does dam little listening.
He just sits there and rolls the stuff out.

Well, every once in a while he's called on to listen and
compute, and it's a bad auditor who doesn't listen and
doesn't compute when he has to. There's many a case will
come to some other auditor for patch-up, and they can't
figure out why this other auditor didn't do it. Well, the
guy didn't listen; somewhere he didn't listen. He wasn't
willing to receive some information of one sort or another.
That's the most usual fault in auditing.

Now, we have what you could call a Book Auditor, That is
an untrained auditor who has gotten his information out 
of publications. Unheralded and unsung, the Book Auditor 
has been carrying along for a long time and has been 
accomplishing very remarkable things. He can accomplish 
and he does accomplish them.

I have seen Book Auditors as good as professionals and I've
seen Book Auditors that you, with even a poor Level of
judgment on the subject, would have shot! In other words,
this meant merely somebody who had these techniques from
reading only and without any contact immediately with
professional training of any kind. It doesn't mean that a
man is bad or good, under that circumstances. A man is as
good as he is.

And there are people who are Book Auditors who are
practicing outright hypnotism. There are people who are
Book Auditors that are right up there with professional
auditors. The Last, by the way, is very rare. As a matter
of fact, it is so rare that I only know of it happening
once in the US. Odd, but true.

Now, there's self-processing, and self-processing would be 
just reading over lists, such as those contained in
Handbook for Preclears, which is now outmoded as a process;
it's not outmoded as data. And the most modern available
list is the Self Analysis in Dianetics. And that disc - that
list and those lists are very, very useful to you because
they're the lists you use. And these are addressed toward
Creative Processing, and those lists are just a part of
Creative Processing.

And Group Processing would be the application of read lists
to the group in such a way as to permit the maximum number
of members of the group to receive benefit. Those are the
various types of processes by list here.

Now, the kinds of processing - these are the people who
process and their goals - and the kinds of processing, I've
already covered earlier. And I list them here.

There's just a complete knowledge of the subject all the
way across the boards, of anything that's been written or
lectured or anything that's been learned from other
professionals who practice and so forth. That would be just
anything.

There isn't a process anywhere along the line there in this
group of materials that doesn't have degree of workability,
by the way. It's which one is more workable than another.
And this again is evaluation. There are some of the old
ones which are - which an auditor will still use. I was
using the other day - not the other day. I was using - not 
too long ago, I was using a Book One technique. The preclear
wouldn't, just wouldn't go for anything else, he just
wouldn't buy anything else. It was the easiest one to
process him with, so I just simply reached back into 1949
really, and picked up this old, moldy, moth-eaten technique 
and swung him into present time with it and shook him on 
the hand - by the hand and kissed him goodbye.

Now, Standard Operating Procedure Number 5 is the subject
of the Professional Course to a large degree - that and many
other things. Then there's, as I say, Self Analysis;
there's Creative Processing in general as a more advanced
level; and then Group Processing - there's some slight
difference between the way you process adults and the way
you process children, All right.

I hope you have, now, a broad and vast understanding of
human aberration. And so we'll close up the subject there
and take a break.

[End of Lecture]
