
5512C01 THE FUNDAMENTALS OF AUDITING STYLE

A lecture given on 1 December 1955

We have the main subject here in this basic auditor's course - this is 
not a basic auditing course; this is a basic auditor's course, coaching 
course - and we have here as our main subject (what do you know), 
auditing.

Now, that sounds a little bit strange but, actually, it's not strange, 
since there's a great deal to know about this subject of auditing, all 
of which is very fundamental and much of which is completely bypassed, 
overpassed, neglected and not connected with at all, by a great many 
auditors. And failing to hit these very fundamental bits and principles, 
the advance of Scientology thereby is enormously held back.

Now, you think that's a brutal statement, but we will just start from 
there. Lack of knowledge of certain of these basic principles are 
holding back Scientology. How? By creating failed cases and slow-moving 
cases.

Now, it is very often the case when an auditor has a slow-moving case 
that he looks for another process, and he shouldn't be looking for 
another process, because that's probably not why the case is moving 
slowly. The first thing that he should suspect is that there is 
something fundamental, extremely fundamental, which is awry in the 
handling of the case itself. Person to person, as a personality, as an 
individual, there is something awry. ARC has not been established.

The next thing that he should suspect - and he should suspect this until 
he is on very firm ground - is that he himself may have a fundamental or 
two that he himself has neglected to assimilate and use. There are 
fundamentals about auditing below the level of auditing which are more 
important than auditing. Even though these things are very simple, even 
though they are apparently something that just everybody knows, and so 
on, they are very, very often neglected and overlooked.

Now, I will give you a very, very sharp example of this. I happen to 
know a preclear who runs smoothly, easily, performs any and all command; 
given a proper process, will clean it up in a matter of a few minutes. 
This is one of these demon preclears -can run anything, does run 
anything; see, exteriorize and so forth.

Not long ago this preclear got into the hands of an auditor and got 
loused up. Now, how did this preclear - how could this preclear possibly 
be loused up? This preclear could run everything. Well, he couldn't run 
the misauditing that he was being given.

Well, was this misauditing really - really rough? I mean, was it really 
tough misauditing? Was it flagrant breaches of the Auditor's Code and 
all that sort of thing? Did these enter into it? No. There was something 
very, very fundamental missing in the auditor's education. He didn't 
know a certain aspect of existence which goes as follows: We have a 
scale. At the top of the scale there's Knowingness, just below this 
there is Not-knowingness, and just below that there is 
Understandingness.

Understanding means something exists to be understood. So something must 
already have been invented so that we could have something to 
understand. That's why understanding comes at that point on the scale. 
Know, Not-know, Understand and below that, on a dwindling spiral, ARC, 
until we get to the bottom of this, and we have Unconsciousness.

Now, that's all there is to that scale. There isn't any embroidery work, 
no Mechlin lace, no frills, nothing. If you just look at that scale 
right there, with just those things on it, you will see a scale in its 
purity which will mean a great deal and make a great deal plain right in 
auditing.

At the top we have Knowingness. Therefore, it tells us at once that the 
preclear who is cogniting, who has suddenly come into a new piece of 
knowingness about existence, is in pretty darn good state at that 
moment. Right? So therefore we could even change a process at that 
moment. But it has to be big. He has to be sure of it. It has to be 
Knowingness.

Now, if he merely understands his father and mother, where is he? "Oh, I 
- I suddenly understand my father and mother." That's not really a good 
cognition. It's an understanding cognition, it is a knowingness about 
something. And therefore we would think for a moment or two before we 
changed our process on "Oh, I see what Father was all about." You get 
the idea? We would think for a moment or two, because it goes Know, and 
then that little postulate Not-know, and then Understand. So it's a 
little bit lower.

And therefore you would handle this more gently. You'd maybe run it a 
little bit further, and it'll turn up into some knowingness. Some 
knowingness on the subject would have something to do with a far more 
general picture. A knowingness must apply more broadly to the dynamics 
than an understandingness. An understandingness generally applies to one 
part of one dynamic, and a knowingness generally applies to at least a 
few dynamics. All right.

Now, when we look this over, we see what we mean by a cognition. A 
cognition is something that is pretty darn sweeping. It is knowingness; 
it is not knowingness about something, which is understandingness. So we 
look at this understandingness, and we find out that changing a process 
at a moment of minor understandingness would be a risky thing to do, 
because it's below the level of a broad knowingness.

Now, you see these things, you work with them. It's something like how 
red is a red bicycle? You and I know that a red bicycle - a red bicycle 
that is very red is a really red bicycle, see? We know that. We can talk 
about it. We could measure it in angstrom units and go through a large 
chemical formulary and describe all of the colors of red and their 
reflective incidences and the ingredients which go into paint to make 
these colors red, and we could go through an enormous category, but it 
still wouldn't have gotten around this one fact: How red is a red 
bicycle? It's real red. Well, you and I understand that, but when we get 
it down to a system or put it down to MEST, we understand it less well.

Do you know that the chemist or the color expert who has finally figured 
out how red that red bicycle is, is probably unable to see. He's 
probably got glasses about that thick. All right.

So we understand what an understandingness is. See, that's easy to 
understand. We don't have to go any further on it. We do know what a 
knowingness is. This person has a certain knowingness on a certain 
level. We can understand what that is, and as such, in an auditing 
session we so adjudicate it.

Now, very often the auditor is making a slight error. He says this 
preclear got a cognition. All this preclear did was understand why Mama 
went into rages. Well, you could call it a cognition. You could play 
around with the idea of shifting the process or something at that point. 
With some two-way comm you probably could put it on the shelf, but it'd 
need a little assistance, you see?

And the preclear might be way up Tone Scale to understand something 
about Mama. Certainly the preclear has come up Tone Scale on the subject 
of Mama; certainly this has occurred. Very well. Very well.

We know the preclear is fairly high, but he isn't on a subject of 
knowingness. The actuality is that if he knew Mama, Mama would never 
again bother him. You got that? Just never again. There's - this kind of 
a gap could be envisioned between: It's quite one thing to be able to 
understand Mama and put up with her, and quite another thing to know the 
subject of Mamas, because you certainly never worry about them 
afterwards, you see? There's a difference between this understandingness 
and this knowingness.

Now, let's go down just below understandingness, and we find the
component parts of understandingness. We find understandingness from
there on down, till we get clear to stupidity. But it is better 
understood as it goes lower if broken down into its component parts: 
affinity, reality and
communication. 	

It's pretty hard to measure understandingness after it drops a little 
bit above obvious understandingness, you see? It gets a little difficult 
to measure, so we want three more yardsticks, and those three are 
interdependent upon one another. Now, the reason we throw them in there 
is because they are yardsticks and also because by using them, we can 
promote understanding. We can actually bring it about.

So we have these three points, and we have this dwindling triangle, you 
might say, which goes down to practically nonexistent understandingness, 
which is stupidity. You could have stupidity about something, which 
would be above stupidity. But do you know there's a point below 
stupidity, and that point is unconsciousness. And we have embraced all 
gradients on the scale when we get to unconsciousness; we embraced all 
gradients.

Unconsciousness is a sort of waitingness. It is the last way to handle 
waitingness, for a thetan. He doesn't go any further south than 
unconsciousness. He doesn't have a death. That's as far south as you can 
get, then, would be a complete oblivion. But that complete oblivion is 
the unconsciousness which you see somebody enter into when he is 
unconscious.

Now, unconsciousness, oddly enough, has its own gradient scale. There is 
an unconsciousness by reason of anesthetics. And an individual, 
actually, under anesthesia knows pretty well what's going on. But 
there's an unconsciousness below that. There's an unconsciousness to a 
point where the individual does not know, as a thetan, what is going on. 
And that is about as close as you can come to an absolute, and that is 
the bottom of that scale.

So there is a bottom of the scale, and there is a top of the scale. Now, 
the funny part of it is, is the bottom of the scale is approached more 
or less on the basis of, as the bottom of the scale is approached, a 
dimming out of the intellect, the IQ, the good personality traits and so 
forth. And these dim out, and they get dimmer and dimmer and dimmer, and 
the final bottom of it is for the fellow to be unconscious. See that?

When he is unconscious, he has no agreement, therefore no reality. He 
has no communication, and in addition to that, he has no affinity. A 
fellow in a terrible rage might, to you, seem to be an individual 
without affinity. But believe me, an individual in a terrible rage has 
far more affinity present than an individual who is unconscious. Please 
see that, and you will see what is wrong with sodium pentothal and all 
these other brackets like hypnotism and so forth. Do you see that? 
They're downscale.

You take a subject who has been hypnotized or who has been given a great 
many drugs or something and you start bringing him upscale, and he goes 
into rage. Well, that's not the moment for you to smack him in the face 
and push him down again. The fellow is coming up through anger and rage 
and will go above those points because there are other way-stops.

But when we get to these other way-stops - when we get the original Tone 
Scale, when we get the various points on the subzero Tone Scale, we are 
getting far more specific than we actually need to be for elementary 
auditing knowledge, and we're actually getting more specific than an 
auditor should be in his basic understanding of this subject. He 
shouldn't introduce all of those interpoints until he understands the 
skeleton of that scale. Because the skeleton of that Tone Scale will 
tell him practically anything he wants to know at any given moment about 
the behavior of his preclear. And it will certainly tell him whether 
he's winning or losing.

This case was a pianola, we used to call them, and the auditor in 
question was utterly baffled in running the case and could not end 
sessions on this case. Get to the end of the session, couldn't end the 
session; case wouldn't let him end the session. Arguments, upsets.

And do you know why those upsets came about? It's because the auditor, 
under very close questioning, did not have a good grip on the fact that 
Knowingness is at the top of the scale and Unconsciousness is at the 
bottom of the scale and had thought the preclear was more "restful" 
because he was less energetic and thought therefore that was the time to 
end the process.

This auditor had been auditing I don't know how many preclears without 
ever understanding that his mission and goal was to raise the ARC of the 
preclear. Lord knows how many preclears this auditor must have dumped 
into limbo. You know, they walked out of the session saying, "Where's 
the door?" He didn't understand that a preclear who is groggy is a 
preclear who is low on ARC.

And I went over it carefully, patiently - and for a guy that's commanded 
men awfully gently, hrumph - and I finally got it through his head that 
when the preclear started to get dopey on him and fog on him, that an 
auditing booboo must have occurred, or the preclear hit something that 
was too rough for him to handle for his state of case. One or the other 
has happened.

Either the preclear has pitched into it and it's too rough for him, 
therefore he starts toward unconsciousness - and they go fast, believe 
me; that is not a route in distance or time. And the other one is that 
the auditor had pulled some sort of an error, and the error was then 
followed by the anaten of the preclear. But the error was not the anaten 
and was not to be found in the anaten, and the anaten wasn't the error. 
The error had occurred before the unconsciousness (analytical 
attenuation - our coined word, anaten) occurred. The error occurred 
before the unconsciousness took place, and the unconsciousness was the 
last word of warning the preclear could give. He says, "It's all wrong."

And I said to the auditor, "Well then, how would you get somebody out of 
this?"

"Oh," he'd say, "you have to continue running the process. You've said 
that many times."

Bzzzzzhh.

"You're going to run a process on an unconscious preclear?"

"Oh well, he wasn't very unconscious. He was just doped off."

"How is he going to register on this? Do you realize that he may have 
sunk below the point where you started the session?"

"Oh well, of course. They always do, don't they?"

Rrrrrrr. He meant his always did. But it's not true. If a preclear 
cannot wind up a session more alert than he started the session, there 
was something wrong with the auditing. We just say, "alert." We're just 
talking about a better understandingness, a better ARC, a better 
consciousness.

Now, let's look at this thing called unconsciousness at the bottom of 
the scale and realize as we go upscale we must then being approach - 
approaching higher and higher consciousness, we mean he is more and more 
alert, that's all. We don't mean he is getting into the consciousness 
with a cosmic consciousness which is the square root of blah. We simply 
mean he's waking up. Did you ever see anybody wake up? Well, that's how 
a preclear gets conscious. You know, they wake up.

Preclear walks in at the beginning of the intensive, he's feeling for 
the door. He's feeling for the chair. You really don't find him feeling 
for the door or feeling for the chair unless you know how to look, and 
it's that he misgauges everything just slightly, you know? She puts her 
purse down and then moves it a couple of times to get it in the right 
place, you know? You get the inaccuracies. They're minor, but they're 
there to be observed.

And at the end of the intensive, a precision of motion, positiveness, 
placingness and so forth ought to be present. If you only knew this, you 
see, you would see at once that your preclear was bettered. He was more 
precise, he was more competent. And it will show up on the rather 
lengthy method of the intelligence test, it will show up on behavior 
tests, and it will show up in piloting airplanes and so forth.

But do you need these gross tests to discover whether or not you're 
assisting the preclear? You don't need these gross, huge systems to tell 
you whether or not you're benefiting the preclear, not for a moment. If 
you merely know that stupidity - one of the symptoms of stupidity is an 
unknownness of time and place, and is a definition of stupidity - 
stupidity could have several definitions, but the mechanical definition 
is an unknownness of time and place. And therefore competence would be a 
knownness of time and place, wouldn't it? That's what competence is.

What would you think of a bomber who pulled a stick of bombs an hour 
before he got on the target, but instead of pulling the stick and drop 
the bombs, which is what he intended to do, he let down his wheels? 
You'd say he wasn't very competent. Now, the bomber who pulls the stick 
of bombs at the moment he is on the target, and it is the bomb stick, 
he's competent.

Well, it's unfortunate that his competence would be dedicated and 
devoted to such an activity, but at the same time, he is doing a 
precision placement, isn't he?

Well, let's look much more thoroughly at that. What about Miss Malaprop, 
the lady who always says the exact wrong thing at the wrong time to the 
wrong people? You ever known such a person?

Female voice: Yes.

They just can't ever seem to say, "How are you, Mr. Smith?" you know. 
Nothing simple like that. It's always something else, and it is always a 
little bit offbeat. That is just the placement of the communication, 
isn't it? Time, place, person. The right communication in the right 
place to the right person would be competence in communication, wouldn't 
it?

Well, after this person has made enough communication boo-boos, they 
stop talking. You see, it goes downscale. It's not that they have 
learned better than to talk. They're just going downscale on 
communication, that's all.

And after a while, if you looked at them, they wouldn't be very 
conscious. You would come in the door, and you'd slam it and so forth, 
and rack around the house and so forth. And this person - you've been 
home an hour, you know, and this person looks at you and says, "Oh, are 
you home?" Get the idea? Well, that is where the awareness fits in.

Now, an auditor who sees his preclear all of a sudden go "Duuhh, hmm" 
he's dealing with something. It's time for him to get in there with some 
two-way comm. It isn't time for him to change the process. It's time for 
him to find out if there's any auditing to patch up. It's time for him 
to get in there with some two-way communication one way or the other. I 
don't care if he talks about fish and goats.

Every once in a while an auditor says to me, "This two-way comm is all 
right, but it's too complicated. I never can think of anything to say to 
the preclear."

I say, "Well, you just thought of a horrible thing to say to me, didn't 
you?"

He cognited. "Yes, I did, ha-ha!"

"All right. You can probably think of equally nasty things to say to a 
preclear."

Now, where you have communication, which is two-way communication, 
you're going to get a rise in tone. Where you have a slump on the part 
of the preclear into anaten, a relaxation of attention, his alertness is 
dropping, he is not being as sharp or as smart as he was before, there 
is probably something wrong.

Now, by the mechanics of auditing you can expect the attention to the 
environment to introvert when you are running a subjective process. Have 
you got that? You can expect, as you start to run a subjective process, 
that his attention for the environment will introvert. Now the question 
is, is it less alert?

See, from the environment to his subjective bank is not necessarily a 
drop of consciousness. But did he shift from the environment to his - 
see, he's examining whether or not his mother's universe and his 
universe are entangled or separated or what, see? And he's examining 
this, and his attention goes off the environment and goes onto the bank.

That will make him appear, from an outside viewpoint, to be less alert, 
as long as we say "less alert to the environment." You see, we have to 
classify it. He was not alert at all to his bank and his mother's 
universe. He was restraining this in some fashion, so he was not alert 
at all to that a moment before you started auditing him. And now right 
after you started auditing him, and addressed his mother's universe, we 
find him less alert to the environment and more alert to his mother's 
universe. You get where the shift of attention has gone?

Well, the question is not whether he's shifted his attention in to out, 
or out to in; that isn't the question. The question is whether or not 
there's less alertness to that attention. Is he less capable of exerting 
attention? That's the question you have to answer, so that the auditor 
has a very, very nice adjudicative principle.

He sits there and he watches the preclear, and as far as the preclear is 
concerned - remember, he's a thetan; he isn't a body. Now, is the thetan 
less or more alert? We get the answer to this in the thing called 
communication lag. As lags lengthen, the thetan is going downhill. 
Something for you to remember, see? He's going downhill.

Well, you can permit him to go downhill a little ways, if you know 
enough to bring him back uphill. But supposing we had a preclear, and it 
was rather late in the evening, and we ask him, "All right. Now, 'Are 
pumpkins red or green?"' Whatever our auditing question was, you know, 
"Are pumpkins red or green? Good. Fine."

You say, "Are pumpkins red or green?"

And he says, "That's right. They're red."

And you say, "Good. Are pumpkins red or green?"

And he'd say, "Well, pumpkins are red."

And you say, "Well, are pumpkins red or green?"

And he says ... (silence)

Now, we know that something is a little less alert here. Is it the bank 
or the preclear? Let's just take a look at this, see.

He finally says, "Oh, I don't know. I guess they're kind of pink."

You say, "Well, fine. Are pumpkins red or green?" And we get a little 
bit longer comm lag.

Now, it's just about time for you as an auditor to get very alert. It's 
late in the evening. It's approaching ten o'clock. You know, your 
preclear can go diving on down the Tone Scale on the gayest little 
toboggan ride you ever saw in your life and wind up out. He's comm 
lagging on something. You've asked him the question the third time, and 
his comm lag was longer. And you ask him the fourth time, and his comm 
lag was longer. And you ask him the fifth time, and if his comm lag 
didn't shorten that time, you've got a problem on your hands, auditor, 
because that comm lag is not going to shorten.

The tiredness and the accumulated fatigues of the day, perhaps hunger, 
lack of food, all sorts of oddities may have entered into this session 
while it was in progress. And the worst thing you think you could do is 
not flatten the comm lag. Hm-hm, that isn't the worst thing you can do. 
The worst thing you can do is mess up a preclear.

If you were auditing the process only - not only in an extreme situation 
like this but in many other situations, you're going to make mistakes. 
And you're never auditing a process; you're auditing a preclear. And 
these days we interlard all processes with two-way communication. And 
when do we use it? That is the big mystery. We use it when the preclear 
starts downscale, and we bring him back upscale again with it.

We say, "Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah. You just come out of that little 
boil-off, and you sit up there, be a good little preclear, huh. We don't 
allow no skidding around here. We don't allow no anatening. What did I 
do wrong?" That's an awfully sort of a not-promotive-of-ARC question, 
but the very funny part of it is, if the preclear went anaten, it's an 
awfully good one to ask.

Not "What have I done wrong now," of course. But you can ask him, "What 
have I - what have we done here? What's wrong? Has anything gone wrong 
with the session?"

"No," he'll say - polite preclear. "No, no" - grog, grog. "No, nothing's 
gone wrong. Nothing."

He'll be really rather sure. "Just look it over for a moment there. Has 
anything really gone wrong there, or is everything all right with the 
session and..."

"Oh, there's nothing really wrong except, when you dropped your ashtray 
a couple of minutes ago, why, it had a funny feeling on me." Or "You've 
asked the last twenty questions without any kind of a break, and it just 
doesn't seem to me like you're very interested." Something's gone off.

Well, why bother to categorize how many things have gone off when all 
you have to do is ask the preclear? And that's a whole subject in 
itself. So we'll go back and take a look at this other - these other 
factors. And these factors start at the top with Knowingness, and they 
wind up at the bottom with Unconsciousness. Your preclear is a thetan. 
He is just so alert.

Now, there are some little oddities that come in this, and one of the 
oddities is this: A thetan is very close to being unconscious if he 
doesn't know he's a thetan. If he doesn't know he is a being separate 
from a body, I'd say he was practically snoring. See? He's really right 
there at a deep yawn, at least.

And one of the manifestations of his coming awake is quite curious. He 
starts to have nightmares. A thetan trying to have nightmares is 
something very remarkable to observe. The reason he has nightmares is 
not very disturbing. He starts to come awake himself while the body is 
asleep. He isn't differentiating between the body and himself. He has 
the body and himself still entangled, but to some slight degree he's got 
a differentiation going here. He's being audited, you see, and he's a 
little more aware of the fact that he is himself and the body is a body.

So he goes to sleep at night, and lo and behold, do we have a very 
relaxed thetan? No! What the hell is a thetan doing going to sleep at 
night? Just ask that question. That's a - dduuuhhh. To get rest? Huh! 
"Thetan needed rest." These are asininities, see? What's he doing going 
to sleep?

Well, he's doing - going to sleep is because his anchor point is the 
body, and the body keeps him located. And when the body goes to sleep, 
he's no longer located. And the reason he dreams and has nightmares is 
very cute. He's trying to put up enough mock-ups via his own machinery 
to get himself located again.

Believe me, honest, I tell you, this is the total significance of that 
circumstance. You'll have that circumstance reported to you over and 
over and over and over, so you might as well know the answer to it. It's 
one of these really - real fundamental things.

The thetan starts to wake up. He doesn't go to sleep anymore, of course. 
And so the body goes to sleep, and he starts waking up, and his answer 
is to have nightmares so that he can get enough mock-ups around so he 
can orient himself. Sure, these are horrible nightmares. Sure, these are 
awful. You ask him what his acceptance level is as a thetan. You just 
take the area of the body in which he's normally situated, and you give 
it havingness and find out the things it accepts, and you will be 
flabbergasted.

The idea of a piece of used sewer pipe would be as delicious as a 
lollipop to this thetan. See, his deterioration of havingness is quite 
marked, and we see this thing turn on. We see these various mechanisms 
occur as the preclear is being audited.

But the preclear is asleep if he's interiorized, more or less. He's 
depending on the wakefulness of the body and its alertness, and we start 
to wake him up by auditing. Then how are you going to tell at any given 
moment if he isn't just boiling off or if he isn't just waking up 
through a boil-off?.

Boy, I tell you, you could get awful philosophical about this. This is 
one of the most complicated questions that you ever heard of. This 
question is so complicated that Bergson would have gone mad trying to 
answer it. But fortunately, we're not this completely involved.

The preclear, as he sits down, is a unit. He is a unit beingness. And 
the sleepiness of the preclear or the anaten of the preclear is marked 
by such things as misplacements, inabilities to talk to you - the 
standard things you look for in a preclear, that you recognize.

You say, "What's your name?"

And he says, "I feel fine."

See, the wrong remark and the wrong answer, wrong time. And we then 
place our preclear rather accurately about where he sits. We know he's 
kind of out of communication, therefore, we know that he's not very 
capable of liking things. We know that he's practically spun in on two 
or three lines, therefore, he's probably not exteriorized.

We can add all these things up. And one of the finest things in the 
world to do is to gather experience on simplicities, not complexities. 
And if you gather experience on just these simplicities of how well is 
he communicating, you eventually get your preclears taped. You've got 
the preclear, then, standardized. You're looking at a standardized 
package; you're not looking at something else and then looking at some 
kind of a standard.

I'll give you an idea. I do quite a bit of photography one way or the 
other. If you want to learn a camera, you don't use several brands of 
film, because you'll be studying the film, not the camera, you see? You 
take - I don't care whether it's bad or good - you take one brand of 
film and shoot pictures with that one brand of film and get it developed 
and printed in one drugstore, one chemist, one laboratory.

Whether it's bad or good, we don't care - whether the finishing is. 
We'll learn to use the camera, because the other things are being held 
standard. Do you see that? We'll know, then, whether or not we're taking 
pictures or not taking pictures with a camera.

As soon as we start taking pictures with the film too - you see, we take 
eight brands of film. We're going to test all of these films and the 
cameras, only we're not going to pay any attention to the kind of film 
that we put in the camera, we're going to learn to use the camera by 
using them.

And then we have these things developed all over town in various 
laboratories that do various things and great differences and so forth. 
And we find out we don't know anything about the camera. Therefore, we 
kind of say to ourselves, "Well, I can't understand this camera."

Well, this is foolish, because you weren't studying the camera. You were 
studying films and laboratories at the same time. So the place to start 
in is on one of these simplicities, is how awake is the preclear?

And listen, he ought to be - this is one of these complicated things, 
see - he ought to be just a little more awake in any given instant of 
the session than he was in any past instant of the session. You knew how 
awake he was when he walked in and sat down. Therefore, you will know 
whether or not his communication, his affinity and reality, are better 
for progressing moments of the session.

If they are better - you see, you're looking at the preclear as a 
package. We're not going to separate him out now as a thetan. We're not 
going to pull him apart and say, "Well, this is behaving one way and the 
other behaving the other way." We know all these complicated factors 
exist. So we're just going to take this package that we call a preclear, 
and we're just going to look at him. And as we audit him, we're going to 
find out whether or not he appears to be more alert, as a thinking being 
than he was before. And if he is, we're winning. And if he isn't, we did 
something wrong or we used the wrong process on him.

Now, that is reduction to a simplicity, but it is as simple as that. It 
really is. Your preclear that sat there and went "nyar-vroomph" and at 
the end of twenty-five hours didn't think very much had happened was 
absolutely right. Something happened to his havingness. Something 
happened to his - more important - his attention. Something must have 
happened here to knock him down during this period.

Now, the good old days, when we were having people boil off like mad, I 
actually went and tested boil-off on pcs and got records on boil-off. 
And do you know that not one single preclear was ever found to benefit 
from any boil-off?. This is a complete misconcept, that if we make them 
unconscious for a period of time - one was made unconscious, by the way, 
for 300 hours. He was run in boil-off of 300 hours from various periods 
(that was the accumulated amount of time), and he was no better at the 
end of this period than at the beginning. Has no therapeutic value.

Similarly, nothing else has any therapeutic value that does not 
immediately promote his consciousness. If we can't promote his 
consciousness, we're not promoting the preclear.

The goal of auditing is to raise the ARC of the preclear. Is this 
nebulous? No. Let's go back and look at this fundamental scale, this 
terribly fundamental scale. At the top there's Knowingness, below that 
there's Not-know, and below that there's Understand. Not-know is a 
postulate, so it's the ability to make postulates.

We're not interested, really, in the horribly complicated mechanics of 
any of that beyond this one fact: ARC are co-related, and ARC equal 
understanding. Understanding is the combination of ARC. Knowingness 
isn't the combination of ARC, you understand. Understandingness is the 
combination of ARC, because you understand something, you understand 
something. And when you just know, you know, that's all. Follow this?

So then understanding is compartmentable. And the compartmentable factor 
is the triangle, and that triangle is the ARC triangle. And if it's real 
big, if there's lots of affinity and lots of reality and lots of 
communication on the line, you say, "Mm-hm. In good shape."

Now, this is no time to go worrying about whether or not a compulsive 
outflow or something of the sort is present. Just don't worry about 
that. Communication is communication. Of course, it has its parts, but 
we understand communication. We know some guy who is rattling away at a 
mad rate and never gives us a chance to say a word in reply is not 
communicating; he's doing something else.

All right. ARC. And at the bottom of that scale is unconsciousness. And 
as we raise our pc up the scale toward knowingness, he is simply getting 
more conscious. And as we drop him down the scale, he's getting less 
conscious.

Funny part of it is, the more unconscious he gets, the more time enters 
into the situation, waitingness enters into the situation. The mechanism 
of unconsciousness is simply another way of waiting so you won't know 
about it. That's what unconsciousness is, "you won't know about it."

All right. Now, what are we stressing this simplicity for? Because I'm 
afraid it needs stressing here and there. It answers the most fantastic 
number of questions. It answers, for instance, this question that this 
auditor was up against: "How do I end a session?"

He'd say, "Well, I kind of get the process flat, but the preclear is 
still groggy."

We find the preclear was always groggy when a process was run on him. 
That's because there didn't seem to be any interest in whether or not 
the process did anything or not, you see? There was no two-way comm. The 
preclear could volunteer some information. It wouldn't be picked up. You 
were liable to get another remark on the part of the auditor.

The preclear - here was one boo-boo that I picked up that preceded the 
first anaten the preclear had had, and this boo-boo was just exactly 
this: It was a break on two-way communication, and a real simple break 
that you wouldn't think was a break at all.

The preclear said, in essence, "I think Mother didn't treat me too badly 
after all."

And the auditor said, "Well, we all come to realize things about Mother 
sooner or later."

Now, this doesn't sound like very much, does it? There was no 
acknowledgment. The auditor didn't say, "Good. Yes." He didn't receive 
the communication. He batted it back to the preclear, see? He made 
another comment. You got the idea, huh?

Preclear originated a communication, which was a bit of 
understandingness, and the auditor didn't say, "Well, fine," or anything 
like that - "Good." He didn't say, "I have received that." He gave a 
counter-communication. And we found out this auditor did that all the 
time. But that was why the preclear was anaten, not because the process 
was not working. The process wasn't making the preclear anaten, because 
the preclear couldn't say anything. A countercomment drove the preclear 
down. Get the idea?

Audience: Yes.

Now, this is very, very curious, then, that the first moment of 
analytical attenuation which was demonstrated by the preclear was 
preceded - and the auditor I was talking to about this and trying to 
explain it to him was very fighty with me right up to that point. He 
wasn't being brash; he was merely saying, "But I can't understand how 
you could possibly believe that I did anything wrong with the preclear. 
I obeyed the Auditor's Code. I ran exactly the right process," so on.

And we checked up to find exactly the moment when the preclear started 
to deteriorate, and we found out that it was a lack of an 
acknowledgment, see? It was just as fundamental as this: The 
communication line went out. And the auditor did not notice that the 
preclear had gone unconscious because of the auditing and had assumed 
that something horrible had reached up out of the depths and dregs of 
the case and had pulled the preclear down.

So we get to the next thing that the preclear decided. And the preclear 
decided this very, very glibly. Preclear decided that in view of the 
fact that the auditor always consulted him laboriously about the process 
to be run and always took the process that the preclear offered - and 
other conduct bore this out - that the auditor in this case expected the 
preclear to be responsible for his own case, and that the auditor was 
taking no responsibility for the case.

They never got a chance to run any process the auditor decided on.

The auditor didn't decide when to end sessions except by postulate.

"Well," he'd say, "I'm giving you warning" - I think that's a wonderful 
thing to use to a half-anaten preclear - " I'm giving you warning that 
I'm going to end the session shortly." You got any idea what the word 
warning kicks up in the bank? "And I give you fair warning if I..." you 
know, every fight up and down the line. "I'm warning you that I'm going 
to end this session."

Anyway, having done that, there wasn't any ending of the session. The 
preclear, you know, stayed groggy, and the comm lag stayed there, and 
the process wouldn't flatten, and the preclear stayed groggy and got 
more groggy.

And you just kept running the process and doing everything right, but 
you couldn't end the session.

Well, the auditor had an awful time with this because I kept saying, 
"All you do is throw in some two-way comm. You start discussing the 
situation."

And the auditor didn't get it that if you added some C onto this 
triangle, the preclear would come upscale, which would of course make 
him less groggy, and he would therefore be totally capable of being 
reasonable about ending the session. You get that?

But the auditor didn't follow that procedure. Having ground the process 
out to the last horrible click, but having made it obvious during the 
entire ending period of the session that it was an overt act on the part 
of the preclear because the auditor wanted to end the session. You get 
how this would be? The preclear, of course, just kept going downscale 
and getting more and more and more and more anaten.

Now, you'd think that somebody would look this over very carefully, but 
I found out, much to my surprise, that the auditor did not clearly know 
this basic fundamental: that Knowingness is at the top and 
Unconsciousness is at the bottom. And as the preclear approaches 
Unconsciousness, he's, of course, running out of affinity, reality 
(which is agreement) and communication.

Some communication which contained affinity and agreement would, of 
course, raise him up. So the preclear felt a little groggy toward the 
end of session. All the auditor had to do was talk with him about it, 
and he would have come right out of it.

Now, you get this fundamental - this fundamental scale. The preclear is 
operating on it. He is behaving according to it. He does not diverge 
from it. There aren't sudden wild variables that enter in. The preclear 
is either more alert at the end of two hours of your auditing than he 
was at the beginningjust as you see him, you understand; no factors of 
extroversion-introversion or anything else connected with it. He's just 
more alert, just as a human being, than he was at the beginning of 
session or you didn't do him any good. Fantastic, but true.

Now, quite often a preclear is doing something fantastic, and we get a 
variation of his conduct in a session. We have a preclear who is sitting 
in front of us. And we start to audit the preclear, and the very instant 
that we start to audit the preclear, the preclear seems to absolutely 
collapse as far as we're concerned. We see this occasionally. What 
happens when we do that?

This is not a very hard thing to explain. The preclear is actually 
objecting to being audited, and the social machinery is agreeing. And 
once in a while we get this wild one, but it's about the only departure. 
Right there at the beginning of the session the preclear turns on a 
whole bunch of somatics and so forth.

What are you going to do about something like that? Is there any other 
reason behind this? Yes. Simply working with the agreement of the social 
machinery and not the agreement of the preclear won't do this in its 
entirety. This preclear had to be acutely ill and wasn't talking. There 
had to be something very fundamentally physically wrong with this 
preclear to get any behavior of this character. And anything that 
happens there from there on in terms of somatics with this peculiar 
preclear is upscale.

So you want to know how bad off this preclear was? This preclear was a 
social machine. You start to wake the preclear up (snap), and they turn 
on somatics, and they go on upscale. They will also occasionally get 
groggy and go through a period of grogginess and so forth.

But just because there is this case that is better off in agony than 
they were totally numb - this preclear, by the way, that turns on the 
somatics when you get them into session and so forth, usually was an 
anesthetic case, anesthesia, a numbness of a body or area. And you start 
to make it liver, and the somatic is liver than the area was.

If you want to check this over with the preclear, you've asked the 
preclear, "All right. Do your - body have any numb areas?"

And the preclear said, "Oh, well, nothing much. My left side, of course, 
is totally numb all the time."

Well, when that left side starts to turn on, you will get somatics, do 
you see, in the preclear - hm? So that you do have an appearance there 
of the preclear going downscale when they're going upscale.

Well, it doesn't matter if that little variation works. You still check 
your
auditing. You still check as to whether or not we haven't busted this 
thing
high, wide and handsome. And the preclear who is being audited by social
agreement and not by their own agreement will thereby start out on the 
right
foot. You'll get them to agree to be audited before you're through, and 
have a
session running, and this situation will remedy itself, if you tried to 
find out.

They went anaten or they got somatics the second you started auditing 
them, then the best thing that you can do is to find out if there is 
anything wrong between auditor-preclear, session and the ARC which 
prevails on the subject of auditing. The second you try to check this 
up, you will immediately discover that there was something wrong.

Maybe one of the things that was wrong was simply that the preclear was 
acutely well - acutely paralyzed, you might say, from the knees down and 
didn't tell you. You're going to find out some more information right 
there. Your omission in that case was not knowing enough about your 
preclear.

Now, the other point - the other point is - oh, let me finish off this 
one point. Here is this scale. It goes Know, Not-know, Understand, and 
then down at the bottom is the harmonic on the Not-know, which is 
Unconsciousness. And that is all up and down the scale, marked with 
points and degrees of ARC. And that's one of these stable scales.

I found out originally that in research and investigation, whenever I 
diverged from the basic Axioms of Dianetics which were laid down - the 
dynamic principle is survive, the purpose of the mind is to pose and 
resolve problems, these various, very fundamental axioms - when I went 
astray from these various fundamental axioms, an interesting thing 
always occurred: I was wrong. I neglected some of these fundamentals, I 
was wrong. I kept these fundamentals in mind, I was right.

Well, this is one of these stable data of the auditor; this scale is a 
stable datum. And whatever else you know, if it violates this stable 
datum, it's wrong, not this scale. Get the idea? If the preclear 
apparently violates this stable datum, the preclear is wrong, stable 
datum isn't. You see that?

You can stake the case on that scale. You can say, "Well, it runs Know, 
Not-know, Understand, ARC, on down to total Unconsciousness and the 
degrees of it are so-and-so. And this preclear is behaving peculiarly 
and erratically and is changing valences, and that has nothing to do 
with this scale." Nah-ah-ah-ah. It has everything to do with that scale. 
And if you figure out the relation of the preclear's conduct to this 
stable datum, this scale, you'll all of a sudden understand the preclear 
yourself. All right.

The other thing is two-way communication. Somebody says, "Two-way 
communication is very difficult to use. It's very difficult to think of 
things to say to the preclear. It's very difficult to remember things to 
talk about," and so forth. One is having a social difficulty there, not 
an auditing difficulty. Please make the distinction. Because if you 
introduce other subjects than auditing the preclear and the preclear's 
life, very often, you're going to find out that you're off the entire 
subject of what the preclear is thinking about. You know? So it's not an 
appropriate communication. It hasn't any agreement with the 
circumstances and the time. You get your agreement factor by having your 
communication agree with what is going on.

And the preclear is too often hounded by the auditor - too often hounded 
- by this one thing: "How do you feel?" An auditor must realize this 
thing about havingness and not-havingness. A preclear's havingness can 
be cut to ribbons; and when it's cut to ribbons, his anaten increases. 
He gets more unconscious when he's losing havingness. If you're running 
processes on him which are making him lose havingness, he will become 
unconscious.

So run processes on your preclear which give him havingness if he tends 
to get a little blinky the moment that you ask him how he feels and how 
does it seem to him now, because these are as-ising processes. These are 
processes which rob him.

You say, "Well, that ordinary social convention of 'How do you feel?' 
you mean that upsets a preclear? Huh! Couldn't be." Oh, yes it does, 
because he looks himself over to some degree, and he as-ises some of 
him.

You can say, "How is it going?" You can say, "What are you doing?" You 
can say, "How are you doing it?" You can say almost anything you want to 
say except, "How does it seem to you now? How do you feel? How are you?"

He'll become very tired of that. You know why? Because it's as-ising 
what little havingness he has. And you make yourself a quarter of an 
inch of gain, and then you ask him, "How do you feel?" and you'll lose 
half an inch. See? You're not winning. Most preclears are a critical 
problem in havingness.

Now, what does this have to do with the scale? It just is that the 
preclear has a consideration that he has to have just so much to get 
along. There are some fellows that believe they have to have a million 
bucks before they can possibly eat their breakfast comfortably, and 
there are other chaps who have just a wonderful time of it if they've 
got a couple of bob in their pockets. And they think, "Boy, this is 
really fine," and they really enjoy their breakfast.

These are differences of considerations, aren't they? That's all they 
are. So one preclear believes he has to have eighty-five stone, and 
another preclear believes he has to have at least a couple of ounces of 
havingness in order to feel comfortable this morning.

But the funny part of it is, is once having made this consideration, 
they then obey it and respond to it, and they've lost the basic 
consideration. You can change it around, but they will now respond to 
it.

So you cut this fellow down below eighty-five stone, he's lost. He 
thinks he's lost a lot of havingness, and he'll start going anaten on 
you. And you cut down this other fellow's two ounces, and he'll start 
going anaten on you. You see this?

Male voice: Mm.

So when they start going anaten, one of the things that is happening is 
that they're losing some of their communication terminal - reality. 
Something is being lost there. Now, maybe they just lost an auditor 
because you made a boo-boo. But again, this is explanation of anaten by 
havingness.

When your preclear starts to finish up the session and he's groggy, you 
start talking with him. Preferably start talking with him about how he 
is doing things, what he conceives these things to mean, you know? 
That's real tricky. Throw some meaningness in there, get some more 
significance in there one way or the other.

"Well, what do you suppose that really amounts to, you know? What could 
that mean? What does that mean to you?" not "How does it seem to you?" 
Because you've got to make him go twist, twist, crick, crick, and he'll 
have a little more havingness. You get the idea?

And if worst came to worst and you'd run his havingness clean out 
through the bottom - as for lord's sakes I hope you never do - you still 
have some processes to fall back on.

He very often will fall out of the ability or not be able to do the 
thing of mocking up a mass and pulling it in on himself or pushing it in 
on himself. Very often he can't give himself havingness. You could run 
him too low or he could be too low so that he couldn't do this. But you 
can always ask him to remember something real. Not the full 
next-to-the-last list, just "Recall something real." And I've seen 
preclears do this in the worst shape you ever heard of, and it does 
remedy havingness in a moment of extremity.

Of course, it alter-ises a not-is, and that will create mass. They're 
not just pulling in old facsimiles, they're actually creating new mass. 
They have to alter-is (remember) the not-is of forget in order to get 
the isness of known, you see? And it actually does remedy havingness. 
You can keep it up for quite some time, and your preclear is not upset 
by it. Very often it will communicate.

Now, if you are running Separateness and your preclear starts to go 
anaten or suddenly starts to pull back or move in some peculiar fashion, 
you will conceive that he has lost some havingness. He pulled out of an 
engram. He didn't spot some separateness in it. He pushed some energy 
around and, by heat loss, lost some havingness. You better stand by to 
remedy havingness whenever you're running anything that might upset the 
preclear's havingness.

How do you run havingness? There are many ways to do it. The time to run 
havingness is when the preclear is still able to run it, not when you 
get him down to the extremity of remembering something real.

All right. Do you see that there is a basic fundamental by which to 
compare the results, by which to compare other data on a case, that you, 
trying to convince some auditor that he ought to become a better 
auditor, could show him rather easily and keep him from getting involved 
in thousands of data? Just make sure he knows this one fundamental 
spectrum, you might say, of the preclear, and he will come out in the 
clear, and his auditing will better.

And it's up to us to make sure that everybody is auditing just about as 
well as anybody possibly could, because only in that way are we going to 
make forward progress. Okay?

Audience: Yeah.

Thank you.

Audience: Thank you.

