From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Wed Mar 17 14:40:10 1999
Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!newsfeed.nyu.edu!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news.he.net!news.lava.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x2!mail2news
Date: 17 Mar 1999 21:40:10 -0000
Subject: FZ BIBLE 3/35 SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT 9TH ACC
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service to
	<squirrel-admin@echelon.alias.net>. The message sender's identity
	is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable.
Message-ID: <0743da0b93b211546b053904fc7c71df@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 1355
Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:690344 alt.clearing.technology:76239

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

9th ACC - THE SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT CASSETTES 3/35

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But the Christians are not good and obedient Jews and yet
are allowed to have their old testament regardless of any
Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

**************************************************


9TH ACC CONTENTS

December 1954 to January 1955 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Based on the solution to entrappment cassette version.

F# = File number (** = not available)
O# = Original Number (according to the master list posted by Pilot)
REN = As renumbered in the Solution to Entrappment cassettes

F# O#  REN  DATE  TITLE

01  1   1  Dec  6 Introduction to 9th ACC: Havingness
02  2   2  Dec  7 The Essence of Auditing, Know to Mystery Scale
03  3   3  Dec  8 Rundown on Six Basics
04  4   4  Dec  9 Communication Formula
05  5   5  Dec 10 The Practice of Dianetics and Scientology
06  6   6  Dec 13 Conduct of the Auditor
07  7   7  Dec 14 Mechanics of Communication
08  8   8  Dec 15 Havingness
09  9   9  Dec 16 Pan-determinism and One-way Flows
10  9A 10  Dec 17 Hist. & Dev. of Processes: Games & Limitations in Games
11  9B 10A Dec 17 History and Development of Processes: Q&A Period
12 10  11  Dec 20 Games (Fighting)
13 11  12  Dec 21 Anatomy of Games -- Part I
14 11A 12A Dec 21 Anatomy of Games -- Part II
15 12  13  Dec 22 One-way Flows in Processing
16 12A 13A Dec 22 One-way Flows in Processing: Question and Answer Period
17 13  14  Dec 23 Havingness and Communication Formulas
** 13A --  Dec 23 After Lecture Comments   
18 14  15  Dec 24 Pan-determinism
19 14A 15A Dec 24 Pan-determinism: Question and Answer Period
20 15  16  Dec 27 Training New People
** 15A --  Dec 27 Curiosa from Dianetics 55!
21 16  17  Jan  3 Auditing Requirements, Differences
22 16A 18  Jan  4 Time
** 16AA -  Jan  4 Q&A Period
23 17  19  Jan  5 Auditing at Optimum
24 18  20  Jan  6 Exteriorization
25 19  21  Jan  7 Elementary Material: Know to Mystery Scale
26 20  22  Jan 10 Education: Goals in Society -- Adult Education
27 21  23  Jan 11 Fundamentals of Auditing
** 21A --  Jan 11 Auditors' Conference
28 22  24  Jan 12 Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part I
29 23  25  Jan 13 Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part II
30 24  26  Jan 14 Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part III
31 25  27  Jan 17 Auditing Demonstration: Six Basics in Action
** 25A --  Jan 17 Auditors' Conference
32 26  28  Jan 18 Auditing Demonstration: Spotting Spots
** 26A --  Jan 18 Auditors' Conference
33 27  29  Jan 19 Auditing Demonstration: Exteriorization
34 28  30  Jan 20 Background Music to Living
35 29  31  Jan 21 Axioms: Laws of Consideration -- What an Axiom Is

Note that 6 of the 9 discussion periods (Q&A periods, Auditors'
Conferences, etc.) were omitted from the cassettes, leaving us
with only 35 files instead of the 41 that were recorded.  It is
also possible that material was edited out of the lectures which
are available.  If anyone has a set of the original reels, please
post any missing material.

========================

9ACC file 3/35

9th ACC - 3: RUNDOWN ON SIX BASICS

Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC03    -   
5412C08 3rd of 35 talks given in Phoenix, Arizona to the
students of the 9th Advanced Clinical Course between 6
December 1954 and 21 January 1955


RUNDOWN ON SIX BASICS

A lecture given on 8 December 1954


We are going right in here for blood on the subject of
these basic six processes, give them a very, very fast
spin. You have heard of them, you know something about
them. We are going to give them a fast spin through just to
make sure that you are cognizant of them.

You are going to be expected to train people. When you
train people in Dianetics or Scientology today, that is,
those - the branch of this science which is applied to man,
you see - anyplace Dianetics or Scientology was to apply to
man - boy, you've really got to know those six processes.

This is so much the case that you, in training somebody to
a grade - because you'll undoubtedly be granted the right to
train - in training somebody to the grade of HCA or HDA
(they can have those degrees at their election), you will
be expected to expect of them perfect performance on the
basic six processes.

Now, that is so much the case that today, Bob was sitting
down there, just taken over as Director of Processing, he
has instructions and is carrying out these instructions
that any preclear who walks in through the front door of
the HDRF or HASI shall have run upon him the Six Basic
Processes and nothing else.

And that is so rigorous that if an auditor brought in to
audit an HASI preclear were to depart from these six
processes, he would forfeit his fee. That is just bluntly
that; I mean, he would just forfeit it, that's all. No
argument concerning this.

Why is this? Because we have found that uniformly clear
across the field from one end to the other, on - in various
continents and so on, that where it comes to living,
breathing man, these six processes regardless of any theory
or rationale that you could apply to them, these six
processes crack cases and exteriorize people.

Now, there are seventy-five processes, but all these
seventy-five processes are variations on these six
processes, one way or the other. Very fascinating here
that we have six processes which in the hands of auditors
working on miscellaneous preclears, odds and ends
everywhere, produce results. Now, you take it this way: You
take a poll of preclears, just take a big poll of preclears
who have been run a long time in Dianetics and Scientology,
see, we take this big poll, and maybe these people have had
twenty-five, maybe have had fifty, maybe have had two
hundred hours. Maybe they have had a lot of old-time
auditing and you know, clear back to Book One.

And we would take a poll of these people and what do we
discover? We discover that their case took a change on some
odd process or another, they'll mark down some odd process,
their case took a change, you know, Black and White
Processing; they got a marked change on this. And then they
will mark down one of the basic six or all of them.

And you look at the next sheet, the next check sheet on a
system like this, and you look at that, and you will find
out that they got some kind of a random change when they
were run on GITA, Expanded GITA, GITA applied specifically
to money, they got quite a change on their case with this.
They remember they did this. But the major change on the
case occurred with one of the basic six processes.

As we go across the boards we discover that the common
denominator of processes to preclears who had received
change from auditing are the basic six; those are the
common denominators; it's that level. Those processes are
very important because they represent themselves a Tone
Scale of processes, and they are very precisely placed on
the Tone Scale and the various variations of these six
processes make up all the auditing there is.

But these six processes done in a completely pure,
unaltered state, have uniformly produced results on
preclears. We can with great confidence, then, have a
preclear walk in the front door at the HASI, assign him to
an auditor, start supervising this auditor, make sure that
this auditor goes through, make sure he picks up all the
pieces and that he makes no boo-boos on the basic six
processes. And we know at the end of a period of time - and
remember that period of time can vary pre clear to preclear; 
it varies as the preclear goes further on down the
Tone Scale, the time goes longer but - because you are
working on basically time factors - we can be sure that at
the end of the assigned period of time, whether that
assigned period of time was 12 hours or 50 hours or 180
hours, that we will have a very markedly changed individual.

Not necessarily true that these processes used on students
by students do a great deal for a case. This is not
necessarily true. Students are able to enter in enough
randomity, enough interesting curlicues, quirks, knocking
over beds, falling outdoors, being bored with the
situation, having just been audited themselves, they are in
a chronic state of restimulation as they are trying to
audit somebody. And their interest in the case is very
poor. But that isn't the main thing that holds up student
auditing. The main thing that holds it up is all the
students know that all the students are students. And that
is what holds it up.

We have this factor with us always in any class or any
unit; any class. It should be present much less so in a
unit like this where everyone is pretty well trained.
There - they had a lot of auditing background. The point that
we will find going astray in a unit like this is too much
experience and too much conviction. And we will
occasionally find somebody who, well, the auditor knows,
and probably quite rightly, exactly what will crack the
case in terms of 1952 processes. He knows he has cracked
cases with this and he will run this process.

And you will find this student preclear, who is also a
student, knows that is not what has been assigned. And of
course will freeze up, say this auditor is incapable of
following instructions and he will consider this a huge
boo-boo and quit. And then everyone is very alive and very
alert to the Auditor's Code and you would have to work
like mad to break the Auditor's Code on the average
preclear that you pull off the street. You would just have
to work hard to break an Auditor's Code. You'd have to
really be flagrant.

But I have seen Auditor Code breaks reported which
consisted of "He sneezed." It was a code break. He - oh, yes.
"He really broke the code because he refused and wouldn't
run the process that he should have been running that
week," regardless of what the auditor thought the preclear
ought to have run on him. You see, this auditor was
supposed to be auditing something or other and he didn't
audit this on this preclear, and this preclear knew he
should have been auditing this, so the preclear says
"Ah-ha! An Auditor Code break, he's not running the right
process."

Everybody is training everybody all the time. Everybody has
a big critical idea of everybody all the time. And so you
get a very peculiar brand of auditing. You see auditing at
its very worst in one of these units.

Anybody who joins a unit to get processing, if he isn't
crazy to begin with, is liable to be at the end of the unit.

But the funny part of it is, the very, very funny part of
it is, is there is no substitute for going through one of
these units and watching all of the boo-boos and having
them happen and unhappen and so forth. If an individual
stays with it, he recognizes several things, and one of
those things is that bad auditing doesn't necessarily
butcher him. It takes the importance off of this.

Instructional auditing doesn't necessarily kill him, and he
finds out at once how bad auditing can be and what a
thoroughly upsetting result you can sometimes get by
auditing something incorrectly. He discovers that
subjectively, which is a very interesting way to discover
it, and practically the only way there is to discover it.

And the other, other thing that he learns, of course, is
the reverse of that: That even though it is very bad, it
still won't kill him. This is heartening.

Now, you take a unit such as this; there isn't a person
present here who hasn't been pretty well trained one way or
the other, who isn't pretty well conversant with the
old-time methods and various things like that. And most
everybody is fairly wise about these new processes that we
have been using, and even some here have been very
thoroughly trained in these six basic processes. So
therefore our job is primarily to make good auditors. Do
you get the idea? That's our job. Now, it wouldn't matter
how good a fellow was, he could always be a better auditor.
Now, I am always - when I'm ten feet back of my head auditing
somebody, I am always aware of the fact that I could be
doing a better job of auditing. I can pick up my own flaws
and quirks and things I do wrong and correct them and carry
them around.

I was doing a job of auditing just before I came to class
here, for instance. And I was a little bit abstracted,
because there were several very pressing items which were
waiting just outside the door to drop in my lap and several
other things were going on. And I suddenly recognized that
I was not doing - and that I had been consistently doing one
error in auditing.

If you want to do a perfect job of auditing or even close
to perfect, there is several various little rules to
follow, and one of them is "every moment is separate from
every other moment." If you want to define sanity, sanity
is a state in which every moment is separate from every
other moment. Insanity is a state where all moments are the
same moment. Got that? That is a very handy definition. All
right.

Now, when we say to a preclear "Let's look for some
things." the way we have to do, see, in Group Processing,
"Let's look for some things which aren't going to eat you."
You know, just make him look at the walls or something. And
he does silently, he checks over, you see that he is
checking them over and then you say "Give me some more
things." and you do this in an individual session, you are
wasting one of the primary, one of the primary things in
individual auditing.

An individual auditing can monitor each and every
individual preclear. And in monitoring each and every
individual preclear we discover that each instant is going
to be separate from every other instant.

(original recording stopped for a moment, because of the noise)

Each and every second, each and every instant is a separate
instant. You see that stuff over there; that wall? Do you
know that that thing actually and basically is there all
the time because all instants are there? It's because all
of its instants are the same instant. That wall is forever.
That isn't a thin strata on the time track which is moving
forward in time along with you. This is quite a basic and
interesting discovery if you can grasp it.

It always has been there; it always will be there as far as
the unit materials are concerned. It hasn't got any time!
That's the trouble with it. And if you can tolerate
something which is a total time, you can't get back of the
time of that wall, you can't get forward of the time of
that wall, you see? Because that wall is a forever. You see
that?

Now, just reverse your ideas of time, thinking that that
wall is giving you a time track by ticking off and moving.
No, no, the only way you ever get any time at all is by
making a consideration there is time. And you go on
considering there is time - why you go on considering there
is time. But this wall - I know those orbits travel around in
very precise ways and all of that sort of thing, and it all
seems to be perfectly timed. This is highly questionable.
That is - that is terrifically theoretical.

Do you know that nobody has ever watched, ever watched the
"L" orbit of anything. Nobody has ever seen this. They see
the Earth go around the sun on a time basis, and they
change every week - certainly oftener than a lot of these
nuclear physicists change their underwear - they change their
theory about the structure and formation and motion of the
atom. It's a - it's curious. It's weird, because they have
been going on the basis that time comes off of that wall.

That is why people are daffy. That is why people in the
sciences, in biology, that is why they think man comes from
mud and all the rest of it. They think time comes off of
this matter, this space. They think it does the timing. Oh,
no, it doesn't. Not even vaguely.

The only thing that does any timing is life. And if you can
look at this and you understand it, you have got a reverse
look really at what has been the popular scientific
concept. We see the sun rising and setting; so therefore we
know time has occurred. Well, it would be all right if we
didn't have that word know in there. If we said "The sun is
rising and setting and therefore time has occurred," we are
utterly incorrect. "The sun is rising and setting, and
therefore we know time has occurred," is correct. Know
time has occurred. We have occurred; action is taking place.

Do you see this clearly? It's a little bit hard to grasp.
You have to kind of get audited into it sometimes. But all
of a sudden it becomes very clear. You say, "Holy Cats!
Thme is a consideration." You look at this stuff around
here, it is going glug, glunk.

Now, one of the things is time has assumed an automaticity
as far as science is concerned. Science believes that time
is this terrific automaticity, see. And if the sun is going
around its axis and the Earth is going around the sun - and
that this automaticity finally enforces time upon us.

And if you want to get ahold of an E-Meter or do some
remembering, you will discover planet-builder incidents,
system builders. It is quite curious; life has actually
agglomerated the material which makes up the sun and the
Earth. They have set these things into motion. They have
been set into motion. They are energy which is being swung
by life. And if life took no further interest in it at
any - of any kind, it wouldn't go on swinging. Believe me.

Science has taken a backwards look at this. It is a little
bit hard at first maybe to grasp the fact that time is a
consideration. But let's look at it this way and you can
see it immediately. An individual begins to depend more and
more upon clocks, watches, the position of the sun, he
begins to believe more and more that these things are
giving him a timing - that they are delivering into his hands
a timing - and he goes nuttier and nuttier. Let's watch that
one. Why?

He'll get more and more jammed; he has less and less time.
You can see that one take place. Just take somebody who
has - who has been utterly dependent on clocks or even the
sun, and we take a look at him and we find out that he is
not the free spirit which he once was.

See, the more we depend upon the MEST universe to give us
time, the nuttier we get, the less decision we have. Why?
Because we have had - it has aggregated to itself a function
which can be performed only by life, you see? Life keeps
giving it this function and says "Look, this is time." Life
gives it the function in order to have an agreement on time
passage so that you and I both know what time you and I are
in. It doesn't have anything to do with it.

You and I agree that there is time passage going on. We
say, "Look at this motion which we have started here. All
right, now, as this motion keeps taking place and so on, we
will say - we will consider that a motion is taking place.
You and I will both consider this motion is taking place
and therefore at this uniform rate which we have both
carefully concentrated on, and so forth, will be a rate of
agreement on which you and I can talk, converse or shoot at
each other."

You understand this, then, that at the mo - . The less an
individual is in control of, the less an individual depends
upon some other exterior force to give him time, the more
difficult this individual's case is.

You just look at your worse off preclears and you will find
out that they're - it is impossible to get them there for
appointments. They just don't - they just slop all around.

A psychotic one; he doesn't know whether it is midnight or
Christmas. You told him to come in at 2:00; he wouldn't
know anything about it.

Now, let's look at it the other way. If this is the case
then is there a process by which we could simply tell a
fellow "Postulate some time. Postulate some more time.
Postulate some more time. Postulate some more time." Yes,
there is such a postulate. There is such a process. It's
one of the more rugged processes you would want to
undertake. It is not one of the basic six processes. It's
too rugged. You put this process around there; you put this
process around some neurotic pc or something like that and
you are going to have time on your hands because he hasn't
got any on his.

It is just like - there's a very silly process, a very
interesting process whereby you have a person who is having
mechanical difficulties, you know, they go out and they
start a motor and then it kills. And they start it again
and it kills. And they start it again and it kills. And
then they run down their battery and then it won't run at
all and then they get their battery charged up again. And
then they make sure that they don't get the oil changed or
they make sure that the wrong oil goes in or something is
going to happen so they start the motor and it kills. And
they start it and it kills.

There are such people around. We have them in the
organization occasionally, and the machinery doesn't
operate in their vicinity. We had one recently; it's quite
amusing. Machinery just didn't operate around this fellow
and so he is not handling it anymore. Anyhow, we didn't
bother to run this process on him; we should have.

The HASI to some slight degree is the case of the cobbler's
children; they never have shoes.

So, here we have this process, we took it on a person
who - whose case has always been a little bit boggy and we
found out he had a little difficulty with this so we didn't
care what we did to him because it was just investigation
we were conducting. And we pegged his - . Everybody becomes
expendable in that particular field. So we took this
process and handed the fellow an object and said "How many
problems can this object be to you?" See, of course, this
immediately ties in with the automobile that won't start
and the machines that won't run and so forth.

He's - he hasn't got - he has a scarcity of problems as far as
objects are concerned, see. So "How many problems can this
object be to you?" Well, this fellow went on and on and he
was audited several hours on this process and at the end of
that time he opined like it could be an awful lot of
problems to him. He finally came to that consideration. It
could be - there could be quite a lot problems. He didn't
think it could be an infinity of problems yet but it was
the end of the auditing session and the auditor turned him
loose and then didn't get around to him again for about two
weeks.

And this fellow had nightmares. This fellow had the most
difficult time you ever saw with his breathing, with his
heart action. He just had - was having a ball with the
thetan's own machinery, see. He - we at least brought him up
to a point of where he didn't think he was going to have
any - we had just brought him up to a point where we didn't
think he could have any more problems, we weren't going to
allow him to have any more problems evidently with material
objects, so therefore he was going to take his own
machinery and he was really going to fix it up.

Now, most thetans are in this state; they are gumming up
their - at least their thetan machinery. Their machinery
cannot be enough problems to them.

Well, we just went back with the old adage, you see, That
the process that turns on a somatic will turn it off" And
we went back, took exactly the same object in the same
auditing room and continued the process for another fifteen
hours: "How many problems can this object be to you?" Now,
this individual was in foul condition, you see. We didn't
have any business running such a process on him at all, but
investigation, as I have said, you have to find out where
processes won't work.

And what do you know, what do you know. We got away with
it. We actually got away with it. It's very possible, from
this and two other tests, that we could get away with this
at every level that we applied it. But it certainly takes
long enough and it produces some of the most fantastic comm
lags on your lower-levels cases. So therefore, there are
other things you can do. Even before you can run this
process you have to get him into communication, of course.
Now, the individual who is having his facsimiles go wild in
front of his face is getting drifting fields, is doing all
sorts of weirdities of this character. Let's just put him
into the bracket of "How many problems can his machinery
be to him." And we could put him in that bracket and we
find out that this is very much the case with this
individual. He can't have any more problems. Nobody will
let him have any more problems with material machinery.
See, he isn't permitted to break any of that down or do
anything wrong with it. He is supposed to make that run.
And he falls back and gets covert, and he drops back and
starts lousing up his own bank.

And every time you have a disobeying piece of machinery
it's because the individual has - I mean, this is the reason
why. I mean, we are not giving you one of; a lot of stuff;
because this works it out, so it must be the reason why - he
just hasn't enough problems on the subject of his bank and
so he's making it do all sorts of problems to him now. A
theoretical process which is offered there is a - well, it
offers just tremendous variations. "How many problems could
machinery be to you - your machinery be to you?" "How many
problems could eyesight be to you?" "How many problems
could hearing be to you?" "How many problems could this,
could that," - anything you could think of under the sun,
moon and stars - we could run into this type of process.

Well, what kind of a process is it? Where does it belong in
the scale of the Six Basic Processes? Well, oddly enough it
belongs in the first data bank. We have taken some real
rough cases, three to be exact. It is pretty hard to find
real, honest-to-goodness rough cases that stay rough these
days. They snap on up to "Just won't progress out of pure
cussedness."

But the guy who is really worried, who is haunted, who goes
in houses and glances behind doors, who is desperately
afraid he is going to fall off the sidewalk, who is certain
that the federal government has his brain wired by Western
Union to get all of his secrets; these guys are scarce.
They get around here, you start to get into communication
with them. That is the basic processes which breaks up
psychosis and that is the end of the psychotic. Now, we - if
we get into communication with them, then get them into
communication with walls, and psychosis is not longer a
problem. It might take quite a while to do this, but
actually nowhere near the estimate that you would have made
in the yesterdays of Dianetics and Scientology.

For instance, a girl we are processing right now. We got an
hour-long comm lag out of her - yesterday - it is a curious
thing; do you know that this girl has never comm lagged
before; not worth a nickel. The auditor was running this
girl's machinery exclusively. See, the auditor sort of took
over the body and the machinery was running it and this
case is only about fifteen or twenty hours deep. And all of
a sudden we run into this hour-long comm lag on 8-C,
Opening Procedure. You see? The case just stand back and
looks at this wall for one hour and finaly goes over and
touches the wall. The first time the person had touched the
wall herself See, I mean we were getting a shift there, a
very violent shift.

Well, we speak of this whole thing about problems; problems
are so basic to human problems and so basic to answers and
so basic to case solutions that we just throw this right in
there with two-way communication. I told you yesterday that
a two-way communication is very necessary; that
communication which has not become a two-way communication
but is still a one-way communication Will go on to the end
of the universe, see. It Will go on forever. That is an
engram bank and so forth. It should have been a two-way
Communication; it is only a one-way Communication yet. And
it is still a one-way communication until somebody audits
it because there isn't anybody there to answer anymore.

And you - you shot - well, let's look at the overt
act-motivator sequence. We are familiar with this old
mechanism, you know, guys get guilty consciousnesses and
all of this. They get guilt feelings and shame, blame,
regret, all of this mechanism. We find out that an
individual who is complaining about his father, his father,
his father, his father, his father, his father, his father,
his father, his father, his father and his father did this
and his father spanked him.

I even had a preclear get so desperate because he couldn't
interest me in this subject of how bad his father was, tell
me that his father had been - habitually practiced coitus
with him from the ages of eight till twelve, and I thought
this is really going a long way. So at that time I alerted
enough realizing that this was really getting spinny - I
alerted enough to at least straightwire out the overt acts
against Papa. Of course, we immediately got a flip as far
as the case was concerned; this fellow changed and he knew
he had changed; he knew something had happened and so
forth. We found out that about a year or so before he came
to me for auditing, he had beaten his father to a bloody
pulp. Father had come in, his father was drunk and he
himself had had a few drinks, and the old man by this time
was about 85 and he wailed into his father and he beat him
up just for stumbling around the house. Sent him to the
hospital with a broken jaw. This guy had been an awfully
sick mental case ever since, see?

And his father was so bad and his father was so bad. What
he was trying to do without doing it well or technically
was wrack up enough over... - motivators, you see, to have
justified this overt act, but they were on the wrong part
of the time track.

Well, now what is this overt act-motivator sequence but a
one-way communication. Do you see that? It's just a
one-way communication.

Now, if his father, with a broken jaw, had suddenly gotten
up off the floor, had picked up a club or knuckle-dusters
or something of the sort and worked this guy over and
broken his jaw, you would have had no aberrative factor in
the incident at all. "Oh, so we broke each other's jaw
today." Two-way communication would have occurred.

Now, a soldier on the battlefield is very often in a happy
carefree state. He's shooting enemy troops and he's
shooting enemy troops and he's shooting enemy troops.
Supposing he found out 24 hours after he had shot twelve
enemy soldiers that the enemy had not shot anybody on his
side for several days. There was an armistice or something
in progress. Well, he might have shot two hundred before
that time, but he would go on till his old age feeling
like, well, he just shouldn't have shot those twelve
soldiers, see. I have run into cases like this. One fellow,
one fellow was on detached duty in World War I and had shot
down a plane well after the armistice. A plane came over
flying very pretty and the guy shot it down. No two-way
communication was available there, see. The guy wasn't
shooting back, wasn't in a warlike state of mind. Well,
however many things he had done before that time, that one
stuck. In other words, we didn't have a two-way
communication so we had a hang-up.

You can almost say, then, that in the absence of a two-way
communication you get a hang-up of some sort or another on
the track, and there's always something waiting for that
answer. The bank is waiting for the answer. The fellow
wracks it up waiting for the answer. Two-way communication
has not occurred.

So an individual on a two-way communication gets into a
state where he does not expect any answer will ever occur
from anybody and where he feels no answer of any kind is
expected from himself. And this is worsened by the fact
that within his own machinery and within his own body he
begins to believe that no communication is ever to be
expected from his bank and therefore any communication that
comes from it is a - is a surprise or an upset.

Yet, if he, out of a scarcity of living beings to talk to,
goes into communication with his bank, like a prospector
starts talking to burros, you know, and if he doesn't have
a - . Prospectors who take burros along with them stay fairly
sane; prospectors who take no burros around, everybody
knows they're crazy; there's nobody to talk to and they go
around talking to themselves.

I ran into a fellow in the middle of New York, not in the
middle of the Southwest, who walked into the restaurant,
sat down, got up, pulled out a chair, evidently sat in a - it
was in the Horn and Hardarts there on Broadway, that's
just above, I think it is just above 44th, the Horn and
Hardarts on - this guy is - up in the upper second floor - 
and this guy sat this imaginary person down and started to
argue and he got more and more violent and he got more and
more angry and he would wait for replies and then he would
beat the table and he would get more angry about this whole
thing. And in the meanwhile, however, he pushed over a bowl
of soup and a couple of other items in front of this
imaginary person. And then finally he pulled them back and
wouldn't let the other person - quote - unquote have the
bowl of soup. And he got more and more violent and more and
more violent and he finally picked up his own chair by the
top and brought it down with a crash on the empty chair.
Got his overcoat and flounced out. The most terrific
conversation I ever saw in my life. It must have been a
two-way communication of some kind or another.

You could attribute this simply to this fact: Somewhere in
that man's life there was a tremendous scarcity of
communication.

Now, what happens when a person loses an ally? Let's take
Book One. What happens when a person loses an ally, huh?
There is no further communication with that ally, is
there? So this is real bad, isn't it? We get a stop of
communication in this particular level; no more
conversation with the departed ally. This would be
perfectly all right if there were other terminals around to
communicate with. But supposing one had only been in good
two-way communication with this one ally, huh? And then
there were no other people around there to talk with which
made a great scarcity of communication. The individual will
hang on this ally and later on, still lacking people to
talk to, the individual will, very likely, conjure up the
ally or a mythical person to stand in his vicinity to talk
to. You will hear them later on having guardian angels and
all kinds of mock-ups of this character.

Well, a thetan starts talking to his own machinery; a
thetan starts talking to his own machinery, he is in bad
shape because that machinery is never going to answer back
anything more what he put into it.

Now, he could go right ahead and duplicate somebody. You
know, he could make another being, no doubt, with full
facilities and so forth, and have somebody to talk to, but
he doesn't do this. He has lost the facility or he believes
there's too much life on Earth or something of the sort; he
will start talking to his machinery.

And you get a guy that is self-auditing; he is triggering
some sort of a machine and then it triggers back at him and
then he triggers at it and it triggers back at him. There
is nothing happening there. I mean, it will just go on
forever until eventually the machine breaks down or
something occurs. Because it isn't a two-way communication;
it's a one-way communication and he knows it as well as
anybody else.

So the situation I said would go on forever. That is
incorrect. The situation would break down somewhere. The
machine would get bad off. The machine would break
something, your boy would get occluded. Something is liable
to occur here. Why? Because of a one-way communication.

Let's look at the condition - well, let's - let's look at
something I'm very intimately acquainted with: data on the
subject of the human mind. I was not even vaguely in any
poor position on this subject in 1932, simply because I
didn't know that the data was missing in the textbooks and
library - to a very marked degree was missing. The case
histories which had been accumulated, the data which had
been amassed and so forth, had all been very, very
carelessly done. This was a horrible botch job. But I
didn't know it in 1932. I went on in a happy way that
everybody was going to communicate with me on the subject
if I communicated with them. And then I started talking to
psychologists, one-way communication. That's a horrible
state of affairs.

I know nothing drearier than trying to sell a psychologist
on the idea that something can be done for the mind or to
it. He is in the darnedest state of defeat you ever saw in
your life. He will give you all sorts of arguments,
authorities, castoffs of one kind or another but they all
amount to the same thing; he, you know, he knows nobody is
any good. He'll give you a bunch of sales talk, maybe, but
he basically is talking from a defeated point of view. So
you don't have a terminal if you, yourself, know you are
just getting along famously on the subject and somebody
else isn't. Well, a one-way communication is a liability as
long as you do not know the rules and laws underlying
one-way and two-way communication, then it ceases to be a
liability.

I can go on. I had a student over in London, a long time
ago, come up to me after a lecture and he says to me, "My
God, Ron, how can you go on talking on this subject," and
so forth. "I suddenly realized that nobody ever talks to
you from the same duplicated point."

"Well," I says, "but they do."

"No. No. No. No. They don't."

"Well, all right, what is the matter?"

"Well," he says, "it makes..." He was talking about a one
flow, one-way flow, and its difficulties and so forth, "and
you are - you are an example of it, is that right?"

"Well, why aren't you an example of it?"

"Because I know what a one-way flow is, of course! How
could I possibly be upset about it?"

And as a matter of fact, these days, here, of very recent
times, auditors working in the field of the mind, working
along this line, have gotten so darned smart that there
isn't even a vaguely one-way communication going these days.

But knowing the mecharnsm takes the curse off of anything.

The only way the stage magician can interest or befog his
audience, and so on, is by doing something quickly that is
evidently against the agreement of the audience, do you
see? And then the audience sits there and boggles and will
worry about that trick. "How did he make those elephants
disappear? Let's see how... so-so-so-so.

Probably, if it was really as spectacular as that - two
elephants were standing out there in the middle of the
stage and all of a sudden they weren't there - why you would
have people going on talking about this and talking about
this. They still talk about Houdini getting out of boxes
underneath the water, and so forth. "How did he do these
things?" And of course, Houdini wrote a book and, like
Edgar Allen Poe, never told any of the secrets of his
trade. The very silliest thing in the world is somebody
like Edgar Allen Poe or Houdini actually sitting down to
write a book on exactly how he does it.

People knowing that look at anybody in the field of
development or research, and so on, and they get suspicious
of them. And they say, "Well, now look, he couldn't write -
really possibly be telling you what he is doing."

But in view of the fact that the - the stage is not set here
simply to produce phenomena, you see, and befog and
bedazzle, we have a rather comfortable time of it. Nothing
very horrible takes place. But it certainly could, you    
see, if there was this sleight of hand, behind-the-scenes 
kind of an activity going on.

Well, very often a student is so accustomed to somebody who
does know something doing so much of this sleight of hand
stuff, you know. "Now you see the jack of spades, you know,
and there you see the king of hearts and, uh, and I have no
cards. And you see, they are not up my sleeves."

And he's used to being befogged like this, so he is always
looking to be told something fantastic or fabulous, you
see, that just breaks down everything else that's been
said. So as a matter of fact, then he begins to discount
everything that's been taught on the subject, you see, and
waits for a single trick, or something of the sort, that
really was the trick. Well, he gets caught in this same
mechanism of watching Houdini, you see, something of this
sort. Houdini is there to befoggle them, to upset them, one
way or another, and stick them on the track. Do you get
that? Houdini is there to stick them on the track. Don't
ever forget that when you examine the subject of interest.
The fellow who is trying to be very, very interesting and
who is himself being capable of being interested is only
interested in sticking somebody; stopping them. It's a
fascinating, fascinating thing.

Well, let's get back to this one-way flow. Now, no one-way
flow is possible here. In every unit that has gone through,
I have learned thoroughly as much from the students as they
have learned from me; this is a cinch. This is why we get
modifications. Basic theory is not altered but application
has - thoroughness of application. What can the student
learn? All kinds of bric-a-brac, and so forth, has altered.
You are getting the benefit right now of a great many
clinical units in which this has been thoroughly hashed
over. This isn't a one-way communication we are doing here,
and don't think of it in that fashion.

But the thing that sticks this trick is the fact that it's
a one-way communication. The second you know exactly how
he made the two elephants disappear there is no longer any
stuck, is there? So there's that mechanism senior to this
mechanism of a stuck flow or a one-way communication, see?

If you understood the mechanisms attendant to a one-way
communication and a two-way communication, if you
understood these thoroughly, you would never stick on a
one-way commumcation. Everything is basically
consideration and these are the basic considerations which
go to make up the track. There must be a two-way
communication is one of them. We don't know why except it's
- just is. Everybody has got that consideration, you see,
"There should be a two-way communication."

All right, so if they don't know the mechanisms of a
communication, then they are subject to this one-way
communication mechanism, so they have looked at MEST,
looked at MEST - .

Let me show you some examples of this. They have looked at
MEST and looked at MEST and looked at MEST. Has it ever
looked at them? Well, occasionally a mirror does. That's
about all, that's about all. Once in a while a river does
if it is very quiet; a lake. But has it really looked at them?

All right, you've given the body orders, you've given it
orders, you've given it orders, you've given it orders,
you've given it orders, you've given it orders. Is anything
around a body who will give anything else any orders,
really? Not unless we invent some; not unless we invent
some. We can then say, "Look how this body is giving me
orders. It is moving me around in time and place. It's
doing all this sort of thing." You know, no-responsibility,
no-responsibility.

Just a-this is just subsequent to this stuck flow, one-way
communication. See? We get a one-way communication, a
one-way communication, a one-way communication. Eat, sleep,
walk, make love, smile, dance, move, sit still, eat, sleep,
dress, brush your teeth. Dah! Dah! Dah! See? Always just
one-way. Does the body ever say, "Well, I don't know
whether I will brush my teeth or not." Does it ever do
that? No it doesn't. Has it ever said to you, "Thetan!
Brush your teeth!" Not unless you said it first. Mirror
trick, see, mirror trick.

Now, you actually could make the body talk back to you,
apparently, by picking up an old-time facsimile of what you
have said to the body or that somebody said to it. You can
make a page talk to you simi]arly. Somebody said something
to the page 50 now the page can say something to you but
you know that isn't a communication, you see. It isn't a
basic flow life to life unless you really realize that you
are talking with Epicurus, or somebody, when he wrote on
that page, you see. The - if you get into the silly notion
that the page is talking to you, you'll get your nose stuck
in a book, just literally, see.

The - the bibliophile, he collects books, he's collecting
books, he's collecting books, he's collecting books. What
do they say? He doesn't know.

I went into a movie star's home one time and this person
had evidently been collecting books and collecting books
and collecting books, and there was a library of
considerable size, and boy did it have books in it, and so
forth. And I thought, "Well, gee, that is just dandy I am
going to have a good time over this weekend after all; and
nice quiet places around here to read a book." So I reached
up, poor fool that I am, to pull one of these books off of
the shelf - they were all dummies. But, they were just the
backs, millions of backs the place had in it, evidently.
Anyhow - just like the girl! So - nothing but back. I remember
that star but I won't give her away.

The point here is that one-way communication will stick
somebody. Now, this is a basic, cardinal rule. If you don't
know all the mechanisms of communication, if you don't
know what communication is all about, if you don't know
what two-way communication is all about, if you don't
realize a communication will hang up - the way people stick
is determined by the one-way flow. This is the stuck
mechanism. It is a one-way flow with no reply. And that is
a stick. That's how a person gets into a body. That is how
a person gets to be a denizen of Earth. That is how a
person gets into this system or this galaxy or this
universe. The one thing which this universe does not do is
answer back. It makes you answer yourself back when you are
talking to it. And an individual can make the mistake of
talking to it, not through it.

Now, I can talk to you through the physical universe with
perfect equanimity and with no slightest aberrative upset
here, see. I am talking to you. You're alive; you're
capable of self-determinism, even pan-determinism, of
thought, of belief You could make postulates; you could
make them stick. You can create machinery. You have all of
these capabilities. Talking to you, sooner or later I will
get a reply, see? Even if you just look at me I am getting
a reply, see?

But talking to that stuff over there, see, that wall,
that's a lot different, see. And if an individual is stupid
enough to expect it to answer, if he ever makes this - . It's
actually just one little consideration on the track - it is
just one particular type of consideration; it is the
physical universe must answer back, or this rock has got to
answer me back, see. He has just got to make that mistake
and then keep on making it, and boy, does he get stuck,
see? He'll stick right there - zoom! And that is the only way
anybody ever gets stuck, except by the consideration that
he is stuck.

Now, the consideration that he is stuck, of course, is the
senior consideration. But the mechanics of getting stuck
on which we have agreed - and they are only valid because we
have agreed on them, we voted for them or something - is that
a one-way communication will stick somebody. And that is
why a person gets stuck in a body. That's why a person who
is out of a body goes back into a body.

Let's say - here's a - here's a hypothetical, or maybe not so
hypothetical, incident. This expedition is about to take
off and invade this small moon which is passing around this
planet. Okay. A thetan, who knows all about this
expedition - who lives on that small moon and considers life
very nice up there, and so on - objects to this expedition.
So he goes down and he spots the expedition leader and he
says, zap fashion, "What the hell do you mean coming and
messing up this whole galaxy?" He bangs on into the head of
the expedition leader and completes the expedition himself
Why? Why did he do this?

Later on he will think of it as one of his better
accomplishments. What happened to the expedition leader? He
probably banged on out the other side, but he certainly
never got into contact with the expedition leader, he was
only in contact with that body, and that body and anything
else around that body as far as he could tell did not
answer back. And he expected an answer back of the exact
violence of the answer addressed. And the answer addressed
was a violent statement, and there was no reply and so
one-way communication had occurred; a one-way communication
so thorough that he'd interiorized. So, therefore, time and
again on the time track you'd put a beam or made a
statement to a body and then gone on inside of it.

Now, you will notice this. You see, that comes basically
out of this basic error that MEST can answer you and that
bodies are alive. They are as alive as they are run. But
they are a machine built by thetans for the operation of
thetans; by the thetans for the people of the bodies. Now,
there is the - there is the mechanism of sudden
interiorization; there is the mechanism of entrapment. Of
course, the basic mechanism that frees all entrapments is
understanding. I was going into that yesterday.

If you understand something it certainly can't trap you.
Well, one-way communication can't trap you either if you
understand it; if you know what it is.

You say, "Look-a-here, now, this is a basic agreement that
I have made, and that if I communicate one way and I don't
get an answer then I have to close terminals with something
and do the answering myself." Have you got that? That is
the basic agreement.

So a guy gets married or buried or something and lives
unhappily for years with this character. And he'll come in
here, you - this fellow comes in and he is all cheerful, you
know, and he says, "I just bought a new hat. How does this
look? Dear, I just bought a new hat, how does it look!!"

"Close the door, Henry."

After a while you will see this fellow with some feminine
gestures. How does this come about?

Well, he has to go over there and answer himself! All
right, he loses this wife by smallpox or divorce or
something and years later you are processing him as a
preclear. And you say to him - you say to him, 'All right,
now let's get something you wouldn't mind remembering."

"Dah - nothing."

He's answering. The situation has gotten complex to this
degree: How do you answer if you are the wife? By being
silent, of course. Isn't this goofy? That's how you answer,
by being silent.

It's this business, this business all over again: it's safe
to do whatever your parents did. This is trial, error,
natural selection, evolution, everything; it's one of the
things that life does along the track - it's safe to do
what your parents did.

And by the way you get a child to dramatize this, and if
their - unless their parents have been terribly neglectful,
just abysmally neglectful, why, they will get into this
fascinating state. They - they won't really - they will
momentarily and cursorily imitate a maid or a governess or
something, just momentarily, nothing. It's not safe.
They'll go right on imitating their parents. And it is
quite a curious thing; they will imitate their parents.

It's safe to do what your parents did. You see that?

Now, I have smoked this out. It is a very interesting
little discovery. I actually conducted a few little tests
on this and did a lot of talking around and asking of
questions. A curious thing - a baby will eat off of his
mother's plate almost anything.

One of the more fiendish tests that I conducted on this was
on my own kid, I wouldn't have done it to somebody else's
kid. I pretended to scatter an enormous amount of pepper
into the palm of my hand and then pretended to eat it with
some relish. I didn't scatter any pepper at all on my hand.
Hand it to my little girl, she promptly threw some pepper
into the palm of her hand and ate it with considerable
relish. And for some days was busy enjoying pepper in
great quantity.

I got her maid, the maid, to put some pepper in her hand
and eat it, and neither accelerated nor decelerated the
child's. Now, she had been eating with the maid most of the
time.

All right, went a little bit further than that. I got the
maid to take some cabbage, cut it, eat it, and then - cut it,
eat it, give it - she couldn't care anything about that
cabbage. Nothing. I took some cabbage and ate it, and bang!
the cabbage was fine. So I tracked up on this further and
found out why the children made such a clamor at the table.

Most parents would love to find this out: Why are children
so clamorous around a table? Well, it is because actually,
that's the thing that is safe to eat, you see? They want to
be in there with their parents during mealtime. It's safe
to eat what your parents eat.

Well, the only thing I am making a point of this is, is
just to give you another silly example of the rationale of
life. If the parents die, it is then safe to die. Let's
follow this. It is safe to do what your parents do is the
basic postulate. So what happens to some kid whose parents
are dead? He's dead! And there is another one of your key
preclears whose case is hanging up all over the place. He
is doing what is safe, he is doing the secure thing, the
safe thing. This is one of the seventy-five processes, by
the way. All right.

Let's look over this and discover this: that if you
actually knew the mechanisms behind one-way and two-way
communication, that they wouldn't bother you, not even
vaguely. You wouldn't stick just because somebody didn't
answer you. You wouldn't switch valence just because
somebody didn't answer you. You would know that people
were switching valence, though, because they weren't being
answered. And you would know that many people were sticking
on the subject of MEST because they expected walls and
things to answer them; completely irrational, one of their
own postulates, some game they played some time or another.
They get out of their body and they stick to the wail. They
put a beam on the wall and they can't get the wall - the beam
off. Well, that's because they expect the wall to put a
beam back at them if they put a beam on the wall. You get
the idea? Nothing sillier than this.

Now, there is a little neurotic boy, who comes to mind, who
used to beat his wagon and kick rocks. And a lot of
children will do this. They will walk up to a rock, the
rock will stub them or something, you know, and they'll
kick the rock, and they will have an awful argument with
that rock, see, a big argument with the rock. Actually,
they get stuck to the rock. Only we know how they get stuck
to the rock; they carry a somatic of the kick. That is
getting stuck to the rock. Now do you understand? And that
is a facsimile. A person would not have any facsimiles if
he never expected this stuff to answer! He makes it answer
him by making a picture and then looking at the picture,
and then saying it is that picture.

Well, now, this is facsimiles, this is the stuck phrase,
this is the stuck change valence, this is the rest of this,
see, all around the clock here. This is the mechanism we
have been playing with with Book One. It's the stuck
communication.

So if you don't understand anything else, for God sakes,
understand a two-way communication, exactly how it works
and exactly how it sticks.

And look very, very - look very closely at the world around
you here, the next few days. Pick yourself up some
independently discovered examples of people doing a one-way
communication and getting stuck by it. You'll see it. It
happens all the time. It happens all the time.

You understand this thoroughly, it's merely because they
expect an answer back. But, who is it that is expecting
the answer back? Huh? It's the person himself, isn't it?

Do you know that if you never expected an answer back from
something, it's not aberrative. This isn't a mechanism that
sneaks up on you. I mean, it's one of those horribly - . It's
like a corpse lying in the center of the - the - of the town,
busiest street. It's right there in sight.

"I don't know why Aunt Hattie has not answered my letter. I
wrote her last Tuesday, she hasn't answered, she hasn't
answered. I want to know - I want to know if she is coming
here or if she isn't. What do you suppose has gotten into her?"

What's the next action? To close the terminals. With a
what? With a telephone at least.

All right, now, we have two offices, somebody sends me a
despatch - this is easy to do these days because I am doing
practically nothing but trying to get rid of this book and
try not to take care of too many administrative details - and
somebody sends me a despatch - no answer. You look at it.
It's not an important despatch. It's not going to gum any
wheels, I might have seen it, might not have, see. But it's
stuck, anyhow. Their next action is to come to 806,
see - close the terminal, you see that? If you don't get an
answer you have to come there and the next action after
that - this one you would really consider nutty - would be for
the person to write his own answer on his own despatch and
then go back to 616 to wait for the despatch to be returned
to him so he would know what I had said. See, that would be
the next answer. That would be real nutty, wouldn't it?

Well, how about the fellow coming up from 616 writing the
answer on the despatch and thereafter being me? And sending
this despatch back to himself who is no longer there at
616? You are looking at psychosis when you look at that.
That is psychosis. That's exactly what the psychotic is doing.

So the answer to this is obviously communication and it is
actually - with the factors of affinity, the factors of
agreement and reality thrown in, good old ARC, better
understood - that is exactly what is going on with your
preclear. And the remedy for it is to remedy his scarcity
of communication, to get him into communication, to let him
discover that there is another terminal around someplace,
and that he himself is talking to the MEST and he is
expecting the answer back from it; he is getting his answer
back from it. Opening Procedure 8-C, you just make him go,
you know, "Touch that_____." He'll run out the postulate
after a while that he is expecting this stuff to answer and
it doesn't answer. Isn't this silly?

These guys that have these big massive ridges, that have
lots of facsimiles, what are they doing? They just run a
stuck flow, that's all, at energy masses, and so forth.
Now, they are being the energy mass; it never answered back.

How about the fellow who is occluded? We would say offhand
that he must have talked to some black energy masses at
some time or another, and had done a lot of talking to the
night with no answer back. Remember the song "Chloe?" All
right.

So the first and foremost thing that we have here on our
agendum is a good solid grasp of this two-way
communication - the mechanism of getting stuck and how it
results in facsimiles, shifted valences, being in bodies,
getting stuck to walls and so forth.

There's lots and lots of processes that could be run on
this subject - "Give me something you don't expect any answer
from." "Give me something you expect answers from." - I mean
any kind of a process you could rig up. A curious thing, in
present time or otherwise, liable to do almost anything to
the preclear. It will make him worse, make him better, do
something or other. If he ran any of these long enough,
however, it would always make him better.

All right. And it's the only way you could make a preclear
worse with a process is to stop running it; that's a
horrible fact.

Now, the basic modus operandi of existence, and so forth,
the thetan stops duplicating himself, stops putting up
sentient, thinking, self-determined beings just like
himself, just by postulate - starts making machinery, starts
expecting it to answer, gets stuck with his own machinery
bank, starts expecting people around him to answer, starts
expecting bodies to give him answers. You can run into most
anybody in the street, they would swear that the person
that's going to answer them is the body standing in front
of them. And that is not the person that is answering. And
a thetan is there answering - no matter how bogged down he
is, this is still what is happening, and so we get a two-way
communication as the resolution of this.

So therefore, all processes, no matter how involved or how
simple they might be, are dependent upon the first process
used which is on the lowest part of the Tone Scale, on up.
It goes from the lowest level we can reach on up. It's
two-way communication. That's the first process we have got
to study, look at and so forth.

A good way to go about it is to do some Straightwire. That
is another process, you see, but you still get in
conversation on the subject. You still have the fellow
having his bank answering him and so forth. All right.

The main thing we are interested in is an utter, complete
and devastatingly clear concept of exactly how two-way
communication results in stucks - pardon me, it results -
a one-way communication results in stucks and how
two-way communication can resolve this.

If you see this clearly, why, there isn't any problem in
theory or anything else that can ever baffle you. Nothing
could baffle you in a preclear's case. He is, of course,
being incomprehensible because any terminal that doesn't
answer is then incomprehensible and all sorts of things.

It's the preclear himself who expects the answer. It is the
expectancy of the answer which makes the aberration take
place. You, as an auditor, could only be restimulated if
you kept expecting the answer from the preclear, expecting
the answer from the preclear, without understanding the
mechanism back of answers.

Many a person is going around looking for the answer to
existence when he only wanted his mother to say "Hello."
That was the basic line, you see. He wants the answer to
his mother and then his mother gets out into everything
else and you have association, associative logic, you have
got reasoning and you find you get him expecting a - you
find - you find him at Cornell studying mathematics or
something in order to get the answer! You get the idea?
Okay, so that is our most basic chore right now; is in
auditing and in the environment around and about. Let's
look over this very carefully and see if we can see some
examples of people trying to remedy one-way communication
by answering themselves, by any other mechanism we can
notice in the field of communication.

Okay?

(end of lecture)






