From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Mon Mar 15 17:00:07 1999
Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x2!mail2news
Date: 16 Mar 1999 00:00:07 -0000
Subject: FZ BIBLE 7/35 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: <9044cb8f3fd2c9129e9165ff24be7352@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 1081
Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:689686 alt.clearing.technology:76076

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

9th ACC - THE SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT CASSETTES 7/35

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 7/35

9th ACC 7 - MECHANICS OF COMMUNICATION

Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC07    -   
5412C14 7th of 35 talks to students on the Advanced
Clinical Course in Phoenix, Arizona between December 6,
1954 and January 21, 1955

MECHANICS OF COMMUNICATION

A lecture given on 14 December 1954

I'm going to give you in a very fast rundown now the
mechanics of communication - the cycle of communication.

Get an idea of a horseshoe, turn it on its side. All right,
one tip of the horseshoe we have Joe. Now, up at the curve
of the horseshoe we have - but the same side - the same arm
that Joe's on - we have Bill. Now we go a little bit further
around the curve and we have Bill' and we come all the way
around the curve to the other tip and we have Joe'. Got
that graph in mind? Got that graph in mind?	 

All right. Let's take another horseshoe. Face it the
opposite direction. Now, one of the tips we will name Bill.
We go up around to the start of the curve on it and we have
Joe. And we go around to Joe' and then we go back to Bill'.
If I've described this correctly you have two horseshoes.
Course of the communication is: communication
origin - communication origin, let us say in this case is
Joe. All right. It is received by Bill. Bill having
received it answers it, this is Bill'. Bill' having
answered it, it is acknowledged by Joe'. So the sequence
is: origin, receipt, answer origin, acknowledgment. Or very
briefly: origin, receipt, answer, acknowledge. [See diagram
in Appendix, this volume.]

Now, we understand that one of those horseshoes is - just one
of them - is a cycle of communication. That's a cycle. Now,
both horseshoes make a two-way cycle of communication.
That's a two-way cycle, a little bit different than what we
understood this before. We've been understanding it too
simply. All right, we have a two-way cycle of
communication, and it works this way; Joe says, "Uh - hiya,
Bill?" Bill hears this. Bill says, "I'm okay." And by some
sign, simply by his attention, by a gesture or by a spoken
word, Joe acknowledges Bill's answer. The total
communication cycle is from Joe to Joe', for one cycle.

Now, to complete this and make it a two-way cycle, we've
got to take the other horseshoe, and we have to have our
good friend Bill originate a communication. And he says,
"Well, how are you, Joe?" And Joe hears this and Joe says,
"I'm fine." And then Bill' now acknowledges by some gesture
or merely having received it you see. Now, there is a
complete two-way cycle of communication. There are really
no further parts to communication. There is really not an
other to others section, since this is a significance which
could never come into being unless Joe or Bill were part of
that communication system. And in the case where you have
others to others, you merely find our people at the
receipt-point. They're no place else. They are spectator,
get the idea? They are spectators. But we haven't altered
our two-way cycle of communication in any fashion. We
still have these boys at the receipt-point. Now on one of
these horseshoes, at the tip, there, we had Joe, and Bill
was the receipt-point, you see. He didn't originate an
answer yet, he was just right there at receipt-point.
Silent. You got that?

But we find the acknowledgment or the gesture or whatever
it is; normally Bill, in the position we have just
mentioned, would simply be silent but he'd make - he'd
probably - some little response there that isn't a complete
answer and then he answers, you see. Well, similarly you
have another receipt-point back there at Joe', at the other
tong of origin. See, we've got this boy at a receipt-point,
so in one cycle of communication we have two
receipt-points. And in a two-way cycle of communication we
have four receipt-points, don't we? There are four
receipt-points, two on each cycle are relatively silent.
And there's the position of the other to others. This
fellow is observing, he is an observer.

Now, the one thing this universe or any other universe
tries to convince you of is the fact that you should be
silent, that the truth is actually silence; that there is
silence and one must not communicate.

A wise old owl sat in a holk. The more he saw the less he
spoke. The less he spoke the more he heard. Why can't we all?

[Ed note: A holk is a hollow or cavity]

Poppycock and patter dash of this character is the woof and
the warp of this universe. The only thing you can do to be
punished in this universe is to communicate. That's the
only crime there is in the whole universe; communicating.
And that is the only way a thetan can go to his death; stop
communicating. You'll find your preclear hung up
everywhere he stopped communicating. Because when he
stopped communicating he stopped making time, he stopped
making a shift-motion of particles, the consideration that
time is going forward. He put time into an
other-determined characteristic. And of course we find the
psychologists involved in a spectator science. "If I just
sit here long enough, maybe I'll see something." That is
the way they go. So of course we find these people not
originating anything because that's the biggest scarcity of
all.

Now, how does a person get into a point where he hits just
these receipt-points? Which is to say the primary
receipt-point; you know Joe over here at the edge of the
horseshoe says, "How are you, Bill?" Now, Bill is the
primary receipt-point. Then Bill answers and we come back
here to the acknowledgment-point which is friend Joe'.

All right. These people as they converse, get into a myriad
of complexities of significances, all kinds of aberrations
on the line. But what is the first and foremost aberration
on this line? It is not, in the graph I just mentioned to
you, Bill' back to Joe'. That is not. That is practically
unanimously believed to be the only possible way that you
could aberrate a communication line, and that is - it's not
true. The primary aberration on the communication line is a
failure of origin. Failure to originate a communication,
failure to originate, that is the point.

All right. Let's take a look at this real fast. You're a
little kid, you've been moved all over the world, you've
been moved all over the country, you've been shoved from
this house to that house and so forth. Every time you walk
into a new group you said, "My name is Jack. How are you?
My name is Jack." What are you doing when you do that? You
are originating a communication, aren't you, huh?
Perforce, you were the one who was originating the
communication. And then you went to another town or another
school or another grade or something of the sort and you
said, "My name is Jean." And then you went around to
another sorority and so forth. "My name is John." And then
you were shoved to another class and in view of the fact
you couldn't take that class you walked in and you said,
"My name is Mary." In other words, here we go time after
time after time after time, we're physically originating.
We can see this. It isn't as important to physically
originate as it is to mentally originate. The physical side
of it is simply something that gets - the mental
communication balks - becomes solid and we have the physical
side of the universe.

All right. Walk in, introduce, see? Originate the
communication particle, originate the communication
particle, originate the communication particle, originate
the communication arragh, arragh. Nobody comes up to you
and says, "My name is Jack, my name is John, my name is
Jean, my name is Mary." Nobody says this to you, see.
The - you don't have strangers coming up all the time
saying - you're not the best of interest sitting there, you
see you with these strange people who wander around walking
in the front door all the time. Get the idea? Just out of
that alone what would you do eventually? You would begin
to compulsively originate communications. You would be
compelled to originate communication because you are the
only one that originates the communications. Get the idea?
In other words you keep playing this one horseshoe - one
horseshoe - one horseshoe one horseshoe one horseshoe. And
you'll say, "My God, obviously there's no other horseshoe."
Obviously no other cycles of communication can possibly exist.

All right. Now, most of humanity is involved in an
exterior - oh, this is a very, very neat one, this is real,
this is real clever. Most of humanity is involved in an
other-determined causation or communication.

Now, let's get the idea. An accident happens, so they gab
- gab - gab - walla - walla walla. The newspaper comes out, so
they gab - gab - gab - walla - walla - walla. So, Marilyn
Monroe comes out and you get gab - gab - gab - walla - walla
- walla. And they see a movie and they come home and they
tell each other the plot to this damn movie and I - I used to
say when I was a little boy - I still had something of the
writer in me when I was - when I was young and I've said that
people used to come in and tell me about the plot of this
movie and I almost used to blow mine or their brains out.
I've heard more people come in and tell you the plot of the
movie just as though this is what they've been looking at,
they've been looking at acting, colored technology, bright
lines and so forth and they come home and tell you the
plot. The one thing that you could certainly do without.

Anyhow - anyhow we have an exterior origin of communication
which then swings them into communication lines. You follow
this? They see an accident. That is what we know - what we
know as the boot in the pants necessity level. These
people can't act until they get an other-determined
necessity level. They get down to a point after a while
where they only act in terms of emergency. That is
necessity level. It is necessity. It is an other origin of
sufficient magnitude to put them on a communication line.
Now, what is imagination and how does imagination go by
the boards? It goes by the boards in a very, very simple
fashion.

The individual stops originating communications. And that
is the failure of his imagination. And we could say it
works either way but the truth of the matter is that he
stops originating communications, he stops being an
origin-point on this line and his imagination fails. And
that's the way it goes about it. He can get back on the
origin-point and have his imagination revive it. Just start
originating communications on a two-way cycle of
communication - now we're talking about processing of it. If
he were just to originate to people walking up and out of
the blue sky saying "Hello" you know, "How are you? My name's
Joe. How are you? Hello." You'd all of a sudden find his
imagination starting to wind up.

Follow me? His imagination would start to revive. All
right. These boys who can only act on emergency, these
people whose imaginations have gone by the boards - . Let's
take for instance a painter or a writer who was once a
painter, a writer or a musician, something like that and he
isn't doing so well these days. All you'd have to do is
supply the scarcity of exterior origins. This boy who has
been chasing all around the world, walking into new groups
all the time, you know, announcing himself. We don't mock
up masses announcing themselves to him, we simply mock up
people approaching. Just the idea, see, of people
approaching and saying "Hello, how are you? My name's
Iskowitz." Anything like this you see? And we have this as
communication origin.

All right. Let's look at pan-determinism. You know about
pan-determinism. You'd better had. Pan-determinism is the
willingness to start, stop and change, along the dynamics.
The degree of pan-determinism which the person has is his
willingness to start, stop and change along the dynamics.
In other words to monitor other dynamics, that is
pan-determinism.

Self-determinism leads down to control of self and control
of self is actually a last ditch. Of course, that's more
upstairs than where man is right now. But this is still -
even self-determinism would be a last ditch. Now in view of
the fact that the universe operates simply because two
things must not occupy the same space - let's go over this
real rapidly - two things must not occupy the same space.
If two things must not, cannot occupy the same space,
you'll have a universe in space and everything different
and detached and you have high individuality and all that
sort of thing. But if two things start occupying the same
space, completely violating the laws of Count Alfred
Korzybski and general semantics - if they start occupying
the same space, gahh, they do it compulsively and
obsessively, you have aberration and identification. If it
is done in complete knowingness, awareness and alertness,
you just go into communication with everything in the
universe, that's all, on a knowingness basis. If you do it
on an unknowingness basis, an unconscious basis, you
wouldn't communicate with everything in the universe
anyhow, but you do it on an unknowingness basis. It's alarming.

All right. This is the difference between other-determinism
and pan-determinism would be the difference between knowing
you're doing it and others doing it to you or through you,
see. You know you're doing it or you don't know you're
doing it.

All right. Pan-determinism happens to be the highest key
point which we have in theory and practice today. A very
precise definition of it, the operating definition of it
is: The willingness to control two or more identities
whether or not opposed. Now that is the action definition.
Willingness to control two or more identities whether or
not opposed. You disentangle that and you find out that the
robber walks up to the guy and says, "Uh - you're, uh -
anything you - anything you say will be used against you," or
"Stop in the king's name" or - let's see, what do robbers
say? And we have these - this boy does this and the other boy
puts up his hands and says "Oh no, don't - don't shoot - don't
shoot - don't shoot," and so forth. He's not being
pan-determined at all. The proper thing to do is to be back
of the robber's head and go away. That's the proper thing
to do.

Well, now an individual if he were pan-determined would not
particularly cavil - at which side of this individuality he
was on or both. If an individual is pan-determined he would
just as soon monitor the robber as monitor the other party
and it isn't really a definition which grows out in
addition to himself. You know. He would be willing to
monitor other things in addition to himself No, no, you see
that's an incorrect interpretation. Because if he's willing
to monitor other things, himself is anything he cares to
make himself you see. There isn't then a vested interest
called himself. See, total pan-determinism.

All right. Now, however desirable or undesirable this would
be from a standpoint of a mores of the society, it does
happen that - here is a flagrant example, that on the second
dynamic a person who is insisting on being the male partner
and nobody but the male partner and being very, very
insistent upon the fact that his sexual partner is a female
and an other-determinism, you see? And if the lady in this
case or the girl in this case would be also insistent that
she was a self you see. And the other party, you see, was a
male. They've got this big insistence you see on each one
being an individuality, do you know that no - if we reduce
this to the complete state of insistence on the other
individuality, there is no sexual sensation interchanged.
This is a curious thing. The nymphomaniac, the satyr are in
this state. They are being so totally themselves and
insisting so thoroughly on everybody else being somebody
else, you see, than themselves, that they have broken down
existence to an impossible form. And they get no
communication. Now, anytime you sit down and you say, "I am
here, and it's all over there and I am me and it is it and
they are them" you go immediately out of communication,
pew! Just as neat as you please. Because communication
doesn't happen to depend upon space. Communication depends
upon the ability to be. Space is a mechanic, energy is a
mechanic, even a formula is a mechanic.

Now, I have just described to you, just described to you
here, the highest possible, it is the highest possible
echelon of aberration, at least in this universe, with
this set of agreements, and that is this two-way
communication and where people get stuck on these two
horseshoes. They get stuck in that so thoroughly they can
see only the mechanics. But in order for communication to
exist, pan-determinism has to exist.

Now we had Joe, Bill; Bill, Frank; Joe, Frank; and on the
other horseshoe we had Bill, Joe; Joe', Bill', didn't we?
Does this worry the fellow who could be at any one of these
points with perfect confidence? No it doesn't. It does not
worry him a bit. So all we have to say to a preclear of
course is "Just be willing to be at all these points there
are on the graph." And show him what the points are and
just be willing to be at all these points and the fellow
is immediately Clear. Unfortunately this is not the case.
He's sufficiently bogged down into this; he has agreed to
it so long, this two-way cycle of communication is
intensely aberrative to him so he is not able to escape
from this trap, unless he's assisted. So he has to assist
him up along the lines of furnishing answers and so forth
and it just works like a breeze because this is the highest
echelon of aberration. The stops, stuck flows, resistances,
compulsions, compulsive flows and so forth on these two
horseshoes.

All right. What then monitors it out? Now you see if
pan-determinism - we're very lucky that the universe is
rigged so that the closer you approach pan-determinism and
the more you are willing to be anything in the universe the
more you're willing to start, stop and change and control
anything in the universe, actually the more universe you
can have and the more space you can have and it just works
out gorgeously. Now supposing pan-determinism didn't exist,
supposing we were all - we had to be set on Korzybski's one
thing must occupy its space and this is different from that
because two things can't occupy the same space. This by the
way is a total confirmation of the physical universe and
tells you why your general semanticist goes gradually out
of communication; is his insistence on this basic law and
his continuous agreement on this basic law that two things
mustn't occupy the same space. That's right there - Korzybski
writes practically about nothing else. He goes on book
after book or page after page, book after book confirming
this fact that these things are different, because so on.
Of course he gradually goes, book after book, and goes
compulsively out of communication.

Have you ever read Science and Sanity? He starts out in
midflight on the first page; it says it's the first page of
the book, but you sure wouldn't believe it. They
obviously - refers to about four other pages that are missing
or a couple of chapters or something. It's a dislocated
area immediately.

All right. This law, this basic - oh, by the way, this guy is
tremendous, I'm not running him down, I mean I'm just
giving you the one single point that this guy was hepped on
that made it fail. We know there's been a failure in
general semantics. We're quite aware of that. But where was
that failure? It wasn't in personalities and it wasn't in
theory. His theory is gorgeous. His mathematics beautiful.
It's just that one point that insistence on two things
cannot occupy the same space and therefore they're
different. These two cigarettes are different cigarettes
because they're not occupying the same space. Or if they
were occupying the same space they'd be the same cigarette.
Would they? No. No, they can both occupy the same space and
be different cigarettes. It's a matter of consideration.
There you have a dependency on space to make everything
different for you. The second you get into that rat race
you're really in a rat race. Dependency on anything to make
anything different for you or change anything for you is
real wild unless you're dealing - and you have to be real
careful with this - you have to deal with actual elements
themselves. And if you start dealing with the actual
elements themselves, boy can you communicate because
you're knocking out communication barriers. It gets rather
rough going communicating because you're racking up against
communication barriers and going through communication
barriers and so forth, when you're communicating on this
subject. It's utterly fantastic to be sitting and talking
about communication. I mean this is real wild to do so
with any degree of success at all this hasn't happened
before. I mean we're really doing something.

All right. Look, if it were true that the physical universe
was all true and that this communication formula got this
way and the communication formula was unalterable except in
terms of the physical universe, you know how you'd have to
process somebody? You'd have to have people keep walking in
the door and saying "How are you, Joe?" you see and then
saying goodbye and going away. And walking in the door.
You'd have to set it up in physical mock-up everywhere. You
know if you did that it wouldn't work? That's why
processing is - this is the old gag you know, you say
processing in the MEST universe - by MEST universe - doesn't
work. But processing in a fellow's own universe does work.
It's because processing in his own universe raises his
pan-determined character. And processing the physical
universe simply keeps pandering along to an
other-determined situation.

So, what do we do to cure this communication formula? Well,
the first leg up on it is to adequately get it out of the
road for the fellow so that he recognizes that in the
terms of the physical universe there is an answer. But all
the time we're doing this we're drilling him on
pan-determinism. All the time, you see. 'Cause we have him
mock up answers, mock up answers, mock up answers. When was
the last time he made somebody else facing him really
answer? Do you get the idea? When was the last time when
somebody was talking to him he didn't want to have talk to
him, that he was three feet behind their head and sent them
home? When did this happen? It must be way back on the
track someplace. I don't know, that's beside the point.

But we run it on a pan-determined basis. We get him putting
these ideas around, these communication ideas around. And
cancelling out these silences by filling them full of
ideas. By the way, the fellow doesn't even have to have
sonic in order to make this work. He's - just basically the
idea is - he spotted these ideas around. And he is taking
over all the times when he met silences which he couldn't
control. And you will find them in space opera and
everything else if you keep on running this sort of thing.
Sitting up there alone in space, you see, with everything
black around him and all of a sudden a rocket hitting him
in the guts, you know, from some unknown area. Nobody to
talk to at that moment, awfully silent.

All kinds of incidents of this character to run out where
he was being the only one, the only identity, where he was
surrounded by silences. And so we have this situation where
with the processing we rehabilitate the pan-determinism of
the individual over all points of this curve. But the
points of the curve we are not interested in are the silent
points of the curve. We want him to pan-determine that
they're going to talk. You understand? That they're going
to move, that they're going to circulate. That we're going
to have action, motion, in other words life and time. Where
there's been an absence of life, an absence of talk and an
absence of motion. Where there has been silence - no time.
And that's the end of it.

Now, actually with those processes we recognize with great
clarity that it would be very difficult to run such
processes on a person whose power of decision was shot to
hell. So, we have such a thing as 8-C. Let's take a
preclear; he can't follow your orders, he doesn't know
what you're saying, he's sitting there processing something
else actually. You see, he's not processing - you're not
processing a preclear, you're processing something - just
processing some mass. The various problems which we get
mixed up with. If you told him an order he would do
something else and tell you he had followed your orders. He
goes dead silent when he should be talking and he talks
when he should be silent. And he has lost contact to a very
marked degree with present time and if you ask him real
quick he'd probably tell you he was just getting ready to
route some of the dead at Saratoga. Whatever this was that
this boy is doing it certainly must be bettered and so we
have those processes which are immediately addressed to
this betterment which is forming a two-way communication
with the preclear, getting him into some communication with
something and then getting him around and running some 8-C
on him and getting him under orders and discharging some of
his feelings about orders and so on.

In other words we pull him up the line. We might even run
some Opening Procedure by Duplication on him. We might
remedy a little havingness, we - and so on. We get this guy
right up out of any danger of being in the psychotic or
neurotic band in other words. Get him up into normal band,
move him up to the upper end of the normal band, with the
six basic processes of which we know - that is if he was not
exteriorized at the moment. We wouldn't care whether he
exteriorized or not, just skip that. We could then start
remedying various sections and sectors of these
communication formulas he's at fault with. See?

Now we started processing a psychologist - one of the
unluckiest things that a Scientologist or Dianeticist ever
undertook was the processing of a psychologist. This is
horrible. That is because the boy is fixed over there on an
observer point. We even find Einstein, great guy, but we
even find Einstein completely stuck on the observer. The
only thing which a scientist has any right to do whatsoever
is observe. He should - he even describes this, he should
stand at the hole in the wall and look through a hole at
the needle of the meter and all he should ever report is
how much the meter wiggles. This is a direct quote; I'm not
giving you a bum steer.

Well, now if this is - if this is - the observer is in a bad
way - if the observer is in a terribly bad way, we have to
get him out of this: sit back and look at what is happening
in the bank attitude towards processing, see? We have to
snap him out of that. We would snap him out of that with a
two-way communication with some 8-C, you know, a little
Straightwire or something like this. We'd get him up there
to a point of where he was able to observe and execute
orders. Something he's not been doing. He could move
around, he'd be feeling lots better. He'd think this was -
must be the end of processing. You know, I mean the
processing must be about all over because he's never felt
this good before. We've got him up into the upper band of
Homo sap in other words. Somewhere around there. We don't
have his sonic on or visio or anything like that. Boy, we
better charge in there and remedy all that damn silence
that has got him parked at the receipt-point of the
horseshoe. He's parked there. We never process into
silences. Let's remember that. The guy we are processing is
parked at the silent spots. Now, the silent spots, the
chief silence spot of course is the receipt-point of the
original, the originative communication. We've got this
horseshoe up here and at the open top end we have Joe. Then
we swing into the other end of the horseshoe here and we
have Bill. He's a preclear. See. He's over here like this.
Silent. See, he doesn't do a Bill'. At least for God sakes
let's get him to be Bill'. What a terrific difference it
would make if we could move him off of being so
exclusively Bill and get him over here to Bill' so that he
would then answer so that Joe' over here could get off of
this cycle. See? Now the only thing that happens to these
boys; there's only two spots where being stuck is very serious.

Now, we take this one cycle I just had before, Joe here, at
the open end tip of the horseshoe, and we come in with this
to Bill. Joe says, "How are you?" Bill receives this. All
right. That's receipt-point. We call that receipt-point.
That is stuck spot for preclear. There is the point where
he's going to move into eventually and stick at and study
psychology.

Now, let's look at the other point he could be stuck on
this curve. Do you know there's another point he could be
stuck, and there's hardly an auditor alive that isn't stuck
there, at least somewhat. And that's at the
acknowledgment-point. At Joe'. You see it's a different
kind of a stuck point. It's a different kind of a
receipt-point. Bill' emanated an answer and this answer
missed to some degree Joe'. There really isn't a Joe'
there. The totality of the communication lag is from Joe to
Joe' on this curve. Now compulsive or obsessive originator
of communication is in far, far better shape than a person
stuck over at the receipt-point. This guy's at least
fighting moving into the receipt-point. He'll move in there
eventually. But he's making a good fight of this. The only
trouble with his communication lag, we're speaking of
lags, is that his communication line is Joe-Joe. See, Joe,
Joe - and he'll begin to talk about Joe, Joe - too. See? He
never moves out around the rest of the cycle. He just
compulsively originates communications and without it being
received, answered or anything else. Right? He states a
certain Joe. So, actually what people find the most fault
with is Joe to Joe', pardon me Joe, Joe communication or
if we take the other curve, the Bill, Bill communication.

They think that is a horrible lag. They get upset about
this lag. They get more upset about this lag than the first
receipt-point. That receipt-point's the dangerous one.

This fellow out here was on Joe, Joe, you know, compulsive
origination of communication consistently is sooner or
later going to slide in over there at the receipt-point and
get silent. Don't worry about him until he does. But he'll
still originate communications, compulsively or obsessively
and is in better shape than somebody who is silent.

Now, we start looking around for decayed thetans or upset
cells or something like this and we find these boys are
protecting, hiding the truth. The truth is silence. See,
that's truth. It is an ultimate truth. Only they're
protecting and hiding an ultimate truth with energy.
That's a different thing, see. They're maintaining that
they're truthful, they're truthful. Look you can't
talk at all and be truthful. If you talked at all, even
vaguely, if you go down the street and say, "How are you
Joe?" You're not telling the truth. That's not a truthful
utterance. "How are you Joe?" In the first place you've got
to pretend you don't know how Joe is. That's the first lie
in it. The second lie in it is that you want an answer. You
can look at him and tell. And again, you expect him to
answer. And so you get into thousands, millions, billions,
binary digits of mechanisms by which to keep some
communication and motion in action. And when you slide out
of this completely and say, "I'll tell the truth, it is all
truth, I will agree 100 percent, I will protect the truth"
you're dead. Isn't that horrible. The necessity for a
problem comes about through a scarcity of answers. But it's
still better to have a problem in action or in motion than
it is to have silence. Of course silence is the truth and a
person should be able to be silent on a self-determined
basis or speak on a self-determined basis. But this is an
awful quiet universe, so is any universe awfully quiet.
And a thetan dreams up all kinds of mechanisms by which to
have some communication and then he has some time and then
he has some motion and he has some life and in the absence
of communication he has none of these things.

So, we say that any mass or anything we have fun with or
any problem that we are playing with and so forth is
obviously a set of lies. And you and I as auditors know
very well when we're looking at the preclear that there's
an awful lot of things wrong with him that he just thinks
are wrong with him, that really aren't wrong with him. But
do you know there really is something wrong with him? His
silence. His silence is wrong with him. And that is what's
wrong with him. He has fought silence and lost. And he will
get over into a bracket of talking about the truth when he
talks and he will be stuck on this whole thing called truth.

Just as artwork is a consideration bad or good, it's a
consideration, you see. A lie or a truth could be a
consideration, but there happens to be an actual truth and
that actual truth is silence and no light. Anything that's
got communication, noise, confusion, flow or anything like
that has perforce to be a pretense. So we have to get the
preclear up to where he can play a game.

Another one of our factors falling into place. We have to
get him up there where he can pretend. And we have to get
him up there where he can imagine. Because if he can't
imagine he can't communicate with anybody. Are you going to
depend on all these lies to do your imagining for you? Huh!

There's nothing sadder than this fellow who goes out and
sits down in a car and just because it's nicely shaped,
thinks it's going to make some time or furnish some action
for him. It's not going to furnish any time or action. He
has to have every idea of where he's going to go. Every
idea of what he is there. He has to have the idea of what
the car is. He has to have the idea of what he's doing with
the car. He has to have the idea of who else he's going to
pick up and take around in this car before the car has any
meaning whatsoever. No mass has any meaning unless it is
placed there by the thetan. It has no meaning, it has no
use, it has no action and when it gets into a total
automaticity the person is depending upon an
other-determinism to furnish action for him, he's dead. He
goes then himself into silence. And if he does this for
seventy-four, seventy-six trillion years, of course he will
settle down at last into the silence of knowing it's all
being done for him. And he's set. And when the auditor gets
hold of him - when the auditor gets hold of him, the auditor
has to bring him out into the daylight. And the way to
bring him out into the daylight is to raise his
pan-determinism. And the way to raise his pan-determinism
is by remedying the scarcity at these various points on the
communication cycles. And you have to remedy the points on
these two cycles. Now that is the road. 

And of course raising a person's pan-determinism is also raising 
his power of decision. You know that a psycho let's you push
him around in a room. And this psycho is just doing fine
walking over touching the wall, letting go of it and so
forth. And you ask him first, you ask him who's doing it
and if they're real bad off; oh no you'll say "My god I
should never have asked that question." And so somebody who
has - we're just going along fine here and he says, "Well,"
he says, "Uh, actually this damn DScn and so forth taught
me how to do this and that kind of thing - haven't
particularly wanted to do it." The best thing to do
obviously is raise this person's power of decision so we
start him on part C of Opening Procedure of 8-C: "Make up
your mind to let go and let go." Ding-ding-ding. Auditor
just wishes he'd just never mentioned it.

The person is insufficiently in communication, he's too
much into silence. He is too much surrounded by
other-determinisms which have to - far too much power on
him to ever dare or adventure to make a decision on his
own. This would be an utterly incredible thing. Yet a
decision on one's own and the primary origin of a
communication are cousins, if not brothers. Decide, the
biggest decision he can make. Decide to originate a
communication. You see, that's about the biggest decision
he could make. Decide to originate.

He gets all sorts of things. It's got to be original. It
must never have been done before, you know? Of course
everything always has been done before and therefore I
couldn't of - oh, lots of rationale here. But all it means is
simply I'll say "Hello Joe." This time usually Joe walks up
to me, you know and he says - he says "How are you Bill?" but
this time I'm going to say "How are you Joe?" before he
gets a chance.

As a matter of fact Joe is so unaccustomed to having things
originated and communications in his vicinity, he's a
rather outgoing sort of a fellow, if a bit obsessive or
something like that, that you'll actually give him pain if
everybody started to originate communications in his area,
you see? People would come up and say, "How are you Joe?"
People walk into the shop and talk first you know and they
say, "How are you Joe, How are you Joe?" "Well Joe, what
can we do for you today?" You know this guy will turn on a
somatic. It's that rare maybe in his experience. Maybe if
you didn't have artists and newspapers to talk about
accidents and morgues and if you didn't have movies,
offspring of the artist and so forth, maybe the society
wouldn't talk at all anymore. See, if you didn't have TV
and so on, well, maybe nobody would talk at all. Huh? I
believe so.

If you want to make a little test of this, just start
around into various places, stores, a very bad place to
examine the society through the clerks in stores, you know,
because they're on a - they're on a trained social basis.
They have a social response. The place to do - you see
somebody raking up leaves in the backyard. You know, that
sort of thing. Just show up and wait for him to originate a
communication. You originated one didn't you? You showed up.

By the way this business of originating a communication is
so hard on somebody just on a restimulation basis, that the
Church auditors over here go up and ring on a doorbell see,
and they go and ring on another doorbell and ring on
another doorbell and ring on another doorbell. Do you
realize that they are originating a communication and
originating a communication and originating a communication
and originating a communication. Nobody walks up to them
and says "Hey, you know we've got something brand-new that
we'd certainly like to help you out with." Nobody does this.

And that's why I tell you with some truth that in view of
the fact that we have people who are willing to originate
communication they are willing to talk about - to people.
They are willing to advance an interpretation of theory,
they are willing to advance theory, they're willing to
talk, they're willing to outflow. I can tell you very
clearly that we must have some of the highest toned people
in the United States. You don't know maybe what the
community or the society level is. You would only really
find out not by ringing doorbells, because that's a
trained response too. It would be by walking into ballrooms
and dining rooms and around.

How long has it been since you walked into a public dining
room, you know a restaurant, or something of the sort and
had a couple of the diners look up and smile at you and ask
you how you were? Or do they just kind of sit there like
complete strangers? You know there's no damn reason under
this - it's completely irrational that they would sit
there. You can explain it on the basis of privacy. You can
explain it on the basis of they're out for a social
occasion. You can explain it on a thousand bases. But it's
all unreal. They are originating silence. This is what it
breaks down to. They're originating silence.

Now when you, in your turn, originate a communication at
these people, you're sitting at the dining room, in the
public dining room. Somebody comes in, they look around,
they want to be kind of unnoticed. They're with a girl who
really wants to be noticed. You know, they walk in and
you're sitting at the table, you and a friend and you were
to look up and say, "How are you people, how are you
getting along?" You know they probably in most cases
wouldn't answer you. They would probably shy away. Why
would they shy away? Because you actually can turn on a
somatic with them. If you went on with them, you said, "How
are you, how are you doing, how's everything with you, how
are you, how are you doing, are you having a good time
tonight? Gee you guys really looked dressed up." Never met
them before, see. They either send for the cops or collapse
and go to the hospital or something weird and wild will
happen. Because you're talking into an origin communication
scarcity.

All right. This society actually hurts in the teeth of an
originated communication, it actually hurts. You go to a
party; you've got something exciting and new to talk
about, you've just had an adventure of some kind or
another. People either sit there like a bunch of hypnotized
chickens or they go out and mutter to a particular pal of
theirs in the vestibule what a goddamned bore you are. Get
the idea? Now, here you have the basic source of the
somatic. This is the somatic. It is a line which has been
pulled in, pulled in, pulled in or pushed out, pushed out,
pushed out until its particles match the pain point of the
Tone Scale. In other words condensation of the particles is
passing right on down through an intolerable point, see?
They will then after that get much solider. You're talking
about unfinished communications, incomplete cycles,
incomplete two-way cycles. You're talking about mass,
you're talking about engrams, you're talking about
facsimiles and so forth.

Why does a person make a facsimile anyhow? Well an
individual makes a facsimile by resistance. They resist the
environment. They get a picture. But remember there has to
be an obsessive duplication in there for that thing to be
unconsciously made. For it to be unconsciously made and to
stay in existence thereafter, that's really quite a trick,
see? Another thing is the dependency on memory, it's an
effort to have something, it's an effort to have a
communication with the environment which didn't communicate
with you. There's half a dozen things that can happen here.
But the balled up masses, the black masses, the upsets that
people are in, are simply unfinished, unterminated,
unacknowledged communication lines.

All right. Let's go immediately into the anatomy of exactly
what are these items, what are these items? The items that
you remedy. All right, let's look at a single cycle of
communication which is Joe, Bill, Bill', Joe', on that
curve. And let's discover that there isn't ever going to be
any noise at Bill, you see. Now that is a receipt-point,
see, that's really no noise. And there is no noise over at
Joe', no noise at Bill and no noise at Joe', particularly.
Actually there's no noise at Bill, ever, but the noise
comes in at Bill at Bill'. So what people notice is an
absence of Bill' and an absence of Joe'.

All right, so there's an absence of Joe on this curve, an
absence of Joe, an absence of Bill' and an absence of Joe';
really three points on the curve. All right. Bill, the
point Bill, which is the receipt-point, is not necessary to
remedy, there isn't any point in remedying this. It's
always going to be there; it's a necessary point. Your
absence that you would notice would be Bill'. It's only
when an individual gets obsessively at Bill you begin to
notice it. Only what you're still noticing is an absence of
Bill'. All right, we've got three points there, haven't we,
which can get deficient. From Bill's standpoint Joe could
be deficient, that is originated communication. And from
Bill's standpoint still, Joe' could be deficient, right?
So Joe and Joe' can be deficient. From Bill's standpoint,
the only deficiency is Bill'. That's the real deficiency.
Unless you want to consider an existence as Bill, see; just
nobody there. So, all right there's two scarcities. Now, we
have to look at the other side of the curve and discover
that we got the same scarcities over there. And again the
big scarcities are - the big scarcities, in this particular
case, from Bill, Joe, Joe', Bill'. The scarcity over there
is Joe'.

Now, the basic scarcity all along the line in communication
would simply be somebody to talk to, see. That's somebody
to talk to and somebody to talk at you, somebody to
originate communications at you. Well these are
scarcities. So all these points, there are eight points
there, aren't there? All these points, any one of them
could have some significance in processing. But what do you
know, they straighten themselves out anyhow, almost
anything you do, because you don't have to be too
significant about this at all. Now, the main thing an
auditor notices in processing preclears - let's say the
auditor is Joe, the main thing the auditor notices is a
lack of Bill'. The thing that the preclear notices is a
lack of Joe'. The preclear notices this lack of Joe'. Now
Joe as the auditor, as I say, notices the lack of Bill'.
But what do you know! If an auditor is really alert, really
alert, what he sees is the lack of the matching curve, the
origination of communication by the preclear.

Now, in processing then it is absolutely necessary for you
as an auditor to furnish a little motive power there. So
the preclear walks up and touches the wall and says, "Huh!"
We then consider, and remember all communication is merely
a consideration, that he has originated a communication.
And we put him into the role of communication origin
whether he would or not. And we answer him by saying,
"What's the matter?" And now he has to originate a new
cycle. He says, "I just - just had my grandfather's face of a
coffin show up in a small picture in front of my face." The
auditor says, "Oh, is that so?" He answers, "Yes, sure is."
Acknowledgment.

Now the auditor having done this trick, had made him put in
and originate a communication and then just go on with
the process, till the next time he notices the right finger
starts shaking a little bit, "Hey, what's the matter?" It
made him aware of the fact that he originated a
communication physically. You make him originate one by
consideration. The auditor's always up against the idea of
putting in that second cycle in on the preclear. The more
he can put it in on the preclear, of course, debarring off
a lot of obsessive or compulsive flow of the preclear, an
unknowingness machine flow, why the better the preclear
gets and the oftener an auditor can acknowledge - just go
round Robin Hood's barn to find something to acknowledge.
You can put all kinds of significance into this. You can
put approval into this. You can put how glad you are into
this. You can throw some A into the communication. You can
throw some R into the communication, so forth. Completely
aside from that, we want to keep throwing those
communications in there, see, and make that preclear
originate a communication. If we can make him originate a
communication often enough his imagination will come way
upstairs from where it was, quite fascinating.

So we keep shoving him over onto the other curve, make him
originate communications, we keep acknowledging
communications and every time we do this we're supplying a
scarcity of communications. He'll get better to the degree
that he is made to communicate. Only he doesn't want to be
aware of the fact that he's being forced to communicate;
it's got to be an originated communication. He originated
one unconsciously, we make him originate one consciously.
Every time he talks, we acknowledge. We keep the two sides
of this curve working.

Now, as far as him running this in mock-ups is concerned,
you can pick any part of either two of the curves, fix up
the silent part. Don't ever run that silent part 'cause
that's what's wrong with your preclear, you'll just run him
right straight on downhill into the woods and far away, if
you start running silences on him. Beyond this, you can
ask him a time when somebody was silent, he'll gradually
peel off an awful lot of stopped points on the bank. But
this again is negative gain processing. Positive gain
processing is just yap - yap - walla - walla on the bank.
See. You just make him make things talk. He will fit them
into all kinds of significances, he's liable to try to put
them into tremendous significance. Significances don't
count, it's simply the communication curve itself. And all
the time you're making him remedy these in mock-up form
you're restoring his pan-determinism. And this is the big
trick in today's processing. Okay.

Male voice: What about social stuff like uh - people uh
- pretending they want you to - well, let's say it this way,
people say, "Well, how was your trip to London, I want to
hear all about it." Total silence. "And you know I went
down and I processed this preclear down here on
forty-fourth street the other day. Yap - yap - yap. And the
butcher said, yap - yap - yap - yap - yap. Gee, that was a very
interesting trip you told me about..."

That's Joe to Joe. Isn't that great.

Male voice: It sure is. This is a very common phenomena.

You'll find this boy stacked by the way. This boy's bank is
stacked.

Female voice: Would it be therapeutic just for a person to
self-determinedly go out and originate communication?

Oh I'm sure it would be, I'm sure it would be.

He's liable to get a lot of backlash, he's liable to get a
lot of entheta.

As a matter of fact - as a matter of fact I had talked to
people at random and actually have a lot of luck doing this.

(end of lecture)





