From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Tue Mar 16 23:00:02 1999
Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!feed2.nntp.acc.ca!feed.nntp.acc.ca!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x2!mail2news
Date: 17 Mar 1999 06:00:02 -0000
Subject: FZ BIBLE 8/35 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: <85d585affa90fad067448eb7b94b13bd@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 1407
Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:690158 alt.clearing.technology:76174

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

9th ACC - THE SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT CASSETTES 8/35

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 8/35

9th ACC #8 - HAVINGNESS

Transcript of lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC08    -   
5412C15 8th of 35 talks to students on the 9th Advanced
Clinical Course in Phoenix, Arizona between December 6,
1954 and January 21, 1955


HAVINGNESS

A lecture given on 15 December 1954


And he set it up there because it mustn't happen again and
he has to be reminded and all of this sort of thing, you
see. And so he rejects, then, these bad things by putting a
screen up there which will reject these bad things. And
he's put it all on automatic. Well, this screen that
rejects these bad things will eventually get too many bad
things in front of it and it will reverse and it will act
as a complete vacuum of bad things.

What has he done? He's artificially created a scarcity,
hasn't he? And having created a scarcity, he's really
created a vacuum. So, when he gets near these bad things
they snap in.

He will go through a period of existence whereby although
he allegedly detests, and says he detests, all these bad
things, he gets these bad things.

There he is analytically determining that he doesn't want
anything to do with all these bad things, analytically, and
actually he is getting all these bad things and it makes
him quite confused and gives him a tremendous protest
about life in general.

He wants good luck, he gets bad luck. He wants good cars,
he gets a bad one. He wants to go on with the job, he gets
fired. Get the idea?

Well, here you have these machines, these stimulus-response
mechanisms, reactive mind mechanisms, which are busily and
happily rejecting each and every aspect of existence which
he really considers desirable. And reversely, which is
attracting to him every bad item of existence which he
considers is very, very undesirable - and thus his confusion
about life. And makes a very interesting problem though,
doesn't it. But this is the exact mechanism of this problem
and this is acceptance level and this is havingness.

All right, now let's tie this in to havingness.

Think about it for a moment - havingness.

You realize each one of these items or quantities are
greater or lesser mass. And so these items or quantities,
which he is rejecting or accepting and so forth, are masses
which are denied him or masses which are compulsively,
obsessively attracted to him. See. So his havingness is
being continuously monitored on a reactive level.

And in view of the fact that havingness actually requires
no great significance, he gets into a very, very confused
state because the significance and super-significance of
all of this stuff is so baffling and confusing that he
hardly knows what to do about it. He wants to have a
pleasant wife and he gets a screaming lunatic. He wants to
have - . You see, you get the idea?

But the reason he has and not has in the first place is
simply mass. And it is the mass-no-mass ratio. But he has
set up things to fight mass. Why did he do this? And let's
get the third factor in here.

He did this so that he would have an interchange of
terminals - interchange of electricity between terminals, to
be much more exact - an interchange amongst terminals.

He has to hold something off and say, "Well, I've got a
good reason to hold that off," or something of the sort.
And he has to hold something close to him and he has to be
something else in order to get an electronic circuit
going. And this is again according to his considerations
with regard to this.

So, there are certain things he has - he interprets this on a
thought level - there are certain things he has to fight.
Actually, what happens is the thought level deteriorates
into mass level.

Thought deteriorates into mass. Mass does not become
thought. Let's remember that. And if we started working it
the other way around, the problem would be unfortunately
completely unsolvable, if the other were true, that is to
say, if mass was the senior item. It's not.

All right, you get these three factors: Acceptance level,
havingness, and the necessity to have a couple of
terminals, one of which will discharge against another, if
you're going to be automatic.

See these three things going together? Well, they all talk
about automaticity, don't they, hm? Each one of these
factors are influenced by an automaticity because their
basic reason why is so that a person can have an automaticity.

Now, an individual gets so thoroughly, thoroughly snarled
up on the track that he believes that his ability is zero
and that all these automatic abilities are terrific. "My
body can do this and do that" is sort of the dull idea he
has, you see. "My remembering machines cause memory to take
place."

Remember something about automaticity: Nothing can occur
automatically in the human mind or in the human
environment which cannot be done by the individual himself
Remember this because the individual himself must have done
it. Let's take the fabulous electronic brains which they're
building today. I've seen some of these giant brains and
fooled around with the giant brain theory many, many, many
years ago, before it became so popular that every bootblack
was making them. And these great electronic brains actually
have a tendency to make a slave out of their designers or
engineers. And I talked in fairly recent years to a couple
of boys who were hand over fist into the electronic brain
business up at Harvard. And there was another guy there
from MIT. And these guys were all ENIAC, UNIVAC, ESKIMAC
conscious to end all electronic brains. And they started
telling me off, because they knew of my interest in the
human mind, about the inaccuracy of the human mind. It was
so inaccurate, it was this, it was that, it was bad, it was
bad, it was bad, it was bad, it was bad, they - it had no
endurance, it couldn't go on and compute and compute. It
just couldn't do this. All from a standpoint of an adding
machine with a couple of extra tubes in it, they're telling
you how bad the human mind is.

And these guys ran off at the mouth and frothed and
hydrophobicated for some - and I finally said to them, "Well,
what made this UNIVAC here, anyhow? What made the UNIVAC?"

And they said, "Well, a great deal of experimentation."

I said "No, no, no. What made the UNIVAC?"

And they said, "Well, engineering science."

And I said, "No, no, no. What made the UNIVAC?"

And, "Well, people made the UNIVAC, of course."

And I - "People did! The human mind did. If the human mind
were not capable of each and every operation that is
contained in that machine then that machine wouldn't sit
there, would it?"

This made them furious because they were utterly unable to
accept the human mind in any way, shape or form. These boys
were running so automatic that I swear to Pete, they had
little - I mean mentally they were running so automatic
that they undoubtedly had little green flags that popped up
in front of their face to tell them when to get a cup of
coffee, and they probably had other automatic machinery
which put in the sugar. And it's just terrific. I mean they
had set themselves up totally automatic. Of course, they've
thrown all their automatic machinery into restimulation.
Actually they didn't understand too much about the human
mind or the UNIVAC either, for that matter. It could have
been made much, much better. I mean, you could look it over
and there were tremendous number of refinements you could
make if you were cognizant of some of the mechanisms of the
human mind.

Let's take the mechanism of making a facsimile. The mind
makes a facsimile by resisting the environment. It puts up
a big energy mass then it says bloo, see? Got a facsimile.
It says "stop" or "come here," you see, a tractor
facsimile. By the way, tractor facsimiles are quite cute.
They quite ordinarily are black on the side that the
individual is looking at them. And facsimiles which are 
made by resisting are black on the other side. If
you turn a facsimile around you quite often find it's black
on the other side. Well, anyway, the human mind will make,
by resistance and by compelling something toward it, all
these pictures. And a lifetime of these pictures will add
up into various categories. It will file very, very neatly
and so that any beam of thought which penetrates through
these pictures will go only through the winning valences.
And that is the way computations are solved by human mind.

Takes a - that's a reactive level. Computation, I said, you
understand, not ideas or anything sensible. It will take a
whole - a reactive answer is obtained in this fashion, by
the way a reactive answer any day of the week is better
than a mathematical machine answer. I mean, they are more
accurate answers. So we take these - a machine can only deal
with abstracts - we take the set of facsimiles which are made
by these resistances and compulsions toward one, we
recognize that these facsimiles were chiefly made and most
bountifully made at periods of stress, you see. At a period
of stress is the real moment to make a facsimile. People
made these pictures all the time. But when you really get a
nice, big mass, it was a moment of stress. All right.

They take these, as I say, stack them all up. But the way
they stack up, the common denominators of them are losing
valence and winning valence. We pay not too much attention
to the losing valence. We pay attention to the winning
valence. And of course, what apparently is winning, it may
be some entirely different thing than what really wins, you
see, because it's merely a reactive computation.

Father always got his way. How did father get his way?
Father had migraine headaches and heart trouble.
Definition of winning valence: Migraine headaches and heart
trouble. See, stimulus response, machine, logic. All right,
we stack this set of facsimiles of Father up and we find
out that if you want to win, the computation says right
there, why you have to have migraine headaches and heart
trouble. So that this will begin to weave through every set
of facsimiles the individual makes.

So he's out on the playing field one day, he happens to
like baseball, and it looks like he's going to lose the
game and he immediately turns on a reactive computation
and he does almost anything he can do to get himself a
migraine headache, such as stick his head in the road of
the ball, or something like this, you see. That's the
proper answer. Or he will simply become psycho-somatically
ill and have to be taken back to the dugout so that he 
won't be part of this losing game.

Necessity to win, anxiety to win, fear of defeat and so on,
are basic computations which are set up so that you can
get a computer, such as the reactive mind, running. You
have to set up these things as artificial things. They have
to be set up as just rank arbitraries. Boom. You have to
set up "We have to win." Now, that is just an arbitrary set
up in order to get a computation. If you didn't have any
choosing between winning and losing, you'd never get a
computation at all on anything, you see. You could say - you
could count how many apples there were in the barrel, and
so forth. But the second we did something dynamic about
these apples, and so on, we would start to run into some
tiny degree of win or lose, you see. "Should these apples in
this barrel sit out here in the sun?" Well now, if we had a
method by which we could distill spoiled apples into
alcohol, the answer would be yes, you see? We would win in
terms of havingness. And if we didn't have one, why, of
course, by letting them sit out there, we would lose,
wouldn't we.

Lose. Win. In other words, have.

Well now, how in the name of common sense do we ever get
something which is basically no mass, no wavelength, no
location in space to get into the interesting idea that it
has to have. You understand that a - that a perfect duplicate
of a thetan would be another thetan. That would be about
all there was to it. Not a perfect duplicate, I mean a copy.

For a thetan to communicate with anything it would have to
have no mass, wouldn't it? And you mean to tell me that
this beast actually develops and accumulates a thirst to
have? Well, there's the basic problem on the track. There's
the basic way you get some randomity. There is the basic
method by which the individual makes his communication
lines more complicated and makes a game possible.

He sets up things which he cannot duplicate and which
cannot duplicate him. So he's got a communication breakdown
of one kind or another. This is a sure way to break down
communications.

The first and foremost way to break down communication is
to have a distance. And he promptly you see, if he's going
to have any kind of a game he's got to break down
communications someplace. If he has total communication,
there is no game possible. So he breaks down communication
first and foremost by having a distance and next, and
immediately at the same time really, by having a mass. Now,
boy, that really breaks down communications. Any mass
really breaks down.

Well, how does it do this? Well, it's - a thetan can't
duplicate it, that how it does it. And it can't duplicate
him because it wouldn't be a mass if it did.

So there're two ways to break down communication. Now let's
get a third way and say this mass, when it is no longer
here, cannot communicate from here but has to communicate
from there, where it now is.

Get the idea? I mean, we move that mass from an original to
a secondary position. We would do that and we have broken
down communications further and computations begin to arise
right away because you can no longer communicate with the
mass in the original location, we think.

You see that? See how that would break down a communication
line? It enters the factor of time. You cannot communicate
now with a then. Can't communicate now with a then. The
reason you can't communicate now with a then is because the
then has been displaced into its now position.

These three elementary methods of breaking down a
communication line much more definitely break down
knowingness. Knowingness is the higher echelon; the first
and foremost echelon which becomes broken down.

But they break knowingness down by first inventing
communication and then breaking down communication. And so
you have limited your knowingness so there is something to
find out and so that you can have a game, and so on. It's
an extremely elementary sort of mechanism.

What's this have to do with havingness? Havingness, then,
must be an inversion on the truth. It just must plainly be
that havingness is an inversion on the truth. If it can't
duplicate a thetan, if a thetan can't duplicate
havingness, then certainly somebody someplace has done a
switch.

So the thirst and anxiety to have is the thirst and anxiety
for a game. In Hollywood, in the old days, they used to
have a great many slang terms which described the various
parts of a story. I was out there. We used to have a
considerable vocabulary along this line - some of them
printable and some of them not printable. I understand the
modern writer calls a typewriter a typewriter and a piece
of paper a piece of paper and the heroine a heroine and the
hero a hero, and he's a very well ordered fellow. He wears
a coat and tie and goes to work regularly, sits down at a
proper desk. And there aren't any movies for years either.
Well, anyway, the computation there on the story plot was
that you always had to have a weenie. Now, a weenie was
the gimmick everybody was after. And a weenie could be a
gold mine, it could be a girl, it could be a carload of
bullion, it could be the - it was anything everybody in the
story was after. And a story plot couldn't exit unless you
had something there as a weenie. And you look over any
story plot, you will discover that part of its anatomy is a
weenie. And when it doesn't have a weenie, why, no - no
story. Nobody's after it. Nobody's after anything, you see?

And once in a while a foreign movie will come along which
seems at first glance to violate this necessity to have
people after something. And we take a French picture that
was very famous one time or another. A very pastoral
picture about a fellow and he got himself a wife and he got
himself a small farm and an old house and started to put it
back together again, and the story wanders on and finally
comes to a conclusion. And nothing happened throughout the
whole story and you would immediately conclude that it
didn't have a weenie. Oh, yes it did. The farm field was
the weenie. Trying to keep his farm. Farm was the weenie.
Now, you could have said there was a secondary weenie to
get very technical; and that was the crop. He had a real
rough time with the crop. God was after it too, with
locusts and things.

So, here we had a - here we had one of the most classical
sort of stories that - and yet we didn't end up violating
this basic rule that we had to have something that
everybody was after. If you don't have something like that
there's no game, there's no story, there's no action,
there's no desire, there's no bereftment. See, we've just
cancelled everything across the boards when we throw that
weenie out of the story. Yet I've had a producer do this.
He'd sit there, look rather interestedly at the script and
say, "Well, I don't think we need this, do we? This, all
this talk about this mine here right here in the beginning.
This is - isn't necessary. We'll just dispense with that." So
everybody is chasing everybody throughout the story
without anybody chasing anybody for anything. Public thinks
this is very silly.

Actually, a - an editor of a magazine once did this to a
friend of mine, Paul Ernst. Just in the interest of getting
the story to fit the print, he cut the first two thousand
words off the story. In this particular case, the mine was
not mentioned elsewhere in the story. It made a very silly
story. Here's everybody shooting everybody and people
getting real upset and scrambling over mountains, and doing
all sorts of things and riding horses half to death, and so
on, and there's no weenie. The sole mention of the mine was
in the first two thousand words.

So a story lacks causation, and the story of life lacks
causation, similarly, without havingness.

The - you'd say that would be the total reason for it, is
just to add some meaning to existence.

But when a person begins to be scrambled on the subject of
havingness, he less and less can have a game. And we see
this weird, peculiar manifestation of somebody sitting
down on Wall Street - by the way, during the war, just - no,
not during the war, just before the war, there was a Wall
Street magnate who had an idea that war might be coming
around. He probably - they probably had it on their teletypes
long before. They probably knew all about Japan, I don't
know. And, sake of business or something, they'd have to
know this. People were secondary. And this fellow asked me
down into the middle of a skyscraper where one of the
fanciest dining rooms - one of the oldest, ricketiest streets
you ever wanted to see - and one of the fanciest dining
rooms existed - I ever saw in my life. And it's sitting right
down there in the middle of Wall Street where you would
very definitely never look for anything except for what
they have on the street level, you know? And, all the
magnates ate there. They ate magnates generally.

And he had me down there, and the sole reason for all of
this confabulation that he wished to engage upon totally
was whether or not I might not use my influence to keep his
nephew out of the war. And he was pretty sure a war was
coming and he was pretty sure that I would probably have an
expedition or something which would be extragovemmental - he
was misinformed in that degree, I'd much rather fight
and - expeditions, that's all you can have in peacetime.

And the point was, however, that this old boy, this old boy
had more rocks, diamonds, gold piles, and shares of stock
than could easily be traced by the Internal Revenue people,
and he was most concerned that no game should take place
for his nephew. The old man had indigestion and oh, I don't
know, he had - he had a lot - he had a power of difficulty as
I've heard it expressed in the South. But he didn't have a
game; he didn't have a game. He had worked all of his life
to make all of his securities absolutely secure. He had
learned well from Black Friday and the depression. He had
learned well. He had gotten to a stage where he didn't even
have to juggle in order to keep his money, that was in
beautiful shape, that was. The game was over. He was using
money for that game and as soon as he got all the money
absolutely secure and there was no further question or
motion regarding money, then he had gone on an inversion
on a game, if you please, so that there must be no game.

Just a few years ago I was up at the Explorer's Club. And
this old boy is a patron of the Explorer's Club. He does
sort of reach out on an idea fashion. He does wander around
there once every few Sundays or something like that in the
hope somebody will talk to him.

Explorer's Club is run in a very interesting way, as a
complete aside and appertaining to nothing here. The
explorers, active explorers who are members of it, have
very, very small dues. It's now about fifteen dollars a
year, something like that. And have these beautiful
quarters and all kinds of this and that, you know. And then
they have patrons of exploration, and so on. And about the
least that it costs any of those is about a thousand
dollars a year. They don't go anyplace or do anything and
they're tolerated. But the hunger and thirst for a game on
the part of these people who don't quite dare, bring them
there. And the club has beautiful quarters.

When the - when you see an individual, when you see an
individual who has gotten too engrossed in ending somebody
else's game, you'll find out that he'll not only end his
game, but he'll invert and his general conversation will be
on the grounds that there must be no game.

Somebody sues you and you mustn't counter-sue. You get the
idea? Somebody comes around and steals your car and you
mustn't load up a high express rifle. I mean, I had an
argument with this character the other night, with
somebody, and he was absolutely shocked and astonished that
anybody would care to make a game out of such a thing, see.
And the whole object must be that you must do nothing. And
this, of course, has a grain of truth in it. The safest
thing in the world to do, for a thetan, is to do nothing
because this is his native state. But when he has entered
into a game and when he does have automaticities and
havingnesses and so forth, all furiously at work, the
moment he starts to do nothing, he is in the soup, crush.

If you are walking around any part of your head or
bloodstream, get hep to a little cell or something and go
into communication with it, and you will discover that it
believes itself to be the sole of truth, it is entirely
encrusted by energy, it's a small black ball, and it knows
what is true. And true is silent and motionlessness. And so
in the middle of this crust of energy, traveling at a mad
rate in your bloodstream, it is being silent and
motionless. It doesn't work out.

Now, it mustn't have a game. The phagocytes are in a little
bit different boat. They definitely can have a game.
Actually the immunity of the body entirely depends upon
the game of the phagocytes, which is to chew up any alien
bacteria to the body - pounce. And every time you use a
little more penicillin or a little more this and that to
keep taking the game away from them, you just fix up the
race up to a point where one bug walks along, you know, one
small bug walks along that a few - a century ago and so
forth, wouldn't have bothered anybody, and we have an
epidemic with thousands dead in the streets, see, simply
because we have denied an essential portion of the body its
game. And having denied it its game it'll quit playing the
game and it will decide there must be no game, and that's
the end of it. And it will fall back into motionlessness
and truth. And the bug could walk up to one of these
phagocytes that's been thoroughly indoctrinated that no
game is possible, and a bug could walk up and say, "Nnaw,
chomp," and that would be the end of the phagocyte.

Now, where we have an artificiality, such as there must be
a game, introduced in the first place, we're bound to have
complications. And actually, this is an artificiality. It
is not a natural thing. I mean, it's not native to the
thetan. He can think of and produce a game.

Now, we can certainly understand that this can reverse,
right? Well, now, a game is based on have to have. That's a
game, see. At varying degrees have to have a game is the
first obsession. And now, we get down to just have to have
mass. And this, of course, will reverse, sooner or later,
into mustn't have mass. And if we mustn't have mass what do
we got left? We've got considerations or conditions.

So we ask somebody who is having a real rough time, we
start processing him on 8D, and 8D starts going along very
neatly and very nicely, with one exception: the replies are
all conditional. 8D, you know, "Where would your mother be
safe?"

And he says, "Well, let's see now, my mother - safe," comm
lag, comm lag. And then finally says "Well, she would be
safe right over there if my father were present."

And you say, "Well, where else would your mother be safe."

And "Well, ummmmm..., ummmmm, she'd be safe in the rain if
she were wearing a raincoat."

Now, right away we've lost location. If you can get him on
location once you're good but after that he's gone. It's
all conditional, conditional, conditional, see? She would
be safe under these circumstances if other circumstances
were present. She would be safe under these circumstances
if other circum - . And you finally say, for heaven sakes,
find the wall.

Well, of course, you don't say it like that, you say it in
a very friendly tone just as though you didn't - hadn't
discovered something about this boy. The fellow who does
that may be thinking about a game or may even be obsessed
in talking about a game but the truth of the matter is, is
he can't have one. He can't have. And you'll see everything
he's doing. He may be talking about having but that's as
close as he could come to the acquisition of any mass.

Such people are very, very curious when run as cases. One
doesn't envision the state of mind as descending from
sanity to neurosis to psychosis. This is the basic error of
psychoanalysis, psychiatry, neurotomy and other mental
sciences. The dwindling spiral of mental ability is not
through these artificials, these are three artificials,
highly artificial. Merely means the fellow is hung in some
computation. It merely means he's controlled if he's
averagely insane, you see?

I mean they - the battiest people can walk around out here
and do the sanest motions. Boy, are they being sane. See,
they've heard of this basic computation that you have to be
sane. And that means that they've got to restrain wild or
erratic motions.

Somebody who tells you how sane he is just have him put up
a mock - up of restrained motion and watch it fly to pieces.
He's, you know, he's being sane. Well, these are artificial
conditions; sanity, neurosis, psychosis. These do not
describe states of mind. They describe certain types
energy. They describe certain conditions and certain
averages. A neurosis is merely that the fellow has an
inhibition or obsession in some line or another. And a
psychosis he generally can be counted upon to be rather
glued up with the glee of insanity which is a lower
denominator of pain. And, as I say, sanity is one of these
words that would defy the devil. No, which the devil would
use as a tool.

No, the gradient scale of mental ability goes this way,
mental ability goes: "No game necessary. To "Let's have a
game." To "Have to have a game. To "Have to have something
very, very valuable in order to have a game." To, well,
"You better not play a game." This type of gradient scale.
I haven't described the exact gradient scale but that's
the type of gradient scale there is.

It would be "have" and "not have" as a gradient scale, you
see. And so you get these tremendously complex mental
factors, you get these tremendously complex factors
because all of these conditions of life could each and
every one of them be a game and that would be have and not
have along some certain line.

Let's take - let's take the Know to Sex Scale. We take know,
look, emote. Now, let's just take emote. Look how many
games people can have in having to have emotion and not
having to have emotion. I've known people that couldn't
work at all unless somebody was furious with them.

I've known individuals that just thought that hate was the
nicest thing to have around you ever saw in your life. He's
a nice fellow, he hates everybody. Here we take
lookingness. The amount of trouble which people have with
their eyes tell you there're all kinds of degrees and
variations of sight and mechanisms of sight which they have
to have.

You look around - you'll see people inventing all kinds of
mechanisms for lookingness: Weird glasses, contact lenses
one lens dark and one lens light, no lens at all but a
screen over the eye. Just look at these various mechanisms
and we see immediately there are a lot of games possible.

Well, everyone of those things is the weenie. And if you
can look at a psychosomatic ill or an attachment to assist
perception or ambulation or livingness as a weenie in a
game, why, the explanation of what's going on with that
person will become brilliantly clear.

We walk down to a fellow's house and we look around and
he's got - he's got a beautiful collection of skulls. And we
say, "I wonder why this fellow would have to have this
beautiful collection of skulls?"

Well, he can have skulls. This we know, see. And he will
have some sort of a game mocked up on the basis of skulls.
But if you ask him a little bit further and more
penetratingly considering these skulls are a weenie, you
would immediately discover that there was somebody else in
the world who considered skulls very, very valuable. And
that's Joseph Schmidt who is in New York City, and this
Joseph Schmidt in New York City, he collects skulls. He
thinks he's quite an authority too, you see. Just a dunce
really. And he unfortunately was able to collect the skull
of Mary, Queen of Scots, what was being purveyed, and so
on, but actually there is some doubt as to its
authenticity. We'll discover that there's a game sitting
there with those skulls.

Now, we look at a person's castoff possessions. A persons a
keep around, have around - a great many gadgets that they're
no longer using. They have jewelry they're no longer
wearing. They have all kinds of bric-a-brac. And they can
tell you in a highly general sense, "Well it's gone out of
style, or it's - ," there's some other glib explanation or no
explanation at all. They just say, "Well, I just don't wear
it anymore and that's that."

But if you wanted to get very, very significant about the
whole thing you would discover that in each time and each
case that the item or articles have been cast away that a
player was lost. Each and every change in the use of
possessions is accompanied by the loss of an old player or
the appearance of a more interesting new player. Think of
it in terms of a game and you've got it.

This girl no longer wears this locket. It's a beautiful
locket but she no longer wears this locket. It's been
sitting there in her jewelry case for an awfully long time.
She is not even vaguely attracted to this locket, it has no
sense or significance anymore and someday she will
offhandedly give it to the maid. Well, why isn't she
wearing this locket anymore? Well, it's not that it's out
of style. No, that is not the case. If we questioned her
just a little bit further we would discover interestingly
that all kinds of things had gone on in relationship to
this locket and they didn't go on anymore and the people
with whom they went on are no longer around. And that's - it
isn't really that she's holding onto it, for any real
reason. If the reason she was holding onto it was plumbed,
we would probably say, well, she hasn't thrown it away,
given it away, melted it up, converted it or lost it simply
because it's a nostalgic item. It consists of the memory of
a game and that's why she keeps it by. It's like party favors.

I have seen people keep an old piece of tinsel of some kind
or another the like of which you - you know, you can look at
it and you say, "Well, that appears on the Salvation Army
Christmas trees in better shape," and yet that means a
great deal to them. It's a nostalgia, a party favor,
something of this character, a Christmas they had,
something like that. So here's our, here's diagnosis;
diagnosis along the lines of havingness. We don't have to
engage in very much diagnosis but if you were quite alert
in processing you could understand far, far more about your
preclear just by his possessions and his aversions, and so
on, than he would tell you in an awful lot of conversation.
Because these possessions tell you at once whether he has a
game, whether he has had a game and tell you whether he
still can have a game and give you, of course, an index of
interest in life.

This guy who keeps crowding his bedroom with pictures of
himself taken with Theda Bara, pictures of himself with
Rudolph Valentino, and so forth, and we just find he's got
more pictures and more clippings and, gee, they're in there
as mass. Mass-mass-mass-mass-mass, in terms of junk twenty
years old. We know this guy doesn't have a game anymore.
And that game is represented by havingness. It's still
represented. When it is no longer represented by the
havinguess it won't even be represented by a memory. That's
in most common cases. When they're no longer keeping around
an old body they don't even remember that life. No game, no
players, you see?

Now, in processing the remedy of havingness actually
remedies whether or not one can or can't have a game. And
you'll find most people are terribly set and blocked with
gritted teeth, you might say, against certain things. Well,
those were games they can't have.

See, now, let's take it down one more echelon. They can't
have these things. Well, those things represented a game
that they can't have. You get the idea?

Now, let's take our young hopeful preclear and discover
that he has a very, very nasty case of gallstones. And he
doesn't want them. Boy, does he protest. Of course, it
might look to you that he is actually inverting and he
really does want them and there's some kind of a desire
back of all this. Well, yes, there is a desire that
terminals, the automaticities, and so forth, have to do
with this. But let's look at the more basic reasoning
behind this. And we discover that his great protest against
these gallstones has to do with this fact that his
grandfather had gallstones. And we straightwire out the
fact his grandfather had gallstones and his gallstones have
a tendency to let up one way or the other. But the game of
Grandfather-Grandmother, living around Grandfather-Grandmother, 
has long since ended. And he's still keeping a token of a 
game that was done, see, still holding onto a token.

And so we get all these things; tokens, and so on, can just
as easily be a psychosomatic ill as they can be a party favor.

Grandma and Grandpa aren't there anymore. There is no game
but he's still keeping the gadget because we discover that
this set of gallstones was quite a game between Grandpa and
Grandma.

You see, he really - Grandpa had to stop work when he was 53
because he had these gallstones and after that everybody
took care of him and when he didn't want to do something or
something of this sort my he'd have a bad attack. Those
gallstones at one time or another were a weenie. See, they
were something somebody used very actively and your
preclear now isn't using them at all. They're just there.
In view of the fact that they're no weenie and he is there
and the game is over, he doesn't want them, all this
involvement you see can go on with relation to these
gallstones, they really worry him.

They wouldn't worry him a bit, by the way, if his wife,
your preclear's wife, were handled easily with these
gallstones. This would not worry him. But they are no
longer useful in a game and yet he's got them because he
wanted the old game. But he hasn't got that anymore. But he
wants the token. But he's got Grandpa and Grandma; got to
have the token from there, you see. And the closest he can
come to possessing any part of that was a pair of
gallstones. So he's got that but it doesn't work in any
game he's playing now. But it might some day.

Somebody might walk into the bedroom and see all these
pictures of this character posed with Rudolph Valentino and
Theda Bara and say, "Well, well, my, my. You are a famous
fellow. Let's put together a road show," or something of
this sort, you see, and here we go off again in this game.
It might be of use.

Now, have you ever seen this pack rat - the pack rat preclear
who has nothing but junk out in the back yard and in his
dresser drawers, and so on; the collecting preclear? Oh,
Freud brought up some weird things that they collected too,
but we don't have to go that far south to find people
collecting things. And this pack rat preclear still has
hope of a game sometime or another in relationship to
something. But everyone of those items represents a lost
player of one kind or another, a lost game, something of
this sort.

But they have upset this individual's havingness most
horribly. You know he can't quite have all those things.
See, he can't quite have them but he might have a reason
for them. All this involvement and entanglement with
regarding a mass object. Well, of course, the introduction
of mass in the first place is an unduplicatable thing.

The introduction of space makes - space is a little easier
to duplicate for a thetan than mass. But he manages to
duplicate mass, he manages to duplicate space, he manages
to make spaces duplicate spaces and masses duplicate
masses. And he gets interchanges and automaticities and so
forth. And when he can't think of anything else to do with
something, he puts it on automatic. Let's remember that.
When he can't think of anything else to do with something
he puts it on automatic.

When he doesn't know what to do with a set of memories that
he was once very fond of but which now he's given up all
hope, you see, of these memories ever being used in a
game - my, he was one of the best Indian trackers you ever
saw in your life. He was just a wonderful Indian tracker.
He could look a few miles away and see where some air from
a footprint had breathed on a bush. You know, he was really
sensitive and he had a lot of fun too, let me tell you - the
shooting behind every bush - . And gee it was a wonderful
game. And he has for a long time afterwards, either by
forming the Boy Scouts, or something of this sort, managed
to hold onto Indian tracking. And he's finally given up,
utterly and completely, utterly and completely the idea
that Indian tracking could do anything about it at all.
Well, he'd put it on automatic. It was a sensitivity, you
see, that - so that it would grind out on a facsimile
pattern, one way or the other, because it still might be of
use to somebody so he'd better keep it running somewhere.
And we get all kinds of weird responses so that your
preclear out here walks out back and very carefully walks
around a footprint which has been made in the mud only he
didn't know he was doing this. He saves the footprint.

He - a little bit later on he begins to find very definite
signals and that sort of thing - well, let's take paranoia.
Paranoia's so many times described so differently from
psychiatrist to psychiatrist that we have a very hard time.
Paranoia is actually the "against it" engram. The
individual, everything is against him. But they claim he
has one of these manifestations which is a peculiar one, is
that he will believe that nearly everybody is trying to
engage in sexual activities. This is Freudian paranoia, I
mean, it's distinct from other kinds.

He's - he's trying to engage in sexual intercourse with the
marital partner of the paranoid, you see, so that
everything and everybody is trying to make his wife, or
something like that, unfaithful to him. And when this
becomes very marked he will get down to signals according
to Freudian paranoia. He'll get down to signals so that
anytime - . Well, let's say a wastebasket is slightly
displaced in the house. Well, this would be a signal to one
of his wife's lovers that something or other something or
other, you see. And anything that was changed even slightly
in the house or his wife - oh, of course, if she put up a new
set of drapes he would practically kill everybody at the
place because this is obviously a complete signal. Well,
there is one of these manifestations out of control. It's
been put on automatic because it might've been some use
sometime or another and then, of course, it's shown up as a
very, very interesting mechanism; an obsessive, compulsive
game that this individual is playing.

He never consults whether or not any lover would ever be
able to see into a house from whatever angle to notice that
a wastebasket had been moved one inch, you see. He would
never notice this at all. This is not part of his - of his
computation. It's just the fact that a wastebasket has made
a signal, that is enough to convince him that a sexual
spree is about to take place, something like this. This is
again Freudian paranoia, and probably a ridiculous thing.
Although, such a case has turned up in Dianetics. We have
had such a case. Processed it rather routinely. Processed
it without much trouble and finished it up in about 36
hours. But the main thing here - talking about is you put
something on automatic because he doesn't have a knowing
use for it, you see. He doesn't know of any use for it but
he still keeps it around and he hangs it up on automatic
because he actually has lost hope for it. More than
interest he's lost hope for it and it goes on automatic.
And after a while it will fly out of his control and the
next thing you know why it's running him! Which, of course,
is another kind of a game.

And possibly this guy that is looking for all these
signals, at one time or another was one of the finest
Indian trackers in the Arizona territory. You get the idea?

So that's how we get these automatic things going. You can
say about any automaticity that the person has lost
interest or lost hope. This is a factual fact, I mean,
that you can use in auditing definitely. He has lost
interest in or hope for something. And he no longer wants
to stand over it and tend it himself so he's put it on
automatic.

In order to put it on automatic he has to put up terminals
of one kind or another which will discharge against other
terminals. This is hiding a game. Hiding it. Throwing it
away, as far as he is concerned, consciously. But not
throwing it away at all, as far as he's concerned,
automatically. And therefore we get automaticities and the
causation, reason therefore. And there's why a fellow has
to have a couple of quote "unknown terminals" unquote to
discharge unknownly against one another to produce
unknownly some other kind of manifestation so as to produce
an effect or reaction. It's real cute, of course. The
couple of unknown gimmicks producing an effect and reaction
are fascinating. Surprises everybody.

One of the basic games a thetan has is to mock up a little
black box, pretend he doesn't know what's in it, open it up
and be surprised. When he gets too surprised it'll kill
him. But an automaticity of course furnishes lots of
surprises and so we can go along that rationale. But now
we're just looking at it from the standpoint of havingness.

When the havingness is out in plain sight no possible
damage can accrue, no damage at all. It's when the
havingness becomes incorporated into automaticities and is
lost to sight that it can then do something, strange,
peculiar or unusual, to the preclear or those around him.
And he ouly buries and creates an automaticity when he's
lost interest in or hope for a weenie. You understand that
he kept - still kept this gimmick around in plain sight for
an awfully long time after the play - other players were
gone, then finally he buried it. And when he buried it and
put it completely out of sight he, of course, got a new
kind of covert game which can raise hell in all directions.

So we get the Freudian fixation on exposing something to
conscious view; the obsession to expose something to
conscious view in order to bring about a release, and so
forth. You sort of reach into the guy's - the vest pocket of
the unconscious mind and bring out the small music box and
set it on the table and say, "Look, a music box." And they
would go really no further than the music box but they
could've gone a little bit further and said, "Who was the
player?"

And this would've exposed the game to view as well as the
object. First thing that would come to view - it would come
to view out of an automaticity, you see. And then having
come to view out of the automaticity would simply be in
view as the weenie of a game now over. And then we would
have to discover who the players were and the thing would
click into place in time. And those would be the steps you
would take to actually uncover an unconscious mechanism.

Unless you took all these steps, or unless you could take
all these steps, however, the unconscious mechanism would
not uncover. Now, it all goes back to havingness. We're
interested to a very marked degree with preclears in the
unconscious mechanisms of the mind - those things he is doing
that he doesn't know he is doing.

What he knows he's doing won't hurt him. But when he
doesn't know he is doing them anymore they can raise the
dickens with him and the society and people around him.
Havingness is the answer to all this because all it does is
sit there and overtly knock out of existence old weenies
which have becoine hidden. But havingness is not the total
answer to this because, again, we haven't found the
players. But we can certainly knock holes in unconscious
mechanism without ever bringing it to view. It is
unconscious. It can stay unconscious simply by the remedy
of havingness in the various parts of havingness. And one
of the lightest processes there is on this would be "What
can you have." And an individual run on this can achieve
some very interesting and astonishing things in terms of
self-cognition.

It's self-cognition because he's probably never looked at
himself before so you wouldn't be able to call it
self-recognition.

All right, I'll give you an example of this, give you an
example of this with a little group process here, okay?

Okay. Now, think of something that you can have.

Go south young man, go south. Think of something you can
have. Something on the order of tired feet or something
like that. Something you can have.

You got something? You know you can have something? Hm? All
right. Now, let's think of some more things you can have.

Remember no argument about it, I mean something that you
really can have; a worry, something like this. It doesn't
matter what.

Some more things you can have.

Okay. Some more things you can have.

All right. Now, some more things you can have - that you 
know for sure you can have.

You got some for sure? Hm? Have you gotten some for sure?
Hm? All right. Okay. Now, let's think of some things which
would fight you. Some things which would fight you.

Okay. Let's find some more things which would fight you.
You found any yet? Hm? Let's think of some more things that
would fight you.

Okay. Let's find some more things that could fight you.
Getting some now real easy, hm? Got some real easy now, hm?
Well, okay.

Now, let's think of some things you can have. Some things
you could have.

Okay. Let's find some more things you could have.

Okay, getting that real easy now? Hm? Getting that real
easy now? Hm? All right. Now, let's think of some games you
don't have anymore.

Okay. Some games you don't have anymore.

Okay, okay. Now, let's think if you still have anything
around representing games you don't have anymore.

Got anything around still representing games you don't have
anymore? Let's think of some more games you don't have anymore.

Okay. Some more games you don't have anymore.

Okay. Got that real good now? Hm? You know that?

All right. Now, let's think of some players who aren't
around anymore. Some players who aren't around anymore.

Okay. Okay, now some things you could have. Some things you
could have. Okay. Some more things you could have.

And, let's think of some things, now, that you don't want.
Some more things that you don't want.

Okay. Got that now? Hm? Got that now real good?

Now, think of some games that you could have. Let's think
of some games. Good. Let's think of some games you could
have. Okay. Got some good ones? Some games you could have?
Everybody got some games he can have? Huh? Got some games
you could have?

Okay. Now, let's think of some people you could play a game with.

Find some? People you could play a game with?

Okay. Some more people you could play a game with. Got some
for sure now? Hm? People you could play a game with?

All right. Now, let's get something we can have for sure by
reaching over, getting up, reaching over and touching the
nearest wall. Push against it. Have it push against you.
Push against it. Have it push against you. Now, get the
idea that it's pulling away from you. Get the idea you're
pulling away from it. All right. Now, get the idea that
it's pushing and you're pushing. It's pulling, you're
pulling. It's pushing, you're pushing. It's pulling, you're
pulling. All right. Now, you're pushing and it's pulling.
You're pulling, it's pushing. It's pulling, you're pushing.
Now, get the idea it's pushing and you're pushing. It's
pulling, you're pulling. It's pushing, you're pushing. It's
pulling, you're pulling. It's pushing, you're pushing. It's
pulling, you're pulling. It's pushing, you're pushing.
You're pulling, it's pulling. You're pushing, it's pushing.

Okay. All right. Find the floor, let go of the wall, find
the floor.

The floor there? 

Audience: Yes. 

Is it an adequate barrier?

Audience: Yes. 

Is it an adequate mass? 

Audience: Yes. No.

Can it be used in a game? 

Audience: Yes. 

Can the wall be used in a game? 

Audience: Yes. 

You sure?

Audience: Yes. 

The floor be used in a game? 

Audience: Yes.

Can the ceiling be used in a game? 

Audience: Yes. 

Can the space around here be used in a game? 

Audience: Yes. 

Can your body be used in a game? 

Audience: Yes. 

Can it?

Audience: Sure. 

All right. Feel the floor. End of Session.

You could ask an individual to go back and dredge up every
game that he had ever had anyplace with anybody and when.
You could do this and with some glee you would discover all
of his basic psychosomatics, difficulties, worries and
aberrations suddenly falling out in your lap by asking him
to do no more than just remember a game he had, and
remember some players he was playing with in a game and so
on. Anything that would be wrong with him would fall in his
lap and also abandoned abilities. Have you any idea the
attitude of a - of a famous concert pianist, two lives
later, with regard to concert pianists? He doesn't like any
concert pianist but he isn't one.

Male voice: Probably be crazy.

He could be.

Actually he's completely abandoned from it. It'll only show
up in a complete disability of some kind or another so
that he can't go near a piano. Or he can't read music once
he sits there and looks at it. It'll just be a complete
thud. This one he has assigned utterly to an automaticity.

Now, one of the ways to get him over that would just have
him remember games, remember games, remember games. And
gradually get him to spot where they were and with whom and
where and so on. And all of a sudden some of these
completely dark pits of disability will suddenly shake
free. Because you're really validating the existence of a
game, not telling him games he's failed at; remember some
failures you have. I mean, this'll just run him back down
scale.

I understand somebody present was run the other day, by an
auditor who has since been instructed better, "Give me some
things you can't do."

Was anybody present? We batted this boys ears down real
good but he said - but it was a funny thing - he said, "You
know, the preclear looked like she was coming up and then
dropped back again," and so on. Wasn't anybody present.
Okay. He didn't give me the name of the preclear. He
inferred that it was somebody present.

"She'd come up and then she'd drop down again and then
she'd come up again and she - I - she just looked like she 
was going to discover the gimmick in it and then would drop
down again and so on.

And I said, "Well, this is merely an attribute to your
two-way communication ability. Your two-way communication
ability must be very good to have held that process up for
any length of time at all." Then we slapped his wrist. Hm?

Female voice: I heard another interesting one the other
day, which was, Wait. "Now, wait some more," like you were
doing, started like you were doing the Group Processing
that night. But the twist was "Now get the answer you
weren't expecting," then "Don't get the answer you were
expecting." That was real cute too. Real wild.

Well, whenever we get too far off track we know we have
gone in a definite direction. One, we've gone in a
definite direction toward the no games, see, no games and
no action and silence. And we go toward no games, no action
and no silence just be very sure that you're processing in
the wrong direction. Might be a very sure, certain one that
will discover lots of masses sitting around but no games,
silence and no action. Any auditing command which fulfills
those requirements is bound and determined to wind a
preclear up.

By the way, I've just recently completely satisfied my
curiosity with regard to a certain factor. And that is
Validation Processing. Just completely satisfied my mind
with regard to this. That processes which are not toward
action, motion and communication are wrong and foul
processes. And that validation of entheta, this is the
other one, that validation of entheta to any degree at all
on the part of the auditor - by looking for specific
significances, by looking for specific aberrations,
processing straight at chronic somatics and so forth - is 
an error of magnitude. And just after all these years -
have just finally come out into the absolute clear on this
subject. There's no slightest doubt left in my mind.

Now, before this - yes there was a bit of doubt. You see, 
I'd seen an awful lot of people get well by wiping out a
chronic somatic. But now I have seen it carried along long
enough, carried on enough by enough people and made enough
tests that finally it is just the kind of convincing
evidence you get from being struck by a cannon ball. That's
very convincing. The other day another - a guy walked into
the office and he had a brand-new process. Actually it's an
old group process, about third unit group process, and he
walked in the office and he enforces upon the preclear that
they sit absolutely still while they are doing this
process. And he told me an awful lot of results which he
has had - had from this process. And I have no reason to
believe that this individual would overtly lie to me about
processing results but I must assume that he is. I must
assume that he is lying to me about processing results
because this same process was tried and sitting still was
tried as a process with complete failure, right straight
through the bottom of the barrel.

And if we combine sitting still, absolutely still you see,
and being very careful not to move with the remainder of
the process we know it would fail. So these are the
yardsticks which research auditors and myself have managed
to accumulate here over the past many, many months.
Yardsticks that if it goes toward silence, if it goes
toward inaction, if it goes toward no communication it
will wind the preclear up in the soup eventually even
though he makes some small gain. If it goes toward those
things then that's bad.

So we see what we can validate. We find out another factor:
freedom cannot as-is. Freedom can't as-is. You can't erase
freedom. You can turn your back from it and fixate on a
barrier. Getting a person to fix - unfix from a barrier is
simply convincing him that there are other terminals which
he can use for the generation of electricity. It's only
necessary to get an individual convinced that there are
terminals other than the one he's fixated upon in order to
get him to shift his attention off of it. But you have to
convince him of this. Therefore 8-C run on a psycho takes
his mind off those terminals which are psychotic, you see?
He takes his attention off of them. But he will not till he
finds out there is an object around. This is real cute.

I would say, offhand, that it would be impossible to do
very much for a psychotic without getting him to handle
solid objects. I real - just impossible. I mean, we might
read a lot of fancy things, we might think of a lot of
fancy things, and so forth, but unless we actually did get
him in contact, good thorough communication with a solid
object, we would have left him in the position where he
had to remain connected with a psychotic terminal. Some
energy mass, some bank or another that has swept in on him
or he's using as an old game. You know, psychosis is quite
a game itself There is nothing like an eccentric behavior
to command a great deal of scurry on the part of the
environment.

We have this boy Hutson out here, psychosis is just a game
to this boy. It's revenge. His mother, a Christian
Scientist, laid into him on the subject of masturbation and
invented all kinds of reasons why and had herself tell him,
had other people tell him very convincingly, that if he
continued with this practice that he would go insane. Now,
it isn't then that masturbation would make anybody insane,
but you could certainly convince somebody, couldn't you,
who could then pick this up as a terminal exchange and in
lack of any other game make a game out of craziness. You
see? He could make a game out of this. How constrict and
restrain.

Now, this boy started to come out of the soup the moment we
started to run 8-C on him, just keeping you on a running
report on an interesting preclear in the vicinity, started
to run 8-C on him. By the way, his first contacts with the
objects were like this. And then he would suddenly go over
to something and grab hold of it and shake it in a rage.
Then he'd relapse and would miss several auditing commands,
just wouldn't do any of them, and then go like that, see?
And then get mad at some other object. Then he started to
come right on up the scale. You understand what he wouldn't
do? He won't take his attention off of that mass which is
generating energy. See? He won't take his attention off of
that mass until he's got something solid he can put his
attention on, demonstrating another terminal. This
psychotic terminal over here is a much better terminal than
no terminal. And the solid object is the only thing it
could supplant.

Well, I kept you much longer than I ordinarily do.

Thank you. 

Audience: Thank you.

(end of lecture)






