From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Tue Mar 16 13:20:11 1999
Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!feed2.nntp.acc.ca!feed.nntp.acc.ca!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.stanford.edu!su-news-feed4.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 20:20:11 -0000
Subject: FZ BIBLE 17/35 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: <ed663e1b804d6987ae9bd502430092f8@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 1634
Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:689973 alt.clearing.technology:76115

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

9th ACC - THE SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT CASSETTES 17/35

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 17/35

9th ACC 13 (14) - HAVINGNESS AND COMMUNICATION FORMULAS

Transcript of lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC13    -   
5412C23 Renumbered 14 for "The Solution To Entrapment"
cassettes 

HAVINGNESS AND COMMUNICATION FORMULAS

A lecture given on 23 December 1954


I asked you yesterday to see if you couldn't reduce
something on somebody. We've had one example here,
processing "the face saying hello." And the manifestation
which I told you about occurred, of the fellow moving out
automatically in front of his face and all that sort of thing.

Another example here of the preclear getting a foot which
had been injured to say "hello," and finding herself very
fascinated and fastened onto - same thing - all of the various
aches, pains and stubs of yesteryear, and finally
discovering that the toe was not present at all and then
processing the toe and getting some life back into the toe.

Now, just along that line, who else - who did reduce something?

Male voice: Muriel had an injury on her finger there. We
worked with that a little bit. Some swelling, inflammation
seemed to reduce in just a short time.

Uh-huh. An injury, this was an injury?

Male voice: Yes, a cut, injury.

Good, good. And that went down.

Female voice: Yes, we just had it saying hello. Not me
saying hello.

That's right.

Male voice: Yes, it saying hello to her.

What was it saying hello to?

Female voice: To me, and to the rest of the body.

Good. Well, to you as distinct from the rest of the body.

Female voice: Well, sometimes it was one and sometimes it
was another; it did seem to vary. 

Oh, you got an automaticity there. You want to - you want -
as the auditor, you want to make sure you define what it's 
supposed to say hello to. Although it will work with just 
the thing going around just simply saying, "Hello, Hella-ha-ho!" 
You know. It will work. Well, that's real good. Who else had 
some luck there? Yes.

Female voice: I lost some weight too, from yesterday afternoon.

Well, this is, this is one of the more fascinating facts as
you will discover as you go along further.

All right. The problem with which we have been faced for
some time has been the problem of the reduction of
undesirable energy deposits and spaces. Remember we aren't
just dealing with masses. Let's not get so fixated on a
mass that we avoid the idea of space.

Now, undesirable spaces ordinarily suddenly turn up to have
something in them, which is one of the more curious things.
We find it is just jammed full after we run something.

Let's say we find a space. Now here's the question of the
toe; the toe is absent. There is evidently a space in this
toe, see? That's the way it looks to the preclear, doesn't
it? Looks like just a space there, there's no toe, you see.
There should be mass, and there is space. Starts to run it
for a little while, and first thing that shows up is a
somatic, and then the toe shows up.

That would be the way it would go. The somatic would show
up before the toe would show up. In other words, there's
something there that is saying, "Don't you communicate
with me!" And the fellow starts in and it's all of a sudden
spat! And he says, "Well, I'm sorry I did." And in the
ordinary course of human events, just the effort to
communicate with the area would send up some tiny little
warning signal, and it'd say, "Dzz-dzz-dzz-dzz-dzz,
dzz-dzz-dzz!" And the fellow will say, "Well, I'm sorry," 
only he wouldn't even think about it. His attention would 
simply wander over to a space.

Obviously nothing there, you see. Space. And his attention
would come off of it very, very rapidly. Now, many, many
moons ago, in 1952, I gave a series of lectures here,
somewhere late in the fall, I think it was, if I remember
rightly. No, no, that's right. It was probably that all
those lectures were - undoubtedly some must have been
somewhere around August, or something like that.

From audience: July and August. Yes, sir.

Yeah. Well, I described a phenomenon of asking a preclear
to look around his environment, you know. Just look around
his environment. And splat! He will get something in the teeth.

There is an engram known as the "Tumbler" which leaves the
individual's entire environment strewn with a hole. And if
he sees this thing or looks in that direction, and if you
ask him to look for it, why, it'll cave in on him All
right. This is a curious thing.

You can take anybody. Particularly take somebody who looks
pretty badly beaten up, or something like that. And you ask
him, "Now, look around, look around somewhere, look out
there in front of you, look up, look over at the side," and
somewhere he's going to pick up one of these undesirable
spaces. Just like that. He's going to pick up a space. And
that space going to kick him hard.

Well, why didn't it kick him before you started to audit
him? Well, that' because it always did kick him. See,
that's why. His attention would go ove on it, you see, and
it'd just start to get in the vicinity, and it would
tick-tici tick, you know, and attention would come right
off of it, without his knowing he had put his attention on
it. You see?

Now, there is the (quote:) "unconscious mind" (unquote) at
work. There an unconscious impulse, an unconscious
reaction. It is a place you shoulder better communicate with
and it appears to be a space.

Now, there is the anatomy of inversion looking right at
you, there; ti anatomy of inversion. It's a space and it
turns out to be an object. And processing the object will
then make it turn out to be a space. And then processing
that space occasionally will make it turn out to be another
object. And processing that object, with just communication,
acknowledgments a answers and origins, you would then get
it into a state of a space. And tI time it would be a space.

Now, this spooky manifestation is what has all of us as
thetans spooked. This is really the only really spooky
manifestation that really bothers a thetan. He runs into
this space, it's apparently a perfectly good space, he
starts to go in communication with it and it bites! So he
says, "Space is dangerous." And therefore he doesn't want
anything to do with space if he can really avoid it. Now,
do we see this space manifestation? Hmm? You got that?

There is, you might say, an allergy to space. All right,
let's take Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health,
the example of the fish. A little fish, he goes into yellow
water, yellowish water, and he starts to eat something,
and powie-powie, he gets bit. As far as he's concerned,
thereafter, this empty water - you might say spatial water,
had no object in it - is dangerous! Why is it dangerous?
Well, it has an object in it! And he learns this lesson so
well that he will thereafter avoid that space.

And this is the automatic avoidance of spaces. An automatic
avoidance of spaces. He puts up - actually, he does this
trick - just so that it won't happen again, just to remind
himself; and so forth, he puts up a facsimile of the
incident in that space, to occupy that space, as far as
he's concerned, forevermore, and so serve as a warning to
him not to enter or get into that space. You see what he
does? And this is the mechanism. Definitely is the
mechanism involved in restimulation, as far as spaces are
concerned. That is why an individual will not approach an
area easily where he has been injured.

Now, if you know this mechanism, you can lick it with great
ease just by knowing about it. But let's say you had an
automobile accident or you've gotten arrested by a speed
cop or some other trivial affair, and the next time you
pass that spot you will think about it. Why do you think
about it? You got a facsimile sitting in it.

Do you carry your facsimiles around, hanging on you? No,
you don't. You leave your facsimiles parked all over the
flam-damn universe! You see what you do with them? You hide
them. So in case you ever look at that space again, you
won't look at that space again, and that's the way to be
safe. And the moment individuals get fixated on the idea of
being safe, heh-heh, they're dead! See, it's a lie that you
have to be safe. See, that is a lie.

That is a lie which is making neurotics out of school kids
and juvenile delinquents out of high school kids. What are
they saying all the time to them? Safe, safe, safe, safe.
Safety campaigns. The prevention of injury. Prevention of
traffic tolls. Prevention of this, prevention of that. Do
you know they're creating them?

Male voice: Sure.

They're creating them, just as easily as though they were
taking kids out and throwing them underneath the wheels of
cars.

If you get traffic so beautifully regulated, for instance,
if you get traffic so beautifully regulated, they expect
kids only, and pedestrians, only in certain areas, then
they're not going to be very alert in other areas. So you
run up trolls. You know most of the accidents that you see
are actually in prevented areas. They're at street corners
where everybody is supposed to stop or where you have
crosswalks. They've done an inversion. The area where they
have accidents are the areas that are supposed to be safe.
And the most regulation, well, of course, that is the most
incidence of traffic at that particular area so of course
you'd look for the accidents to be in that area. But there
is something else that calls this a lie. And that is the
fact of the distribution of the little white crosses that
some states put up to mark motorists' deaths. You'll see a
cross, and every time you see one of these crosses, for
goodness sakes, look during the next hundred yards for the
second cross. And then look for the next one, and if that
early cross has been there quite awhile, you will have a
whole string of crosses.

Just the fact - you get the stimulus-response character of a
driver anyhow - just the fact that he sees a facsimile, that
little cross tells him a facsimile of death is sitting
here. And the stimulus-response mechanism - this is as easy
to understand as an adding machine - the stimulus-response
mechanism throws in to bring about a death there, see?

Male voice: Too many deaths death. 

Death, death. But let's look a little bit more at what we 
know about it now. 

We know that the thetan customarily parks in an area of
injury and hides a facsimile of warning. Very cute
mechanism. It won't obstruct his view; he can look straight
through it. If he looks through it! But if he looks at it
or starts to look at it he will be steered away from the
area just as easily as a bug is steered to an electric
light bulb. See, the same type of automaticity goes on there.

So we put up a little white cross and this tells the
thetan, "Hey! There's a facsimile of death sitting there."
Wham! Well, look it. This thing defeats itself; doesn't it?
It is not a security mechanism at all. It sure gives a guy
a lot of games! Get the idea?

Now, he could have put it up to be secure. He could have
put it up to have further games. He could have put it up
just to be doing something. But life at large uniformly
employs this mechanism. Spaces have something in them. Of
course, that's the one thing a thetan can't duplicate
easily. Somethingness. You see, nothingness, that's easy.
So let's make the game a little tougher by having all
nothingnesses contain somethingnesses. So that makes it
very hard to duplicate everything and sure keeps you working.

Well, whatever rationale we have, we do have a mechanism
which is in common in life and is the mechanism of the
facsimile and does tell us that the facsimile sits where it
occurred. But wait a minute. If it sits where it occurred,
how is it going to get into action against the individual
who is now someplace else? How is it? There has to be two
facsimiles, doesn't there? There must be two facsimiles
involved. So that when one changes, the other changes. Right?

Why, this dirty, slinky, little cur of a thetan makes two
of 'em. And he holds one to his chest and he leaves the
other one on the site. Therefore any disturbance at the
site will alert him. But any time he looks toward the site
the picture he's carrying with him will activate, won't it?
Oh, but this is very, very easy to do because there isn't
any such thing as space.

So you have to have a double idea of every facsimile, or
two facsimiles, one or the other, it doesn't matter. So
after we erased it, in 1950, after we erased it on the
track we had to erase it in present time if we really
wanted it to be gone, completely and utterly, didn't we? We
were erasing two facsimiles.

Actually there were three. There was the facsimile of
erasing the facsimile at the site. And actually there were
four! Because there was the facsimile of erasing the
facsimile at the point of auditing, present time.

Oh, no, wait a minute! There were five, because we had
to - we had to erase the erasure of the last erasure, didn't
we, huh? Oh, no! No, you really think it over though, there
are really six. Because the action we just undertook also
made a facsimile. Well, the fact is, we get a dwindling
spiral as far as the facsimile is concerned because we're
making it communicate all the time. The erasure, the
mechanism of erasure, is a very crude mechanism, a very
crude mechanism.

I mean, our activity in erasing an engram. But pretty
terrific. Actually hypnotists at one time or another have
made a person recall something several times, and so forth.
Not the same as a Dianetic erasure. But the Dianetic
erasure, although very crude, was still better than
nothing. And it still worked better than we had in the past
been able to handle these things.

All right. Now, let's look this over, and discover that we
have undesirable masses, and undesirable spaces. At the
same time we have desirable masses and desirable spaces.
And this would merely be whether the space was pro- or
contrasurvival, whether the mass was pro- or
contrasurvival, and again falls back on opinion and opinion
only.

Therefore, the auditor, in auditing, has to make some
decisions along this line himself. You could overtly erase
a great deal of prosurvival mass. Let's say we erased all
the money in the fellow's pocket, we erased his new suit,
we erased what good looks he had - get this - and we sure left
the Fac One sitting there, see. And we left the wart on his
shoulder. Get the idea.

Direction of erasure is under the control of the auditor.
It always has been to some degree but never like it is
today. All right. The auditor then can erase at will. If he
can erase at will, he will discover the preclear will
change his mind about creating. Why did a preclear stop
creating? He stopped creating because there was just too
damn much. Get the idea? There's too much! That was the
basic worry. He made this and he made that and he made
something else and it disappeared, and so he made a lot
more and he made a lot more and the next thing you know he
finds himself in the middle of too much space or too much mass.

And he says, "Now, wait a minute. If I go on creating, I
will get into a bad way." Let me give you a very modern,
present time example of this sort of thing. We take
somebody who is overweight and we have him remedy
havingness. We can shoot this poundage out of sight by the
remedy of havingness. We can just make him mock up and
pull in, you see - not the whole process - mock up and pull in
heavy and dense masses. And mock up and pull in heavy and
dense masses. We never let him get rid of one, you see,
we're not really remedying havingness at all, we're just
adding mass as distinct from remedying havingness. An
auditor should know that very sharply, that remedy of
havingness is the remedy of the need to have, not mocking
up masses to get the preclear lost under.

All right, so we mock up, have the preclear mock up and
pull in and mock up and pull in and mock up and pull in and
mock up and pull in and mock up and pull in and mock up and
pull in, and oh, boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy. If you were
to put him on a scales before the auditing session, put him
on the scales after the auditing session, you would
discover that you were not dealing with mental energies
entirely different and distinct from physical
energy - "Ha-ha! We're all sane, us scientists! See, the mind
is something else. Ha!"

Today, I am trying to find something that is not the mind!
Different problem. I just completely did an inversion here
on all of scientific theory. Scientific theory started out
with a complete inversion that it was all matter and mass
and space and the chemical combinations out of a sea of
ammonia and other such seas finally produced the accident
of chemical life. And they prove it to you, too. They'll
show you that crystals will grow. And they will. They'll
grow an inch or two and quit, soon as they run out of fuel.

Well, regardless of that, we've gone over to this one:
we've all - but we have not just reverted as a revolution.
Actually we went up with great care, up the whole line. How
far can we get away from this mass theory? You see? We
postulated there was such a thing as life, though we didn't
know much about it. But we sure did know an awful lot about
mass, you see, and space, and so on. So we started to move
out of mass and space, gently and gradually, into more and
more concept of what life was all about. And as
understanding of life broadened, we have reached the point
of where I don't quite know where to turn to find some mass
and energy! You get the idea. I mean, they are completely
contrary to the most fond scientific view of today, which
view of course is very, very handy to have, if you're
trying to make slaves out of everybody. You say, "You don't
amount to anything at all. You're just mud, fella! You're
just a biological accident, that's what you are. And we
have - don't have to take any responsibility for you, any
more than we do a test tube or something in the laboratory,
you see. You're just mass, and so therefore we don't have
any responsibility at all! I mean, a test tube breaks, all
right it breaks."

I saw an army film not long ago. The army said - it's
utterly fascinating; it was the rescue, airborne rescue
unit. The army rescue unit goes in and picks up lost flyers
and things like that. And it starts out with the fact that
a man is only composed of ninety-seven cents worth of
chemicals. It lists them, and it says it's utterly
incredible that anybody would waste any time at all saving
them, however, this unit does go ahead and do so. And that
is not quite as brutally blunt as that because they're more
covert. They aren't even, even blunt enough to make a nasty
remark straight across the boards; they make it rather
covertly. But that is definitely the message which you
receive. And then they show all of the various mechanisms
of rescue and several very famous rescues, and so forth, on
this line as - almost as curiosa that anybody would bother!

Well, here we have shifted very definitely, and very, very
markedly, very markedly, our viewpoint of this matter.
We're trying to find something now that isn't life. And
plutonium could be said to be life compressed and
entrapped to such a degree that it'd eventually protest
loudly. Well, plutonium acts like that! Plutonium acts just
like a preclear. That was what fooled the scientists. See,
it fooled them. You know, matter acted so much like life,
and life acted so much like matter, that, of course,
naturally everything was space and energy. You see the
conclusion they drew? They had - they did. I'm not just
gagging. They did draw this conclusion. So you take a - one
of the big gags that was going around at MIT, while they
were still overt and before the government had entirely
taken over on atomic energy, they said they were going to
invite the Atomic Energy Commission and everybody
connected therewith to dinner. And they were going to serve
their dinner on plutonium plates. And they were all going
to eat their dinner off these plutonium plates, and at the
end of the dinner, why they were going to make them a
speech. And they were going to say, "Well now, boys, we
have an idea that there are better uses for atomic fission
than blowing up Earth, and we want you to immediately and
herein and hereafter agree to dispense with all war use of
atomic fission and restore it to its proper industrial
sphere. And if they didn't agree, they were simply going to
stack the plates!

Because the only thing, you see, the only thing that makes
plutonium completely intolerant, is the same thing that
makes a scorpion completely intolerant of the presence of
any other scorpion or anything else, see - proximity. It's
dead against it! It protests with loudness.

Now, we take somebody who is black five, a good, solid,
unprocessed-at-all black five, see, and we go over and we
touch him on the shoulder. I did this one time to a fellow
who had been - had the usual course of psychoanalysis -
twelve or fifteen years. And he was sitting there minding
his own business; he was very well aware of my presence.
And I was walking around the room, picking up some books
and things and I stopped alongside of his chair. He was
still very well aware of my presence and that I had hands
and everything, we will assume, and I - he made some sort of
a remark, and I said, "Uh, now, tut-tut-tut, that's not
true!" See, and I tapped him three times on the shoulder,
you know. And this fellow went kind of white and he sat
there and he - I said, "What's the matter?"

And he said, "Oh, just a moment," he said, "I'm working it
out." I said, "You're working what out?" Well, he says,
"I'm just a little sensitive to being touched."

So an hour or so later, we resumed the conversation. See,
he had worked it out by psychoanalysis, I guess
rationalizing that in fact that he had probably been
spanked for touching the private parts of his father or
something, I don't know. Anyhow, he worked it out in some
rationality and after that we could go on with the
conversation.

The sting on a scorpion, the various other mechanisms that
life uses, are, when life is very intolerant of existence,
simply mechanisms of repulsion. "Don't get too close, fella."

The US started out with a flag of a rattlesnake that said,
"Don't tread on me," and I think it was Benjamin Franklin
or somebody explained it very gently to the Continental
Congress and so forth that a rattlesnake was not good to
its young and so forth, and so they laid off the symbol.

But they - the main difficulty in life, is an intolerance
line. And you have a whole strata of animal life which is
on this intolerance line - utter intolerance. They will do
something about proximity. See, they protest about
proximity. And because one line of life is protesting
against proximity, of course you would expect another one
to develop which protested against distance. So there are
two distinct stratas of life byproducts, meaning
facsimiles, spaces, chemicals, physical universe spaces,
and so forth. There are two distinct lines there. One which
believes that proximity is bad and the other one that
believes that distance is bad. And between these two things
you get the basic game called physical universe. You see,
it's just the playing of one against the other.

Fly believes proximity is very bad, but he lands on the lip
of one of these insect-eating plants, and it believes
proximity is wonderful.

Now, we discover that the person, that persons in the human
race follow one or the other of these examples. But they
are not following it as an example but as a basic
operation which life began in the first place.

You get a wonderful game of interplay where you say, "Don't
get too close! Don't stay too far away!" See, between those
two things. And so we have in the human race people who
have either of these to an enormous extreme. It really has
to be extreme before you really start to see it. These
people have to be pretty dug in or upset or something of
the sort. And they represent it physiologically. The very,
very thin, the extremely - and boy, I'm really talking now
about extremes - the human skeleton sort of a person is
objecting like mad to proximity. And even when they are
(quote) "feeling affection" or (unquote), whatever you
want to call it, they still have a draw-away impulse.

And there is the other kind, and again we would get this in
extremes. We can trace both of them, by the way, in the
nonextremes, see. But when we're looking for pure types,
we'd have to get somebody who's up there around 350 pounds
or something like that, to get the other extreme, and this
individual would be absolutely incapable of staying away
from anything or letting anything stay away from him.

Such a person runs a variety store up on the street up
here. And he gets back and forth. He's, I don't know, about
380 pounds, I think, and he gets back and forth. And every
customer that is leaving the store through the counters
that check out the goods, every customer leaving the store,
if he is on duty, is spoken to by this fellow. And this is
of course very good ARC and all that sort of thing. But
that isn't why he's there, really. It's havinguess.

He sees those goods leaving his store. And it upsets him.
And so he stands on the outer side of the counter almost
preventing people from leaving the store, you see? And his
common flow of conversation is to comment on some of the
things which they had before they came into the store. You
know, like their clothes, and so forth, and the
desirability of these items, which of course is very
flattering to the customer. You know, "That's an awfully
nice dress you have there, where did you get that?" so
forth, the terrific desirability of costumery. Well, this
fellow just can't stand to see anything separate, and you
can see the look of pain on his face, just flick, you know,
every time he sees a bag of goods leaving the store. What
he would love to see would be shipments coming in all the
time from all the factories of the world, you see, to this
huge variety store, you see. And they would get parked
there, one way or the other. And customers would flow in
the front door and the side doors of the establishment, and
they'd never leave. And nothing would ever be sold or be
moved out of the store. And this would be a wonderful state
of affairs as far as he's concerned.

Now, most people mix these two things under this heading of
pro- and contrasurvival items. Masses and spaces, see? They
mix these two things. They still have judgment. They have
criteria. In other words, they can still afford to be
faithful to their basic postulates that things can be good
and things can be bad. And these people are still
exercising this criteria and as long as they do, we
consider them sane and as soon as they don't we say they're
nuts. But it's totally possible that somebody never had a
prosurvival postulate. You see, this is a possibility that
anything could be prosurvival. There is this possibility.

So we might look into one of these extremely thin, drawn-in
cases and find out whether or not this person ever
considered the approach or proximity of anything, anyone,
was good. And this other case, we might look into that and
find out if he had ever made a postulate that the approach
of anything could be bad. But he must have made a
postulate contrary to it that the leaving of anything must
be bad. See, he's made another type of postulate there.
Anything departing is bad. Anything approaching is good.
Judgment. He would welcome a bullet.

The other fellow must have made the postulate that anything
leaving is wonderful. And I have seen such people, by the
way, on definite inspection, I have seen such people be
very relieved, extremely relieved, to see things that
should have stayed there, depart. See, real happy about it.
And have seen them get very efficient and effective the
moment they had made up their mind to leave the whole
situation. See? Leaving, departure, that was good, that was
joy, and so on. So we just have these two combinations of
things. Pro- and contrasurvival, departures and arrivals.
That's about all it amounts to.

All right. We see all of these things, the cohesion,
adhesion and dispersion - something, by the way, that the
scientist has never adequately described or covered with
language. The dispersion or the antipathetic action of
similar particles. I guess he just - these things are far
apart, so he never observes that they have an antipathy so
that he speaks of cohesion and adhesion. He should speak
of cohesion and unhesion. You see, he should have a word
that looks just like that and is that simple sitting right
there in his vocabulary. But he doesn't have that word.
Tells you what those boys are fixed on.

Anyway, every time we get an extreme condition we get some
kind of a basic postulate on the track just as one-sided as
I've been talking to you about. Now, most people, as long
as they're in good shape and as long as they're doing well
in life, most people can accept or reject - aha! We were
going someplace, huh? - most people can accept or reject
according to their interpretation of pro- or
contrasurvival or it doesn't matter. See, they can accept
or reject things according to their judgment. And they have
a great many arbitrary judgments.

Only when these judgments become reactive or automatic do
we as auditors see any difficulty in them whatsoever. An
individual who just can't abide spinach and doesn't eat
spinach, but if he eats it nothing happens, he could be
said to be operating on an analytical criteria. He believes
that spinach doesn't taste good and that's his idea and
that's all there is to it. That's his opinion of the
matter. But let's take the boy who can't abide spinach and
when he eats it becomes ill. Ah, we're into the reactive
band, aren't we?

Now, there's nothing wrong with having these judgments.
Quite on the contrary. We couldn't have a game at all
unless we had somewhat fixed values of good and bad, good
and evil. We'd have to have somewhat fixed values if we
were going to have a game. A fellow couldn't have another
game unless he could change his values. You see that? He
couldn't have another game. He'd be stuck with a game as
long as he was stuck with good and bad values.

So he keeps on playing this game and playing the game and
the game gets more and more one-sided, and he's liable to
move out into "everything must move in and nothing must
move away, or "everything must move away and nothing must
move in" categories - all on a reactive basis that he doesn't
know what he's doing. He's exercising no criteria
whatsoever. And this individual we would call in a very,
very bad way, and we would say he has lost considerable
ability.

Therefore, we have a process which fills this in and which
is an effective enough process. This is one of those
eight-star processes called Accept and Reject, is the name
of the process. It's one of the R2's in The Creation of
Human Ability. And this R2 is sufficiently strong that
without particularly or materially upsetting anyone it has
never failed to exteriorize a preclear. And I want to make
that very advisedly, and I say that with good solid
cognizance of what I'm saying. This is not a loose
statement at all.

So much so that one preclear, who was supposed to be dead
in about six months, and who actually was so thoroughly
stuck physiologically in the embryonic state, who could
not get into a two-way communication even vaguely, well,
whose arms were actually only about, at the beginning of
processing, only about eighteen inches long, little
flippers, a grown man, been this way most of his life.
Diagnosis: Multiple Sclerosis. Prognosis: death in six months.

He's not just alive right now. Of course, I will say that
the auditor in this case, and I, rose to some rather heroic
heights of figure-figure and predict with processes in
order to get this boy into enough two-way communication so
that something like this process could be run. And because
we experimented with several processes while running him,
we extended the auditing time materially. But the auditing
time on this case to bring it up to a point where Accept
and Reject could be run was unfortunately a hundred and
thirty-five hours. All of which time was spent on two-way
communication, a very, very flabby version of 8-C and, what
really brought him into line was about - this had to be
invented for him. It was invented by his auditor, Sanborn.
Had - Sanborn was trying to get simple enough, to register.
Preclear perfectly willing, you see, to go ahead and do
this process, and all that, but trying to get simple
enough. So he invented a simple elementary straightwire and
that's quite a trick. And this simple elementary
straightwire, which snapped him up to enough awareness and
so on, so that we could run Accept and Reject on him, went
as follows:

"Remember something. Now, remember a man. Remember another
man. Remember another man."

Well, this fellow was going off onto systems continually.
When you said remember a man, why, he would remember a man,
and then he'd remember that this fellow was a newspaperman.
So he knew a lot of newspapermen so he would just reel off
the other newspapermen that he knew. See, he wouldn't
remember them at all, he - he'd work it out in a system. So
everything fell into place by classes. You've seen
preclears do this. This is a real cute manifestation. I'll
punch that up, because you'll see this manifestation often.
And to hell with these systems, they're just not getting
the preclear anyplace. You want him to remember another man
and you want him to remember that man and when and where.

But, in this case we couldn't even vaguely have asked this
fellow when or where. And, "Remember a woman. Remember
another woman. Remember an object." And on this type of - he
just went up the dynamics, by the way, as far as he could
go with rationale. And before he'd proceeded about halfway
through his program, the boy all of a sudden snapped into
two-way communication. And oh, the amount of petting and
pampering and so on. By the way, this case is terribly
inhibited in his recovery by an antipathetic environment,
antipathetic to Scientology. Terribly inhibited. Probably
multiplied the number of hours involved maybe by four, as
any auditor around here will tell you. Nevertheless a
hundred and thirty-five hours is no fantastic investment of
time, when you consider a case like this.

All right. We got him up to this point and started to run
Accept and Reject on him. Our auditing plan was as follows:
Get him out of his head. Have him straighten up - had to get
him in good shape, exteriorized - have him straighten up the
anchor points of the body and dust off the case. See, zero.
That's the end of that. We were working him up to a point
of where we could exteriorize him and we knew what process
we'd exteriorize him on, too. We'd exteriorize him sooner
or later on Accept and Reject. And here, a hundred and
thirty-five, maybe a little bit more, hours, we were able
to get this plan into action on Accept and Reject. Took us
that long to make sure that this man could even vagueTy
follow a subjective order, that we were even vaguely in
two-way communication with him at all, see.

We finally pushed it in, finally got it working, and in one
half of one four-hour session, he was exteriorized with
good perception on Accept and Reject. Gives you some idea
of this process. You see, this is a kind of a havingness
thing. It is the basic considerations back of havingness,
and the very considerations about which I have been talking
to you, here, this lecture. See, here we have, you see, the
fellow who, you know this is bad so it mustn't come in, and
that's good so that has to come in. And we got acceptance
level mixed up in this and some of the most incredible,
some of the most horribly incredible acceptabilities, you
see, existed. What was really good? Excreta. That was
wonderful, see? And, oh, Freud would have loved this case,
and would have been able to do nothing with it. He sure
could have studied it, though. Now, all of these basic
screens had inverted on this character. All of them had
inverted. So that anything that was slimy or horrible, or
miserable, or mean or cantankerous, and so forth, that was
his slurp-level, you might say, that really came in. Well,
we reversed all of that just on getting him to run Accept
and Reject, and he changed his postulates with regard to
this and that, and found out that he could Accept and
Reject his body at will at which moment he was
exteriorized. See where we worked him to?

If you can't reject your body, you can't exteriorize. If
you can't accept your body, you can't reject it.

So we worked out the automatic factors. Now, Accept and
Reject belongs with the Remedy of Havingness as one of the
Six Basic Processes. It is the consideration level of
havingness. And it determines whether or not one wants to
bring everything in or one wants to throw everything away.
And it recovers to the individual his criteria; his
decision to have something and bring it in, his decision
not to have it and throw it away. This is what it recovers
to the individual. It works out, actually, better on a
postulate level, Accept and Reject, than it works out
otherwise.

The commands of this process are a very, very simple thing.
They are, "What are you willing to accept?" And the fellow
will do a lot of figure-figure, you don't care. "What are
you willing to accept." "Something else you're willing to
accept." And he'll finally come around and start looking at
the room! He'll extrovert to the room, you see. And he'll
say, "Well, uhhm. . .1 don't know, I. - . oh, those
cigarette butts in the ashtray." See. "Yeah, I can accept
those. Nobody else wants them, so I could accept them." And
so on and so on and so on.

Then, when you had that good and flat, you would ask him
"What can you reject?" Now, it sometimes takes quite a
while to flatten this with the preclear. That acceptance.
Now, "What can - uh, what could you reject." You want to make
sure, though, that if this process is taking a long time
that your preclear is running what you're asking him to
run. Remember, it's a subjective process and you do not
have a telescope into the center of his thetan machinery
to find out what the hell he's doing now, see. Remember
that. That's why you've got to work him up there to a point
of where you're darn sure he can - knows you're there and can
take your orders. And this, by the way, is something
that's - a surprisingly large number of cases can't do, and
don't do.

If an auditor errs, it is erring because he is an able guy,
erring in crediting the preclear with an ability. He errs
in that direction continually. If he could just think of
his preclears before he starts to process them more or
less as he thinks of objects, he would be a much happier
auditor because it'd be much closer to truth, you see.
Wind-up toys are objects. They're very, very
stimulus-response. It's a matter of, "what
self-determinism?" you know. After he's worked them for a
while he actually does start to recover and discover in the
individual this ability. Because he saw it there in the
first place, he was able to work the individual better. So
this is not all bad, you see.

He was able to work the individual better, but at the same
time he isn't aware of the fact that the individual is
actually changing, markedly and rapidly, because the
individual is now becoming the individual he thought was
sitting there in the first place. So he doesn't think any
real change is occurring with the individual. All right.
The auditor error which comes up in this is simply
manifested along this line: He is confident that the
preclear is doing what he told him to do on a subjective
process and the preclear is not doing it. Every case which
was not recovering even vaguely on subjective processes
when closely questioned, and this was a large number of
cases, when closely questioned on an E-Meter, admitted,
themselves, that they had yet to run the auditor's command
as given. Get that?

You say, "Remember something about your mother." He would
forecast something about his father in the future, and
answer - acknowledge to the auditor that he had remembered
something about his mother. And this was every case that
wasn't making progress under old-time processes. This was
every case, you understand? I mean, we didn't have any
exceptions along this line.

So, that's the one big snag that an auditor can run into.
If he doesn't know that real well he's got no business
handling a subjective process. This is the big snake pit of
a subjective process. The preclear does not do the
command. But you look at this person, this person is
perfectly well groomed, this person is in fairly good
condition, this person is fairly successful in life, this
person is rational, this person is interested in things.
And you say, "Remember something about your mother."

And this person forecasts something in the future about his
father, and says, "Yes, I remembered something about my
mother."

Get the idea? That's why that old 8-C's got to be in there;
there's just no argument about it. It's something that I'm
afraid we're stuck with.

You got no business running anything vaguely resembling a
subjective process unless you know your boy is under
control, or your girl, as a preclear. See, you just got no
business doing it. You can waste more time as an auditor
and have more heartbreak and more failures. You run the
process, but the preclear doesn't.

All right. See, there were two liabilities in there. Very
often the auditor himself couldn't duplicate the process.
And so, then when he took his version of the process and
gave it to the preclear and again it was not duplicated,
you had hash! So, this is the - the business of the order
being given to the first private in the line, and being
whispered to the next private in the line, and so forth,
and we find out that "Zero hour is ten o'clock" has been
changed to "Captain is having turkey for dinner."

So, where we run something like Accept and Reject as a
process, we know two things: One, it is not going to work
if the preclear is not capable in 8-C. Two, it is going to
work. You got these two? That's this Accept and Reject.
Many other ways you could probably phrase the same thing
but let's not go off the deep end and consider them
different processes. They're not.

"What were you willing to associate with?" "What are you
willing to associate with?" "What wouldn't you - what would
you just as soon not associate with?" You see, this is
Accept and Reject. "What could you throw away?" "What do
you have to have?" This is Accept and Reject.

But the best auditing commands as has been worked out
gradually - I managed to finally centralize these auditing
commands - that might be given in this, and "What are you'
willing to accept?" "What are you willing to reject?" This
by the way is a good criteria because it's translatable
just as such into practically any language I know anything
about. So it must be holding true.

Every language has a basic word for "accept" and a basic
word for "reject" which allows for no argument. Whereas
they do have differences on such a thing as "associate."
Look what Freud did with "associate." I'm being awfully
hard on the old man this morning. There's no reason to be
hard on the guy, he actually was the entering wedge into
psychotherapy. But I'm young and cocky and I didn't have to
write Psychoanalysis: Terminable and Interminable. I didn't
have to write that. I will never have to write something,
now, I know very well, called Dianetics: Terminable or
Interminable. Apathy, apathy. Imagine a guy beating the
drum, beating the drum all those years, having to sit down
and write that essay. This was one of the last essays he wrote.

He knew he had failed before he died, which is the saddest
thing that can happen to any man. The other sad thing that
can happen to a man is knew he win - knew he won, absolutely
and utterly, and completely, before he kicked off. That's
just as grim! That's just as grim, unless what he won in
itself solved the problem of having won. It's all right,
don't have to worry, the hell with it! This is very, very
fascinating.

All right. We've got Accept and Reject here, as one of the
hottest extenorization processes you ever ran into in your
life. We also have, "Mock up something and pull it in, mock
up something and throw it away," as capable of remedying
masses or straightening out masses. But if we just had
those, there would be no reason for us to feel cocky at
all. We know, definitely and positively, that the ARC
triangle, as such, is the key to all this and that C of
that triangle is the solution to the triangle itself. The
inhabited space that has nothing in it is simply R
subordinate to C. That's reality subordinate to C. When we
introduce R, or further agreement, we would not get a
resolution. If we were to introduce affinity we would not
get a resolution of the inhabited space which has nothing
in it. But if we apply C to it, with our knowledge of its
formula, we then achieve resolution. And boy, do we achieve
resolution.

Now, an auditor can demonstrate conclusively to a preclear
that the preclear actually can get rid of; and reduce to
nothing, a mass. And if the preclear becomes aware of this,
and is very sure of this, then, and only then, is he really
willing to create more masses. If he can't get rid of them,
he doesn't want to create them anymore. He stops creating
because he is afraid he won't be able to get rid of it once
he creates it.

A writer or a painter is apt to dramatize this. They don't
write stories because they can't sell them. They don't
write - don't paint pictures because they're afraid they
won't be able to dispose of them. They will only paint a
picture when they have a ready sale, or a story when they
have a ready market. You follow this? This is just a
vestige of the same manifestation. They don't dare create
something unless they can get rid of it. That's all there
is to it. And if they can get rid of a mass, if they can
demonstrably get rid of a mass, then they become very, very
capable in creating. And so it is safe then, to get rid of
a mass, if you can create a new mass.

Where does it - this go? Reductio ad absurdum, it would go to
the point of where the fellow would be perfectly willing to
get rid of the body any time he could create one out of
whole cloth. Now, let me give you - I mean get rid of a
body entirely and utterly and have done with it only if he
could replace it. Replacement is totally on his own
creative ability and on nothing else.

So, we still, although we might have Accept and Reject as a
process, we are still up against this: We are still up
against the necessity to be able to reduce mass. And this
is the other side of the problem. Origins,
acknowledgments, answers created in abundance take apart
undesirable masses. Remember that it is an undesirable mass
that this takes apart. What a honey of a process. It does
not take apart a desirable mass.

Why doesn't it? Well, you can mock up something and pull it
in, can't you? If you can mock up something, is that thing
a bundle of misplaced communication lines? No, it's just a
mass, isn't it. Hm? It's just a mass. Oh, there is such a
thing as just a plain mass, isn't there? So, you start
remedying communications, you could just go on with this
process and on and on and on with it, and you would find
that it simply kept taking apart to a very marked degree
undesirable mass.

Now, there could be - because your preclear was pretty batty
or something of the sort - there could be some liability to
this. There could be. Theoretically you could take apart
the necessary terminals for the body itself So, cause
something to happen with the body. That would only be if
the individual's obsessively trying to get rid of the
body. And if you run him a little bit on 8-C he won't be.
He isn't obsessively trying to get rid of this thing. Now,
the way you take apart an ordinary and routine mass is by a
perfect duplication as given in The Creation of Human
Ability. You can make a perfect duplicate of any mocked-up
particle and it'll go. Let's not start looking at all
masses in the entire world as the result of a
miscommunication. It's the result of a game, and that's the
truth of it. But where you get masses balled up which the
individual can't handle, the only time this occurs, it is
because the C is absent. Not because the C is present;
because the C is absent. Now, I'll Tell you immediately, a
test which you should be interested in, and that is whether
you should process toward life or death. Whether you should
address entheta or theta. And that process is very simply
given.

I will not ask any one of you to use this process
experimentally because it is probably the most dangerous
process I've ever developed. And it is a raw, rugged
process. Wouldn't seem so. Well, we're hitting in so close
to form, energy, masses and life itself that a process now
can have considerable violence. If you don't believe this,
take somebody you don't like and run it on him. But this is
real wild as a process.

"Give me some things you do not have to stay in ARC with."

Now, look, that obviously is a logical process, isn't it?
It's obviously true, there are a lot of things you
would - really wouldn't have to stay in ARC with. Isn't that
true? Do you know what it'll do to your preclear? You'll
never see an individual go so down Tone Scale so exactly.
He'll go down through rage, he'll go down through fear,
covert hostility and into fear, he'll go down to grief; and
he'll go down to apathy, and if you insisted, and if you
still could process it on him, you could process him
straight into catatonia, just like that! That's a fantastic
thing, isn't it? "Give me some things you don't have to
stay in ARC with."

He'd have to understand what you meant. That's murder!
That's just plain murder! The whole bank pulls right in on him.

Now, you want to change somebody on a Tone Scale in a hurry
when he's exteriorized, all you have to do is run Answer
Processing. That's all you have to do. And he'll go up
scale so darn fast, and sonic, visio and bells will ring
and so on.

If you run it too long or too consistently or too
continually in the body as such, and run it on the body
rather than the remainder of the environment, rather than
upon facsimiles themselves, the body has some tendency to
become upset, mostly because you re not taking it out in
balance. You're using your criteria there. You're saying
"Well, we should take it off here and we should do there
and we should run it on this and we should run it on that."
You start running it on the top of somebody's head and the
next thing you know his feet hurt, you know? You start
running it behind his head and the next thing you know his
nose hurts and his stomach hurts and so on. Nevertheless,
it'll exteriorize somebody.

And here's another lead-pipe cinch exteriorization process:
"Have your body say hello to you." Don't be more specific
than that, just "Have your body say hello to you." It will
blow the guy out of his head. He's never said hello to a
body, I - pardon me, a body has never said hello to him, he's
always said hello to bodies. Just flip the flow. And he'll
go on out of his head.

I have - cannot state at this moment, I have not made enough
tests to tell you exactly which is the faster to get
somebody out of his body - Accept and Reject Processing or
Communication Processing. I don't know which one is faster.
Every figure that I have on it is different, you know? I
mean, there's too much difference amongst these figures. We
can assume they're both batting high and we can assume that
Communication Processing has somewhat the edge on the
process as a process but the speed - one time why, Accept and
Reject, why gee, that worked fast, and the next time why,
Communication Processing, gee, that worked awfully fast,
you see. And the reason why I don't have the figures and
probably never will have them is because I never get a
chance to compare the two processes on one case. And this
was a happy failure, wasn't it? Never get a chance to
compare these two processes. And then we'd have to have an
enormous series of cases before we really came down to - as
far as I would say, theoretically, that the one would work
out will be Communication Processing. That will be the one
that probably works out. But Accept and Reject is real hot.

It has another oddity. You've met the fellow who wanted to
hold off from the rest of the human race, or something of
the sort; the fellow who was too good for everything. We
have a woman that came in here with a preclear - you haven't
really sized this up, I'm sure, even though you may have
talked to her - came in here with a psycho boy. Nothing is
good enough for this woman, and that is what is wrong with
her boy. He wasn't good enough for her. And that's all
that's wrong with her. See, it's this manifestation
continually, repeated and so forth. She's on an obsessive
enforced "nothing is good enough for her."

Of course, you and I like to go into a good restaurant. We
like to have a good meal served well. We like to have the
appointments that we wear in good shape and so forth. But
that doesn't mean that we won't get on some old greasy
overalls or something of the sort and get mud on our noses
once in a while, you know. We'll still do this. Watch it
when you no longer will, when you no longer can with some
glee put on an old coat.

They get on a basis of nothing is good enough for them and
they move right on out to can't have anything. See, you get
the route? Nothing is good enough for them so they can't
have anything.

That is the condition of mind of a criminal, is one of the
primary points in the criminal personality - nothing is good
enough for them was the route they took. And now they can
have nothing. A criminal can't have anything. He's got to
mess up and get rid of or do something about anything, you
see, that he has around. But if you plumb a little bit
further and if you just talk to them and ask them about
this, if you're - if you happen to be wandering down through
the city jail or something of this sort, it's a curious
beat if you ever want to take it.

Ministers never show up where they're needed in the
society. It's wide open and if you ever want to put your
card in your pocket and show up in some interesting places,
show up in such a place as the city jail and you will
discover that as you talk to these prisoners that the truth
of the matter is, it's all bad over there, see, it's bad
over there. And then you ask them about this and about that
and they will turn up their noses at the darnedest things
and you will see the fragments and end product of nothing
is good enough for them. See, but now it's gotten all shaky
and gelatinous, you might say. as a postulate. It's
a - nothing is good enough for them is sort of a frantic sort
of a thing. They can't even dream of something that is good
enough for them. They're in a hectic, obsessive state,
quite ordinarily, on such a thing.

You look this over, I can tell you in just a breath, that
this is it, but you actually wouldn't be impressed with the
ramifications that this "not-have" can take on this basis
of "Well, I can only have the best. I am a lord, I am a
duke, I am not canaille."

Oh, I'm not going so far as to say that the boys who ruled
Europe during the feudal system are uniformly all, every
one of them, criminals. No, I'm not going so far as to say
that. I'm only going so far as to say that those who did
oppress and wreck their areas were. You understand that?

Do you know the guy who was really a good ruler has a hell
of a time. He has a hell of a time. He hasn't got enough
time. That's why he has a hell of a time. He wants to
listen to all the beefs and all the good news and he wants
to listen to all the complaints. And he's very chary of
handing over to some flubdub waddy or - cadi rather - or
some justice or some captain of the guard all of the
complaints because he knows what this guy will do to them,
you know. And he's perfectly willing to talk to the guys
about how the horse crop is coming this year and so forth.
Well, it's a different kind of guy, you never had any
trouble with this boy. But the fellow who was "My Lord";
the fellow who just had to make a great impression of his
great lordliness was a criminal. There's no doubt about that.

Now, this tells you you could look down the line of kings,
various lands, and these boys who had to have their courts
this way and that way and such another way and protocol had
to be this way and had to be that way and so forth. You
were looking at a criminal. If he appeared today we'd throw
him in the jail. That would be an awful come-down for these
boys, wouldn't it. Talked about the divine right of kings,
and I would say that a king had divine right so long as he
didn't thoroughly believe he was a king. It's only when he
becomes convinced of his kingliness that he's a dead
monarch. The country is then without a ruler. It has a
rapacity in its midst.

Quite curious. But you really ought to, some time or
another, look at this-this mechanism in the jail house.
That's a good place to see it; wonderful place to see it.
They steal things that they couldn't even vaguely use. And
then they get rid of them as senselessly because they found
after contact that they weren't good enough for them.
Uhhhh. Real nuts.

All right, Accept and Reject run on these people would
shake them to pieces. Literally. They would be in agony
over this process or they would just avoid it entirely.

So therefore, Communication Processing - you could get them
to have the wall say hello - Communication Processing then
evidently goes lower.

I've actually tried it on such people. I've gotten around.
I've been a real busy boy here the last couple of months
trying to get a summation here of an awful lot of work. And
although you've heard me say many times, "This is it",
and so forth, if I were to tell you that there were no
further developments to be expected in this field, why, I
would simply be a liar or lazy. Of course, a liar is a
fellow who was so lazy that he didn't actually make it
happen before he told about it.

Now, been pretty busy getting things together. Didn't take
very long to write the book, took quite a little while to
plot the thing up one way or the other, I mean, to get the
material involved. I can see immediately several lines of
investigation that stretch out. But do you know that oddly,
the greatest line of investigation that stretches out is
in the ability: How many abilities can be restored to a
thetan, you see? Most of these things are in that line.

As far as knocking off unwanted masses and unwanted spaces,
as far as straightening him out and turning on sonic and
visio and that sort of thing is concerned, this is real
licked. I mean, this is where we should have been taking
off from in 1950, see, we should have been taking off with
this process. But I did what I could. The intervening four
years are not too long to complete an investigation one
way or the other. Of course, it's not completed, you
understand. But we're definitely not any longer completely
bogged down about the human mind, you know?

What can it do? This is the pertinent question. Now, we
know that it can walk around and work on machinery and say
"Hello," and "How are you, Joe." We know it can do this. We
know that it can sometimes work a little bit. And we know
it can put into action machinery, such as Cadillacs and
rattle-traps. We know it can get in trouble and get in
jails. We know it can organize. We know it can misgovern.
We know it can do all sorts of weird things. We know it can
invent a more base sort of game that ordinarily if we were
looking at it analytically we would think 'A game like
this! Oh, that couldn't be a game," but yet it is. We know
all those things. Well, that's real good. Well now, what
can it do? And that is the problem which we're trying to solve.

All right, now here's your class assignment. You have been
processing right along with this. You have, I hope, gotten
some acquaintance with this. Does anybody feel he has no
acquaintance with Communication Processing yet?

Female voice: I don't feel like I don't have an
acquaintance, but I did want to ask one question about - in
regarding a - on a person exterior, what are some of the
things that you would have them communicate with? 

Oh, this is just up to you as an auditor. This is just up to 
the case. You don't have to be specific. I'm asking you as an
auditor to use your judgment for goodness sakes. I am. We
have a lot of set little processes. They are very, great
trick processes, very nice. And you should know these
processes and you should know them real well. And that's
the Six Basic Processes. But when we move into
Communication Processing beyond its basic rules and so
forth, an auditor's power is so markedly increased that to
not turn loose his judgment at the same time would be a
cruelty. You see that? It would be.

Now, what do you run it on, we find out the individual is
looking at facsimiles instead of looking at the wall. This
is a kind of a dumb trick. He looks at the facsimile. He
takes a facsimile of the wall and then looks at the
facsimile of the wall, and you tell him, "All right, now
move that grain of dust there on the wall." So he moves the
grain of dust on the facsimile. And you don't see it move
on the wall, so you say "Well, he didn't move the grain of
dust on the wall," you see. All right. Let's take this
case. Let's have him mock up something and have it say
hello. See, this would be a wild one to do to him. He's got
some kind of an obsessive machine of some sort or another.
Let's have him cook up a machine - this would be a wild
one - have him cook up a machine that made facsimiles so he
wouldn't have to look at anything. Just have him cook this
machine up and then have the cooked-up variety of the
machine start saying hello to him. What do you think would
happen? The machine that is doing this, naturally, will go
boom, or it will start saying "Hello."

Now, every piece of machinery, every piece of machinery a
preclear has is an invisible object in an undesirable space
according to his calculation ordinarily if it's really
butchering him around. Facsimile machinery and so forth,
very interesting.

The byword on this now is get them out and process them.
You get that now? Get them out and process them. Now, how
can you get them out? You've two methods of
exteriorization: Accept and Reject Processing which is run
only when you have had him do enough 8-C to know absolutely
he's following your orders. Absolutely. No matter if those
orders appear contrary, biased, upset or backwards, just
have him follow your orders. I have never taught auditors
to do that but I do it. And some guy - I can run 8-C further,
deeper than I dare anyone else run it, tell you the truth,
because it scares you after a while, just the lack of
reason in the action. You keep taking reasons out of the
actions.

Now, he's doing 8-C because he expects to get well.
Supposing we worked it so far that even this reason seemed
to be missing out of the action. He was merely doing it.
That would be an interesting direction to run 8-C, wouldn't
it, hmm?

All right. So you can run 8-C in the most weird ways. You
can have the guy go over and put his finger on the stove.
Stove's burning. Well, that would burn him, wouldn't it?
Well, you say, 'All right, go on over and put your finger
on the stove."

"Why?"

"No reason. Just go over and put your finger on the stove."

"I know, but it will burn me." 

"Well, go put your finger on the stove." 

"But, it will burn me."

"Go on. Put your finger on the stove." 

"It will burn me!" 

"Go on and put your finger on the stove." 

"Awwww. What are you trying to do to me. 

"Go over and put your finger on the stove." 

"I tell you that it will burn me." 

"I know what you're saying. I understand what you're saying. 
You are saying that it will burn you. I know that and I know 
that you're afraid of this. Now, go over and put your finger 
on the stove." 

"It will burn me." 

"I know. Go over and put your finger on the stove." 

"Uhhh. It will burn my finger off." 

"Well, go on over." 

"Okay."

"Go on over and put your finger on the stove."

You know how far 8-C will run? He can go over and put his
finger on the stove and it won't burn him. He has as-ised
the consideration, if you work it right in talking with
him. Otherwise you could convince him further.

You say, "I'm going to show you. I'm going to show you. I'm
going to make you burn yourself"

"I won't burn myself"

Ooh! We make him resist getting burned. See, that would be
another direction to run the 8-C. A lot of cute things that
you can do with 8-C. That's a very extreme one; takes quite
awhile. There's a lot to such a process.

But nobody's asking you to run 8-C to this degree. I just
say there is more 8-C to be run. The only direction that
you want to run 8-C is to get absolutely certain that the
individual will follow your directions. And then Accept and
Reject or Communication Processing to having the body say
hello to him. You can vary this, you can have the head say
hello to him. But once you decide on your course of action,
follow it through. Follow it through very, very well. And
you will get a considerable change in your preclear in just
having the body say hello.

Blow him out and then don't pay any attention to the body.
The second you've got this boy outside with any degree of
certainty at all, forget about the body. Just skip it. I
know it's still sitting in the chair, but don't continue to
process it in any way. Now have him go through Route 1. All
right. He starts through Route 1. And this is hard
slugging, and so on. Interject Communication Processing any
time that you find the slug too hard. See, just do Route 1;
standard, standard Route 1. Communication Processing can
be shoved in anyplace. Very fast way to resolve the fact
that the guy seems to be able to get four feet from the
body but can't get any further.

Many ways you could do that. You could have him simply - you
just have him run the body saying hello long enough to get
him out, you see. Let's say that everything is black after
he gets outside or he feels rather degraded after he gets
outside or something of this character. You would simply
follow Route 1, this Route 1. But you could get Route 1
over with in a hurry and then you could start picking up
curiosa. Or you could have the wall start to say hello to
him. What do you think this would do?

Now, a preclear will manifest many manifestations and
outside of the fact that I tell you the proper process to
run on a preclear after he's exteriorized is Route 1 or
the use of Communication Processing in conjunction with
Route 1 - I'd leave this up to your judgment.

We are actually, as a unit, investigating human ability.
How do we get there? We got some set processes. They work.
We've got one that works awful fast. Maybe just run Accept
and Reject on him while he's exteriorized long enough,
maybe you'd get up to an enormous stature, you see? How
long do you want to run it?

But any trouble that he gets into, you can now get him out
of in an awful hurry. Oh, an awful hurry.

All right, any further questions about this?

Female voice: We now have permission to run 8-C on a preclear?

Oh, yes, yes. I'm just turning you loose. After I tell you,
that these processes are best worked by people who have
run an 8-C, of course you have permission to.

Your difficulties with people are run into when you start
disobeying the communication formula in running 8-C if you
don't fully fill in all the parts of the communication
formula in running it.

Somebody in the HPC the other day invented step D - it isn't
step D but he called it so - by having alternate orders. The
preclear gives the auditor an order and the auditor does
it, and then the auditor gives the preclear an order and
the preclear does it, and back and forth and back and forth.

You see, he's identified auditing with living. And this
might be very desirable in living but this is a - this is an
auditing session. If you couldn't come over - overcome all
the liabilities and quirks of an auditing session with your
processes, you ought to quit, you see? I mean, there's no
sense to dramatize life with an auditing session. So it
isn't step D. It isn't a necessary part of it at all.

It just makes - it would make the preclear very happy
probably with you and with the auditing session but there
are much more vital things that you can do. He's there to
take your orders. If you can get him up to that point and
get him sailing through processes where you can't closely
supervise him and yet you're - know with great security that
he's doing these processes, he's doing them as told and he
isn't varying from them, and you suddenly realize he's
deteriorating, he's probably now doing something else, you
put him back on 8-C again, wouldn't you?

Male voice: Sure. Right away.

Tell you another trick about 8-C. 8-C was, by the way,
originally invented for an exteriorized thetan. It's very
curious but that was the process. Then we found out it
works so much better, I did, found it out that it works so
much better with a body that we pushed it over into body
processing. And that's where it came from. It even works
on a body; it must be good. It isn't too successful while a
thetan is exteriorized because most thetans are
tremendously upset about the physical universe. They're
afraid faces will suddenly appear.

I ran into a thetan one day who every time he went out
someplace and mocked up something and was going to sit down
for a long investment of the area and so forth, a face
would appear. I didn't think anything more of this. It
scared him. He was scared of people's faces and all sorts
of things. Aw, he - you could say, boy, could you get causes
on this, you know, you could trace reasons why way back to
the beginning of time on it. But I was running "Invent a
game" on him. And it blew. It was the most beautiful little
machine you ever saw in your life. And it stuck up a
suddenly visible but hitherto invisible, from an invisible
machine, head or face each time different, machine. Cute
machine. He sighed deeply when it went. But we invented a
few more games and he said, "To hell with it."

I had a thetan - I had this thetan, by the way, inventing
machinery. afterwards, remedying his machinery, and because
I'd run "Invent some games" and "Have somebody else invent
some games for you" and so on, because I'd run this in
plenitude, his ability on inventing machines and his
inventiveness on these machines was just appalling which
gave me a terrific insight into what some people are using
for machinery. Zzzzt.

"There's this machine that every time I start to say hello
to some desirable or start to greet some desirable person,
you see, will zap me." "There's this machine that every
time I think a woman has been insulted will make me angry."
It's a cute one; gets guys in more fights. He explained
this to me.

He said, "You know, that thing would get you into more
fights, gosh." Yeah, yeah, well, that's a good machine!
Okay. You'll find, by the way, a thetan has a lot of
communication lines that suddenly show up. Did you ever run
into one of these? Communication line shows up, apparently
he's going off to nowhere. Where's it going to? And you
have him trace it down and it winds up at nothing. Process
Communication Processing on that nothing.

Just the line to the machine is all that has come visible.
But the machine is still invisible and it's out there and
this line goes nowhere and stops. And he says, "Well, isn't
that interesting." That in itself is very surprising.

The more he processes the more this line shows up. Only it
doesn't go anyplace. "Well, that's all right. We'll just
skip the machine."

I won't tell you who has machinery of exactly that
character. All of his machines are arranged in that
character - every damn one of them. He lets the lines go out
to nowhere and then carefully says, "Well, there's nothing
there." You certainly ruined some of his machinery, you
see. Communication Processing would just butcher that poor
man's bank. And he'd have to go to all the trouble of
mocking up all this machinery all over again. Good!

All right, any further questions? Okay.

(end of lecture)






