From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Tue Mar 16 14:00:07 1999
Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!nntp.primenet.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 21:00:07 -0000
Subject: FZ BIBLE 21/35 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: <229ca1f52a102eca02eedd1e391fd2f3@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 1135
Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:689971 alt.clearing.technology:76114

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

9th ACC - THE SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT CASSETTES 21/35

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 21/35

9th ACC 16 (17) - AUDITING REQUIREMENTS, DIFFERENCES

Transcript of lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC16    -   
5501C03 Renumbered 17 for "The Solution To Entrapment"
cassettes

AUDITING REQUIREMENTS, DIFFERENCES

A lecture given on 3 January 1955


If you can move, you can audit. That's all there is to it.
If you can breathe, you can audit. If you're still slightly
warm, you can audit.

And as far as actual cases level is concerned, your case
level will be as good as you can control, handle, regulate
and pan-determine the minds you audit. And when that factor
is real good you won't have any more trouble with
aberration. Now, we've determined this time and time again.

There are two types of Clear. One is the fellow who is
processed into Clear. Remember that man always has a god:
his auditor. Here we have a case of one - well, "Bud,"
anyway, is a long way from what you would consider an
optimum case along case behavior. And yet Bud has pushed
himself up to a point in case level by auditing an
Operating Thetan that is utterly fantastic. He has an
Operating Thetan case, one Dillingham, who was out in the
Los Angeles Foundation real early and we sent back to
Kansas City to open an office. Dillingham, back there in
KC, gradually went to pot and Bud picked him up and got him
outside, polished him up, put him in good condition.
Dillingham is doing beautifully in the world as far as MEST
and so forth is concerned, but casewise has become an
Operating Thetan through the auditing.

Well, Bud - as we all might know, some of us old auditors who
have audited most of the guys around - was not a black five
but a black five cubed.

Well, Bud's in excellent condition. He's really in
excellent condition. And this is on no-auditing; this is
the auditing of Dillingham. He is doing some fabulous
things with this Operating Thetan. He's picking up people
around town who are spun in, sick, this, that, the other
thing and they're straightening them up without these
people knowing anything about it. So that Mr. Glumph will
come out in the morning without his arthritis and so forth.
It's real amusing. But they are having a lot of fun, a
tremendous lot of fun.

And Bud said to me, he says, "You know, I can't understand
this," he said, "Here this man - here this man is right up
there next door to a full Operating Thetan and I am
auditing him; and I am having no slightest difficulty
auditing him at all."

Well, here you have experience, training - Bud has been,
from one time and another, he's been in practically every
functional position you could be in. I don't know that he's
ever been in instruction, but he's been in research,
investigation; he's been in processing. He's done
practically every kind of an odd job you could do around
the Foundation - this man has a lot of knowledge, tremendous
amount of knowledge. Now, in putting it to work he is
finding, one after the other, that this knowledge is not
just an analytical ball of something or other that he
guessed was right; he's getting more and more and greater
and greater certainty. And of all things, Bud is coming on
up toward Operating Thetan and he isn't getting audited!
Now, the other type of Clear, of course, would be one who
audited himself up in that direction.

Now, this is no curve I'm pitching you. It doesn't mean
that an auditor should have no auditing. This is not true.
An auditor who has no auditing has no subjective experience
on the phenomena of Dianetics and Scientology. To get that
subjective experience actually requires auditing. And an
auditor gets audited for the subjective experience of the
phenomena involved and gets Clear by auditing.

Now, this is an entirely different thing than your preclear
that somebody walks up to and says, "Be three feet back of
your head. That's fine. What are you looking at? Copy it,
copy it, copy it, copy it, copy it and put it all together
pull it in. All right. Now, let's - ." And then we go on
through Route One. This is an entirely different proceeding.

All right. 'Cause that person, of course, is - gets
subjective awareness entirely of all the phenomena
involved. He sure gets subjective awareness of it. He gets
to be real bright. He gets all over the place, and so forth.

But there is a difference of level when the final end
result is in. This individual has no objective experience
in the handling of Homo sapiens. That is an entire missing
chapter in his career in existence. And always, to some
degree, the body will continue to be - from a standpoint of
somebody else's body, you see, in handling it - will always
continue to be a little bit of a mystery. Because he's
been created on another level.

Now, it's true that he can go around and unmock somebody's
energy, disconnect their machines, do all sorts of odd
things to bodies, but he's doing this all as a thetan. He
feels, "Now, look, if I were really in and spun in and, you
know, I was in a body and so forth, and I ran into one of
these people - ." He wouldn't know what to do.

Every thetan actually has an instinctive ability, you can
say, to audit somebody if he's exteriorized with wonderful
perception and good control of energy. There's nothing to
this, you see. He can audit people while exteriorized and
in this condition. But he will never know completely that
he could be utterly dug in, pounded in, cemented with
blacktop and still make other human beings function. And
that's something he would never find out.

So you see there's some big differences around here. They
really do show up, but the place that they show up is
actually in experience. This is not theoretical data I'm
giving you, this is straight data. Now, one of the
remarkable things we have noticed is the difference in a
course with this difference of philosophy. Our first
difference in the course was noticed when we had a bunch of
bad cases in a course and we decided that we had better
clean up these bad cases so that we could teach them
anything. Now, that's the most reasonable thing you ever
could reason yourself into, isn't it? That if you have a
bunch of bum cases in a course and the course is not
proceeding, that the best possible thing that you could do
would call yourself in some DScns in the area and say,
"Hey, audit these boys, get them in good condition and then
we will teach 'em." And that is an assumption which we
have made since 1950.

And it is an incorrect assumption! What's fabulous, what's
utterly fabulous is that this did not work. We had made
these individuals doubly into an effect: One, the effect of
instruction; two, the effect of auditing. And they were not
getting a chance to relay - to act as a relay point and put
out what they were pulling in. You get the idea? And boy,
you talk about digging people in, we sure did.

So, we turned around right away and adopted the opposite
pole. According to Aristotle everything swings between the
two extremes. So we swung. And we swung clear over and we
said to these people while that - when that course had
advanced pretty well - we just could see that we were just
getting nowhere - so we started to say to these people
privately and individually, say, "We have decided that in
your case, if you are slightly warm you can audit. Now get
in there and audit." And we stopped validating, on an
instructor level, any slightest beg-off on the part of the
individual, because you know what happened? Nearly
everybody in that unit was begging off from auditing
anybody else in the unit.

So we just turned it around completely and said, "Get in
there an pitch." And all of a sudden we got some smiling
faces and so on.

Now, because the processes do work, these individuals - if
the processes didn't work, this would be an impossible
thing. And maybe if you had to instruct in very, very
complicated processes, this would not come about, you see?
But in view of the fact that the processes do work and they
are relatively simple, you can almost drill an auditor into
line on this like a private soldier. I mean, just almost.
And then all of a sudden he starts to come up and suddenly
he will pay some attention to the data and he'll get out of
the woods.

But what happened in this particular case is every single
individual that had been able to learn nothing up to that
time suddenly began to pick up the information and the
data. And we all of a sudden realized that we had been
committing this sin: We had been making the student into a
total effect - the total effect of auditing; the total effect
of instruction. And there he was unable to get rid of this
outflow in any way, shape or form. So we turned it around
and the student then becomes a relay point.

Now, the only facsimiles that you've got that are in bad
condition are those you've never been able to dramatize.
You know, you got shot and then you couldn't shoot anybody.
You had a lot of things stolen from you and then you could
steal nothing from anybody. So the facsimile of having had a
lot of things is just right there, see? And you just say,
"No. No. No, I can't do that." And you've got this
facsimile, you see? Well, it came in and unless you can put
it out you'll never get into a winning valence.

So these people were never in a winning valence. See? They
were just put, perforce, in the losing valence all the way
on up the line. "You got to know this data. You got to know
this data. You got to know this data. Now we're going to
audit you. Now we're going to audit you. Now you've got to
know this data." And there wasn't anybody to - for them to
turn around to and say, "You've got to know this data.
You've got to know this data." And - and nobody for them to
audit.

Well, actually the inflow of the data can be handled by an
outflow of auditing. There's nothing wrong with an inflow
of auditing; there's no particular balance you have to
achieve in this.

But, a student under instruction is in much, much better
condition if he is operating upon the philosophy: If you're
warm you can audit. If they stir slightly when kicked
severely they can audit.

All right. So much for that.

Now. Let us look at the exact condition of an individual in
life. We find out that he is holding to his bosom a great
many illnesses which he cannot master or handle or does not
want to master or handle. Now, this is the condition in
which you find that person walking up and down the street
out there. That person is unable to handle or unwilling to
handle the things that are wrong with him. And so he will
go down the street gimp, gimp, gimp; and he will do all
sorts of odd things.

And an auditor comes up to him and says, "How would you
like some auditing?"

And the person says, "Oh, no!"

Well, you have run into an unwilling to handle or an
inability to handle. He either knows that an auditor could
not handle this illness - great subjective reality on this
because he's been treated so many times with failures - or 
he is unwilling to get rid of that illness.

Now, some of the people are unwilling to get rid of these
illnesses and this is demonstrated by the fact that the
second that you get rid of one illness for them they will
find and pick up another illness.

All right. This in itself is the primary obstacle between
the auditor and the public. Well, if it's an obstacle in
between spreading of affinity, reality and communication,
if it is an obstacle between the auditor and the preclear,
if it's an obstacle there, it must be one between the
organization, the HASI, and the public - right? - as two
groups. And therefore, must be a considerable obstacle
between two races: we get war. And must be a considerable
obstacle, then, between species on the fifth dynamic, and
so we get war there. And so we have life trying to stamp
out life in all directions.

Now, let's look at this again. Recognize that the anatomy
of war and the anatomy of an auditor trying to process a
preclear are very much the same thing. There are two
nations involved here and these two nations are in
disagreement with the basic purposes of each other. And
each nation considers that many things are wrong with the
other nation. And therefore these wrongs must be corrected.

If you could convince the American public, utterly, that
the Russian people were being castigated, chastised,
ruined, mopped up, stepped on and NKVD'd - no - Gay-Pay-Oo'd
sufficiently, the American public, regardless of what
Russia was doing to the United States, would probably go to
war with Russia to free the Russian people. Get the idea?

All right. Before this could occur, before war could occur
between these two countries, one of these countries would
have to believe there was a great many things wrong with
the other country. Well, maybe these things really are
wrong with the other country. Then why the hell doesn't
that country clean these things up? The nation which is the
stand off nation, which, simply, is the one that's going
to go to war, then cannot conceive that the government of
a country is competent if it will permit this many wrongs
to exist within the boundaries of that country. So it finds
fault with that government. And its effort is to replace,
transplant, alter, change or improve that government. You
understand that?

All right. Now, let's take the auditor and the preclear and
discover that the auditor takes a look at the preclear and
here's the preclear gimping around; here's the preclear
coughing; the preclear is saying nasty things; unable to
build things; unable to work or simply nasty to his
relatives. And the auditor says, "Look at that. That
government is incompetent. Let's improve it."

The police look at it and say, "That government is
incompetent. Let's destroy it."

But the auditor says, "That government's incompetent. Let's
improve it."

And so the awareness of awareness unit becomes the
immediate target of the auditor.

The auditor can at first try to straighten out these
wrongnesses without straightening out the government of the
preclear. You see how that would be? It's a kind of a
covert approach. He straightens out these wrongnesses and
doesn't straighten out the preclear.

Well, actually, this was Dianetics. We straightened out the
wrongnesses without particularly straightening out the
government. We simply took enough wrongnesses out of the
way so that the government, we hoped, could then function.

Well, Scientology has an entirely different approach. And
that approach is: we straighten out the government. We tell
them, "Be three feet back of your head. Copy it, copy it,
copy it. Do this. Do that. Something else. Drill. Drill."
And all of a sudden the guy looks around and recognizes
that there are some things wrong with him and he can patch
these things up if he wants to. And this is about the way
we go in Scientology. You see this? We straighten out the
government directly.

Now, it is absolutely true that the society at large could
run at a much higher, better level. It is also true that no
organization or government on Earth today has the right to
destroy either your beingness or your possessions, your
land or your pocketbook. This is utterly right. There is no
organism known as a government which has the right to
exert the power of life and death over an individual
because governments are not alive. Governments do not
bleed when you cut them.

Now, this is not a revolutionary speech or statement. This
is not revolutionary. It happens to be something that's
been true for an awful long time.

Unless we consider the whole state as an organism - if we
consider the state as an organism, then, we see we are
dealing with a preclear. And just as we object to a
psychotic preclear so would we object to a government that
insisted on destroying its own members. Just as we would
see no real sense in this madman running up and down the
road cutting his fingers off, so we see no sense in a
government executing its population.

We see no sense, for instance, in Stalin killing 10 million
peasants. He did. He even talked about it and wrote
statements about it. It was too bad. And so on. But this is
Russian level of operation; 10 million peasants, poof!
Population of 200 million, he had 190 million to go.

But we see some objection to this type of operation, just
as we would see an objection to a psychotic preclear.

All right. If we are to grant any beingness at all to a
government, if we are to grant any beingness at all to a
government, we would then have to consider that it is going
to behave more or less as a preclear and it would have to
be straightened out more or less in the same fashion that a
preclear would have to be straightened out. Right?

All right. Now, therefore, it isn't really an easy thing
for an auditor to walk into Russia or Germany and suddenly
see that this condition and that condition and some other
condition in that state is at fault and is bad and decide
to straighten up each one of these conditions without even
vaguely consulting the government.

Do you realize that we're doing that - this - at this time 
with the United States of America? But this is our country 
and by consent we have some share in the government. And we 
are told many times that we are the government, so we either
are doing it without the consent of the government or we
are the government. And in Great Britain we have
practically the same type of philosophy extant. The country
belongs to the British people and the British people,
therefore, have a perfect right to correct and alter the
wrongs and misplacements and social conditions they object
to, presently. The British people have a perfect right,
they feel in themselves, to alter these situations. So,
they either are the government or they are operating inside
the country without the consent of the government. Do you
see this?

Now, if they are operating inside the country without the
consent of the government, they would be practicing
Dianetics. If they are operating as the government, they
are practicing Scientology.

There is a very intimate difference. Here is a very
intimate difference which you can envision immediately. The
running of engrams exactly approximates going down and
straightening up the number of hungry men on the south side
of the tracks in town. The straightening up the condition
of; well, the poor condition of teachers in the schools;
straightening up this or straightening up that; it's like
running engrams, isn't it?

All right. The oddity is, is they're two different types of
auditing. These are two different types of auditing. One is
an auditing with a very, very high level of responsibility
and the other one is an auditing with a more covert level
of responsibility - but still a considerable level of
responsibility.

Now, people who want to throw you over and make nothing out
of you try to tell you that you have no business
interfering with the woes and horrors of the world. They
tell you this. They say there's something weak and bad
about you if you would object to other people being in bad
condition. This is merely an effort to make you fold up and
become a speck without power or ability. You've got that? I
mean, there's nothing wrong at all with your wanting to
straighten up or square up a situation. Nothing whatsoever
wrong with this. It is highly unnatural not to.

Actually, today, the two highest toned countries on Earth,
from a standpoint of the philosophy, of their people are
Great Britain and the United States. There we have the
populace taking responsibility for the action of the
government and still conceiving themselves to be the
government of the country.

Now, compare this to Spain. Although the population of
Spain runs on its own social strata, as far as the
government is concerned it has dropped markedly in
responsibility. The government passes so many laws that
nobody under the sun could possibly do anything to follow
all these laws. So they say, "Well, the guardia civil is
down there and they're there," and the fellow says, "Well,
they might not notice us," and just walks on by. In other
words, the government of Spain, bad or good - it doesn't matter.

The communists, by the way, in Spain would certainly alarm
the Russian communists. The communist in Spain has a
definition for communism that has nothing to do with
Russian communism. Here is a word getting perverted. By the
way, a British communist doesn't even vaguely know how
wildly and widely - or maybe he does - he is departing from 
the party line of the Kremlin, what tremendous differences
there are. For instance, Spain, the communist has a very
fascistic, class-conscious outlook. Now, how we could get a
communist conceiving that he was superior to so many and
had so many superiors and that these levels in the society
inevitably had to exist, and how we could make this
compatible with Lenin or Marx, we're not quite sure.

But I talked to a communist in Spain and this communist
said, "Oh, yes, we should have communism. It would mean
better, better conditions for the working classes and so
forth." And this mechanic went on and on. Well, this fellow
was a master mechanic, that is to say he had charge of a
general repair unit. And we walked down the street shortly
after that to repair a car I had stalled down the street.
And he took along one of his workmen. And that workman did
not speak unless spoken to; said "sir" very carefully;
walked six paces exactly behind his boss and had himself a
helper that he did not speak to at all but which helper had
to have all of the tools. And we had this little parade
going on and the man who was leading the parade was a
communist. Oh, yeah?

So we use these words and we get way off because the
practice is one thing and the word is another. The word may
be the same, the practices change.

All right. We take, then, this country of Spain and we find
that the people of Spain are no longer taking responsibility, 
actually, for the conduct of their own government. They 
elected a government by popular election in, I think, about 
1935 or 36. They elected a government, you understand, just 
as we in this country or in Great Britain would elect a 
government. And this was a widespread - a majority opinion 
on the part of the people of the country. And a guy jumped 
up with the support of a church and a couple of dictators 
and hired himself some mercenary troops and went in and 
conquered a nation. Just like that. That's what happened, 
you see.

And the people of Spain did not particularly object to
this. And the government of Spain today is not bad. But
they know that they are not the government. They've been
taught this: They are not the government of Spain. And so
they do everything they do to better Spain on a completely
covert level. They will run out a little engram over here
by going and making the tree planting in the park a little
bit better, you see, something like that. They carefully
hire the poor to do odd jobs around the house - there's no
social security program - and you'll see somebody of about
ninety-nine years of age up on the roof washing clothes at
a slow rate that you'd think that you were looking at a
slow-motion camera, but this person is making a peseta or
two and will get a loaf of bread.

You see, they're taking care of the poor very covertly. And
all of these activities engaged upon are done in this
fashion and not through the government. See that clearly?

Well, the philosophy of the Scientologist is to straighten
up the government. But now, we're not asking a
Scientologist to work on a national scale; we're just
talking about the preclear. He says, "Now, look," he says,
"there's no sense in running out all these engrams. Let's
just straighten the guy up so he can handle these engrams
and pat him on the head and let him go."

Well, this requires a much higher toned outlook. This
requires a far, far higher toned outlook because it
requires some confidence in the fact that you are the
government. Get what it requires - that you are the
government. You at least have a lot to say about the
government.

So, therefore, Scientology has a concept known as
pan-determinism: The ability to control two or more
parties, whether or not opposed; two or more, whether or
not opposed.

Now, that means that we don't have to fight everything.
That means that we could just as soon be the other side,
too. A much broader outlook. This actually is tolerance.
The willingness to control two or more entities whether or
not opposed.

All right. This is the case, then; we are not looking
toward the wrongnesses of the person. We are looking
toward the ability of the person to correct wrongnesses.
Follow me? We are looking toward the ability of the person
to correct wrongnesses.

That tells us that each and every one of us, then, must be
totally confident in our ability to have as many
wrongnesses as we please.

As long as a Scientologist believes that he has a scarcity
of wrongnesses, he will attack the wrongnesses of the 
preclear and he will keep his own.

And so we find the government of the United States
attacking Russia. And we find Russia with lots of problems.
And we discover that the United States has not solved its
own problems at all.

It's sort of cheating, you see, it can go over a field and
solve somebody else's wrongnesses because that person has
an abundance of wrongnesses and the cutting out of these
wrongnesses will not undermine one's own store of
wrongnesses. Do you see that?

So that we have in these organizations a condition which
very often arises of the individual whose own department is
in a horrible mess but who is attacking other people's
departments and getting all the things wrong in other
people's departments. But his own department has tremendous
numbers of wrong things in it, but he won't correct any of
these.

Why won't he correct them?

That's because he has a scarcity of wrongnesses.

Now, let's see how a scarcity of wrongnesses comes into
existence. You're a little baby, you're crawling around on
the floor and you, all of a sudden, decide that the very
thing to put in your mouth is the safety pin your mother
just dropped. Well, boy, would that be wrong! You're liable
to swallow it or get it in your lung channels or almost
anything's liable to happen.

So Mama comes over and she says, "Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah. Little
precious lambkins mustn't put 'em safety pin in his mouth."
She takes the safety pin away from you.

A little bit later you're walking around and you see this
beautiful stove. It is the nicest shade of cherry pink you
ever saw in your life. And so you decide to pet it. Nobody
will let you pet it. You know, actually, that you'd get
burned if you pet it, but you feel like you could use a
burn at that moment. It's something to have, isn't it? And
so nobody lets you pet the stove. So that's another
wrongness that you can't have.

And then you go somewhere else and you decide that - you're
in your teens by now; you've had thousands and thousands of
incidents of each one of these character - and you're in your
teens and you get this jalopy. And it is a terrible looking
old jalopy. But that's all right, your acceptance level
might be much higher, but you've at least got this jalopy,
you see? So one day you decide to let it have a flat tire.
And it sits outside with this flat tire. You even decide
maybe you'll run it on this flat tire, you see? And there's
Papa, and Papa says, "You know that the tire on your car is
flat?"

And you say, "Is that so?"

And he says, "Well, we will fix it up."

You can't have a flat tire. You see that?

And then you've gone through your teens and you're in your
early life and you decide that - this, by the way, is the big
wrongness which sometimes turns up for a girl, less often
for a boy, but occasionally, and is a very upsetting
wrongness - you decide to marry the wrong girl or you
decide to marry the wrong boy. And then the family manages
to talk you out of it. And that's another wrongness you
couldn't have. That's a big, serious one.

And then you go on and you're sorting envelopes in this
company you're working for and you decide to make a
mistake. And the boss comes along and corrects it. He shows
you that all those envelopes in the center pile are turned
upside down and he turns them right side up.

About this time a person goes into apathy about
wrongnesses. But all the way along the line he has an
enormous backlog of scarcities of wrongness.

Now, remember that significance amounts to practically
nothing; we care nothing about significance, really, in
processing - significance of things. But we do have factors
like good and evil, right and wrong, win and lose. A person
is driven continually to only win. And everybody takes his
losses away from him. And he begins to believe that a loss
is more valuable than the win and so he starts going
through life losing. But he only dares lose in those areas
that nobody else will notice - loses which can't be taken
away from him.

And life could be said to be a structure of loses which
can't be taken away. Life could be said to be a structure
of wrongnesses which are sufficiently covert to be let
survive.

Now, remember that a scarcity of anything is a scarcity.
And what the thetan objects to is a scarcity. This is what
a thetan objects to - a scarcity. I'll say it again - He
objects to a scarcity! Not a scarcity of anything. But any
scarcity is objectionable.

And when one loses one's ability to create wrongnesses, he
begins to hold them because the whole society is manic on
the idea of grabbing away from you every wrongness that you
have.

And you, as an auditor, come up to a preclear who has
already been robbed deaf, dumb, and blind of all these
scarcities - you see, I mean, it was already scarce and he
got robbed even of the scarcity, so he doesn't even know
that it's wrongness that is scarce that's holding him
there - and you walk up to him and tell him you're going to
take some more wrongnesses away from him and he, of course,
shies away from you and says, "I don't want any auditing."
You're about to make him right again. If there's anything
he detests, it's to be made right again.

There's evidently a tremendous abundance of rightness. His
mother kept carping about it, his father kept talking about
it, there's evidently, from his viewpoint, a tremendous
number of rightnesses. There's the rightness of God and
he's everyplace. There are all these rightnesses in all
directions and no wrongnesses that anybody can have.

And, boy, does he get covert. He sets up circuits, he sets
up invisible engrams, he sets up all kinds of odd and weird
and bizarre things that nobody could have or take away
from him.

An auditor who has an insufficiency of wrongnesses will
start solving them in the preclear and picking them up
himself. Most gorgeous thing you ever saw. And we have the
mechanism of transference noticed by Sigmund Freud. And
this is the exact mechanics of that mechanism of
transference. The auditor - the psychoanalyst, in his
case - had an insufficiency of wrongnesses and so when he
could take a bellyache away from the person he was working
with he, of course, got it himself because, by golly, there
sure is a big scarcity of bellyaches.

Now, Freud tried to read into this some terrific
therapeutic value, saying that the somatic had to transfer
in order for any good to take place. But this was an
earlier thing. This was spiritualism. The spiritualist goes
around and/or the faith healer goes around and, laying on
of hands, takes the illness into his own hands and so forth
and then throws it away. Only we find him practicing quite
a while and he's no longer throwing them away - he's got
them. He's merely fulfilling, almost on an awareness level,
his scarcity of wrongnesses.

Now, here we're looking at the - at the basic phenomena
concerning the mechanisms of restimulation. And we are
looking at the basic phenomena with regard to preclear
resistance. And we are looking at the basic phenomena
here, which makes an individual put wrongnesses into
facsimile form and hold on to them. Nobody else can get at
them.

But being a mean, wicked, cussed fellow - I got a lot of
methods together where you could get at these things.
Fascinating, huh? We could tear them to pieces.

Well, now actually, all that is wrong and all that is right
is what we believe is wrong and believe is right and what
we say is wrong and what we say is right. This is pretty
reactive on a computational level. Nevertheless, there is
this thread of logic going through it: That there is a
scarcity of wrongnesses and an individual to have a
wrongness has to be very covert about it and it had better
be a very covert wrongness.

So, as we look over the problems of human behavior we
discover that individuals are trying to get more and more
covert and that any effort to heal is like an effort to
stop war; any effort to heal is met by an objection to
losing any of these wrongnesses and we get individuals so
goofy that they will actually start piling up wrongnesses
and no rightnesses at all.

Now, on an analytical and rational level you can have
rightnesses. There can be a difference between right and
wrong. But reactively there is no differentiation between
these things.

All right. Let's take a look at something else and discover
that we have laid bare the anatomy of fighting. The
rationale for fighting is, the reason why for a fight is
something is wrong with one's opponent and, therefore, one
has a right to fight an opponent.

Let's take somebody here that pulled an overt act in the
community. He made himself an outlaw by shooting somebody.
A private citizen thereafter could take a rifle and hunt
this fellow up and hunt him down. He actually could.

Let's say that there is some known murderer in the
community here and he is slinking around from alley to
alley and so on. And suddenly a private citizen recognizes
him and whips him down with a pistol. Do you think the
police or the public are going to say anything to this
fellow who whips him down? No. They're going to say,
"Public deed. Here is a small tin medal." Get the idea?

So here's are - is a person who has enough wrongnesses so
that he can be fought. Anything by one rationale - and the
rationale and the set of agreements on which we're aligned
is that you can't fight anything unless there's something
wrong with it. If there's something wrong with something,
then, you have a right to fight it. But if it's all right,
you see, we really don't have the right to fight it at all.

You have no right to get out here and pound on the side of
a brand-new Jaguar or Oldsmobile with a hammer. Do you? But
you've certainly got the right to pound on one which has
been wrecked. Let's say it's been ditched.

Well, it's got a lot of things wrong with it, hasn't it?
Ah, so you could just pound it to pieces, can't you? Get
the idea?

But if it's all right and running perfectly, people - your
best friends - would say you were utterly insane if you went
out with a sledgehammer and knocked in its doors.

Yet you could do the same act after it was wrecked and
nobody would think a thing about it. Think you were a
little sore at it or something, maybe. You understand?

But they would consider that you had a right to fight. And
what is this thing called right to fight? It's a rationale
which permits a contest or game to take place. The right to
fight. A contest or a game can take place and a right to
fight can exist when a wrongness exists.

How do you win in chess? You win in chess not because
you're smarter - chess is a very precision game - but because
somebody else made a wrong move. If everybody made a
completely right move in a chess game, it would probably
never finish. Fortunately, it's a sufficiently limited game
that the mathematics of the game itself put a period to the
game after such a long period of time. After you've moved
two pieces in exactly counter position, one to the other,
fifty times or something like that, well, you call the game
off It's a stalemate. But unless there's been some wrong
moves, usually, in chess, nobody wins. And the effort is to
get less wrong moves than the other fellow. And so you win.

Well, I know people who play chess that play to lose. But
they never tell you about it. They're pretending that they
play to win. But they will avoid every coup d'etat that
sits on the board and they will make some sloppy move the
second they should make the good move. Why are they doing
that? They're trying to replenish their wrongnesses.

So you see you could have another kind of a game entirely
that would still be a game. See, another type of game which
could run sub rosa.

Now, you'd look to this, if somebody has to make a wrong
move in order to get a win, you would look for this to
invert after a while. "In order to win I've got to lose,"
sort of a computation. "So that in order to win the game I
am playing, I've got to have some wrongnesses; and if I
don't have any wrongnesses, then, I can't win the game I
am really playing, because it depends on losing. How
artistically can I lose?"

And with a whole society ganged up in your teeth, so to
speak, to keep you from losing - and lose is impossible,
really, to obtain. A thetan cannot lose. He can forget. But
he can't lose.

We have the thetan going up against a possible absolute. He
sees this possible absolute of an absolute win and he keeps
striving in that direction. Most fantastic thing you ever
saw in your life.

Now, this is a reactive computation; but what is a life
form but a reactive form? That's what it is - it's a 
reactive form.

Now, there's a little process goes along with this. It
actually makes up a big class of processes. There's a big
class - there are several classes of processes. One old one,
rarely used, still in Route One but less used than
formerly, is the "is not" class, that type of question.
"Give me some places where your illness is not," and so on.
Of course, this is processing toward truth because the
illness really doesn't exist anyhow and it'll key out just
on that process - the "is not" class.

All right. There is the "Spot Spot" class. You can do all
sorts of things with this class of process. You spot a spot
where this or that happened; and spot a spot here; and a
spot where this or that happened; and a spot here. And so
on and so on and so on. You see?

And there is the class of processes which have to do with
touching material objects to which belong Opening
Procedure 8-C and Opening Procedure by Duplication. But
just if we classify this as a class of processes and we say
it's a class of processes whereby material objects are
contacted by the individual - you make and break
communication with material objects - you see how - at a
fantastic number of processes we could evolve from this
basic process?

All right. There's another class of processes which work
directly in the direction of creation, which moves a person
earlier on his cycle of action. And that is the class of
processes known as "invent." You act - make the preclear
create something. Now, all Communication Processes,
actually, intimately belong to this class of processes. If
you make a spot out there say, "hello," now you're actually
running a Spot Process, aren't you? But you are up there in
creative spot processing. You see?

Now we could conceive of a process which said, "Make a
taboret or make a book or make a bottle. Now pick it up."
You see, we could have objects in this if the individual
could make them. You see? He'd have to make them.

Now, we have this "Invent something." Now, there is
Expanded GITA which is the same breed of cat, Step Four,
SOP 8; in earlier GITA, Step Four SOP 5. And we have with
this the effort to remedy the scarcity of things. And we do
this by mock-ups of wasting - having the preclear waste, in
brackets; accept, in brackets; desire, in brackets; enforce
things, in brackets - belongs in there too. And we discover
that we remedy the scarcity of things with this type of
processing.

Well, there is this "invent" class of processing which is
just senior to, but infinitely better than, Expanded GITA.

And anything which you can run by Expanded GITA - you look at
the enormous lists of Expanded GITA - anything you could run
there could be run over as an Invent Process.

Now, Invent Processing can also be run with a bracket: Have
somebody else invent for somebody else; have somebody
invent something for you; you invent something for
somebody; or you just invent something. But, actually, it
balls up into just this one process, which the master
command of it would be simply, "Invent (blank blank)." See?

Now, a very blunt statement of it, run by Expanded GITA,
would be "Invent some money." You get the idea? So that it
doesn't quite dovetail and it's nowhere near so specific.
But where it works it works out the rest of the Expanded
GITA lists. "Invent a game" is the master of these
processes. That is the key process. Now that stands,
really, right up there above SOP 8; is the Step Four of
today, you might say. It would be the total of Step Four.
All of the tremendous significances which were formerly in
SOP 5 and SOP 8 under GITA and Expanded GITA are all
covered today under "Invent a game." See? We just - this is
the process, we just keep on running this and running it
and running it. It's just a discovery that this makes the
individual get in there and pitch and recognize finally,
that he can remedy any scarcity he has simply by the
process of invention. This is true.

He's the only one that's ever going to remedy any scarcity
he has. If he depends on other characters or factors to
remedy his scarcities for him they won't be remedied. So,
therefore, somebody gives him a brand-new watch or
something like that and his scarcity of watches really
isn't well remedied at all. You see? But you'll find this
kind of thing happening. Somebody gives him a watch. For
days he looks at this watch as a strange thing that he
really doesn't recognize, you know? And he'll kind of be
careful of it because it's new and all that sort of thing.
And gradually as he wears the thing he'll gradually accept
it and he'll kind of forget where it came from and he'll
sort of get the idea that it's his watch. Well, he gets
along with that he probably created it too. He now owns
this watch so it does, to some degree, remedy his scarcity.
Now, when it disappears he will have that scarcity - the
scarcity of a watch which has been given him.

But that watch can be taken away because that watch was
given him. Something which he created could never be taken
away simply because he could merely create another one.
That would be the simplest thing under the sun. Couldn't
possibly be taken away because, you see, he could always
replace it. You could always say it was the original item,
too.

You could only lose those things which you acquire from
elsewhere. And you really don't own them so it makes a
silly look here. All right. Let's be very, very specific,
intensely factual about a process here. And we discover
that if you want to solve games on a person who's having a
very rough time with games, you've got to solve a different
kind of game. And that game is the game to lose. And if a
preclear is hanging up in any way, shape or form, you must
assume immediately and instantly - now get this carefully -
if a preclear is hanging up in any way at all on processing,
you must assume that this preclear is playing a different
kind of game. He's playing the game "To lose." That's your
immediate assumption. I have never had evidence of any kind
to demonstrate otherwise to me. No evidence I have ever run
across demonstrates otherwise than that this preclear is
playing to lose.

So you ask him to invent some games - now get how tricky this
is - you - as it says in Dianetics 1955! you get him to invent
some games (which shortly will be Scientology 1955) you ask
him to invent some games. And this individual cannot tell
you what he is doing. He knows you wouldn't accept it
because the greatest pattern of life that he has is
nonacceptance of his losing game. They won't accept it,
they won't let him lose, nobody lets him lose. So he goes
on and tells you games that could be won and it doesn't
remedy his scarcity of games. You get this little bug that
gets into "Invent some games," then, see?

Now, possibly sooner or later, this would occur to him and
work out - possibly. But I have already run too many cases
long enough on, "Invent some games," to know that it takes
them an awful long time to get there. And that's a waste of
time in processing.

So the way we shorten this up and the way we shorten up any
case would be "Invent some wrongnesses." It's just that
auditing command, no other. No bracket, nothing. Just
"Invent some wrongnesses."

And all of a sudden this individual will come into complete
subjective reality on the fact that if he doesn't have a
wrongness anyplace, he has no right to fight. And it is the
lack of wrongnesses which keeps him from fighting and
which suppresses him below fighting and thus away from
pan-determinism. And it comes in immediately to a scarcity
of fighting because there's a scarcity of wrongnesses.

You realize that these traffic cops out here were actually
a bunch of bums if they murdered babies and so forth, you
would be perfectly licensed to carry a gun in your car and
shoot them down wherever seen. You realize this. Why? It's
because they have a wrongness, see, so that makes it
possible to fight them.

But supposing these cops are paragons of virtue who never
do anything wrong. And they gave you a ticket, you've got
to take it. You are not justified, in other words, for an
action or a fight. You see that?

So that people have to invent things wrong with you as an
auditor and tell you and other people about them in order
to give them any right to fight you at all. They have to go
around inventing horrible things wrong with you. Otherwise
they would have to agree with you utterly. They'd be yours.
And the only thing they can possibly do to keep from
becoming utterly owned, they feel - this is not the case -
is just invent enough wrong things about this auditor and 
then they don't have to do exactly as he says. So they sit 
up and tell you that you have broken the Auditor's Code with
them. They tell you all sorts of weird and incredible
things. But they invent some wronguesses for you.

And that is the only bar there is to auditing. And that is
the only thing which creates war. And that is the only
thing, actually, which sits there and keeps a fight in action.

So let's look at it as a process, recognize that any case
that is hanging up is playing a different kind of a
game - the game of being wrong and of losing. And if the
preclear is playing this game of lose because he can't play
a game of win - he can only play it satisfactorily if he has
a lot of wrongnesses himself; which is just your inversion.
The way you get him out of this rat race and this spinbin
sort of a computation is ask him, "Invent some
wronguesses," and keep on asking him to invent some
wrongnesses and invent some more and invent some more.
He'll learn more about himself and his own reactions in a
half an hour of auditing than he's ever known before,
because every wrongness he invents will be an actuality for
a long time. He'll struggle and struggle to be original and
actually invent one.

Okay. That's the process. And that's also the basic thing
you have to know about Scientology and auditing. 

Thank you.

(end of lecture)






