From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Tue Mar 16 16:10:09 1999
Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!howland.erols.net!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 23:10:09 -0000
Subject: FZ BIBLE 23/35 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: <a40a6965d45d17f4347f46efb35085ec@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 1867
Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:690028 alt.clearing.technology:76138

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

9th ACC - THE SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT CASSETTES 23/35

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 23/35

9th ACC 17 (19) - AUDITING AT OPTIMUM

Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC17    -   
5501C05 Renumbered 19 for "The Solution To Entrapment"
cassettes

AUDITING AT OPTIMUM

A lecture given on 5 January 1955


I look around and I see preclears who are getting hours and
hours and hours of auditing. And then I get the same
preclear - it has nothing to do with altitude, believe me,
because some of these preclears are antipathetic, they
don't want to give up some of these pet problems and they
know damn well that I'm not going to give up on the subject
as far as this altitude is concerned, you see; so, if
anything, they fight me a little harder quite often - and I
process these people for twenty minutes, twenty-five
minutes, something like this, and all of a sudden the guy
can remedy his havingness and his perceptions are up and
he's got sonic or something like this, you see. And I look
over the auditing history of this individual and find out
he's had quite a bit of auditing; and he's had quite a bit
of auditing and remained static in this state that he's in.

Well, then there must be a certain attitude toward the
preclear, a certain freedom of action in the auditing which
I'm giving - which is not off the record or is not off the
processes or anything which must have been lacking in this
person's auditing. See? The auditing he was getting must
have been lacking something because look how many hours
this fellow has been ground on.

Now, it doesn't have too much to do, today, with intuition,
but it has an awful lot to do, today, with just plain
orneriness on the part of the auditor.

Now, I can tell you, I can tell you endlessly, "Now you do
this and you do that and you do something or other." But it
might look an awful lot quicker if you simply knew the
theory and saw it in action. And this, very possibly, would
be a much faster relay and no via, see?

I was particularly struck with this because in the last
couple of days I have audited local, that is, HASI
preclears. And this is no criticism of auditors: the boys
who did this did quite a bit for the preclear. We're not
arguing about this; they did quite a bit for these two
preclears. But the weird part of it was is the obvious
points on the preclear's case had not been addressed, which
is to say, we don't know what was happening, we don't know
what was going on, particularly, with the auditor; but we
do know that this preclear could not remedy his havingness
while exteriorized, see? And the complaint about this
preclear was that he simply had gotten exteriorized and his
case hadn't advanced from that point. And he had been
audited for twenty hours with his case not advanced from
that point, with no change of case. And I thought this was
a very curious thing indeed.

So I took the preclear and audited her for a relatively
short space of time, just bingity-bing. And I checked over
the obvious things that a preclear should be able to do.

By doing what?

By doing Route 1. All I did was standard Route 1. And
before I'd ask this preclear to copy anything half a dozen
times, I was aware of the fact that this preclear could not
remedy havingness while exteriorized.

Well, of course, this person's case was hung up, see? The
most obvious thing in the world, see? And yet, evidently,
for twenty hours nothing had happened.

Now, there are some other little things that we sometimes
overlook. Although we have Six Basic Processes, remember
we've got four years worth of processing. There are all
kinds of processes on the track. And the basic axioms which
appear in Advanced Procedure and Axioms have not
necessarily been departed from. The only stress difference
between axioms in The Creation of Human Ability and in
Advanced Procedures and Axioms is the fifty, you see, that
have to do with the origin and structure of a thetan and
the behavior of energy, and the others - three hundred
axioms, apply much more intimately to man in his conduct
and evolution. See, they apply much more intimately. And
the principal difference is the fifty axioms in The
Creation of Human Ability stress pan-determinism and the
earlier three hundred axioms stress self-determinism.
Difference. Considerable difference in direction.

Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that the fifty axioms have
now superseded and the Six Basic Processes have now
superseded each and every one of all these materials, so
that we have an old one called gradient scales, the old
axiom on gradient scales.

And it kind of made my brains creak a little bit how
anybody could have missed this case. But I suddenly
realized that I was doing it on gradient scales. I didn't
tell this particular person... Today we say, "Give the
preclear wins." Well by that we mean give him enough to do
so that he can win, don't give him so much to do that he
will lose. Well, what is this but a gradient scale? The
basic behind that's a gradient scale.

All right. So I said to this preclear, "Be three feet back
of your head. What are you looking at?"

"Back of my head" is not an unusual reply, but certainly we
have to ascertain this.

So I said, "Well, all right, copy it. And copy it. And copy
it. And copy it.That's fine. Now, how many copies have you
got there?"

And she had all of her copies. Where? Pushed into the back
of her head.

Now I says, "No. Let's get the idea now. I want you to put
a copy alongside of the back of your head. You see? And
then a copy on the other side back of your head. And then a
copy a little bit further out. And then another copy on the
other side over on this side. All right. Now, can you do
that? Now you go ahead and do that."

"Oh, yeah. Well that was easy." You see?

And I said, "All right. Now pick up one of those copies and
eat it."

"I can't," she says.

"Oh," I says, "Well, now can you consider that copy a pie?" 

"Yes."

"Well, now take a small, tiny slice of the pie. Eat it."

"Yeah."

"Take a little bit bigger slice of the pie." 

"Yeah."

"Eat it now. A little bit bigger slice. Okay, take the rest
of that copy." 

"Okay."

"Now take the next copy and eat it." 

"Okay."

"Take the next copy and eat it."

'All right."

"All right. You got any more copies around there now?"

"Well, there's two sitting over here, left over." 

"All right," I said, "clean those up. All right. Now what 
are you looking at now?" 

"The back of my head."

"All right. Copy it. Now where'd you put that copy?" 

"I put it right over here." 

"All right. Copy it. Where did you put that copy?" 

"Right over there."

"All right. Copy it again. Copy it. Copy it. Copy it. Copy
it. Copy it. Copy it.Copy it. Copy it. Take two of the
copies and eat 'em. Take ten of 'em and eat 'em." Get the idea?

"All right. Now," I said, "clean up anything you've got
there now and put ten thousand copies out in this room."

She said, "That's an awful lot."

"You don't have to count 'em. Just put ten thousand copies
out there."		 

She said, "All right. I did." 

"All right. Push them all together." 

"Okay."

"Eat 'em all." 

"All right." 

Bong!

The preclear's lines on the body which had been keeping the
preclear from - no further than two feet, you know, from
the body all of a sudden let up and she went out there to
about hundred feet.

And I said, "Now make up a great big mass out here at a
hundred feet. Now get in it." 

"Yeah," she said, "that's nice." 

I said, "Okay. Eat it. Now make another great big mass. 
Get inside it." 

"Okay."

"Eat it up."

And we remedied havingness. But you understand that the
basic theory of Remedy of Havingness had not even vaguely
been breached. But I wasn't necessarily using the exact
English to get this havingness remedied.

Why? Because I was trying to talk to a preclear who was not
accustomed to Scientological terms. I was trying not to do
more, you see, than get the preclear to do the exact
action. I knew the exact action the preclear had to
perform. Now, how to coax and by gradient scale get this
preclear to perform this action was the whole meat of the
auditing session. Now, that auditing session, that was only
about ten minutes of this auditing session and her
havingness was remedied. That is to say, she could do this
because - pardon me, I did a little more on that, and I said,
"Make a great big mass now and just throw it the devil out
of here. Get rid of it. Make up another big mass. Throw it
away. Can you do that?"

"Why, sure," she says. "Another big mass. Throw it away.

In other words, remedy of havinguess is making them be able
to accept and throw away at will. It isn't just bringing in
masses.

All right. This person's havingness was remedied. That is
to say, this person could or couldn't, you see?

"Now," I said, "Invent some wrongnesses." And knowing very
well she must be stopping something, you know.

"Let's see, wrongnesses."

This preclear, by the way, had a bad thyroid.

"Invent some wrongnesses," she says. "Uh-umm-um-well, I
could run around in this room." This was a wrongness, see.
"I could run outside on the street and run up and down the
street. I could stand on the front porch and jump up and
down. I could go out back and walk around the yard."

And I said, "What's your profession? What do you do in
life?" And she says, "I am a dancing instructor." You get
the idea?

And this person had an enlarged calcified thyroid. You see,
the wrongnesses in her life were the wrong motions people
would make, until all motion had become wrong to this person.

Naturally, the best way to turn off all motion would simply
be to turn off that gland which monitors motion in the
body, which is the thyroid. That is the thyroid, that is
its function. Now, you don't have to know that
particularly. But this would have worked right on out
without anybody knowing anything more about this.

And "Some more wrongnesses. And some more wrongnesses. And
some more wronguesses."

And she did it with just a little bit of comm lag, one way
or the other, and she was spitting them out at a vast and
swift rate here in a very short space of time, you know. I
mean, in four or five minutes after I'd asked the question,
she was spitting out wrongnesses without comm lag. But they
all continued to be in the band of motion, but they became
sillier and sillier motions. Like: "I could run out front
and jump a hundred feet in the air, see. I could race all
around the city screaming." See, we were really getting
things that are more agreed upon as wrong. And "I could run
from here to Detroit in the middle of summer." And just
this sort of thing, just recalling what she was bringing
up, more or less. All right. Then she says, "I could sit
still and worry," as a wrongness.

I gave her three or four more times on the auditing
question. And I said, "What's the wrongest thing ..."

You know that's not proper English, but it's proper Scientology.
Wronger, wrongest. The dumbbells that invented grammar
believe that wrong and right are absolutes and so they
cannot be modified: you can't have something that's more
wrong. You can't have anything that's more accurate either.
I think that the boys that invented grammar were crazy.

And I said, "What's the wrongest thing you could do?" She
says, "Make a misstep in dancing."

"What's the wrongest thing that one of your students can
do?" And, she says, "Move." And she blew into a line charge
on the thing and that was that.

And I, of course, said goodbye to her and - see, just this
brief third of an hour, something like this. And I said
goodbye to her. And of course, you understand this
preclear was not nutty, just working a little bit poorly.
But I said, "Well now how's your thyroid now?"

And she said, "I don't know. I suppose it'll be all right.
It's burning hot right now." Well now, of course, you might
consider we should have continued the process. Well, I
merely had the precaution of having an auditor check up
with her a few hours later.

Naturally when something starts to get rid of mass at a
fast rate of speed, it's going to get hot. Obvious. I
didn't even ask her to clean it up.

Now there's an auditing session. Now, why couldn't that
have been done, why couldn't that have been done in the
preceding twenty hours - because she exteriorized at the
fifth hour.

Well, I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, what went on during
those twenty hours if she exteriorized during the fifth hour?

Well, undoubtedly something went on. Undoubtedly some
process was done which was below the level of need of the
preclear. You see that? So that the persons probably did
something like have her touch walls or something like that.

But, still, if you had an individual touch walls for twenty
hours I can't conceive that it would not make it possible
for her to get further than two feet from her head.

We don't know what went on during these twenty hours, but
they were chalked up and the preclear admitted having been
audited these additional twenty hours. But there were no
change in the case for twenty hours. I can't understand
this. It's one of these incomprehensibles. So I'll just not
try to understand it, I'll just say that it's an
incomprehensibility and go ahead and solve it as an
incomprehensibility by, if possible, getting better object
or demonstration instruction on auditing.

Now, it may be that a few years from now or. .. I will be
very far from the world's best auditor. I certainly hope
this condition would exist. But right now I happen to be a
pretty good auditor and I know this because I keep picking
up cases that are boggity-bog-bogging and doing this and
that and straightening them out fairly rapidly.

Now, all due respect to the auditing which is done around,
I very often accumulate the benefit of a lot of hard work
on the part of an auditor. In other words, he gets in there
and slugs on Opening Procedure by Duplication for fifteen
hours and then, like an engineering officer I used to have,
I suddenly pick up the case right about the time it was
going to blow anyhow, you see, and do something
spectacular. Naturally something spectacular would occur at
such a moment.

But if this - this engineering officer I had, by the way,
used to overawe the engine room by going up and reading the
instruction manuals of some piece of complicated machinery
in the engine room and then bawling out the engineers for
not knowing all the names of these things, you see, which
he had just memorized. And then he would forget them
entirely within twenty-four hours. I know because I bawled
him out one day because he had been bawling men out to this
degree. And I said, "All right, now. You like to get
yourself in that position, go ahead and name the parts of
that pump." He couldn't do it, but he had just done it the
day before. And that was when I discovered he'd been going
up to his room and quietly reading the diagrams and getting
all the anatomy of a piece of machinery right and then
being very superior, you see, to the rest of these
engineers. And they hated his guts as you can imagine they
would.

Well, I'm not trying to pull that here. Because people do
get some spectacular and amazing results.

But we do not have a single auditor trained anywhere - I am
sure of this - who has a proper idea of the length of time
necessary to get a change. And I believe the auditor's
intention, in terms of time, of how long it's going to take
him to get a change or an alteration of case is offbeat. He
has gotten cautious. He started to - he took my estimate,
which was based to a marked degree either on my auditing or
some research auditor's auditing, you see, and he took that
estimate; and we said, "Well, you could do this or that in
two and a half hours," you see? And he went ahead and did
it. We don't say that he did it right, but he did it for
two and a half hours. And he did not get this same result
on a preclear. He got a much quieter result. That is to
say, he didn't go as far. He obtained the same amount of
change which was described, maybe, in twenty-five or
thirty hours, if he continued it. But the possibility is
that he didn't continue it. So after that maybe he gets a
slow look at a case. Maybe he gets the idea, you see - there
are a lot of ways this can come about - he gets the idea,
"Well, you just keep doing it for a long time and something
will happen on that." In other words, he evidently doesn't
expect change.

Well, now, if he doesn't expect change, he not going to get
it. Because he's not going to pay attention to it when it
occurs. Get the idea? Supposing - because it would make him
wrong to get a change in a half an hour if he's expected to
get this change in ten or fifteen hours. And if it occurred
in a half an hour, maybe he wouldn't listen.

And most of the cases I've picked up are in an interesting
state of not having been listened to. Well, if the
individual isn't listened to then he is put into an effect,
proper. Instead of being an origin of a communication he is
made into an effect of a communication. And naturally, now
and then, his machinery just opens up on him. It's just
like opening up barrage and salvo at the preclear from his
own machinery. Now I'll give you a better idea of how that
is. The preclear says - he all of a sudden sees these big
gold lights that start to sparkle out in front of his
vision, and seeing these big gold lights, he says - "Oooh!"

And the auditor says, 'And now touch your chair."

Well, now, he's already been made the effect of something,
you see - the big gold lights - and he wants to now be an
origin of a communication and he is not permitted to do so.
In other words, the two-way cycle of communication is
violated and he is doubly made into an effect. And he's
liable to go further into apathy with a quick rat-tat of
effect than anything known.

Now, an example of this: A fellow struck once by a bullet
is not so much upset. Let's say he's wounded and he
recovers. But how about this fellow that's struck once and
he just starts to get up again and he's struck again? He'll
get real apathetic and lie down. Maybe both wounds were
superficial, but it was the fact that he was struck again.

You'll notice when running the prenatal bank - this is not
the ideal state of affairs. One doesn't represent it as the
ideal state of affairs. This is just what happens and what
occurs amongst men. He gets an AA and he decides he'll
rebuild - we can run this sort of thing, see - gets an AA and
decides he'll rebuild all like mad - the GE does - and he gets
things kind of patched up and another AA hits him. And he
decides he'll rebuild, you see. And he gets things kind of
patched up and another AA hits him and he goes into apathy
on it, and he makes, to some slight degree, an unfinished
mock-up.

The unfinished character you see in some people, you look
at some people and you say, "Well that person never finished."

Well, it's just too much repetition of the same sort of
shock. Well now, the reason for this is a very simple one.
He got an AA, didn't he? He didn't give anyone else one
right afterwards, did he? Then he got another one, and
certainly this time he didn't give anybody else one. And he
got another one and he.... You get the idea? He didn't do
anything to anybody. So you've got an overt act-motivator
sequence going here minus the overt act. In other words,
you've got motivator, motivator, motivator. So we have
violated the two-way cycle of communication.

The way it runs and is nonaberrative is motivator, overt
act, motivator, overt act, motivator, overt act.

Now, the possibility is that if he'd still - after three
AAs - had still been able to do something to somebody and it
was intensely effective, then a distinct possibility there
that if he could have done it three times he would have
made up for his two-way cycle of communication. You follow
how this would be? I mean, he's got three strikes coming to
him, now, and he gets them. This is why your baseball teams
shift sides every inning, you see? Each one has three outs
coming to him.

Well, that is the only hope in auditing. You can make up
for the preclear a whole sequence of missing overt acts,
you see? You can make up for him at any time you want and
they'll more or less slide into the proper places and the
case will rebalance so that you get a two-way cycle of
communication going. 

Processing would not work at all if this were not true; if
you couldn't remedy the lack of communication on the
backtrack by communication in the auditing session. Well,
remedying it in the auditing session is actually putting
in the missing parts of the communication formulas all down
the track, so it can be done later. Mostly because there is
no later. You understand? There is no such thing as earlier
and later. So that you can remedy these overt act-motivator
sequences imbalances or two-way cycle of communication
imbalances anytime you want on either side.

It's just the fact that we can stack up three and we get a
tone change. We stack up three, you see, and we get tone
change. Now that tone change might continue and exist as a
waiting time right on forward, right up to the auditing
session, and then all of a sudden we give this fellow three
overt acts in mock-up; and all of a sudden, bang!

Now, if you gave him fifteen or twenty overt acts in
mock-up he can say, "Well, it's just in mock-up," and skip
it. In other words, it's a much easier thing to do to
remedy it in an auditing session because the characteristic
of pan-determinism is present. And the fact that the person
is pan-determining both sides now - he's working both sides
- he does recover. You get the idea?

What you're raising, actually, is the individual's
pan-determinism; you re not just balancing two-way cycle of
communication.

If you were just balancing two-way cycle of communication
you would do it this way: you'd give this individual the
opportunity to give three AAs, you see?

And the oddity is, is that won't work because the
characteristic of pan-determinism is absent. See? He's
picking out something else for his randomity.

Dramatization, then, what they used to call in some
complicated subject or other - I've forgotten the name of it
- abreaction of hostility. We let the fellow dramatize
madly and get rid of his hostilities by this and that and
he felt much better.

And believe me, the workability of this is very faint
indeed. That's because the characteristic of
pan-determinism is absent. He's again, chosen out fifty
percent of his environment, you see, to control and fifty
percent to attack. He's again started a new division of
determinism. One is separate from his environment but is
able to control it. By the way, separateness is an
interesting thing there. An individual says, "Yes, I'm
separate from that wall. I'm separate from that. I'm
separate from this. I'm separate from something or other."
This is not injuring his pan-determinism: he can only
monitor things which he can be cause toward.

All right. As we look this over, we find auditing itself is
done much less rapidly - getting right back on the subject we
started with here.

Now let me tell you about this other session. An
individual - of course, we admit this, that he was audited
under - earlier audited under considerable duress and he was
not in very good shape but - while he was audited a series of
emergency assists. But I picked up this case and audited
him for a couple of hours on two different days, that is to
say I audited him an hour one day and an hour another day.
And I found this individual had been asked by his auditor
to remedy anchor points and fix up things. He didn't have
any kind of reality on these anchor points, you understand,
and he went ahead and floundered around and adjusted
anchor points in a sort of a dazed sort of a way. And
actually, he was permitted to have enough loses so he kind
of lost faith in Scientology. The boy has a broken jaw, you
know the case.

All right. I made it my first business in this case to bump
his reality up the line. Well, how'd I do this?

Well, there's one way to do it, is you can generally see
what you can create. If you know definitely that you can't
create a body you won't ever see one. If you knew it
completely, that you couldn't create a body, you would not
be able to see one. If you know definitely that you can't
create machinery to run and remember and think and so
forth, then you won't be able to see that machinery. What
you can't create you can't see.

What you can see - you still must have, in order to see the
wall at all while exteriorized, you still must have some
sort of an idea that you can create the wall. The
visibility of the wall depends upon your ability to create
it to some slight degree. That is, on a lower scale to
monitor it or control it. You know that you could possibly
get a hammer and knock the wall down or you could at least
put dents in it, you could mark it up with a crayon, you
could do something with it, so you can still see the wall.

The wall starts to disappear when you are not permitted to
change it in any way, shape or form.

I dare say there have been fortifications in the past which
have been sitting straight out on the plain, which were
such splendid fortifications which refused to be dented or
affected to such a degree that people, knowing well that
they could not make another such fortification, stopped
seeing it entirely. And we sort of got a castle in the
cloud effect, you know? They might still run into it, but
they couldn't see it.

Now that's a reductio ad absurdum, you see, I mean that's a
stupid length.

Theoretically, if you believe so completely that you
couldn't create or control something, if you just knew
that you couldn't create or control something, it would,
very markedly, disappear. Therefore, you can communicate
most easily with those things that you know you can create.

A story is a lot of fun to you if you know that you could
create a story. Get the idea? It's much less fun when you
don't feel that you could create a story.

All right. So much for that. That's just your old cycle of
a physical universe. That's all. Create-survive-destroy.
And that fits into perception very neatly, and is possibly
a new angle and a new curve on this, but it simply fits in
in remedy of havingness. That's all.

If an individual can remedy the havingness of something, he
must feel that he can create it to some degree. You see?
Another way we go about it.

The slightness of ability to create something is fantastic.
I mean, just some slight, tiny feeling that you can create
something or change it around permits you to see it. But
when that's all gone: he won't see a thing.

That's why machinery disappears. The individual forgets it
and doesn't create it anymore and it's set up to run
forever and all that sort of thing. And he doesn't see it.

We're stretching a point and it's a rather - an obtuse point.
But it happens that it works.

This individual had lost his feeling that he could create
any part of the physical environment. In other words, he'd
really been knocked down. He'd really been knocked down.
More than physically. He'd just been knocked flat in all
directions. Freud would have been quite interested because
sex was all tied up in his having been hit, you see? Sex
was tied up in this, there was a woman involved. So this,
of course, would knock down creativeness and so forth. He
was being inhibited from advances or something of the sort.
We don't care. Freud would have been interested in this.

Well, we could drag a tremendous number of significances
out of this. But the whole point is, is boy, it sure looked
unreal.

Well, now we say the world was very unreal. That would
mean, also, that he was not being permitted to communicate
with it. And let's get a lot simpler about this. Let's
forget about the cycle of communication for the moment and
recognize that if he was being inhibited from communicating
with the environment, he would not be able to see the
environment, or feel that it had any reality. In other
words, we drop the C on the ARC triangle - you know,
inhibited communication - and we'll get inhibited reality,
won't we? Is that a good simple explanation for it? All
right. What would you think of some guy that had been hit
hard enough, you see, to break a jaw? Boy, he's sure been
thrown out of communication with his environment, hasn't
he? Hm? He sure has been, hasn't he?

Well, if this is the case - you know, you're going to give
him a blow, the environment's going to strike him, he's
probably still stuck in the engram, you know, all this kind
of thing - why, he's not going to communicate with it. So his
reality's real bad. And we ask this individual, as an
auditor, to adjust his anchor points. Obviously, if he
adjusted his anchor points well enough his broken jaw would
go bing! This is an interesting fact; it is demonstrable.
But his reality was so poor that how could he possibly
adjust an anchor point? Because an anchor point, Lord love
us, is darn near completely invisible anyhow. You get the
idea?

So we just plain have to do all sorts of things about
anchor points with the idea of remedy of havingness and
creation of them, and we'd have to fool around with this
quite a bit before we finally got to a point where he could
see some anchor points.

Now this is the most elementary thing in the world: remedy
of anchor points. It was covered in Advanced Clinical
Course Units much earlier at some degree. And then, I don't
know just why we don't cover them this heavy again - it
certainly has not dropped in importance - because if you're
going to patch up somebody's mock-up you certainly better
know all about anchor point structure. Because the
electronic structure of the body is a series of anchor
points and when these things get out of place, the fellow's
in a horrible mess. And they get out of place when energy
imbalances are set up. And once the anchor points of the
body are out of place - by the way, you could also call
them subbrains. They're talked about in Advanced Procedure
and Axioms as subbrains. They're not subbrains, they're
anchor points.

So that at each point of the body where you've got a
bending joint, for instance, there's a big gold ball in
there. See? And, here of course, in the mandibles you've
got a tremendous number of anchor points. Look at the
amount of motion in the vicinity of jaws.

Well naturally, his anchor points must have been pretty
badly messed up. So what did I have to do?

I just had him mock up things and remedy havingness. First step.

I was astonished to discover that no auditor had worked on
this individual so that he could remedy havingness while
exteriorized. This boy was exteriorized, see. Fantastic.
Here's two cases in a row where nobody has really gotten
down and worked on the remedy of havingness with this 
preclear, see, while exteriorized. He couldn't remedy
havingness worth a nickel.

But I had him up there, real quick, on the subject - maybe
ten minutes - and he was remedying havingness and he was
throwing away anchor points and he was pulling them in and
he was starting and stopping avalanches and
automaticities - avalanches, you know. Automaticity. A
fellow starts to pull in a little havingness, you know,
and all of a sudden, swoosh, and he starts to get the
works: machines turn on.

Of course, the way you handle that is just have him mock up
more anchor points and enforce the flow. Have him mock up
more anchor points and throw them into the flow. More
anchor points and make it flow faster. And then gradually
stop it. And then stop it. And then start it. And then stop
it. And then start it.

Control is start-stop-and-change. You're trying to get the
preclear to control something, just remember that.

So have him start it and stop it. And then change the color
of the anchor points, see. Just to get a change in there,
you see. And then turn it around and make 'em flow
outwards. And in this case an avalanche outward started in
a very short space of time.

So we threw more anchor points in going out, see. And I had
him throw more anchor points going out and more anchor
points and more anchor points. And finally he was making
'em go out faster. And then I had him stop 'em, start 'em.
You know, slow 'em down - gradient scale again - then stop 'em,
then get 'em started again, then speed 'em up, then slow
'em down, then stop 'em. And then change their color. And
start 'em again. And the next thing you know, boy, he was
handling anchor points like one of our auditors who was a
famous juggler in England handles Indian clubs. I mean,
there's just nothing to this, wham! wham! Anchor points?
Oh, man, there's nothing to this. And this was about a half
an hour's work, about half an hour deep in the session;
this was the first session.

Then I had him mock up an electronic structure for a body,
totally independent to the body. He didn't have any idea
what he'd mock up there, but he mocked up something. And I
said, "Okay. Now let's eat that up. And let's mock up
another electronic structure for the body." I said, "Put it
back of the body there someplace. Put it way away from the
body."

"Okay. All right." That was all right with him. So he puts
it way away from the body.

And I - "Well, throw that one away." See? Get rid of stuff;
be able to accept it.

"An electronic structure again. Only this time make it the
biggest structure you could think of in terms of a body.
You know, just a huge electronic structure."

Oh, and he had gold balls and - notice, as an auditor, I
didn't tell him what the electronic structure should look
like, didn't describe it to him any. But he had gold balls
and wires and little gears that he had dreamed up all by
himself; you see, and transformers and resistors. He was
getting into MEST universe-type electronics. But he threw
that away.

And I had him mock up another electronic structure for the
body, which was much bigger. And then condense the whole
thing and wreck it. And throw that away. And then make up
another electronic structure and throw that away. And I did
this for about ten minutes. And we had more darn
electronic structures, fragments of; lying around there.
Well, we mopped up the whole area. And I says, "Now you
take another look at the anchor points of the body. Well,
find one."

"Oh," he says, "you - there just wasn't anything like that
around the jaw."

I said, "Who told you to look around the jaw?" I said,
"Look around the body. Now, does your right arm feel pretty
good?"

"Yeah. It feels fine."

"All right. Find one in your right arm."

So he goes running down the right arm, looking around, you
know. He says, You know, there's big gold balls right at
the joints of the right arm at the elbow." He said, "That's
a funny looking thing: a big gold ball."

Now this individual had been asked to adjust the GE anchor
points before by an auditor. But the auditor had not
gotten him into a situation where he could see 'em or where
he could handle energy. Now, in order to see anything
you'd certainly better be able to handle the energy
connected therewith and be able to create it and push it
around, you know, and you can see it fine.

All right. All right. Very short space of time, why, he had
a pretty darn good idea - just looking over the body - what
these anchor points were all about. And then I had him
throw a whole shower of anchor points into the air in front
of the body.

He says, "Gee, that was fast." "What was fast?" "Well, they
all went into the jaw." Naturally, you get anchor points
flowing around like this every time you've got an anchor
point or two out of position. One of the more fabulous things.

So I said, "Well, where are they going?" "I don't know." I
said, "Well, throw another cloud of 'em up there." So he
did. And they all went someplace. "Well, where are they
going?" "Well, I don't know. I can see a little better
though." What's he doing?

He's remedying the havingness of an anchor point now, see.

"Another cloud of 'em. Another cloud of 'em. Another cloud
of them." And he says, "Well, I got an anchor point there.
There's one that's out of position or something; it's
sitting there on my chin."

I said, "Well, that's fine. Grab hold of it and push it
into position." "Won't go. Won't go."

Well, I ran something else into anchor point processing,
just on the spur of the moment. And I said, "Well, invent
something wrong with your face." Maybe I was being too
specific, but this sure worked.

And so he starts inventing something wrong with his face.
And inventing something more wrong with his face.

See, we just skipped anchor points at that moment. He'd had
a little bit of a lose so I didn't know a gradient scale I
could get lower on rather than maybe have gone on and had
him remedy the energy area where the socket was. There must
be something in that. But instead of doing this I said,
"Invent something wrong with the jaw."

And as usual he did not invent anything, he simply started
telling me what was wrong with his jaw.

And so I stopped him and I said, "Now, listen to the
auditing command: Invent something wrong with the jaw." And
I had to repeat it about five times before he finally got
this; so fixated was he on the idea that there was
something wrong there, you see?

Well, he got off of this. And then he started to invent two
or three things and then he finally says, "Well, it's got
anvils around there instead of anchor points." And I said,
"Well, that's fine. All right."

We just got the comm lag out of it, see, and we kept on
with the exercise for a moment or two just throwing up
clouds of anchor points and letting 'em go where they
would, and throw up a cloud of 'em and let 'em go where
they would.

And I said, "Get that jaw anchor point... Now, get that
chin anchor point there. Now push it back in position."
"Well," he says, "it doesn't want to go."

"Well," I said, "look where it is going to go." Which is
probably what I should have done in the first place. "Now,
look where it's supposed to go. Now, what's in there?" He
says, "There's another anchor point in there." I said,
"Well, all right. Pour fifty or sixty more anchor points in
there in a hurry." So he did.

And he cleaned them out. I said, "Clean 'em up now. Get all
those anchor points out of that hole that that anchor
point belongs in. Now move the anchor point in there." It
went in there, click! "Gee," he says, "that's ... that's
.. that's there." He says, "You know, it sort of knows
where it belongs."

And I said, "No." And so I said, "Well, now look around the
jaw there and see if you can find more about anchor points."

And he says, "Well, you know," he says, "that there's an
awful big black - there's an awful mass of energy around the
break. Big mass of energy." And I said, "Well, who's it
belong to?" "Oh, it belongs to me." I said, "Well, that's
fine." I said, "Pick it up and throw it away. "Won't move."
Belong to him, huh.

So I said, "Invent something wrong with your jaw. Invent
something wrong with your jaw. Invent something wrong with
your jaw." You know. You know. Just more and more because I
was trying to get his jaw back into place.

I suppose this is just a frailty as part of an auditor. I
should have simply gone on and stressed up his capabilities
and pushed him on along the line. Except for this: He was
being hounded by a doctor to operate on this jaw again. And
I was kind of racing with this. So I got specific. His
attention was on there anyhow.

So all of a sudden the mass of energy turned into his
father's face, cabango! And then jumped out in front of
him. Automaticity entirely.

So we just had his father jump out in front of him two or
three times and so on. And I said, "Now," I said, "let's
take a look at this jaw." You know. 'And throw that away.
Now take a look at this jaw. Is there any black energy
around there?" "No. There's no black energy."

I said, "Well, now, let's take a look and see if there
isn't an anchor point around there somewhere." 

"Yeah. There's a little one." 

"Well, that's fine. Let's mock up some anchor points and 
throw 'em at it." 

"Oh," he says. He says, "It's gettin' bigger. It's gettin' 
bigger. It's gettin' bigger." 

"Throw some more at it." 

"It's gettin' bigger!" 

"Throw some more at it." 

"You know," he says, "it's bigger than my head." 

"Well, throw some more at it."

"Okay," he says. 

I said, "Where does that belong?" 

Long  pause, and he says, "It belongs out in front of me
someplace." Out in front of him.

You know the body has some enormous anchor points which
belong way out in front of the body and on which a person
depends for his balance. There's a couple to the right and
a couple to the left, see? These huge anchor points are way
out in front of the body. And here was one of these anchor
points inside the guy's head compressed down into this
jaw. Give you an idea of how far off this structure could
be. Huh! We got it out there and got it into position by
mocking up some energy in the place where it belonged, you
see, and throwing that away. And we finally got it adjusted
into place. Clank!

And I said, "Well, where are some more anchor points around
there?" And just with this same process, you see. "Throw up
a cloud of anchor points. See where they go. What's there?
Where is the anchor point? Pull it out. Try to move it into
place." "Won't go into place."

"So mock up some anchor points in the place where it's
supposed to go. Throw those away." You know, clean up these
flows and then get this anchor point in there.

And all four front body anchor points of this boy were
inside his body! One was inside his jaw, two were in his
chest and one was in his stomach. How this boy could walk -
I noticed he was weaving a tiny little bit - but how he could
walk with any balance at all must have been simply
willpower because this is what the body depends on. You
can, by the way, it's quite curious if you were sailing
down the street exteriorized and you take a look at
somebody, you look over his anchor points, you'll find
those big wing anchor points. They're way out there, great
big gold balls way out in front. You can take one of these
- one of this guy's anchor points, you know, in front - and
pull it sideways and he'll start to walk in a circle
without knowing why he's walking in a circle. And you push
it out of position and he'll start to lean. Oh, it's a very
obvious sort of structure.

Well, anyway, the hour came to end, finally, with all four
of these anchor points, wing anchor points, back into
place, but without entirely cleaning up the jaw, you see.

But I'd improved his reality, he felt very good now, he
felt fine. But he was still fixed with the idea that he had
to have his jaw operated on. And he suddenly realized that
he had been figuring all the time he had been audited - for
an assist and everything - he had been figuring right
straight along the line in this fashion, that he was going
to get audited so many hours and then he was going to have
an operation. He was going to be audited so many hours and
then have an operation. And this was the consideration and
the postulate. And right there at that moment he was
entirely stuck with this idea. 

Well, he came back the next day for an hour's auditing and 
I chased him around. He still felt fine. I chased him around a 
little bit, gave him a little tiny section of a Grand Tour, 
checked up, made sure his havingness was in good condition. 
You know, just checked him over, spent about five minutes 
doing this, and then I ran him forward on the time track 
to today at two-thirty when he was going to be operated on 
and had him go entirely through the operation. Then entirely 
through the second operation and then up to the time when he 
was going to get well; this is about three or four months from 
now.

Now, this is Dianetics 1950, no more, no less, isn't it?
But it's Dianetics 1950 with a curve. Here's an individual
who's got something on the future time track and just Q and
A. Well, he's in pretty good shape, he can run, he seems to
be stuck with this, this is an immediate problem and so we
do something which is entirely in keeping with processes,
but something that's just a little bit different, and very
old, really antique.

We run the future engram. And do you know, he had the
awfulest time running it. They had the awfulest time
getting his jaw into place in the operation. First he had
a hard time going under, then they had an awful time
getting his jaw in place in the operation, and then they
had.... And then all the little ligaments as he went
forward on the track, they all... you know he says,
"There's just so many of them, it takes so long to heal."
Fabulous, see, I mean - works it all out. And so we kept
running this and we ran it about five or six times, fairly
rapidly. It didn't take very long, maybe fifteen minutes to
run this five or six times all the way up, and all of a
sudden he was going through it with great ease. Not just
saying, "I've gone through it," you know, and then open his
eyes. He was coming back to present time every time.

And then I took him back to the time when he got socked.
And I ran him through that, and he couldn't get it, and he
couldn't get there, and boy, he was the most lost soul you
ever saw in your life. Took him back to the moment he got
socked. Dianetics 1950. See, this was nothing else but.
Just pure engram running and nothing else.

Then Dianetics 1951. Of course, I was just trying for a
fast result and effect, and to hell with the text, see.
Dianetics 1951, but all these are in the text one way or
the other. Running future engrams we've done that. And
overt act-motivator sequence; couldn't get him to get hit.
So I took him back the moment before the blow and had him
pulverize his assailant in mock-up. Parked him on the track
the moment before the blow and had him start beating up
the guy who had beat him up. See, overt act-motivator
sequence. And we had him do this several times and he
finally with great satisfaction says, "You know, that time
I broke his jaw, I broke his arm, I killed him and he's
lying there," and so forth. And he said, "Maybe I shouldn't
have done that. That's too violent."

So, I had the guy kill him a couple of times, similarly, by
beating him up and have him kill the guy several times
more. Didn't take very long to do this. And then I started
him back a moment before the blow and told him to run on
forward through all major incidents to present time. Just
run it as an engram, you see.

He went right straight up to the blow in the next ten
seconds. And the engram exploded in his jaw.

I've had this happen very rarely, but every once in a while
it will occur. An electronic explosion of the entire engram
will occur. Well, that's how tight that engram was in his
jaw and that's how tight he was to this situation.

Here's an unusual assist, you see. He was so tight to it
and the energy in it was so compressed that it was just
like plutonium, get the idea. It was completely unstable.
And after we'd run overt act-motivator sequence for a
little while, we got an actual explosion. This is not even
desirable, it's just a freak, you see. I'm just giving you
a freak phenomenon that occurred. But that was all there
was to the engram of the fight. If that explosion hadn't
occurred, I simply would have run it many more times. You
know, just run through it, major incidents, major
incidents. Almost a scan through, you know, fast.
Relatively fast with the major incidents and so forth,
making him work his way on up and bring him to present time
and stabilizing him there with a little 8-C type "Find the
floor, find the chair, you in present time? All right."

"I'm in present time."

"All right. Go to the moment just before you've been hit.
All right. You got that? Now run on forward through the
major incidents to present time." He'd finally open his
eyes and say, "I'm here."

By the way, the old phenomena of the guy saying, "Yes, I'm
in present time." He's just run this arduous engram, you
see, which is way back on the track, days or years, he's
just run this death, or whatever you call it, and you say
to him - you haven't erased it yet, but you're bringing him
to present time - and you say, "Now, come to present time."

And he says, "All right, I'm here." Where is he? 

Female voice: There.

He's there, that's right. But finally when he came through
to present time the last time, it took him about five
seconds, see, to get through to present time, see, here he
was in present time again.

Now I says, "Pick it up from the moment before you got hit,
and run it into the future, from there clear into the
future for about six months." Of course, he's six months in
the future, remember.

"All right, come back to present time. All right." "Yeah."
I said, "How is it?"

He says, "It's the funniest thing," he says, "I've changed
my whole attitude about this entire thing." 

"Well, you feel good about it? You feel bad about it?" 

"You know, I don't feel any way about it." He says, "This 
is nonsense, you know. This whole thing. You know," he said, 
"I get awful worried over nothing."

You know, this is typically the preclear telling you it was
the Bromo Selzer, almost. He'd been worried over nothing.

I said, 'All right. Let's take a look at those jaw anchor
points." "Oh, brother," he says, "there's an awful lot of
them out of position." I said, "Well, snap some of them
in." He did.

Straighten up some of this stuff around the jaw. And the
hour was coming very close to a close. I could only audit
him an hour. I had people standing outside the door like
mad. And he says, he says as he... "Gee, you know," he
says, "it's going to take a little while to put this into
shape."

And I said, "Well, all right." Now, I said, "We can hit it
again in another session. And straightened him up and
chased him around, and gave him some change of space and
remedied his havinguess and found present time real good,
and stabilized him and straightwired the session slightly,
and so on.

And he was still telling me, "You know, I feel entirely
different about this whole thing." He said, "It's just
amazing," he said, "how seriously I was taking all this,"
and so on. 

I said, "Well, they've been telling you you have to have 
an operation tomorrow, and you can go ahead and do what 
you please about it."

And I just left it there. At least if he has the operation,
he'll have no complications from it. But it's too bad that
we didn't have another hour or so on the thing because we
would have boosted his jaw back. Now, if he didn't get
operated on at two-thirty today, or he doesn't get operated
on at two-thirty today, give him another hour's auditing,
we'll get enough of these anchor points back in position so
the jaw will snap in.

He finally realized the reason the jaw was out of place is
because it was being held out of place by large energy
masses. It was being held bodily out of place. But more
important than this, much more important than this, is the
fact that a positioning of an anchor point down the arm -
let's say let's position an anchor point way down the arm
here; we can make a guy drag an anchor point down the
arm - he can bend the bone at that point. You aware of this?

This is one of the more horrible sights which a guy can
engage on. This guy has to be in terrific shape. The bones,
what you consider to be the great realities of structure,
are dependent utterly upon the created space of these
anchor points, you see. And what we consider to be reality
is the most monitored thing you ever saw in your life.
It's very easy to monitor. But I discovered after the
session that this individual had an erroneous idea
concerning his potentialities. He actually thought that he
would have to - and before he could repair a little old dinky
thing like a jaw dislocated - he actually thought he'd have
to mock up and unmock such things as an ashtray at will so
everybody could see it before he could tackle a bone. Now,
I don't know where in hell he got such a dizzy idea. There
is nothing easier to handle than a body. Nothing easier to
handle than a body part. You don't have to be able to mock
up the Empire State Building and furnish it a will so
everybody will agree it's there before you can fix up one
of your hangnails. And he had been waiting on an ability on
his part to do such things as mock and unmock ashtrays
before he thought he could handle a jaw. Just a piece of
misunderstanding of the grossest kind.

Well, it couldn't have been such a misunderstanding if he
all of a sudden spoke to me about it. The auditing itself
unraveled this concept to a marked degree.

Now, I don't know whether I'm going to audit this fellow
again today or not, see, because he's being hounded by
several people to get that jaw operated on and slashed
open and done this and that. And he is in the unfortunate
position of having been PDHed by the doctor who struck him
during the first operation. But we didn't work on this
particularly but it must have cleaned up rather markedly.

Now, we're not even curious as to what decision this person
made. Remember, it's his jaw. We are talking, though,
about this oddity, that this man has been audited for two
hours and has been pushed well on his way toward Operating
Thetan.

Well, then what are we doing in terms of time? On both of
these cases when I first laid my hands on them they were
unable to remedy havingness, and yet they'd been audited
many, many, many, many hours. Remedy havingness while
exteriorized, you see.

There are just certain things that a thetan has to be able
to do. These are contained quite markedly in the Six Basic
Processes. Do you know, somebody exteriorized should be
able to go over and touch a designated spot on a wall. Do
you know that? That's 8-C for an exteriorized thetan. He
should be able to do this. Of course, if he can't do that
it means that he doesn't feel he can create the wall. He
feels that he mustn't be the wall. You know, he has a lot
of oddities here. But it still remains that there are just
certain basic things he has to be able to do. He has to
appear and disappear at will. He has to be able to mock and
unmock energy. He has to be able to perceive actual things
and it's not very tough, I mean, it's just a little list
that he has to be able to do.

I guess we could fool around with him for a long time
without remedying his ability to do these few little
things. The few little things he should be able to do are
contained in the Six Basic Processes. He should be able to
engage in a two-way communication and so forth.

If you ever got an exteriorized thetan to engage in a
two-way communication, of course you have an Operating
Thetan. That's the end of that. It's no wonder that he is
so dumb; nobody has talked to him for an awful long time.
No wonder that he doesn't speak. No wonder that he doesn't
hear well. This is not an oddity. He's just been out of
two-way communication.

Now, what I've been talking to you about possibly comes to
some of you as a shock of "My God, how much do I have to
know in order to work Scientology?" Well, you don't have to
know very much. The truth of the matter is you're being
overburdened by what you don't have to know. See, there'd
be tremendous quantities of things you don't have to know
that you probably think you have to know. The things you
have to know are very few. And that's why we're giving you
the Six Basic Processes as a little side course as we go
through this, just to show you what these things are, what
they amount to.

But here is auditing in operation; that's what I've been
talking about today. But of course I've been talking about
auditing at a fair level of optimum. The process thrown in
at the exact moment necessary to produce the result, the
preclear going on winning and two-way communication being
continued the whole time up the line, the preclear being
led by speed, not being able to relax for one second, no
waiting time in the auditing session at all, all
communication 100 percent, which in itself would blow hell
out of his track, see. And here is a certainty on the line.

Now, there's one point in all these auditing sessions I
haven't mentioned and that is the fact that the boy, the
second day when he came in, was still hanging up on his
other auditing session. That is to say he wasn't stuck in
anything, you know, but he had changed his considerations
but not all the way. And he had become to some degree
cocky, and he felt better. And he felt like king of Earth,
and so forth. So I started the session by arguing with him.
I said, "You know, you go and get operated on."

And he says, "Well, I know that." 

And I said, "You know that's the right thing to do?" 

And he says, "No, I don't know that's the right thing to 
do." He says, "It's not the right thing to do."

"Well," I said, "well, you do know that you have to go get
operated on." So I said, "There's really no sense in my
auditing you." 

"Oh, yes there is," he says. 

"But you're just going to go get operated on," I said. 

"And no-oh, well, yes, I am. I know that - no - I ..." 
Unsettled him a little bit on his prime postulate that he 
had made on this.

And then I said, "And besides," I said, "your ability as a
preclear is very poor. 'Now that's something you wouldn't
say ordinarily to a preclear. And he said, "It is not." I
said, "Yes it is." I said, "You can't mock up and unmock
ashtrays, and you can't do this and that."

Got him - actually got him fighting me just a little bit,
see. I got his attention off the outside world and got him
fighting me just a little bit and then I went into two-way
communication with him and we got right to work. He had no
time to maunder. He already knew I was sitting there. I
kind of kicked him around a little bit, you get the idea,
right at the beginning of the session, because I saw - but 
I did that again merely because of an observation he was
sort of hazily fixed on something he had been doing just
before he came into the session, you see. He was elsewhere
fixated, and he was a little bit fixated someplace else, so
if he's going to be fixated anywhere in an auditing
session, he might as well be fixated on the auditor.

So I just told him of course he was going to go get
operated on. He knew that was the right thing to do. And I
just more or less gave him the things the doctor's probably
been feeding him, you see. That runs it out just a little
bit even to do that, you know. Old repeater technique, Book
One.

Oh, I use all of these darn things when they turn up, but
the major things of course that have been - along the line,
which are with us today, have always been with us - the major
things on the backtrack are always with us. Elementary
Straightwire - what is Elementary Straightwire, if you
please, but a light way to run an engram. See, it's the
lightest possible way.

The depth of Elementary Straightwire - if you kept on
elementary straightwiring somebody and insisting that he be
at the place that he was just remembering, why, you would
find yourself running engrams. I mean, you can run
Elementary Straightwire straight into running engrams if
you want to. It isn't that you use it more and more, you
get him into more and more engrams. This is not the case.
But it is - as a process - is just the lightest method of
running engrams.

And of course lying back of that is a tremendous amount of
technology known as engram running. See, it just takes up
the past and takes the pictures made in the past, and so
forth.

Two-way communication, two-way communication and repeater
technique are cousins. Repeater technique, as crude and as
unworkable as it is, still belongs in that. You find this
preclear keeps coming up to you saying "I got to get rid of
it. I got to get rid of it. I got to get rid of it."

I am not above, if this preclear is way out of
communication, and so forth, even though it is not too
terribly therapeutic; some guy's getting in my hair
personally - remember I'm an individual too, something an
auditor too often forgets - gets in my hair too much with
"You know, I got to get rid of it, I just got to get rid of
this, I just got to get rid of this horrible headache, you
see, because I just got to get rid of it," he goes with that.

And I say, "Well, you know, you've got to get rid of it."
And the fellow says something to me. And I say, "Well, you
know you've got to get rid of it. Now, let's not, let's not
shilly-shally around with this other stuff I'm asking you
to do, let's just go right straight to the meat of this
situation and get rid of this headache. You know you've got
to get rid of this headache, don't you!"

And the fellow says, "Well-well-oh." Because if he's doing
this kind of a dramatization he must be fixed on some part
of the bank, and again, let's have him fixed on the auditor
if we've got to have him fixed on anybody.

I could probably sit there and say, "You've got to get rid
of it." 

And he'd say, "I know that." 

And I'd say, "Okay." And I'd say, "You know, you got to get 
rid of it." 

And he'd say, "I know that." 

And I'd say, "Okay," you see. And I'd say, "You know, you 
got to get rid of it." 

And he'd say, "I know that." 

And I'd say, "Okay," and the thing would probably blow.

You just put into a two-way communication things that have
never been in a two-way communication before. It was in a
one-way communication. Or you've run the engram or you've
supplied the absences or you've done something along this
line.

I had a fellow one time say, "Now, decide to say..." This
wasn't the phrase, but we'll use it just as the example.
"Decide to say I've got to get rid of it and say it." 

"Got to get rid of it."

And I had him in a line charge before very - a great length
of time had gone. Because it was just part of - this phrase
he was using was not the same phrase, was - I wouldn't give
it to you because you might recognize the person - this
phrase was simply the stuck in an engram someplace. He was
running on it as a machine phrase, you see, was salting
down his entire conversation. I had an awful time with it
for a short time, you know, "Decide to get rid of it," and
he would decide - pardon me, "Decide to say it and say it,"
you see.

And he would say, "Got to get rid of it. Now did you s - ."

"Now wait a minute, I said 'Decide to say it.' "

"Well, got to get rid of it," he'd say. 

"No, decide to say it. Did you do that?" 

"Yes," he'd say.

"All right. Now say it."

He'd say, "Got to get rid of it."

"All right. Now decide to say it and say it."

"Got to get rid of it." 

"Fine. All right. Now, decide to say it." 

"Yeah."

"All right, say it."

In other words, by the auditor bringing it under his
control, the preclear then takes it back under his control.

Freudian analysis, if you've ever noticed, let the analyst
take something under his control and have it. And never
gave it back to anybody else. Just a goofy trick.

By the way, there's a whole class of auditing that goes
that way. That's one of the class of phrases, class of
commands: "Decide to and ..." It's a whole class of
commands, it's gorgeous. "Decide to be in a body and be in
one." "No." That type of auditing. "Decide to be in a
body." "Decide to be aberrated and be aberrated." "Decide,
decide to have something wrong and have something wrong."
Just such questions as this repeated over, making the
individual decide and then do it, decide and then do it,
decide and then do it.

You do the same thing with a vehicle you're teaching
somebody to use, you say, "Decide to run it now across that
spot in the road." And then "Run it across that spot in the
road." And all of a sudden his automaticity driving
machines just go creak, crunch, fall to pieces because he's
taking things under his own decision. Whole class of
phrases. I've never talked to anybody about this particular
breed of cat. It's just an omission, it's not that this is
not a good process; it is.

Just like this other class of processes: invent. You can
have a guy invent anything.

This person doesn't like housework and you want to get him
right over inventing housework. Of course, it's still fun
you know, to audit against significances even though it
isn't as efficacious as it might be.

And this person just hates housework and hates housework
and you say, 'All right. All right. Now invent some work,"
see. "Invent some more work. Invent some more work." 

"Lots of trouble with people, they're always inventing work 
for you to do." 

"No kidding. Is that right? All right. Invent some more work. 
Invent some more work." Now all of a sudden you say, "Well, 
now you take housework, isn't that terrible?" 

"I don't see anything bad about it."

Yeah, really a lot of fun to monitor this kind of thing.
You can take over the machinery and considerations of an
individual and really maul them if you really know your
Scientology. You can do it in a common conversation. I do
it sometimes. I get ashamed of myself. Somebody doesn't
want to do something, and I want to do this thing; the
easy way to do it would simply be three feet in back of
their head and want to do it. But instead of doing this,
you see, instead of being that mean, instead of being that
mean, why I start discussing how bad it would be to do this
thing. And they listen to this and agree with it and talk
about it for a little while, and then we'd go do it. All
kinds of weirdities. You can use a process in common
conversation with some of the most fantastic effects. Not
necessarily therapeutic. Just like enforcing a two-way
communication cycle on a salesman. 

Now, you will find adjustment of anchor points of course 
is Route 1. You will find the running of engrams in Book One. 
Nobody's asking you to run engrams. If you do run engrams, 
though, for God sakes, run 'em right. Run 'em until they're 
flatter than a flounder. Run 'em until the guy can leave them.

It's an interesting thing. You know, after a while the
engram will just be a little energy package that he's got
and it's a cute picture, but when he's sitting in one and
using it in his workaday world, so on, it's plastered all
over him, guys are out here....

I saw a guy the other day who was the most perfect Fac One
monitor you have ever seen in your life. He had the horn
rim spectacles of the Fac One monitor. He was all out of
shape and he's kept - his dramatization is you've got to
know, you see, you've got to know this, and so on. And in
lack of a Fac One machine, you see, he'd poke his finger
and he'd poke his finger in a slow rhythm of a Fac One
machine. This is all old-time stuff. This is way back, it's
of no great use to us but the phenomena is there; it's out
here in the society.

If you knew your Six Basic Processes and if you knew Route
1 and if you could keep in two-way communication with your
preclear and lead him a little bit with speed, you would
get the best results that we have been able to achieve. But
maybe along with that is the intention of the auditor. Does
the auditor have to have this much wrongness sitting in
front of him? Does he have to have a long time to work it
over? Is he trying the strongman stunt of having to have a
big muscle in order to raise a small bar? You see, is he
doing these things? This we can't absolutely guarantee that
he isn't doing. But I do know this: We are auditing far too
slowly per unit result. I just know that we are crawling
compared to what we ought to do, with exactly what we have
and exactly what we're teaching here in the Advanced
Clinical Course Unit. We're just crawling.

Now, invent some wrongnesses. Now, you should have - and I'll
get a quick report here before we close this up. Are you
still running this? 

Male voice: Yeah.

Now has anybody started running it on a two-way cycle of
communication sort of thing? So that you've got the
preclear saying "Okay" to something making up wrongnesses
and you've got something out there saying "Okay" whenever
the preclear invents a wrongness? 

Male voice: (inaudible)

All right, let's get smart, this would be a cute way to do
it. A fella, the fella invents some wrongness, "Well, I
could be eighty-five feet tall and try to live in a doghouse."

And "That's fine," you'd say as a auditor. "Now have
something out there say okay." "All right. Good."

You do that and naturally you've reversed the polarity on
these obsessively inflowing machines. And little next
trick - I'm leading you carefully here in spite of the fact
I'm talking madly this morning about all-out processing.
This would be, this would be an interesting thing. You
would hear machines go creak. You, as an auditor, could
practically hear them go creak.

"Have something out there say okay." The one thing a
machine has never done is acknowledge a communication. It
goes on and grinds and obsessively inflows and drains all
the preclear's energy bank. Does an interesting job of work
this bank. You run this two-way cycle of communication in
on anything and you have fun.

Now, the funny part of it is a machine's never been
acknowledged. You know that a person's facsimile machine
has never been acknowledged? You could just have this
person sit here, see, and say "Okay, okay, okay, okay,"
without telling him any more about it than this, see.
"Okay." He'd eventually start to get the most peculiar
pictures. They'd get real peculiar.

And you say, "Now, start saying okay to a spot out there."

"Okay, okay. You sure you want me to do this?"

And what you'll do is key in the darn machine. You're
giving it all the acknowledgments which it has never had.
You're giving it answers, rather. You're giving it answers.

It said, "You were at the canal locks at eight-fifteen
yesterday morning." And of course the preclear knows he
wasn't there so he's got a block up here, you know, chunk,
see. This machine has long been psychotic. It hasn't given
a right datum for the last two thousand years, see. And he
starts saying "Okay" and all of a sudden something tells
him - he has the strangest feeling that he was at the canal
locks at two-fifteen, you see. Wild. Real wild.

Now, as we know, identity, space and time are very, very
high-echelon things, aren't they? So if we had somebody
invent some wrong locations, we had something out there
invent some wrong locations and the preclear would say "Okay."

"This is Bessarabia." 

"Okay."

"This is New York." The machine says, "This is New York."

The preclear says, "Okay." 

"This is Washington." 

"Okay."

"This is Earth." 

"Okay." 

"This is Arslycus." 

"Okay."

"This is Earth." 

"Okay." 

"This is Arcturus." 

"Okay."

You would find something happening, believe me, because the
wrong times and places on the part of the machinery he
resists. Now therefore, you could say - have something out
there say, "This is 1776."

"Okay." Every time, you know, make a complete communication
cycle of it. Something out there says, "This is 1776." Have
the preclear say okay.

"This is Valley Forge." 

"Okay."

"This is 1492." 

"Okay."

"This is 10,003 B.C." 

"Okay."

You sure it isn't? You see, now that's time and location,
two big areas.

Now, identity. 

"You're Papa." 

"Okay" 

"You're Mama." 

"Okay."

"You're John Jones." 

"Okay." 

"You're Bill Smith." 

"Okay."

"You're Doug Hutton." 

"Okay." 

"You're Rick Walker" 

"Okay."

"You're Johnny Fell." 

"Okay."

"I'm not either Yes, I am. Well, that is my name."

You get the idea?

The machines - what happens in this whole phenomenon called
hallucination is simply this: a machine starts giving the
bum dope. First an individual depended on it for the right
dope, the machine set up an obsessive - it set up an inflow,
you see, just in communication. It said "This is
two-flfteen, or this is two o'clock at 401A East Roosevelt,
January the 5th 1955." The machine said this. It was just
an idea that came through. And it keeps the preclear up to 
time, you see, up to time. He thought this was a cute idea. 
And he doesn't acknowledge that. He doesn't answer

What do you think that machine's going to do? It's going to
get a heavier and heavier and a much more massive, massive,
massive line in, and it's going to start giving him
facsimiles and showing him pictures of clocks when he wants
to see clocks, or black and white masses after a while when
he's right or wrong. And then after a while it's just going
to give up and it's just going to give a mass, you know.
It'll give a mass, it'll give a mass, it'll give a mass.
You start bringing it upscale again and it'll go through
the manifestation of psychosis. See, it'll give all the
bum answers. And finally it will start to put through 
answers which are really horribly bad and wrong, you see. 
These answers are completely wrong, they are utterly out of 
agreement with everything and we call that hallucination. 

The fellow who believes a lot of snakes are crawling around 
on the floor simply is on the receiving end of a machine 
which is telling him snakes are crawling all over the floor, 
you see. It's himself that's doing it via some machine. 

Okay.

(end of lecture)





