From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Fri Apr 23 22:00:08 1999

Path: newscene.newscene.com!newscene!novia!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news

Date: 24 Apr 1999 05:00:08 -0000

Subject: FZ BIBLE 5/10 HCL TAPES PART 2 (1952)

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

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: <92b4e262a27ab2ffd1546930d0159015@anonymous.poster>

Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net

Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net

Lines: 1077

Xref: newscene alt.religion.scientology:742701



FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST



FZ BIBLE 5/10 HCL TAPES PART 2 (1952)



We are posting separately to ARS & ACT, if a post is missing,

please check the other newsgroup.



**************************************************



These are the second 10 lectures in the HUBBARD COLLEGE

LECTURES (HCL) Series of early 1952.  This is based

both on the transcripts in R&D volume 10 and an old

reel-to-reel set of the tapes.



The lectures cover Fac One and some discussion of

Entites.



We posted the first part of this lecture series last December

as FZ BIBLE 1/10 HCL TAPES of 1952, FIRST SECTION.



The Time Track of Theta tapes that we posted earlier last year 

are also from this lecture series.  They fit right after the 

tapes in this current set of postings.



We will do the final third of the HCL lectures later this

year including the battle of the universes tape which has

been labled confidential and is not in the R&D volumes.

Note that this lecture series (mainly the final third) is 

the research line for NOTS.



Coming Soon: The 5th ACC (The "Universes" cassettes).





**************************************************



CONTENTS:



1.  HCL-7   6 MAR 52 EFFORT AND COUNTER-EFFORT

2.  HCL-8   6 MAR 52 ATTACK ON THE PRECLEAR

3.  HCL-9   7 MAR 52 FACSIMILES: HOW TO HANDLE RECORDINGS

4.  HCL-10  7 MAR 52 INDOCTRINATION OF THE PRECLEAR

5.  HCL-11  8 MAR 52 RESOLUTION OF EFFORT_AND COUNTER-EBFORT: OVERT ACTS

6.  HCL-12  8 MAR 52 INDOCTRINATION IN THE USE OF THE EMETER

7.  HCL-13  9 MAR 52 THOUGHT, EMOTION, & EFFORT AND COUNTER-EFFORT

8.  HCL-14  9 MAR 52 DEMO: EFFORT, COUNTER-EFFORT, STRAIGHTWIRE

9.  HCL-15 10 MAR 52 TRAINING AUDITORS: THE ANATOMY OF FAC ONE

10. HCL-17 10 MAR 52 RUNNING EFFORT AND COUNTER-EFFORT



Note that the first set of 10 HCL lectures ended with

HCL-6A of 5 MAR 52.



Note that HCL-12 consists of HCL-12 and HCL-12A on the reels.



Note that HCL-16 was not part of the reels nor is it in the

R&D volumes.  If anyone has a copy, please post it.



Note that HCL-18 was combined with HCL-27 in the R&D volumes

and we will post it in part 3 of this series.  The Time Track

of Theta tapes are HCL-19 and 20.



In cases where the reels include material that is not in

the R&D volumes, the text is marked with ">".





**************************************************



STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 



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.



They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be

stamped out as heritics.  By their standards, all Christians, 

Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered

to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.



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 even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,

the rules of religious freedom allow them 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



**************************************************

 



HCL-11 RESOLUTION OF EFFORT_AND COUNTER-EBFORT: OVERT ACTS



5203C08  



(Rerecorded 1973 by flag audio unit)



A lecture given on 8 March 1952





I want to talk to you tonight about the resolution of

effort and counter-effort.



The only reason an engram will not run, and the only reason

a moment of pain, the only reason a moment of

unconsciousness will not reduce properly or erase properly

is in the matter of effort and counter-effort. Effort and

counter-effort form a heavy enough block on some engrams,

they become very difficult to work out.



Of course, you understand there's another item, and that is

one's own intention or one's own self-determinism with

regard to it. It matters much more what the individual says

than what is said to him. So one's own self-determinism can

be a large factor in auditing out an engram.



But the effort and counter-effort are actually what hold it

down, because they sort of wrap up the self-determinism,

they sort of lie around it. Self-determinism can get

swallowed up by effort and counter-effort. Such a situation

as this: An individual comes out of a door and somebody

else comes in the door and they collide. Well now, each one

has the intention and postulate of progressing forward in

the direction he's going, and they collide. And they stop

for a moment. And to A who is coming out of the door, B is

a sudden counter-effort. And to B going in the door, A is a

sudden counter-effort. The two of them meet, maybe bump

their heads together, both of them would go unconscious.

You see, unconsciousness is actually a manifestation of

one's self-determinism being upset by a countereffort; that

is what unconsciousness is.



The equation one works on, actually, is "If I can't make my

selfdeterminism count, then I must be dead," and he goes

down curve rapidly toward death. Unconsciousness is just

a - light or deep - is merely a slide in toward death.



Now, effort and counter-effort, then, contain a very large

part of the answer of auditing out an engram. Your preclear

can get so bogged down in some postulate, in some statement 

he makes himself, underneath this effort and counter-effort - 

that he's made when he received it or made just before he 

received it - that he will concentrate in such a way on this 

effort and counter-effort that he does not pick it up. Now, 

that may seem to you rather odd that you could concentrate 

on a counter-effort and be then unable to contact it. The 

trick is to concentrate on another point than the point of

impact, and only then will the counter-effort come in.



The reason for this is very simply expressed. One's own

effort is always to some slight degree directed toward the

receipt and expulsion of counter-efforts. Now, the receipt

and expulsion of counter-efforts requires that one fix his

attention upon the counter-effort. And one's attention,

therefore, is fixed on the effort in order to expel it.

What is actualy happening is you are no more and no less

than a complete bundle of counter-efforts. Thought picked up

its first counter-effort way back at the beginning of time,

turned it around, and used it to overcome the physical

universe. And this sequence: picking up a counter-effort

and then using it, picking up a counter-effort and then

using it, picking up a counter-effort and using it, should

demonstrate to you that every effort which you exert has at

one time or another been a counter-effort. A physical-force

effort, then, has at one time or another, always - in every

case - has been a counter-effort.



The only reason a counter-effort in a facsimile becomes

troublesome is because an individual's self-determinism

depends to a large degree upon his right to use any

counter-effort he receives and turn it around and send it

the other way. Now, he thinks of himself as having this as

an inherent right. Therefore, when he receives a

counter-effort and is then inhibited in using it, the

counter-effort will eventually come back against him

because he will go back to the point where he realizes the

counter-effort is dangerous, he'll start examining it and

he'll throw himself back into the first facsimile of its

receipt. This is highly mechanical - very, very mechanical.



Now, a counter-effort, then, let us say, of being hit hard

by a truck, to use a very standardized thing (hitting by a

truck is quite ordinary these days, drivers being what they

are, particularly in Kansas) - so your counter-effort comes

in - bam!



Now, actually, in order to use this, the individual would

have to hit somebody with a truck. Well, he knows he'd

better not hit somebody with a truck because this would be

in violation of the dynamics as well as city ordinances. At

least most cities have ordinances against this sort of

thing; I'm not sure about this particular city.



The point is that one has received a counter-effort which

he cannot employ, and so it's worrisome. Well, there are

two things to do about it: one is not to get hit by a

truck, and the other one is, if hit, be in a high enough

tone so that that facsimile, being in the counter-effort

band, won't ever be contacted by you anymore - or audit it

out. Now, these are several courses that you can take. All

right.



Here is the matter of receiving a counter-effort and not

being able to use it. An individual is killed, let us say.

I hope that doesn't sound particularly amusing to you - he's

killed and later on can't use the counter-effort,  but

that's exactly what happens.  The individual is

killed - let's say he's strangled - and later on somebody

does something to him, and his response is to take his

lily-white hands and strangle the other person.



Now, he may do this several times. He may do it very

successfully several times, and one day, after he gets

through strangling somebody, maybe back in the Stone Age or

something of the sort, he takes another look and it's a

girl, and that was the wrong use of this counter-effort. Or

it was a baby - wrong use of the counter-effort. He's trying

to use this counter-effort and here he's used it wrongly.

What happens to him? Instantaneously and immediately he

gets the somatic of being strangled - because he tries to

regret this matter, he tries to figure it out. He says to

himself, "My goodness, how could I possibly have strangled

this woman?" "How could I possibly have strangled this

baby'" - whatever he did. "Well, how could I have done this?"



Well, when he says to himself, "How could I have done

this?" he starts picking up the facsimiles which gave him

the counter-effort which permitted him to do it. And, of

course, he hangs up with the first time it was done

to him.  And we call this first inciaent, when it was

done to him, the motivator.



The motivator is then employed, and may be employed

relatively successfully: He can go around choking animals,

choking horses, choking anything - it doesn't matter,

choking men. They're all on a parity with him - it just

doesn't matter. He doesn't regret these fellows, And then

one fine day he chokes the wrong person, which is to say,

he chokes somebody that is not a legitimate target - which

is to say, he has no justification for the act.

Insufficient justification creates, then, what we call the

overt act. An overt act is the misemployment of a counter-

effort - the misemployment of a counter-effort. And the

counter-effort thus employed against a target that is not a

legitimate target, backfires on the individual. He'll go

back down the time track and get into the motivator. He gets 

into the motivator immediately. He gets the somatics, plainly 

and simply, that were administered to him. He gets those 

somatics himself.



Thus, you find on the track, a person begins to accumulate

overt acts - many of them. He maybe has one big motivator,

one incident that he can't do anything about. He has

received a counter-effort and every time he tries to use

this counter-effort, which is his perfect right (he

thinks), he finds out that it is such a large offense

against the other dynamics that he pulls back and resigns

his right, and he cannot then be self-determined. So his

self-determinism sinks because he can't use this

counter-effort.



As a result, the accumulated overt acts can get up to a

point where the individual will suffer no matter what he

does to anybody. He begins to believe that he cannot use a

single counter-effort. This is a condition we know as

apathy: All counter-efforts go through, and one puts up no

effort to resist them. That is apathy. That is also

refusing to use one's right to utilize counter-efforts.

That's the bottom of self-determinism, then. One can't use

a counter-effort, therefore one has no self-determinism,

therefore one is in apathy because all efforts go through

him - all counterefforts go through him.



The whole Tone Scale can be derived on these emotions to

this degree: How much overt action has the individual

suffered from? That is to say, how many times has he failed

when he tried to employ a countereffort? The degree to

which he is unable to employ counter-efforts is the degree

or the band he lies in on the Tone Scale. Should be very

simple, very easy to understand.



If a man can't use any counter-efforts at all, he cannot

resent anything that's said to him, he cannot strike hack

at anybody that does anything to him, he is incapable,

then, of defending himself or the other dynamics and as a

result, more or less ceases to exist. That's apathy. The

bottom of apathy is death. One then won't even resist the

counter-effort of sunlight or anything of the sort.



Now, way up the band one is so extensional against

counter-efforts that they really don't even arrive. They

don't arrive. He not only is capable of employing all

counter-efforts, he doesn't need to; he's way up above.

Now, when a person, let us say, is well up the band, let us

say that he begins to use, for some reason or other,

counter-efforts - he uses some old counter-effort against

one of the dynamics. He comes down the band a little bit.

He uses another counter-effort against one of the dynamics

You see, it's nonsurvival to go out against the dynamics;

it's not good sense.



So, he uses these counter-efforts and he uses them and he

uses them. And he uses these motivators, one after the

other, and gradually uses them wrong this time and wrong

that time and comes, eventually, down to the bottom of the

Tone Scale.



In order to audit him back up again, one could, actually,

merely pick up his overt acts. You can locate them on a

psychometer,' His overt acts: What has he killed and when?

When has he misemployed counterefforts? Against what?

Against himself, against children, against women, against

groups, against man, against animals, against the MEST

universe and so forth, right straight on up the line.



Particularly  interesting  is  the  counter-effort  against

seven, theta - the seventh dynamic. The overt act against

seven is very interesting because it results in an

individual believing he has offended to such a degree that

he has to get into the valence of something which is

offended. Now, that unsnarls very easily.



Christ bore the burdens of all man and the world, didn't

he? So, if a person keeps on offending, offending,

offending against the seventh dynamic, he will eventually

offend so wrongly and so widely and broadly that his only

solution to it is to wind up as Christ.



> This isn't saying that's the route that Christ went,

> although some of the lost books of the bible tell you

> how he spent his early youth using his powers to destroy 

> those around him. You may not be aware of these early

> accounts. There's one story, in these lost books of the 

> bible, about his blinding a playmate mearly by telling 

> him to go blind.



Now, as we go up the scale, then, a person commits,

actually, less and less counter-efforts but is capable of

committing more and more. The bottom of the scale, in

apathy, is when a person has committed so many

counter-efforts, so many overt acts - he's done so much

without good justification that he must now do nothing but

justify whatever he's doing. Well, what does he do to

justify? He starts wearing the somatics, starts wearing the

pains and infirmities of his motivator. It has turned on

him at last, and you'll have this ...



You can run, by the way, a great many people through the

Crucifixion. You can actually run them through the

Crucifixion. They'll get it very nicely. They'll take

enough facsimiles and put them together to have one

wonderful crucifixion. They'll get themselves really

crucified. Why? Well, any time you find anybody running a

Crucifixion, you start looking around to find out when they

started offending against the seventh dynamic, and you'll

find plenty of offenses. And instead of running the

Crucifixion, which is, after all, merely satisfying this

person, find their overt acts against it and run those out

and the tone of the individual will come up quite markedly.



That's a symbolical performance in this society, this

society being what it is - running the Crucifixion. You'll

find that as an incident in many people. Don't bother to

run it.



Find out when they cut the throat of the priest, when they

set fire to the nun and other little pastimes in which they

have engaged during a dull day and an idle moment.



Evidently, the volume of overt act against the seventh

dynamic necessary to really aberrate the seventh dynamic is

quite high - it's quite high. I have never run the

Crucifixion, and yet one time I evidently looted the

dickens out of the nicest, prettiest church you ever saw.

Melted down all of its altar plate too. And - well, as far

as the nuns and priests were concerned and so forth, it

took a minimum time - only a few hours on the rack - to get

them to say where it was. (laughter) And I've never run

through this incident. I have no experience with this,

except objectively, in running preclears into it. So I've

never quite plumbed the well of how overt a preclear can be

on the seventh dynamic. There may be some dread, dark and

awful secrets ...



That's why you need a psychometer. They'll never tell you

about an overt act. They just won't tell you about them.

They'll tell you about all the things done to them, but

what they've done to others they won't say.



Now, the overt act is a very important piece of information

for you. The overt act, all by itself, will break cases and

throw them up the Tone Scale with considerable ease.

Furthermore, a case which has never wept, has never been

angry - if you find the overt act, you'll spill tears out of

them by the bucket; you will spill rage and fear and all

the rest of it on an overt act. Whose tears? The person

they've harmed. Whose rage? The person they've hurt. Whose

somatics?



Now, there's a lot of people walking around, by the way,

lots of people walking around that... Well, let's say

somebody has got a bad eye or something of the sort, and

you walk up to him and you say, "Did you ever poke anybody

in the eye?" And he says, "Oh, no!" "Well, what have you

got a bad eye for?" "Well, I just got it, that's all. I

just got it."



"Go through the action of poking somebody in the eye. How

would you poke somebody in the eye?"



And the fellow will say, "Well, I'11 use the right index

finger, I guess." You say, "Well all right, take your right

index finger and poke somebody in the eye. Now, let's poke

them again. All right, let's poke them again. Let's poke

them again. Let's poke them again." And it's very dangerous

for you to try to demonstrate this, by the way, right this

minute, because there's hardly anybody present who hasn't

poked somebody in the eye.



And you make him go through this physical motion a few

times, and he doesn't even know where it is on the

track - it might be back in the Crusades or a thousand years

BC, it doesn't matter. All of a sudden, bong! he has a

very bad eye. And as a matter of fact, you can keep it up

until he's got a black eye. If the incident is not going to

be identified - you're not going to identify the incident in

any way, he's not going to identify it - you can keep him

making an overt act (that is to say, repeating some overt

act he's done) until he gets the somatic very thoroughly.



Now, the only reason anybody is carrying around an

aberration or a somatic, by the way, according to theory,

is that he has used some counter-effort he received

sometime to destroy along one or more of the dynamics.

That's one for you to note in auditing.



The phenomenon of the overt act is very important. You hit

Bill - you hit him, and a few days or weeks later your eye

isn't so good and you can't find out why. It's because you

hit Bill; you regretted hitting Bill.



Now, if you'll take an overt act and run it backwards,

you'll get the regret off of it. Because what is a person

trying to do with an overt act? He's trying to get it

undone. He doesn't want to go forward through it again. He

wants to undo it; he wants to un-enact it. He hit this

fellow - he was in a terrific, tearing rage and he hit this

fellow and the fellow fell down, and the second that fellow

fell, all of a sudden he said, "I've just hit my brother.

Huhhh? No, I didn't do it. That wasn't I," He then

invalidates it all over the place. "I didn't do it, I had ..." 

Then he says,  "I had ample justification," He knows

he doesn't have ample justification. He can't quite

untangle this thing because there that fellow lies on the

ground in bad shape - that's just hitting somebody in the

eye.



You'll find in any man's childhood, he has hit another

child. you can find that. And you will find that hitting

this other child has been an additive factor, just one of the

many factors, which holding in suspension the somatic which

that man in his adulthood is carrying.



Now, that's just hitting a little child in a childish

quarrel. How do you get rid of this? Run through it,

identify it. Put him on a psychometer and find it is the

best way to do, because you can fish around for a long time

on overt acts by just guessing. You can spend a lot of

time, but a psychometer will tell you immediately where

they are.



Run this incident backwards. Have him withdraw the blow,

withdraw the blow, withdraw the blow, and all of a sudden

he'll find he's - impossible to keep withdrawing this blow,

and the film will start to run the other way. And then

it'll run the other way for a few times, and then he starts

withdrawing it again. And in such a way, you work the time

out of the act. Because, you see, the reason it gets into

restimulation is very simple - very simple, the reason the

overt act gets into restimulation. The person has jammed

time on it - he doesn't want it to happen - so having jammed

time on it, time becomes timeless, and so the overt act can

float with him from there on, He has put himself before the

incident happened; therefore, any time he moves forward,

the incident occurs. There, maybe, is one of the reasons he

has sinusitis and so forth.



Any time a person has performed an overt act, he has

suffered from it to some degree or other.



Now, you take - once upon a time, man evidently had fairly

large teeth. You can just make somebody start biting - just

make him start biting, biting anything - and the first thing

you know, he's got a somatic in his mouth. But more

important, he's probably got one in his stomach; he bit

somebody's stomach one time or other. And you make him bite

and bite and bite and the stomach somatic will turn on.



Whose somatic is it? Well, initially it was his; initially

he got bitten in the stomach. But that isn't - he could be

bitten in the stomach forever, practically; every year he

could be bitten in the stomach and not become aberrated

from it until he turned around and bit somebody else in the

stomach.



In other words, the organism, the individual is so

situated, so constructed that at any time it can receive

and take an enormous amount of punishment. It is a sponge

for punishment. And the only reason it holds up a somatic

and says, "I hurt, I hurt" is when it says, "I am

apologizing for having hit Sir Lady Custabula in the

boudoir." It's holding up this somatic as evidence, as

propitiation to the rest of the world. "I'm sorry I did it.

I'm sorry I did it," it's saying.



Now, the counter-effort-effort phenomena is very important

to the auditor. And just because we have a Facsimile One,

just because we have a lot of other things, is no reason

why we should neglect this strange phenomenon of Bill hits

Joe, and Bill gets the hit. You can work that out. You can

take any preclear and start making him punch somebody,

somehow, in the stomach, and you'll get the somatic on that

preclear that is supposedly doing the action.



Now, overt acts, by the way, have become less and less

digestible to man during the last many thousands of years.

He's gotten less and less capable of exerting them, so that

he extends himself. At first he committed overt acts with

his teeth, and then he started overt acts with his fists

and his fingers - choking, hitting. And then he resorted to

daggers - stone daggers and then stone axes and then short

metal daggers - not too short, about the length of a stone

ax, out to a rapier, and then a broadsword. Until now he's

gone from the short-range musket to the long-range rifle,

to the artillery shell (75 millimeter, 155 millimeter,

16-inch railway gun), to the atom bomb delivered by a

human individual, to an atom bomb delivered by a pilotless

plane. You get the idea of how far he's backing off from

his overt acts. And he's just backing off just like that;

he's crawfishing on overt acts.



So do not forget that overt acts may suspend a whole case,

may keep an entire case from running. The overt act may be

the entire well of grief on the case. Therefore, do not

neglect this type of incident, and consider it and evaluate

it at all times as being much more valuable to run than any

incident the individual himself received. 



[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.] 



An auditor has only - to verify this himself, get a good 

subjective experience on it - has only to ask himself what 

he would do to create the somatic which he is wearing, create 

the pain which he's wearing. Just ask him what he would have 

to do to somebody else to create this pain. All right.



As a matter of fact, there's a huge lot of data that is

unnecessary to you on how you identify the overt act

without a psychometer. It's quite a trick; you have to

almost be a swami to do it. But you can actually look

at a person and say, "Why, yes, this person's overt act is

killing a woman." Why? Well, just look at him, that's all;

he'll have some womanly characteristic.



Now, regret that one has killed or maimed or injured

results in another phenomenon: the phenomenon of life

continuum. An auditor must know this phenomenon - life

continuum. When a person has done an overt act to another,

he conceives that he has taken on the responsibility and

responsibilities of this other person, including this other

person's responsibilities in life - his goals, his

physiology, his infirmities, his computations, his methods

of doing business. All of these things, every single one of

them, can form up into the lifecontinuum pattern.



Now, you'll find that this phenomenon also exists: Grandma

dies, and after that Grandma is to be found - in terms of

mannerisms - in the grandchild. This is almost as though

Grandma's soul has transmigrated or reincarnated into the

child, on Grandma's death.



Not so. All this child has done, has looked at the fact:

"Grandma is dead. I don't want Grandma to be dead because

this is nonsurvival on the dynamics. Therefore, how can I

'undead' Grandma? All right, the way I 'undead' Grandma is

to figure out what was done to Grandma and undo that. And

then I can 'undead' Grandma." It's a rather strange

computation but it exists, and it exists just in that

order.



So he says to himself, "Let's start with me." Always - "What

have I done to kill Grandma?" He does the trick, then, of

going into Grandma's valence.



Valence is a very interesting manifestation. An individual

will suddenly turn around and become like another

individual and stay that way. An individual has himself

and then he has valences, and he can go into dozens of

valences. There's all sorts of valences: there's synthetic

valences, there's bedpost valences, there's ... Yeah,

that's right; you'll find people in insane asylums in the

valence of a bedpost or in the valence of a brick wall or

something of the sort.



And then there's composite valences. Then there is

imaginary people valences, like practically every girl in

America at one time or another has gone into the valence of

a movie actress. Sat there, and ... One of the reasons

why people go to see picture shows is to steal the valences

of the actors and use them - go into those valences.



The whole subject of acting is actually bound up in the subject 

of valences. An actor only must be able to go into the valence

of his character - see his character well and then step into

that valence - and thereafter he will act almost automatically.



Now, therefore, this manifestation of valences is something

with which an auditor will have to deal. In addition to

that, he can actually predict the behavior of those around

him by knowing whose valence they're in - if he knew the

characteristics of the other valence.



For instance, they say, "Like father, like son." The

chances are fair that the son is to some degree in father's

valence or to some degree completely out of father's

valence and on opposite polarity. Like "I'm never going to

be like my father if it's the last thing I ever do,

I - rorr-rorr-rorrrorr!" And so he becomes opposite to

everything Father can do. Father happens to be a good

businessman, so the son, of course, becomes a terrible

businessman.



Therefore, a person can stay out of valences perforce and

stay away from everything that is a characteristic of that

valence, or he can be in the valence or he can just leave

it alone.



Best thing to do is for an individual to be in his own

being. That's pretty hard for an individual to do. Most of

the complaints you will get from preclears, as a fact, is,

"I cannot be myself." And the people they hate most are the

people who inhibited them from being themselves - people who

interfered with them being themselves. There is their

principal hatred.



Now, this valence manifestation becomes confirmed - and

actually goes into action and becomes confirmed - by an

overt act. Dear, dear Grandma would never be imitated under

any circumstances by the child unless the child was guilty

of action - punishment or otherwise - against Grandma. That

child has done things to Grandma. Maybe kicked Grandma in

the shins, maybe squalled and hollered and raised the

dickens when Grandma tried to get them dressed - anything.

But don't worry about running the death, so much, of

Grandma - it'll do a lot of good if you can run the death and

get all the tears of it off, but most of the time you

can't. No, if you find a preclear in somebody's valence (this 

is his grandma - he's being his grandma, he's being his aunt,

he's being his uncle, something of the sort), find the time

when he offended against prior to the death, and that time

will exist.



Now, oddly enough, an individual will continue the life of

individuals for many lifetimes. So if you want to find out

why the husband keeps going into his wife's valence, you

may not find the key to that in this lifetime. The

psychometer will find it for you. You can go back century

by century until you pick up the time he injured or

killed the woman who happened to have been a duplicate of

his present or deceased wife. You'll find an overt act

lying ahead of every life continuum.



Do not neglect the life continuum as a phenomenon, because

here the overt act goes into restimulation by the complete

recognition that the individual has suffered, the

individual is dead. And maybe this overt act was very minor

and maybe it occurred in some much earlier lifetime,



All of a sudden Junior walks into the bedroom and there the

undertakers, with paint and powder, have laid out Grandpa.

Walks in, there's Grandpa dead. And he isn't saying, "Oh, I

am going to die, I guess, because Grandpa's dead and I'm

like Grandpa." That's very simple. He wouldn't say that. He

does say to himself, "I'm sorry Grandpa is dead." But more

importantly, much more importantly, he says to himself...

Let's say Junior is only five years of age; he never did

anything to Grandpa, really, to amount to anything. The

first thing he says to himself is, "My God, what did I do

to kill him?" because you're all packing guilty consciences

on overt acts. "What did I do to kill Grandpa?"



You'll find the bulk of the people you question on the

street and in the drawing room have had the sensation, some

time or other in this lifetime, that they've murdered

somebody. This is one of the commonest manifestations

discussed in old-time psychotherapy. Old-time psychetherapy

ran into the post and stubbed its nose very badly simply

because the person obviously, by record, by police blotter,

had not killed anybody in this lifetime - hadn't killed

anybody. Therefore, it was irrational for the person to

suppose that he had killed somebody, and thinking in this

wise and not knowing anything about the continuation of

life through the generations and the continuation of the

individual personality, they assigned it immediately to

delusion. And from this they began to assign the word

delusion, to everything that an individual could think or

do. And that, you see, is mainly - and really only - thing

wrong with the mind. It becomes unable to differentiate

between actuality and delusion. And when it is hammered and

pounded and told that it is`"hallucinating," it becomes

much more unsure, and there we go - there goes sanity.



It is not a delusion that a young child or an adult

remembering back into his childhood believes he's killed

somebody. I well recall, at the age of two, of lying in bed

in the dark and shuddering with horror over the

thought of killing a man. "That is one thing I just must

never do." I just kept telling myself this over and over

and over. "I just mustn't kill anybody; I mustn't take

anybody's life from him; I just mustn't do this, that's

all." I just killed one too many fellows down past - through

the years, as any of you have.



Man used to be a lot wilder than he is now. That's a

strange thing - a little, innocent, sweet child of two is

not sitting around worrying about his teddy bear or

something of this sort; he's worrying about "I must not cut

anybody's throat this life." If you think back for a

moment, you'll recall this yourself - some sensation

that - wondering one time or another, "I wonder if I ever

killed anybody in this lifetime." Spooky notion that sort

of haunts you.



We put somebody on a psychometer and you say, "Did you ever

kill anybody?" "Nope, nope." Machine is still, dead,

unanswering.



"Hmm," you say. "Well, now, that's this lifetime. Let's

take an earlier lifetime: Did you ever kill anybody?" And

the machine trembles a little bit. "Well, how about the

last lifetime?" No action. "How about the life before

that?" No action. "Let's take order of magnitude: let's say

five hundred years ago did you kill somebody? a thousand

years ago?" the machine is kind of dancing so you say

"Let's take it a little shorter.  A hundred years ago did 

you kill anybody?" Bang!



"Let's see, was it a man?" No action. "Was it a woman?" No

action. "Was it a child?" Soong! Well, so the fellow was

driving down the road in a hay wagon going too fast, and a

little boy ran out from underneath the fence and he ran

over him - bang.



When you've lived as long as you've lived, you're apt to

accumulate an awful lot of experiences, and amongst these

is the overt act, and it stands like a beacon.



Now, you take anybody back a few thousand years, or tens of

thousands of years, and you're going to get a bop on them

killing women and everything else because at one time or

another you were cannibals. Sure, otherwise why would you

have such a revulsion against the idea of eating human

flesh? You sit down at any table, any company, and say in a

conversational tone of voice, "Have you ever eaten a roast

thigh?"



And they say, "Mm, well, what do you mean, roast - you mean

roast - a haunch of beef, don't you?"



And you say, "No, no. Human thigh - fileted." You can look

up and down that table, you'll see people getting green.

Well, why do they get green? Human meat is quite edible. Well, 

it is. You haven't eaten anybody for an awful long time, but 

there's hardly anybody present who hasn't dined upon what they 

call in the South Pacific "long pig" - very long pig. And this 

revulsion and so on runs through the race. You can run out one 

of those incidents, but those incidents, by the way, are not

very severe-they're not severe. It is only when an overt

act has hung up in a big maybe that it becomes very severe.



You know, the human mind thinks in terms of yes or no.

These are decisions. A man decides in terms of yes or no.

So long as he can resolve problems in terms of "yes greater

than no" or "no greater than yes," he's quite sane. But let

him run into a problem which won't resolve either way,

which hangs in the middle as maybe: Is it yes? Is it no? Is

it yes? Is it no? No, it's not yes; yes, it's not no. Yes,

no? No, yes?



You could dream up an entire therapy just asking a person

to resolve all their problems this way, and keep knocking

out a little bit of this facsimile and a little bit of that

facsimile until a person comes off all of his maybes. You

can find the maybes on a psychometer.



"Have you got any maybes about women?" Bang! Or in a case

of a girl: "Do you have any maybes about men?" Bang! You

always get a reaction. "Are men good?" Needle tips just a

little bit. "Are men bad?" Needle tips just a little bit.

That's a maybe. "Are men good or bad?" "Maybe."



So, of course, this person could not make up his mind

concerning men - or she couldn't make up her mind completely

concerning men, so she would never be able to go on a

conclusive, decisive course.



A person who has decided thoroughly what to do and is

capable of deciding what to do can accomplish action. A

person who has not decided what he can do cannot accomplish

action. Inaction is maybe. You hang a person up with 50

percent of the factors in yes, and 50 percent of the

factors in no, bring him dead center on an important issue

and he becomes inconclusive and indecisive, his

self-confidence vanishes, his self-determinism goes euay

down.



If you take a little kid, and every time the little kid

says yes you make him say no, every time he says no you

make him say yes - standard training - you get him to a point

finally where you've hung up all of his decisions with a

maybe. He says, "I'm going down to the corner and buy a

comic book." "Oh no, dear, you don't want to go down to the

corner and buy a comic book, now do you?"



"Yeah, well, all right, I'm not going down then."



"Well, on the other hand, perhaps it'd do you good to 

get a little air."



Mama can get into a big argument with him concerning why

one should buy comic books or why one shouldn't buy comic

books. All he knew in the first place was that he wanted to

buy a comic book, and he winds up with a lot of facsimiles

but no data resolved - lots of facsimiles without any one of

them resolved.



A whole education could be put into a person's head on a

maybe. "Maybe?... Maybe?..."



You go into arithmetic: they say, "Now, you have to know 

arithmetic."



The kid says, "Maybe." So he studies all arithmetic, and

all he's figuring after that - every time, he says, "Two

plus two equals four, maybe?"



Anybody who goes into Scientology feeling that nothing can

be done for the human mind will receive his initial

training with a maybe. "Does this phenomena exist? Doesn't

it exist? Well, I don't know, It's all maybe. Maybe - maybe

it does; maybe it doesn't. I don't know I don't know. I

don't know. I don't know," When he gets through to the end,

what you do is let him practice a little bit, find out for

himself, resolve a few of these things, and then make sure

that he's just scanned through all of the instruction, and

his decision on auditing comes straight on up and he

becomes a better auditor, because nearly everybody has a

maybe kicking around on this stuff.



"Is it true that if I hit John Doakes in the eye I will get

a black eye?" Mm-hm. But until you've hit John Doakes in

the eye, it's a little bit of a maybe.



So decision is very important - it's important mechanically.

Facsimiles are made to be resolved and be put in good

order; conclusions are to be drawn on them. Every time an

individual is trying to think, all he is doing is picking

up new facsimiles - in other words, data - and combining them

with old facsimiles to get new conclusions. And he's just

combining and recombining and recombining. And this

combination process - smooth thinking - goes on very nicely

and very prettily, straight on through to the end, until a

person suddenly hits a big maybe. He can't resolve this

problem.



"Should I have killed Agnes or shouldn't I have? Let's see,

Agnes was awfully mean to me and she went out with those

other two boys, and I caught her twice putting poison in my

orange juice. But on the other hand, she was a dear, sweet

girl. And she was very nice and she was very desirable in a

lot of ways. And she was economical and she took care of the 

kids, and the kids miss her. Now, should I have killed Agnes? 

Well, yes. Should I have killed Agnes? No. Yes. No. Yes. No. 

Yes. No."



Well, what's that do? It's an unsolved problem is what it

is, and so it stays in present time and it starts

accumulating facsimiles to it "Should I have done this?

Shouldn't I have done this? Should I have done it?

Shouldn't I have done this?" And finally killing Agnes goes

off into "Should I have eaten cereal this morning for

breakfast or shouldn't I have eaten cereal this morning for

breakfast?"



You see, that connects up very easily, very simply because

breakfast means a table and Agnes often sat at a table. So

that's a big maybe. So the person is indecisive, so then he

gets indecisive about whether or not he has a sick stomach.

And then he decides this is because of some indecision he's

making in business, so he decides that he can't make

decisions about his business.



In other words, obviously he should never have killed

Agnes, but he doesn't decide this. He just hangs it up and

he gets a maybe.



You can take a preclear and process him... - Of course, I'm

using the death of Agnes as an exaggeration. Hardly 100

percent of men have ever killed Agnes. (laughter) If you

don't believe this, go up and down the psychometer life by

life, year by year, thousands of years by thousands of

years, and you'll pick up the girl. People get somewhat

angry in their passion and they get upset sometimes on

infidelity or the wrong baby or something of the sort, and

they fly into a rage and cut somebody's throat, or bite

somebody's throat out as they did back in the days when

they had bigger teeth than they have now. In other words,

here is this strange manifestation: Maybe. Maybe.



Every time one offends against the dynamic, he cannot admit

to himself that he has offended against the dynamic, so he

has to say to himself, "I had good reason." But he knows he

didn't have good reason, but he has to say he doesn't

[does] have good reason, so he can't resolve it yes/no. He

has to resolve it on maybe, maybe, maybe.



Then afterwards he will go around and he will try to get

people to commit overt acts against him. He will go around

and he will say, "Hit me~" "Make me fail," "Shoot me," "Do

something to me." You can't understand why he's doing this.



He's not saying it, by the way. He's knocking you around

until you do - covertly getting on your nerves, breaking

things you have, busting up anything you start. And he just

keeps at this and keeps at it and keeps at it, and sooner

or 1ater you take a Luger out and drill him, And then he's

satisfied, because now he has received an overt act against 

himself which demonstrates clearly and conclusively that he 

is justified.



But this doesn't solve either, because the justification

came after the time - as he wakes up in the next life and

realizes - it comes after the time that he committed the act

against Agnes. In other words, it just doesn't resolve it.

As long as time stays there, it doesn't resolve. Time is

the great unresolver.



The second that a person commits an overt act, he says,

"I've got to get back ahead of it." And so he is - back

ahead of it. And then he starts to say, "The reason I'm

back ahead of it is some other reason." Regret is just

turning back time, that's all. It's as mechanical as

running a motion-picture film backwards. All right.



When you work on any preclear, you will find life continuum

pursuing out from overt acts. He took something that

happened to him - now that's his motivator, and he used it

to harm somebody or something on one of the dynamics. That

was the overt act. These two together and all of their

locks and all incidents appended thereto comprise the

service facsimile. The motivator and the overt plus all of

the incidents and locks equals the service facsimile.



The service facsimile is Facsimile One, plus overt act one,

plus all locks. And it's as easy as that.



This service facsimile is used. It's called a service

facsimile because it was made to serve somebody else - it

was made up to serve somebody else, but you use it

yourself. When you don't want to do something you say, "I

am sick," When people are angry at you, you say, "I want to

be sympathized with," so you turn on this service

facsimile. You use it in countless ways.



You don't think very fast one day, you aren't right there

with the answer, and so you say, "Well, I forget," and of

course that's part of the service facsimile. Actually, you

don't forget, but it has its uses. You realize, after you

get the service facsimile knocked out, you remember

everything.



And this, by the way, might be slightly frightening to some

people. You put them on a psychometer and ask them, "How

would you like, to know?" And the psychometer goes - bong!

Wrong side. No, they don't want to know. But, up to you as

an auditor to make them know. If you need a reason to do

it, is: "It serves them right!"



Now, the effort and counter-effort situation, then, are

quite important in the reduction of incidents. Completely 

aside from the fine little ways of undoing engrams - just 

straight application. A person uses an old counter-effort 

to commit an effort himself. And when he uses a counter-effort, 

he gets wrong if it injures widely on the other dynamics. 

A very simple equation to work with.



Strangely enough, a person will hold down and pin down his

effort and counter-efforts to a point where they can't even

be reached by an auditor or anybody else if he has an overt

act lying on top of them. The reason for this is, is he's

bound up time - he's turned time backwards - to an extent

that he won't march ahead and he won't run through the

incident.



Why won't he run through the incident? Because he's

committed an overt act and the overt act is on that.



So that you've got motivator: here's the counter-effort

being received - that's what's done to him. Then he uses the

counter-effort as his own effort, he commits an overt act,

and then he has to back up from having committed the overt

act and say he didn't commit it and say,  "I'm innocent." 

So the  only way he can do this is to get back of - ahead

of - the first motivator. So you can't get him to run

through the motivator unless you run him through the overt

act first because this effort-counter-effort proposition.



First, he owned the counter-effort. You see, it was done to

him and he owned it. He says, "This is mine to do with as 1

like regardless of what was done to me." He owned it. Then

he used the fact that he owned it to harm a dynamic. And

this is against survival. It's not good survival. So he

recognized that it wasn't and he regretted it. So he says,

"I regret this; therefore, I didn't have any right to do

it." Actually, the fact that it was done to him gives him

every right in the world to do it, but the fact that he

used it wrong tells him that he has no right to do it; he

didn't have a right to do it, obviously, because it harmed

this.



So there is your principal and biggest and only real maybe

on a case: "I had the right to do it but I didn't have the

right to do it. I had the right to do it and I did it and

then I didn't have the right to do it." So this person then

says, "I don't own these somatics I don't own these

counter-efforts; therefore they can hit me at will, they

can punch me around, they can do anything they want to me

because I don't own them. I couldn't possibly own them

because then I'd also have to admit that I used them. So I

just haven't got anything to do with this, and that's why I

have sinusitis, asthma, lung fever, hangnails, why I limp,

am paralyzed in the left side and am generally normal."



So in entering any case it is very, very wise for you to

use a psychometer and to use it very, very well and look

for the individual's overt acts. And you may have to take

several overt acts off the case before you can get down to

the overt act of Facsimile One and then get down to running

Facsimile One itself as a motivator,



You should know this subject very well and be very, very

wise in your diagnosis.



Thank you.



(end of lecture)



***************