Invalidation (4ACC 540317)
Series: 4th Advanced Clinical Course (4ACC)
Date: 17 March 1954
Speaker: L. Ron Hubbard
March the 17th, first afternoon lecture. This afternoon we have some more on evaluation and invalidation.
Now, by experiment you could discover for yourself that the two things which will depress a case most markedly are invalidation and evaluation. Therefore, on a simple simplicity, it must follow that these are quite aberrative.
So let's examine the anatomy of them and we can discover rather easily that evaluation consists of location. That which changes a person's position in space or tells him where he is, is of course evaluating for him. This is the simplest step of evaluation and of course it tells him what is scarce and what is not scarce. This could be on the thought level. so we process according to the Prelogic.
The Prelogic is: Theta can place objects in space and time or can create space in which to place energy and object which it has created.
That's what theta can do. Quite an interesting capability. When you look at this capability, you find out in practice that evaluation can be traced to—when you consider the MEST universe and consider other things—can be traced to placing. That which places a fellow, or locates him, is actually performing a function of theta, so he considers he's up against a bigger being.
That which places him in space, of course, is bigger than he is. So an individual who's continually being evaluated for, or who permits himself to be continually evaluated for, therefore considers that a bigger beingness is confronting him. So that he gets the idea that the physical universe is certainly bigger than he is and he gets the idea the physical universe must perforce be bigger than his own universe.
An interesting process, just as a test process of this: "Now, get the idea of your own universe being bigger than the MEST universe." Go ahead.
Now, you can get this with great simplicity: "Get the idea of your own universe being much smaller than the MEST universe." Now, you can get that with ease.
All right. Now let's get the reverse one: "The MEST universe is smaller than and inside of your universe."
"Now get the idea that your universe is the size you think your universe is."
You have an interesting reversal one way or the other on this because, you see, they aren't relative sizes. You can change this at will very easily because it's a matter of consideration.
But where an individual looks for the lamppost and the post offices to tell him where he is, he then of course thinks the MEST universe is being much bigger than he is. And where he thinks of a body as able to tell him where he is and what he's doing and how he's walking and how he's feeling and whether he's right and whether he's wrong, why, he gets the idea that it's much bigger than he is and much more powerful.
And where he's using a machine to tell him where he is and what he's doing and what to think and whether he's right and whether he's wrong—in other words, if he depends upon this machine, you know—he gets the idea the machine is much bigger than he is. And so we get the idea that he can't handle them, so they're evaluating for him.
The basic level of evaluation, of course, is knowingness. Something knows more than you do, therefore it can evaluate for you. Knowingness is the top of the scale always. But let's look at the Prelogics and we find out there's a simple way to process this below the level of knowingness, which is to get things placing other things.
Now, you wouldn't think so, but this, on some preclears, will drive them almost batty as a process. You say, "Get the house next door telling you where this house is," "Get that mountain saying where the plain is." And you run on this way for a while and some interesting and weird things will start to happen with a preclear. That's because this is going on all the time.
Actually it's going on for him. The mountain is telling him where he is. The body is telling him whether he's right or wrong. The body says it knows and he doesn't know. So we have evaluation, then, as something that can tell a fellow where he is, something that can change him in space and something that knows more than he does.
You get thetans going up against each other in a continual warfare of trying to convince the other thetan that he knows less. So everybody has a rather poised dramatization of this: everyone appears quite certain. You'd be amazed how certain everybody looks and how uncertain they really are.
Your father sounded so certain when he told you what you should do concerning what you have just done to his car. He sounds so certain! Actually, he's very uncertain about it. He might be angry at the moment, but immediately after his anger, why, he starts thinking, "Well, I really—I shouldn't have done that and I shouldn't have..." But the truth of the matter is, he looked very certain. If you'll put out in front of you just now, other people being very certain, you'll see what I mean.
They're all quite certain, aren't they? They're all so certain. Now, just for the fun of it put them out there being uncertain. That's really the way they feel.
All right. Now we have this as a continuous dramatization. If a person can sound and look very certain, then everybody else knows he's right. Everybody else knows that he knows more. So we have enormous operations going on all the time to convince people that they shouldn't be certain. Because if we let everybody be so certain, they would know so much and they would be so superior and they'd be so strong that we, of course, would be in danger. That is the way most preclears think on this basis.
You'll get people who are quite bad off with a terrible fixation on being right. Oh, they're just psycho on the subject of being right. If you even vaguely imply that someplace on the time track they might possibly have made a miscalculation, they're liable to fly into quite a torrent of anger at you.
Most arguments are simply an effort to convince the other fellow that he might possibly have some error in his calculations, and the other fellow's effort to convince you that you might have some error in your calculations, and your effort to convince the other fellow that you are not capable of having any error in your calculations, his effort to convince you that he has no possibility of error in any of his calculations.
Now this is an argument. Here you have two certainties drastically opposed. Well, evaluation—that which knows more can evaluate more for the Other one—has a tendency to reduce self-determinism. That's why I stress, as far as I'm concerned, I don't know more than you do, I've just looked a little harder. That's about all. You can look at the same thing and know the same thing. But you can know it by looking, not by my telling you. I can tell you where to look and after that you'll know. All right.
You always might have the slight feeling that you shouldn't have been told where to look—you should have been able to look and it was there all the time. Well, you'll only keep that feeling as long as you have an upset on the subject of being right or wrong. If you have a feeling like something horrible would happen if you were wrong—something horrible would happen if you were wrong—why, then you'd be upset about that point and it would be suppressive to your case.
Okay. So much for evaluation. Now how about invalidation? Aren't we coming around to the same thing, though? "Wrong. You're wrong." Invalidation is the side of it which says, "I'm right, but you're wrong."
Now, what is the MEST universe method of convincing you that you're wrong? Impact and loss: it gives you an impact and it takes it away. And that's invalidation. And people on the Sixth Dynamic will run immediately into impacts, and when an individual has been hit hard, he is thereafter convinced that he's wrong.
Now, a very funny thing— if you wanted to be very brutal about this, if you wanted to be quite cruel, you could run a clinical test of this. You could take a baseball bat and hit somebody across the back hard enough to practically snap his spine and you know what he'd do immediately afterwards? He would have a tendency—no matter whether he got mad or something of the sort, this wouldn't matter—after this emotional upset, blow and so on, he would wonder what he was wrong about or he would get a fixation on "I've got to be right." Impact, see—must mean that he was wrong about something. You weren't even having a discussion. He was wrong about something.
Well, all he—was really wrong was, was being there where the baseball bat hit with his body—he, having his body at that point. Well, that's invalidation—impact.
Now, you can get these two things—they'll work out synonymously in terms of the MEST universe this way: Evaluation works out to be that which changes or fixes the individual in space or time—that's evaluation. Invalidation is impact. There's nothing more to that.
Well, invalidation and evaluation go together under the head of knowingness, which is the kingpin of the works, on just the basis of either one of them is a method of convincing somebody he's wrong. So, we have, with this conviction, the two things which are most aberrative in auditing.
We start auditing a preclear, we start evaluating for him, we start invalidating him—either one will push him down the Tone Scale. Because we're restimulating, with invalidation, all his impacts. It would be enough for you to simply hit him—or you can explain a lot of things to him—either way, you've hit him. They cross—invalidation, evaluation.
He'll get working around finally to where these things are totally the same. And most preclears will receive it that way. You've threatened a person with a blow, if he's really bad off, if you just start to audit him. It's an implied criticism. So a criticism itself comes under the heading of an invalidation. And criticism is the lowest level of invalidation.
All right. Now, let's say that you take a preclear who's not too bad off and we start evaluating for him. We just start evaluating for him—telling him what to think this way and what to think that way and so on. He'll start to fight back or he'll start to go into apathy or something bad will occur because he thinks we're changing him in space. This fellow isn't too bad off. He isn't all crossed up or identified in the bank. See this now? We start to evaluate and say, "Well, that really means—that really means that your mother's intentions were crosscurrent to your father's toilet training," or some Freudian something-or-otherness, and the preclear will have the feeling like he's been shifted in space. He really will—I mean, he has this slight feeling.
Now, a blow shifts somebody in space rather abruptly and without warning. So you see, this is why the whole thing can dive into an identification.
Now let's look at the other side of it and we say to this individual, "Well, you're really not auditing right. You're really not doing that right, mostly because you probably are not bright enough to follow the process." That's an invalidation. He will have the feeling more directly that he's been struck. But let's work all this out on the basis of just knowingness and we find out that that which immediately interrupts his knowingness, interrupts his case. All right?
Let's go further on that and take our synonym for knowingness, which is certainty, and we discover that we have lowered his certainty by invalidation or evaluation. Why? Because we're hitting him from either side.
All I'm giving you here are observations—observations. You can see these things. This is where you can see these things very clearly.
Now why do we run an Opening Procedure, then? This is actually evaluating for the preclear. Ho-ho! We're changing him in space, aren't we? No, something a little different is happening: we're demonstrating to him that it is not dangerous for us to change him in space.
So we get onto another little item that comes in the line and that is "The environment is more dangerous than I am/I am more dangerous than the environment." And if you want a datum to hold on to that explains all other data without any further stretch of the brain, you hang on to that one.
The fellow who's bad off thinks the environment is more dangerous to him than he is dangerous to the environment. A fellow who is fairly well off thinks he's more dangerous to the environment than the environment is dangerous to him. This is lower toned than we are ordinarily accustomed to think in terms of knowingness and so forth, but it cuts in very high. And it embraces certainly all of Homo sapiens, all the animal kingdom and so forth. They're all operating below this—in this band. It's a pretty high band, it must go up there to about 10.0 on the Tone Scale.
The idea of the environment versus the preclear—the environment versus the person: the environment would include all of his surroundings and it would include as well anything and everything, everyone, which could bring influence upon him. This would just be embracive—when we say the word environment, we mean everything, anything, thoughts, dreams, efforts, symbols, walls, floor, people, so forth.
Well, an individual will start in selectively discovering (he thinks) that the environment is dangerous to him, by discovering that it is dangerous to those things which he's trying to protect. That's his first discovery. The environment—he's decided to protect something, therefore he's already limited his viewpoint—he's limited his protective zone, his command zone— because he's going to protect something against the environment. So therefore he must have assumed that the environment was dangerous to the thing he was going to protect or house. He learns, then, he has to protect this thing because the environment is dangerous to it. He merely starts to be this thing, you see, and then he starts to protect this thing. He starts to protect it after, really, he has learned that the environment can be dangerous to it. He has to have identified himself with it pretty well.
Now, let's look this a little bit further along the line. Let's find out that the individual, in many instances, if he's in good shape, knows exactly what is dangerous in the environment. He's still in a good band of knowing. He knows what's dangerous in the environment and he could pick these things out with great ease.
Now, as he goes down the line, his knowingness of what's dangerous in the environment begins to shotgun all over the place. In other words, we get identification taking place. An individual's bank gets very, very badly confused, so he's sort of in a continual short circuit. He's found out that something in a room was dangerous. And this immediately makes him assume that this room not only was dangerous when that something was in it, but is dangerous now and will be dangerous from here on and was dangerous all during the past. He just assumes this: because there was something dangerous in the room, then the whole room is dangerous.
Let's take an example of that, in this little dog I have mentioned in one of the PABs. A little dog is hit and thereafter for many days the place where he was hit on the road, he avoided. First he avoided it very, very widely and then he avoided it less and less widely, but he never got over shying or wincing when he would pass this point in the road. Well, how did this happen?
It's that the spot—the spot where it happened is more important than what happened. The car is a mobile object. You can't blame that—it's gone. But that spot is still there. The funny part of it is, the dog never had any fear of the car that hit him. He only had a fear of the spot.
Carrying this out, we find out that the fear continues in terms of geographical location rather than the things that are present in the location. In other words, here is this room, you walked into the room and you found a black leopard sitting in the middle of the floor, which immediately sprang at you. You closed the door, the keepers came from the zoo, picked up the black leopard, took the black leopard away. And ever afterwards you open that door (in the absence of any processing or blowing the lock or understanding it, same thing), you expect to be hit in the face with a black leopard. What is dangerous? It's that room! And yet you will go down to the zoo and look in the cage at the black leopard and you're not afraid of that cage. No, there's nothing dangerous about that—that's the zoo. What's dangerous is the room.
Oh, see how silly this is. Because the fact of the matter is, what's dangerous is now in the zoo. See?
You take a keeper who has been clawed, then the beast that clawed him is moved to another cage. No matter what beast is put in the cage where the keeper was clawed, he will shy away from that cage in which he was hurt. He won't particularly shy away from the beast that hurt him. The fixed object can be blamed, the fixed geographical location can be blamed most easily. The symbols are fleeting. We can see that a symbol—well, that's something that moves around and it might change and so forth and that's not important, but the fixed locations are.
So we get an individual after a while with 99 and 44/100ths percent of the universe impure in terms of areas where he has been hurt. So he shotguns on the basis—he says, "The MEST universe is bad, it's dangerous."
What's bad or dangerous? There are a lot of places in it that are bad or dangerous—were, have been. Now, any spot where an individual was killed is thereafter considered dangerous and a person stays out of it with total memory. Get that?
Oh, a funny thing happened one day. A preclear was having a very interesting time running because he was very fogged up this way and that and his childhood home area was more than usually fogged up. It was a Western town. It was more than usually fogged—it was just blacked in. But it was blacked in, in present time. It was blacked in all along the line. I mean, that place, he couldn't remember where what was in it. And yet he went back there and lived there quite a bit—quite a bit. His whole impulse was to try to go back and plow this out somehow, but then afterwards he'd be defeated and he would avoid it. And he was just running a "I'll be brave and go up to it," and each time he'd retreat a little bit further from it. What was it? His childhood home. "Well," you say, "well, he must have lived a horrible life there."
The funny part of it is, he led a delightful life there when he was a child. He'd kind of pick up the horrible things that happened to him but there weren't many. He'd been more than usually well as a child. His parents were quite good to him. He had had more than the average child had in terms of toys. He had gotten along well in school— teachers had liked him and so forth. You could just trace in vain, looking at this lifetime, trying to find something about this town.
Well, the fact that the town was more or less built shortly after he was born, you might say—all that was present in the town had been put there during his childhood and later, except for a few old ramshackles that were practically gone and weren't even used anymore—this was quite remarkable. He had been shot in the exact center of that geographical area a couple of lifetimes before. Exactly there, at that confluence where these two rivers came together. He had had enough arrows plowed into him to be whistling for a couple of eternities. There he was and he'd wound up back there to get born again. Miserable situation. There wasn't anything around there except the geographical area to remind him of it. The only thing that would really remind him of it was the pattern of these two rivers and the seasons of the year. Everything—nearly everything else had shifted and changed. People all different and everything else. Wild deserted area. He had been shot there.
The test of this was this: When this incident of having gotten shot there was alleviated—and it was merely alleviated by duplicating it a lot of times—when it was alleviated, did he then have a changed feeling toward his childhood home? Brother, you said it. He sure did—with practically no other auditing, because all was lost right up to that time. His main battle was trying to go back to this delightful place where he'd spent his childhood, which was the place which kills you. That environment was real dangerous. It isn't that he really knew there were Comanches sitting in the tower of the courthouse—he didn't really know this—no, it was just that this geographical area was dangerous. Therefore it became dangerous, not at the moment of death, which is a position in time, but it became dangerous on the whole track. You see that?
There, then, is: The place is more important than the incident. The geographical position is more important. We get into Change of Space auditing, we start flipping somebody back and forth between some accident which they've had in the past—actually they merely wear out, blow up, generate enough energy to correct any slightest feeling they have about the past in that area.
You can have a fellow—not a V, please, because it has to be somebody who's exteriorized—but you change space between the childhood home and the auditing room for a little while, and childhood, the pains and difficulties of childhood, are liable to blow on out. But this is nothing compared to changing space with the place where he was killed last time. Oh boy, you want to see the case shift, do that one. If it happens to be an area which he has tried to frequent in this life, you have a real balled-up life.
Okay. Evaluation—geographical position. Invalidation also locks up and ties into geographical position. Knowingness, then, which is based upon geographical positions, a dependency on geographical positions to know anything, is a dependency upon—for an uncleared preclear—is a dependency upon an awful lot of dangerous places. And he sure acts like it. See that? So he's depending all over the house on telling—this room and that room and so forth—well, gee whiz, this house is a dangerous house. Why is it a dangerous house? Well, his grandfather died there, didn't he? "But I know, but that is an instant in time. The body has been removed. The causes have been removed. Time has certainly patched... " No, it hasn't patched up the geographical position of that house. All right, then the house is torn down and another entirely different house is put up in the place. Well, this makes it a little bit difficult to find the geographical position if he depends on such objects to tell him where he is. But the geographical position he knows—his knowingness of geographical position is senior always to something telling him where he is—and so his feeling is that there's something wrong in that area.
Well, by logic he can't place it. Grandpapa died in that house five lifetimes ago. Therefore, that's a dangerous house. Now, let's explain it. Now, let's get logical.
Well, the reason he considers that particular house—he doesn't like that particular house (that's this castle which has been rebuilt eight times and now has been torn down and had a cistern made out of it), the reason he doesn't like it is because of the—because of the architecture. He knows something about architecture and it offends his aesthetic sense, the architecture and so forth, and so he sort of shuns that castle.
Well, I'm sorry to go into Para-Scientology so far, but the point is that he was killed five times storming it. Persistent sort of a fellow, you see. And he decides afterwards the area is dangerous. Something is liable to happen to him in the area. How does he know something is going to happen to him in the area, pray tell? How does he know this? Hm? It happened there. So the "there" is your importance. See that? Change of Space, then, is very productive of results, but it can't be run on somebody interiorized.
Now, what about the thing, the symbol? Well, a person doesn't pay as much attention to the symbol. Actually, he's caught in a body. Well, a peculiar part of it is, is although he was caught in a body—the first time he was ever caught in a body, what's important to this is not the body, it's the geographical area where he was caught in a body. So you have a tendency of a preclear to think of himself as being elsewhere than where he is. You know, he thinks of himself as being on another planet or out in a black space or some darn fool place over the hills and far away. See that? This he has a tendency to do.
Well, what happened in that place? He got caught in a body. Well, where is he right now? He's in a body. Well then, where is he in this body? Well, there—he's at that space, that's where he is. His bodies—well, he's had lots of bodies and they've walked all over the place and he's in a body right here. But where is he? Well, the fact that he's caught in a body tells him where he is. Obviously, he's five planets away, that's where he is.
Now you say, "Be three feet back of your head"—how can he be? He's five planets away from here. His head is five planets away, but his head is saying all the time that it's right here. He knows that's wrong, but he's given up long ago. He's gone into apathy on this basis: the body keeps telling him he's other places, when he knows where he is. He's five planets away. That's the dangerous geographical area where you get caught in bodies and obviously where you exteriorize.
So it boils down to, in auditing, a contest between self-determinism and other-determinism. The components of other-determinism are invalidation and evaluation, and the components of self-determined is to do the evaluating and to do the invalidating. Components of other-determinations are: a failure to evaluate and validation; and himself, again, failure to evaluate and to validate—and validation. So we get other-determinism versus the other.
Now, we see this as a fight, we see this as a wide perimeter. And the preclear's battle lines or his resistance lines are at some distance out or they're close in. When they get close in, they start to turn various set colors and when they get real close in, they get black. See, when they're real close in, they're black.
Now, this is his perimeter, zone. This is how much he really self-determines. This is the zone of self-determinism. It is also your zone of occlusion.
Where's the occlusion start? Well, he determines everything up from there to there. Beyond that, that's other-determinism—something else is determining it for him. Then we get this concept, then, that he must be resisting the environment, so he must be in some kind of a fight with the environment. Therefore, beyond his zone of self-determinism, there is danger—lots of danger of unnamed, unspecified kinds and shapes and sizes. It's all dangerous out there.
He's dangerous only up to five inches from the end of his nose. Or if he's been trained in boxing, maybe he's dangerous out there two and a half feet, to a point where he could easily strike. That's how far he's dangerous. And then somebody comes along and convinces him that if he hits anybody, why, he'll be arrested and thrown in jail and forgotten about and that'll finish him and that'll end him forever. His zone of command will right away march up to well within his chin, where anybody else can hit him. See that?
It's his consideration of what's dangerous. How does he know what's 'dangerous? Well, if you don't know where you are, you certainly don't know what geographical location you're in. So if you don't know what geographical location you're in, you don't know what danger is going to hit you next. It's elementary.
If you know that there's an awful lot of dangerous geographical locations and you haven't got any of these things spotted in time and shape... You don't know where they are. You know they're dangerous, you know, and you know they've shotgunned all over the bank. You, of course, have backed up, backed up, backed up until everything is dangerous but you. And then you'll get a case in the state of "no place to flinch to." He'd gladly flinch, if he only had someplace to flinch to. When you run this case, his bank is in a sort of a chaos. Even his bank, that he's sitting right in the middle of, is very dangerous. If you had a person really bad off, his zone of own dangerousness and so forth might be a millimeter. All else is dangerous to him.
This is backed up by a great many clinical experiments. Let's take: How could you easily raise the morale of a child? This is a very simple thing—raising a child's morale. You put out your hand until the child pushes at it a little bit, at which you immediately retreat half an inch. Child sparks up a little bit at this and pushes at your hand a little harder and you retreat a couple inches. And the child swats at your hand and you retreat about a foot. Heh, does he feel tough!
Then you put your hand back there someplace rather cautiously, and boy, will he whop at you! And you retreat. If you retreat too fast the first time, you'll frighten him. And I have seen a little baby with a cold (a baby, you understand; I mean, just about eight months old, with a cold), with enough savvy and enough hands—you know, enough to handle hands—enough savvy to know that it was handling its own hands and have seen the cold turn off after about five minutes of this processing. Curious, isn't it?
Now, let's just see where the affection of a child lies. A little child was being very, very upset and ornery to nearly everybody in the family, child hadn't been affectionate at all. I went in and I played this game with the child, not otherwise influencing the child. It's very, very easy to do that. I mean, you just throw some good fellowship and so forth around a kid and he'll perk right up. That's mostly because his machinery is not entirely under his own control. Mama monitors it and Papa monitors it and the environment monitors it and you just throw some good feeling around the vicinity of the kid and he'll cheer up—naturally, he can't help it. Although as a thetan, he might be quite uncontaminated and very powerful. He could make the surroundings miserable or happy. God help anybody who is trying to fight with and antagonize a child! Because they've got more horsepower than an adult. They can fill that environment full of enough hate and fire and brimstone to really make it interesting.
Well anyway, this little baby had been unaffectionate and I went up and played this game with the little kid. You know, put my hand up, you know, and the little kid sort of apathetically moved a finger toward it. And I withdrew about an eighteenth of an inch—the kid moved a finger, curious. I withdrew another eighteenth of an inch. Kid got real interested. Actually made a motion with its hand. Withdrew about a half an inch and the kid struck at my fingers. Fine. I retreated about two, three inches. Did this several times. Each time, the kid was getting more and more brash. Oh boy, when I finished up, this kid was tough. This kid was real tough and real cocky and of course, you'd say, headed for trouble and going to override everybody and stamp everybody into the ground and act real mean. Well, that was the trouble with the kid—the kid was mean. The kid would go around covertly and pull all of Mama's clothes down in the closet—you know, just "because it was a baby." It was just crawling, you know, but it could reach. Cried, wouldn't eat—bad trouble.
Well anyway, I sat down talking to the family for a little while and this kid crawls over one way or the other and obviously, you would say, to beat me up. Hm-mm, no. To clamber up, trying to get in my lap. All right, kid is in my lap and as tiny as the child was and so forth, fell to kissing me on the cheek.
It was safe to be affectionate to me and so on. I saw this child several times and played the game some more and we got the net result of a considerable rise. Not necessarily, though, in the child's behavior to the family. We got general tone rise on the part of the child toward everyone, but I mean not in terms of behavior. Because it alarmed the family to see the child cocky and so their first impulse was to knock it back, real quick. Regardless of what it was doing, take it away, move it back, drive it in, drive in those anchor points, drive in those anchor points, drive in those anchor points and wonder "why little Gertrude is so ornery."
"Well, we'll keep her from being ornery" —drive in the anchor points, drive in the anchor points, drive in the anchor points. "You know that child is getting worse and worse." Drive in the anchor points, drive in the anchor points—now the child is getting apathetic. Okay. Drive in the anchor points, drive in the anchor points—to make the child livelier. All right. Now that we've accomplished all this, the child is sick and now the child is now acceptable. So everybody is affectionate toward the child. The anchor points are driven in to a negative two inches.
Now, as you start to bring the child out, up that line it gets ornery, liable to get mad and throw rages and do all sorts of things, tantrums and so forth—that is a phase on the road out. Child passes them by. If you want to really see a very affectionate child, you would not quite maybe appreciate the fact that this child is very affectionate and very happy and so forth—this child is quite certain that it could eat you and the rest of the environment in total, without any trouble whatsoever. That's not flattering, is it? And yet the child is very sweet and very nice, very well behaved. Funny, isn't it?
Now, where you find a child rebelling, raising trouble, so forth—anchor points are too far in. It's a lot of trouble to get the anchor points out, because you start bringing the child's anchor points out again, the child will take advantage of it, one way or the other, and start to butcher the works.
But they will lay off being covert and they'll start being overt. And personally, as far as child raising is concerned, I would much, much rather know when my fingers were going to be hit than not to know when my typewriter was going to be smashed to smithereens—difference between overt and covert action.
It's not desirable to have your child so completely self-determined that it can walk over you and everybody else all the time. Well, the only reason it tries to walk over you and everybody else all the time and get in the road all the time is an anxiety. The child is very anxious. The child is anxious for attention. The child feels insecure, feels very upset.
Well, this has become almost an untenable theory because it is not remediable in terms of psychology. So the psychologist, saying "Let your child do as it pleases" as a method of raising children, fails. That's because they can't bring the tone of the child up to a point of where they cover that bridge and jump the gap. It's a very, very trying thing on the family as a whole to bring the child over that barrier and into a better performance state. Fortunately, with Theta Clearing it's quite rapid now. But it's kind of painful when it's being done, because the child will get real ornery, real overt and very sassy and disobedient, and less and less cooperative apparently, as they come out of the machine action into a self-determined action. Then when they come out of a self-determined action, why, they'll start living fairly decently.
The whole society is evidently of the belief that the covert hostility is a much better emotion than outright anger. They specialize in making covertness the order of the day.
You can do almost anything in this society as long as you can be devious enough about it. Well, the society is not being terribly productive and that certainly is pretty neurotic.
Well, let's look at all this in terms of what the auditor is doing and let's find out that the preclear is liable to go into some interesting states which you as an auditor should be able to encompass.
Now, anything that you can predict is not dangerous to you. Dangerousness comes about from an inability to predict. Danger and surprise are necessary allies. If you knew the world was going to blow up, exactly when it was going to blow up and so forth, you might give some thought about it being dangerous and so forth, but the fact that you knew it was going to blow up would make the eventual incident that you might run on it rather less. But if the world, which you were certain was going to keep on going, suddenly blew up with no warning whatsoever—it just went boom—that'd make quite an incident. All that mass going by the boards, that fast, without any more warning than that. Well, that of course convinces you that you're wrong. You didn't predict. How can you be wrong? Wrong—don't predict. If you don't predict right, then you're wrong. Rightness and wrongness are whether you predict correctly or incorrectly. And most people are standing around arguing about whether or not they predicted correctly or incorrectly.
Prediction. So you've got future and this tangles into neurosis, see—the neurotic really cannot face the future. He can't face five minutes worth of future. He just can't face it. And so as he looks ahead, tries to look ahead into the future, he just zuunngg. He's looking at present and past and everything is all mixed up. He's not sure where he is or what he's doing and his concept is very badly shattered, when anything happens. You see, there's a pin drops, therefore he's shattered. He didn't predict it.
Now, if you could predict, for instance, exactly what a preclear was going to do, you would feel fairly safe in running the preclear. But if you felt you couldn't predict what the preclear was going to do, you'd feel the preclear was dangerous. Prediction.
Prediction has to do with what is going to occur in a given location, what particles are going to coincide in a given location. Well, if you predicted—for instance, your preclear was going to come up to a line where he really got madder than hell before he split through and came over onto the other side (sooner or later, he was just going to get madder than hell), why, you'd sort of look for him to get madder than hell and so forth. And say, after he'd gotten mad and so forth, you'd run it out and you'd say, "Well, that stage is over with. Now I wonder what he'll be antagonistic about?"
Preclears have not ceased coming right on up the Tone Scale from way down to way on up, grade by grade through the emotional states, as they advance. If they're not coming up through those, they're not advancing.
They don't necessarily have to dramatize these things twenty-four hours a day, but you'll sure hit them in auditing. You sure will. Now, if you're mainly concerned with suppressing their fear, you'll be concerned with suppressing the bridge at 1.0. And if you won't let the preclear or if you don't handle fear, you don't do something about fear, if you don't let him manufacture fear on his road up one way or the other, if you yourself are so afraid of fear that you're not going to let him audit fear, you're going to suppress him, of course, below 1.0. There's going to be part of him left behind.
Now, there's two things that are very, very important to the auditor. You of course can straighten out and remedy, by very, very many means, the machinery of the body. Just because we say the body evaluates for you and your idea is to make the preclear himself, and make him make postulates himself and predict things himself and do this sort of thing, without great dependency on body for perception and body for machines and so on—doesn't mean that we completely avoid patching up the body. But the best time to patch up the body is after you've patched up the thetan. After you've patched up the preclear, he can patch up the body.
The wrong way to go about it is to patch up the body and then try to patch up the thetan. Because patching up the body then becomes an end. And it interrupts his progress. And he can't do it easily because you're sort of plowing around in the dark and he's plowing around in the dark, too. The thing to do is get him outside and get him in real good shape and then, as an afterthought, patch up the body, if you've got to do that.
Now, you could remedy any and all of the machinery in the body there is. You could, taking a long, long period of time—not exteriorize him—produce some very, very remarkable results simply by working him while he's in his head, patching up body machinery. This was Dianetics.
It's remarkable, the results that you can achieve by patching up the body machinery itself while he's still interiorized. And that's, of course, more than Man could do, so that's pretty good. So let's see, however, that by addressing the thetan and getting him outside and working him outside and getting him up the line with the recommended procedure that, thereon, patching up the body is a rather unimportant gesture. And he can do it rather easily.
But there are two or three auditors present who recognize this fact, that exteriorization handles the preclear so that you can then handle the body. They recognize this so poorly that there are two or three preclears present whose entire goal, whose entire concentration, whose entire control factors and pressure and so forth is still on the body and everything they are doing is an automaticity on the part of a body machine. And the case, of course, just stays there. It advances a little bit. It feels just a little bit better. It's a failure on the part of the auditor. This is the auditor's goal gone wrong.
An auditor who will sit there and let a preclear concentrate on and supercontrol and work with the body and change the body machinery and fool around in this direction has just grabbed a slow sailing ship for China, when the place he's trying to arrive is New York and when he's got a good, fast airplane that'll get him there right away quick. See, the good, fast airplane is "Let's get him to be a lot of things and let's remedy his havingness and let's get him three feet back of his head and let's get him to be a lot of things, let's remedy some more havingness, let's find some places he's not and let's get him to locate himself by himself for a change," and then what have we got? We got a guy going right on up the line. Get him away from this body machinery.
Do you know that you can only really be harshly affected in auditing if you stay inside the body? If you stay inside the body and audit somebody who is angry or in terror or something like this, the body reverberates. You, by being inside the body, make it live enough so its automatic machinery can go into action on an echo basis. It isn't that this is dangerous, but why be there and energize all this machinery so that he can get an echo, then, from the preclear, and the automatic machinery can all churn up and here he goes. And then the auditor winds up all restimulated. This is silly, you see?
Place to be is the hell out of there! Why energize this body? Just let it sit there and comfortably go through its actions and don't put a lot of beams—don't particularly have to restrain energy from it. You should know when you are and when you aren't energizing a body, however. You get a body's machinery all perked up and roaring and so forth—yeah, anybody gets mad around it, the machinery which reacts to madness goes into itself madness and all of this interaction occurs. Well, if you're not energizing the body heavily, the interaction doesn't occur. Well, let's get him out of there.
He won't get out of there, though... You know, there are preclears right here, right now, who are taking every single bid and cue that they get straight from the body, who are themselves lost, helpless, gone. And auditors have sat there and looked at this without recognizing it.
No recognition of this whatsoever. They are not auditing anything but a flock of machines that are auditing machines. This is no derogatory statement of the preclear, it's just that himself as a beingness, as an individual, is sitting on a back seat and everything that's going on is being evaluated for him. Why don't you as an auditor, then, simply sit there and say, "Well, you are now in a Pullman train. You are now sitting on the roof, You actually have your feet too close together to be audited properly. Now, the reason why all this thing happened to you is because of your mother." Why don't you just say this, huh? Why don't you just go on with the yak-yak-yak and evaluate for him and so forth and then every once in a while, slap him? You wouldn't consider this good auditing, would you?
And yet that's what his body machinery is doing to him and you as an auditor are sitting there letting the body machinery do it to him and letting him sit back there taking no responsibility for anything. And the body machine: you say so-and-so and the body machinery goes into action and it slaps him. He gets a sudden somatic. Now he knows something is happening. A somatic has just hit him.
Well, he'd know something was happening much more accurately if you punched him in the nose. I mean, same thing. Another beingness, other-determinism, has hit him, he got a sudden somatic he didn't expect. Well, if other-determinism is hitting him, well, why don't you be the other-determinism? You might as well be.
Now, you say, "Where are you? Oh, I don't know that you're there. I think you're probably over in the corner. No, I think you're under the chair now. No, I think that—I think actually right now, you want to know where you are? Well, you probably just stepped back of the picture frame there, so on. That's probably where you are."
Why don't you sit and audit him this way? Because his machines are auditing him this way. You've got the machines restimulated and they're all sitting there and saying, "You're sitting in a chair. You have your legs crossed. What you feel in your big toe now is a sensation. You know, this is what you feel. There you are. There you sit in the chair. There you are. And get back there. You're not any size. We're big and tough. We're bodies, machines, so forth. And you sit back there. We're dangerous to you. Go on, sit back there. Now we'll tell you all about it. We're real nice."
This universe will do anything. It'll just evaluate the hell out of somebody. It'll "help him." This is a very "helpful" universe.
Now why, then—why be so careful of the Auditor's Code if you're willing to let his body go on evaluating for everything that's happening—if you're letting his body smack him with sudden somatics and the body evaluate for him and so forth? Well, there you are, being careful of the Auditor's Code. Well, his body isn't being careful of the Auditor's Code. It's just evaluating like mad. It's telling him where he is, tells him how many times a second he's breathing, it tells him this, it tells him that, it tells him exactly how far away the courthouse is and exactly where the lamppost is —yakety-yakety-yakety-yakety-yakety-yakety-yakety-yak.
There he is, there he is. He knows where he's not. And you'll add up these people that have been running where they are not and not really discovering where they were. Eventually you'll run head-on into something quite interesting. They've been spotting where the body wasn't, on this basis: They say, "Well, let's see, I am not over there. Let's see. Oh, it says I am over there. Okay. Well, let's see, I'm not over there." Listen, listen, listen, mmm, feel, feel. "Oh, I don't know there's a little kickback of feeling on that. Oh, I guess—guess I sort of think I am over there. Well, let's see, I'm not over there." Listen, listen, feel, feel, feel. "I wonder if I'm right. Yeah, well…
The body quite obligingly, each one of these times, says, "Well, you're not sure of that. Well, I guess you're not sure of that either, are you? Well, I guess you're not sure of that either. I guess you don't know where the hell you are, do you?"
The fellow tells you—turn around and says to you, "I don't know where the hell I am." See? The trick is to get him on a far-enough-out zone that the body never heard of. He's got no pattern for it. And you'll find out the fellow, first time he finds where he really isn't, he's on the other side of a galaxy someplace. His body has never been there or had any traffic or knows anything about it, but he knows for sure that he's not on the other side of a galaxy.
Because all the body actually does for you is really not evaluate, it kind of cuts down any evaluation that there is there. It evaluates, but then it cuts it down. Anybody been experiencing the manifestation of, they're quite certain for an instant and then immediately afterwards it fades out—well, they're listening to an evaluating machine.
All right. Some of the things that you can do to overcome this consist of just such matters as making the preclear make a postulate. That is to say, "I am now going over and put my hand on the desk." And he goes over and puts his hand on the desk. You've short-circuited the machinery. Those are direct self-determined postulates and although he feels funny about them and he feels like he might not have made them and he feels wobbly about it after he's done this for a little while, you're running a straight communication line. And every time you start to tie in a straight line which is operating in a very determined fashion, you're getting closer and closer to establishing the guy and his location. That's a good procedure, then, isn't it?
Now you start asking him things he can be—he can be this, he can be that and so forth—to some degree you will run out a lot of the body fixations. That's roaring on some of these things. Fellow can be this, he can be that and gradually you'll discharge this body stuff enough so that it doesn't kick him every time he moves.
But there's another thing you can do about this. I want you to do this right now.
I want you to put up a couple of anchor points. I don't care how black or green or pink or purple it may seem in front of you. Put up a couple anchor points (I don't care whether they're black or green) and get where you are in relationship to those two. Just say "I'm there."
Now change your position, simply by changing the position of the anchor points. Change the position of those points—just two dots, two points—and say "Now I'm right here. I'm so many inches from these points."
Oh, let's not extend those out into the room and find out where the anchor points are in relationship to the stove. Let's just put them up there in the blackness or the darkness or the energy or the space or whatever you've got—whatever it is, we don't care—simply put them up there and say where you are, then, in relationship to them, and say "That's where I am."
Now do that again.
And do it again.
Put those two points up there somewhere else. Say "That's where I am."
Okay. Now, that’s location—unless you were locating the points in relationship to a car across the street or something. You want to check that on the preclear. Make sure he's not putting up these points out in front of the chair. Just have him put up a couple of points. You don't care where or how or anything else, just as long as he put up the points. And where he is, he's in location to these two points.
Now, you'll find an individual that is having a rough time finds it almost impossible to do this, because a machine can't do it. You could build one that could, probably. But you haven't had one.
So, there is location. Now you say, "Well, I'm not very certain of being there." So what? Put them up a few more times. You'll get certain of being there. Because that's all the place you are. It doesn't matter that there's some energy masses around and this and that—this seems to worry people frantic, that there's some energy flowing around. What's the matter? Haven't they ever seen any energy before? Put the anchor points up and say, "There's where I am." If they've got a couple of big blobs of energy of one sort or another, say, "Well, I'm such a distance this way" (toward themselves) "from that blob of energy and I'm such a distance this way from that blob of energy or I'm standing here alongside of this flow of energy." And that's it.
Okay.
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 600 26 MARCH 1954
INVALIDATION PAGE 2 4ACC-50 - 17.03.54