Running Beingness (4ACC 540311)
Series: 4th Advanced Clinical Course (4ACC)
Date: 11 March 1954
Speaker: L. Ron Hubbard
All right. On the matter of running Beingness, the process is a very simple process but it requires a considerable patience and sensitivity on the part of the auditor. After you have discovered the several things or one thing or two things-anything that you could get off of a preclear, preferably several things that he could be with certainty-you then have him go back over and be these things, each one in turn, with certainty again.
Now, there are two ways to go about this. And the two ways can be interchanged very easily. And those two ways are as follows: you simply have him going back over the thing which he has been a number of times-the length of time is not important, the number of times is important. In other words, you ask him to sit there and be a sofa pillow, if he can be a sofa pillow with great certainty. If you ask him to be this sofa pillow it would be poor auditing simply to ask him to be the sofa pillow and just sit there and continue to be the sofa pillow-that would be very poor auditing. Good auditing would be to as! him to be the sofa pillow and then ask him to be the sofa pillow again and then ask him to be something else he can be with certainty. And, if he's still sort of stuck with this sofa pillow, why, then you go back again and ask him to be the sofa pillow and then ask him to be the something else. In other words, you keep him continually on the move.
Motion, not staying still, is what's important there. Now, naturally your preclear, as you do this, will first go into it with considerable enthusiasm and then he's apt to become rather apathetic and rather wooden and start to feel rather stupid and so forth. Why is his? It's because beingness is a stop. So you can fully expect to find the deepest dregs of apathy and so forth at the ultimate beingness. A thetan, you see, isn't anything. He can become things. He can pervade and he can approximate and he can duplicate anything. But to compulsively factually be something with certainty, oh no.
Now, the only thing wrong, you could say-if there's any "only thing" in the field of life - the only thing really wrong with the preclear is that he is compulsively, obsessively, fixedly being something. And he has lost his ability to fluidly be many things, each one with great certainty, you know? He's lost the ability to say, "I am a clock" and be a clock. And then say with equal certainty, "I am the sky" and be the sky. See, he should be able to do that.
Now, perception depends upon duplication. If you'll see that a person looking at a vail-if this person is a nothingness and he looks at a wall, he certainly has to be able to >e this wall in order to see the wall. A thetan can be what he can see. He can see what le can be. Now, we find somebody who can be lots of objects with great certainty, but he can't see anything. This is not very difficult to penetrate as a puzzle. He can't be these things. Well, why can't he be these things? Well, he's lost, you might say, his fluidity in beingness. His mobility has been lost.
So here he is, a clock looking at a wall. Well, we haven't discovered yet that he's a clock. We're just asking him to look at the wall and as a thetan without the assistance and definition of the body itself, why, he's unable to see the wall. Why? Well, there's a hidden influence at work. He's being the clock. And he doesn't even trace the fact bac to the fact that he's being a clock.
Now, what's the problem on the part of the auditor? Perception depends upon the ability to duplicate. One cannot duplicate object A if he is fixedly and obsessively being forevermore, object B, of course. In order to see something he has to at least have the ability to be object A. He has to be able to approximate anything he looks at.
You see, when the obsession of having to be something comes off of the case - the obsessions; that is, the obsessive beingnesses come off of the case-naturally an individual can simply say, "I'm a clock. What a beautiful clock." See, he's looking at a clock. H doesn't have to say that to see the clock, but he has to be able to be the clock in order t see it. It's a condition which exists simply because the individual himself must be able t fulfill the conditions of communication. And these conditions are this: C to E - Cause to Effect, across a Distance. Effect must duplicate the Cause. The Cause must be willing to be duplicated at Effect.
Now, we get off into odd things like setting an example. A person who wants t cause something broadly and yet who is unable to set the example of what he's trying to cause, quite normally fails. A drunken parson, for instance, trying to make his entire congregation sober, is not something which is strange or rare amongst Man. A drunken parson, quite obsessively, might want an entirely sober congregation because he, himself you see, is trying to be sober, but he's drunk all the time. Now, naturally he will get out c this a drunken congregation if he has any power. He will succeed in making everybody in the congregation into a drunkard if he has an enormous amount of power. Why What's his power?
Well, his power is merely being able to impress an image at the other end of the line. In other words, make a mock-up. So if he's obsessively making a drunken mock-up, the people he's trying to argue into sobriety are being put into a big maybe because right with the argument is a drunken mock-up. He's obsessively being drunk and obsessively talking at the same time about being sober.
It's rather curious that drunkenness itself, just as a side comment, it comes about from the effort not to have drunk. The effort not to have drunk is a very simple effort which consists of having a full glass. A fellow knew at one time chat he was not drunk when he had a full glass in front of him. So he tries to approximate the condition of a full glass. Ind then when it's full, you see, he of course is empty. So he remedies this situation and hen he's got to have a full glass. Obviously the only way to get sober is to have a glass full of liquor in front of you because the glass was full just before he got drunk.
Now out of these little simple mechanics we get an awful lot of livingness. We have an individual stuck at a dozen places on the track. One of these places, for instance, he's a good man. You see, he's stuck in being a good man. And some other part of him and so on, is stuck in being a thorough bum. So, he obsessively is stuck in both places. Then we get a schiz condition whereby this individual is one moment a saint and the other moment i devil. We get various types of conditions.
But what will this individual do in terms of communication? He's liable to be a good nan himself and be unable to relay or communicate the aspects of the other. Why? He's ;ot a two-way mix-up on his communication line. His basic communication terminals ire a good man and an evil man. All right, we have a good man and an evil man. Well, his line just won't adjust itself. It just won't flow level, but that's his communication line. Jo, when he tries to be good, he actually creates evil. When he tries to be evil, he actually creates good. In other words, he dramatizes in existence itself his own conflict. There would be his conflict.
A conflict could be defined as follows: two terminals in argument with each other-a conflict. Now, when that exists within the individual, whenever he starts to aliven one terminal, the other terminal is liable to appear. Hence, you find-back on the subject of parsons-hence, you're liable to find a parson who is very good, talking consistently an< continually to people to make them less evil.
Well, we know that this individual has within him two terminals. He's dramatizing the good terminal which is trying to flow toward another terminal. Now, he just throws on of these terminals out into the people in front of him. You see? That will be the other terminal. You see, he can't fixedly—that is to say, he fixedly on two terminals. And when he is one, then he'll create the other one.
Well, until this individual can be both of these terminals enough to discharge them, h then can't get a fluent communication. For instance, he'd find it utterly impossible for him to just suddenly step aside from the main thing he's doing in life. Well, the main thin, he's doing in life is going down along the tracks and arguing bums into being good - this is his main dramatization. Within himself, actually, he has a bum he's arguing into being good. So he just takes this other terminal, puts it out into everybody he meets, you see and then he gets this communication line running in a horrible effort of (terrible strain it is) trying to get a communication line to balance which has unlike terminals.
Well now, we ask this fellow one day, "Well, why don't you go down and train some box fighters, you know, and encourage them up to be good boxers and so forth and-amongst the boys in the neighborhood here-and we'll have some boxing and some sports in the area." This fellow would be utterly incapable of trying to do something with anybody else rather than to make him an evil thing being coaxed into being a good thing. This would just be a fix, you see. So his method of training box fighters, if he got that way would be to immediately assume that every boxer that he got up against was evil in some fashion, and if he thought right thoughts and so forth, he'd become a better box fighter. He'd just dramatize this wherever. His ability consists of this: to be able himself to have the attributes of-not necessarily the muscular attributes, but the attributes of a box fighter and make somebody else into a box fighter.
See, duplication. Anybody who is training and so forth, is faced with the rather ugly communication problem of having to be able to duplicate anybody he is training. No matter how terrible the person may be or how unable or disable, no matter how expert be person who is doing the training is, the Instructor has to be able to duplicate that. He as to have the capability. He doesn't have to dramatize it. After an Instructor has been at it for a long time, he's likely to blow his brains out because he foolishly is restraining himself from being as bad as some of the people you've ever saw.
Now some instructors-let's take a fencing or a dancing instructor-you will see discharging this, one way or the other, by getting out and putting on the most horrible exhibition you ever saw as an example of what not to do. What a horrible way to teach, you see. All he's trying to do, though, is just dramatize out to the other end of the communication line which he's getting all the time. And this eventually fights him to a point where he just has to do it. And so if he's teaching drama, for instance, he will get out and put on a horrible act, you know, and so on, as the example of what not to do. And immediately after he does this, by the way, his students will be horrible. He has to touch this very, very lightly. They become wary, then, of duplicating him, you see?
So, in instructing in auditing, for instance, you might hand some razzle-dazzle out sometime or another on what lousy auditing might be, just for classification, but don't you ever audit anybody in a lousy fashion just to show what's happening. You see? But t the same time you have to have the capability of being a horrible auditor. You have to have the capability of practically butchering a preclear, you have to be capable of doing hat, otherwise every single student who is butchering other students in your vicinity is going to make you erect a screen. You see this behavior pattern, and how communication and duplication fit together in the business of livingness? It's actually a very simple thing.
Now, we have somebody, he can't be anything and he's awfully thick about it and dense about it. He just can't quite swing around, you see, into being something, and everything is all sort of foggy and so on. Now the auditor is sitting there trying to do a good jo of auditing and this fellow can't be this good job of auditing. This preclear can't be that good job of auditing. He'd be much more likely to be a foggy job of auditing. You see? Therefore, if you audited him too precisely and with too much exactness and primness and swish and dash and so forth, he'd just-dub! He's being confronted continually with something he can't be.
Now, this is no invitation, by the way, to audit foggily and badly and so forth. By remember that if your preclear is in a sloppy condition of beingness, why, sound a little sloppy once in a while and you'll find out you'll make a good run on it.
You say, "Well, mm-hm… I don't know, let's see. Uh… well, why don't you try . . How about… how about locomotives, do you suppose? Something like that?" An many an auditor who is letter-perfect has excellent results with a certain upper level c case and horrible results with a bad level of case. See, this foggy, vague, "can't be" level of case cannot duplicate his auditor.
Now, where does this come up in healing? Oh, there is the horrible role of the doctor. Do you know that you have to be what you can heal? You have to be what you can heal. Oh, it's a very relaxed thetan, though, who is perfectly willing to be a broken rib. He a real relaxed boy, But get this fact, right up along the line-all the way up the line: the healer has to be so many levels above anybody else in the area that we are immediately posed the problem that we have, certainly, if we're going to undertake healing, be i very, very good condition. We're posed this problem. If we're not in good condition, we will compulsively or obsessively become all of the somatics and things which our patients have. So that an excellent doctor is so high-toned-a doctor who is really excellent, who going to go on to the end of his days doing a good job of healing and so forth, is really s very high-toned-that if he only knew it, all he'd have to do is lay down a few duplicate in the area that is ailing. You've got a setup as a faith healer.
A doctor who is very, very good, or a doctor who is going to survive as a doctor, same definition - he has to be very, very good to survive as a doctor, you see-he has to actually be able to practice faith healing. Now what do you think of doctors who rely entirely upon drugs? They would be doing an enormous avoidance, wouldn't they, of their patients - big avoidance. They don't want to duplicate the patient, so they never all know what's wrong with the patient. They'll sit back and have a considered opinion, 'hey won't even look hard at an illness. Actually, some of your (quote) "great surgeons" and that sort of thing are some of the most horrible first-aid men you ever wanted to se. Did you ever see a great surgeon try to put on an emergency bandage? Or take a liver out of somebody? It's real grim.
What's the problem, then, in healing? The problem in healing is you'd certainly better be able to be. If you can't be, you are posed with this horrible threat-which 1 will just give you as not something to be afraid of, but just to give you a definition of it - you're liable to find yourself in the valence of all of your patients with their ills. And that is what is wrong with an awful lot of people who have been auditing for quite some time. See that? They actually are all the ills of their patients. And sometimes you ask somebody to be a migraine headache (an auditor and so forth), my golly, he can be more somatics. He is being more somatics than you can count.
Well, now the procedure we will use and continue to use here, one of two, or both: Find out something he can be. Then we find something else he can be, and maybe something else he can be, and something else he can be. Preferably two, it's pretty hard when you get down to one. And you ask him to be these several things. Then ask him to be them n rotation, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. The number of times you ask him to be them, lot the length of time each time, is what counts. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.
All right, he's found out he could be a horse and he could be a shovel and he could t a cat. All right, "Be a horse. Be a shovel. Be a cat. Be a horse. Be a shovel. Be a cat. Be horse. Be a shovel. Be a cat."
He says, "There's something wrong with this horse." Of course there's something wrong with the horse! As a matter of fact, there was something else with the horse because everything that turned up that he could be has a dichotomy-partner. It's got a second partner with it, at least one. And each time any one turns up there's always another or waiting. It's your trick to find out what it could be. So he could be the horse and next thing you know, well, he can be the rider. He can be the horse, he can be the rider, he can be the horse, he can be the rider. Well, he actually was a rider who rode a horse to death. And under duress and sympathy or a double accident or something, he got int the valence of the horse. The horse was a stronger valence than he was, he figured, or something of that sort.
Then we ask him after we've gone over these, "Be the horse. Be the rider. Be the - pardon me - Be the horse. Be the shovel. Be the cat. Be the horse. Be the shovel. Be the cat." You say, "Now, all right. Now be the horse. Now is there anything else about this horse?" So forth. "Could you be anything else in the vicinity of the horse?"
"No."
Well, you just drop it right there. You just drop it real quick. No, don't fish any further. Nope, he can't be anything else in the vicinity of the horse.
"All right, be a shovel. Now, can you be anything else in the vicinity of the shovel?”
"Hmmm, yes. Yes."
"What can you be in the vicinity of the shovel?"
"I can be an Italian."
"Oh? All right. Be an Italian." "Okay."
"Be that with certainty? Good. All right. Now, be the shovel. Now, be the Italian. Be the shovel. Be the Italian. Be the shovel. Be the Italian. Be the shovel. Be the Italian, e the shovel" and back and forth.
Don't ask him for any deeper significances. Don't even let him guess at what the incident is all about. We're not interested in history. We're not studying history. We're studying beingness. And so we ask him to be the Italian and be the shovel and be the Italian and e the shovel and be the Italian and be the shovel and be the Italian and he says, "I sure in an apathetic Italian."
"Well, be the shovel."
"Well, I'm real good as a shovel, but gee, you know, as an Italian I'm awful apathetic."
"Well, be more apathetic as an Italian. Can you do that?"
"Oh, that's real easy."
Back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. And all of a sudden he says, "Well, it's just a game, there's just nothing much to it. I don't care about this shovel or the Italian r anything of the sort."
You've worn it down a bit. So you say, "All right. Now, be a horse. Can you be a horse, still?"
"Yup."
"Well, can you be anything else, now, in the vicinity of the horse?
"Yeah. I can be a sort of a… I don't know, it's just very funny. I get a very strange feeling I'm a nobleman of some sort. I can get that feeling very easily"
Well, why these are locked together you don't give a darn. But you're unraveling a package of beingnesses, all of which are jammed up, one on top of the other, incident after incident poured in.
All right. We would simply ask him, then, to "Be the horse. Be the nobleman. Be the horse. Be the nobleman. Be the horse. Be the nobleman."
"I don't know, this nobleman is awful apathetic."
Here we go again, you see. And "Be the horse. Be the nobleman" and so on.
And he says, "You know, 1 can be the barnyard too."
"What barnyard?"
"Well, the barnyard. I can just be the whole barnyard."
"All right. Be the barnyard. Be the horse. Be the nobleman."
"I just can't be the horse anymore. I can be the barnyard and be the nobleman. I can be a… I can be a… I can be a rock in the barnyard better."
We don't care what kind of an accident this was, but obviously somebody go un-noble-ized.
We don't search any further into it. Now what do you do then? He says after a while "Well, this doesn't make any difference to me" and anything of the sort.
And you say, "All right. Now, can you be a cat?" Oh yes, with great ease and certainty he can be a cat. "Could you be anything else in the vicinity of the cat?"
"Yeah."
"What can you be in the vicinity of the cat?"
"I can be a dog."
"Oh? All right. Be a dog. Be the cat."
"I don't know. I don't want to be this cat."
"Well, can you be any part of the cat?"
"Well, I guess I could be a kind of an apathetic cat or I could be a kind of a desperate cat.
"Well, all right. Be a desperate cat then. All right. Now can you be the dog? Be the cat. Be the dog. Be the cat. Be the dog. Be the cat."
And he all of a sudden says, "You know, I… I'm having a little bit of trouble being the dog now. It seems much easier to be the sky."
Well, this is a complete non sequitur as far as you're concerned but you don't care. He suddenly showed up with it, so you say, "Be the sky. Be the dog. Be the cat."
He says, "Well, I can't be the cat at all, now. I mean…"
"Well, be the sky. Be the dog."
And he says, "Well, actually it isn't… it isn't a sky, it's a green mass that goes out limitlessly in all directions."
"Well, be the…"
Well, you just keep going in this fashion remembering beingness with certainty each time. Now that's the way you audit it.
Now, it so happened back on the track that he became fixedly something. Fixedly became something. This is the definition of a symbol. It's a mass of energy which is mobile, with meaning. A mass of energy with meaning which is mobile.
And you'll find this fellow sticks on words and everything before you've run this process. This fellow who had a hard time with it and you finally got into it. He'd get stuck. Words were very aberrative to him. All kinds of symbols were quite frightening to him-that sort of thing. Well, every time he became something fixedly, he became, actually, a symbol and then lost his flexibility in becoming other symbols. And so, all the way along the line by having lost duplication, lost symbol meanings and everything else, his communication slowed down.
The one thing you watch for on a case is lengthened and shortened communication lag. The communication lag of the case is the index of the sanity of the case because it's an index of how much he can duplicate how fast. It's the ability of the case. Communication lag. You say to a preclear, "What can you be?"
And he says, "Well, I don't know. I… I… so-and-so… uh… hmm, hmm, hmm, da, da, da, da. I don't know, what… uh… what… what do you mean? Be, be, be, zzzz…"
Well, the horrible part of all of this auditing is that a preclear is as receptive as he is able to be communicated with. Which is to say, he's as receptive as he can duplicate you.
Frieda Fromm-Reichmann, great old gal in a lot of respects - it's too bad she's mixed up in psychiatry - used to be able to walk into a raving maniacs cell, see anything he was doing, regardless of what he was doing this old grande dame would simply do it Duplication, see? All of a sudden there'd be communication. The next thing you know she would have fished this guy out of some kind of a dramatization. Just by doing what Just by duplicating him and getting him to duplicate her. Well, that's an establishment of communication. So the auditor mimicking would be your last dregs. If you were u lie down alongside of a catatonic schiz and simply be a catatonic schiz for a while, the catatonic schiz would go into communication with you.
All right. That is this technique. Let's run it out the rest of the way. If you're having difficulty getting your preclear to be anything, then you just need to be sharpened u| on what people can be. You know, he can be a vagueness with great certainty.
Note: The recording ends abruptly.
PAGE 2
EVOLUTION AND USE OF SELF ANALYSIS 4ACC-72 - 29.03.54
RUNING BEINGNESS PAGE 8 4ACC-38 - 11.03.54