View source for ARC and the Dynamics (501125)

'''Date:''' 25 November 1950

'''Speaker:''' L. Ron Hubbard

----

← [[Lecture_Index|Back to Main Index]]

We have talked about affinity, communication and reality- And truth is that if we look over a survival chart, one of these four tone charts here, [drawing on blackboard] and this being tone 0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0, we find out that—well, let’s say, here is your survival arrow and here is the suppressor. Now, you know this from the book, this material. But let’s take a magnifying glass here and let’s put the magnifying glass right on there and we will find out that we have here affinity, communication and reality. That is how this survival arrow is surviving. It has three components. The very interesting part of it is, is there’s one of these Tone Scales in every person for every dynamic. So you could call this Tone Scale I have just shown you here, the first dynamic graph of an individual. And then you could rub that out and we could draw it all over again and we’d say this is the second dynamic graph on the individual. And we could rub that out and we’d say this is the third dynamic, rub that out and it’d be the fourth. In other words, there are four of them and each one has as its component parts of how it’s surviving: affinity, communication and reality. You see? This Tone Scale has application then to the individual, the progeny and the future—sex. It has application into the group and has application in mankind. And I only need to tell you this, to show you how well this can be applied to mankind, when I show you the mankind-drive for all of mankind right now.

Here we have this graph. We draw this up about mankind and we find out that as far as his reality is concerned, races, from here to there are badly out of agreement with one another about how they should conduct their business of surviving. You see? They’re not in agreement on how they should do it. So there goes reality as far as mankinds attitude toward mankind is concerned—didn’t know many of the facts. And of course, not knowing many of the facts, not having very much of the truth on the thing, you couldn’t have expected a reality to have existed there anyway. So now let’s talk about the languages of mankind and their methods of communicating in general We find out that they all see, feel, hear and so on, so that they do have that in common. But their languages are such, and so polyglot, that they are out of communication. And I mean group to group really out of communication. How many in this room speak Russian? All right, so there goes communication.

Well what happens to this? We’ve got affinity left here. You know somebody postulated not too long ago and not too seldom—as a matter of fact, far too often—that man was a very evil character. He had no love in his soul. And a great many organizations from time to time in the history of man have jumped up to say, “Well, man is a dog but we’re going to try to make him love his fellow man.” This, by the way, is a manic. “We have to teach man to love man.” And right away they take off on this level and in order to convince man that he must be taught that he must love his fellow man, they first have to convince him that he is a dog and that he hates his fellow man, and there goes affinity.

That’s war now, because there aren’t any of those things. This says, “No survival.” I wouldn’t give a plugged copper for the survival value of mankind at large if he continues along a highly mechanistic line of action, with good guns and good tanks and good atom bombs and so forth; and we look at this and it predicts that his survival is awfully poor. It says so. And you look around and look at the facts now, compare it to the real world. This is theoretical. Now let’s compare the theoretical to the real world and we find people slugging through the snow and drizzle of Korea, shooting up other people, and we find some very remarkable setups going on in the world right now. And we find people just, well, you know we haven’t heard lately about bacteriological warfare but I ran into an officer the other day and he says, “Boy, we’re doin’ some wonderful work! It looks like we could wipe out all the cattle in Europe.” Great. But nobody’s been coming along here and saying, “Look-a-here!” Unless we can somehow, some way, put some effort into sketching in [drawing on blackboard] some of this one and this one and this one and put that vector back where it belongs—boom!

The way to do it is to speed up and increase your communication lines—make these good. [taps on blackboard] We’re just practically up to our necks these days in ways and means to communicate. We better use them.

Over here on the reality side somebody better sit down and find out what is the reality of all this. Should the world go to pieces because of somebody’s cockeyed idea? How real is that idea, for instance: that the way for Europe to survive or the way for—let’s say, of Asia to survive —are a couple of hundred thousand Chinese troops to go streaming up into Tibet and shoot everybody they get their hands on. Is that very real? No, it sure isn’t.

Well, how do we go about establishing some sort of truth? What is the truth of the situation? Let’s examine it. A body exists at this moment which can examine the truth of such situations, if it would ever permit itself to hear truth and not parliamentary protocol—and that’s the United Nations. So they can find out what the reality is and by communication they can spread it around and affinity would pick up.

I can sit down with any dozen Russian officers and have them in perfect agreement that the only way to run the world is by a democracy. That’s right. I’ve done it. The only trouble is I just never used the word democracy. They agreed perfectly with this political principle: that no government which is unsupported by the majority of its people can long exist. All right, they agree to that, they’ve agreed to democracy, immediately.

It’s very interesting, the very sloppy ideas people have of all of these ideologies. These ideologies are things that walk around; and you ask them suddenly to define these things and they can’t tell you the first fundamental of one of these things.

Actually, democracy is a method of organizing. It is the basic method of organizing. You can’t call democracy an ideology, because it’s an organizational plan. It says the best and smoothest way to run the country is to let the people make their decisions about how they want to run the country; and when we get the thing running this way, then if there’s any beef it’s their fault, so why should they revolt? Well, this is an old one and it’s the safest way to run a government.

As a matter of fact, the Foundations were having a bad time here and there and so forth and were getting out of agreement with one another until, back in Elizabeth, the boys kicked together a staff meeting. I got back there, looked over their staff conference. It was set up, actually, on a management line. A couple of guys on the board were just frantic at the idea of employees suddenly setting up management. Well, maybe Western Electric or the Chrysler Corporation4 can get scared on a management basis, but what the dickens! This belongs to that staff anyhow, so you just issue orders authorizing the staff to go on and manage. And the place is running like a clock. That’s democracy at work.

Now, on top of a democracy you can build almost anything you want. But a nation which is not running on democratic principles, that is to say, let’s really call them democratic principles now and let’s say that the people in this country have a good right to say what goes on in this country, and they have individual rights which must be safeguarded. If we lay that down as a basic, then we can go ahead and do almost anything else we want to because on that basic then you start putting economic pins.

This is not a talk on Political Dianetics. I’m just demonstrating to you that here is a common meeting point of all governments. “Do your people agree that you should govern them?” And if the fellow says “No, we have to take great punitive measures in order to keep them in line,” you can absolutely guarantee this: That government is shortly going to cease to exist.

Just look back along the historical track and you will find out that governments cease to exist when they disagree with too many of their populaces. There is no weapon to date that will stop a mob. Really. You can kill the whole mob off but then you haven’t got anybody to govern. All governments have been up against this sad fact.

All right. Now, we have examined then this [taps blackboard] on the basis of the fourth dynamic and we see where its elements fit in.

Now, we go back on the third dynamic and we look at any organization. This is a nice little thing for an analysis of an organization. The third dynamic, the group. Let’s look over the problems of the group in these terms: let’s find out how much affinity there is in this group, one for the next. And let’s find out how much people in this group are able to talk to and be with, in general, other people in the group. And let’s find out what is the agreement of all of these people in the group on the subject of the goals of the group. And if we look over those factors and analyze them, we will be able to predict the survival of the group or its nonsurvival. For instance, let’s take a new company, a new corporation. It’s going to build washing machines. And this corporation gets going and they get what they think are the right people to handle manufacturing and handle sales and handle this and handle that but they don’t get anybody to handle personnel. And they get spreading out very large. And one day you come along and you don’t find anything happening in the way of—their washing machines are not coming off the end of the assembly line. But they have the best production manager that they can get hold of. He sits there and he makes these beautiful graphs and he draws these blueprints and so forth and still no washing machines come off the end of the line.

You can do an analysis on that company with regard to these three factors, and you’ll be able to spot the trouble and fit in the missing factors which will create these things [taps blackboard] in the group. And the second these are created in the group it will start to function as a live group, and washing machines will start to come off the end of the assembly line.

The main trouble that has happened is that the big corporations didn’t understand, for instance, communication and the necessities and needs of communication between management and employee. They didn’t understand several things. One of the things that they failed completely to understand was that the employee was doing the most work and the aggregate mass of employees were doing the most work. So the employees tried to tell them this and management wouldn’t listen and all of a sudden there were these two camps of management and labor, and they have been going to the races ever since.

If anybody can possibly demonstrate to me that there are these two entities in a corporation of management and labor, it must be that he is a government efficiency expert or something. Because the fact is that management comes on down the line in a sort of a spectrum. Everybody is doing some managing and everybody is doing some labor.

You should see some of these people who are managers of big corporations and so forth. If you ever saw anybody labor, it’s those people. That’s really a midnight-to-midnight task, trying to keep up with this organization.

Now, those companies which have provided a house organ, which have pretty good social activities programs and so on, they get along fine, because your people are getting into communication with one another. And companies which don’t have a highly punitive attitude toward their employees, of course, have a chance for the affinity to build up. But for instance I saw a ship go all to pieces one time. A captain came on board the ship who hated enlisted men. He had been one himself too long. He hated them. But it never really got through to the enlisted men because, after all, this ship was built out of 160 years of tradition to keep the thing together. And it was going pretty well until one day he was up on the bridge and all the men were sent out on maneuvers at dawn. And the captain came up on the bridge and he said, “Why aren’t these boats away from the side? They’re supposed to leave here at 5:45 A.M.” And somebody tried to tell him that the galley ranges had broken down at about four o’clock and that the electricians had gotten them fixed by about ten of five and that they were trying to get some hot food into these men before they sent them out in these boats because they were going to be gone all day. And the captain, standing up on the bridge, says, “Well, I don’t give a goddamn whether they get any hot food or not! They’re a bunch of dogs anyway.” He said, “Get ’em over the side and into those boats and be quick about it.” Quite by accident, somebody had leaned on the PA, the public address system.

Male voice: Now hear this. “Now hear this,” that’s right. That guy was cooked. He didn’t dare come off of his bridge, actually. He spent the rest of his cruise on that ship on his bridge and he expected any time to be thrown over the side. This completely broke off communications. If he’d had nerve enough—actually this is true —if he’d had nerve enough at that moment to have gone down and given these guys a personal growl and said, “What the hell’s wrong with you people? Go on, get over the side,” and so forth. It wouldn’t have had very much repercussion, you see, because he was still in communication with them. But instead of that, the second he recognized that PA system had been on (the guy was not what you might call a courageous lion) he dived immediately into his cabin and locked the door, which of course— boom—cut off communication and so on.

Finally, by the way, a lieutenant (jg)7 and about four ensigns took to running the ship and it smoothed out. People would do their jobs but boy, they sure hated to be on board that packet.

Well, you can look into any organization and you can find out what factors are breaking it up.

Now, I spoke of a house organ a moment ago on the line of communication—something that is published regularly and something that comes out and is handed to the people and they read this thing. It’s an interesting thing that this line of communication, as all lines of communication have, has a modifier in terms of reality. You see, a lot of these house organs don’t quite deal in what one might call complete truth. And the second anybody begins to find that house organ to be untrue in any way, of course as a communication channel it’s chopped off. Now, the management can spend a million dollars on that, getting the best editors, getting the best paper, printing it at the best time and all of that sort of thing and handing it out to the employees, but that magazine or house organ is dead. It’s not a communication line.

What does one do, for instance, with a communication line which proves itself to be false? He cuts it off. Now, somebody is found to be a chronic and constant liar. The little boy who tells the “wolf” story—he cries “wolf” several times and every time people find there is no wolf. And so the last time he cries “wolf,” why, there are wolves and the sheep get all et up and the little boy gets all et up and it’s all very sad. But what has happened there is very interesting. He has been proven to be a false channel for communication so he’s cut off. And that’s what would happen.

We were putting together a newsletter the other day, through the Foundations—see, we’re working, we know these things—and we were putting together a newsletter and somebody came charging down from the management level and said,  “What on Earth! You’ve got so-and-so to write this letter?” And, “Why, good heavens, don’t you realize that he’ll have to be thoroughly supervised as to what he says?” And so he walked out and the boy who was writing the newsletter walked in. And I gave him a little chit and it said, “The editorial policy of this newsletter shall be what the editor says it is. The news which is written in this newsletter will be what the editor puts into it.” Because, instantly that newsletter had gone under a barrage of censorship—it might have gotten it up so that it was a cheerier organ, it might have gotten it up to the point where nobody would have mentioned the fact that Doakes the other day, when auditing, let a guy bounce out of eighteen consecutive engrams and the fellow went into a spin. It might omit these items and this all might be very cheery but that’s not communication! Communication would include the reality of everything that was going on. You see? That’s how communication has to be done. It has to be true or it’s not communication. The second it is discovered not to be communication—that is, it’s discovered to be false—nobody pays any attention to it anymore and it just cuts right off.

One of the reasons why the American press is declining—the American press has been having, by the way, a very hard time in terms of circulation. They blamed it on the radio, they blamed it on almost everything but they never thought to blame it on themselves.

The quality of reporting which is done these days is pretty lousy. It’s a fact! I’ve checked back over some of the stories—not having anything to do with Dianetics—back before the war. I just got interested in the general caliber. It seems the whole American press seems desperately to want to slant itself. Slant itself in favor of this and slant itself in favor of that.

Well, about the only way that you could put out a news organ that would be a news organ that people would accept, well and constantly, would be one which told, bluntly, the truth as they saw it. And if they couldn’t arrive at the truth in any other way, then they’d write a pro story and a con story on the same subject. So they’d have the two stories and the two viewpoints and then people could read them and make up their own mind. You see, this adds to the self-determinism of an individual if he knows that he is getting truth and he is permitted to make a selection of what seems most likely to him.

One of the main things that happens to a police state, a totalitarian state,   is  the fact  that  it warps  its press.   It gets,   oh,   you know—it gets as bad as Look magazine. (laughter) And the press is so constantly and consistently full of lies that the press, which is a main line of communication amongst the people, ceases to exist as a line of communication and the society goes out of touch with itself See, because its a lying press, nobody believes it. All right, you chop this one. By cutting this one, one chops this one and then this one goes— affinity—then the country will start to fall apart. So we see what happens with a group.

Now, let’s take up the second dynamic. [drawing on blackboard] We’re considering this now as the second dynamic. Let’s take it on the subject of what they talk about in the songs of just plain love. All right?

Actually you have two individuals who, together as thought entities, are going to create the vehicle of new thought into the future. Hence, the pleasurable aspect of sex. We get the reverse on this and we get two people who are going to knock off and murder the future and we get pain. You see, it’s whether or not thought is permitted to perpetuate itself or it’s stopped in its perpetuation. Death stops it, death is pain. And a creation of new vehicles for thought to exist in the future of course makes for a great deal of pleasure. So here’s where we get the intensity then of sex, because it takes two people to come together. All right. So we look this thing over and we find out that they’re in very intimate communication, perceptically. So this goes way up. This one, [taps blackboard] then, of course, and for other reasons, goes way up. Dedication to purpose—that goes way up. And over here, the truth of that purpose and so forth, is not even slightly questioned by them in their actual states. Aberratively it is questioned. So you see that on the second dynamic we get a great intensity of this sort of thing.

Now, a family, which is part of that same group—a family slops over from “group” back into the second dynamic—it’s a cross. That makes the family, by the way, a very strong unit because it fits on two dynamics. It fits on the sex dynamic for the future and it also fits on the group dynamic for mutual defense and aid. So we find the family being a very strong group. And when we look at a family, and we find out that if they are going forward, they are — the parent, a child . . . [gap] . . . and bring them up into good men and women and really do a good job of it, the affinity amongst that family is going to increase because that is dedication to purpose and that is a natural purpose and it happens to be true. Everybody will agree on this fairly well except some very aberrated people. And it happens to be true and the affinity of it builds up and the communication lines of it build up.

Now, the main thing that happens in breaking down marital relations happens to be a breakdown of understanding, a breakdown of communication; one person cannot understand why the other person would not, and they finally just fall out of a direct relationship to each other and you get divorces. It’s a fact. Most of these things are based on the most confoundedly aberrated misunderstandings that just break off communication. That’s the first symptom you get of a future divorce. That’s very strong.

Now we’ll just take self. Now, this might strike you as a little odd—considering this as the first dynamic now—might strike you as a little odd that one would have affinity and communication and reality with himself and about himself. But without these things a person is not very sane and certainly is not very happy. I can give you quite a bit on this. Let’s take the question of “I.” “I,” one might say, in an unaberrated state would be about as close to the central purposes of little theta—I’ve been talking about the world of thought. That is, the universe of thought which is attacking the universe of matter. That “I” would be very close in purpose, and so on, to little theta, so that “I” agrees and “I” is little theta in this attack on the material universe.

Now let’s start pushing “I” away from these dedications of purpose and “I’s” effort to control and so on, and let’s just start dropping collision and pain in on “I.” Well, the more this happens, the more “I” is forced into a situation whereby it cannot forward little theta’s plans. It gets driven into a very, very bad state. And the thing that happens is that “I” (little theta) breaks with the body (which is big theta, mainly, you see). And the various portions of the body are in themselves sections of thought and life, and they break apart. In other words, the organism is not a unity. The organism has many identities within it actually. There’s its cells and the various functions of the body and these various things and they can be seen to go to war with one another when there is a great deal of pain present. So it gets out of line and individuality, you might say, starts cutting in in direct ratio to the amount of pain, as far as these cells are concerned.

This postulates a very interesting thing. It seems that possibly, Lord knows how long ago, little theta in attacking the material universe was simply little theta. And it was doing a good job and it was very much in communication with all of its unities and entities and then it started to collide with the material universe and it lost some ground here and it gained some ground there, and it lost some ground someplace else and it was a pretty hard job. And little by little pieces of little theta sort of broke off. [gap] Of course if little theta was just little theta—that is to say, you just had the universe of thought all by itself and it had no identity and it had no individuality in it—it would never get the job done. But if everything was a complete individual action and everything was operating highly independently, it wouldn’t get the job done either. So the optimum working state lies somewhere between those two points, you see? So what happens, however, is it breaks down to the unit of the individual. But the unit of the individual doesn’t function well unless he functions with a thought for the future and his group, and he functions best when he has a thought for his species. And he functions better than that when he has a thought for all life. So you see, we’re getting an expanding idea.

Now let’s watch this thing contract in. Here is mankind. Mankind collides with the material universe and then starts colliding with men. And the first thing you know we have mankind breaking down into groups and we get the groups themselves breaking down into small units, families. And we get those units breaking down into individuals and then we get the individual breaking down into other individuals.

Now, I mean by that, very simply—it’s an amazing thing. You take arthritis. Arthritis evidently comes about through some sort of a disturbance in the endocrine system and the avoidance of the injured part by the blood. You get slow flow through the thing, you get calcium deposits and so on. The blood is flowing through the area in a limited state. Actually, the area which is injured is being avoided by other cells and you get a deterioration of that thing. Or you get too much attention to the spot by other cells and you get over-healing. So the individuality, however, comes about through this breakdown.

In a state of terror in an individual, for instance, the red blood corpuscles lake in the stomach. They go away from the extremities.

They conserve themselves. Well, this is an overall survival mechanism for the body up to a certain point and after that it destroys the body because the blood cells have considered themselves as individuals and said, “We don’t have to work with the whole organism,” and so there they go and the body dies. Now, this breaks down on an individuality basis.

You can’t go all the way up this line and get to nirvana with little theta because nirvana would never get anything done.

Well, when you start to break it down to the point where the individual starts to go to pieces, you’ve gone too far. The individual has to exist as a unit and within himself. Because let’s say the pain in the leg is liable to affect, by shock, some other portion of the body, the body has a tendency to consider the leg as an individual.

Medicine practices this all the time. Some fellow hurts in some portion of his body, chop it off. That’s right. If he’s got a pain in his liver, cut his liver out. If he’s got a pain in his head, cut his head—they don’t do that. (laughter) The amount of surgery that is justified (any doctor will tell you this), he’s got too many of his friends who are a little bit too eager with that scalpel. Well, let’s get it away from the individual because it’s an enemy of the individual.

This is your pickup of individuality—only there we’ve got an aberrated individuality and we start to get breakdowns within the body, first of agreement: “My stomach disagrees with me,” and so on. Agreement as to the overall function in the organism starts to break down because of pain and therefore communication, nerve flow and all that sort of thing begins to be jammed up—too much of it and too little of it, pain and so on. That starts to break down an affinity within the body of the cohesive life force which holds it together— begins to break down and a person is less and less alive. The aliveness of the person depends upon a smooth functioning of all the parts in unison. And when that is being done a person is of course very much alive. There is your affinity at work. So we see how this works on the first dynamic.

Now, I’ve covered this at some length with you for a very good purpose—is to show you the number of possibilities you have in administering processing, of finding the central point that you must first reach in order to resolve the case. In other words, let’s find out where in all of these multitude of possibilities, where in all this do we find one which, when touched, will begin the case upon a resolution of its difficulties. All the material I have been telling you here this morning is to the point in that.

A person’s mind can be reached on any one of the four dynamics or any part of them; any one of these three parts of any one of the four dynamics. If you can just bring reason along any of these lines you will be doing something. You can talk to a fellow on the subject of politics and you can pick an agreement with him. You can straighten something out along this line and he will actually become healthier in himself. People make the strange mistake of believing that just because there is an upset in politics there would be no physical repercussion on themselves but actually this is not true. A physical repercussion in the individual is inevitably attendant upon a political upset. You can’t separate these things that closely. So we can rehabilitate this person with standpoint of mankind. If you don’t believe this, let’s look at Christianity. Let’s look at this fellow who continually tells everyone around him that man is an awfully evil beast. If we can just find, out of this individual that we’re processing, where he picked that up, if we can just key out that one.

Now, we’re not talking about him, you see. I’m coaxing you this morning out of the thought that you must continue to address the individual on the first dynamic because I find in a survey that you’re doing much of your processing directed toward the first dynamic and you’re forgetting that the other three dynamics are in this being. It is just as much inefficacious to address only the first dynamic as it was for psychoanalysis to address only the second dynamic. You’ve got four dynamics to work with. Now, use them—four of them!

We can find a point in this fellow’s life where he is being convinced that all man is evil. Let’s say it’s an old hellfire, brimstone proposition. You know, it’s an odd thing—Christianity, there is an enormous amount of love and affinity talked about in Christianity. Here and there you find people who are going along with this and they’re just getting along fine. And you look across the same field and they’ve read nothing but the Old Testament of hellfire, damnation and brimstone and take a look at them. They’re not getting along fine. Look at their physical being. Look at a person who believes that life is good, it is worth living, that man is good and so on; just look at this being and you will find this person’s usually fairly healthy. And look at the fellow who believes in hellfire and brimstone and you will generally find a lot of psychosomatic illnesses. Interesting. You get the connection there? The second one talking about hellfire, brimstone, out of the Old Testament and he never bothers to read the New Testament at all—he is dealing on the fourth dynamic and it is some of that fourth dynamic interruption which is causing his inaccessibility. And we are very much on the groove12 here with inaccessibility.

You can pick up factors of any one of the four dynamics. You can resolve them by straight memory, by running the locks and by running engrams themselves and by picking up circuits.

Now, I am trying to tell you in addition this morning, how many kinds of circuits there are. Because there are circuits for every one of these four dynamics. There is a whole set for each one. Now, if you don’t believe this, you run into somebody some morning when you’re processing him and you say, “Aw, they just don’t like things,” and so on—don’t worry about asking him again; oh, just on this first dynamic—and say, “Well, who told you that you didn’t like things?” and so forth. Or “Who told you that you weren’t any good?” or something like that—don’t deal with it with him.

Let’s deal with it on the fourth dynamic: “Do you know anybody who used to say men were no good? Or that things were always sour and would run wrong? Did you know anybody who used to say that sort of thing?” The fellow would think for a moment and he’d say, “Well, yes, my grandfather.” And we start getting the feedback on what his grandfather used to say and we’ll bust locks. These locks are not particularly addressed to the individual. They happen to be resident in him and they would have to be part of his engrams in order for them to have any enormous effect upon him. But remember, what Grandfather said was usually implanted in either Papa or Mama, depending on whose papa he was, and this came straight through into the engram bank. So that some of this will come through and you can break these locks one way or the other and you may have this person in very good shape.

Now, you see how far this goes and how far it can be used. Anything which would tend to break down any part of any one of the dynamics can be addressed therapeutically and rehabilitated with attendant recovery of the individual!

I ran into one of the nastiest bunches of circuits I think I ever ran into in one individual. “You can’t trust men.” “You can’t trust anybody.” “You don’t dare trust anybody.” And so on and so on and so on. Gee. Now, this was all on the fourth dynamic. And it ran on down the line, “You can’t trust governments” and “You can’t trust this,” and of course it finally came on down the line to where he couldn’t trust himself This fellow was practically wiped out by this one series of circuits.

Now, those are circuits because they were found resident in some of his basic engrams. We took some of the tension off the locks and we took some of the tension off the engrams themselves. That is to say, we ran the engrams as far as we could run them, taking tension off them because he was badly out of valence; we reduced them as far as they could be reduced and the first thing you know, his sonic turned on. Now that’s sort of inevitable, isn’t it? Because you can’t trust anybody and you can’t trust anything—naturally a person’s affinity and communication and reality, these things are wiped out. Well, particularly it would wipe out sonic. Sonic, tactile, visio—all these things were off. And I point this out to you—sonic was not off in this case because somebody had said “You can’t hear.” We’re talking over here about the mechanical aspects of processing and of the mind. Now, the statement “You can’t hear,” sure, that had a lot to do with turning off sonic. That’s absolutely true. It had a lot to do with it and there were a lot of these in the case. But they didn’t prevent sonic from turning on, although they were in the case.

Here we rehabilitate this person’s trust, which was his primary circuitry—his trust in men, in existence and so on and as soon as this is done we get into the basic area and we’ve got sonic. We didn’t have sonic all the way up the line but we had it in the basic area. And before that we didn’t have anything in the basic area.

The general deterioration of the individual occurs over here in the mechanical line of continuous pain and shock on all of the four dynamics, not on just one. If you have learned that lesson this morning you’ve learned a great deal. Because you have suddenly broadened your periphery, if you see this clearly, into an enormous fan, so that you look at an individual and you say, “Now, what is wrong with this individual with regard to men in general, women in general? What’s—regard to him with relationship to families?” Talking to a young lady last night, not any part of the Foundation. She’s an aberree amongst aberrees, a very brilliant young lady, and it seems like she’d had some marital difficulties. And I started asking her, just giving her some Straightwire—she didn’t know what I was giving her; I started giving her some Straightwire on marital difficulties. She had the doggonedest bag of clichés on the subject of marriage. And we start running this back down the line and we get into the basic—this girl’s sick, by the way, I mean she’s potentially a very pretty girl and all that sort of thing but she’s quite sick. And we start running it back on down the line and we find that the grandparents were in violent disagreement over everything and that they hated marriage, each one of them, but were somehow or other allies of hers. And just forcing her mind into the thing and blowing out locks, I blew a line charge with Straightwire. She laughed, I guess, for about twenty minutes or something like that, just all along the line. It wasn’t funny; it was just the reversal of line charge up the line.

What had been rehabilitated in this person? One of the strongest things that you can have in this society, which as I mentioned before—family and regard for it. For her this strong unit, family, which lies on both the third and the second dynamic, had been destroyed as far as she was concerned; so that her belief in this, the affinity of this, the reality of it and communication about it and so forth, had all been beautifully interrupted. And we had a sick girl on our hands, who years afterwards marries some luckless guy and then wonders why they finally have to get divorced. Now, she was just following in the pattern of her grandparents, that’s all. And this fellow, he—no worse, no better than any other young man—he just probably sailed into her life and she starts giving him all this stuff and she started breaking down, by contagion, his reactions—she’d pick him up at a moment when he was tired. Well, he probably had just enough of this in his own bank for it to really shake him. As a consequence there went a marriage.

Now, a little bit of Straightwire—she didn’t go back down the track or anything. We finally picked up the grandparents quarreling on the subject of marriage, and just saying marriage was no good, and this triggered the case. This case was then accessible afterwards.

I had mentioned to her something about Dianetics but there was “nothing wrong with her,” and after this little stunt she wanted to know if there wasn’t some more to Dianetics. She moved right up the line here on this Accessibility Chart. Now, you see how much there is that can be wrong selectively?

Now, I might mention in passing that there is such a thing as selective restimulation. A person may have an engram bank—I really probably shouldn’t tell you this because it’s liable to confuse you, because it’s not very important, it’s just something that’s interesting.

A person has a standard-issue engram bank, American society 1950. And first he lives with this person whose aberrations are so-and-so and so-and-so, and then later on lives with this person whose aberrations are so-and-so and then later on lives with this person whose aberrations are so-and-so. He’s got just the standard bank, you see. Well, when he was married to this person, a certain section of this bank was in restimulation, certain phrases out of the engrams and so forth. You see, one phrase will restimulate in an engram and the rest of the engram might not restimulate—that is, in the business of living. So he gets this type of aberration that’s cutting into his engram bank and restimulating it, certain portions of it. And then he leaves this person and, of course, the first stuff doesn’t completely go out of restimulation but it drops in its intensity because it’s not being supercharged all the time by new locks. He goes with this person who has a certain aberrative pattern of action, and this goes in and picks up and selects out new aspects out of our friend’s aberrations and restimulates those engrams more than others, and picks those up considerably. Now when he goes over here with the third person, the second person’s activities have a tendency to sort of die out in him and the third person—selectively. You’ll get the aspect of changing aberration pattern with the individual, depending upon their environment, depending on whom they’re with. Therefore, you can say in this wise that it is perfectly valid therapy to change the environment of an individual.

I should make a remark on this just in passing as a sort of a note on this question. Changing environment is a valid therapy because it will permit to go out of restimulation the things which this environment is putting back in. Actually, if a person could change environment often enough, nothing could remain in a solid restimulation very long because you’ve got selective restimulation of his engram bank. I hope you follow me closely on that.

You will find that several physicians, doctors of psychosomatic medicine, have really a tremendously effective practice, who do nothing but this: who change the environment of the individual. And as long as he stays well in this new environment they will let him stay there and if he doesn’t do well in that one they’ll push him over into another environment. However, they haven’t just completely realized that the people in this person’s periphery have more effect upon him than any other thing. And so if the doctor sends this fellow with his mother from here to there and the fellow keeps on getting sick, it seems to say—you see, a stupid look at it would say, “Well, it’s just obvious that changing a person’s environment doesn’t matter,” But has the environment been changed? In this case, no. So changing environment would mean changing personnel.

You undoubtedly, occasionally in your career as auditors, will be sorely tempted—and may even do so—to change the environment of the individual You will be working uphill against an unfavorable environ in which he lives and you will want desperately for your work to be more effective but it’s being rendered rather ineffective by this process, and you’ll want to change his environment, I point up to you that it is valid therapy and that it does.

There are three valid therapies. One is processing. That is the valid therapy because it’ll stay that way. The next is education. Education permits the analytical mind to reevaluate its data and in this wise the engrams are differently restimulated than before. Because it’s only the data in the standard bank and the ability of the analytical mind which is used by the reactive mind. The reactive mind has no mechanics of its own beyond just using what the analytical mind can do. You follow that, don’t you? This can be covered to a much greater length.

It isn’t the reactive mind, for instance, which makes a manic capable of building a bridge. It’s his analytical mind. But the reactive mind is merely saying, “You’ve got to build a bridge,” Now you pick up the engram and his analytical mind could build a bridge anyway and if building bridges is what he ought to do, he’ll go on building bridges and he will do a better job of it now that the manic is gone. You see the situation on a manic?

All right. In the educational line you can effect considerable change in an individual, educationally. Let’s take what they call group therapy in big institutions where they get a lot of psychotics together and they have them discuss a book or something. Immediately, of course, these people on the third dynamic have gone into communication with each other, and the second that happens their whole tone will pick up. Any way you can pick up these tones is a valid therapy. But there’s teaching people. Children, for instance, by learning new skills and by learning how to handle themselves in various ways, get up to a point where they actually are overcoming their engrams, A person can work up the line on this, educationally. And the other one is environ, which I was just sketching with you. And environ also includes food. It’s quite often true that bad nutrition as part of the person’s daily life and so on can render him susceptible to psychic ills that would not otherwise be restimulated. Oh, I studied an awful lot on this in Oak Knoll. I was studying Americans who had been Japanese prisoners of war and these boys, of course, had been very thoroughly maltreated on the subject of nutrition. These people were coming in and they had been most gloriously ruined one way or the other. And it was odd what this had done to their aberrative patterns when they were under the onus of very bad nutrition and so on, their ethic level just fell to pieces on them.

A bunch of these boys in a camp—we think of our brave boys being over in a prison camp in Manchuria during the last war and we think of them acting as heroes. And, no, they did not. The second the pressure of combat, the second they were helpless and the second their nutritional lines came way down, their aberrations restimulated to such a degree that the bulk of them behaved practically no better than beasts—gruesome. I don’t think one would ever write any part of that saga or put it out. It’s just bad stuff to have around in the society; it might be contagious. Now, there’s your three therapies. So let’s look at what education complements. Go back and take a look at education, we find out that education immediately complements reality because it has to do with truth; what’s true, what isn’t true, what agrees with what, selects out data. It picks up. Because one is communicating with other people, with subjects, with the material universe, with man and so on via this educational process, this picks up. And of course if those pick up, affinity is going to pick up, too. So you see, this is a limiting factor on how education should be administered.

Any education which is administered which is false or about which the person is not permitted, himself, to think, it’s just given to him— slug—and say, “You’ve got to believe this, that’s all there is to that, huh!”; that would be, actually, an interruption on this line.

This will give you a point on it: here are these little kids in class and the teacher is trying to teach them something and she punishes them every time they talk. Interesting, isn’t it? Why do kids start hating school? People are interrupting their communication lines continually in school. And this is education. Education should do exactly the opposite. It should build up their communication lines and   that  means   all  communication   lines.   If you  did   that,   kids wouldn’t hate school. See, because you start breaking down the kid’s own communication lines that he considers are important, naturally, his affinity goes down so he hates school Rather obvious, isn’t it? So here, in other words, would be education at work as far as environ is concerned; trying to get the person into a friendlier environ or one in which he himself can triumph—he himself or his group can triumph.

You see, thought is in contest in trying to take over MEST. Sometimes, if you get a man out to a point where he’s doing an active job, he’s handling material objects, he is up against material dangers which are very easy to locate and spot and do something about and he can win in this process, why, very often you’ve so completely rehabilitated him that you can just forget about any other kind of processing. That’s an environment. Now, that’s rather simple how that comes about. He goes into communication with MEST.

You know, a fellow sitting around in a Morris chair reading a book is not very much in communication with the material universe. He isn’t out there feeling it, seeing it, hearing it, so on. He’s just sort of taking a secondhand bite on it. So he gets out there and all of a sudden his sense of reality goes way up. There is nothing which improves a person’s sense of reality like maybe a fifty-mile gale in the face. Let him argue with that. So his sense of reality starts to go up. He is communicating—tactile, his various perceptics—you see how we define communication? His various perceptics start up because he is right up against these things and he becomes more aware of himself and of course his communication goes up and his affinity for himself goes up. It’s quite remarkable.

One might even go so far as to say that the deterioration of the mind of man began to take place when man as an individual no longer had to combat the elements. Because at this time he started to go out of direct communication with the material universe—completely direct, you see—and he started to ease up on it and the necessity level wasn’t kicked up there continually. So we spot what kind of an environment it would be which would be most favorable to this individual, and it would be one which would absorb his external attention, pick him up, his various environmental factors and so forth. That would take his attention completely and we would have his sense of reality going up. We would get with that his communication and affinity, so we’ve got the same thing across the boards. And remember that his education can be done on any one of the dynamics and his own environmental change can be done on any one of the dynamics. . . . [gap] . . . I mean, the strength of that. That’s Stalin’s fourth dynamic, you see, in these terms of environment. We are not talking now about aberration. Look at him. He’s protected in a place — guarded. He is talked to and contacted only by the same people, continually. Generally, stuff is very tightly screened as it comes through. He is generally and continuously in the same environ because of the rigors of management, which have mostly to do with thought. He doesn’t have a chance to go out and ride a horse or take a look at the countryside or so forth. He is too pinned down. And we look at all these factors and what would we say Stalin’s environmental aspect on the fourth dynamic would be? We’d say it would be damned bad. It would be second only, probably, to Truman’s. These people with this aspect are controlling individuals who have better sense. I’m not advocating they both ought to be shot but I think somebody ought to wise them up a little bit. So we see this whole pattern through the one individual. And when we regard him as one individual then, regard him as being influenced by all four dynamics, regard him as being impinged upon by these three things in each one of the dynamics—breaks of affinity, breaks of communication, breaks of reality and agreement along each one of the four dynamics—you have something now from which you can derive an enormous number of new thoughts with regard to treating your preclear.

Let us take a look at the fellow for a while. Let’s just not worry about this one little narrow periphery of his first dynamic or whether or not he likes his sex life. Let’s not worry about that as just that narrow a field. Let’s take a look at the whole sphere of life, the whole spread of life and see how these things have affected him and line these up and see what people in his vicinity were suppressors on the subject of these various points. Who were the suppressors, for instance, on the subject of man at large? Who was the suppressor about the group, about politics, about the church, about any of the rest of these things? Who were the suppressors about various institutions in his vicinity, such as that of marriage? All these things had an effect upon him.

Anybody who was breaking affinity, communication and reality on any one of these subjects was potentially dangerous to the sanity of this individual if this material lay in the actual engrams of the individual. Remember, all this comes down to the physical pain and unconsciousness of an engram. This material, a mechanistic principle over here; the mechanical aspects of the engram and the statement side of the engram combine together to lay as underpinning for all of this. We’re trying to get to this underpinning and take it out. But we’ve got to have ways and means to unburden this mind, to gain accessibility to this mind to a point where we can run these engrams out rapidly and successfully. Never take your eye off of that ball, by the way, that you’re trying to get engrams, finally, in the final analysis. But you’d better be able to get engrams and run them out eventually, when you start the real case erasure on this thing, to run them out in their own valence and to run them out into a complete and true erasure of twenty-six perceptics in every engram. And that’s what you’re evolving toward as you do therapy on this person. What I’m giving you is material that you can look for in forms of locks and so on, so that you can pick up more and more attention units, so that you can put this person better and better together, so that you can brighten up his sense of reality, so that you can reach what the circuits are and so that you have some comprehension of how many kinds of circuits there are and how many things these circuits can suppress.

A circuit doesn’t only come under the category of “control yourself” or “I have to tell you what to do.” A circuit can go into the basis of “Nobody in a labor union knows what he is talking about.” That, in the head, by the way, of a man, as an engram—physical pain, unconsciousness, probably in the prenatal area someplace—stranger things than that are in engrams. And think of what this sort of thing does to a company, being in the head of its manager. Now, you see how the circuits can influence and how broadly these aberrations can affect their ways.

I’m going to go into this. I’ve been talking to you very broadly on a theoretical basis, mainly. I’m trying to show you the practicalities of reaching people and trying to show you how many are the factors that influence the sanity of people. And yet trying to show you how infinitely simple those factors are when you resolve them down. There aren’t very many of them. The basic factors are few. There are four dynamics and each one of the four dynamics can be graphed in this fashion and each one of those four dynamics—arrows—can be broken down into these three things- And you are looking for what broke those three things so as to suppress these on any one of the dynamics. It’s very easy to find and right after the break I will give you what I know about that.

Thank you.

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 1950]]