View source for CCH: Steps 5 - 7 (FC 570707)

'''Series:''' Freedom Congress (FC)

'''Date:''' 07 July 1957

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_FC|Back to Series]]

Well, here we come down the line to the last hour of the congress here in Washington
- the Freedom Congress.
I'd like to circulate a questionnaire: Is anybody more free than he was at the beginning
of the congress?
Audience: Yes!
All right.
Well, we have a tremendous program ahead of us, an enormously interesting program.
And I think this time we can really take the fort without much difficulty.
I'm going to start to beaver in on those areas that could really use some higher IQs
and so forth. I'm right now working on a book on the use of Scientology in education.
And that book is very much overdue, but I couldn't have written it until now. Except
for one thing: The axioms of education have been in existence for a very, very long
time and are, in fact, the Logics of Dianetics.
I think they probably still have a copy of Advanced Procedure and Axioms or A
Handbook for Preclears back there if you want to get a copy of it to look it over.
You'll certainly agree with me, but I never had brought it straight through.
Only recently, only in the last few ACCs have we had Learning Processes that we
could teach somebody something directly and straightly. I'll give you a cute one to
take home with you - one of these Learning Processes.
You say to somebody, „One, two, three.“
And have this other person say, „One, two, three.“ And then you say, „What did I say?“
And he says, „One, two, three.“
And you say, „What did you say?“
And he says, „One, two, three.“
You say, „Good.“
This is a gradient scale of getting him into a situation where a datum can get to him.
Your standing around and explaining something by the hour to somebody that can't
receive a datum is wasted time. And this is the process by which you do it.
Now, there isn't really anything else to the process than this type of repetitive action
until you come up to stable data. But you go on this way.
You say, „Fourteen, twenty, nine.“
And he says, „Fourteen, twenty, nine.“
You say, „What did you say? What did I say?“ See, he has to answer these things.
And then you finally say, „Well, what did I say the first time?“
And he says, „One, two, three.“
You say, „That's fine. That's fine.“
Now, you can actually teach somebody a stable datum as long as you, the auditor or
the educator, make it up originally. Now, you make it up and get him to rephrase it
and give you an example of it. You show him a couple of chairs or something like
that, you see? You're trying to teach this fellow something, let us say, about account-
ing. And so you just dream up a stable datum about accounting.
You say, „Accountants are people who put down figures that balance. Now, would you accept that
as a stable datum for accounting?“
And the fellow says, „Mmm-mmm-m mm.“
You say, „Now, what did I say?“ (You see, now he has to repeat this.)
And you say, ''Well now, is that - a stable datum for accounting?“
And he says, „Ah, no, no.“ He doesn't think that would be.
„Well, can you rephrase it in some way?“
„Well, accountants are people who put down figures that sometimes balance.”
You could work it back and forth this way. It's a sort of a discussive process, you see?
Back and forth. Back and forth. Until he finally cognites or accepts a stable datum for
accounting which will then permit him to as-is or withstand the confusion of his par-
ticular post or action or duty. See this?
You state the datum. You get him to rephrase it and give you an example of it. We
don't care whether he has to give the example out in the physical universe or just give
an example of it. We just keep on with the subject. We feed him stable data; we ask
him to do something about the stable data. First, we ask him to repeat it. Then we ask
him to rephrase it. Then we ask him to give an example of it. You got the idea? But
it's done on an auditing basis. And it begins with „One, two, three.“ Then he says, „One,
two, three.“
Now, you think this is very, very easy and that people that don't know of Scientology
can do this very, very well. And you will continue in this error until you work it the
first time.
You'll say, „One, two, three.“
And the person will look at you and say, „Why?“
And you say, „Well, now, no, I just want you to repeat after me 'One, two, three.'„
„Yeah, I know, but why?“
Well, he isn't asking for an explanation. All you're running into is the flashback on the
case. There's no reason why a thetan shouldn't be able to repeat something another
thetan said. It won't hurt him and it won't kill him. But you'd think, listening to peo-
ple, it was the most murderous thing that ever happened.
Well, with this kind of a basic you could understand, if you were doing something
with an office, why it was that when you came in and said, „Well, I want all the place
cleaned up by five o'clock,“ and then walked out again and came in at five-thirty and found
the chairs all upside down and the wastebaskets emptied out on the floor - you could
understand what had happened.
Man is too prone to assume that the people in the office were unwilling to do that for
you. He's too prone to assume this. He's too prone to assume that these people had a
mean streak in them or were lazy or something else. And he seldom assumes the truth
of the matter: nine times out of ten they simply didn't hear what you said; they heard
something else. You see that?
And you'll find that it is necessary for you to do this on the job until people groove
up. In view of the fact that people become more receptive and more relaxed in doing
this, you'll find out their communication level goes up and, as a result, they will func-
tion better themselves, because they'll take this trick and work it on somebody else in
a great hurry. You will learn to do this sort of thing.
You will say, „I want you to clean up all the office at five o'clock. Now, what did I say?“
And the fellow says, „Well, you - you want things picked up somewhat.“
And you say, „I said, 'I want you to clean up the office by five o'clock.' What did I say?“
„Well, you want things all squared around and uh - and so on.“
„All right. I want the office all cleaned up by five o'clock. Now, what did I say?“
„Well, you - you want things in better shape sometime today.“
„I want the office cleaned up by five o'clock. Now, what did I say?“
„You said you wanted everything uh - washed.“
And you will discover to your horror that your belief that your postulates don't work
stems immediately from the point that your orders are seldom heard. Got that? And
therefore you think, „Well, I can't executive anymore,“ or „I'm no good in charge of things,“ or
„It's just too much work.“
No, it isn't too much work. It's not enough say.
Whenever you're having trouble or randomity in an organization, it is based routinely,
usually, on just not enough say.
You can do it in various ways. You can say, „I want the office cleaned up at five o'clock.“
„Clean up the whole office by five o'clock.“ You could say it in various ways. But you'll find
out the most effective long-run process is not to rephrase it, it's simply to say the
same thing over again. And the person will at first believe that you're simply being
cranky or mean, or he'll tell you so, or you'll get emotional flashback. But you should
understand that you're simply discharging these things off the bank and handle them
accordingly; which is to say, ignore them.
And if you know exactly what you're looking at, you'll after a while begin to under-
stand what this anatomy of man is. You'll understand that he has a tremendous faculty
for protecting himself against things which aren't attacking him. That's possibly his
greatest ability. He protects himself „in case.“
But this sort of thing and these sort of things are all germane to the field of education,
aren't they?
I was flabbergasted one time at a senior engineering class to find that none of the sen-
ior engineers knew the fundamental laws of physics verbatim. I thought, oh, no! They
knew nothing about fulcrums, balances; they couldn't quote you any of these laws at
all; and they were all adrift in their subject. They were just having a very brutal time
slugging into it. Actually, they had begun it the wrong way. They had not taken and
understood the basic data of physics as stable data, therefore the whole of physics was
a confusion to them.
Well, so we do have that one coming up - soon as I get around to it. I'm pretty lazy,
you know; I almost never get anything done. But I may possibly be able to scare my-
self into some sort of activity on this and get it done.
But there's another book that will be out sooner than that, which is more important to
you, and that is The Student Manual. Now, The Student Manual is just what it says: a
student manual. It is designed, of course, for an Academy student, but this does not
make it less usable. And it collects all the facts of Scientology - nothing but facts,
there aren't examples or anything else there - all of the Training Drills, all of their al-
ternates, all their B, C and D and E parts, all the CCHs. Practically every process
we've ever had of any moment is in this Student Manual: the Factors, the Axioms of
Dianetics, the Logics - oh, just on and on and on and on - and an article on some-
thing which we've never had an article on before, which is the theory of auditing.
That's weird, but we've just never had an article on the theory of auditing. That and
many other things are covered.
The theory of auditing, by the way, is covered in Dianetics in The Original Thesis,
which is still good reading. I was reading it the other day, and I was quite amazed at
its simplicity. I said, „Well,“ I said, „it's just that I've gone along all these years and gotten stu-
pider and stupider because I look this over and I know exactly what this is all about,“ and didn't
realize that the book is illuminated by an additional ten years of study. That's very
funny. I mean, Dianetics is now beginning to be illuminated by a more... higher con-
cept of Dianetics. But it has a theory of auditing in it. But just exactly why people get
better when they're audited is quite germane.
Well anyway, that book is coming up, and we're trying to rush that through the print-
ers. And it started out to be a little paperback book - tsk - and now it's about that
thick. Poundage. It's a real textbook, real honest-to-goodness textbook - probably the
first textbook-looking textbook that we've had in Scientology. We would have been
very happy to put this out as a paperback for a dollar, but as a matter of fact the print-
ing prices and everything else have gone up, so it looks like it'll be a very nicely done
hardcover for about ten dollars. It's an encyclopedia. That book is important. We
hope to get that out in six or eight weeks. It'd be a miracle if we made the deadline
but the text is all there; it's all written, it's all ready to go - which is one thing. I haven't
been doing anything, so I got around to it one way or the other.
Now, the CCHs and exactly how they are done are not now in any available published
form. That's an awful thing, isn't it? They're not now in an available published form.
The first available published form will be The Student Manual. That will be the first
available published form of the CCHs. Six - eight weeks to go.
Therefore, if I had any question about them or how, so on - I'm going to watch all the
staff auditors flinch now - why, find one of these people with a red brassard on before
you get out or grab them at the party tonight (that's a good idea! Everybody grabs me
at the party, you see, they never grab anybody else) and get the thing clarified - if
you're going to go home - if you want to have a question about it.
But right now I'm going to show you a fantastically easy piece of CCH, which is im-
mediately above our good friend the Hand Space Mimicry or Book Mimicry. The step
that's immediately above there has gotten idiotically simple. Come here, Dick Steves.
Now, this process is not a Tone 40 process if you don't want it to be, but it can be run
on a Tone 40 basis. And it's most effective when run on a Tone 40 basis. But it is ef-
fective regardless of how you run it.
Now Dr. Steves here has „volunteered“ to be the preclear. And I'm going to show him
how to run - just use you as a preclear here - and I'm going to show you no more, no
less than how to run Contact, Location by Contact.
LRH: Okay? All right, now the process we're going to run on you is Location by Con-
tact. Is that all right with you?
PC: Mm-mm.
LRH: All right, I'll tell you how this process is run. I'm going to ask you to touch cer-
tain things here in the room, and you touch them. Okay?
PC: Mm-mm.
LRH: Got that?
PC: Gotcha.
LRH: All right. The auditing command is, is „Touch that (indicated object).“ That is the
auditing command.
PC: Mm-mm.
LRH: There's no other auditing command.
PC: All right.
LRH: And then I will acknowledge when I believe you've touched it. Okay?
PC: Fine.
LRH: How's that?
PC: Good.
LRH: All right. You all set to go?
PC: Yep.
LRH: All right. Touch that podium. Thank you.
Touch that curtain. (Notice I didn't tell him to let go.) Thank you.
Touch that chair. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you very much.
PC: Hm-mm.
LRH: All right. And how are you getting along?
PC: Very good.
LRH: Is it all right if I do this just one more time.
PC: Oh, yeah.
LRH: ... and then finish it? All right. Touch that chair. Thank you. All right, that's the
end of that process. Thank you.
Now, you got that? Got that? Isn't that remarkable? Why do we run such a fundamen-
tal process such as that?
Well, CCH has a basic theory. First we take the body and get the body under control
so that the auditor or the preclear could control it. And then we take the mind under
control by controlling attention, you see? First we get the body, then we get the mind
under control - by controlling attention.
This is quite markedly an attention process, isn't it?
So I showed you „Give Me Your Hand.“ Such processes as that would take the body
under control, wouldn't it? All right. This one takes attention under control. And it
need be no more complicated than this and actually works better in its less compli-
cated form.
It doesn't work too well this way: „Look at that chair. Walk over to that chair. Touch that
chair. Thank you.“ No, because that is not a barrier, see? That's the 8-C on it is, you
know... It's the barriers which are running into the case on 8-C that do the most to it.
And all this is, is making an individual contact MEST.
Now, you notice that none of these processes right up here to CCH 5 have anything
to do with thinkingness, see? And there's the tiniest shadow of thinkingness in telling
him to touch it. But certainly you could tell at once when it was violated. If the person
didn't touch it, he didn't touch it. Don't you see?
[To pc] So, all right, all right. You refuse to touch the chair now. All right. Touch that
chair. Thank you.
Got it? It looks awful simple, doesn't it? Now, actually you shouldn't expect anything
spectacular from this process; you shouldn't expect cases to blow up in your face and
that sort of thing. But you shouldn't overlook the real gains that cases make running
this. And the biggest danger in running this process is, is you overlook the fact that
the guy's coming right on up the line just as smooth as could be. Because it's a very
smooth process. It's almost a total communication process.
All right. Now, that's the first one of these. Of course, there's another Training Drill
that goes in there that they teach them at the Academy.
It's [to pc]: Notice that wall. Thank you. Notice the floor.
PC: Mm-mm.
LRH: Thank you. Notice the ceiling.
PC: Mm-mm.
LRH: Thank you.
That's old-time Locational Processing. (Thank you. End of process.) Okay. This is
just a Training Drill today. It's just to teach the auditor to put somebody's attention
around on things.
It's this touch process that starts to get pay dirt. Now, this touch process has a nu-
merous number of applications. Of course people go around touching things with
their hands, don't they? But of course they never touch anything with their feet, do
they? This process does some of the most fabulous things when run with the feet.
[To pc] All right. Now we're going to use your feet.
Touch that chair. Thank you. Good.
Touch that chair. Thank you.
I'm not going to run this very long on him because he's been a long time on his feet
around here at the congress and I'd give him a somatic, just like that.
But what if a preclear refused to do this? What if a preclear refused to do one of
these?
You know, touching the feet to the chair is quite a trick here. You know? That's what
we'd have to do.
Supposing he laid down on the floor and refused to go any further? Then there'd be a
time we'd have to take hold of his foot and tow him over to the chair and touch it.
Got it? Now, that's the way it'd be done. But touching it with the feet then we can
touch it with the feet, one, two... [To pc] Touch it with both feet, one and then the
other. We could make him touch each object with that. Except we just put that in as
an understanding and run the process that way You got it?
Now, these people that get very tired and exhausted standing around for short lengths
of time - they can't stand up and that sort of thing - actually, that type of tiredness
runs out on that process alone. It's a very effective process. It's idiotically simple!
That's the trouble: the truth has been lying out there in the hot sun painted bright red.
All right. Now, that's one of these. Now let's take the next one, CCH 6. This is Body-
Room, both random. And this is run this way.
LRH: I am going to run Body-Room Locational on you, by contact. All right. And I'm
going to ask you to touch some part of your body and then touch an object. Is that
clear?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right. The auditing commands are „Touch your chin. Thank you. Touch that chair.
Thank you. Touch your shoulder. Thank you,“ so on. Got it?
PC: Got ya.
LRH: All right. Good. Here we go. All right. Touch your chin. Thank you.
Touch that chair. Thank you.
Touch your shoulder. Thank you.
Touch that rug. Thank you.
Touch your knee. Thank you.
Touch the rung of the chair. Thank you.
Touch your chest. Thank you.
Touch the carpet. Thank you.
Got this? Get it, though, now, this is a different process. Do you know that all you
have to do is put somebody's attention on himself, most of the time, to give him a
somatic? Did you know you could make somebody have a sudden pain simply by say-
ing, „Look at you!“ I got some somatics right through there.
So we flatten down the room by touch and then, on a random basis, have the individ-
ual touch some part of his body - randomly, you know, different parts - and touch
objects and touch the body and touch objects and touch the body and touch objects.
That's a different process. You see that?
Now we get up to the next one up, CCH 7. And that is Contact by Duplication, or
Duplication by Contact. Now, here we get something that looks like Book and Bottle
but isn't.
[To pc] Let's take this over here. Now, if you'll step around here.
This has two variations; it has two variations one after the other that could be used.
And that is to say, we'd have him touch... now, the way you do this, you touch the
chair and then touch the podium and touch the chair and touch the podium. That's
one.
We would choose up some body part or another and have him touch the chair, touch
the body part, touch the podium, touch the body part, touch the chair. You got that?
Now, that is CCH 7, see? „Touch the chair.“ „Touch the body part.“ „Touch the podium.“
That is the process. And that's the process we're going to demonstrate here.
LRH: All right, I'm going to give you a series of auditing commands. But first I want
you ... when I ask you to touch the chair, I want you to touch the chair.
PC: Okay.
LRH: And I'll thank you for doing so. Then I'm going to ask you to touch the tip of
your nose.
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right. And I'll thank you for doing so. I'm going to ask you to touch the po-
dium, thank you for doing so; then touch the tip of your nose.
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: Okay? All right.
PC: Gotcha.
LRH: All right. Here we go. First auditing command. All right. Touch the chair.
Thank you.
Touch the tip of your nose. Thank you.
Touch the podium. Thank you.
Touch the tip of your nose. Thank you.
Touch the chair. Thank you.
Touch the tip of your nose. Thank you.
Touch the podium. Thank you.
Touch the tip of your nose. Thank you.
Touch the chair. Thank you.
That's it - for hours. Now listen, you start running some duplicative process on some-
body, run it till it's flat in the same session it is started. You got that now? Don't start
running Book and Bottle thirty minutes worth on somebody; you just run it till it's
flat. Now, this one is the same as any other duplication process; it'd have to be run
until it's flat.
Now, what's the value of it? Oh, nothing, except it'd probably plow a complete psy-
chosomatic right out of existence. Let's say - nothing wrong with him - but let's say he
was wearing a piece of armor on his left shoulder or something of the sort. We would
pick up that body part as an affected part. We'd have him touch an object, see, like
touch the chair here, touch the body part, touch the podium, touch the body part,
touch the chair, touch the body part, touch the podium, touch the body part, touch
the chair. You see that? And we can actually effectively treat a psychosomatic illness
in that fashion.
Now that is, in essence, the easiest, smoothest-looking sort of process you ever
wanted to see. It also processes very effectively, but it processes very smoothly. Now,
you got that one? That's Contact by Duplication. Now, I've shown you three Contact
Processes. One is simply contact random objects in the room, one after the other.
Then contact random objects alternate with contacting randomly a body part - see,
Body-Room. And then Contact by Duplication, which are two fixed objects with the
preclear caught in between. Got that one?
All right. Now, those are the first seven steps of CCH and just about all a fellow
needs have there until he goes into the subjective processes. You say, „Well, by golly,
that's not very many processes, just seven, and then to have him go into subjective processes entirely.“
Yeah, well, it's a lot of processes. These I've shown you are bearcats. You start run-
ning these on people and you'll find out things happen.
LRH: Thank you very much, Dr. Steves.
PC: Thank you.
LRH: It's all right if we end that session?
PC: Right.
LRH: All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good.
Now, here is the essence of auditing. People can always get more complex. The trick
is to get more simple. They can always get more complex.
Now, as we go upstairs further in CCH we run into our old friend, the Trio, just a
straight Havingness Process. That process is described in Scientology: The Funda-
mentals of Thought.
We go upstairs from that and we get the solid mock-ups and so on.
But there's a bracket of three important processes which until you flatten Tone 40
Training Drills you shouldn't attempt, because it's hard enough to run 8-C without
running the graduate scale of solids with 8-C. And these three CCH processes fit in,
one right after the other here, on solids.
But we're now addressing thinkingness - let me be very clear - so therefore we have
gotten subjective. And that's why I say the first seven processes of CCH are extremely
objective.
The auditor can observe it at once. The preclear cannot possibly disobey the auditing
command because it is too simple. The auditor can observe whether or not the com-
mand was obeyed. And where you fall down on preclears, when you fall down, is you
tell the preclear to think something, he doesn't think it, and that's that - he's out of
session. Do you see that?
You say, „Get the idea you're a green cat.“
And he gets the idea that this is silly and says, „Yes.“ And you say, „Fine.“ You follow
that?
It's control of thought, control of thought has been the main bugbear in auditing.
In order to control thought - you see, in the final analysis the only processing there is,
is changing somebody's mind, isn't that right? Now, his mind has to be changeable in
order for him to change it. That's fairly sure, isn't it? Well, you show him his mind is
changeable, and after that he can change his mind and he's in good shape. Well, that's
all processing amounts to in the final analysis.
But in order to do this you first take over the most obvious thing, person, and show
him that it's possible to control that - in other words change it. And then you take
over this thing called attention and show him it's possible to control that. And he can
take over the control of that.
You understand the Scientologist's idea of control isn't what it used to be in the army
or anything like that: „We take over control of somebody to keep control of that person.“ That is
not what we're doing. We are taking over control of the person to show him that that
is controllable, and then we ask him to control it. And then he says, „Hey, what do you
know? Huh-huh, ha-ha! I can control that.“ And of course at that moment he becomes far
freer and more capable. All ability is, is the ability to handle, control, direction or de-
termine. Isn't it?
All right. Now let's take a look at this thinkingness. If we control his person, and then
he finds out he can control it, and we control his mind (these mental image pictures)
and then he sees he can control those (we do that by controlling his attention), only
then could we ask him in some simple way to do something with his thinkingness.
And we've at once gone into subjective processes.
So you might say the total Objective Processes of CCH are those first seven which I
have just given you.
Now we go up into these Havingness Processes, mock-ups and all that sort of thing,
finally winding up with Then and Now Solids. But the modus operandi from here on
is again relatively simple: We want to conquer this solid factor. The individual that has
trouble cannot make things solid - things make him solid. He can't make things solid.
That is the almost unsolvable case, you might say. That is the common denominator
of the old-time unsolvable case: The person couldn't make walls and things solid.
Sometimes they were terribly solid to him, but he couldn't have any influence on it,
don't you see?
There's a solved mystery here which I'd like to announce to you. Remember the old
case that we call the wide-open case that you could just run engrams on and engrams
and they got no better and had no subjective reality, and they just behaved beautifully
but nothing ever happened - remember that case? Well, that case had a totally solid
engram bank which was totally real, which maneuvered under the auditor's steering
only. The preclear couldn't do a thing with it. But they would audit beautifully as long
as you would audit them.
Sometimes they'd hit automaticities and go off one way or the other. But the charac-
teristic was the engrams were much more solid than the preclear ever dreamed of and
the engrams made the preclear solid. But the preclear never could have made anything
in that entire mental image picture category solid. Nothing could have been made
solid in the bank. Don't you see that?
So, the remainder of CCH is aimed at these solids. And there are various ways of get-
ting him to do this thinkingness called Make It More Solid.
Now, the way you get a person up to making it more solid - I got that solved several
months ago - is „Keep it from going away“; „Hold it still.“ And then he can make it solid.
First, if he can keep it from going away, do that successfully, he can then be graduated
up into hold it still. And if he does that successfully, he can then make things more
solid.
So we can salvage one of these cases because there were two missing links on a gradi-
ent scale that we didn't know about; and we know about them now, and so we can
solve this case.
So we take 8-C and go subjective with an 8-C. The auditing commands are - this is
just the same as anything else - we'd say... Tone 40, we'd say: „Look at that chair. Thank
you. Walk over to that chair. Thank you. Touch that chair. Thank you. Keep it from going away.
Did you keep it from going away? Thank you. Turn around.“ Got that?
The next process is simply „Look at that chair. Thank you. Walk over to that chair. Thank
you. Touch that chair. Thank you. Hold it still. Did you hold it still? Thank you. Turn around.
Thank you.“ Got it?
And the next one is simply, „Look at that chair. Walk over to that chair. Touch that chair.
And make that chair a little more solid. Did you make it a little more solid? Thank you. Turn
around.“ Got that?
Well, each one of those has to be flattened. That's a lot of 8-Cs, isn't it, for somebody
that's having a rough time. But actually he graduates up.
Now that he can make things in the room solid, we now turn around and make him
make things in the bank solid. „What can you mock up?“ we say.
Fellow says, „I can mock up dogs.“
You say, „All right, mock up a dog. Good. Make him a little more solid. Thank you. Do what
you please with him.“
And he finally gets so that he can make up independent mock-ups solid. And then we
can go into Then and Now Solids.
And we can put a time track back together today the like of which you never heard of
- a Dianeticist's dream.
We say, „Can you get a picture?“
The guy said, „Yup.“
„All right,“ you say, „get a picture.“
He does.
You say, „Make it a little more solid.“ All right, we say „Fine.“ We say, „Look at that chair
and make it a little more solid. Thank you. Get a picture and make it a little more solid. Thank
you. Look at that table, make it a little more solid. Thank you.“
There are just two auditing commands, with a little drag in the middle. Just two audit-
ing commands, that's all. First we get him the idea... can he get a picture - we have to
ascertain that. „Get a picture and make it a little more solid.“ We don't say, „Get a picture.
Thank you. Make it a little more solid. Thank you.“
Why?
Because he got a picture and just by looking at it, it appeared to be more solid. And he
thought he was disobeying the auditing command. He thought he was prematurely
making it more solid, and he has a tendency to go out of session. So we say, „Get a
picture and make it a little more solid.“ And he says, „ ___.“ Say, „Thank you. Look at that
chair .. „
Now, when he just looks up... I want you to do this. All of you look at that chair, see?
You can look at that chair? Well now, when you're looking at the chair, the chair's
more solid than when you were looking at me. Now, look at me and get a concept of
how solid the chair is, see? You see that? So when you tell him to look at the chair he
doesn't really get a... You see, it starts to look a little more solid and all of a sudden he
thinks, „You know, I'm disobeying this auditing command,“ just because things look more
solid when he's looking directly at them.
So the auditing commands of Then and Now Solids are simply those. „Get a picture and
make it a little more solid. Thank you. Look at that chair and make it a little more solid. Thank
you.“ And that's all there is.
Now, an auditor could direct this around one way or the other He could run valences.
He's obviously in Mother's valence. He says, „Get a picture of Mother. Can you get a picture
of Mother?“
„Yes.“
„All right. Get a picture of Mother and make it a little more solid. Good. Look at that chair and
make it a little more solid. Good. Get another picture of Mother and make it a little more solid.
Good. Look at that table and make it a little more solid. Good.“ See? That would be a valence
addressed to this thing.
But actually calling for the picture is sometimes adventurous. You will get a further
action and the case will go further, ordinarily, if you simply run it direct, straight and
simple. „Get a picture and make it a little more solid. Look at that chair and make it a little more
solid.“ That's Then and Now Solids - and runs the track the way Dianetics processes
never did. It's really fabulous. We got this track licked.
Now, if you start to run this on a preclear, don't become impatient with him when he
falls through onto the whole track and goes out of this life. Because he does this very
soon. I don't think it would be possible to prevent it from happening eventually if the
process were run at all well. He'd all of a sudden get the Roman arena and make it a
little more solid. And look at that wall and make it a little more solid. And he'd get the
Roman lion and make it a little more solid. And you say, „Look at the table and make it a
little more solid.“ You say, „How's it going?“ That's not a Tone 40 process, by the way.
You say, „How's it going?“
He says, „Well, I wouldn't stop here if I were you; the lion... I have just found out why I detest
priests. I was martyred in early Rome.“
They don't tell you too much about these things. It isn't necessary that they fully de-
scribe everything they run into. But this runs more engrams in less time than any
other process you ever heard of. People asking for a fast clearing process; well, that is
one.
But the trick of Then and Now Solids is this. It is a subjective process, isn't it? Well,
all right, if it's that subjective you could expect sooner or later that he'd run into
things on the track that would tend to throw him out of control. He's liable to run
into something that would throw him out of control. In other words, he's liable to get
a little bit out of session on you. So the trick on Then and Now Solids is not to work
all the way up the steps of CCH and then grind each one.
Marcia Estrada had a phrase for it the other day which I think you'll love: Auditors
don't flatten a process; they kill it dead.
Now, what you want to do, you see, is just flatten it - get it to a point where you can
safely change it. And that is when three responses have been of exactly the same
communication lag, when an ability is regained or when the person has a good cogni-
tion. You could change the process at any one of those points.
So we run CCH up to Then and Now Solids, run Then and Now Solids for a while
and we'll suddenly find out that Then and Now Solids is not running speedily, it is
now running slowly. There's no great change occurring. We've run it for three and a
half hours and no great change is occurring. Boy, that's the time for „Give me your hand.
Thank you.“ Got it? Then you go right up the same scale again. See?
Any one of these processes hits a peak of workability within two or three hours of
beginning it. They hit a peak of workability. The only thing that isn't true of is Book
and Bottle, which is Op Pro by Dup. That does not hit a peak; that flattens. That ei-
ther kills itself or the preclear dead.
Well, here is a design of processes which require a certain expertness and a consider-
able amount of skill by the auditor. But salted in amongst these things, you see, there
was old Locational Processing. Anybody could do these contact processes. Of course,
you get some recalcitrant preclear that starts to wrastle around, you'll wish that you
had had flattened on you High School Indoc, like we were showing you yesterday.
But you can go on up the scale running one of these right after the other. And you're
demonstrating to him these three important things: that control is possible, that
communication is possible and that havingness is possible. And when he learns that
this is the case all the way up the line, why, there isn't anything more could be done
for him for the simple reason that nothing more, really, is - I don't know.
Then and Now Solids flattens when a person can make any part of the track from the
beginning of the universe to the end of it - that's future too. (Remember, you didn't
tell him just to get pictures of the past. He usually does that, primarily; he'll start get-
ting pictures of the future after a while.) When all of these from the beginning to the
end of the universe can, any one of them, be made totally solid enough so that he in
his then body could independently and newly walk around in the scene, the process is
flat.
Boy, you can get some of these real flat. Sometimes when you first run into these, it's
quite amusing - when you run into whole track. There's the British all lined up in their
red coats, you know, all ready to fire the volley. And the fellow runs into this picture,
and you know, it makes itself solid with the greatest of ease. And he makes something
in the room solid, and then he makes the picture of the redcoats solid again, and he all
of a sudden notices that there are some other militiamen standing on both sides of
him. Then the next thing you know it's totally real to him - 100 percent there.
We ran into this phenomena in old Dianetics. But this fellow is putting himself 100
percent there. The grass is still the grass, you see, it is now green; and the breeze is the
this occurs on an automaticity when he tried to make it terribly real so as to hold onto
it one instant after the volley hit. See? And then he tried to make it all solid so he
wouldn't have to give up that militiaman body. One split second after that, he falls
dead.
And you'll hit these automaticities of past track effort to make everything more solid.
And when you hit one of those things, don't be fooled that isn't an ability, that's a ca-
lamity. He'll get up to this where he can do it all the way up and down the track at
will. But you can trigger these old ones.
Now, the funny part of it is, is originally on the whole track these are the ones he at
first runs into. He'll say, „Boy, those British look awful real! Huh-huh-huh-huh-huh-huh! I won-
der if I should make this any more solid.“
And you say, „Well, look at the chair. Get a picture. Make it a little more sol ...“
„I got the same picture ba-a-ck. It doesn't seem like I ought to make it a little more solid.“
„Well, go ahead; make it a little more solid.“ Bow!!
Of course, in view of the fact that for the last 160 years he's been dreading the arrival
of that volley, he has never permitted it to be fired; so he had a tendency to get stuck
on the track.
Well, it certainly looks like you have a complete picture from Dianetics to Scientology.
And we find ourselves back at Dianetics again. I think it's very interesting.
Don't fool yourselves, though, because Dianetics is not being run from the same
viewpoint. All we're trying to do is improve somebody's ability to handle pictures;
we're not trying to do something to the pictures. Dianetics we did things to the pic-
tures. Now we're only doing things to people to make them handle pictures better,
you get the idea?
Instead of being controlled by the pictures, we put them in control of the pictures -
and that's Scientology. Scientology is a science addressed to the individual himself.
Dianetics was a science which was addressed to the mechanics of the mind.
All right. We have arrived at where we have arrived, both in the level of technology
and development. And we've arrived where we have arrived here at this congress,
which is the last few minutes of the last hour, except for the party. And of course the
party is what counts. That's what counts. We have managed somehow or another to
get through from the beginning of the congress to the end, just as we have managed
one way or the other to get through from the beginning of Dianetics on up till now.
Well, now, this is a long way from the end of research and the end of track and the
wind-up of everything. We have simply found that skills can be uniformly well im-
parted to auditors. We have found a number of processes which are apparently com-
pletely necessary, regardless of what else we learn. And we have found that we have a
plateau from which we can walk off into any higher north, you might say. If there's
any better abilities to be found, they will be reached from the plateau where we find
ourselves now. Nobody, I am sure, is going to find a magic button which simply
makes the whole track solid.
You see, we've just found out that it isn't possible for the auditor to control the pre-
clear's thinkingness, and that is what is wrong with the preclear. His thinkingness is
out of his control.
Now, we've found a gradient scale of how to get the preclear's thinkingness back un-
der control: first under the auditor's, then under the preclear's. The auditor only takes
it under his control in order to give that control of thinkingness back to the preclear.
And that is why we're doing it and what is happening here.
It's a highly entertaining adventure to run your own whole track, something like being
yanked out of the middle of a movie - color movie with Gary Cooper and all that sort
of thing, and everybody's... They're just about to walk out of the swinging doors onto
the street for the evening duel and somebody comes in and grabs you and says there's
an emergency and you have to leave. To have somebody stop running Then and Now
Solids on you, it's quite disappointing, you... At first they're terribly unreal. You say,
„Well I don't have any of the mass of my whole track anymore so therefore it isn't.“
Well, its mass isn't, but you'd be surprised how fast its mass recovers. And as fast as
its mass starts coming up and you have some confidence in the fact that you still have
some replicas and relics kicking around from this and that, then you consent to get
some dim, glimmering memory of what it was all about. And soon as that confidence
comes on, then you're liable to turn on full and start quoting the textbooks.
For instance, lawyers have an awful lot of trouble with me. They rather uniformly
have trouble with me because I studied English common law at Oxford in 1804. And
I maintain that American law is based on English common law. I went over to Eng-
land and came back here again, and I did well, I did well. But I was taught sufficiently
well that I can't forget certain basic principles. And some of these attorneys come
around in the organization and they say, „But so-and-so, so-and-so, so-and-so and so-and-so.“
Every once in a while I find myself just on the verge of quoting Jenks versus the
King, 1602, you see? So in a world as aberrated as this one, this can also be
embarrassing. But it's a lot of fun. It's a lot of fun.
Why, I think we have had here a very, very fine congress. I know I've never had an
easier time at a congress. I've never had a better time. I've been very, very pleased
with you. I'm pleased with the way you went through the seminars, the way you've
received this information. I was almost overawed with the courage with which you
tackled those two hours of group auditing. Well, I want to thank you very much for
being good preclears in that and being an excellent audience in general. I am very
proud to be able to have the privilege of presenting to you this material that I have
over the last four days. And I think we have found this an awfully technical congress.
I hope the new people who haven't been around too much, haven't been upset by the
tremendous new nomenclature and activities and so forth which have been going on.
But from the grapevine reports that filter back to me, I don't think they feel anything
but pleased concerning all of this technical material.
people at the same time. Sometimes I do it successfully, sometimes not so success-
fully. But I present it anyhow.
I want to thank very much, you, the audience, for your tremendous enthusiasm for
coming here in this hot July of Washington and for being such a very fine audience.
And thank you for being here and for your interest in Scientology. Thank you very
much.
Thank you very much. Goodbye.
[end of lecture.]

[[Category:Lectures FC]]