View source for Communication (2ACC 531220)

'''Series:''' 2nd Advanced Clinical Course (2ACC)

'''Date:''' 20 December 1953

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_2ACC|Back to Series]]

This is December the 20th, first lecture of the day. Today I want to give you some odds and ends of material which might make you a better auditor. First thing I want to go into is communication.

Communication is a manifestation of cause and effect. Maybe some of you are still wondering why Q and A works—why things are what they are in this universe. Of course, Q and A Processing is simply the basic mechanic of communication itself; so we don't have anything there to worry about. The question and the answer has gotten into the communication channel.

Well actually, in order to make a thing different, it's necessary to put a slightly different mood on the two different ends of the line. Well, people have violated the rules of communication and failed to duplicate so often that an individual is then bettered by simply running the two ends of the communication line. It is not the best process in the world, and yet it is a very demonstrative process and does get some results on an individual. Now, an individual who is suffering with a certain problem is quite often bettered by this.

But this is one of these processes which gets an effect rather quickly. And sometimes it's up to an auditor to have a few of those around. You'll get somebody who's pulling a—you know, there are lots of preclears in the world, and some of them are very nice people, and some of them are people, and some of them are people. And these people who look at you and say, "Go on, do something, I dare you to," all the time saying, "Yes, yes. Ill do that—but go on, just try and do something," are actually in some kind of a fight dramatization, something like that. That's what's wrong with these people—they're out of communication and they can't receive an effect and they can't change. They're resisting all effects, and it shows up immediately as a dare or a jeer.

Well, they're the first to tell you immediately afterwards that nothing happened. You're going to save yourself an awful lot of trouble as an auditor if you put in your pocket a few things which "blow up bombs in their heads." Mm. It's an awfully good thing for you to do. It's one of the best ways to change somebody's mind who is sure that nothing can happen, is to forthrightly make something happen. Well, Q and A is such a process. Formula H, with its reach and withdraw, is another such a process.

But an auditor who is using 8-C in practice came up to see me last night and told me what some of his problems were. And amongst these problems was one problem of getting into the case. It has sometimes taken him from six to eight hours to get a case starting to roll. And the case has just hung up there and hung up and hung up, and he wanted to know how I did this—how I got a case.

Well now, I've already told you much earlier, and told the First Unit, what I do with a case that quite routinely doesn't pop out of his head and begin to perform. I mean, what I do with that case who is sitting there resisting all effects, resisting all effects, resisting all effects, wanting to see what I am going to do with him—I'm not going to do anything with him, all I'm going to do is ask him to go through these exercises and by gradient scales get him up to a point where he's presentable and can operate instead of slogging around on two feet. So what I'd—I've mentioned this before, as I said—what I'd do with such a case that I perceive is immediately going to impose a little bit of a problem, is I give them a drill which permits me to evaluate for them right away, and having posed such a drill, then put that evaluation somewhat into their own hands.

And here's the way that's done: You take an individual, you tell him, "Be three feet back of your head."

And, "Nyah-yo-nyah-nyah-nyak (mumble). And what are you going to do to me now? There isn't anything to be done for me anyhow. I'm just here because— because my wife said I ought to be here and so forth. There's nothing wrong with my communication system and so forth. Nothing wrong with me, wrong with me, wrong with me, wrong with me."

Well, I don't brain him (that's your first impulse), because if this fellow's so bad off as to realize that if he's just sitting there in a body, totally enslaved by an economic and police system called a MEST universe—if he's just sitting there and he doesn't think anything is wrong with him—oh boy, have you got a case on your hands! I mean, just that, see? That makes about 50 percent of the people walking down the street here quite a case, doesn't it?

Well, here's what I do to him, exactly. I generally process somebody in a fairly large room—and I haven't done too much ambulant processing as a demonstration, simply because when I do it in a room full of students, see, you just can't do this process. I make him go to one corner of the room, and then go to another corner of the room, and then go to another corner of the room, and then go to the door, make him do something with the door like open it and close it, make him go to another corner of the room, make him go to another corner of the room—each time on the basis that I want him to touch something. And I just make him move around.

I say, "Now, what's …" Now, one of the ways to go about this, and the easiest excuse you can have to do this, is just to run Contact Processing, Step VII. Not because the fellow's psycho, because you're simply trying to get him into the works. You confuse that Step VII just because it says that's what you do with a psycho—well, the reason it says "psycho" is that's the only process that works on everybody, including psychos. That's a little bit different than it being a step which is relegated entirely to the psychotic. We don't have anything to do with a psychotic. The guy's crazy, why, tell him to go look up the local witch doctor or something, or the other psychiatrist in town—anything. You haven't any business dealing around with the psychotic, because this is a specialized piece of MEST, it belongs to the state, so forth, I mean … Anyway—besides, it'll take up a lot of your good time, because they don't process rapidly.

When we have this character walking around, then, we just get him to walk around to various parts of the room. And I don't say you do this just—to a person just to be mean or something—this is a case you're having a little hard time getting into, you know? You're just getting a little bit—difficulty in getting it rolling. Well, you just have him walk around and feel this and feel that.

Now, you don't have to ask him, "What's real to you in the room?" but it's usually best to do so, just to be on the safe side. You say, "What's the realest thing you see?"

The fellow says, "Everything's real."

You say, "Well, that's fine. Walk over and touch the doorknob. Okay. Now turn around and walk over to the other side of the room and touch the wall. Now walk over and put that picture out of adjustment. Now put it back in adjustment. Now go over and sit down in that chair. And now go over to the other side of the room and touch the wall there." And I will—liable, just liable, to keep this up for about twenty minutes. Sounds like a long time. It's not a long time.

And you'll find out that his communication lag begins to drop out. Interesting, isn't it? His communication lag starts to get better. All right.

Next thing I do is I tell him, "Now—all right, now you're standing there in that corner of the room. Now send yourself to another corner of the room by deciding what corner of the room you're going to send yourself to, and then tell yourself to go."

So he does, and he goes to another corner of the room. And you—when you're—when he's there, why, you say, "All right. Now decide to go somewhere else in the room, and then send yourself there." And he does.

Now, you remember the process I was giving you whereby I said you'd— you make him decide to pick up the ashtray and move it to a certain location, and then not to move it till he decided where he was going to move it to? Well, that's in essence the same process, but handling the body.

And so then, you can get fancy if you want, but you'd keep that up for another twenty minutes. Now, you'll get fancy on such a thing once in a while, just to vary the monotony as far as the preclear's concerned, not really for any other reason. And you'd say, "All right. Now you decide to send yourself to a place in the room and then change your mind. And now send yourself—decide some—on some other place. You know, you've got that. All right, now send yourself to the second place. And all right. Decide to go someplace in the room, decide that's the wrong place to go and decide on another place, and go there."

Well this, of course, is working out the big maybes, the decisions. Because on anyone, the indecisional point is simply deciding to go one place and deciding he has to be one place, and then going to another place. Which of the two places to go to is the biggest indecision you can hit on the track. So you just work that out in that way.

But in the meantime, you're the person who's telling him to make up his own mind and decide to go. And there's the little slicker, right there. He'll process after that. And his processing will work quite rapidly.

Now, this case very well may have been sitting there saying, "Well, this is the way I want to do it and so forth. And I don't think you can do anything for me. And nobody can do anything for me anyhow and so forth." And he says, "Yes, I've got the mock-up. And yes, I've got this, and yes, I've got that. Can't do anything for me and rawrr-rawrr sthrumm-thrmm."

Well, it sure gets that out of his system. Because you just manually pushed him all over the room, you see? And by moving him—changing his position in space permits you to evaluate for him. And then by running the other process, you permit him to give himself orders.

Now, up to this time, he has been moving like an automaton. Something pushed a button and he went in that direction. Never occurred to him to make up his own mind to go in a direction and then go in that direction. He never thought he had this right. Now, you would be surprised how many people this will work on.

Any thetan that's been swamped by a body has this problem, you know? He kind of wonders what did make up his mind. Well, this fellow really knows you made up his mind, because you told him to. So therefore, there's no doubt about the source of the initial response. So that gives that a certainty. And then there's no doubt that he told himself to go to that corner. Now he can wonder why, and get the deep significance of why he told himself to go to that corner and so forth if he wants to, but he still is sitting on top of a certainty, which is to say, you told him to make up his mind. So he decides that he has made up his mind, simply because you told him to. And in this wise, you will very often get a communication lag that is as much as thirty seconds down to five seconds. And that's quite a triomphe, believe me. That's very fine.

Now, I'll give you an example of that. I had a case that was hanging fire quite some time ago, and had been hanging fire for some time. And I couldn't quite understand—although this case apparently had a very fast communication reaction, apparently was doing all right in a number of ways ... I was getting something which you, at this stage here and there, haven't got it quite yet that you have to get, every five or ten minutes—a communication change. And you're not getting a communication change every five or ten minutes, you're not processing the case. You're processing somebody that's processing a case, or you're doing something peculiar.

It isn't that the techniques aren't working. They will work if they are used to process the case. You see? But if they are being used by a preclear who doesn't know much about processing in order to process a ridge, why, they're not going to do much for the preclear. You see this? So what tells you that this is not happening is a communication change. And if you don't get a communication change every five minutes, really, and certainly every ten minutes on a case— and I mean a communication change, bad or good; a difference of perception, a difference of speed of talk—and if you don't keep nagging them for it, I don't know what you're doing. You're not auditing by SOP 8-C. You're just sitting there reading a book or going over a drill or trying to memorize your lesson or something, but you're not auditing.

Because in the essence of auditing, under present work and procedures, is a continuous nag, nag, nag, nag on "All right, now, can you see any better? Are you there with any more certainty now?" and so on.

Now, this will respond on the preclear who is bad off, as putting a doubt in his mind as to what he's doing, if you phrase it wrongly and if you don't do it delicately and gently. But if it does, what do you do? You can just run some Q and A—you asking how things are, and him "how things are" answer, something like that. It'll clear it right up; it's nothing to bog down over.

So let's get that very securely, right now. I've said it several times, and every time some pc comes to me and says, "During the auditing session, so on and so on and so on," I will say, "Well, what technique was used?" and in—and so on.

And they say, "Well, I went on for—we've been using now for two sessions now, almost three hours, we've been using so on and so on, and it hasn't done me any good and yet the auditor keeps on using it, and he does this and he does that."

And when I get down to the final question, I should have asked this question: "Has the auditor been checking you for communication changes?" Because it's the one that finally settles the argument. "No!" See, in each case, "No."

If what you're doing isn't changing the perception of the preclear, it isn't resolving his case. Because the case of the preclear is a problem in communication. You could say it was a problem in an awful lot of things, but it's in essence a problem in communication.

Communication is by far the most important part of the ARC triangle. For a couple of years I never said what was the most important part of it, merely because I wanted to be darn sure what was the most important part of it. Guys ram around and scream at you and say, "Oh, that reality, that's what's important." And you look at them and you say, 'Will you please mechanically define reality?"

"Oh, that's very easy: What's real is real is real when I was a little girl is a rose is a rose is a rose." (audience laughter)

The only thing you know about reality is communication and affinity, which in essence makes up an agreement, and we call that reality. Well, we better call it certainty—it means much more. Means a great deal more. And we could call it knowingness—we could call the ARC triangle, knowingness, communication and affinity. Only that would be improper, because knowingness stands above the whole triangle.

Knowingness in terms of MEST is made up—understandingness and so forth, is made up—of ARC. Any mathematics can be computed out on the basis of ARC. Mathematician made the unfortunate challenge one day in my office, of saying that "This is impossible and so forth and so forth and so forth."

And I says, "It's what?"

And he said, "Well yes," he says, "mathematics," he says, "that's a science. That's a pure science."

And I said, "Well, that wouldn't have anything to do with life, then."

"No!"

I said, "Well, what uses mathematics?"

"Oh! It's a pure science."

"Oh, you say—you mean nothing uses it."

"Why, of course, everything uses it."

"All right, what uses it?"

And he finally, in kind of a beaten fashion, says, "Life. Life. Yes," he says, "but mathematics can exist with—in the absence of life."

I said, "I've never seen anything use it in the absence of life."

And this is that axiom there … And by the way, on the introduction of that mathematical axiom in the Logics and so on, do you know that three of the roughest problems that the mathematicians had, stacked up around these days, cracked? And three mathematical prizes were awarded. The boy applied that Logic to the solution of these problems. Oh, you know, it's like the Heisenberg uncertainty quadramatics as the reason why bosses wear toupees, or I don't know—you know, something important—and it had been baffling everybody for a long time.

But "the human mind is a servomechanism to every mathematics" immediately resolved the problem, when somebody says, "Well, the human mind probably can understand this, but of course the equation just goes along this way." And every one of your mathematical wizards takes this dodge.

You see, the human mind can undoubtedly resolve a syllogism, but a syllogism does not resolve a problem. It's not good enough to resolve a problem— the human mind can probably understand this.

Well, the fact of the matter is, the human mind is standing behind every mathematics with something like Boolean algebra, which is really too complex to be worked out on anything less than about five notebooks for one formula. Boolean algebra is wonderful stuff—it's what your telephone relay switchboards work on and so on. All it is, is "yes is greater than no, no is greater than yes, yes greater than no, no greater than yes." And it all works out and it performs a very fine answer in terms of averages.

Well, the mind does that. That's evidently the way the mind works when it is sorted down to what it is actually doing with facts and when you get into mechanical computation on the part of the mind. Of course, sitting right above that's just plain knowingness.

We take ARC, then, and we find out the component parts of ARC are mathematics. And they run this way: A mathematician is trying to find what symbols agree with what symbols. He's trying to find what symbols duplicate what symbols, and which part of an area or what portion of a quantity are represented in another area or another portion of a quantity. That's communication, just per se.

And as far as affinity is concerned, he wants to know what's like something else, and that's all there is to affinity. Well, what's like it and what isn't like it, so he's dealing with similars and dissimilars, and that in essence is affinity. Because you get two similars, they will not only have affinity for each other, they'll—if they're so—entirely similar, they merge. And you get the thetan with his experience in common with the body's experience as a sympathy between the thetan and the body. It's just a—solely a matter of similar experience. Well, this can be monitored in terms of how much agreement there was on a bad or good experience. And you get your consideration and you get your opinion interjected in there.

But these three together … That's a very, very superficial rendition of this, by the way. Went over it one time and found out that after I'd written about ten thousand words on it, I was still writing, so I threw it in the files. It Was— it goes from too many directions to too many directions.

Understanding, then, is an effort to combine A and R and C, and that is understanding.

Now, an auditor who is neglecting C, or communication, you see, is going to be neglecting certainty (which is reality—certainty and uncertainty make up reality). And he's going to be neglecting, at the same time, the A factor. If the case just stays at a constant C (a constant communication), and—it's going to stay at a constant A, and it's going to stay at a constant level of certainty. If you want to change its certainty, you'll have to monitor communication.

Now, that's the one thing where you can stick your foot in. You can get into that triangle in terms of communication, and you got it. And you change the communication of a pc, you're going to change his affinity and you're going to change his reality. That's what you're trying to do. And of course, what your preclear is trying to do, basically, is not change. And so it becomes a little bit of a contest.

Any case that's—is resistive is simply resisting effects, which is afraid to change. All right.

When we go into this problem of ARC in terms of auditing and the auditor doesn't hammer and pound away, and get the reaction for the case, he just might as well be home smoking a cigar or down in the park riding on a swan or almost anything. He isn't doing any good as an auditor.

Now, he can use the most indifferent techniques, intelligently. That is to say, let's equip an auditor, now—let's equip him with just three techniques. Let's give him Formula H (Reach and Withdraw) and let's give him Q and A (see, these are pretty poor techniques, simply because they do nothing but produce an effect, and they're very limited; they're quite limited as techniques), and then let's give him Ten Minutes of Nothing. Now those three, by the way, would balance somewhat. And if you wanted to give him a fourth one, you'd give him "Hold the two back corners of the room." That's too good for him, though. We'll just say we just give him Ten Minutes of Nothing and Q and A and Reach and Withdraw. And after the fellow has reached and withdrew for a while, why, we'd give him nothing for a while. And just vary them around. And that's all this auditor knows. Doesn't know anything else. All right.

Now, that'd be a very limited assortment, wouldn't it? A very, very limited assortment. All right.

One auditor sits down with these techniques and he tells the fellow to reach and withdraw for present time. The fellow does it.

"Have present time reach and withdraw for you, and you reach and withdraw for present time. Okay. Now, how's that? Your perception any better or any …"

Guy says, "I'm practically going blind."

So the auditor says, "Well, all right. Now, reach and withdraw some more for present time. Have present time reach and withdrawing from you." And he does that a few more times and he says to the fellow, "Well, how are you now?"

"Well, I really am practically blind. I mean, I can't see a thing."

And the auditor says, "Well now, let's reach and withdraw some more for present time. All right. Let's get present time reaching and withdrawing from you. And present time reaching for you, present time reaching for you; present time withdrawing from you, present time withdrawing from you." And then he'd vary it by saying, "Now, get you reaching while present time withdraws. Now get present time reaching while you withdraw. Okay, and now—how's your perception now?"

"Oh, it's—it's terrible, you know? I can't—I—are people supposed to get this pain in their eyes?"

"Well, that's fine. Now get you reaching for present time and present time reaching for you—same time. Now get you withdrawing from present time, and present time withdrawing from you," and so forth. And, "Now how is it— how is it now?"

"Oh, there's the most beautiful golden light standing just behind my head."

"Oh there is, yeah? Well now, let's reach and withdraw for present time. Now let's get present time reaching and withdrawing from you," so forth. And he goes on like this for another three, four minutes, and he says, "Well, how is it now?"

"Well, I've popped into the light. It's blindingly white, and the world— I just can't see a thing but this beautiful light, but that's all I want to see."

And the auditor says, "All right. Let's reach and withdraw for present time, present time reach and withdraw from you." Does three, four minutes.

And the fellow all of a sudden says—he says, "Everything's gone black!"

And the auditor says, "Okay. Okay. Let's reach for present time, and let's get present time reaching for you. Let's get present time withdrawing from you, and you withdrawing from present time," and so forth, "Now, how is it?"

"Well, I don't know," the fellow says.

"What don't you know?"

"Well, it isn't as black as it was, but gee, I feel kind of shaky."

"All right. Well, let's reach for present time, let's get present time reaching for you."

He'd just go on using it as long as he was getting a communication change, in other words.

And then finally the fellow says, "Well, I'm seeing pretty fair. I'm seeing pretty fair now."

And the auditor says, "Well now, let's reach for present time. Now let's get present time reaching for you, and you reaching for present time, and present time reaching for you. Now you withdrawing from present time, present time withdrawing from you. Present time reaching for you, present time withdrawing from you. You reaching for present time, present time reaching for you. And how is it now?"

"Oh, it's about the same."

"All right. Let's get present time reaching for you and you reaching for present time. All right. And let's get you withdrawing from present time, present time withdrawing from you. Now, how is it now?"

"Oh, it's about the same. I mean, it's about the same."

"Okay. Now, let's get you reaching for present time and present time, at the same time, reaching for you. You got that? All right. Now let's get you withdrawing from present time, and present time withdrawing from you. You got that? All right. Now let's get you—make an effort to reach and withdraw from present time now. Now, how is it now?"

"Oh—oh, about the same," so forth.

The auditor says, "Okay. Now sit back in the chair. Sit back in the chair, and let's reach in all directions—six directions, there—and just reach out for nothing. Just nothing in all directions."

And he does that for a little while, and all of a sudden, he—the preclear does that for two or three minutes, and the auditor says, "Say, what's happening?"

Preclear says, "I get an awful pain in my shoulder."

"That's fine," you say, "just get nothing there—nothing in all directions. That's fine. Now how is it?"

"(groan) This is real bad—you know, it feels like my shoulder's being cut off."

"Well, just—all directions toward nothing. Don't pay any attention to the shoulder. Just concentrate on that nothingness. Just get a nothingness of the body and a nothingness of the shoulder and a nothingness of the ceiling and a nothingness of space and no Earth. All right, let's see if we can get that."

Fellow does, and sits there for two or three more minutes. And the auditor says, "All right. How is it now?"

"Well, the pain in the shoulder's gone."

"All right. Just get nothing in all directions."

Fellow says, "What do you know?" He says, "I really am getting nothing in all directions. There's no body here."

"Well, that's fine. That's fine. Now just get all directions toward nothing, now. Now, are you getting behind you? You getting nothing behind you?"

"No, I was kind of omitting that."

"Well, let's get nothing all the way behind you now. And let's get just nothing as far as you could go in all directions there, just nothing."

And the fellow says, "Ouch!"

So the auditor says, "Just—remember, just behind you, too, and all around."

Fellow sits there a couple more minutes; the auditor says, "All right. How is it now?"

"Well, I'm not getting any pains now."

"Well, how's your perception?"

"Uh—what do you mean?"

"Are you getting nothingness any better?"

"Oh, it's about the same."

"Oh well, take it for another minute. Now how is it?"

"Oh, about the same."

"Well, fine.

"Now let's get me sitting here asking you about perception, and get that as a question. Now turn it around on you as the answer. Okay, you got that? Fine. Now let's get that again: me as a question, turned around on you as the answer. All right.

"Now get me here as position, question mark, and turn it around on you as position, exclamation point. All right, let's do that a few times.

"Now let's put position on you as an answer and turn it around on me as a question." You know, backwards track—you're making effect go to cause. "Okay," after you've done that for a while, "now how's your perception now?"

"Uh—no different. Should it be any different?"

"Okay. Now, let's get me sitting here blind as a bat. Now turn that around on you as an answer." Now, just after you've done that a few times, now—"Any perception change?"

"No, nothing, umm .. . No, is it supposed to do something? No, it didn't do anything," so on.

"All right. Now let's get you reaching for present time." And here we go again.

But all through this entire process, you've got nag, nag, nag, nag, nag. Just that—"How's your perception? Any change?"

Of course, what's communication? Communication is a somatic, communication is a field of light, communication is a field of blackness, communication how fast they speak. This is what communication is. And so, you're getting changes in this, okay!

But if you as an auditor are willing to go fifteen minutes without a marked communication change, using the powerhouse of techniques that you're using— oh boy, do you not want something not to happen! Mmmm! That indicts you for mopery and dopery on the high auditing bench. Just because, you see, you have a wealth of technique, is no reason you can sit there and neglect communication change. That is something like saying this guy's got a billion bricks, and he isn't even vaguely building a house with them, he's just got a billion bricks. And there's some other fellow, he's only got fifty bricks, but he's building something with them. So it's better to have some guy with only fifty bricks than to have a guy with a billion bricks who just sits there. See?

It isn't (quote) "the intelligent use of techniques." You're shooting the moon too far from that. You can use patter that's as backwards as you ever heard of and still get there. It isn't the magic touch. It isn't the way you delicately hold your little pinkie in the air as you ask the question. It isn't any of these things. It's just: Did it change the communication level of your preclear? That's all.

And if you sail along in—as I have been processing here the last, I don't know ... By the way, the only case I've had any—really any difficulty with for a long time, was a person that I couldn't get to move around. Person was too lame to do any moving around, and too heavy, and it was very, very difficult. And the case was very difficult simply because the most obvious technique had been bypassed. We were already down to that—down below that point. And it was kind of rough trying to fish this one up a little bit. I got her up and got her up so that she had a greater stability and a better certainty and she was a little bit happier about life. Didn't break her all the way on through on out the way everything should have, mostly because it was just so doggone much time devoured in trying to get over the inability of—as far as mobility was concerned. That was this case's trouble, was just the mobility. And you had to process like mad and get her up toward a point where she would even get the idea back—even vaguely get the idea back—of mobility itself. So you see that little entering wedge there.

Now, there is a way where you could get around that, but you'd have to have a better equipped office than I have. You would put somebody in a wheelchair and have them roll themselves around to the points of the room. And if somebody was lying on his back or something, on a—one of those lie-down type of wheelchairs, you could move them around. But you'd just be fascinated with how much difference it'll make in a case. It'll make a big difference in a case.

I remember one of the first times I ever used this—a long time ago. I got to sawing away on this case, and boy, I was pulling all the tricks out of the bag, you know, and one after the other, they didn't work. Nothing was working, nothing was working. This case was—oh, just having a real rough time, and yet evidently fairly intelligent, but with a fairly long communication lag. You know, "All right now, let's put up two terminals." (pause) "Have you put them up?"

(pause) "Where do you want me to put them?"

About that type of communication lag. And boy, when it... I just used everything, everything you could think of, just to try to bust that case out. And finally just broke down into mauling the body around, which is what I call this technique to myself—although you don't maul anybody around, you just move them around. You could also call it a close-order-drill technique—it's how sergeants get so they can evaluate for troops to the point where the troops will go out and get shot, the damn fools.

Anyway, just move the fellow around, move him around, move him around, move him around and move him around. And when I started moving this case around—after, actually, hours of work with every fancy technique there was and every plain one and every effective one—after hours of work, why, I used this mobility technique. I just moved them here and there and home for it, and then gave it back to them again. And I didn't use it for any forty minutes. I used it for about ten minutes on moving that person around the room, and then I used it for about five minutes on making himself move back around the room, and all of a sudden he broke into the first healthy laughter he had ever laughed— heard him. He thought that was very funny. And his communication lag all the time he was doing this was coming up, and he was beginning to walk faster. And he was walking less hectically and walking faster, see? Walking with more competence. And we were just making him put a point in conjunction with other points. With one, namely a body, and put in conjunction with other bodies.

And I then sat him down—up to that time he had, you know, exteriorized without much perception and not quite sure he was there. That's where he was hung up, you know, and I couldn't seem to change that state of beingness until I just made him drill all around the room.

Well, what brings this to mind is I did it again last night as a demonstration to this auditor that came to see me late last night and—with a case that was sitting right there. I didn't know it until after I'd processed this case—this case had gone through a rough time since the last time I had touched them. Had real big upsets. So when I started to process the case, the comm lag was large—it was very wide—and zinnng! down it came right away.

But it didn't come down—this was a repeat performance—it didn't come down on the other techniques I was using on the case to show this auditor. It didn't speed up, in other words, till I made the case walk around the room. And then halfway through the time when I was making them walk around the room—"If you say just one more order, just one more order, I'll scream"— words to that effect. "That's one thing I could—never could stand. You realize I'm about to leave! One more order!"

And I did some Q and A, or words to that effect, and a little Matched Terminal on the people who gave this person orders. You know—Papa, Mama, a teacher, something like that. And just mocked them up and threw them away, and mocked them up and threw them away, and mocked them up and threw them away. And then mocked them up and made her move them in mock-up and so forth, and then went on with the process. And communication lag went right up and person brightened up quite markedly.

But this technique had evidently conquered, to some slight degree, upsets which have evidently been accumulating over a period of a number of days. Very violent upsets—the kind that you look back and find the E-Meter stuck on, see? Evidently pulled this case right out of it. But that was just—I'd had no intentions of doing this with this technique.

Now, that's about, I would say, about the twenty-fifth or thirtieth time (I don't know quite how many it is) that I have seen this process break into a rough case. And as I said, the only case I had trouble with is one that I couldn't get into mobility.

Now, there's possibly some gradient scale technique whereby you could get a person who was relatively immobile and get them to move parts of the body or something like that, or move their hands around or do something on that order which would break up into it. But I haven't, as a matter of fact, studied that level of case that is immobile enough to tell you for sure whether or not it'd have any great effect. But it's something for you to remember if you run up against a problem.

I have processed, for instance, deaf people—have processed them with a slip of paper, writing the commands. I have processed a person who was deaf and blind, and that's—was very interesting, because to get the whole process of what we were doing across, it was necessary for the material that I was using to be Brailled. The person could read Braille, and I got a Braille typewriter and knocked it out on Braille, and established a wrist-tap code with the individual. And just established two very, very minor techniques and got those very clearly understood, and then had all the signals on them understood, and rehearsed the signals a little while against the textbook, and then we went into processing on the thing. And the person regained hearing in one ear in about an hour, so the—we just could throw the whole thing away, see. It was a case that had not been deaf from birth, so language was still there.

This is the case of a soldier, by the way, caught in a shell blast. And—classic case of hysterical blindness and hysterical deafness. And had been labeled as "organic blindness and deafness." Because "there's part of the optic nerve actually destroyed, and there's—the eardrums have been burst and the scar tissue will not" so on, and they just laid it in with a club, see? This person's— so that's the way that one went.

But anyway, when we get into tough problems of processing, generally our own ingenuity can get us out of them. Because the problem which presents itself is simply a problem in communication. It always, always is a problem in communication. The difficulty you have is a problem of communication. All right.

Now, right here in trying to train you in these techniques, it—I have a problem in communication. You see that? Many of the experience which you have had in life have directed your interest or your attention and so forth in one direction or another and given you a certainty—a good or bad certainty— on some point in existence. And you're—you maybe had some tremendous experience one time; maybe either a—whether it was a love affair, or immediately following a nitrous oxide operation, or a sudden recovery when you were young of the use of some limb or something, and it was a tremendous, exhilarating experience. And you may be evaluating everything I say as a means and route of getting back to such an experience. You may be retransposing material, you see, and all the time you're up against the horrible fact which could make you—if you didn't recognize some of these points and you weren't right on this level—it could make you, some of you, intensely antagonistic toward me.

Just the fact that—the fact that I am telling you things that you really should know (since the mechanics of life are natively known to you)—that I am telling you these things would occur to you, possibly, as a hammer and pound on "You don't know." So the fact that I am trying to communicate this material to you might stir up the fact that you have a low level of knowingness—you might think of this, so on—whereas this is not the case at all. All this is, is an invitation to a higher level of knowingness, which is: Let's put in this training as a possibility of making a lot of people well. And in yourself, let's use it as a substitute up to the time when you yourself have recovered that level of knowingness. And one of these days, you'll throw all this away—I hope so. But it's a leg up.

It's very hard, for instance, to get out of a tide-race sometimes unless somebody throws you a life preserver. And yet, quite unreasonably, I have seen men fished out of the drink, one way or the other, and have seen them curse their rescuers. This—of course, the fact they had to be rescued came at them as a direct insult to their power and pride. I have seen a rescuer very nonplused by this. He expects to be thanked, you know, and so forth.

So you see here we have a communication problem. And this is a problem simply of rephrasing the material of life itself and of knowingness itself, this way and that, and trying to code it for you this way and that, so that it becomes useful to you and useful to others because they know you, or because you process them.

Now, in the problem of communication, some of your work has been done for you, in the problem of trying to communicate to a preclear what you're trying to do. This is one you mustn't overlook. We get back on communication again, because you have two problems of communication. And don't you ever overlook this problem again—not anybody present, please. Because I'm so tired of preclears that you're processing right now coming to me and saying, "And so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on, and this was wrong and that was wrong and so on." In no time did they have a legitimate complaint except about one thing: The auditor didn't ask for the communication changes. That's the only complaint, really, that they had as a legitimate complaint.

And if the technique you're using isn't giving a communication change to the preclear—better or worse—why, you're just not getting anyplace. And if it's getting too worse, and you've decided that it's not going to break on this technique because it's getting too worse slowly …

By the way, getting too much worse slowly is a bad one. They just kind of plow in on a down curve. And when that starts happening—let me give you one little tip on that, that may save your bacon for you someday on a preclear— when they get too worse slowly and they're chugging in harder and harder into it, it may only be that you're neglecting one side of a bracket. I mean, just as little as that, as far as the technique itself is concerned. But certainly you are neglecting the physical endurance factor of the preclear. You have exceeded it somewhere along the line. And although a preclear can sure stand an awful lot and so on, if they keep on getting consistently worse over a period of about a half an hour and the technique you're using isn't making them any better, you're get—go on and get your communication changes, you'd better slide off into something else.

Don't keep making them charge up against the unwillingness, because eventually the preclear identifies you with what the preclear's trying to fight. And when that happens, you're no good to them as an auditor.

I have, by the way, seen somebody process a preclear at one or two o'clock in the morning, just insisting the preclear go on through that particular charge, and the preclear more and more unwilling, and the preclear red-eyed and groggy and very upset, and getting more and more tired and so on, finally refuse and just practically kick the auditor out, on a line. That's very stupid auditing—believe me, that's real stupid.

Remember the conditions I told you under which people had bad things happen to them? Well, one of them is auditing them late at night and another was auditing when they're too tired. Well, an individual doesn't necessarily get too tired when they're being audited, but they can get beyond a point of their ability to endure. Body too badly kicked around.

You see, there's some very, very harsh, hard techniques that you can use on a preclear, and if you kept up with one of them too long, you'd just wear him out. Not likely to happen with 8-C, but it can happen—and one of the lighter techniques of 8-C, by the way, produced a condition of weariness in a preclear, mostly because it was repetition without a communication change. Preclear merely got bored. Real bored.

He—how bored can you get? Agony. That's how bored you can get—agony. Agony is the deep emotion of boredom. Boredom, in essence, is the warning signal that agony is on its way. Boredom is not just not doing anything—boredom is an eddying back and forth which, on its lower harmonic, becomes pain, and on a lower harmonic becomes agony.

Pain is a misposition and an idling around—an eddying—of attention units. And it—you get down below 2.5, and—2.5 they're just eddying, and then as it gets more solid, why, it becomes pain.

People who are afraid of pain are afraid of being bored. So when you start to bore somebody and so on, you've got a problem of fear of pain on your hands. Lots of ways to do it. If you start to bore somebody, it's an interesting thing that you can just turn around and waste pain in brackets and you can snap them right out of it.

Pain, boredom: Pain the lower harmonic of boredom, boredom's the upper harmonic of pain. Pain is at just half of boredom on the Tone Scale. Yeah, there are several lower harmonics, and the rougher harmonics are way down.

Now, part of your work of communication as an auditor has been done for you. It's been done for you to the degree that there exist some relatively simple statements of Scientology. And it is not your role, particularly, to train a preclear merely because you're processing the preclear. The preclear keeps insisting that they want to know more about it and so forth, and what you're doing— well, there are several things that you can do. I am presently at work on an "information for preclear" pamphlet which will probably be available by the time anybody else hears this tape.

But there are several things—one of the best things you can do for them is to give them a work which they can use to exercise themselves, or turn around and do what you're doing on a minor scale. You'll find out that this will be very intriguing to a preclear if he hasn't had very many interests in life, and you—he sees that you're doing something for him, and he wants to turn around and do something for somebody else, well, you have a route to do that.

That's why Self Analysis in Scientology stays in the run. Now to date, Self Analysis in Scientology has sold in excess of twenty-eight thousand copies and it's still going up. And by the way, the book has never been sold. I mean, nothing ever happened to this book except it just sits there.

But what it was—let me tell you about this little book. It—what it was, was a statement in the reference of people who were not technically informed. I produced the text of this book by having it read by several people who did not have high-school educations, and found out from them what they didn't understand in the text. And then each time shifted the text till they did understand it, and then had somebody else read it. And I had several people do that, and I finally got back what is in the early part of the book here: a statement of getting to know oneself and the problem of consciousness and unconsciousness, and all is just a statement of survival, and the less conscious you are, the less aware you are, so the worse you see—and great simplicity. And it goes on with its simplicity; but more than that, it gives them exercises they can employ on themselves.

Now, originally this book was written as recalls, and was shifted off into mock-ups—and was shifted off at the time it was being published, the British edition. And as a result, there are two or three places in the book that don't quite jibe to imagine a scene about. But that's all right. In later editions, this is corrected; earlier editions aren't.

Well anyway, a person can take this and he can have a lot of fun with it from the basis of life and behavior. He's got this chart here, and this chart will tell him a lot of things if he wants to figure those things out. But you get how elementarily simple this book is, at the same time appearing to be rather technical. But it's real simple.

Once in a while, somebody will come to me (ah, I love this little trap; I lay this trap for them)—somebody will come to me—when somebody says this, I really have it backfire on him. And he says, "Well, I don't know, that book of yours, Self Analysis—it's very, very complicated and so forth," and so on.

I say, "Yes. Yes, well how did you like the dissertation on the likening of life to horticulture in the second chapter? And—you know, likening it to flowers and so forth, and how we learn from plant life about how we ourselves live. How did you like that in the second chapter?"

"Oh," they say, "that was all right. I understood that all right. But there's some other portion …"

And I'll say, "Well, why don't you go read the book, huh?" That's—is of the essence. Because there is no such chapter on horticulture.

Now, you'll find that when the book has been misunderstood, it just hasn't been read. But instead of you burning up a tremendous amount of processing time trying to instruct somebody, you'd better give them an elementary statement which they can maunder over, and some exercises which they can do. Because they're always asking you, "Now, what can I do between now and the next session?" something like that.

Well, if you've got a book Self Analysis, you say, "Well, between now and the next session, why you do …"—and you must be very specific about this— very, very specific. You could look at this book very carefully and you say, "Now, all right. Now, you do—you read from—you read from page 13 to page 20, 20—uh—20 … Yes, from page 13—no, to page 15, and you do the exercises between page 66 and 69. And be sure you do all of those." And they'll be real happy. And it'll do them a lot of good.

A theatrical troupe once took this book, and in the interests of becoming a better theatrical troupe, they simply took this book and they sat down around backstage in the morning after rehearsal—this sounds incredible to you, but they slugged it for two hours a day. Two hours a day.

Now, there was one case of the group that was strictly "What head?" Couldn't get out, Resistive V, had been processed, and without success, on very early techniques. And they did it for three months. Sounds horrible, doesn't it? But three months they kept at that. And at the end of that time, it had never occurred to anybody to say to this fellow—because he was a famous case, you see—never occurred to anybody to give him any further processing.

Well, they told him one day—a friend of his said to him, "Well, let's give you a session." And he starts in routinely with no hope at all, he says, "Be three feet back of your head," the fellow was—with perception. He had just gone there on this book.

So your homework on the preclear at this level won't get you in any trouble beyond this: some somatic that's liable to turn on and it frightens him and he doesn't keep on long enough to run it out. If he just ran two or three more mock-ups, believe me, he'd run it out.

Now, let me tell you something about you as an auditor. Any time some case is really baffling you, you just steady it down and you take a copy of Self Analysis and you give the case the next-to-the-last list in Self Analysis, right over here where it says, "Remember something real." And that's the second list to the next—the bottom list on page 145: "Recall a time which really seems real to you," and so forth, and is continued over here on page 146. And you just start in the case right there. And then you go back over here to an early session, like on page 66, 67, and you just start in on the preclear. And look, I'll guarantee you something—I'll absolutely guarantee this will happen: That in that short space of time, within an hour's processing, your case will be flying straight and flying level.

And if you think you—some case is loused up beyond anything ever redeeming it and so forth, just do that. You've got a security in this book, and that's been tested over and over and over. I don't think that an auditor realizes that fact, because maybe he himself is not such a tough case. Maybe his values about existence are not as upsetting as the preclear's.

Now I'll tell you one thing about it that is quite interesting. I myself have taken this advice about five times. And each time, I found that I had been overshooting the case. And the case suddenly relaxed and got good communication changes and snapped into it and took some responsibility in existence and so forth. In other words, I wasn't giving the case any kind of processing that equaled that processing.

Well, the reason that book is there is because it will hit the upper-range psycho, the lower-range neurotic, it'll hit the kid—it'll keep kids going, so on.

(Recording ends abruptly)

COMMUNICATION PAGE 6 2ACC-28B - 20.12.53

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 2ACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1953]]