View source for Getting The Pc Into Session (1MACC 591116)

'''Series:''' 1st Middle-American ACC (1MACC)

'''Date:''' 16 November 1959

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_1MACC|Back to Series]]

Thank you.

Now, once upon a time there was a mystery. And it consisted of what is the pc thinking about? What was he thinking about? Was he doing the auditing command? What was wrong with him? He'd get all tired out going in and out of his head, try and look and the great, great, great, great grandfather of this was invented. Great great grandfather. Cheer up! There you are. It's reading her. Good. Now… Oh, you think it wasn't? There it is. All right. Well, let's see if we can make it read him. He's off the meter. What are you doing in a female valence?

This E-Meter probably makes auditing possible. It certainly makes clearing possible. And I don't know how you'd go about clearing somebody without an E-Meter today. I don't know how you would go about it.

Let's look at this first phenomenon. Pc's reading up here about 5.0 on the tone arm. Pc's reading 5.0 on the tone arm. You're going to audit this pc? Oh, no you're not! You can't audit this pc! This pc is too fixated on PT problems, ARC breaks and overt acts that are current, right now. Now have you all learned that this far?

Audience: Yes.

Well, we used to tell auditors, "Find the PT problem and flatten it, get off the ARC breaks." Well, this right here, tone arm – tells you they exist and just by bringing this back at least, at least to the Clear reading for the pc – not even fascinated with bringing it any further down – but at least bringing it back to the Clear reading for the sex of the pc (3.0 for male, 2.0 for female), you're pretty sure you've got the PTPs and the ARC breaks off the case. You got that?

Audience: Yes.

And then auditing can happen. Not to do this is a disobedience of the Auditor's Code. Stay in two-way communication with the pc. You're not going to be in two-way communication with somebody that's got private problems he's not talking to you about. You're not going to be in two-way communication with a pc that's got a whole bunch of ARC breaks with you as the auditor. And much more vitally, which is a brand-new point on the research line, only about a year old, and only just now being widely released to you, is that a pc with overt acts he knows about on any dynamic is not in two-way communication with his auditor. And there is no process known to man that will bite on such a pc and clear him. Now get that!

Now this imposes a brand-new responsibility on you as an auditor. Clause nine of a Code an [of a] Scientologist says not to impart the secrets of my preclear. Now, of course that means the personal secrets of the pc are inviolate to the auditor until the pc doesn't give a damn who you tell. And that happens awfully fast in Scientology. That's very fortunate because that doesn't bottle us up with eighteen billion secrets. You understand?

We ask him after a while "You know that affair you had in Austin. How about that? Still a secret?"

"Oh-ho-ho, nonsense," you know.

We ask this girl, "Your husband know yet?"

And she says, "Well, yes, yeah. What about it?"

"Oh," you say, "okay."

You'll find out that it's only somebody that's pretty doggoned aberrated that is holding them to their bosom and will never afterwards permit anybody to say anything about it. They're not getting Clear.

Look, I know what sin is. I've run across very few pcs that ever committed a sin. These little, two-bit, half-hearted transgressions that most of them are totally hung up on, you can't even get your teeth into. You know, they just aren't important to anybody but the pc.

A pc is so starved for social acceptance, so frightened of loss of two-way communication with his or her fellows that they withhold these transgressions so thoroughly that they knock themselves out of two-way communication – right out of it. Because they don't want to be knocked out of two-way communication they knock themselves out of two-way communication.

A hundred random pcs, stacked up in a row, haven't enough present lifetime sin to make a good pornographic piece of literature. That's right!

Most of the sin is on the back track. And they can talk about that because, fortunately, the society still has a feeling that a death pays the penalty. Still believes this, see. Everybody else believes this, too. So that they get their past lives and go crazy.

But, the point I'm making here is that given this lifetime, the number of dread, dark secrets that you drag out of a pc, which must never, never, never be told anybody, anybody – honest, you're just going to sit there and go, "Ho-hum."

"Well, there was this little boy in the neighborhood. I hate to have to tell you this. I hate to."(Oh, so what!)

"Well, when I was a little girl, I was in a variety store, I stole a balloon."

"One day, the neighbors let me take care of their baby and I spanked him. I did. I probably ruined his life. It proves it because twenty-three years later, he broke his leg."

Aw! Modern man doesn't know what sin is. That's right. I'm not asking for more sin. I'm just warning you what kind of balderdash you're going to pull this needle down with. See? You're going to pull this tone arm down with some of the darnedest things that are secrets.

But, it imposes a responsibility on you. Amongst auditors it is very, very difficult to keep a secret. Scientologists do talk to Scientologists. All too much. All too much. They kind of consider it in the family, and so forth, and that makes it all right.

Well, be polite. After you've got the processes flat and so forth, just ask the guy, "Is it all right if I mention your case?" And if you've flattened the process, a hundred and ten times out of a hundred, he'll say, "Oh, yeah, that. Yeah, oh sure. Yeah. Wonder why I was so worried about that?" Well, he was so worried about that because he was nuts! Let's be factual.

Now, only here and there is there a secret imparted to bring this tone arm down which would actually cause the person to be imprisoned or severely injured if it were known. Well, I'll tell you, frankly, I'm going to expect you to get so clever at pulling down the tone arm that nobody is safe with you on the other end of the meter! You understand? I'm going to ask you to get that clever.

At the same time, although the bulk of these – just chaff and a breath in the wind… Oh, for instance, marriage would be better off if they both talk. As a matter of fact, this is such a truth that, as a little boy I remember standing in a motion picture, silent picture theater, at the back – I was leaving; they'd already shown the serial, you know, and everybody was being killed in the serial, that was all I was interested in, and they were showing this – this horribly gruesome, long drawn out story of a couple who were having trouble with each other. I remember standing in the back of the theater looking back at this thing, and so forth, (I think I must have been all of about five, you know) and saying, "Aw, why don't they talk. Just why don't they talk to each other, you know. What a pipe. What a couple of saps, you know." And went on my way. Very fundamental truth.

They're keeping dread secrets from each other to this degree: that they come to hate each other. And their total hatred of each other is based upon their total overts.

Somebody starts hating you – casewise, you'd better look at what you did to them, but lifewise, you'd better figure out what they did to you because that's the only thing that can cause them to be estranged. Got that? We hate those we have done things to. Got it? It's just as simple as that.

And you find some little girl hating her mother. Yeah, maybe her mother's an old harridan – it's all explained, you've got it all figured out, it's so obvious why she should hate her mother. No! It's not obvious at all! You could run out Mother ad nauseam without ever changing the child's feeling to Mother. You mean to say a child cannot cope with a rowing, mean, ornery mother? See? Child can cope with it. What you've got to do is find out what the child did to Mother. I know it sounds extreme but all of a sudden the child looks at Mama and sees Mama for what Mama is and says, "Well, that's my mama!" Got the idea?

And you see a mother hating the child, don't go looking at how tumultuous and difficult this child is. Look at what Mama did to the child. You'll find all sorts of things: didn't want it, you see, and all the time it was coming, didn't want it and hoped to get rid of it, you know; thought mean thoughts about it; wanted a boy and got a girl or wanted a girl and got a boy, you know; and winds up chop, chop, chop, chop. If you were to say, "Mama, what have you done to that child?" Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. I've not done anything to the child, at all."

"What have you done to your husband?" You know.

"Nothing."

"What have you done to anybody in the world?"

"Nothing."

Look at that tone arm, sitting way up! See, sitting up there pretty near 5.0. Well, that's the time for you to get clever. Get clever. This is the time technology is not at all going to fail you, if it ever has. Not going to fail you at all! There are no special cases where the tone arm is high because of a strange valence. Do you hear me? Because the second you begin to believe that, somebody can fool you. You can believe this: that you haven't been clever enough to find the overts.

Now, the way you get clever – there's a very pattern way to do this – you say to the pc, you say: "What question mustn't I ask you?" And you get a duck and you say, "That's it. What is it?" and he generally tells you. See, you do that a few times, you know. "What question shouldn't I ask you?" Bang! You got the information, right now! See? It brings it down that far. And you say, "Well, what question shouldn't I ask you?"

"Can't think of one."

Needle doesn't apparently register. Nothing seems to be happening on this meter. You say, well, I can't get it out of her, or I can't get it out of him. I can't figure it out: what it is. My pat question, "What question shouldn't I ask you?" that has failed. So, that relieves me of all further responsibility.

About the only answer you'd have left at that time would simply be to end the session. Because I'm telling you, don't audit them with their tone arm that high! See? Now between the point where a pat, immediate, forth flow of the pc of all the hot dope, between that point and the point where you get the arm down: it's your cleverness. You've got to be clever. Understand? So, just believe me right now, you're clever! No other answer, and so on.

You can do this sort of a thing by assessment. You can start up the dynamics – not calling them one, two, three, four but just like you do any other – any kind of an assessment. You talk about any part of any dynamic you can think of and watch that needle, if you want a pattern way of going about it. But you watch that needle, and you get clever. It wiggled a little bit when you said "children," but it dived when you said "animals." "Animals. Children. Puppies. Young animals. Rabbits. Young rabbits." Psewwwww! Tone arm fluctuates.

"I didn't think you'd ever know."

I don't know – tell you what they did to young rabbits. If they don't tell you, then, spot it in time. Do an "over and under," you know. "Ten years ago? More than ten years ago? Less than ten years ago?" Get it bracketed right down practically to the instant of the day and, believe me, by that time they'll be sitting there, even if they're occluded, sort of feeling the whole thing again. Almost nothing can stand up to that.

But, you've got to be slippy. You've got to be clever. It isn't enough to say: "Children? Sex? Groups? Mankind? Animals? Physical universe? Thetans? God?" "Hm. Well, it must be a special kind of valence." You got to flog around on this thing. Now, it's a nice trick doing this without ARC breaking the pc totally.

I remember talking to a young criminal. And the meter said very, very clearly that he was a criminal. Meter said with great clarity that we had a criminal on our hands. When we talked about groups, it went zzzzzzz. When I talked about cops, it went duuuuuu. Oh, I got it down that far. I talked about jail, needle tied a bow in itself. So, I said, "Have you ever been to prison?" "Nope." Psewwwww! "Nope. Nope. Nope." So, I just launched out on a dissertation of the horrors of solitary confinement. Hm! And said it was real hell going through the rest of your life in solitary.

He just, boom, "All right. Yes. That's right. If anybody found it out, that'd be the end of it. Job finished. The family finished. Everything wiped out. Throat cut and so forth. But, it's true. All right. That's it." Laid it on. Drew it out in pictures. And I said, "Well," – the needle didn't come down all the way, you know – and I said, "Now, what crime have you committed that you weren't arrested and jailed for?" Psewwwww! Uh-uh. Uh-uh. Uh-uh. No further conversation or two-way communication involved. That was it. Brick walls were flimsy compared to this boy because he could be sent to prison for this one.

So I just started in on all the things you could do. Rape, theft – theft of a car finally showed up – type of car, and I got down to the point where the owner's name began with a letter in the first half of the alphabet. And he said, "All right. All right. All right. It was in Seattle and so-and-so and so-and-so, and nobody's ever found out about it to this day and the car was wrecked and so forth, and I got out of it, and I – I – I was st – st – still on probation when it happened."

I said, "Why don't you go tell the cops?"

"Oh, no! I thought you'd do something like this and betray me."

I actually got him to go tell the police. He wasn't wanted for anything. They couldn't have cared less. They skipped the whole thing. This fellow had been living a terror for years over a crime that nobody, evidently, had ever reported.

You know, in Self Analysis, it tells the story of the fish in Lake Tanganyika, and the fish just won't swim through those shadows. Well, this is what you're blowing up with this instrument – shadows. It's the darnedest thing you ever watched. But, you be clever, see. There's gen, there's lots of gen about one of these instruments, lots of it. There's lots of know-how about one of these things.

Beyond the five basic movements of the meter there are also some tone arm positions and I will tell you about some of those now, if you would like to hear about them.

Audience: Yes.

A reading above male or female Clear, for the sex of the person, means overt act, ARC break, PTP on one or more dynamics. One or more dynamics. Not against the auditor, not against Scientologists, perhaps. Just one or more dynamics. Overt acts, PTP, ARC breaks and what do PTPs and ARC breaks add up to but overt acts. That's overt acts: heavy, current, felt and expressed: not to the auditor, not expressed to the auditor – unwillingness to, and held in.

Now, the exact phenomenon of that might be very interesting to you. We'll go into it now. Male reading is male, 12,500 ohms. That's approximately the reading of a dead body. A real dead body uninfluenced by a thetan should read somewhere around there. A man's dead body. This is high probability.

That sounds funny because a dead thetan reads clear up above 6.0. But a dead body unoccupied by a thetan, reads down here at male Clear or female Clear for a woman. That sounds weird, doesn't it?

That means a body uninfluenced, now, I've – as soon as I take "dead" out of it, you'll understand it. It's a body uninfluenced by the densities or masses appended to the thetan. With the densities and masses associated with the thetan, you instantly get a different read than Clear. Got it? That's very comprehensible. Just the word "Clear" means a person who can be in a body without grossly influencing it with his own ridges and so forth. Got it?

Audience: Yes.

That's all that is. Now, when a person is withholding a present-time problem or an overt of some kind or another, they actually have a mass out in front of them or behind them or below them or above them, someplace, and by withholding it from you, they pull it in on the body. Actually, this meter reads the body plus the thetan's physical mass. And as soon as you alter the mass of the body with a facsimile, picture, ridge, circuit, machine of a thetan, you get a different read than Clear. You got that? You get a different read.

Now, a thetan who didn't have to have circuits, machinery, ridges, pictures plastered all over everything all the time would be a Clear. You got that? There's the mechanical explanation.

Now, we care nothing about the electronic explanation. And electronics men are going to go mad every time they – they look at this thing because it doesn't quite make sense to them. But, it is a fact that the more mass a thetan pulls in on himself, the more density is expressed by the tone arm of the meter. But, everybody will tell you the more mass, the less ohms.

In this particular case the more mass, the more ohms. Now, whether the meter's wired backwards or whether or not the thetan's facsimiles are actually less dense than the body and are not-ising the body, whatever that has to do with, we don't care.

Down here at female is 5000 ohms of mass. Now, that's what a female body, short, thin, fat, Venus de Milo, should read: 5000 ohms. This is not an absolute. We're just dealing with a factor here. Male bodies should read 12,500 ohms and that's what you have at 3.0 on the meter tone arm. And as we go up, we get more and more ohms, but it means that the thetan's masses are more and more dense. He's pulling in harder and harder on the body. Got that? So, when he withholds, he impinges masses on the body and you get a higher read on the tone arm.

Now, if the last session he was run on was stuck up, gummed and messed up and he had a lot of overts in it, it merely breaks down to an ARC break. But, the thing is still in restimulation and can cause the meter to read high. He's got the masses of the last session unresolved and pinned down on the body. He's not let go of them. That's because he's guilty of an overt of some kind or another against the auditor, or something. Get the idea?

Now, that is the this-life, present time condition of facsimiles, ridges and so forth. Got it?

Audience: Yes.

You create this condition artificially and get this tone arm moving up and dropping back to the degree that you restimulate the thetan into pulling ridges, masses, machines, circuits, facsimiles, spaces and so on into PT against the body. You say, "Think of a girl you have kissed." You're going to get a mass change. Got the idea? "Think of a new dress you would like to wear." And a person whose facsimiles are not clear but are simply under the orders of the auditor at all times, instantly will change the mass of the thetan and the body. That's all. And that tone arm, then, fluctuates back and forth.

So, when you first key one in, and you say, "What part of a bean pot wouldn't you mind creating?" the guy will do something and then there's more bean pot and more bean pot and more bean pot and more bean pot and up goes the tone arm. See? More bean pot, more bean pot and all of a sudden it comes down to less bean pot, less bean pot, less bean pot impinged against the body. You see? And then more bean pot, up it goes again, more bean pot, more bean pot, but not so much bean pot now. Now, less bean pot, less bean pot, less bean pot. Got it? No bean pot. See, for this girl – no bean pot. You could drop it right then, by the way.

See, it'll match up with comm lag, it will match up with all the other auditing phenomena. Which means I must have been pretty bright to work out the other auditing phenomena that would break it down to these tone releases and so forth without the things being plotted mechanically. But, here the meter comes along and proves that these other flattenings and cognitions and three comm lags and same equal length and ability regained and all that sort of thing – well, they all match in here now against this meter.

All right. So, here it is down to female Clear for this girl on the subject of bean pots. You could skip it, if it's really down there and not just a quarter above it. See? Really down there, you could skip it. Chances are, however, it would be a quarter above that and then you'd say, "What part of a bean pot would you be willing to create?" you see, and you'd get a little bit more up like this and then back down like this and then it'd come down exactly to female Clear. See. Skip it! Clean! See.

Funny part of it is, if you ask the question a dozen more times in the early stages of a case it'd probably come up a little tiny bit and go back again. But, boy, I tell you that's really flatten them, rubbing them out, running steamrollers over them, hitting them over the head with clubs. You got the idea? So, that would be almost a total clearing of bean pots, which is almost impossible to select one particular object – I worked on this most of the summer, to try to get one object to flatten it totally. And thought at one time that I could make it work but I found out it was just my auditing. That's right. I mean, I could finally blow the person down to Clear. I'd turn it over to somebody else and they couldn't do it, they didn't do it. And we had to make up my minds that this was not something that was ordinary and skip it.

You are very seldom going to pick out of the blue one terminal, audit it with any process and have the whole thing read very cleanly at Clear. You see, and be flat and then stay that way, totally uninfluenced by anything else. See? We audit bean pots and then, pretty soon, we audit Mexican hats; there's some association between the two. We come back to bean pots and find bean pots reading just a little bit off. Got the idea? It didn't stay totally Clear. Got the idea? Because the case is too cross-associated in its early stages to clean one terminal cleanly, independent of all other terminals. You get the idea? There's too much identification left on the case. That's all that amounts to. Got that?

Audience: Yes.

What you're trying to do is get this swing up and back, up and back, up and back, up and back, to come back down within a reasonable distance of Clear before you stop the session.

Now, the funny part of it is, if you left the tone arm high during the session, in about three days it would have come down anyhow. That's the key-out. It takes from, sometimes a real rough one – it takes something like ten days to key out. And if you were running Step 6, I don't know how long it'd take to key out. That's just beefing up the whole bank and the whole bank gets solid and gets impinged on the person, on about fifty percent of the people Step 6 is running on.

Now, let's take a look at this and find if there are any more significant readings that we could get into. Yes, there is. There is a reading halfway between male and female, 2.5 on this meter tone arm, which is neuter gender, thinking machine, circuit, or a male and female couple. See, man and a woman so closely identified that they will read center. See that? 2.5 on the meter: neuter gender.

Now, oddly enough, there was one period of track where there was a third sex, and that thing reads off-beat somewhere in that vicinity. You tell me how it took three to make one. It actually took three sexual partners or something of that sort. It was pretty weird. But you'll find that on the zone of the track. And once in a blue moon you'll find somebody sitting here in, actually, that third sex. The third sex will be sitting there.

But, usually, it's a thinking machine, a robot (thinking, acting machine) – robot. But in general it's an object of some kind no matter what its purpose.

Now, when this needle falls for a man down to female you have nothing more serious on your hands than a female valence. And it's very, very funny to run some man, first, on a male valence and then a female valence – fellow's reasonably Clear: we've gotten his needle knocked down – well we run him on a female valence and he first comes to female and then pops to male. And we say, well, we got him out of that female valence! You see? Now have him run a male valence and he pops over here to female. See?

It's whichever valence he's facing, the opposite one he goes into. Now, you can have this thing go flip-flip, flip-flip, male to female, male to female, back and forth, depending on what you've got your pc confronting and he's snapping into the opposite valence, see. In order to get a male reading, for instance, in order to get a male reading we run him on females and he reads at male very nicely while we're running him on female. See? Now, while we run him – we run him on males, he slaps over here to females. Now, that's quite usual. That is not even unusual.

Now, if you're running something like a couple, you know, "What part of a couple wouldn't you mind creating?" something like that. You'll get the pc going from female to male to female, whichever one he happens to be concentrating on at the moment or sticking in between, or going to male or going to female. See, he can't quite make up his mind which two, and he's separating them out from two simultaneous valences. And he flips to one side and the other side, and so forth – and a very silly looking picture. See? But a very factual one auditing-wise. Got the idea?

Now, let's take a look at a low reading. Now, not as much is known about low readings, at this time, as will be known. That's for sure. Just as I can say not as much is known about this meter as will be known. I can make it talk and sing "Yankee Doodle" and" God Save the Queen" but I'm sure there's more can be done with it. Because I've already found out enough in the last few months to hold the next E-Meter manual up just because I had some more stuff to put in it. And then I figured out, well, I wasn't going to get it all sorted out before the 1st Melbourne, so I might as well let the meter go, so I – meter manual go, so I shipped the meter manual back and then sorted it all out almost at once!

Now, you can say that a male, reading below male reading but not down to female, is in a female or a neuter gender, neuter valence or a thinking machine or a circuit. But a male reading on down below female is in a mindless object. Mindless object, an object with a minimum of facsimiles as you would suspect as the lack of ohms resistance on this thing. See? There's very few ohms resistance expressed by one and a half on the meter. I don't know what that is; never calculated it out, where it's sitting now. It's sitting at about one and a half, something like that, somewhere down around this thing. I don't know, maybe a couple of thousand ohms, 1500 ohms, something like that. I don't know what it'd be. But he's actually reading in a sort of a detached, dispersed sort of way, outside of his own bank and he has a mindless object collapsed on the body that he is busy being.

When we say mindless object, we mean something that isn't developing facsimiles, isn't developing ridges and so forth. For instance, this ashtray is a mindless object. Got it? Now it very well might be, and I can't tell you this yet, that a person will register this way on tiny animals or mollusks or bacteria or something of this sort. See? Or they might think of themselves as a lonely energy particle that has no other energy particles anyplace and this might read low. Get the idea?

But basically, it would be something without a mind. That's as much as I can tell you about it now and I'm perfectly willing to contradict that statement at any time. That's not given totally unqualified, you understand? There's more to be learned about this. One of the reasons I sent the manual back. I said, "Oh, aw! You talk the guy down and he keeps just on going down." Didn't stop at Clear; he stopped in a weak valence. Well, of course, anybody's got a weak valence around but they don't always come down to these weak valences.

Now, somebody was circulating the idea that to audit somebody, you talked them into a weak valence and then audit them out of it. That's not the purpose whatsoever! As a matter of fact, I wasn't doing that earlier at all. I was simply talking the person down to Clear and if he sank below Clear, I talked him back up to Clear. The easiest way to talk him back up to Clear for almost anybody, but is not recommended, is to ARC break him back up to Clear.

But this minus object here, minus object, might be almost anything. But whatever it is, you can run it if you find out what it is. And, of course, you get what it is with some kind of a Dynamic Assessment. Again you're clever. You sort it out. You don't run "mindless object." You get "hat rack." He's just a ruddy hat rack, that's what he is. "Walnut." In an earlier famous case, "horsed chestnut." This person was a horse chestnut, being a horse chestnut, that was the valence he was in. Got it? "Bedpost."

Oddly enough, one negative valence I ran into was being a stone ax. He was being the head of the stone ax. That was very understandable: it was an executioner's stone ax. And he'd cut off or bashed in enough heads that he, eventually, in an incident, flew into the ax and was being an ax. And before it was run very far, he flew back into his head and was apparently totally disrelated; he thought he was being a stone. That was as near as we could get to it. Then, he thought it might be a stone ax and then he was a warrior, a Roman soldier (Roman soldiers don't carry stone axes) and then he was being in the tip of a lance. All of a sudden I realized what the early stone was. He was trying to go up the whole line of weapons being on the tip of a weapon of some kind or another all the way up the line. He was mishmashed all over the place.

Well, you've got a nice contest when you start doing that because you're on a chain, you're not on a single object. So don't be too satisfied. And you audit the single object very long, he's liable to fly into the middle of an engram that he won't like at all and start screaming. You got it?

And research will tell whether it's always the best thing to audit the valence or not. There may be better ways of handling this situation than by auditing the weak valence. I don't know of one now. But, there very well may be. I know I got away with it for a long time simply beefing up the pc to a point of where he skipped it.

A very fast way to raise the horsepower of a thetan is get him to audit strong valences. And he flies into the weak valence and then yo-yos out of it into a strong valence and gets halfway between, goes into the weak valence and finally comes out into the strong valence and then comes out of both of them. Entirely separate approach from the one you've been using. See?

The general class of the process is, "Recall a source-point," and that gives you a strong valence, you see. And the guy in the weak valence, he goes – drives obsessively into this weak valence for a short time and then he starts coming out of it. Got the idea? Hell on the pc. If he's being a horse chestnut, believe me, he gets down to the last atom in the meat before he finally comes back out of it again.

You could do it this way: you find out the guy is being a hat rack and you say, "What is the hat rack's worst enemy?" And he says, "Koala bears." All right. Audit koala bears. Got the idea? And you'll get the double valence.

Now, girls go down into this same bracket in exactly the same way. But when they're mixed up with men, they go higher. When a girl is into a male valence and so forth, she runs higher than her Clear reading, not lower. Man runs lower; girl runs higher than F, number 2.0. And you can count on girls just flicker-flackering back and forth as they're audited; and men go back and forth and so forth.

But, a very peculiar manifestation is to have a girl leave the session every time at 2.0 and come back into the session each time at 3.0, when she hasn't had enough time to commit another overt act. That phenomenon just snap! When we're dealing with phenomena of that character, we're probably dealing with a machine mind, a thinking machine of some kind or another, because valences are never that sharply flicking on a thetan who isn't also doing all of his work on the automaticity of a machine. You got the idea? And you'll find such a case will probably settle between the two, into the object, got – the thinking object. And where you get these clank! clank! clank! valence shifts: suspect machinery. You'll generally find this is the case – machinery. Got the idea?

Now the tone four needle: sweep, bang, sag. Sweep, bang, sag. The tone four – stage four, pardon me – phenomenon is always a machine. You just audit a machine or a circuit or a robot or something like that or a UNIVAC or an ENIAC or a government, and you got it made. Got the idea? It's a machine. And it will normally clear down to between – if you're clearing the person verbally, it'll clear between F and M: neuter gender, a thinking object. Below F: a non-thinking object.

The only other thing I could tell that you really need to know about this meter is, when it's all the way up to the vicinity of 6.0 or even into the black, you're reading a thetan who believes he is dead. Completely aside from the theta bop, these are the readings of a body if it were dead: but the thetan believes he's dead up that high.

I learned this from plants. When plants think they're dead, man, they rise right up there and there they are. And a plant can conceive that it's dead long before it departs. It says, "I'm dead," goes right on up here to 6.0. After that, you get no needle motion. You get nothing.

Now, there is the – the stuff as far as one of these E-Meters is concerned. And there's what one of these E-Meters is all about. Does this clarify what you've been doing with the E-Meter?

Audience: Yes.

It does. You found this helpful to some degree?

Audience: Yes.

Very good. There's no substitute for the auditor! Once in a blue moon, you'll know better than the meter. But the meter, if you're right, usually doesn't contradict you. They – they do not have strange, inexplicable, sudden departures. They're very constant in keeping with most things in the physical universe.

Now, therefore, running by the meter or auditing by the meter is infinitely safer and infinitely better than auditing just off the cuff. I can tell you this because you're not going to argue with me on the grounds that if you're going to be an OT, you shouldn't also be an E-Meter! Get the idea?

You'll get strong ideas sometimes and strong impressions. Please don't discount them as you go along and say to yourself, well, this is somebody else's case, my case, or it's really not true or something like this. You've got a strong idea about this case. It's probably very explicit. Don't go around trying to pick these strong ideas off the trees and don't try to audit with them exclusively but at the same time, when you get them pay attention to them. Huh? Just pay attention to them.

One of the things I do very often is, somebody tells me something, I see a picture of theirs. I'm not even busily looking, you know, I just, kind of, I get interested and I sort of look at this picture and it's made out of mass, too. Pic – mind's made out of mass, you know. Or they write me something or something like that and I see a picture. It'll inevitably be their stuck picture or it'll be the incident necessary to resolve the case. They're stuck at it, I'm in communication with it, I'll just be sitting there looking at it. You know?

Oh, it's no particular oddity. It's not even a tremendous ability. But, you're just stupid if you don't pay attention to it.

Because about two, three, four weeks ago, I cracked up a case that had been hanging fire for literally years. I couldn't do anything with the E-Meter to amount to anything; case was stuck right up in the dead category, see, and the E-Meter just wouldn't wobble. And every time I'd had to look at this case, I'd seen a picture of a four-poster bed. So, I just followed it down, finally dug up a sexual overt and the needle fell off the pin. But, I did it on my own facsimile of – of that person's facsimile. I wasn't even looking at their facsimile in this particular case. You got it? Can happen.

It's undoubtedly a facility which is easily developed. With your familiarity increasing, your own knowingness goes up. But I wish to call to your attention that when I want to get a job done fast, I don't trouble myself by peekabooing in and outside of somebody else's skull. I just get an E-Meter and bang through. Got the idea?

Not even terribly dependent on an E-Meter because I also know, that when you can really audit, you haven't got a meter, you can also just somehow or another bang through, you understand. Maybe not always with the same speed. Maybe not always with the same accuracy. But, you certainly can do something. And you have done things for people without a meter.

But, to get clear – fast clearing and so on, you better find out that the meter is a constant and it is of use to you and you better learn how to use it and you better work it to death because it can tell you an awful lot. Okay?

Audience: Yeah.

Okay. Now, I want anybody who's running on a valence at this time, anybody who's being fished around on a valence or any valence that has been found that should be run in this particular unit, to be switched over: "What part of a (unit name) would you be willing to create?" Okay? "What part of a (blank) would you be willing to create?" All right. And you run that, huh?

And those of you that have been running a mind – in and out, and entering, well you just might as well be assessed until something handy can be found to run. Because your case is undoubtedly shaken out to a point where it will really start purring. Okay? Just find something to run; I don't care how illogical it is.

One of the best things to search for is a psycho of some variety or another on a case and get the mad men and the mad women off the case.

That's not any particular favorite of mine, but it's just the one that plows people up the worst because it's the weakest human valence.

And when you get a valence or two flat, why, you can then go onto auditing, "What part of a body…"and then, "What part of a mind would you be willing to create?"

Okay? That's it.

Thank you.

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 1MACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1959]]