View source for History And Development Of Processes Questio (9ACC 541217)

'''Series:''' 9th Advanced Clinical Course (9ACC)

'''Date:''' 17 December 1954

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_9ACC|Back to Series]]

That would be the end of him. The guy would go so far down into a degradation that he would simply shift entirely away from the entire area of the planet. Such a-.

Female voice: Come here.

Huh?

Female voice: Come here would he?

Well, this isn't the worst planet by a long ways. But he could. He could come here.

Female voice: Where would be the worst one?

Oh, I don't know. They get pretty bad.

Female voice: You know, it's SO disappointing-.

There's another universe that's a hell of a lot worse than this. Oh, much.

Female voice: Why?

There are about seven universes - pardon me, there are about six universes south of this one. Oh, because of the monotony of constituency of the universe, that is to say no variation to amount to anything in it and yet the people inhabiting it yet capable of considerable complexity, unable to achieve any complexity at all. How would you like a universe of mud? There is one. Nothing but mud.

Female voice: This is the thing that's so disappointing. These people that you mentioned have that - such terrific intelligence of individual mind, this man on Marcabian, being on a planet you mentioned; and yet, they seem to lack, from what I've heard of them, any basic goodness. I mean there seems to be such a - . It's so very disappointing.

You see, this planet's not necessarily good or bad, it's just that the games which have evolved in there are heavy planet type games. They have a lot to do with space opera, they have a lot to do with cops and robbers and so on, and their technology is quite superior and quite advanced. It's the kind of a - you see, a great intelligence doesn't necessarily denote either a great moral principle or a freedom.

Female voice: So that as thetans, they may - might be lower than we are actually.

Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. But their whole idea is to get people inside. You could imagine, you could imagine a planet made out of a population all of whom had an insane, compulsive exteriorization. How would you - how would this look to you?

The heavy, the heavy-planet boys are the ones that, have occasionally attracted my great interest. They start working immediately with radioactive stuff; they never go through a fire stage. See, they never, never have the civilizing influence of fire. Fire is a civilizer, and you have to work and you have to get quite complicated with fire. If you had boundless supplies of radioactive materials; if everybody around was more or less conditioned to radioactive - radioaction of one type or another, you would discover that you had no real lack of fuel. So you could do some fabulous things mechanically; you could set up in the physical universe some fabulous mechanics. You could build a space wagon that would run for an awfully long time. You see? And you could do all sorts of things like this.

But what they do is, is they never learn how to be civilized before they have the tools and weapons which require an enormously advanced civilization to control. Now, somebody very bright comes up in that society where everything is very easy for everybody, you see, you know no great lack of fuel or anything like that. And somebody real bright suddenly turns up either by his experience or something of the sort, and he finds himself in the interesting position of having to use his intelligence on a suppressive line if he is going to survive at all or if the society's even going to stay there for a moment. The criminality of such a society is fantastic! The amount of criminal action that you would consider criminal action. The amount of respect for the individual is zero. Why? Here you had a society evolving in the presence of enormous quantities of fuel, which - anyone of which fuels would supplant any ability of a thetan. Now that is a type of Garden of Eden which would backfire, wouldn't it?

Such a civilization is the civilization of Marcab. For instance, anybody approaching - this was some little time ago - anybody approaching a particular judge there - would find himself, if he was considered to be in contempt of court or anything like that, simply fried since there was a curtain of radioactive material which went clear across the front of the bench anywhere that a witness or anybody would stand, and so on. Push button. This judge, of course, had the right to do this. What gave him the right to do this? The possession of the control of a great many radioactive substances. So we would not have any idea of mores or morals based on anything else but forte main. We had a civilization here on Earth which was based very heavily on forte main in the Dark Ages. Forte main - might made right. Now, that was all there was to that.

Male voice: Not-is, not-is, not-is. Yeah.

Female voice: Is - are there any places in the universe where the thetans are at a high level and where ethics do exist?

Oh, yes! Yes, yes, yes. Oh, my, yes. To a much greater degree than here. However, they have been very civilized. As far as technology is concerned what's real wild, what's real wild is the degree to which all of these civilizations are running on the automatic evolution which has simply taken place without any real inquiry into the situation. There's the entrance point of the MEST universe - we hear about this often - is not an entrance point of the MEST universe at all, but it is a bunch of people who claim they are the entrance point of the MEST universe and who indoctrinate people into entering this particular universe. But the people are already in it. There's some of the Planet Builder's Societies which existed in this galaxy and have since gone practically out of existence in this galaxy.

Female voice: Gone broke have they?

Huh?

Female voice: Gone broke. They must have gone broke.

Actually, the amount of planet building which goes on in this galaxy now is practically zero; it's no longer in that nebulous state which invites planet building, you know, in great quantities. The action of building a planet was all very friendly and all very nice and everything was fine at this end of this galaxy for quite some long time. And then as the game started to go to pieces we started getting people hiding the automaticities, you know, hiding parts of this game, and it made automaticities; and the planet builders who were in this particular area went by the boards. See, they went rapidly by the boards. Why? Well, just simply on the basis of the game. You see? Anytime you get an ended game, you get a chaos of one kind or another. People don't necessarily learn from this chaos.

You take, for instance, this society going now on a evolutionary cycle of the - such a parallelism to so many societies' evolutionary cycles that it doesn't look like a game to me. See? It just looks like a big bumbling automaticity that a bunch of intelligences get to work and they suddenly work themselves into a point of where there's only a handful of guys on the planet who can play the game; and that game is blowing up this particular planet.

Male voice: The cycle of existence.

Huh?

Male voice: The cycle of existence.

The cycle of existence, right! All right.

There is - there are several lessons. But there's some existences, which are not necessarily antipathetic towards survival, but these are where people are willing to make games out of things. Instead of - the one thing that nobody has ever learned, though, as a cardinal rule, has simply been this: The way you end a game, the way you end a game must include in it a way to make a new game.

And the ending of a game can be a very serious affair, can be a very - a very catastrophic affair as any preclear may have experienced. You suddenly get him over his lumbago and that is his favorite game. And it's a hell of a game, if you want my candid opinion, to go gimping around all the time; that's his total game. And you get him over this game and he gets mad as hell at you; he gets real mad at you. Well, if you simply go around ending lumbago, such as maybe chiropracty or something like this would do, you're playing up the line of a great liability. The only safe way to process would be a direction which we have always more or less processed toward and never articulated particularly and that is an increase in general ability so it naturally increases the individual's ability to have a game. Don't be surprised that you practically clear somebody rather easily and then find him out there in the insurance business, see, instead of staying with Scientology or doing something for you or somebody else. You've improved his ability to have a game. He'll go out and get a job, he'll go out and do something, he'll go out and learn how to play a piccolo or anything, see? But he is playing a game. Now, you get no kickback from this preclear, but also at the same time you lose him.

Female voice: The point is there - I mean, those that - those that do that are very limited - limited in another direction as well. They're limiting themselves deliberately in order to play that game. But with processing most preclears they get a glimpse of what they could be or it tends to generate them a jolly sight harder than anything they've got.

Well, you're processing toward truth, and have consistently. The only time that we would really get into trouble is supposing we had a process whereby the snap of the fingers on the part of the auditor would restore the complete use of the right leg, which has been paralyzed up to date, you see? All right, pang, see, and that leg is then restored. You are going to get chaos. Just as they got chaos a couple of thousand years ago here on this very planet. You see that? With no volition on the individual's part at all, he was suddenly cured of leprosy. Yaaaah! Now, we don't find any of these, really, many of these people that were cured in this fashion suddenly following in the van and doing all sorts of things, you know, we didn't find this at all. But we found an awful lot of people ganging up to hang this man, didn't we, huh? That civilization couldn't rest until they got him on the cross, nailed tight.

We have no slightest idea how many miracles - because of the later impact we can't doubt the fact that something happened then and that somebody existed at that time; we - something happened, there was somebody around. But the very violence of this seems to denote that a great many more people were affected than are commonly listed. And we discover obscure mentions in the various books of the Bible of this and that happening, such as seventy disciples going out and they're supposed to heal everybody in sight.

Male voice: If you cured - if you take six psychos and you just, you know, magically waved a wand and they're well, what would happen to all the people around them? How would they feel, the people around them who had a vested interest in their psychotic, that's - Well, they'd want to hang you, of course.

Male voice: - other people's games. Mmm.

Male voice: It's real hard to make some of these psychos, and you come along and mess that up: silly boy! Mmm. The psycho, of course, being so helpless is very easy to own as a terminal.

Male voice: Oh, boy.

Male voice: Oh, it's true.

Yeah. And similarly, a person who is - who is in bed. But increasing an ability as we have, well, almost always done to some degree or another, we have escaped in Dianetics and in Scientology this tremendous kickback that has practically ruined several fields. Which has caused, by the way, the Christian Church to almost utterly abandon healing as any sincere endeavor.

But the raising of ability is a very secure line of action. But raising ability to do what? See? To play a game, and that is a very, very secure, good, easy thing to do.

I had a fascinating thing occur one time, with a couple. I might tell you about it just apropos of nothing. The wife and the husband had been quite quarrelsome one with the other, in other words, their game was fighting each other. And I processed the husband. And it looked like it was going to be the standard line of where then the wife would get mad and this would blow fuses in all directions. But the husband changed a consideration which was an interesting consideration to change: That a woman, was not a legitimate opponent. A woman was something you fought over or fought about, not somebody you fought with.

Now, whether this is true or false we're not interested, but he did change his consideration to this degree. And it changed the marital relationship, but the marital relationship hung together. This is probably a little bit more, well, atavistically, possibly a little closer to the truth. This fellow had been raised by a great many sisters and he had gotten firmly fixed with this idea that the person you fought with was a woman; he was absolutely fixed on this kind of a combat terminal. And that, of course, is a very silly combat terminal.

I mean, he would have to stay down in the field of argument, of thinking, you know, of doing this and that to carry the fight - nagging and fault finding, to carry the fight forward at all, you see? In view of the fact that he was not a small man and if he'd ever wound up and hit a woman as hard as he could, you see, he probably would have killed her. So it was a completely stopped flow. He was holding himself back from entering into physical combat all the time. All because of course, you could say, his early indoctrination. But actually simply because of a mistaken terminal.

What did happen and also might be of interest to you, is that he discovered some other things he could fight. There were other things around; there were other terminals. And he had been neglecting his business most gorgeously. He ran a chain of service stations and he'd just been neglecting his business and neglecting the employees and neglecting the attendants, you know, and the managers and so forth and he started to go to war with these boys. And they found that he was not a legitimate opponent as far as they were concerned and they just quit fighting with him and immediately went to work and he became very successful.

Female voice: What happened to the wife?

In this particular case, as it might or might not be in many, many cases, the sudden release of constant bickering as far as he was concerned and his sudden understanding of her, or that is to say his putting up with what she was doing, he wasn't looking for every chance to claw her eyes out or do something of the sort - made her go find somebody else to fight with too. But she didn't go on trying to fight with him. Now, in just as many cases you could say possibly that she'd suddenly find no terminal there to fight with and she would pack up and leave or she would go into apathy or she would get sick or something bad would occur. In this case it didn't occur.

His attitude to her was thoroughly changed. Anytime that a husband suddenly starts to bring home flowers and take somebody out to a theater just because of something he wanted to do, you see, not even necessarily because (which I was amused at) not necessarily because he wanted to make up to his wife for anything, but this was the proper thing you did for a woman. He evidently went back on a pattern of about 1850 or something like that, one of these older patterns of treatment of a woman. I mean, he just was nice to her and gave her things and so forth and was very tolerant of her. There was no fight possible because this was not somebody you would fight with.

Male voice: Is there some way you can do something about - I know one fellow like an Irishman in a pub and only - everybody's too small for him. He's looking for somebody to start a fight with. This guy's probably going frantic because he can't do it, he's - either it's not worth it or else they're above and beyond fighting with him. Can something be done for him directly?

Well, I'd give him a nice big mountain to fight.

I'd get him fighting mountains and oil wells. He has his attention too firmly fixed on people as a target. It's very easy for a thetan to tackle MEST.

Yes?

Male voice: On the process that you talked about before having the writer mock up using communications. Would you run that before 8-C?

On this particular writer? Remember that any subjective process has the liability that it's not going to be done. I would not vaguely process anybody until I was - on a subjective process - until I was awfully sure that they were capable of obeying an order which I myself gave them. They might not find themselves - they might not obey the orders from life itself, you see, they might be so far out of communication still that they would only obey - you know, we didn't run it too long, we didn't run it very long - but we certainly did get them up to the point where they would obey the auditor's order. And only then - you see, they'd still be comm lagging and doing other things but they were doing it, see, they were trying. Only safe thing, I mean the only thing you could worry about is that they would skid suddenly. So when I do a subjective process on somebody, I intersperse them with 8-C. I let them go subjective until I find that they seem to be wandering or combative with me. And then instead of fighting with them, which they obviously want to do, I show them that there are some more terminals around by having them touch the walls and so forth and then I go on and process them with some other process.

Male voice: How long would you do that?

Hum?

Male voice: Is 8-C interspersed in there?

Just until I was absolutely sure he was following orders.

Male voice: I was running him on steps one and three on SOP 8-C and about every, oh, ten minutes - no, about every five minutes for a while on Holding Corners, then, "Hey, go over and touch the wall," do it about twice, send him back, and go on for a while.

Uh-huh.

Male voice: It didn't take much.

Curious. In this particular case this fellow has had quite a few hours of 8-C. There's only one trouble with this particular boy: His activity in life. His most recent activity in life operates as a tremendous barrier to him. And that is very much of a thinkingness activity. He basically wasn't looking for any terminals to fight, you see? He was simply putting ideas down on pieces of paper and all of his fighting was intensely synthetic - it was all on the pieces of paper amongst various characters with a complete stuck flow. Now, this individual possibly could be run on enough 8-C to snap him out of it. There's no doubt about it that it was therapeutic. But what I'm talking about is the rehabilitation of a single ability. And that would make the grade.

Female voice: Hey, you said something else this time; you said he didn't have any outflow power. Now, we can think of writers, for instance, Heinlein has outflows toward sometimes.

Female voice: And some of these other things we have to outflow toward, which is quite different than just putting -

Another thing is - .

Female voice: - it down on paper.

... is practically no writers today ever tell stories. There are a few of them around, the better ones do. They tell stories to groups of people. And, you find somebody who is rather moody and a little bit having trouble with the society or with people and you put him into the field of writing and you've got real trouble because he's going to get a stuck flow sooner or later. He's at least never going to get any acknowledgment.

For instance, the damnedest guy I ever knew - he is a louse, he is a dog, there is no doubt about this - a fellow by the name of George Bruce, and he's writing out for MGM, or was, making quite a bit of money. He used to write aviation stories and so on. And this guy possessed the facility - the only reason which kept him going as long as he did - he possessed this enormous facility for being able to take a crowd of casual people and tell them some exciting adventure one way or the other and I don't care if it was an awfully big room, they, even the waiters serving the cocktails over there, would just get thoroughly wrapped up in this - in this fantastic story which everybody knew was probably a horrible lie anyhow. But they would all get wrapped up in it and they would laugh in the right places, you know, and then look horrified; and to do that in this blase', modern society is quite a trick, quite a trick to get very much in social - you go out on parties or something like that. It's fantastic. Well, George Bruce was still able to do this. I never saw the like of it. I mean, I've sat there and listened to this boy tell some of the most horrible swindles and complete utter lies and actually have seen waitresses stop at tables, just stand there with their dishes in their hand listening to this. It - his presence was terrific.

Well once upon a time, probably in Shakespeare's day and earlier on the track and so on, ninety percent of a fellow's writing was probably done this way. And then he would sometimes put it down because his friends insisted and then it would get into a published form. Published form was very secondary. Here the published form is primary. And that will murder off art everyday of the week. We find in the Renaissance, who was it, was it Michelangelo that used to go around and announce the fact he'd been there by drawing a perfect circle on his friend's door? He was the only one in town that could draw a perfect circle absolutely freehand. You know, pang! And we discover in the earlier part of this century the - and the last part of the last century the painters around Paris, and so forth, just didn't care who the hell they painted for. They'd paint all over the wine shop and they would paint all over the tables and just anything, anybody, anywhere. They were always assured of an audience.

Female voice: Robert Louis Stevenson -

Oh my yes! Yes, indeed. Sure. His first - his first, when he was even out in Samoa, he had an old pal by the name of Judge Chambers and he would tell Chambers, who was I think resident or something, judge, part of that commission that was governing Samoa at the time, and he would tell him a story and if the judge fell asleep Stevenson wouldn't even write it.

But, here is as you see this canned entertainment move in, for instance not even a writer today supposes that anybody was at the other end of a TV program. No, that's right; I'm talking - talking factually, not sarcastically.

Male voice: He writes it for the producers and the - .

Yeah. It wasn't - it wasn't toward the public. We know that. We feel no presence of a storyteller in such programs. In magazines, today, we really don't feel the presence of a storyteller. We feel the presence of a, of a pattern of some sort. There's got to - lots of it and it has to be turned out to a digestible standard. And therefore, reading popular fiction today does not fulfill, for a writer, the origin of the communication for him because he wrote it for the publisher and so did the other writer.

Male voice: Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Edgar Rice Burroughs. Yes. Of course Edgar Rice Burroughs, weirdly enough, was, he and H. G. Wells actually loom up now in this day and age as being terrific towers. My God, I mean this - the man - the imaginative flow which that man turned out compared to what you're picking up off the newsstands today is fabulous. But we even go into this level of operation that he was doing and we can look on that as being a rather giant operation. We're having a rough time today in the arts, I should say.

Female voice: Look at where H. G. Wells ended up. His final book was apathy, apathy, apathy all the way through.

Sure. Of course H. G. Wells was in a horrible position. There were, during his lifetime that he was aware of people being around, what he chose as contemporary authors to himself must have told him as well that he was being very generous. He was a social revolutionist out of his time and period; just madly out of his time and period. The day of the social revolutionist was 1870 and that was not Wells' date. Well!

Female voice: He made an awful lot of right predictions too.

Oh, you bet.

Female voice: Few of them were wrong.

That guy must have a stuck flow on being right.

Next life I bet - that's right. Next life I bet he'll come back and work for the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Something to be wrong!

Okay. I've held you a long time over. I suppose you better go to your regular auditing period. Now, I want you to be - make sure that you understand subjectively and as an auditor the consequences and results of remedying communication scarcities. I really want you to understand that. There are three scarcities: origin, answer and acknowledgment. And I want you to understand very, very well what happens with regard to this because this is the basic playing field. It exists before barriers because communication itself is simultaneous with barriers. I want you to get a real good look at this and then we'll open up our guns on the invention of games.

(end of lecture)

[[Category:Lectures 9ACC]]