View source for Preventive Dianetics (500830)

'''Date:''' 30 August 1950

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index|Back to Main Index]]

Well, this morning we’re going to talk about Preventive Dianetics, And, to bring you up to date on a couple of little notes that came in from Elizabeth—you can do what you will with this but there’s a possibility that one of the many mechanisms of schizophrenia may be contained in the phrase, I’m all alone.” That is, the whole series of phrases which mean I’m all alone.” “I have to be by myself,” “I have to get away by myself to think it out,” and so on and so on, “I am all alone” is possibly a very responsible phrase for this. We are looking for the central phrase in various cases. And this search is an interesting one. For instance, the paranoiac seems to inevitably surrender to “against me,” This fascinates me that two little words, not three, that two little words are sufficient to cause such a serious thing as paranoia.

To think that this set of phrases could lay in ruins a continent seems, well—no motto certainly ever succeeded to that extent. But we think of, for instance, the last few years we had a fellow by the name of Hitler, I don’t know what the German equivalent of “They’re all against me” is, but I’m sure there is one. So here’s that little trick that may be—of course, schizophrenia is caused by a superabundance, evidently, of control circuitry. And it is very hard to reach the person, quite often, and it may be on a further research that this is one of the center phrases for this type of case.

Now, a repeater phrase that should be used as just a routine should be “I love you,” Use it as a repeater phrase. You may find yourself winding up in a very nice sympathy engram or something of the sort and perhaps get a grief discharge on it or something.

We want to talk this morning about a subject which probably, in the long run, is even more important than the general subject of processing. And that is fixing people up so they don’t have to be processed. And the way to fix them up is catch them at conception and keep them engram-less from there on out.

It’s a very simple formula. Around a woman who is injured, who has been jolted, shocked or who has just received news causing her great grief, say nothing. That’s around a woman, unless obviously she is either too old or too young to be pregnant. To be safe, that’s it.

Around any person who has been injured or who is anaten, say nothing, not even “Shhh.” Around anyone, in short, who has a case of analytical attenuation, be quiet.

The second stage of it is to prevent the key-in of engrams by keeping things very calm around this person, around any person; like not quarreling, for instance, in the vicinity of a child. If no disasters are striking in the vicinity of a child, he may have a large bank full of engrams and never for a moment suffer the consequences of any one of them. This is almost an impossible goal, but it is one which should be sought.

In addition to that, in Preventive Dianetics, one should give attention to the pulling of attention units up to present time on a necessity level. One could create, perhaps, an artificial necessity level. Place one athletically in danger of his life or something of the sort.

One doesn’t pull up necessity units to present time by suddenly giving a person a piece of bad news. One pulls him up to present time by oh, I don’t know, dropping him off a yardarm seventy-five feet down into the sea. That’s one method.

You know, people whose whole life flashes by when they’re drowning? They’re coming up to present time! I’m not kidding.

Hardly anyone is not better off for having been drowned, providing he lives through it and providing it itself is not an engram. Of course, you lay down these specifications, it immediately becomes impossible.

Well, these are the central pivots of Preventive Dianetics. The distance these things carry is very wide. The application of Preventive Dianetics reaches into every branch of society. I know of no part of man’s activities that could escape this, because we’re working with the basic mechanism here. We are keeping him from getting inside him the cause of insanity.

To show the vitalness of this, we could take a person who had no engrams inherently—that is to say, a very quiet prenatal bank. We could give him a youth wherein practically every day contained a parental quarrel. Nothing’s going to happen to this person. We could fix it up so that every teacher he had disliked him heartily. Nothing would happen to him. He’d get some odd educational data about the world but he would calculate how to get around it. And man being what man is, of course, it would be impossible for everybody to dislike this person, since probably he would be a rather likable person, but not for that reason.

One could give him Freudian toilet training and nothing would happen in his youth. He could lose both parents under very bad and horrible circumstance at the age of six—no reaction.

Gives us some sort of an idea of—we know how it works the other way, but when we take a look at it—the same mechanism in action, we realize how things are in the absence of the engram. It makes an entirely different picture. We’re so used to an aberrated society where everyone in it has engrams that we look at the reactivation, restimulation of engrams as the normal average procedure, and we look at the manifestations of engrams and we consider those to be man’s natural course.

It has become part of our educational strata that naturally if you do so-and-so to a person you get such and such results. Well, actually, such a generality is impossible. You’ll find out, in dealing with aberrees, if you do such-and-so to “A” and do the same such-and-so to “B,” you’re going to get two pretty widely different reactions. But we have sort of agreed upon, having read the novelists on the subject, that humanity reacts in a certain way. Now, that is an educational pattern with us. It doesn’t happen to be, in practically any part of it, true. One who is educated into the belief that the second that someone comes in and says, “Your mother is dead,” the person says, “Boo-hoo-hoo. I loved my mother very much,” and thereafter goes into a sharp decline—no. One could feel very sad about Mother being dead, feel very sad about the thing, and after the funeral, why, be in excellent shape because the painful emotion engram depends upon the physical pain engram for its action. Can’t form an engram if there’s no basic engram on which this should append.

The general breakages of affinity, for instance, would be almost impossible. The breaking down of a person’s sense of reality—if you had this person with no engrams and he was told rather consistently by somebody, “Well, you’re wrong, you know. You’re not right. You just don’t know about these things,” this person merely, instead of breaking affinity, communication and reducing his reality—see, you could tell him, “Oh, all you do is imagine,” and everything else, even if they’re a little kid. Why, the end product of this would be the child, if it were a child, would have the idea that his parent was not quite bright. In other words, it’d be an analytical adjudication. One would get the reasonable response on such a thing.

Furthermore, the number of illnesses would decrease markedly. We’ll go into that tomorrow. But the prevention of the engram would give us a brand-new society, just all by itself. No therapy, no education, just the mechanical process— everybody agrees to keep his mouth shut around a person who has been injured, who is ill or has any analytical attenuation. Just on that agreement in the society, if it carried along, within a matter of about thirty-five, forty years, you’d have an entirely different society—it would have come up a steep curve. (pop!) We are dealing, in Dianetics, with an inevitable thing. It’s as inevitable as politicians.

Here we are dealing, as I say—not to belabor the point, it doesn’t need much belaboring—just bringing to your attention that if, by some means or other, the society, not knowing anything about Dianetics, not knowing anything about techniques of application, nothing, would just agree that it was very, very bad mores, it was worse than killing a man— without knowing what it was doing to him or anything—it would be worse than voting socialist to say something around a person who was unconscious, to quarrel or otherwise disturb a woman who might be or who was pregnant—within the course of a generation you would see a marked change in the whole society.

So, it’s interesting that people who have had great confidence in a sort of an automatic working out of man of his mores—it’s interesting that he never hit upon this as being immoral. Well, he never knew it was immoral. Of course, things that are immoral are things which injure, actually. So he didn’t know about this and it was never considered immoral. But it’s an odd thing that by accident somebody didn’t uncover this one.

Man’s history demonstrates that he has stumbled onto all manner of mechanisms by accident. He knew not anything about the cause, but he knew a little bit about the effect. And he got this idea and he’d carry forward. But it was a matter of visible evidence in each one of these cases. It was a matter of visible injury, and the engram is an invisible thing. So we are being too hard on man because, actually, what has man done now? He has all of a sudden uncovered it. Don’t let’s overlook that point. Now, it will probably enter into the moral structure here in the next few years. Sell your grandmother, rob banks, do anything, but for God’s sakes, keep your mouth shut around an unconscious person. I know that that’s coming. There will be a strata there—there will be a period there at first where someone will—where people will have the tendency to say, “Shhh. Don’t talk!” I know already that there’s antagonism toward this idea in some quarters. People who are badly aberrated, suddenly becoming aware of this fact, can’t seem to resist finding an unconscious person so they can open their big yaps!

Arthur Ceppos’ daughter, Romaine, in the hospital for an appendectomy; one wonders why. Her mother had an appendectomy. Her mother died of cancer in the intestines. The girl is in her mothers valence. Nobody had worked on her, and the first thing you know on a situation which contained grief, we immediately afterwards had a necessity for an appendectomy. Bang bang bang! By the way, she was in the hospital running a fever. They were going to keep her for several days. And I went in and said, “Romaine, how old are you?” And she said, I’m nine.” There stood her grandmother who had attended to her in mumps. And all the time Romaine had mumps, the whole family would come in and say—particularly this person—said, “Well now, I’m going away, but I will be right back to talk to you.” All the time she had mumps. We blew this out. She had the mumps fever again. She recognized this on Straight-wire, came up to present time. The doctors came around, were shooting her full of penicillin, came back and she had no fever. She was in beautiful condition; left some puzzled people.

What had happened? Here was the cure, which was just an age flash. Age flash—Straightwire to what it was, springing the thing out and up to present time. Off goes the fever—101 degrees. I mean, the effect was instantaneous.

Now, while she was under ether, however, one of the nurses there came in and started to yak-yak-yak. So Ceppos, who knows his Dianetics, motioned her to keep silent. Ceppos and his editor were there seeing the girl just as she was coming out of the operating room (she wasn’t out of the anesthetic). And they tried to push this person aside. The nurse said, “Well, she can’t hear anything. She’s unconscious.” Then they dropped over the side of the girl and said, “You can remember this, you can remember everything about this.” And the nurse, who didn’t know anything about Dianetics, looked at them sideways. So Romaine was taken out of the operating room and was put on a slab somewhere else and then rested for a while and was taken to her own room. And she finally came to completely.

Well, when she came to completely this nurse was buzzing around. And the editor was there. And the nurse said, “What are you talking about? You know that people who are unconscious can’t remember anything like that.” And so on. And Romaine looked up and said, “Were you talking about somebody talking?” And the nurse said, “Yes. Now, do you remember anything about what happened back there in the operating room?” And Romaine said, “Oh, yes. I remember what you said.” This nurse took a look-see and walked out. What she did not know was that when Romaine was put into the hall, she came out from under the ether on one of those resurgence peaks, and the nurse was talking there beside her there at that time too. And Romaine was remembering a point where she was nearly conscious. She didn’t remember this other point at all. A very spooked nurse!

The indoctrination of people into this principle is very, very difficult until, suddenly, they know about it. I should have brought a letter from a medical doctor who is using this. He says he’s having an awful hard time educating other doctors with whom he is working into being quiet around his patients when they are ill and injured and so on.

Now, in Preventive Dianetics we get several conditions. A person, for instance, just recovering from an operation, is in a very perilous and serious state. He is apparently conscious, apparently able to speak and is at best, usually, in amnesia trance—will come up out of amnesia trance into, actually, a light trance. And here’s pain and everything else.

Now, to give you an example of this: There was a lady in a hospital who had delivered a child. That is, the child had been born; lady was hemorrhaging rather badly. And she continued to hemorrhage for several days, lightly and then heavily again and lightly. And people were getting very interested in her life because one can’t keep this up forever.

I gave her a few (snap) quick (snap) questions (snap) on this order, “Whom did you see immediately after delivery?” “Uh . . . nobody.” “When did this bleeding start?” “About two hours after delivery.” “Whom did you see immediately after the bleeding started?” “Nobody. Nobody . . . oh yes, yes, the nurse came in and said . . . said something, said something, I . . . I’m . . . I’m not sure what,” and then she said all of a sudden, “I’ll roll you down now.” You know, one of these beds, and they’d left her propped up, feet, head. “I’ll roll you down now. Now, just lie there quietly.” I clipped back on the line, ran that thing out, brought her up to present time, took her out of that tail end of the incident, and the hemorrhaging stopped.

Of course this looks like straight magic to an MD who doesn’t know Dianetics. But you know how easy it is to do something like that. You’ve got the mechanism.

Here is an instance of a nurse placing a human being in danger of her life. Actually, it’s not a light thing; it is serious as hell. Here’s a little kid just born, getting along fine. Here is a husband who needs his wife, and here’s a woman who is certainly entitled to her own life, and some damn fool rushes in and says, “I’ll roll you down now, now lie there quietly,” right after an operation. All could have been prevented completely.

Now, just those little words. Why, it doesn’t mean much, does it? And this person, I wish you could have seen this woman; she was anemic to the point of being waxy—you know, when anemia really sets in. So Preventive Dianetics is very, very interesting. It goes out in some other lines. Let’s take the line of industry. Let us take a person who has worked for several years in the same area. Naturally, every time he has been injured in that area, or every time he has been slightly anaten or restimulated in that area, he has received all the environmental perceptics.

That is to say, let’s take a fellow—make it something dramatic and say a steel plant. And there’s the roar of the furnaces and so on. And he’s got the odor around there, there’s such-and-so, and the feel of the floor and all that. And he hits his head one day. Just that. See? He hits his head and somebody immediately says, “Come over here.” I mean, we just get that consecutively. Well, maybe that was the first time it happened.

The possibility of keying something in at that moment is great, but we key it in with the additional bundle of all the environment of where this person works.

We’re working in a steel plant here. Men get killed in steel plants. You don’t have to make very many mistakes along this line to kill somebody. And yet here we have a person, hits his head, somebody says something to him. He burns his hand, somebody says something to him. Lord knows what it’d be, just anything. They could be holders, bouncers, denyers, anything like that in the reactive mind. One by one by one, up the line, we finally get to a point where one day he comes down—and by this time some attention units are held in several places on the track—and he isn’t feeling too well this morning. He’s got an engram in restimulation. And the restimulation of the environment, of course, is what’s very responsible here. And he throws the wrong lever and two men die who have no connection with him whatsoever, I mean, two men leading different lives, they just happen to work in the same place. Industrial accidents.

Now, Preventive Dianetics can then be said to go forward into the prevention of this type of accident, Joe Jones is driving down the road. He has an engram which makes him get exorbitantly drunk. And the unseen engram says, “I can’t see,” It says, “I can’t see straight,” It says, “You don’t know what you’re doing,” It said, well, more yakety-yak. And he’s driving down the road, and he’s drunk. This engram goes into restimulation by some perceptic, and all of a sudden, scree! across the road into another car. Three or four people die in the other car. What did they have to do with this engram? Preventive Dianetics is also the heart and soul of accident prevention on the highway.

It is an old, old saw with traffic departments that 10 percent of the drivers cause 90 percent of the accidents, I’ll go further and say that all the way up and down the line, that 100 percent of the accidents are caused by engramic restimulation. If it’s a mechanical failure, it means somebody failed in design, for some reason or other. But his ability must have been inhibited a bit for him to have failed so signally in design; a design into which he was thoroughly educated. A mechanic might have had a headache that morning when he was fixing the steering apparatus and didn’t quite seize down the bolts. And the Highway Department might have been just a little bit careless about all this—a couple of engrams on the subject, “Well, it doesn’t matter anyway,” maybe, on the part of some workman, and the sign that should have been there isn’t there. And here you and I are, driving down the highway and the next thing you know, we are injured, in a hospital, something—not through any fault of our own—because somebody got an engram into restimulation.

When one looks this over, he finds, then, that this is not a personal project; it’s not a personal project. It isn’t a whim on your part or my part that all of a sudden we de-aberrate this society. It isn’t just an idea that we get suddenly and decide to go on a big crusade for and “He’s silly, he believes in this.” We’re dealing with the very stuff of which hospitals, morgues and cemeteries are made. It is a very great problem.

As one goes back down the line, looks over accident reports, he finds occasionally this gentleman, the accident-prone. Ah, yes. Very strange fellow, the accident-prone. Some of the data assigned to accident-prones, not thoroughly checked, seems to demonstrate that there’s a sort of a telepathic thing about accidents, just as there’s a sort of a telepathic thing about mass hysteria. On a further very cursory investigation it would seem that an engram is the best broadcaster in the field of telepathy of which I know. All the evidence I have of telepathy, which is really very good evidence in some places, announces that this was an engram which is broadcasting.

In other words, the reactive mind and the animal body, you might say, long since developed an alarm system for the herd. And having developed this alarm system for the herd, in that bracket, it now functions best in that bracket.

You will find, for instance, two people in an argument, who have never seen each other before. And this person will say, “Yakety-yakety-yak.” And the other person will come through with the other half of the engram, the other valence.

We have this triangle of affinity, communication and reality. We know that grief and so forth—now, this affinity, communication, reality proposition is very interesting. We said affinity was a reverse charge and became grief. When affinity was a reverse charge it became grief; that, as one approached grief, fear, terror and so forth set in. In other words, we have a Tone Scale operating and we could draw affinity up this Tone Scale, all the way up, and we could get a spectrum. The spectrum which starts with the cohesive force, then on being reversed seems to become —it doesn’t become a destructive force so much as it becomes—what I am trying to say is it has its own characteristic all the way through. It starts at the top—love, cohesiveness and so forth, and down toward the bottom of the scale where we would have a herd, for instance, which would have to be alerted towards some danger, we would for instance get a fear, shock reaction which would broadcast and cohese the herd into flight. And don’t think this isn’t important in Preventive Dianetics. The amount of mass hysteria has been vastly underestimated. Did you ever walk into a room where people had been quarreling?

Now you’d think, perhaps, rationally, that it might be just because you don’t like to see these people—something or other. But there’s an actual sort of an impact involved in it. I don’t know what it is, unless it is this form of alarm telepathy.

When one is living in a society which is full of these engrams, he can of course be expected to be acted upon—if these principles follow, which they may not. But these principles would follow: that you could expect on this telepathic line a very definite reaction in the society itself.

Now, your accident-prone could be explained along in these lines. But he also includes the person who, purely by mechanical means, kills, injures other people.

An engram in restimulation in one chap caused him to practically cut his hand off. It went into restimulation, it had been picked up, it hadn’t been reduced. And for about three days he went into this situation of going around—he had three accidents with that hand. As a matter of fact, at this moment he’s carrying the scars. A piece of bad auditing through an engram which says something to the effect that he had to cut his hand. It said which hand, too. And he managed to do things with that hand which injured it. And the last one he did was practically take the whole area off here.

That is what an engram will dictate. And a person will follow it. Furthermore, if you haven’t noticed—there is an actual fact that in the vicinity of an accident, other accidents happen.

Some foolish traffic department someplace started the practice of putting up crosses wherever a highway death had occurred. And all of a sudden the crosses were just piled right up there in that one spot, one after the other. More and more and more and more and more. They did away with the crosses, quick.

Now, here’s the suggestion that there is death. Anybody coming by with one of these things to trigger says, “Yep, here’s my chance.” Screee! Huh! That’s one level If you’ve noticed, too, that the observance of a sudden accident will cause several mistakes to be made immediately afterwards; other people in the vicinity of the accident will make mistakes. This could be on alarm reaction level as well as a mechanical level I’m not trying to include the alarm reaction telepathy here. It is not a necessary postulate to any part of Preventive Dianetics. Why, I’m just telling you about it in passing. You ever hear of the mathematician’s two-dimensional worm? Well, they keep talking in mathematics about this two-dimensional worm. We could look at the two-dimensional worm this way: he’s busily crawling along on a two-dimensional plane. And one day he bumps into a post. And he walks on and he says, “Nope! That would have to . . . there’s . . . there’s no post there, that’s all. There couldn’t be!” And he comes by another day and he shoulders it again. And he’s aware of the existence of something but of course he would be unable to think in the third dimension.

Now, we’re in that spot where alarm reaction telepathy is concerned, or even telepathy in general. We know there’s something there. We keep nudging this post. We try to run up laws of averages and all sorts of things, trying to nail this thing down. So it’s not an essential to this postulate but it is something for you to keep your eyes open on.

Now, in the whole field of Preventive Dianetics nothing is more shocking than watching the curves of accident rates in, let’s say, one industry. They go up by two or three. And then they’ll bail out and there won’t be anything. You get the old railroad superstition, “Ah, there’s been a wreck! There’ll be two more.” And there will be. It says so. It says so right there. I mean, that’s the superstition which runs through the field, and a couple of guys will take it upon themselves to have the responsibility of getting these two other wrecks. These things all come in groups. And this is the reactivation of engrams. Whether it is on an alarm reaction level or whether it’s on a mechanical restimulation level or anything else, it’s still the same thing: it’s the reaction of engrams, reactivation of them.

So, if we want to cut out these group accidents and so on, let’s get in there and pitch. For instance, a small change in the licensing of automobile drivers would do away with about 99 percent of the highway deaths and accidents. A very small change. It would merely be a selection out of those people who had had accidents.

Just take it on an arbitrary level. This person’s had an accident in which somebody was injured. He was driving and somebody was injured in this accident to a point of having to be hospitalized. Well, you just say it like that, and we would just pull out of the whole run of drivers maybe 8, 9, 10 percent of them. And after that the highway death toll would (dwindling whistle), because you would have selected out people who had accident-prone engrams.

I’m taking this arbitrarily on traffic department statistics. They have added this up and looked it over before and they found out that 10 percent of the drivers cause over 90 percent of the accidents. So if they would just follow that up to that extent and just pull the licenses and make it a hundred years in jail and we throw the key away, on bread and water, if anybody drove a car who had had his ticket pulled, highway accident tolls would go down.

We are being, actually, as thoroughly brutalized and calloused on this subject of automotive accidents as were the Romans looking at the arena. We get, in every year, practically as many deaths or more than there were in our own army in World War I. Every year! And these aren’t light accidents. They are destructive of lives, property, everything else.

People go around and they say, “Well, we have to make the highways better.” If you had people driving on those highways who weren’t emotionally disturbed in the direction where they would be accident-prones, you could probably hang them up on 45-degree angles and nobody’d fall off of them. Why, you could bank them, you could reverse bank, you could do practically anything you wanted to those highways. That is not the factor.

Of course, the ambitious young engineer who wants to see a great big highway project—he wants to see the state legislature really put it out so the uncles and cousins and sisters and aunts can all be hired, and a few other things, and he wants to make a good name for himself and build big clover-leafs because they look so pretty—hangs onto the taxpayer these billions and billions and billions of dollars of highway improvement. And one of his chief arguments is, “We are going to prevent accidents.” But do they? No! Let’s check over and find out how many accidents are now on this superhighway. And we find out there’re more.

Now, when we have this picture clear in mind, we see what is making the accident-prone, we see what’s making accidents. And when, at one fell swoop, we could save the life of a person for every fifteen minutes of every twenty-four hours, is that worth saving? Oh, that’s worth a big effort to save, isn’t it? Because that’s about what it is. We are, in essence right here, a pressure group with a pressure weapon which goes off in a sort of an automatic level. I mean, we couldn’t keep this thing from going off now. It’d be impossible.

You see how far Preventive Dianetics goes? You see how deeply it reaches into vital problems in the society. And it’s all based mostly upon just that one thing, but there are intermediate steps which can be taken. That is to say, we have an aberrated world at this time; people are aberrated. We now have a means of determining what steps we should take in order to cause the minimal number of accidents in the society, the minimal number of deaths because of engrams, the minimal number of sicknesses because of engrams and so on down the line, because it isn’t only just accidents.

I want to talk to you now about a very interesting phase of Preventive Dianetics, namely, the pregnant woman. Now, the pregnant woman has always been an interesting problem in the society. But she becomes a fascinating problem to the professional auditor since he has to make a judgment of whether or not he practices Preventive Dianetics or practices processing on her. He has to make that adjudication.

There is a rule of thumb by which he goes. Because of her nervousness, her morning sickness, her debility, he may find it necessary to audit her, particularly in view of the fact that she may give the child a very bad birth or the child might even die during birth because of a bad birth. Morning sickness. She doesn’t want the child. She’s liable to practice an AA on herself. He’s got to think of these things.

But, on the other side of it, if her morning sickness is relatively minimal, she isn’t likely to practice an AA. If somehow or other she can suffer through without a great deal of injury to this child, he must realize that any engram he runs out of her, particularly a grief engram, may transplant.

If you have ever seen a preclear roll up in a ball suddenly, or leap convulsively on the couch, you will understand that the intra-abdominal pressure is increased. When that pressure is increased, even mildly, we get a transmission. We particularly get a transmission in a grief engram. When Mama cries, particularly convulsively, sobs of grief and so on, that grief charge will transplant and it will have the very interesting data in it: “Let’s go over it again. Let’s go over it again. Let’s go back to the beginning. When I count from one to five, the phrase will flash into your mind. Come up to present time.” In other words, within a generation, or less than a generation, we’re going to have to have a new patter. At some stage here in the next fifteen years we will just change the patter, and that will take care of it. But at the same time these are very uncomfortable commands to have in an engram. There is a return over the ground there. Now, that’s not going to erase this engram. It means that when a person gets to some part of the engram, he will have a tendency to go over it again. You know, a sort of a bouncer. All sorts of oddities will show up because of Dianetic patter when they’re enclosed in the engram. Here’s some poor professional auditor, twenty years from now, running this child or running this young man. And he says, “All right now, let’s return . . .”—by that time, if we don’t have the one-shot Clear, which we may have, I hope—we can’t count on that though. So he will say, “Well, let’s return now to the moment when . . .” The fellow will say, “Ow!” And he’ll say, “What’s wrong?” “Return now to the moment when . . .” You see? I mean, he’ll have that in the engram.

Now you’ll say, “Who died?” And he will say, “Nobody. Nobody died.” We check through carefully. We find no relatives missing. They’re all present. And yet there’s a death here. Somebody’s dead. Yeah, it was somebody in one of Mama’s engrams, maybe her great-grandfather, which puts it clear out of reach over here, completely out of line. Puts it back there two or three generations. He couldn’t possibly have known this great-grandfather, and yet he’s got the engram about his death. Now you see how that would be? So therefore, if you run out many of these grief engrams in a woman who is pregnant, she will give birth to a child who will give every evidence of having had a great deal of sorrow in his life. He won’t have had any. So you see how this issue becomes clouded. It is a matter of adjudication. People ask me bluntly, “Should you audit a pregnant woman?” You can’t answer that yes or no—it’s qualifiably so.

If her aberrations are causing her to do and be things which are injurious to the child to the point of costing it its life, yes, audit. Or, if she can get by till after the child is born, leave it alone. Give it a little bit of Straightwire is about the best you can do. Sometimes you can hook these cases up a little bit on Straightwire without hitting grief discharges or anything, without any disturbance.

If you audit a woman who is pregnant, make very, very sure that she is not going to turn over and fall hard on her stomach or beat herself in the stomach or otherwise injure that child.

Now, I actually would say offhand that she probably ought to have a piece of armor plate strapped around her. I believe that. One of these days in this society, why, women may be wearing a piece of armor plate when they’re pregnant, sort of an expanding piece of armor so the child can’t be hurt. Nobody thought it was important before. It’s important now. If it’s something as important like that, well, very probably somebody will do something about it. It isn’t up to us to say what should be done, however. Now, leave the girdles alone.

Female voice: That’s armor plated.

Yeah, that’s right! It’s a good piece of armor plate, but every time she put it on, the baby stopped moving. That baby was cramped.

This is of great interest, these matters of girdles. Did you ever see pictures of people back in the Victorian period? I saw a skeleton of one that had been exhumed and it was fascinating what had happened to that rib cage. The rib cage on this skeleton was right down to where you could just put your hands around the bottom part of it.

Male voice: Hourglass figure.

Yeah, hourglass—the hourglass figure.

If people look back over the period of history, I imagine fashions of that type and so forth have preceded very aberrated actions on the part of the society in the next generation.

Now, a horrible thing sometimes takes place, and if you ever run across a young girl who is pregnant and unmarried—you know, like a high-school girl—and you’ve got to do something about it, for heavens sakes, check up on this one. Is she wearing something, lacing herself in in such a way that it won’t become obvious? If she is, that poor child has got a continuous engram for every moment that that child is laced in too tightly. These girls do this. A lot of women do this. Check up on it in any case. But particularly young girls.

Now, on Preventive Dianetics, very definitely along that line, cases of moral turpitude should never be handled in the fashion which they are handled by this society. Never! The system is entirely and completely and utterly wrong. No matter how wrong the act may seem, is there any reason to ruin the health of a girl and the sanity of a future child just to be moral? No, I’m afraid not.

As many doctors have gotten in trouble by saying, a good contraceptive is more efficacious in these matters; and a knowledge of contraception is very, very efficacious, more than an ignorance of sex. You will find, as some of your most serious cases, people who have been born from a woman who conceived them out of wedlock.

Now, Preventive Dianetics definitely goes into the field of morals. Morals came about to reform harmful practices. Everything that is now moral was at some time or other harmful to the race. That is the practical side of morals. But morals go forward in the society by contagion. They go forward in the society by contagion. That is to say, a moral code of all things is set up.

This, as a matter of fact, is an observation, a rather humorously grim one: that a lot of our present-day morals came into existence because venereal disease moved in on the society. Nobody could do anything about venereal disease. So they shifted the moral code so that it would take care of some portion of the venereal problem. Now we have penicillin and sulfathiazole. Now all of a sudden the moral problem comes up against our wiping out venereal disease. Morals are practical considerations. They were always—in the initial stages of their creation—were a practical consideration on the part of some race or group. They are practical entities. They have practically nothing to do with spirit. I know a great deal about spirit, I hope, and I’ve never been able to find morals aiding and abetting it. It’s not that we want an immoral society; we want a rationally moral society. And rational morality at this time demands, for instance, in the matter of venereal disease, that it be brought into the open quickly as a disease, and that it be treated, cared for, because it can be stamped out of all the societies of the world—bap! We’ve got the weapons to do it. That is where a moral, going forward by contagion, becomes in itself a social aberration. And actually the main part of your social aberrations that are carrying forward now are old fragments of morals which we have even forgotten as a race, and it would be difficult to trace their inception. Those are social aberrations. First they are practical considerations. They are used for very definite purposes. Then they come forward, break up, their use is outmoded but they’re going forward as a set code and become, then, an aberration, because now they’re not rational anymore. And what’s an aberration? It’s an irrationality!

Don’t misinterpret me and quote me that I am against morals. I’m not. Morals are fine. However, morals are not understood by this society today, and we hope we’ll make them a little better understood, because it’s a vital problem. [gap] You look up in the dictionary today and you find “ethics.” This really stands a philosopher’s hair on end. You find “ethics.” What does it mean? It’s “moral sense.” And you look up under “morals,” and what do you find? It’s “ethics.” Morals are ethics and ethics are morals, but they aren’t that at all!

Ethics have to do with a code of agreement amongst people that they will conduct themselves in a fashion which will attain to the optimum solution of their problems. That’s ethics!

Morals are things which were introduced into the society to resolve harmful practices which could not be explained or treated in a rational manner. So, you had to create an artificial sort of a law which went forward, which would not be an optimum solution proposition. “We’ll just block this and well block that in an effort to keep this from happening.” In other words, as you might call them, the morals were jackleg solutions all the way along the line. We didn’t have the answer so we invented a preventive; didn’t know what caused it, couldn’t stop it in any other way, “Let’s prevent it. Let’s invent a moral.” Now, that’s actually the history of moral codes. Anybody who wants to examine that field closely, I know that this is a very simplified statement. It’s actually the fundamental with which I’m dealing.

Now, in this society today, if a moral code injured the life of an individual and did not enhance the life of any other individual, that morality is destructive and should be struck from the culture of the society. And it’s an unfortunate thing that several of those kicking around today have this result. Without aiding the society, they hinder it.

Of course, it gets into a very involved problem; sometimes it gets into a financial problem. Some agency has been hired to enforce morals on the society, Boston blue laws, the vice squad of Pasadena, We are, by the way—organized an organization for the suppression of vice squads. Now, we found out, by the way, that this vice squad had a, very definitely, a vested interest in the morality of the community, and to such an extent had waged blackmail and had picked up blackmail material and were waxing rich with blackmail. And this was the vice squad.

Morals are remunerative to some people. That’s vested interest! And if vested interest hurts the society in any way—we don’t have to go over and push down walls—that vested interest will cave in, if it’s existing for the injury of men. Men take care of this more or less themselves. All they have to do is look around and take a rational measure of the problem and say, “This thing is harmful,” And all of a sudden, wooof, it will change. It changes rather rapidly. So in Preventive Dianetics we get, whether we want it or not, the problem of morality.

Now, morality is a very interesting thing. But when it takes a high-school girl, sends her down to an abortionist, impedes her sexually, blocks the second dynamic, wrecks her glandular structure, gives her a sense of great guilt, gives her an engram of a sort which, kicking around and festering in any reactive mind, will undoubtedly have triggered the majority of the rest of the engrams in the bank—and if we as a people say that this is necessary, we’re nuts! But I guess we are anyway!

You’ll sometimes run into the case of a girl who has been handled in this fashion: high-school girl, she’s gotten (quote) “into trouble.” All right. What do we do? She becomes then a “juvenile delinquent.” We put a label on her. She becomes a moral liability in the society and her parents are liable to ship her off and have an abortion performed on her. Sometimes a judge on the bench will declare that an abortion be performed on her. But if somebody says, “No, this child shall be born,” remember something has happened here. Think of the scenes, the grief, the yak-yak all over the shop, the emotional upset that surrounds this young girl. And we have a very, very nasty engram bank. And you’ll go back toward one of those engram banks in some preclear one time where this situation has happened and you will wind up wishing to Christ somebody had shot that judge or hanged those parents, or something would have happened, because you just wade, wade, wade through this stuff. Secrecy, guilt, shame, grief, all of these things in the prenatal area of a person who was himself completely and utterly guiltless except that he had a biological reaction occur at the beginning of his life span.

Male voice: What happens if the child is born? Is adopted at birth?

Now, we get into something else in Preventive Dianetics. I might say we will mention it. I was going to.

We have the adoption problem—you’ll run into this in auditing—of finding somebody who doesn’t know he was adopted. And immediately if this happens we don’t find the same dramatizations in his parents that we found in his prenatal bank.

Now, if a child is without his parents, one of two things have happened. The parents have been killed sometime after birth, too early for the person to remember, or there is what they call possibly moral turpitude or poverty. There’s something wrong in that person’s life, that he has to be adopted after birth. And so we have these people around who adopt children. There is an adoption market that goes on; a thousand dollars paid in, you get to adopt a child and so on.

All this is very interesting, but what are they buying? They are buying a rough prenatal bank. If you look over the history of adopted children, you’ll find out that it is not as good as it should be. But the child has been done an enormously good favor. The dramatizations which are in the prenatal bank aren’t duplicated in the postnatal bank. Furthermore, the words are not restimulated. The prenatal bank of this person is not restimulated. The dramatizations don’t occur, but occasionally the person is old enough or has had enough keyed in at the time of his adoption to make his case pretty rough. This is where we call for Child Dianetics in a hurry In other words, the sins of the little high-school girl, which were so horribly condemned, fall upon the head of an innocent child and then became inflicted upon well-meaning foster parents who had nothing to do with it at all This is the way contagion runs through the society It’s a very crooked course, a very crooked path.

I am showing you that Preventive Dianetics goes into the moral structure of the society. It also goes into the ethical structure in all of man’s activities. One could not draw the line and say, “Don’t adopt children.” This is silly, because people want children and they’ll go on adopting them. But for heaven’s sakes, when looking them over, look over the record of Mama. Under what circumstances was this child conceived? Were her parents very stern parents? Was she ever driven into the snow with a precious bundle in her hands or arms? Or under her belt? These are considerations. Very definite considerations.

Now in—we go from there into the field of marriage in Preventive Dianetics. We want to prevent all these divorces that are happening in the society. Actually we can prevent them. People only too often choose their reactive mind partners. That is to say, Gertrude marries, actually, Uncle Bill. Only Uncle Bill’s name happens to be George, and the only similarity with Uncle Bill is maybe the way he wears his hat or maybe his tone of voice. But Uncle Bill was the staunch champion of Gertrude all through her early youth. So she, of course, marries Uncle Bill, only his name’s George now, which is very confusing. And then she finds out that this Uncle Bill—because, of course, immediately, restimulation makes her take on the valence of whatever valence she was occupying as a little girl and she does the things which pleased Uncle Bill. These don’t please George. Up to this moment she was a strong, reliant woman. And now she’s a weak little thing that has to be defended or some such thing happens. And people marry. Before the marriage they’re somebody else. And when they marry, now they’re somebody else again.

This becomes very confusing. She expects certain things from Uncle Bill. Oh, Uncle Bill took care of her a lot and took her swimming, was very nice to her and one time when she was sick, why, he brought her all her meals in bed. Well, she’ll start to use this “in bed” trick on George, and George doesn’t understand anything about Uncle Bill. And the next thing you know, he gets very resentful about a wife who insists on lying in bed having breakfast served in bed by him every morning. He had a different idea. His ally was by the name of Agnes, and he thinks that Gertrude is Agnes. So between Gertrude thinking George is Uncle Bill and George thinking Gertrude is Agnes, we get a confusion, so that we find these people aren’t married to each other at all, but a couple of allies—that’ll be a lousy picture.

We get the picture of two people who aren’t there at all being married to each other, only they’re both probably dead. You can see that this confusion will result in an occasional divorce. Well, in all of the annals of history I don’t think there have been as many divorces, but divorces will continue to happen in any aberrated society.

Did you ever hear of the practice of suttee?

Audience: Yes.

Well, that was somebody practicing prevention. That’s right. Prevention is a very simple measure over there, with suttee. They said, “No divorce. Nobody is going to get any divorce in this land anymore. Wives cannot divorce their husbands.” So the wives murdered their husbands. That’s right. And then the next thing we got, wives murdered their husbands and so somebody passed a law in order to make all this moral, you see. They passed a law and said, “Any wife who is really a wife at all, will walk upon the burning pyre and sizzle.” That’s suttee.

Now, that’s prevention acting against prevention. Arbitraries have been set up. The laws are arbitrary. Arbitraries have been introduced into the society. Now we have to introduce some more arbitraries in order to make the forced first arbitraries work, and it keeps getting more and more irrational, less and less sensible until we have a complete cave-in of an institution, let us say, of marriage. [gap] So reactive mind partners as a problem is a very, very sad one. I could go up to Reno and pick up any ten divorcees; I would find ten reactive mind partners married to ten people who had married reactive mind partners. Only lives get wrecked in this sort of a way.

It’s no joke, you know, that a broken home causes a child to have an upset life. You see, it isn’t the breaking of the home. It’s the yak-yak, and then it’s the loss of the ally. One or the other of them, may have been an ally; that person goes away—loss of an ally. Quarrels—if a home is going to break up, people going to be divorced, there have probably been quarrels and bitterness between them before that time. So you’ve got a bad prenatal bank, bad postnatal bank, then we have a broken home. Of course, the broken home’s obvious. Well, you can look at the broken home and say, “Well, children go a little bit aberrated because they have—some of them, when they have broken homes they become aberrated, you know,” That isn’t the reason. It’s because of reactive mind partners.

If you really want to be sure—you want to know how to pick out your spouse? Why, you look them over and you make awfully sure you find out—let’s say it’s a man picking a woman—find out if she liked Papa. In the matter of reactive mind partners one should prevent those things.

The woman picking a man would find out whether or not he loved his mother dearly. You know, dearly! Boy, leave him alone! If there is a really terrific strong attachment with Mama, if he does what Mama says and so forth, boy, his valences are so slopped up and turned around and so on, he is a liability. Now, if he hates his mother viciously, leave him alone. If he hates his father, that isn’t so bad. But if he is passionately fond of Papa, that’s not so good.

Look over the parents. Look over the parents and try to find out by looking over the parents—this is the basic law on it and it actually—you can call it a little axiom that’ll help—look over the parents and find out how aberrated they are. That is, are they very stern, “good” people, you know? What did they do? Did they change this person’s mind all the time about everything? Was there a great deal of trouble over allies? They fight with Grandma over this child and so on? But look at these people as people, and realize that in the human being is potentially the valence of each one of these people and probably the majority of the engrams of these people. You can therefore look over a girl’s parents or a man’s parents—and don’t take just the social look, try to take a Dianetic look if you can—and you’ll know about what the setup is. It’s a dirty trick to let you in on this, but you, as auditors, should have no trouble whatsoever. Just check this character over. It’s no trick at all. But if you’re passing out advice to the lovelorn anytime, why, that’s about the rule you go by. The woman is more likely—oh, a woman might be in either parent’s valence but the chances of being either in the valence of one or the other, even if she detests them, the chance is very good that she will be in one valence or the other rather than her own. And same way with a man. But out here in the divorce marts, if you want to slow it down quickly, why, just put in a little propaganda to that effect. I can see the marriage rate falling off (dwindling whistle). Yeah, very definitely. Until something is done about it, divorce rate will probably go up.

Actually it’s a terrible thing for two reactive mind partners who restimulate each other enormously, and the society commands that they stay together, two people that should never be in sight of each other. They keep restimulating each other and their healths and efficiencies and so forth just go down in a dwindling spiral. They’re being absolutely ruined as people. At the same time they may have a terrific compulsion to stay together. The engrams say, “I love you. I just don’t dare leave you. I can’t leave.” Yakety-yakety-yakety-yak. And this guy that she’d just love to put arsenic in the coffee for, she has to sit there every morning because it says,  “I love him. I’ve got to love him. I’ve just got to love him.” Well, a science of thought would not particularly guarantee to resolve an old mores of the society. Maybe the mores isn’t right. I don’t know. But you see, if you say, “Well, Dianetically we can resolve marriage so marriages will be happy,” we’re taking what is apparently a constrained, maybe just a tiny bit artificial, institution of society.

There’s no reason why it would be really a natural institution, and we’re applying a natural law to it. And I can tell you what happens when you apply the natural law to it. About 50 percent of the marriages blow up in your face, and about 50 percent of them cement very strongly and go along beautifully. Because in the process of treating one or the other, you’re liable to have two people who are naturally antipathetic and you will clear them up, you’ll release them up to a point where one of them will suddenly decide, “Oh well, I don’t have to stay with this guy.” And she’ll leave.

Someday somebody is going to throw a terrible harpoon into Dianetics by saying it breaks up marriages. It doesn’t break up marriages. I have seen it pull together marriages which were really on the rocks, and I have also seen it blow marriages apart, but the whole trick is getting it past the hump up to a point where they would be perfectly rational with each other. You get it halfway up the hump, one of them is liable to get enough force or strength and so forth to just separate right there.

Male voice: Would a more adequate solution be to approach judges, lawyers and that type, rather than those intimately involved! Rather than a couple? Get some boy higher up, in a responsible position?

It would be an interesting thing. An attorney who was a good auditor, a good divorce attorney would probably raise hell with his fees, but he could probably sit right there and with Straightwire salvage about 50 percent of the marriages which come to him to be put on the rocks. He could actually do so. He is sitting in the driver’s seat on the thing. These people come to him for advice and so forth. And they all want to hear all about the legal problems. “What are the alimony laws and the community property laws and something or other and so on?” He says, “How old are you?” (snap) It would solve quite a bit.

Well now, this is—all of these things I’m just giving to you as window dressing on Preventive Dianetics, giving you some sort of an idea of the scope of preventing aberration.

Preventive Dianetics as a basic subject, of course, doesn’t much deal with these superficial things like we’re talking about marriage, other superficialities.

Preventive Dianetics has right there as a basis, preventing the engram from occurring in the first place and then if that can’t be done, preventing the restimulation of the engram. And if these things could happen, why, aberration of the society would flatten quite markedly.

Male voice: In a child that is conceived that is wanted and is wanted all during the pregnancy, do they take his engrams off? Will there be any chance of the engram being given to this child from the mother?

Does a phonograph record care whether you’re playing Beethoven or traffic horns? They’re just records, they’re unanalyzed; as a result you would get no rationality on it. However, after birth a child—maybe he has a bad prenatal bank but is born and goes on with life, and the parents are nice to the child and they do definitely mend their ways rapidly toward this child, you get a pretty sane kid. Actually the human organism is terribly, terribly hard to aberrate. Very difficult to aberrate. It takes a lot of magnitude.

People think of aberration, used to think in terms of somebody walks into the room and says, “I think you . . .” Well, this person now goes crazy. Actually, it’s more on the order of being stamped on, walked on by an elephant, thrown down and run through by a washing machine mangle with eight whirling dervishes screaming incantations in the ear, and that would be about the order of engram it takes to aberrate. It’s large. It’s very high in this intensity, and content. [At this point there is a short break in the lecture, after which Ron begins an auditing demonstration.] LRH: How far has your case progressed, Frances?

PC: Well, with me or with the child?

LRH: No, no. You.

PC: My own?

LRH: Yes, we are talking about you.

PC: Now, in other words, you want me to evaluate my own case?

LRH: People often do. Have you got sonic?

PC: Yes.

LRH: Visio?

PC: Yes.

LRH: Somatics?

PC: Yes.

LRH: Gee, got everything.

PC: I think so.

LRH: All right. Now, what we want here is for you to shut your eyes, and anytime in the future that I say the word “cancelled,” it will cancel out what I have said while you are lying there on the couch. But it won’t cancel it out for the class. Okay? All right. Now, where did they leave your case the last time?

PC: I was twelve years old.

LRH: How old are you?

PC: Forty-two.

LRH: Now, did you get a flash? You really move on the time track, don’t you? Let’s go back to the 31st January 1923. The somatic strip will go to the 31st of January 1923. Let’s take a look. Where are you?

PC: You will have to wait a minute because I seem to feel so much.

LRH: Well, you are right there automatically at the 31st of January 1923, at this moment. Let’s take a look.

PC: Yes.

LRH: What are you doing?

PC: I am dressing for school.

LRH: What are you doing when dressing for school?

PC: Well I am brushing my hair, and it’s a hell of a job, because it’s so long I can sit on it.

LRH: Can you feel yourself brushing that hair?

PC: Of course.

LRH: All right, continue.

PC: It’s the brush I have had ever since I was two years old. Brown, worn on the edges. My hair’s brown, light golden. And then I . . .

LRH: How do you look there in the mirror, to yourself?

PC: All right.

LRH: Look good?

PC: Pretty good.

LRH: All right. Fine. Let’s go back to the time they presented you with the hairbrush. You are getting the hairbrush now.

PC: It doesn’t mean very much to me.

LRH: Okay. All right. The file clerk will now give us the earliest moment of pain or unconsciousness now existing in this case. The somatic strip will go to the first part of the engram, and when I count one to five, the first words will flash to your mind. One-two-three-four-five. What words flashed?

PC: “She ought to have her tonsils out.” LRH: How old are you?

PC: Twelve.

LRH: Now, when I count from one to five you will give me a bouncer. One-two-three-four-five.

PC: No.

LRH: No bouncer?

PC: No.

LRH: The earliest moment of pain or unconsciousness. Have you had conception out?

PC: Yes.

LRH: Have you got an erasure of conception?

PC: I have erased everything to now, when I am twelve.

LRH: Well, God bless you. “She ought to have her tonsils out.” Go over it again. “She ought to have her tonsils out.” PC: “She ought to have her tonsils out She ought to have her tonsils out.” LRH: Who’s talking?

PC: Oh, a doctor at school He’s examining me.

LRH: Is your throat sore there?

PC: A little.

LRH: All right. Let’s contact the somatic on it. What is he saying?

PC: “She ought to have her tonsils out. She ought to have her tonsils out. She ought to have her tonsils out.” LRH: What is he doing with your throat?

PC: Oh, one of those wooden . . .

LRH: How does it taste?

PC: Hmmmm.

LRH: Medicinal?

PC: Slightly, just antiseptic is all And then he tells me to say, “Aaaaaah.” LRH: Yes.

PC: Do you want me to say, “Aaaaah”? I don’t like to. I feel uncomfortable.

LRH: How does your throat feel there?

PC: It’s gone now.

LRH: All right. Let’s go over that again. What is the doctor doing to you?

PC: You see, I don’t like to go over these things. I like pleasant things.

LRH: All right. Now, what is the doctor saying to you there?

PC: “Oh, she ought to have her tonsils out. She ought to have her tonsils out. She ought to have her tonsils out.” And my mother says, “Well, we will think about it. We will think about it. We will think about it.” My mother teaches in the high school Gee, she left her history class, didn’t she? I wonder who took her place?

LRH: How does your throat feel?

PC: All right LRH: All right. Let’s go back and pick up the somatic again.

PC: I don’t like to do this.

LRH: Pick up the somatic.

PC: Do I have to?

LRH: Yes.

PC: The words are getting very dim there.

LRH: Yes, all right. Let’s go over it again.

PC: “She ought to have her tonsils out She ought to have her tonsils out She ought to have her tonsils out We will think about it. We will think about it We will think about it” LRH: Give me a yes or no on this. Is there an earlier engram existing in the case?

PC: No.

LRH: Who used to say “Control yourself”?

PC: Nobody.

LRH: Who used to be very self-controlled in your family?

PC: All of them.

LRH: Let’s go over the words “Control yourself.” Let’s see if we can find one of these. There might be one scattered around someplace.

PC: “Control yourself. Control yourself. Control yourself. Control yourself. Control yourself Control yourself. Control yourself” I am sorry, Ron. Just isn’t any. Do you want me to keep on going?

LRH: No, that’s okay. You’re doing fine, now. You’re doing fine. All right, let’s have a moment there when—did you have many childhood illnesses?

PC: No.

LRH: Did you ever have a sore throat when you were a little girl?

PC: No. But my mother did. She had tonsillitis.

LRH: When and where? Had tonsillitis and what happened?

PC: Oh, several different times.

LRH: Have you picked up a prenatal of her having a sore throat?

PC: No.

LRH: All right. Give me a flash answer. Does one exist?

PC: No.

LRH: All right. Let’s go to the next moment of pain or unconsciousness now existing in the case. You are doing fine.

PC: Give me a little more time, will you?

LRH: Sure. I said you were doing fine.

PC: Thank you.

LRH: All right. The file clerk will give us the next moment of pain or unconsciousness now existing, and the somatic strip will go to the beginning of the engram. When I count from one to five, the first words will flash into your mind. One-two-three-four-five.

PC: There aren’t any words. It’s just an age. I am thirteen. You see, my file clerk is peculiar, shall we say. He seems to have these things divided into what you call chronological years.

LRH: Yes, all right. What have you got there? Where is the pain there when you are thirteen?

PC: It seems to be something to do with my teeth.

LRH: Okay.

PC: I can’t quite get it.

LRH: All right. Give me something—a denyer. Is there a denyer?

PC: No.

LRH: Is there a bouncer?

PC: No.

LRH: All right. You know what this is about teeth. Let’s go to the beginning of the engram; give me the engram.

PC: Oh, there isn’t any dentist in Potina. I had to go to another town called Ocnoona. He’s putting something to pry my teeth apart. There’s a cavit. Jeepers, no wonder!

LRH: Let’s contact it.

PC: Okay.

LRH: All right. What have you got there?

PC: Mmmmmm. He wants to give me something, and I say no. And I want to know what’s happening, (laughs) LRH: Okay.

PC: Oh, this is ghastly.

LRH: Let’s roll it, honey.

PC: Mmmmmmmm.

LRH: How does it taste?

PC: Terrible. Grinding on my tongue.

LRH: Is he saying anything as he does this?

PC: No.

LRH: Okay. Continue. How does he look?

PC: He looks sort of concerned.

LRH: How is his breath?

PC: He thinks he is hurting me. Oh, he’s gargled something.

LRH: Take a sniff.

PC: (breathes in) LRH: Continue this; sweep into it.

PC: It hurts when he holds. He doesn’t have any nurse. He doesn’t have any nurse. He does everything himself. Oh, this is damn complicated.

LRH: Continue. Just carry it on through up to the point where he’s finished.

PC: All right.

LRH: All right, honey. Let’s go back to the beginning of it. Shall we go back to the beginning of it and roll it?

PC: Oh, of course. But I don’t want to.

LRH: What is his first action as he starts in on this? Is there a sound there or something? Maybe water in the bowl?

PC: Yes. It’s on my right side, and he puts this little towel up here and clips this little metal clip in the back. And I am frightened.

LRH: Go ahead.

PC: Oh, he puts this little thing something around my mouth.

LRH: Continue.

PC: And then he wants me to take some codeine or something . . .

LRH: Continue.

PC: . . . and he says, “It will hurt too much for her.” LRH: Continue.

PC: “It will hurt too much with that. It will hurt too much with that.” LRH: What did he say?

PC: He said—that’s what he says, “It will hurt too much with that. It will hurt too much with that. It will hurt too much with that.” And I say no.

LRH: Let’s go over that phrase again. “It will hurt too much with that.” PC: “It will hurt too much with that. It will hurt too much with that. It will hurt too much with that. It will hurt too much with that.” LRH: Listen to his voice.

PC: I don’t like his voice. I don’t like to listen to it.

LRH: Listen to his voice then.

PC: “It will hurt too much with that. It will hurt too much with that. It will hurt too much with that.” And I say, “No, it won’t. No it won’t. No it won’t. No it won’t.” And he says—and then he starts prying these things. It starts to hurt and hurts worse. It’s not so bad that I have to . . .

LRH: Okay, continue with it.

PC: I stopped to spit it out.

LRH: What does he say about it?

PC: He looks—you know. That’s all. He just looks at me. Sort of half mad and half concerned.

LRH: How did it feel that time, too?

PC: Oh, it didn’t hurt so much.

LRH: All right. Let’s roll it from the beginning again.

PC: Oh, I don’t want to. This is boring. Very dull.

LRH: All right. Let’s roll it.

PC: Okay.

LRH: Okay, continue. Pick up there at the beginning. Now you’re doing good. Continue.

PC: That’s funny. I can see him doing this and I can’t feel it anymore.

LRH: Okay, let’s roll it.

PC: Mmmmmmmm. (laughs) LRH: How does it feel?

PC: Just fine.

LRH: Do you ever have any yawns off these anymore?

PC: Oh. . .

LRH: You had yawns in the basic area?

PC: Oh, yes.

LRH: Have you had any yawns up this far on the track?

PC: No.

LRH: Okay. That’s fine. How do you feel about this dentist now?

PC: Oh, he’s all right. I guess I always gave people sort of a bad time. Put them in pigeonholes.

LRH: All right. Let’s go back over it again.

PC: Okay. Well, there really isn’t anything anymore, excepting I can just see the room.

LRH: Yes. Let’s take a look at it as you roll through there. Might be a little sound or something.

PC: Mmmmmmmm. Well, this is a little difficult because you see, it always gets like one of those old-fashioned things you used to look through.

LRH: Stereopticon?

PC: Yes. It gets sort of a picture like that and then it’s on a stage, you see, and that’s what I take with me. And then I have to get rid of that.

LRH: What?

PC: Get rid of that last thing.

LRH: Does that worry you?

PC: No, but I thought I was supposed to—everything was supposed to go.

LRH: Well, let’s not worry about it. Now, how about coming up to a moment of great pleasure?

PC: Which one do you want?

LRH: Well, just pick a moment.

PC: Okay.

LRH: All right. What are you doing?

PC: Eating.

LRH: Let’s take this. Good?

PC: Of course it’s good.

LRH: All right. How do you feel?

PC: Wonderful.

LRH: Come up to present time.

PC: Okay.

LRH: Cancelled. Five-four-three-two-one.

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