View source for Processes Talk (4ACC 540319)

'''Series:''' 4th Advanced Clinical Course (4ACC)

'''Date:''' 19 March 1954

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_4ACC|Back to Series]]

And this is the afternoon lecture of the 19th of March, '54. We're pretty well advanced on a lot of this processing, but there are some processes which you should know how to do. So we will just go over processes in general here, not necessarily making a total coverage, but certainly making a comprehensible coverage.

We have several ways of categorizing techniques. Some of them are—we call them unlimited techniques and some of them are limited techniques. This limited technique would be that technique which when run too long resulted in a bog of the case, but which could be used temporarily in order to alleviate a case. There's no other significance in that limited and unlimited classification, really, than that. An unlimited technique can be run forever and aye without bogging a case.

Now, what techniques fall into these classifications? Well, there is one unlimited technique which is certainly an unlimited technique and that happens to be holding on to the two back corners of the room. Now, just that—doing just that, that way—is an unlimited technique. Now, we could go further in this and make it a more complicated technique and we would get it a limited technique. How would we do this?

Well, we could hold on to the back anchor points and the front anchor points and then the floor anchor points of the room and then have somebody else hold on to the anchor points of the room and other people hold on to other people's anchor points—and we could run it out that way into a greater complexity and we would find occasionally that a preclear would bog down on it.

Why would he bog down on it? Because it would ruin his havingness. And actually, that is the basic difference between an unlimited and a limited technique.

A limited technique has a tendency to upset the preclear's havingness; an unlimited technique does not. Unlimited amount of time it can be run. Any technique, then, which radically upset a preclear's havingness would be a limited technique. And it would be a limited technique just to the degree that it upset his havingness. In other words, if it didn't upset his havingness very much, it would be a technique which was not very limited. If it upset his havingness a great deal, it would be a technique which was very limited.

We can't, unfortunately, be completely Aristotelian in this and say there are just two categories to everything—one is right and one is wrong—we have to remember that there's a gradient scale involved here.

On some preclears, anything you did to them would worsen their cases. Didn't matter what you did—anything you did would worsen their cases. Why? Because talking to them upsets their havingness. You see that? So there wouldn't be any such thing as a completely unlimited technique. That would be slightly limited, you see? If talking—just talking to them upset their havingness markedly—by saying "Hello" to them you upset their havingness... You could do this, you see. You're giving them a "hello" that they know they can't handle, so they can't have it, so they have to throw it away along with another ridge and a few things like that. However, it would be better to upset their havingness a trifle in order to give them some auditing—do that equally well.

Well then, the auditing you should give them, theoretically, should immediately repair their havingness, shouldn't it? Unfortunately, such cases are unable to have. And you say, "All right, put up eight anchor points and drag them in on yourself and eight more anchor points and drag them in."

They say, "I'm sorry, I can't do that." What are they doing?

"Well, I don't know what I'm doing, but as they come in, they sort of go out and I don't think I've got them there anyway. And it—just isn't anything I can do about it and all is apathy, all is apathy, all is apathy."

That's because these people are on an upset level on havingness where they've got to make nothing out of everything and that itself has what? Has upset their havingness.

Now, their course of action was this. The tremendous perimeter of command which an individual should have is narrowed down to a point where their communication lines have to be so short that they can only produce an effect upon the body—on their own body. They can't produce effects upon other people's bodies, they can only produce effect upon their own body. That's how short their communication line is.

Now, if you were to run this case at all, this case would simply go on making nothing out of himself. Well, a very easy way to stop this is to get his attention elsewhere than on his body. His main difficulty is the fact that his attention is on the body. He's trying to make nothing out of his body. He's trying to unmock himself.

So we run something like "Grab the two back anchor points of the room," something like that, we'll get enough attention off the body in doing this to markedly alter the case before very long.

But now let's take somebody whose havingness would be upset simply by talking to him. Let's take this case. Well, you ask him to hold the two back anchor points of the room, he's going to have a lot of difficulty. And you're going to have to argue with him and so forth and this is going to make a communication break with an individual who is already practically broken. So you'll wind up by upsetting his havingness no end. The interchange of words, the use of energy to hear and to speak, and that sort of thing, is expending things. He gets tired, by the way, after he's said two or three words to you. He's liable to look tired. And what is a process you can use on him, then, that is more unlimited—more unlimited, even, than holding the two back anchor points of the room? There is one.

There's a process that—if he can be spoken to and can receive—that is more unlimited. And that's "Remember something real." Now, why is "Remember something real" more unlimited than holding the two back anchor points of the room? Well, you see, every time he remembers something real, he's reaching into the engram bank and down the track and so forth and he's picking little tiny deposits of energy up. He can pick up energy on the track with some certainty with this process. So to some slight degree you remedy his havingness because you give him more past.

Now, by holding the two back anchor points of the room, this individual doesn't get more present, you see. He's stuck all over the place.

So remember, then, that if somebody seems very, very tired after you've said a few words to him, something like that, yet he seems to be in pretty good communication, give him next-to-the-last list, Self Analysis: "Remember something real" and so forth. You'll find that his havingness is remedied.

Now you can go into holding the two back anchor points of the room if you want to. Nice, quiet techniques. But remembering something real if run long enough wouldn't—even if run long—wouldn't remedy a case entirely. It's an entrance point into a case.

Well therefore, there must be techniques which are even more unlimited, which produce results on cases which are even more out of communication—whose havingness would be terribly upset if they talk to you. And, you know, they have to give up a word. Well, it'd upset their havingness to a point of almost hysteria—they had to say a word to you, directed and so forth. It would exhaust them—the idea of concentrating some attention on you.

You see this, by the way, in sick people. Very often a person's lying there in bed, they're feeling pretty good and you walk in the room and you say to them, "Hello," And they have to make an effort to say hello to you. And you say, "How do you feel today?"

And they say, "Well, I don't feel too bad."

And this person's sane, you know, and in good shape, but sick. And after a few—just a few words like that, you walk out of the room, that person is now exhausted. You know, they're tired. What they had to do was center attention, which is in itself tiring to them. You know, they had to organize and direct and so on. If the person's really sick, it's just almost too much for him. And when he's very, very; very, very, very sick, he's simply unconscious. He doesn't respond, even though he does hear you. You are being very cruel to a person who's quite sick to demand that he look towards you or answer you or say something to you. Although he can hear what you're saying to him and so on, to make him talk is to make him give up something. Now, the things that happen—I mean, when these things happen to a person, that person is in a certain state. He is at Symbols. He's not above Symbols, see. Symbols is the highest one on this ladder from Sex to Know. He's no higher than Symbols and he's Symbols and below. Therefore his world runs in the terms of symbols, eating or no eating, and sex, so that all of these things have weight and mass to him. If he gives up one word, two words

Well, let's go even further south and look for this other technique. What would it be? You'd have to give him something, wouldn't you? It'd be necessary for you to give him something before you could take anything away from him. And sure enough, that is the effect of Step VII, SOP 8—Contact. You look around and ask him for something that is real to him. You look for something that's real to him and you ask him to reach it and withdraw from it.

By the way, you have to do this to a thetan. Some of you people got the idea that that's a psychotic process. It isn't a psychotic process. That has to be done with a the/an. After he's exteriorized, have him reach and withdraw from things that are real. "Find the realest thing that's real to you. All right. Reach for it. Now withdraw from it." That's a standard process. That's VII of SOP 8-C. And it hasn't anything to do with psychosis. 8-C has nothing to do with step levels, you know, that's just the list of drills that you have to remedy somebody after he's been exteriorized.

All right. Where would we go from Contact? You know, you've given him something. You've remedied his havingness by actually letting him have something in the room.

By the way, a person occasionally that you would think was in very good shape will look around the room, find something that is real to them on the command from the auditor, "Find something that's really real to you. Now reach for it and withdraw from it," and they'll reach for it rather skeptically. Let's say it's a cup on the table and they reach for this thing rather skeptically and then all of a sudden grab it into their hands and hold it to their breast and so forth and say, "Oh, for goodness sakes, this is the realest thing I ever had," you know? It's the certainty of being able to have that cup. You've remedied their havingness. You've given them a little piece of present time.

Well, there's a step below that. You can give them the illusion that they can have your body, as an auditor. How do you do that? By mimicking them, mimicking them. Mimicking what they are doing. I don't care what they're doing.

They're lying down on the floor and rolling from side to side; you as an auditor can lie down on the floor and roll from side to side. First thing you know, they'll talk to you. How can they talk to you?

They didn't have any havingness just before this—they were out of communication. Now they can talk to you or say something to you. Well, they have had something in the interim. They've had you. You see, they could be you and this is something more they could be. They're doubtful about being themselves—they've sort of lost perception on their own body, they've inverted on that—but they can be you, so there you are. You've given them something. And again, this gives them more—more havingness.

Well, we've gone just about all the way out through the bottom as far as self-determinism is concerned, but there's a step below Mimicry (which is the name of that last process). Psychotic is dancing about the room, clapping his hands over his head, something like that, you'd say, "Well, this is an awful expenditure of energy; this person's havingness certainly isn't bad." Oh yes, it is. His havingness is bad. The body is simply consuming energy with which he has no contact. His own havingness is terrible. But he knows he can't have that body, sort of, because he can't see it in some fashion. He has no perception that it is there.

So you just dance around the room just the way he's dancing around the room, clapping your hands exactly the same fashion, and he has observed the fact that a body is doing this, so he can have a body. All right.

You say, "He's right in a body, though, of course he can have a body." Well, he's right in a body, but he doesn't know he can have one.

Now, the one step below Mimicry— it's really going south, but we have already left the realm of self-determinism and there's lots of techniques south of that technique Mimicry. We've left the realm of self-determinism with Mimicry. From there on, we would want an operating machine, somebody who would function. And the way we do this is to grant him beingness whole cloth. Just bang some energy into him— create some energy and bang it in. Just mock him up right where he sits and hook him in—hook the energy into the machines and so forth and he's there.

Now, there is spiritual healing and so forth; we go south into those fields. All of those fields to a large and marked degree upset self-determinism. They're capable of making a body well and of disenfranchising a thetan almost utterly.

Now you see, you can duplicate yourself as a thetan, so you could actually grant him beingness as an operating machine. You give him some of yourself, in other words. But if you're in good shape, you can create unlimited quantities of energy: You can create energy—unlimited quantities of it—and not only can you create unlimited quantities of it, but you can direct it very much at will and you can create it and direct it on other wavelengths so that it will match in with other people. And now as far as duplicating yourself is concerned, you could duplicate yourself all over the place and still have a vast quantity of you. Because, you see, it's just free creation. A static has the capability and power of doing this.

So many men have been machinery that it's very doubtful if they have entirely realized how "unmachine" a thetan really is. See, a thetan is so surrounded by machinery, he builds it so easily—he puts a couple of postulates together and hides it and forgets about it and that machine will work—it's done so quickly that it's very easy for him to confuse himself with a machine.

But anyway, there are a lot of self-determined processes up from Mimicry. There are a lot more processes which are other-determined processes, from this level of granting beingness just whole cloth to the individual, on south from there, You can do this selectively in a limited fashion in greater, lesser degree—grant lots of beingness.

Well, so much for the bottom rungs of processing. These are all valid, tested. These are actually old by now as processes, even though many auditors have not been completely aware of how they fitted and their use and so forth, they're still—none of these processes are new.

Now we'll go up the other way and we find out that we can run a preclear as easily as we don't have to remedy his havingness. We can run a preclear as easily as he can create.

So we find a Step I—he pops out of his head, he mocks-up a lot of enjoyment, he can do this, he can do that, he can rush here and there, and his havingness never seems to be upset at all, he seems to be in good condition, you can do anything with him, so what?

Any process goes. It'll do something for the fellow because he can always mock-up enough energy and so on to replace what energy that was used up in the process. See that?

Now, as we go on down the line, we get into terminals, Person is less and less able to create energy and more and more dependent upon existing masses of energy in order to operate. So as we get down to about Ill it starts to cut in, and at IV it certainly is cut in, to where an individual is depending upon the terminal phenomenon such as that of an electric motor in order to operate.

We have, in such a wise, more and more difficulty as a case drops down from "able to create energy." Well, this is a common denominator, as far as the mechanics of a case are concerned; common denominator of these cases all the way on down would seem to be "create energy." And right along with that, it would be a common denominator of "ability to destroy." It would just be this curve at various sizes.

It'd be the cycle-of-action of the MEST universe. Cycle-of-action of the MEST universe is Create, Act, Destroy. Or Create, Conserve, Destroy. Survival, which we had in Dianetics, belongs in the middle of that curve. That is what life is seeking to do. It is seeking to persist, survive or carry on in the center of that curve, and to get away from the two ends of that curve. To get away from creation (you don't take any responsibility for being causative) and to get away from destruction (life punishes life for destroying).

Everyone seems to run on the postulate that you mustn't destroy and yet dedicates his entire existence and that of the body to destruction. Every time you sit down and eat, death sat first over that food on your plate.

Life lives by killing, when it gets into such a form as an animal form. Animal forms depend on other animal forms to provide the energy for them. You get this terminal proposition running. This tells you that all tigers are at least Case IV's. See? At least. Actually, tigers are Case VII's.

There was a sane tiger once, but he was such a curiosity that the race died out of sane tigers and they just kept on with the old standard variety of crazy tigers. The whole cat family, panther family and so forth is quite subject, by the way, to insanity.

Well, they have a very odd custom, tigers do, about eating. They gorge themselves tremendously. They'll eat a great big meal and then they just won't eat for a long time, so on. They got to get that terminal there all in a stack, see? Mass—the mass. They wouldn't be able to eat a little bit and then go on and eat a little bit and go on and eat a little bit—this would make them real goofy. They have to have a big terminal there. And that terminal can interoperate with their body and they can function.

Well let's look at something crazier, less sane and much slower than a tiger—"shnake." Big snakes eat once every six or eight months. When they throw a terminal in there to double terminal with their body and so forth, and interchange, boy, they really throw one in there.

Now, as far as savvy is concerned, the gray wolf has all of these animals, snakes and so forth licked pretty well. He has the most fabulous efficiency. Very efficient body—extremely. So much so that he seldom excretes. By the way, he's a very good father. He's the animal kingdom's champion father. He takes care of the pups and he trains them and runs the family as a pack, looks after them—very remarkable. The female of the wolf does the same thing. These are pretty sane beasts up to one point—when they ain't got no terminal at all. Then they go mad.

A wolf pack which hasn't had anything to eat for a long time will do the darnedest things. They will turn onto any member of the pack who is wounded and eat him up.

And of course that's efficient, too, but they get down to a point of where they'll just cut each other to pieces. And the point I'm making here is, here are bodies more or less. Well, once in a while I suppose you get a tiger had a thetan such as yourself running him—somebody who started to run a tiger. I know I've met horses that are being run by thetans that have run human beings, and I've run human beings who have run lions and things like that. It's fun. And you yourself can go out and have a lot of fun running lions and zebras and so forth. Anyway

In looking over this problem, where life is concerned we have this tremendous dependency—wherever we have mass, we have this tremendous dependency upon terminals. So if a person has so much somethingness around him so long and is unable to make any nothingness of it, he then has to come to the conclusion that he is desperately in need of that somethingness. And this is havingness, the anatomy of. Desperate conclusion there that he can't survive unless he has lots of terminals. Everything is so solid he can't make nothing of it, therefore it's greater than he is, so therefore he must depend upon it. And if he must depend upon it, it of course is the only source of energy. And we get down to the scientist, the nuclear physicist—he's psycho on this. He's crazier than a tiger, if anything.

He can't see that any great work of art was ever created. You can get into the most remarkable arguments with some of these spun-in boys that have been working out at—for the Atomic Energy Commission and so forth, on the subject of art. And they will tell you, "Well, yes, yes, da Vinci is a copy of Praxiteles. And Praxiteles is a copy of somebody who was in Persia and so on." They never seem to realize that sooner or later they're going to run out of time. Somebody had to make some art first. Well, then they'll point to you that it all appears in nature and that you don't find anything in paintings that you couldn't find first in flowers and things like that. "It's all worked out. It's probably all based on plane geometry anyway."

You say, "It's all worked out? Well, who worked it out?"

"Oh well, let's not be sacrilegious now. We ourselves, we never invade the field of religion, because we really don't know. There's no scientific proof or test about the existence of a being, but it's obvious that somebody had to create something."

Sir James Jeans "solves this problem" (quote, unquote) by about the weakest statement ever made by Man. He just says that the universe appeared here by the explosion of an electron. That's all right—he isn't around now so that you can collar him and say, "Hey Jim, where'd you get the electron?"

He might as well say, "The whole universe got here by being here" as to say it came from one exploded electron, because there had to be an electron.

Well, this fixation on terminals is the obsession which takes place when an individual has so long and so consistently been unable to make nothing of things that he conceives that all somethingnesses are senior in ability and power to himself. And having conceived that these somethingnesses are fofal in themselves and, he says, utterly independent of any nothingness, then, of course, it follows that one is dependent upon them. And in that, that they will throw an electrical charge from one somethingness to another somethingness, it is obvious, then, in order to have any electrical energy or energy of any kind yourself, you must have two of these somethingnesses. So they build electric motors instead of hiring a guy to sit there and pour enough energy into the lines to light the town.

Now, there's science. Science could be said to be that obsession which insists upon two terminals. That's it. This total acceptance of and insistence upon two terminals we see in a preclear leads him down, down, down, down and out. Now science, then, must be below the level where it thought it could make nothing of things. Science as a subject, then, must have repeatedly and continually failed all the way down the track to make nothing of something.

Well, in that it's addressed against the MEST universe, we find out that trying to make nothing out of the MEST universe with an ax or on an agreement basis and—it's built of agreement, this MEST universe is—so if it is built of agreement, why, to study it one goes on agreeing with it and then wonders how he can't make nothing out of it. It's quite the reverse; he studied to make it real and then after a while studies to make it unreal in trying to make nothing out of it.

Tells you, then, that science is a defeatist philosophy which came about through the repeated and continual failure of all natural philosophers since the early Greek. That's science. Defeatist philosophy that admits no accuracy in Man and admits only error for Man. It's almost an obscene philosophy in that it says a machine is the end-all of end-alls. So that occasionally if you wanted to put this up as a very rare something-or-other to somebody, you'd say, "Well now, why don't you build some machines out there and then build some other machines which repair the existing machines and then some machines which repair themselves. And why don't you start this whole city running of just machines repairing machines so as to keep machines going so that we can run some machines, and then everybody goes off and leaves the whole thing and there's not a scrap of life around there anyplace. Don't you think," you would say to one of these physicists, you say, "oh, don't you think that'd be rather absurd?" And he would look at you and fail to find anything absurd in it.

And after I'd first cooked this up as the end-all statement which would utterly squelch some of my classmates in their rapacity for saying the thing to do and dedicate and worship and so forth is the machine and the physical universe and so on... The way I thought I'd squelch them would—by introducing that little thing (the machines repairing the machines) and, my golly, ran into a story in Science Fiction one day, in which one of the very fellows I'd been talking to had written about this very thing as a very ideal state. Now, that's what life is all about. You just divorce life utterly out of it. You just—life's gone now, that's the way you solve life. Just gone. And that's a misinterpretation of the fact that life is basically a static. Therefore, if life is basically a static, the way you get more life is to have no life. And this, of course, is a psychotic computation. Well, I haven't said at any time here—and if you heard otherwise, why, we correct your cars—I haven't said at any time science was sane. It isn't.

There's nothing more insane, by the way, than mathematics in the horrible, insane logic with which they progress. Every schoolchild, even you, protested madly against this while you still had strength of beingness to do so. But after a while you got talked out of it. You thought this was real psychotic when you first ran into arithmetic.

The inexorable progress of a gradient scale of facts, each one of which is so little different than the last one that they can be associated together as similarities and be conceived to be an identity—that is logic. And they set it up as a horrible Frankenstein that will just keep on walking forever, irregardless of what you do about it anyplace. Nobody can do anything about it. Logic was here—this is a typical mathematician statement—"Logic and mathematics were here before the universe was formed, they're here while the universe is here, and they will be here long after Man passes."

This little gradient scale scheme of one (which is not quite one) plus one (which is not quite one) equals two (which is not quite two) will hold true forever. Of course they say, "one plus one equals two," making each "one" an arbitrary introduction of an arbitrary. See? They're saying such a thing exists as an absolute "one." All right.

But here we have this fixation on terminals as opposed to creativeness. As an individual progresses down the track, he begins to get more and more dependence upon terminals. He depends on the food in his stomach to interchange with the energy levels of his body, and by these two terminals be then able to function. When he no longer has adequate food, he starts to eat up his body itself. He will get his right arm double—matched terminaling, rather—with his left arm. You will actually see him start to eat up energy after he knows he can't have food.

Well, this would all appear very sane and everything would be nice about it, but the only way we can introduce insanity into electronics or electricity is simply this: We find out that it is the consideration alone of the individual which makes him know whether he can have or not have. It's just whether he considers he can have or not.

You can get somebody to change his mind about having something. The moment we were able to get somebody to change his mind about what he could have, why, we knew that the whole system was alterable and therefore not a great fixed truth which must endure for all time. And we also knew that life was senior to the machinery which was running the body.

Let's take an example. By the process of wasting money and accepting money and saving money, you know, in brackets, on an individual, we first found that the individual had been making a wreck and ruin out of himself in existence by working too hard. He'd been working himself madly, just to exhaustion, just daily, in order to get some money. And he worked himself this hard because he couldn't have any money and he knew he couldn't have any money. And we worked him up to a point, finally, where he didn't have to have fifty cents—that was quite an advance—up to a point where he could have a penny, up to a point where he could have a dime, up to a point where he could have twenty-five cents. We got him up to a point where he could have a dollar, and his case—from a standpoint of work and anxiety about the future—had a tendency to just kind of fold up and blow away.

Fellow had been so nervous while he was working that he wasn't producing any work to amount to anything. He wasn't earning any money. You see, he was keeping himself from earning money because he couldn't have any money. When we remedied the fact that he could have some money, then and only then could he work efficiently enough to make some money. And that didn't consist of his wearing himself out to make some money, either. It simply consisted of his working to have money—you know, he could do that then.

Well, when an individual could have his considerations changed to this degree so that it could alter the effort level of his body (you never saw such a change physically in this individual till after he found out he could have a dollar), if you could change this just by consideration alone, no "magic mystic magic potion" was traveling from he to me, or me to thee, there was nothing odd or peculiar going on, it was just getting him to change his mind about money and it was a system of communication which led to changing one's mind about money. We improved his health. Well? Where does that leave the engineer? Where does that leave the terminal?

Once in a while you run some process like Courage Processing on an individual. He'll tell you after a while he's just draining all the courage out of his bank. It's about time for you then to waste courage, waste creativeness.

If you start to waste creativeness on the individual, after a while he'll suddenly sigh deeply and remember all those horribly trying moments after he'd created something, that he lost them. And remembering all the rejection slips he got from the painting company. And he remembers all these things, yes. There's definite bars and barriers on creativeness. The MEST universe doesn't like things to be created, because if you went on and got too creative it wouldn't be here. You could have your own universe. It wants to be the only one. It's obsessed with that idea.

So, we have misassociation. The nothingness, the preclear that you're trying to exteriorize and can't—is, then, down deep in these terminals. He's got to have a mass interchange with a mass. He has to have something before he can have energy. That's backwards! He's got to have before he can do? This person won't put out any effort, by the way, to amount to anything.

He'll tell you how, well, if you bought him this building, why, he'd be able to get those hogsheads of sugar and he'd get those moved in and so on and then he would be able to do a good business as a warehouse and he'd be all happy. So you buy him the building and the hogsheads and when you get through you find out he doesn't do any business at all. But he tells you the reason he can't do any business now is because he doesn't have a boat to ply up and down and pick up these cargoes. So if you bought him the boat, you'd find out the boat wouldn't go anyplace but he would have to have something new. Has to have so he can do.

Now you look around and there'll be—some young fellow will come up and the next thing you know he has a warehouse business. Where'd he get it? Well, he sort of created it out of whole cloth. How'd he create it?

Well, he went around and convinced people that they should stow stuff in warehouses and it should—be traffic this way and that and he'd set it up on a gradient scale. And he went into it, he set up some kind of an idea. He put it in operation and by his own energy and so forth, why, he made it build up to a point of where he had a warehouse business.

Now he'll stay nice and thin and he'll stay in pretty good physical condition up to the moment when he actually has a warehouse business. And when he has this warehouse business, he hasn't got enough sense to sell it and go get drunk in Paris. If he hasn't got enough sense to do that with it, why—and then immediately go in and get himself another warehouse business or paint skylarks for a living or almost anything—why, he'll get stuck on the end of the MEST universe cycle.

Now the MEST universe cycle-of-action goes this way [writing on blackboard], it goes from Create, over through Survive, over here to Destroy. This Creation is the beginning of the cycle, Survival, so forth, change—little change and so forth—persistence, center of the cycle, and Destruction is over here. Now, this is also Be, Do and Have. Oh-ho!

There's death involved with havingness. And so it is. So you have to keep havingness remedied on preclears until they get way up. Be, Have and Do.

Life is in action as long as it is attempting to survive. If it finally were to achieve inevitable, eternal survival it would be a mass stopped dead with no action.

Now you can plot cases here. This boy can also destroy, that is over here on the full create band—he can also destroy. So we have this case here as the single one and this would be an Operating Thetan—be over here. Operating Thetan would be over on this side and over on that side. But then we'd get our case numbers in here and we'd probably get this margin here as a Theta Clear, and also this margin, Theta Clear. He isn't able to destroy so absolutely. He's still willing to, but he isn't able to destroy and he isn't able to create so absolutely. He can't materialize or dematerialize things.

Now we start inboard from this and we find out that we are graphing here the various steps of SOP 8. But those are unbalanced. Those are unbalanced. Because D—"Destroy" over here—becomes "Destroyed " in somebody who's way below Step VII of SOP 8. But your Step I of SOP 8 can do a certain amount of creation and can do a certain amount of destruction. So let's look at it a little more here and let's find out that your Step I is here and here, your Step Il's are here and here, your Step Ill's are here and here, and you'd divide up this inner band to the remaining steps. Now, that's the way the graph would look, plotted. What do we finally get? What do we finally get?

We get a guy stuck right in the middle of Survive. He cannot be destroyed, he cannot destroy, he is matter and so forth, but he would be in some kind of a no-change bracket. Because right in the center of this band, there is change here on this side of the Survive and there's change over here on this side of Survive, but there's no change right in the middle. So we get a guy unchanging. We get him thinking of himself as a communication particle. He can't destroy. He really can't do anything, but he sort of persists. He goes on and on and on and on in the horrible and "illorizable" fashion which you see some of those cases present going along in. They can do nothing if not persist in the state in which they are in. It's horrible to think of it. Poor guys. I know there are none present doing that entirely now. But they will be so proud of being able to persist in any given state. You're trying to change their state.

Well, those boys right in the middle—boy, are they dependent upon heavy, massive terminals. You can't destroy a terminal, you can't create one; it'll just sit there— that's their dependency. And there, they have gotten to be a something which has no slightest understanding of a nothing. You see that?

Now compare that with the fact that in this ciyilization at this time there wasn't even a definition for "nothing." It tells you how far these boys were, then, from a psychotherapy. Every psychotherapy had to consist of something.

Now, you take some individual who is somewhere in the middle band on that graph and you find out quite honestly that when he thinks of nothing he thinks of space. Space is a booby-trapped nothing. "There was nothing there," he says. "I went over there, and there was nothing there." Boy, what an inaccurate statement. It's typical of this universe, this time, this period.

There was nothing there! There was the ground, there were the trees, there was the sky, but more importantly there was space there!

"Oh. Yes. Well, if you want to be technical about it, there were that. There were the trees on the two sides and so on and so on." He's again avoiding the space.

Well, space is avoided because people get stuck in it. They get stuck in various points of space—areas of space.

So if we look at this graph this way, we find out these cases are going down to a point of where Step VII is just exactly in the middle, and where all other cases have this duplicity, we find out that the real E is here in the center. And that we actually have, plotted against time here, two graphs. Two communication graphs. This one goes from Cause, not Create—that's Create up here, you see—from Cause to Effect in the center, and over here at D we have Cause to Effect. There's the emotion of regret over destruction: it's an effort to run back toward the center—the backwardsness of it.

So we have Cause going toward that E. Well, we have Cause going toward the E. Cause going toward the E. Cause going toward the E. Everything Cause going toward the E. And we would have this E there in the center as being right in the middle of the whole barrage all the time. That's where people wind up. You think they die when they get pushed in real tight and compounded real tight and compressed real tight? No sir, they don't die and they don't go unconscious; they become more and more aware of the painfulness of their situation and their persistence forever.

Well, we're talking about a thetan now, we're not talking about a body. The goal of the body is to get right on the middle of that curve. Get as far away from destruction as possible, as far away from creation as possible and just persist. And we'll get guys, after a while they'd have no knowledge of what a good time would be or anything like that—just persistence is all they're doing.

Well, a case which is hanging fire, and won't change, is too close to the center of that curve, that's all.

Now on our processes that resolve that graph, we discover, then, that the closer a fellow gets in toward having to have terminals (having to have, in other words)—the more totally dependent he is for continued livingness upon havingness—the harder it is to process him. So the band of techniques which wound up at length on other beingness—you have to inject other beingness into him—of course are locating somebody who's in exactly the center of this Create-Destroy graph. You could only use that because he wouldn't have any determinism of his own; he's pushed around totally by other-determinisms. In order to make him well, why, you'd have to fish him out toward Create. And you can fish him out either direction. You can fish him out toward Create or you can fish him out toward Destroy.

Well, now we take that fellow in the center and we start to fish him out toward Create. No, he won't fish. We say, "Make a whole flock of mock-ups. Make some more mock-ups. Make some more mock-ups." Oh no, they're disappearing faster than he can put them up. All right?

We can put him over toward Destroy, and he will move slightly in that direction. Get him to make nothing out of things. Of course, every time you do this you reduce his havingness.

Now, this poses—this poses—just looking at the graph there, just processing by the graph again—another therapy. Be an interesting therapy: you'd take Self Analysis and you would do it by nothings and somethings.

You'd say, "Get a mock-up of Okay. Now mock-up a nothingness. Okay. Get a mock-up." And regardless of what happened to it—"Mock-up a nothingness. Now get a mock-up. Get a nothingness. Get a mock-up. Get a nothingness. Get a mock-up. Get a nothingness. Get a mock-up. Get a nothingness."

He'd fish out. Yes, he would. But you could expect some convulsions on the road with some of these way-down cases, because getting a nothingness of anything is liable to be very alarming to him, because his case is liable to start running as though it's been shot in the south end. That's because all the machines he's got there are unmocking everything he's going to create.

Well, so that's a process right there. And you got a security process when you process with that process. "Mock-up a something, mock-up a nothing. Mock-up a something, mock-up a nothing. Mock-up a something, mock-up a nothing."

If you just remember that much of it—take Self Analysis and put a little bit of randomity in it.

And by duplicating: duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate. Now there's another one. And I'll bet you nickels to doughnuts you're not using that technique worth a darn. Duplicate!

An individual can't duplicate, he can't be. If he can't be, he can't duplicate. If he can't duplicate, he can't communicate. If he can't communicate, he can't exteriorize, of course, and all kinds of other things occur here. Well, duplication is of the essence, believe me.

You say, "Get a picture of this room."

Your preclear says, "You know, I'm not seeing very well."

You say, "All right, well, do you get some sort of a view of this room? All right, you get some kind of view of this room—duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate, more and more and more duplicates, more duplicates, more duplicates, more duplicates, more and more and more and more and more and more and more duplicates. Duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it."

And the guy says, "Well okay, so I can see the room. I can see it fine, as a matter of fact."

You say, "That's fine. Now get a mock-up of your body. Duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, on, on, on."

"All right, now get a nothingness. Now duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it."

"Now get a nothingness of the room. Duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate and duplicate it."

"Get a nothingness of your body. Duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it."

It's a terrific technique. You get instant responses on the part of perception because you're dealing with the basic anatomy of perception itself—duplication.

Now, we have those auditors who immediately after exteriorizing a preclear want the preclear to look at his body. Well, instead of processing the preclear, why don't you just shoot him? [laughter] That would be a good thing. Save you a lot of trouble—after you've said, "Look at your body." Because if you're not even going to do anything further with him, you're in for trouble.

You'll get away with it every few cases, guy is in real good shape and you can do anything with a Step I, they don't wreck too badly. But we've got a shaky Ill. We have managed to exteriorize him, he has exteriorized, and here we go. And we say to him, "Take a look at your body." And he goes Pang-boom.

Now, this is experience talking. How do we get this fellow to look at his body?

We say, "Get a mock-up of your body and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it." Well, that's all right, you can do that. But you'll find out if he gets a mock-up of his body anyplace around, or any kind of an idea that black spot is being his body, or something of the sort, he's liable to run into matched terminal interchanges with it and it'll upset his havingness again.

In other words, the mock-up he's got will keep discharging against the actual body, the body will eat up a heck of a lot of energy, it'll upset the whole bank.

So let's not make it an exact duplicate, let's get him used to bodies in general. Let's say, mock-up the body of an ant from which you say you will have just exteriorized.

Now, you see, matched terminaling takes place best when you have two exact things. We'll get into that in a moment. But, you mock-up the body of an ant and, say you've just exteriorized from that, "Now duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it." And we've got a lot of those. "All right. Mock-up the body of a camel." Now let's say that you just exteriorized from that, and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it. And after we've run him through an awful lot of these, why, he then has enough havingness to look at his body.

How'd the body trap you in the first place? It took all your havingness, just pang! See that? It's a sponge!

Those energy lines are so darn thirsty that any energy you start throwing around the body just goes in ssllrrrp. And as long as you're in total agreement with the wavelength of the body and all that sort of thing, it will.

So you want to get out of the wavelength of the body. How do you get out of it?

Well, you see the environment as green, blue, pink, purple, ultraviolet, orange. Get a guy exteriorized, have him see the environment in all kinds of different colors. You're changing his wavelength. After that you'll only have to tell him change his wavelength and he'll be able to do so. That's how you get him out of the wavelength of the body.

Tell me, why can't you get somebody who is very sold on terminals and having to have masses of energy—why can't you get him exteriorized easily? It's because he himself is so low on havingness, he has gone into so much apathy about creativeness, because the body took everything he created, that the first effort he makes to exteriorize from the body robs him, a thetan, of what little energy he had left. The body will just soak it up. So he doesn't exteriorize. He goes out of knowingness right away, he pops right back into his head. He was out for a split instant. But it was just long enough to get drained dry.

Well, you know, you can coax him back out of this by—say, "Now get an idea of your body in front of you and say that you're it. Now say that you're not it. That you are it. That you aren't it. That you are it."

He'll eventually get a mock-up of it. He'll eventually exteriorize. You're just taking over all the functions of the machinery and everything else that says he can't, but you're not upsetting his havingness too much, mostly because he has to keep mocking-up the body and you're telling him to get this idea he's the same as the body—he'll gradually disconnect from these body energy lines. But again, you're liable to upset his havingness—liable to.

So, find something he can have. Something he can be. Gone over this technique with you before. Find some heavy mass he can be, have him make a whole lot more of them, have them snap in on him.

But do you know he's very leery of making something just exactly like he's being. Why? Because it'll match terminal and will expend energy, and he knows he can't afford to expend energy.

You found out he could be a stove. Now you say, "Make another stove." He'll make a little tiny stove. He'll make a different kind of a stove. He's got to be the only one. Why has he got to be the only one? Because if he made another terminal exactly like himself he'd discharge a lot of energy and he can't afford it. So he's got to be the only one. He doesn't dare have anybody around exactly like himself, it'll take all the energy away from him and he knows he's got to have this energy because he needs terminals to exist. He can't create energy. He knows this. That's his one big conviction: I can't create. You could even change his mind on that, by the way.

So you have to persuade him quite some time to get him to make a stove just like the stove he's being. Now you can also have this individual who's sold on terminals "Be something," you say, "that makes nothingnesses of things." He'll go into one of these heavy objects that he can be.

All right. "Get several of them out there and make nothingness of them. Now get them just exactly like yourself and make nothingness of them." A sort of a brotherhood sympathy complex will sort of enter in at this point, but he can still do it. And so you remedy his havingness. And you can snake a guy out of the fire. You can get him back into creating by covertly making him create things which he knows he already is. But you have to sell him on the idea of the brotherhood.

Now sometimes you have to sell him on the idea that it's all right to eat your brother. He's being a stove? Well, it's all right for him to put another stove out there exactly like himself and let the discharge run. Of course, he'll get a little upset about this, but if you put out enough stoves and let him snap in those stoves instead of just consuming them, why, he's happy about it. There's a process.

What's all this boil down to? It boils down in all these processes to the fact that whatever you do has to be monitored against the balance of havingness of the preclear. You must remedy the havingness of a preclear when he's doping too much, when he's doing this, when he's doing that; you have to remedy his havingness. If you don't remedy his havingness he will get frantic, he'll get more stuck and so forth. Why does his havingness have to be remedied in the first place? He is dependent upon, he thinks, having large masses of energy discharge against large masses of energy, in order to have anything. He's sold on this universe which is a double terminal, matched terminal universe. So you have to cure him of that.

As you walk a person up toward being able to destroy and being able to create, you clear him—as you walk him up out of this.

Now, there are lots of techniques I haven't covered, but this one sticks right along with it. Those techniques which remedy havingness are excellent. Those techniques which strip it away are sour. And techniques are as sour as they rob the preclear. Therefore many techniques can be run on a Step I, very few can be run on a very low-level case.

Watch that in your auditing and remember to remedy havingness. If you could remedy enough havingness on your preclear, your preclear would be able to remember his whole track.

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 600 26 MARCH 1954

PROCESSES TALK PAGE 9 4ACC-56 - 19.03.54

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 4ACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1954]]