View source for Remedy of Havingness (2ACC 531222)

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

'''Date:''' 22 December 1953

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_2ACC|Back to Series]]

This is December the 22nd, first lecture of the day. I want to talk to you today about prediction.

It can be said that the sane person is in present time, that the neurotic person is either hectically in the future or slightly in the past, and the psychotic is well into the past. And this shows up in terms of prediction. The mind could be said to be a computing instrument for the future.

Well, as soon as an individual has an experience which must not happen again, he believes then that his future depends upon keeping that incident suppressed, in line, squared away and so on. And as a consequence he is incapable of making a decision without having reference to the destructive datum; and so he takes a reference to the destructive datum before he acts in the future.

Now that, at first, is just on selective subjects; and after a while, it begins to blur with the individual and the blur becomes more and more pronounced.

And by blur, I simply mean that the individual relates too many data; he consults too many data in order to predict a future action. And having consulted this data, he of course is so now armed with data that he knows that everything can happen in the next minute or so and that it's all going to be bad. The reason for this is he's consulting only bad data.

He has tried to store data of unpleasant experience in the past so that he will not repeat an action in the future. As a consequence, as an individual gets into more and more blur, that is to say, more and more of these incidents have to be consulted—he sets it up just as an automaticity, you see—and more and more of these incidents have to be consulted, and more and more of them.

Well, of course, at length he is just drifting back, you might say, on the time track because the mean of all these incidents would be back of present time. By the mean, I mean the earliest and the latest all averaged out would put him back into the past—it'd put him back into the middle of the past. So that by the time he's consulted all this bad data, then his prediction, of course, is that things are going to be bad.

As a result, an individual comes to you and they are unable to be happy. Why are they unable to be happy? Because they know the future's going to be bad. We have in this person a storehouse, a warehouse full of bad experience which must be consulted before the future.

Now, I call to your attention, the little dog goes down the street, he's got his ears up and his tail up and he's feeling very cheerful and he sort of says hello to everybody and people will stop and they'll pet him. And dog goes into a restaurant and he sniffs around and he smiles at everybody and, why, somebody's liable to put him up on the stool and feed him a hamburger—there's no telling what'll happen to him. It's usually all good, you see? And he just has a perfectly good time about it. He doesn't know anything. He is completely ignorant as far as the past is concerned; he has no accumulated experience. He is running along on his GE facsimiles that tell him how to walk, run and smile. Well, that's about all. When he gets a little older, bad experience may have stored up to a point where he has to consult bad experience before he goes into the restaurant.

Now, let's take a bum. He walks down the street, he's all in rags, he is filthy, he knows that man is bad. He has had many bad experiences—he has lost twenty or thirty wives and eighty or ninety businesses and that sort of thing. And he goes down—he's got lots of experience; he's holding on to all of it—he goes into the restaurant and they throw him out. He says something to somebody on the street and they sneer at him. Well now, he's—has bad experience, I mean he stored it. He stored it real well, and he's got it right there and he's wearing it all over him.

People try to avoid what they classify as bad experience, and so close terminals with it. "I want to avoid a bad experience," the fellow says. So he closes terminals with all the bad experience he's had. That which one resists, one becomes. And as a result, we have the difference between the puppy and the bum. And the puppy knows nothing, absolutely nothing, and—about the future and everybody's nice to him. And the fellow who "knows all about life"— he gets thrown out of the restaurant.

Well now, let's make it even worse—let's take a young kid—let's take a three-, four-, five-year-old kid: Can you possibly imagine a child of this age walking along by himself and not having people look after him? Well, that isn't any strange and peculiar urge so much as it is people like the bright face of the world they see reflected on the child's face. The child can see a bright world for them.

If you yourself wish to bring to people a feeling of security in your presence and a feeling of pleasure that you are there, then you reflect the bright face of the world to them. They can't see it as well as you can.

Well, when you have the future hectically in view, and when you have the past in continuous suspension, well, it's just a puzzle, then, of time that the fellow isn't in the time of. Here he sits in present time—none of these things are going to happen to him. He doesn't happen to be in the middle of the war, he doesn't happen to be here or there, he doesn't happen to be on an operating table. He isn't any of those places, and yet if you were to E-Meter him, you'd find flick, flick, flick, flick, flick, flick, flick—all these incidents were right there, and just as though they were happening.

In Dianetics it was necessary, in getting an entrance into an understanding of this problem, to have an individual reexperience the bad experience. Well actually, the bad experience will reexperience just as though you were running it off on a phonograph record and it's quite interesting that it will.

But this is a mental therapy, it is a successful mental therapy but it is a limited mental therapy. And it is limited, in a very marked degree, because another factor enters in to all this. There is the matter of loss. And there is the matter of havingness.

Now, let's look at space and we find out that space is beingness. The human experience equivalent to space is beingness. The human experience equivalent to energy is doingness. The human experience equivalent to time is havingness.

Now, time and havingness: You understand that if a person has something, then—he has something of this universe—then he can see by the co-action of the particles of that, that there is some motion taking place. And this in itself is time. So that time becomes impossible in the absence of havingness. If you simply had—if all that you had was simply your potential to generate energy and make space and so on, why, you wouldn't have any time; you'd be completely timeless. And so havingness is time.

Now, that is a very good datum to remember. It just isn't one of Ron's wild ideas, it happens to work out. You'll find an individual in every case who is having trouble with havingness, is having trouble with time. And when an individual has trouble with time, he's having trouble with the most noncombatable barrier we have.

So time, in essence, is the only aberrative barrier. You can overcome all the rest of them, but where's that gun you lost in 1720, hm? You just don't have it anymore.

"Well," you say, "well, why don't you go over where it is and pick it up?"

"Well, it's not there." Those particles have co-actioned until they're dispersed in one fashion or another.

Well now, let's take a closer look at this. And we find out that time is one of these—well, it's the great charlatan. People say time is a great healer. If you just don't have any of the particles around anymore to remind you, why, then of course you won't be ill. Well, that's—has a very, very limited application, because it is fought immediately by this: If you keep putting the particles away from you, you're occasioning yourself loss. Havingness. It comes down to havingness.

Why does time exist? And let's go into a human experience now, which is greater than time. Time itself is simply a humdrum pocketa-pocketa-pocketa of particles. Let's go into a greater experience than time and we find that form, aesthetic form, is in essence a far more important factor. Why do you have to have energy, huh? I mean, why do you have to have any of these things? Well, the motion and the form. And a person who has a problem of havingness is having a problem of time. And if a person is having a problem of havingness, then his problems in terms of time become insurmountable to him.

Well, the problem in terms of time, of course, bring in: Is this Tuesday or is it when I was being operated on? The moment he starts to have a severe problem in time, he begins to get then into this problem—"Well, I'll hold on to this bad datum in order to get the good data in the future."

Well, now in view of the fact that there isn't any such thing as a classifiably total bad datum—there aren't bad data and good data, there isn't a good experience and a bad experience—there is a consideration of a datum and there's consideration of an experience. And that's all there is. A fellow considers an experience; he considers a datum. All right.

One fellow tells another that something is bad. And when he says "bad," he means it's a "you shouldn't have." That's bad. Now, when he says something is good, he's saying it's a "you should have." And it's an effort on the part of one thetan to present to another thetan or take away from another thetan, havingness. And that is bad and good. It is also forgetfulness and remembrance.

Memory here—when a person can pull in or be in the area where something happened, of course he can remember it. And when a person pushes something away from him, then he can forget it. So we have the effort on the part of individuals to forget that which is gone from them. See?

So they want to know why they forgot what was gone from them, and of course this, then, is bad. Must have been. But if they consider that what was torn from them was good, then they're into a very severe problem and that is, that they can't have good things. And that—you're looking right straight there at a dwindling spiral.

Then it works on an inversion. If this keeps being torn from them all the time, they keep losing this all the time, therefore it must be bad. So we first get the fellow into the line where he can't have good things. And then we get him into the thing that the things that are torn from him are bad. And so we get evaluation changing, changing and turning continuously.

[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]

Whenever we have a problem in havingness, we get restimulation of engrams. Well, why is this? A problem in havingness brings about the restimulation of engrams. A person resists that which he becomes—he has to resist it first before he becomes it. But an engram is a pattern of constantly made—and for your purposes you can simply consider it a piece of energy—constantly made energy, but you can consider it a piece of energy.

And we have this engram. Here we have an engram and it is havingness. It has form, and it has, usually, an aesthetic value, it has certainly a dramatic value, and it certainly is havingness. So an individual gets things torn from him this way and that, he loses things, he takes things away from others and throws them away and at length, he begins to develop a deficiency in havingness. He can only develop a deficiency in havingness because he has started to consider that those things he can't have must be bad for him, and then that he can't have; and then he considers that those things he can have must be of a very low order indeed.

And if he had, scattered across the universe but able to reconstruct, a very large number of engrams and he had some very, very beautiful facsimiles, he at length, because of this constant belief—continuous, continuing belief— that he can't have good things because they're taken away from him, he would choose out of these things … This is a very good one for you to remember because this in its essence is Acceptance Level Processing, this is what's back of it. He gets into the state of mind where he can only receive the very bad things. And he gets into a dreadful muddle.

Well, what's a very bad thing? Well, there'd be this consideration of beauty. But let's just take it in terms of what's colorful, what has a smooth, flowing line, and he would take things that were dun-colored or even black-colored and had no smooth, flowing line of any kind.

Now, that's interesting. Because an individual then begins to accept from life all sorts of odds and ends and horrible things that somebody else wouldn't think of. Do you know that an individual, if he ran his parents—if an individual is having a rough time of it, if you run his parents accepting sick children, he'll all of a sudden recognize something, it'll flash to him very quickly: He's—the level of acceptance of his parents is sickness. And so he has to be sick, otherwise he can't be accepted by his parents. In other words, what kind of havingness do his parents desire? Well, they desire sick havingness. In order to stay with his parents and so forth, he has to be sick. And the person sits there in the auditing chair sick.

Acceptance Level Processing in the PABs 13, 14, 15 is mostly a demonstration or an understanding technique for the preclear rather than something which immediately clears things up; because it can be run for many, many, many hours. And it's not particularly the end-all of techniques. But it's demonstrative of this thing called havingness.

Well, the process of receiving something and putting it away and not being able to have it again and only being able to have the things which are not as smooth a form and as—so on, and having less and less desirable things in terms of just an aesthetic, whatever the consideration is, these—this cycle goes on and is itself (please note this), it is itself time. The process of throwing things away and pulling things in and getting them forced on one and forcing them on others and so forth, brings about the agreed-upon condition known as time.

So havingness in terms of human experience is senior to this pocketa-pocketa-pocketa pattern, second hand going round and round and round, I mean just that—time. Now you wouldn't have any of this time because time gives you the hope that though you can't have, you may be able to someday. Time is the great hoper; it's the great reassurer.

A person looks at it and he says, 'Well now, look at that, that's—that calendar there. Here it is the 2nd of December, and I don't have anything very much right now, but on the 25th of December, somebody's going to give me a present." Hopeful havingness.

Now, hope in itself goes about two ways: It's the desire that sometime in the future one will cease to have something which he no longer wants but can't seem to get rid of, or that one will acquire something he wants. And that is hope.

And there is a condition of beingness that goes along with this, of course, and that is, an individual has exterior things—he has things which are other than himself (that is to say, they're made otherwise than by himself) and these things which are made otherwise by himself, they come against him and to him and so forth. And the harder they hit him and the more often they hit him … That is to say, the harder they hit him—the harder they hit him, the more often they hit him—I mean, you're just getting the same phrase. You see, you don't assume time merely because you have time. If you're dealing with something that would be timeless, you wouldn't assume time in order to explain it.

So you just say to the fellow—fellow's hit by something and he's saying all the time, "I don't want it; I don't want it"—and he's got it. Well, he can't be wrong; he mustn't be wrong. He must have already gotten into this to be in bad shape. So if he can't be wrong, why, of course it must be that he wants it. Well, you get your DEI cycle: Desire, Enforce, Inhibit. He begins to desire it, but what does he—what happens immediately before he desires it?

Well, if you can inhibit something—if you can inhibit something from going into a fellow and if he's trying to inhibit it same way—if he's trying to inhibit something from coming in which somebody is trying to push in (which is your E into I), why, it'll become him eventually. Unless he has an awful lot of force to resist it.

Now somebody's trying to give him something and he decides he doesn't want it. Well, believe me, right below that first DEI as it goes down is another D, so he desires. He desires that which has been forced upon him to such a degree that he can't do anything about it. And that's other-motion coming in on him, that's other-determinism coming in on him. And we know instinctively that acquisition of other things is in itself bad. Now, that even applies to knowledge.

A person quite often is difficult to process merely because he has the idea that other-knowingness can itself destroy him. And if a thetan (quote) "knows anything" (unquote), he thinks he knows that. It's not true—it's not true. A whole group of people can know something and be happy about it and prosper. But an individual who's had too much knowledge forced on him which he found indigestible after he receives it runs into this DEI cycle, and after a while the most desirable information imaginable—somebody could walk in and say to this person the most desirable information imaginable—would be something he couldn't receive.

Now, a person could walk in and say, "You've just inherited a million dollars." And this is a piece of knowingness, you see? Information.

And he's just liable to sit there and say, "Well, could I have a quarter?" so forth.

And you could tell him in vain, "You've just inherited a million dollars," and he'd keep on asking you for this quarter.

Well, his request for the quarter is his idea; so he thinks that his request for the quarter is senior to what you're saying. You're trying to tell him he has a million dollars, you—and that—he'd never get into communication with you. He's unwilling to receive the effect of knowingness.

And you'll run into that with preclears, you'll run into it in trying to instruct. Most everybody has had this forced down them. Now, a little child … You'll use a little child because a thetan is pretty well swamped up when he picks up a baby, he's perfectly willing now to roll on the line again. And he's doing a good job of having thrown away his past havingness. Although if you will carefully notice, by the way, a little baby that is one, one-and-a-half, something like that, they're a little bit spinny; they're just a little bit spinny. And if you'll watch them, you will see that they have not settled yet into a comfortable feeling about what their loss has just been. And they very often have old people's or other— you know, sort of former people's characteristics. They will go around and do strange things, they will go around and mop or try to do something to make themselves useful or something. And they appear to be a bit in a fog. And as a matter of fact, they are a bit in a fog. You take that much havingness away from anybody and he's in a fog.

Well, they suddenly wake up, sooner or later, to the fact that they've got a new mock-up, and they accept this utterly, and about that time, you get an entrance into childhood. And up to that time you just get a sort of a fog. This new mock-up works, they get intrigued in running it, they see that the people around them are not too desperately horrible, they see that it's a bright new world and they've decided to make the best of it.

Well, they haven't really decided one way or the other to make the best of it usually because of the between-lives sequence. But the loss of havingness, the sudden loss of havingness, brings about a considerable degradation; and the individual goes down below the level of being able to remember—he just goes down to zero—I mean, zoom! Because he's so associated himself with havingness itself, you see, he's so closely linked this together, that a sudden loss of havingness is a sudden loss of self. All right.

When we get a problem in terms of knowingness on the part of a preclear, we're in immediately into a problem with the preclear of time, too. But basically, we're into a problem of havingness.

All right, now let's look at it another way. We try to instruct somebody. We try to give him a somethingness. Well, as a little kid he was eager to learn— tremendously eager to learn. And then they taught him things he didn't want to know. And then they spanked him so he'd learn, and they did all sorts of things. And he got to school and when he got into school, why, he went into a sort of a cage, so on. It's very often children like school, but not—but it's very, very much up to the instructor more than anybody else.

And a lot of information's handed him, handed him, handed him—he doesn't know what to do with it, he can't correlate it, he doesn't see that this has anything to do—so it's a havingness he doesn't want. And he eventually gets down to a point to where he figures out, "There's knowingnesses that I don't want."

How could there be a knowingness that you don't want? Just—that's impossible. I mean, you want to know about everything, of course. You—there— you haven't any finite capacity, you haven't any finite storage capacity for information. You can't hold just 674,000 data, and the 674,001 datum won't crack your skull. Total knowingness is shunned by a great many people because they know so much of it is bad.

They've been into this experience of having—they're holding on to all these past experiences that are bad so that they can predict the future and so forth, and they don't want to know about the past experiences after a while because they've gotten into the DEI cycle. See, they desired to know about bad experiences and then after a while they had to know about bad experiences and then after a while, why, they inhibited themselves from bad experiences and then they closed with the bad experiences and had one. And that's the way you get the cycle going. All right.

Here's a person who has a shut-down knowingness. Well, if he has a shut-down knowingness, he has a shut-down space. There's a bunch of data he doesn't want to know about. He feels that this would ruin him if he ever confronted it. And so he would much rather handle energy patterns or something, you know? I mean, knowingness would be bad. That—there you see, that's the one thing that can't be bad!

So you know everything there is across the face of the MEST universe. Knowingness is actually a form of havingness because you have to be able to have some space in which something's occurring, you have to be able to go through some of the actions and so forth—at least to experience knowingness. But knowingness itself—theoretically, you could simply say, "I am the entire MEST universe, and now I will know everything in it; I wish to know everything in it." Zing — you'd know everything in it. I mean, you could theoretically do that. It's an impossibility, but I mean you could theoretically do that. You see that then— you'd certainly be indestructible if you could do that.

Well, and here's some fellow—some preclear: You're trying to show him something about his own life by making him process it and so forth, and he's sitting there and, boy, he's running "I don't want to know, I don't want to know, I don't want to know, I don't want to know."

You'll find yourself instructing people in Scientology and you'll find them— they're just sitting there, they don't want to know. They—it's horrible. You say to yourself, "Well, how could they possibly miss this? We just got through saying that if you put two pictures of your mother out in front, why, you'll feel better about your mother."

And this fellow just got through saying to you, "Well, you can't get two pictures of your mother in your pocket."

And you say, "What?"

And he says, "That's right."

He just didn't want to—he didn't want to know about this because he didn't want to have these bad experiences with his mother, and you connected the bad experience about his mother and so forth, well, he's going to take the knowingness and throw it away.

Well, knowingness, actually, is the most senior thing in the whole category of SOP 8-C. It stands over the top of everything. And as you have solved problems of havingness so that the individual at last can have, you'll get knowingness.

But if you think that it would simply be a matter of just flipping out a few postulates—just bing-bing-bing, you know, flip out a few postulates—you see, basically, all havingness is, is a few postulates. Well, you think if you could just flip out a few postulates, bing-bing-bing, that's all there is to it and so forth, well, this fellow would change his mind. Well, he made these postulates in the first place, didn't he? Well, all right, if he made them in the first place, let's let him unmake them right now and then all this havingness that he's worrying about and so forth, and the bank would disappear and so forth.

Well, it doesn't work that way. It doesn't work that way because you can't make him unhave that fast. And if you make him unhave that fast, he will go down into a degraded state. And that is why you mustn't reach over with a pair of theta shears and start chewing away at somebody's engram bank, because you reduce his havingness. And if there's anything—if there's anything I wish an auditor would pay attention to in processing, it's the amount of havingness, and what you call the balanced havingness of the preclear. If you don't pay attention to this factor, you'll have cases dragging, you'll fail to understand why some case is hanging fire. Well, it's a matter of time, isn't it, on a case. This case— you don't want to spend in this much time on the case.

Well, people who can have your time, sort of have some of your havingness. They can have you if they can have your time. All right.

Now you say, "I just don't like to spend this much time on this case." Well, yeah, but what you just said is you don't want to spend this much havingness on this case. And the reason you'll have to spend time on the case ordinarily is because you haven't paid any attention to a problem of havingness the case has. And that's what makes the case slow.

What's slow? Well, the greater the scarcity, the less—that is to say, the greater the scarcity, the longer the time. That's what makes a timespan span. What makes a timespan span? Scarcity makes it span.

Now, the more he has—you see, it doesn't quite work the way it looks there—the more he has that's actually his, the less time will affect him. But you can't solve it in the MEST universe. Because the more you have that is actually yours, actually, the more you move out into your own universe. And you're not going to take any piece of this universe with you—it's rigged, booby-trapped. So you'd have to have havingness which was strictly your own. I mean, you'd have to know it was your own so that you could pry it loose from this universe, and only then would you get out of the time stream.

Now, that's confused with the fellow who acquires and acquires and acquires and acquires in this universe, you see, until he's got a responsibility for a tremendous quantity of material. And this materiel itself is, each piece of it, going pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa and it's saying, "You have to be responsible for me, you have to be responsible for me, you have to be responsible for me; you have to agree with me, you have to agree with me." And the more you agree with it, of course, the more you go pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. So you've agreed with this co-motion of particles which is this particular universe, but that is a sort of a false havingness, if you want to know the truth.

A person who will possess more than he can actually use is a foolish person indeed—just in the business of agreeing with the economic, cultural strata. If you really want to worry, why, throw a hundred thousand dollars into the bank and save it. If you just want to worry, you want to worry yourself frantic, that's a wonderful way to do it. That, of course, is—you enter that on the D end. And you say, "Gee, that's desirable." And it wouldn't be if you went right straight through and actually did it, because you would find out that people enforced the fact on you that you had a hundred thousand dollars.

The streams of inventors who would go up and down your porch steps demanding that you invest, the streams of stockbrokers that would call you, the amount of mail you would receive would all demonstrate to you rather clearly that this hundred thousand dollars was being forced on you.

And then there'd be the government, and it'd start inhibiting it. And the government would say, "Well, you really can't have a hundred thousand dollars; we have—now we have instituted, very recently …" You see, the second you had a hundred thousand dollars you'd have to get interested in the government. And you have never—all of your life you've been perfectly happy. You've never read a Congressional Record, you have never read the newspapers, you don't know what the political columns are, you don't know whether you're a Republican or a Monotonist. And all of the problems of your life have just been solved beautifully without knowing anything about politics. But you get a hundred thousand dollars, you'll be interested in politics. You have to be. Because the government, sooner or later, might turn into a socialistic state and everybody'd divide the wealth and there'd go your hundred thousand dollars!

That which you have, when it is under raid, you might say, has to be protected. And one realizes so easily in this universe that havingness is short, that he realizes that any real havingness he has, has to be protected. The way many people solve this problem is to have poorly; and they have moldy loaves of bread and poor clothes and so forth—nobody would steal them. Well, they learn, sooner or later, that somebody will even steal these. And so they get moldier loaves of bread and then they get moldier clothing and then they're dirty themselves—and they make themselves as unhaveable as possible, just so they can covertly have a little havingness. That's their main problem.

So we have in our economic structure a great deal of protectiveness of havingness. And the less you protect in the structure, the more you can have. And the more you protect, the more you get nailed down into a static state— that is to say, not a theta static state, but just an immobile state where you can't protect. The biggest lesson anyone learns in this universe: that there is a certain fatality connected with having something which can be attacked. If you have something which is very obvious, if you have a huge house that has a lot of goods in it, you've got something there that you've got to guard. And the more you have to guard, the less you're going to win.

I call to your attention the Japanese for instance, were able to raid Pearl Harbor and able to raid all kinds of installations all over the Pacific until they acquired enough so that they had to guard everything they had. The fools didn't know that what they should do was simply to remain in a raiding force. Well, this is because they already had the Japanese islands so they really didn't dare go so far. But actually if they'd just retained and concentrated their troops as a raiding force, they could have easily won the war.

And we didn't even vaguely find ourselves in a position to do anything about Pearl Harbor or about the Japanese because we were spread all over the map. We were guarding everything. We were guarding the entire Orient and had no pile of personnel or ships or anything else sufficient or adequate to suddenly raid Japan, swish! So the war dragged on for years. Everybody had something they were trying to guard.

Well, it was obvious that when the Japanese had spread themselves that thin, they could then be rolled up. Why, of course—you could hit their installations and you found the guards very thin and so you could take their installations piecemeal.

The Japanese empire was guarding beyond its potential of guarding. It had. And here is havingness which stretches time.

But no amount of philosophy will get around the fact that you have, in your preclear, first and foremost, a problem of havingness.

Now, it would really amaze you that havingness will run out Book One problems. I give you something quite significant in this. There was a case last night whom I audited for a few minutes. I'd audited him before and—one of you was there. It was an interesting review of a case. This case, by the way, had run off, priorly, in Dianetics some of the charge and so forth on several engrams, and one particular engram, a tonsillectomy, had been run with Dianetics.

The only thing that was wrong, the only reason it didn't work well on the case, was because the case had such a terrific problem in havingness that the reduction of any havingness was unthinkably horrible. And as a consequence, everybody trying to take something away from this fellow who already had so little that he was right at a perishing point, was pushing a case in the direction of less havingness; whereas the only place you had to push the case was in the direction of more havingness.

It's one of these simple identity problems—I mean it's Q and A. The condition is there, you see it very clearly. We look at this person and we see he is terribly thin, he's emaciated. Well there's a problem of havingness, see— havingness in terms of food or havingness in terms of a lot of things. All right.

Well, let's solve the case. How we going to solve it? "Well, let's run an engram and erase it and let's—well, I tell you what we do, we get in and we'll cut off a large portion of his bank and throw it away …"

If he landed in doctors' hands, they would say, "Well, let's see. If we could saw off his left arm or something …"

See, an auditor who would think like that—I mean, he sees this person with no havingness, and then promptly gives him less havingness, almost negative havingness—this case is going to go frantic. And sure enough, the case would actually, and has in the past, gone into a convulsion when a little bit of havingness—just obediently do the technique which would reduce some havingness and go into a convulsion just like that.

Why does he go into a convulsion? Well, because his havingness is not adequate to his control of the situation. He doesn't have enough havingness to keep things stopped and keep things this way and handle things that way, and so as a consequence, the case would go out of control.

The body itself would drag on any energy of the thetan to such a point that the thetan was unable to control the body. The thetan would just be completely upset. Anything the thetan had would just be pulled off of him by the body with this little havingness. All right.

What's the proper way to run this case? Give him something. Well, how do you give somebody something? You make space in terms of anchor points. You have him put out eight anchor points and then pull them together and at that moment, then neglect it. Don't have him pull it together hard enough so that it'll explode the anchor points. Then you put out eight more anchor points. Put them out anyplace—in front of him, around him, it doesn't matter where. Put out eight more anchor points and pull them together. But, again, not so hard they'll explode. You see, just pull them tightly together.

What do you do with them then? Well, you can have him crowd them into his body or you could have him just merely drop them. Because there are sufficient unhavingness vacuums in the vicinity of the body that will actually pick up that piece of energy. And you as an auditor could count on that automaticity.

But you could stuff it into his chest or something after this had happened if you wanted to do something with it.

Well now, he will get so hungry for this havingness that he will start to beg to manufacture it. He's learned how to manufacture some havingness now (only he doesn't realize what he's doing). You just told him eight... He said— he'll start telling you (this is invariable) that he can do it now, he can do this now and he wants to do it faster; he can do it a lot faster than you're doing it, you see? You've got him up to a thirst point. And it'd be like giving a man who had been dying of thirst a little sip of water, you see; and then you wait for a little while and you give him another drop of water and so on. He'll start telling you, "Oh, I think I can take much more water than that." Well, this is the same phrase, the same reason, same rationale behind this. All right.

Let's take this havingness, then have him put up eight anchor points and have him pull them together. Have him put them aside or put them in his chest or just drop them or just anything with them. And put up eight more anchor points and pull them together and so on. And you know what's going to show up? All the engrams he's caught in.

And what are you going to do about the engrams? If you're a real bad auditor that doesn't know about havingness, you're going to try to run one. What's he got these engrams for? They're a level of havingness he can have. He knows he can have these. He can't have anything better than that, merely because he's so short on havingness. If he has anything good, it'll be taken away from him—he's been taught that very adequately. Well, he can at least have engrams, even though they give him agony. Nobody else is going to take one of these engrams because they'll hurt him. Well he can have, as—even though it hurts him, he can still have them. And they're more valuable to him than no engrams. Something is always better than nothing. Anything is better than nothing. The thetan has this as a motto: "Anything is better than nothing." And boy, if you look over some of the "anythings" some thetans have, you'll certainly realize the truth of this.

And so, here you have this individual sitting there and he's starting to go into convulsions and he's starting to do all sorts of things simply because you're pulling in eight anchor points on him. See, you're telling him to put out eight anchor points and then pull them in.

Well now, there's—you can get tricky about this; you can change his interest. If you found that early in auditing while you were testing out the case or you were doing something about the case, you said, "Now, get a picture of your mother," and it threw him into an immediate convulsion; you put up eight mothers, so—the corners of a cube—and pull them all in to a point (you know, crowd them together) and stuff them in his chest or throw them away or anything he wants with them. But the point is that those eight mothers crowded together in that fashion are going to go into his bank, ssllrrp! And you'll actually—if you were to look at this, you'd just simply see him pulling into his bank all kinds of bric-a-brac of this character. All right.

We have then our problem in havingness solving in terms of the fellow, now with a superior grade of havingness, perfectly willing to surrender a few engrams. And how will he surrender them? Well, they'll start coming off of him. In other words, they (quote) "go into restimulation," as far as you can see. Well, they're below a level of restimulation at the time you contact them. And you'll find him stuck on the track somewhere. And one main engram, two or three engrams will come up if you repeated this and continued it.

Well, he's making what he now has, so it is his. You're showing him he can make it. This is a source of great relief to him. And he starts to give up, then, the engrams he's caught in. Because he wants them; he wants them on a DEI cycle. But he only has them simply because they're something nobody else would possibly take. This is a problem of the fellow wearing dirty clothes so nobody will steal them. He has very, very little; he cooks out of an old tin can because nobody's going to steal that tin can off of him. We're not going to get into a problem of havingness as long as we have very poor and bad things. So he's got an engram, and he's got it all wrapped around him. It's horrible! I mean nobody's going to do anything with this engram.

Now, any rationale that stems from this is perfectly valid, but it's a lower order of rationale. It's a much less reason why. You're dealing with about the seniorest reason why anybody has an engram when you're dealing with this right now—havingness.

Well, how do you amend havingness? It's by giving him new mass. Now, every once in a while you're going to run into the same thing—you're going to run the most interesting problem with a preclear. You're going to give him some processing and then after you've given him this nice processing, he doesn't feel good.

And you say, "What's specifically wrong?"

"Well, nothing."

"Well, what happened? I mean, you found all those incidents I told you and you contacted all those recalls." And he did everything you said and, gee, he was kind of stable up there as a thetan and yet you gave him this processing and he just doesn't feel well. He'll sit there and look at you glumly.

You've reduced his havingness. And that's always the answer. I mean, that's one of those "always" answers. You don't know what's wrong with this case? Well, his havingness has been reduced.

Well, how much havingness can a thetan have? Oh boy, that's real big. Why doesn't a thetan mock up a body which is visible to everybody? Well, it's because somebody will steal it, of course. He's got to have some covert method like the genetic entity line. He'll say, "Let something else do it—let George do it." He couldn't make one.

Well, someday you'll be running some preclear, he'll be going along pocketa-pocketa-pocketa just wonderful, you know. I mean, he is doing beautifully and all of a sudden he will put up the classiest facsimile—oh, what a beautiful facsimile he puts up there—and he goes pong! on a can't-have, a mustn't-touch. Because he's said so often about a beautiful facsimile that nobody else must touch it, that he mustn't touch it now; and he just goes occluded. And you go along pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, you're just having a fine time, he puts up this beautiful facsimile and then he looks like he's sort of scared, he flinches back and it's gone.

Well, it's "nothing else must touch it, so he mustn't touch it" and this is too high an order of havingness. Because everything he has will get stolen— that's the one he's working on—everything he has will get lost. He won't be able to retain what he has. A lot of problems associated with havingness come up and he can't have anything that is going to be stolen. So he'll have bad things or he'll have poor things or he'll have something else.

Well, of course, an individual who has a problem of havingness has a tendency to get jammed on the track. He starts pulling in all the bad things because nobody's going to steal those. And so we've got another rationale going to work here.

And when you have processed somebody and they don't feel well, you ordinarily have reduced their havingness.

Now, I said a thin fellow a while ago, and you know, you may get ahold of somebody who is terribly fat—oh, just terribly fat; eight hundred pounds or something—and you'd say, "Boy, that's sure a problem of too much havingness." Oh no, it's not—it's a problem of too little. See, he's—there's his trouble: problem of too little havingness. He knows it'll be taken from him and he sort of lets it slop around and he doesn't try to constrict it; he's not trying to hold on to it anymore. If he has some havingness, that's no responsibility of his—somebody will take it anyway. So fat or thin, old or young, why, you've got problems in havingness in a preclear.

And as I said, this preclear may finish this session feeling terrible. Well, you may only have blown a half a dozen little ridges or something. You may have only blown something that was quite painful to him, he thought. And you thought, "Gee, that's good, we really got rid of that somatic." And you said, "That's real good." No it wasn't. You reduced his havingness down to a point where he's not interested. Because the way to knock his interest down in creating things is to demonstrate that they can disappear. Well, a guy won't go on endlessly creating if he thinks everything he creates could be stolen even before he gets a chance to look at it. That's a real waste.

And by the way, there's a law goes along with that. A person is trying to waste in the MEST universe what he should be wasting in Step IV. And you look at this fellow, he has a fixation: He's always trying to clean up rooms and attics and throw them—throw everything out and so forth. Well, he's trying to waste junk. Well, you wouldn't think that was an aberrative condition or a place of entrance on a case, and yet it will be. You can enter the case there—you don't have to—but you can enter the case there by having him waste junk. Oh, my, he'll feel a lot better—waste it in brackets. He can't have junk, that's what he's demonstrating. And so if he can't have junk, that means he's got too little junk and it's gone on an inverted havingness, so he'd have to waste it before he could have it. That's your DEI cycle running backwards. Whatever a person can't have, he generally has to waste first.

Oh, you can solve lots of cases like this. I mean, this is auditor judgment. And you could just solve more cases like this. You waste things in brackets that people are trying to waste in the MEST universe. They won't waste in the MEST universe—they just won't, that's the horrible part of it. But they'll waste in his own universe. And they waste in his own universe, and then he can waste them or have them in the MEST universe; but he only tries to waste things that he can't have. Very important, that Step IV there. What it leads to in terms of processing is something that an auditor, once he has—once he's come up against a case, the case is moving slowly, and the auditor just keeps on slugging and slugging and slugging—the auditor's up against a case of havingness; something wrong with the guy's havingness. Well, find out what it is and do something about it. And you'll get a higher tone jump by doing that than any other single process I know.

Well, how do you give him things back? Self Analysis gives him things back. You just keep having him mock up things, and his havingness starts improving. That's all. He just gets more and more, and more and more, and more and more— his havingness. You won't ask him sometimes what's happening to the things, you'll just keep on calling them off; that's why there is never any in Self Analysis— you don't say, "Now, throw it away." You read them a line of Self Analysis and then you read them the next line of Self Analysis. It's sort of their business what they did with what they created, see? And you'll normally find out it snapped into the bank or snapped into some kind of a ridge out in front of them someplace or it gradually withered away in some fashion or another that they can't quite explain.

You'll run across some cases that can only mock up four or five things, and then they all of a sudden can't mock up any more. Well, this fellow thinks— he's already sold on energy has to be produced at a certain rate and so forth— he thinks he's run out of energy. That is of course, the main trouble with a case, is he's out of energy. Because energy, condensed energy, becomes havingness. And when we're talking about havingness, we're talking about matter.

Now, I ran across a case one time that really felt degraded. Oh, he felt so degraded. That's terrible. We ran across a facsimile that told us a great deal. This case had been—well, this is a—interesting facsimile, it sounds more or less like a fairy tale, but we shouldn't worry about that. This case had accumulated a tremendous amount of radioactive material, just as a thetan, you see. Just tremendous amount of it, you know, tons and tons and tons of this stuff, and it was suspended—he had it suspended, you see, and he collected it; it was MEST universe stuff. And somebody came along and made fun at him and he threw it at them. And you know, we figured for a long time over that facsimile trying to figure out—well, what the dickens was the sudden degradation and the sudden memory cutoff, and it cut off the past and it cut off the future and it just stuck right there. And that facsimile was the one that brought into being—I finally took that facsimile, and by comparing it around and looking around with it for a long time, was able to nail down this problem of havingness and what happened to havingness.

That was a year ago, and we've been making fast progress ever since. And here—he'd thrown it away and, of course, this much sudden cessation of havingness was just too much loss, that's all. He just—sudden cessation of havingness; it was too much can't-have. So, of course, can't-have—he couldn't have anything. Actually the mass of this radioactive material took off and took the rest of the bank with it. Mass—just a problem in mass. As I say, it sounds like a fairy tale, but it's just an entrance on a case.

Here you had a case in tremendously degraded condition, this is the only facsimile you could find—what are we going do with this facsimile? It was the only facsimile there; evidently contains within it the explanation of what's happened to the case. So we patched it up. We made a radioactive mountain, simply by doing this: putting out eight anchor points and snapping them in without letting them explode, and setting that one aside and snapping eight anchor points in again.

This boy was exteriorized, by the way. I mean, we were trying to pick up and make healthy a thetan who was flying around and had real good perceptics, but he was real sad. He was a sad thetan. This is the only facsimile he was doting on.

And we just snapped things together and put them in a pile and snapped them together and put them in a pile, and then we put—made—started making radioactive anchor points and snapping them together and putting them in a pile, till we built a mountain out of this stuff. Big lot of it—oh, tremendous amount of it and so forth.

And then he started taking the stuff cautiously, one little anchor point at a time, see, and he would test to find out whether or not he could throw that away. His recalls turned on for the whole track. Real interesting, huh? Real recalls turned on, on the whole track, got very cheerful, got very happy, was finally willing and able to approach a body and didn't care whether he did or not— you know, no anxiety about it. Well, it was a problem in havingness. All right.

This case of which I spoke earlier, of the fellow whose—who, facsimiles showed up (and I say just processed him last night, another case of it), practically anything has been done to this case that you can describe, and the case boils down to a problem in havingness.

And when I said in the congress tapes that we've got a problem of energy starvation at anywhere around IV and V, that's right—that's all there is there, it's a problem in energy. And that's a problem in havingness. And the basic thing that—go out of gear on it is time. And if time goes out of gear on it, memory gets misplaced because memory is incident per time. So if havingness is upset, memory gets upset.

You find anybody who has got an occluded field stuck in a loss. How do you give him the loss back? Well, it's very easy. All you've got to do is snap the thing lost together, make space with it as the anchor points and then pull it in and set it aside; and pull it in and set it aside, and pull it in and—make it, you know, and pull it in, set it aside; make it, pull it...

All of a sudden he won't care he lost this girl—the most beautiful girl that ever lived and so forth, and he'll never get over it and so on. Blow the grief charge of being gone? No, thank you. Now, that guy will keep the facsimile of a loss around because he's at least got that. And facsimiles will fly off and do you do anything about them? Nope.

Well, now what's this got to do with prediction? Every one of you is being very alert, probably, and every human being is being alert as to what people will say. Trying to predict what people will say, particularly people of the opposite sex, because that in itself predicts havingness. And about the lowest level of it is trying to find out how people will react. What will they think? Well, boy, that is the shadowiest shadow that you have ever seen in your life. What will they think? That's real silly. But it predicts your future havingness. And you're protective of your future havingness to a degree—what the emotional reaction and what people are going to say and how they're going to greet what you do and greet what you say and all of that, that's very important.

Sometimes a case will have a face somatic—you won't know what it is— or a complete face numbness. It's just them trying to find out what somebody else is going to think. That's all. Why is he worried about that? Merely because it's going to influence terrifically the individual's problem in havingness.

And that's all there is to it.

REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS PAGE 2 2ACC-31A - 22.12.53

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