View source for Rule of the Weak Valence (1MACC 591112)

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

'''Date:''' 12 November 1959

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_1MACC|Back to Series]]

A Lecture given by L. Ron Hubbard

on the 12th of November 1959

- 7th lecture of the first Melbourne ACC -

Thank you very much! Boy… have you got it today? This is what, 13th November... 12th, thank you! You know, you are so close to the international dateline, I keep loosing days.

OK, 12th of November, first Melbourne ACC, first lecture. And this lecture, this one you are not gonna forget for some time! I am even having a bad time trying to get needles and tone arm and so forth, haven’t you? All right, have you got a reality now that there is a little gen to be genned? Hm? [“Yes!”] There’s something to be known about this? Is that right? Do you think there is maybe, maybe something more to be known about this? You think so?

All right, today I am going to talk to you about the Rule of the Weak Valence. And that is highly technical and that is something very, very new. It hasn’t appeared before but you find the foreshadows of it in Dianetics, Modern Science of Mental Health under “allies”. And that’s the first shadow of this, it’s the Rule of the Weak Valence.

Now let’s take a look at the communication formula, which is cause-distance-effect. Cause is source point. Cause is source point. Effect is receipt point. Right? [“Yes!”]

Now that gets confused in people’s minds with the cycle of action. So any cause point can be confused with a creation point. Right? And any effect point can be confused with a destroyed or destruction point. Right? But basically all cases are hung up on their overts not on their motivators. That which he had done on any and all dynamics which you considered discreditable, is what hung you up. And that is a tough bullet to chew. That, that’s a hard one to front up to. It’s so hard to front up to, that people don’t blow clear, swoosh! Because they’ll tell you consistently that it was what happened to them that counted.

Now they are not responsible for what happened to them, isn’t that right? They’re not responsible for that but they are responsible for what they did to others. Right? Now why is it? Why is it, if this is the case, that anybody ever gets slipped over to the receipt point of the comm formula?

Well, mechanically it works like this. They outflow and outflow and outflow and then finally they become the cause of their own effect. In other words they become the effect of their own cause. Which ever way you wanna say it. Now here is cause, here is distance, here is effect. And they keep going from cause over the distance to the effect, cause over the distance to the effect, cause over the distance to effect, cause over the distance to effect, and the next thing you know, they slip and they get over here into effect. See, they slide down their own comm lines. Got the idea? And they wind up on the receipt point.

Now did you ever hear in an European restaurant the waiter say, “Thank you“, when he put the plate before you? That’s just about the wildest thing you ever listened to. The waiter comes along and he puts your food down in front of you and he says, “Thank you!“ And I can discombobulate these fellows most dreadfully. That, when they put the plate down just before it touches the table and they have a chance to go through with their routine, I say, “Thank you!“, with a good tone 40, you know? And it almost knocks them silly and for an instant, I am sure that those fellows had a confusion between me and them. Now they had actually put food down on tables traditionally over such a period of time that they have to be the receipt point of what they caused.

They are slipping down their own comm line, so they acknowledge what they did themselves. They give themselves their own acknowledgments. That’s a very silly, silly situation and you’d say, okay, but... didn’t have much bearing on cases. Well, brother, it has every bearing on cases because it explains valences.

And this is what a valence is. It’s the thing or receipt point which has been targeted by the cause point sufficiently that who ever is the cause point has slipped into the receipt point.

Now you’ve been looking at this in terms of victim. Victim is of course a destroyed or threatened with destruction receipt point. That is all. That’s all a victim is. Somebody who having been at receipt point has been targeted from a cause point, victim.

Of course the rationale behind victim is totally vicious. Being a victim is the last hope that your disability will be duplicated, so that you slaughter the cause point. Because the cause point duplicates you at receipt point. In other words you object to being treated so or used as an effect. You object to being an effect, you see. So instead of saying you object, you appear wounded or hurt in some fashion and the automaticities of duplication bring about the same hurt and so forth in the cause point. You got the idea?

You might as well stop feeling sorry for the fellow that’s going down the street on crutches. Because I absolutely assure you, that at a whole track look, nothing ever happened to him that put him on crutches. See, he himself – it wasn’t that he did it to himself either. He mocked himself up on crutches, hoping to get at something that was cause point, hoping that it would then wind up on crutches, got the idea? It’s just a way of getting, getting his own back. Got that? Now that’s mighty cruel to state it that way but the truth of the matter is that his difficulties are caused by his overts. And that’s one of his overts. See? Being wounded, being upset and so forth is an overt because he hopes the observer will in turn get around to effect point and be wounded or upset. Got the idea? Hence we have the anatomy of the overt act.

And the anatomy of the overt act is not very complicated. But the main thing you’ve got to figure out is, who is the victim? And you run this process very much, that’s one of the first things the pc comes up against. ”Now, wait a minute – victim, victim, let’s see, was I the victim because I was pretending to be wounded or was I the victim because I wounded somebody and then he convinced me that I ought to appear wounded? Now let’s see, which way am I the victim?“ [laughter] It is rather fabulous, rather fabulous, you look at it, and of course it really all blows up in smoke that there are no victims. But it’s a great apparency. But anything you see anybody doing or any condition you see anybody in could be heartlessly, brutally and cruelly, undoubtedly with those adjectives, but nevertheless truly, a version of axiom 10: production of an effect. Anything you see is an effort to produce an effect.

Anything! Oh, you get out of here, you see an ambulance and it’s picking up dead bodies all over the street and so forth, you say, oh boy, the amount of mishmash there, that’s certainly no effort to produce an effect. Those people lying there stone dead and so forth, they’re certainly not trying to … oh, the devil they aren’t!

You go back far enough on the track and you’ll find little arguments of this character: “You’re wounded!“ - “No, I am not wounded!“ – “Well look, there is a bullet through your body!“ – “Oh there is a bullet through my body? I didn’t know I was wounded. Oh, there is a bullet through my body.“ – “Now you see that proves you are wounded. Ah, okay, now you have to lie down.“ and so on. “Oh, I don’t have to lie down, I … just because I just got a bullet hole through my body.“ You’ll actually run into quote...well, I, just like locks, on the whole track way back when. See, before all this had become so obsessive. Big arguments about who’s dead. [Laughter]

Which one is the victim? Well of course as soon as the fellow is a victim he decides he will be a victim because he gets back at the fellow that’s arguing him into being a victim, don’t you see? The only reason he gets wounded is so that he can produce an effect on the fellow wounding him. I am afraid that’s a fact. That is the solid truth of the matter. But the rule of the weakest valence is this: That that apparent effect point which most easily receives an inflow will become the basic valence you must remove from the preclear. Look this over!

Cause-distance-effect. Cause point is emanative. Ah, if you just draw, draw a little circle there with emanations coming out of it, like if it was an electric light bulb or something like that in a comic strip, you know. That’s cause. Now draw a line and now draw a point and now draw arrows going into the point, like if it was an electric light bulb, pulling light in, not shedding it out. Got that? You see that now, that’s cause-distance-effect. And that effect point which you drew is the weakest valence.

It will actually have the least mind. The mind itself is a sort of a buffer. It will be pulled down to practically nothing. Now that’s the easiest thing to communicate to because all you have to do is practically open your mouth, the communication arrives there with no volition on your part whatsoever. It pulls the communication in just like a magnet, see? Of course that’s basically the most overt overt act there is on the track. To mock up one of these super comm line sponges. You got a person who’s, not necessarily a person who’s terribly bad off or otherwise, but you will get a person occasionally who will only listen and never originate. You got that?

You’ve seen people, they’ll only listen and they will never originate, they will never say anything at all. Well now if you reduce that down to the point where they appeared to be highly introspective about anything you said and hardly even agreed with you at all, they’d sort of pull your comm lines straight in. You know, dog lying on the side walk wounded, inevitably people walking by say “You poor fellow, what happened to you?“ And he just lies there wounded, you know? Got the idea? That’s a communication automaticity. Now that’s a minimum of effort required from the cause point to reach the receipt point. It’s almost as if this receipt point has provided a bus there at cause point, with no effort on the part of cause point and the words are going to be trolleyed right on down the distance line, straight to receipt point and taken care of right there. You know like banks, or something. Banks! Save your money, save your money and they just take your money and take your money and take your money – or governments and so on. And they just take your money and take your money and take your money and take your money and take your money and take your money and actually it gets to a point where all you do is have put out a coin, you know, and if you let go of the coin, it wouldn’t fall to the ground. [laughter] Get the idea?

Well, that’s one of these super vacuum receipt points. Now that receipt point of course is the least emanative point. So it offers no resistance to a communication. Now this mechanism is mechanical. It is below the level of the rationale of who is a victim and all that sort of a thing. This is simply a mechanical arrangement that is set up and you get these receipt points, you see, that just seem to sponge up anything that come their way at all. You’ll find there the parasites of the society – well, those are just total sponges, see? They’re the parasites, they’re the alcoholics, they’re the officials, [laughter] they just {suck suck suck} got the idea? They never emanate anything.

Now you are not one of these people because you emanate, see? You can put out too. Well these people really can’t put out. Odd things will happen with these people. You give them … they, they learn something, you understand, see? They learn the house is burning down and you come by an hour or two later and say, “Good God, the house burned down!“ and he says, he says, “Yes, I knew that.“ And you say: “Well why didn’t you tell me?“ Oh, you know, just a brand new idea. Tell somebody something, you know? You’ve seen this, you’ve seen this. Alright.

Now let’s go further than that and let’s take something which seems to absorb. I’ll have to bring down this goddess Kali I bought in India and I mean to show you and so on, something that absorbs anything put in its direction, such as a black screen or something like that. The reason I mentioned Kali is she’s black, destruction and so forth, symbolism is pretty interesting. And here is a black screen that never lets anything out that comes into it, never. Nothing ever gets out of it, it only goes in. And you get a pc and he’s sitting there and my God, he can’t see anything, you know? Everything is just flying in, everything is just flying in like mad. “I just don’t understand what this screen is”, you know? There he sits, fixed, you know? “I don’t understand what this screen is. What is it, you know?” Well, actually it’s something that has steadily, currently, constantly, habitually demanded his attention to such a degree that he now can’t even see what it was that was demanding his attention. Got that?

Well, that’s the weakest valence. That’s what he’s looking at. That is the weakest valence. Now basically the rule of the weakest valence … you see, in order to establish the case, the person ... let me say that again. In order to establish the person, you split off the weakest valences. Not the strongest valences. You wonder why every time you try to run a strong valence off the case, nothing happens, see? Nothing happens.

Fellow says: “Oh, my father was a tower, he used to come in the house and he said, ‘Oh, where’s the whisky, and no more whisky? I either scream or the walls just fall down’ and so forth, and he’s a terrible person and it’s undoubtedly, if I could just get rid of his valence I’d be all right!” Ah, the hell with it! How could he possibly get in the valence? The valence is emanating everything off of it. You got it?

Now this is the anatomy of the dwindling spiral. People don’t go into the strong valences, they go into the weak ones. Let’s look over the mechanics of it. It’s too easy to go into the weak valence. It’s so easy, you just relax and you’ll – slurp, got the idea? The weakest valence would be the most inflowing valence. In the preclear’s opinion. See now the very easiest thing, person, anything to talk to, address or anything like that would be something he would consider assisted his communication lines. See it assisted the inflow, it says: Oh, you’re going to say something, shlush, grabs the words right out of his mouth. Boom! Bubble! Spash!

Now a person has to be pretty darn bad off during the period that these snaps happen. Now me talking to you at this moment could no more establish for me or for you valence shifts than the man on the moon. See? You can sit in a chair, you can look, you can talk, you can understand, what’s going on and so on. I can stand here and talk, I am alert and so on. We get the engram of valence shift because valence shifts occur because the overt act motivator sequence when somebody sets himself up as a victim at a very low level of reception, in other words, near unconsciousness or unconsciousness or dead.

Now the number of needles right here that are banging and theta-bopping as you try to set somebody up to get his tone arm on the clear reading at his or her sex is amazing and you noticed the number of theta-bops you are getting. Oh, man, did you ever have a dead body answer back? [laughter]

Furthermore there are so many mysteries of what happened to it. See, there the guy lies, there’s not a mark on him and he is stone dead. Everything is present, cash is in his pockets, everything is in the apartment that should be there, except one sauce pan. See, and you say, you kind of ask him, “look, why are you dead, what are you dead about?” [laughter] He doesn’t say a word. Get it? Well, that’s a real weak valence but not everybody’s weak valence of course is a dead body, very far from it. Most of the weak valences I think you’ll find are composed of allies that took care of you when you were sick. Or you took care of them when they were sick, or vice-versa or back and forth or something and ... overt ... who’s…who’s the victim, you know, that sort of thing. The big question of ”Who’s the victim?“ comes up there. To establish who’s the weakest valence you simply ask the person that you’re processing, “Who’s the weakest person you know?” I could ask you now and you can remember what you said. “In this lifetime, who is the weakest person you ever knew?” Come on and answer it for yourself! “Who is the weakest person you ever knew in this lifetime?” You got one. Do you remember one? [“Yes!”] Ha? Now who actually got the facsimile of that person right inside their skulls? Did anybody here get the facsimile of the person you thought of right inside your skull? There’s one, there’s one. Now that’s the weakest valence to be run with the valence splitter. Just change your case around, just psh… sh… sh…

And the rest of you didn’t think of anybody at all? You didn’t think of anybody at all! You did think of somebody? [“Yeah.”] You didn’t find anything sitting in the middle of your skull? [“No.”] Well, all right, you don’t have to have it sitting in the middle of your skull. Where was it? [Somebody answers.] Oh, all right, good. Now look-a-here! You are up against in trying to clear somebody merely the problem of eradicating the bank, you understand?

But in making OT or trying to rehabilitate the ability of the person to postulate, to handle and be at cause over matter, energy, space, time, life, forms and so forth, you understand? Well now you add this up to what I just told you. An OT has horsepower, doesn’t he? Hmm? That would be an emanating horsepower, wouldn’t it? Right? Well, the trick is this. The bulk of the people you process will simply sit there with the characteristics of the weakest valence and process the weakest valence. And they don’t get processed at all. And the reason they do not suddenly come up the vine and develop tremendous horsepower all over the place -- a simple reason. It’s because they just go on being this weakest valence, got it? Of course the weakest valence doesn’t have any horsepower. That’s what’s the matter with it!

The more he outflows the more it inflows. It’s a short circuit. Now when a person takes over a valence, they take over a package of characteristics. It’s a package of characteristics. Take over grandma’s valence, all right. Grandma did not like oat meal, grandma could paint a little bit, grandma detested oil fumes, grandma was hypercritical of young girls, got the idea?

And just any characteristic you see on a APA or an OCA profile, any characteristic you see, grandma sat at a certain point on that profile. And the person that is sitting in grandma’s valence, will answer their idea of where grandma sat on that profile. It’s almost as if, if you gave the profile to grandma to do and then gave the profile to the person who was in grandma’s valence to do – of course it wouldn’t be quite the same because it’s only the person’s opinion of the other person’s valence, you see – you’d get something like the same picture on the profile. And the picture on one of those OCA or APA profiles is a picture of a valence. That’s the sneaker about those profiles. Basically those profiles are not an indication, not an indication at all, of a person shifting up or down when they change, they are an indication of valences sliding out and in, you got it?

As long as you’re in the human level of processing, see, and we are not in this class, you see, we are not on that level, we are not going at the same targets, we are not doing the same thing. As long as you are in that, any shift that you get, will be as a reason of having shifted the valences. So don’t expect somebody to come up progressively tickety, tickety, tickety tick. They don’t at all.

If you in processing graduate them to higher and higher valences, then you get better and better pictures of the profile. Got the idea? But they don’t do a gradient of their own ability because their own ability is never in question. It’s all there a hundred percent, their own ability is – it has never waned from the moment they decided to mock up the whole ruddy universe.

But I assure you, that the Mr. and Mrs. Weak that they picked up down the line, couldn’t mock up a ruddy universe, right? Because every valence is the product of a succession of victim tricks. And one of the first of the victim tricks is, “I am weak! Poor weak little me, big strong you and poor weak little me”.

In an effort to flip this valence over to the cause point, see, big thetan! –exclamation point – comes along, he is picking his teeth with a thunderbolt, you know. [laughter] This little sneaker that couldn’t even vaguely have been hurt by a thunderbolt, you know? Thunderbolts would go straight through him, not even part his hair, see?

He says, “Oh, you hurt me.” And big thetan!– exclamation point – says, “Hurt you, how could I?” “Well, you just did. See, I can’t wield around any thunderbolts, not like you. (Sniff) Just go right into me and stay there because I am weak. I can’t resist them and therefore you are a bully for shoving them at me.” – “Oh, I didn’t shove any thunderbolts at you!” – “Oh, I don’t know what’s this thunderbolt doing through my chest.” And thetan! – exclamation point – walks off and he says, “you know”, he says, “it must be some kind of a weak variety of thetan.” [laughter] “I didn’t remember putting a thunderbolt through his chest. He must have kind of just sucked the thunderbolt out of me. How he did that?” [laughter]

A person being the weak little thetan and so forth, why, he goes over behind a rock and laughs like hell and picks his teeth with a thunderbolt. [laughter]

But a synthetic thing has been created. A valence has been created which was weak and couldn’t emanate thunderbolts and which at least one thetan came to believe. See, it’s an invented thing.

Now people for various reasons and explanations start wearing these invented valences and then you run into more and more invented valences and then people start believing in these things and they believe that they’re them and they believe that this is right and good conduct, that much restrained, and they... next thing you know, why, you run into nothing but an universe full of synthetic valences and there isn’t a real person in the lot. Got the idea?

All right, so don’t you walk up to somebody, sit down in the auditing chair and say, “Now you can’t do very much here, it says on the meter”, and “You are having a hard time”, and “We will improve you now by processing you”, and so on. Well, it’s only indirectly true. See, what you are confronting there is a synthetic thing. It’s a valence, synthetic valence, had an old proper terminology, but it’s just, it’s just a dreamed up thing. Any valence is just a dreamed up thing and it’s the power cut down. That’s why, see, process the thetan, don’t process the bank because what can you do for a weak valence? Nothing.

Now you can process the preclear so as to shed a valence or change a valence or mock up a new valence and so forth, you see. That’s an entirely different proposition.

But the road to OT depends on the shifting of valences and that’s why you heard me hitting this so hard and probably was a kind of incomprehensible to you at first, why I kept talking about create-survive-destroy and then in the next minute I was talking about valences and, uh, you know, it just fairly didn’t make very much sense. But the road to OT must lie through shifted valences.

Now you got two processes that shift valences like mad. The shot gun, case pretty well off, starts shifting valences around, just on, “get the i...”… or “think of entering a mind”, “think of not entering a mind” and so forth, you get a shift around. Now some of you have run that, haven’t you? Kind of beefy isn’t it? Yeah, well you just sort of shooting valences off in all directions and, and squaring things around and running out the basic reasons why a person got into valences in the first place. Well, that’s not necessarily the cure-all but it certainly gets somebody whizzing on this subject, see, they get someplace on this, I think.

Furthermore, auditors should never have a compulsion to be in somebody else’s skull while they are auditing them. You’ll find, I think, after you have run this for a while, I think right now some of you could tell me this is true, that in spite of the fact that you have run out an obsessive desire to audit people, you are now more interested in auditing, is that true? [“Yeah!”] Yeah, it’s an interesting fact, you know, it’s a… it’s a graduation from, “had to” to “able to”, you know?

Now the public at large out there is basically on the reverse kick which is why you loose them on a co-audit all the time. The reverse kick is: “mustn’t”. See, “mustn’t invade, that’s mine. That’s impolite.” As a matter of fact, it doesn’t matter if you run over people with a car in England today. Doesn’t matter if you stamp on them in a street, kick them in the shins or doesn’t matter if you cost them their jobs or drown them in the channel, none of those things matter. Just don’t appear to invade their privacy with any direct communication and you are a very polite person and well accepted socially. See, they’re on a stuck flow backwards. You could always tell a freer country than others. Accents are basically no more and no less than degree of withhold of communication. Then you could actually plot out where countries sit on their general social level by the degree that they outflow or what part of their face or in front of their face they speak from. You know, those that are speaking way back in the back of their heads. Wow, they’re, they’re pretty rough. Japanese, that’s about the only thing that really talks like that. That’s obsessive separation or individuation, you see, that’s obsessive not enter the other fellow’s mind. But it doesn’t matter whether people are on the obsessive “don’t invade the privacy” or obsessive “invade the privacy”, in either case it’s obsessive and not under the control of the individual. So that process of minds is most beneficial for the auditor but it also runs out all the whole track psychiatry and it’s got a lot of side panels one way or the other. But also it starts taking the lid off of weak valences.

The one that really slaughters the weak valence and moves tone arms all over the dog-gone place is a dynamic assessment, assessment by dynamics and then look for the weakest valence on that dynamic which seems to be the most susceptible to change. The dynamic that reads a little different than all of the dynamics and then find the weakest possible thing there. It’s apparently – you will very often find that it’ll be registered as the most mindless thing. See, things got the least mind. Well, therefore it will have the least mass, therefore it will read the silliest on tone arms. You get your negative tone arm when somebody is retreated into a weak valence which doesn’t have any mind at all, therefore no responsibility, and it can’t outflow at all, it just inflows. See, and the poor pc gets parked that way. Actually, we were examining a pc yesterday who does not have “victim” flat. And the only reason that arm is low is just because “victim” isn’t flat and that’s all. Because in running “victim” this pc has flipped from cause over distance to effect at some point of the victim chain. And it’s just a temporary situation and he’s flipped over into a weak valence. That’s all.

All you’d have to do is discover this weak valence, split it and let it go or continue to process the victim. The process that turned it on, you understand? Now somebody can go into a bedpost as the weakest valence. Now if you try to figure out why it’s the weakest valence and argue about the fact that the pc thinks it’s the weakest valence you’re gonna be in trouble on this assessment from here on out. Because it’s just like it’s the pc’s opinion of whether or not he’s done a discreditable act, see? It’s his opinion that makes it an overt, just as that. So it’s his opinion that makes it the weakest valence.

And somebody comes along and tells you, “The weakest there, well, that’s the eighth dynamic. Yeah, eighth dynamic, that’s the weakest valence!” You say, “That’s fine.” You share that, see? If you explore that, this person absolutely considers it’s the weakest valence because God in the form of – I am being awfully tough on Christianity, I’ll have to start picking on Mohamedanism. One superstition is as good as another. Ah… because he got the idea that he went to church to put nickels in the collection plate. See, and they told him all the time he was a little kid that God wants this and God wants that. And he finally got the idea of God as a total vacuum that pulled everything in on him. And he didn’t read the part about thunderbolts at all, see? And he tells you that would be the weakest possible valence. Of course that’s his opinion. You have some reason why it’s his opinion.

Now, uh, I know of a weak valence that was a very vivacious aunt and nobody ever considered her a weak valence in the family. As a matter of fact, she was lying all over the family like, well I don’t know, like somebody opening the front door and throwing handfuls of marbles all over the floor, you know [mumbles]. But for some peculiar reason to the pc this was a total inflow valence. And the pc, for God’s sake, picked up all the symptoms of her husband that she married later on. Since that husband would be the closest thing to that valence, you see?

So we had a pc with a bunch of somatics that nobody could identify because they weren’t even the somatics of the weakest valence. They were the somatics of the husband of the weakest valence. These are pretty weird considerations, that the pc then must have considered “husband” to be a fairly weak category. So therefore the husband of the weakest familial valence was weaker than the familial valence. So that was a weaker valence yet. Got the idea? He just skidded from bad to worse. You got it?

Now you can find these right in current lifetime and when they are registering badly on a tone arm in the early stages of processing, when they’re registering too low, well the person is in some kind of a weak valence. We don’t care what predisposition there was in the person’s life. Now you can clear this tone arm down, this tone arm down with overts. The tone arm can – clang – go out on down with overts and if it keeps right on going down with overts, you’re probably saying, “Hey!” Because what you’ve done is start to plow up the weakest valence. There it is.

You’ve just sunk down to what the pc thinks it ought to read on the meter. It’s actually a total no responsibility valence so it doesn’t read anywhere on the tone arm. Because it pulls in everything, it apparently is totally mindless. You can ask the pc, “What or who thinks the least?” And he very often will come up with the weakest valence, see? You can ask the pc for just the weakest valence and very often the pc just gives it to you. Who is the weakest person you’ve known in this lifetime? You see?

Now, if you want to get it for the whole track, you’d have to get him to describe the weakest object or thing and so forth, based on a dynamic assessment. See? You can get it with two-way-comm for this lifetime and run it without a meter. If you wanna get it for the whole track, then you’re gonna have to do the old dynamic straight wire type of assessment. Get that change of needle read. When the person’s sitting there and on everything – it can get this bad – on everything, why, he does a stage four, see, that is all the needle does, see, everything it does is ... [shows], well, when you mention the fifth dynamic, animals, see, the needle does this ... [shows] and you mention material objects and the second time you mention material objects, the needle goes right back to doing this… [shows]

Now you can go over the list of dynamics and parts of the dynamics over and over and each time you come somewhere in the vicinity of the fifth dynamic and so forth, needle goes up… [shows] That’s a different needle. I don’t care if it comes out of the case and ties a bow in itself, see, it’s merely a different needle. You’re looking for a different needle, not a stuck needle or a dropping needle or a high needle or ... you are just looking for a needle that registers differently from everything else. And the way you establish whether or not it’s a different needle, is, you can reestablish the pattern by asking about other dynamics. You can ask about, you know, you’re getting the needle … [shows]... and so on. Yeah, it was the standard pattern, and you got it finally on the fifth dynamic to come up here… [shows]

Now the question is, do you go back to the first dynamic and say, “Well, how about yourself and so forth, do you consider yourself a weak person?” and something like that, which would be an idiotic question, but you could ask them and the needle finally settles down, and the needle finally settles down. Goes back to it’s original pattern. You go up that fifth dynamic, you get a change. Maybe you’ll find two dynamics that will register different. Sort out to one that registered more different than the other. See that?

Very often two or three dynamics will be identified and they’re all the same thing to the pc. Now, sorting out the weakest valence, ah, audit them ... you’ve taken off the case the reason he can’t throw thunderbolts anymore, you see? It’s got all sorts of rationale. “It’s nicer to be powerless.” “If I really got active somebody would be hurt, so I had better remain inactive.” All kinds of explanations, you see? “Well, people have always liked me better, people have always liked me better when I was quiet and well behaved and therefore, I’ll be quiet and well behaved.” Well, what’s quiet and well behaved? Well, obviously being quiet and well behaved is being a stick drifting down with a river. I don’t know what’s quiet or well behaved about a stick but that’s what he’s being, he’s being a stick. He seems to think that the stick inflows and he thinks all sorts of things about a stick, you’d… you’d never think about a stick, but that’s his case. And up to the time when you get up on top, you’ve got just as silly ones, in some other direction that he wouldn’t understand at all, you know? Got the idea?

So there are these wild differences in cases as to the consideration of what’s a victim, consideration of what’s a weak valence, consideration of what real weakness would be, consideration of what the weakest thing or [word not understandable] is, consideration of what the safest thing would be, all of these things, you see.

Running out the weak valence, hah, there are just tons of processes, I mean that you could use. You know tremendous numbers of processes that’d be successful on this – supposing it said, on the whole track assessment, the weakest valence is a coconut. All right, it’s a coconut, that’s what the pc says, so that’s what the E-Meter says, everybody agrees on this and so on. Well, you could do more confounded things with this weak valence than you could shake a stick at. One of the things that you could do with it, one of the crueler things we’ll come up with later, would be, “What part of a coconut wouldn’t you mind creating?” See? “Would you be willing to create?” You get the idea? “What part of a coconut would you be willing to create?” – “Thank you!” – “What part of a coconut would you be willing to create?” – “Thank you!” … on this way. Decayed coconuts start falling all around him. That’ll be one thing.

You could say, “From where could you communicate to a coconut?” See, that’s another one. Somewhat lengthier process to some degree, not quite as violent, smoother, and so forth. Or you could just tackle it head on with a valence splitter, and this is the one I would recommend at this time which is, “Think of a difference between yourself and a coconut. – Think of a similarity between yourself and a coconut. – Think of a difference between yourself and a coconut. – Think of a similarity between yourself and a coconut.”

You’ll find that the first commands on a weak valence just don’t do a thing. Of that one, you know? He knows he is separate. Separateness is a total automaticity on it. He knows he’s directly identified with it. Identification is a total automaticity. He never had a question as easy to answer. Oh, it’s an easy question on a weak valence, “Oh it’s so and so and so and so”, you know? And you ask him the other question, “Well, that’s so and so and so and so.” He will tell you after a dozen questions, “oh nothing is happening, nothing is happening at all, you know” and “What’s the difference between myself and a coconut, well, so and so and so and so…” – “What’s the similarity between yourself and a coconut,?” “Well, da… da… da… da, it’s so easy. What is this lung doing coming out of my chest?” [laughter]. And it gets worser and worser and harder and harder and easier and easier and more automatic and less automatic and goes back and forth into many vicissitudes on that particular command.

Now you can run that one on a specific terminal or a general terminal. You could run it on an executioner. Of course the weakest terminal around an execution is usually the block, you know, or the gallows or something of that sort. People are always picking on the executioner as the valence they must be in, hell no, they are not in the valence the executioner’s using. They are in the valence of the rope or something. That’s right!

I ran into one fellow one time that had an awful lot of trouble with valences because he couldn’t quite make up his mind whether he was a man or a woman and it went back to an execution where he was hanged and he had his total attention fixed on a young, very good looking girl in the crowd. And then he moved straight out of that execution and the second they hanged him, he blew out of his head, blew into her head because she fainted, you know. And then that was very pathetic, so he moved up and pretended that he had died from the young girl who was lying there fainting.

Well that was a slippy one. I remember Dick one time running a case, who was, of somebody being beaten and man, that girl was this and that and everything else you could think of and Dick always could tell what was the next valence coming up because she’d telegraph it. If there was a dog in the engram or something like that, why the pc, long before she mentioned the dog, you see, would start going, you know, scratch, or you know … [laughter] And Dick would say, “well is there a dog in the incident?” – “Oh, yes, yes, how’d you know? …Woof!” [laughter] Oh, they go into these things and you’ll find weak valences then on the perimeters of engrams and they move out of that perimeter and they move over into the engram, you see, and it gets worser before it gets better sometimes, and all sorts of things occur, a lot of phenomena occur. The difference/similarity process is the smoothest valence splitter. It takes quite a little while sometimes but it’s a very smooth one and if you can pick up any low needle on the weakest valence and then run a valence splitter on it, you’ll ping the needle up, I am sure, much faster than any other single that way you could do it. Okay?

Now, have you learned anything in this hour?

[“Yes!”]

Okay, use it!

Thank you!

RULE OF THE WEAK VALENCE PAGE 12 12.11.59

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