View source for SOP 8-C - General (2ACC 531219)

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

'''Date:''' 19 December 1953

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_2ACC|Back to Series]]

And this is December the 19th, the first lecture of the day.

Want to talk to you today about SOP 8-C some more and I want to talk to you about uses of. There is a couple of minor things here that aren't in this brief form for student use. They will be in the finished copy and probably those people listening to this tape later will find them in the finished copy, but that's beside the point.

The—symbolization, of course, is where you put the person's name, and that's under Step VI. You use his name, you shift his name around and double-terminal it and match it until he can handle his name. And under Step V, of course, you handle terminals, as well as that data given in this earliest form. That will be in later forms.

Now, when you look at SOP 8-C in its final form—not its final form, but in its complete form of all the Logics and Axioms that go back of it—why, a great deal of additional use will come to you who know theory and can practice it; additional uses will occur to you, many additional uses. And—because out of these Axioms and out of these Logics and so forth, we can get an enormous number of processes. Now, what we've tried to do here is get the most effective and easiest to use processes—that's been the main thing. Also, in—under Step I, by Location, of course granting beingness is also under that.

The first experience of beingness—you see beingness isn't space, but the first approximation of it, in terms of the MEST universe, is space. You see, the word beingness is bigger than space and it has more to it than space. But in terms of the MEST universe, the first expression of it, in MEST terms, is space. And when an individual encounters space, he interprets space as beingness. This is not necessarily correct or right or anything else, it's just what he interprets in human experience. So that if you are trying to deny somebody space, you are actually trying to deny him beingness. You see that?

When you try to deny somebody communication, you try to deny him beingness. When you want to deny somebody beingness, you deny him space, and so on and so on and so on. Hence jails—I mean, the police deny somebody beingness by putting him in a constricted space which is fixed. In order to deny somebody beingness, it's really only necessary to upset his mobility. If you upset somebody's mobility, of course he cannot shift his viewpoint—he thinks. So, unable to shift his viewpoint, why, he is constricted in space.

Now, the beingness of an individual is then suppressed by the number of anchor points which are close to him, which aren't put there by his own determination. Now, we've got self-determinism and other-determinism. He can put as many anchor points close to him as he wants to; under his own self-determinism, it won't upset his beingness at all. But if anchor points are forced upon him without his choice, which is to say, if he resists this "forced upon him-ness" of the other anchor points, why, his beingness is reduced. And actually, if anchor points which he has determined will be in one place are shifted, either closer to or further away, you get an alteration in his space which upsets again his concept of beingness.

Now, the—it's much worse to be ridiculed than to be betrayed. If somebody is betrayed, it must have been assumed immediately before the betrayal that he was powerful enough to merit betrayal. You see that? He had to have some power in order to be betrayed.

But ridicule is quite something else. Ridicule says that he mustn't have any power; he didn't have any power and so on. So therefore, pulling out anchor points away from him which he is determined should remain in close, results in a drop of beingness. Because one fights their going away and—in other words, he's fighting space itself. Because, of course, as they go away, they make increasing space. So he gets to fighting increasing space.

Well, if he fights increasing space, then his—the lesser of two evils will be decreasing space. The truth of the matter is, you see, without an inversion, increasing space simply gives somebody more beingness, in terms of the MEST universe. But by the time it gets inverted, when other-determinism has insisted upon his having wider space, that is in effect, ridicule, because it's saying, "Look, you can't occupy this much space. Nyah, nyah, nyah!"And the fellow agrees to it and says he can't, by pulling back from that much space. So ridicule does not grant power to an individual. People who are ridiculed are immediately assumed to be weak, and then they are ridiculed.

So ridicule is much the worse of the two. So much so, that individuals who are hooked into the betrayal circuit are very often completely neglective of the subject of ridicule. An individual who is without space won't even consider ridicule, he will just neglect it—and it's much, much more aberrative than betrayal. Although betrayal—the end-all of betrayal, of course, is to become completely nothing in terms of size or beingness or anything else.

And yet he will concentrate on betrayal in his auditing, in running—say if he were running himself, he would do nothing but concentrate on betrayal. Just nothing but betrayal—betrayal, betrayal, betrayal, betrayal, betrayal, betrayal. And never occur to him that ridicule was what would really start turning on the works.

You get an individual who is solidly ridged, who is very, very packed down, who is packed tight—he's been patted in place by the forces of all until he is practically solid plutonium, but he won't explode. And there he is, terribly small in terms of existence—you know, in actual beingness—but big in terms of energy. Not even in energy, that's again the wrong phrase—matter—because he isn't very energetic when this happens to him. And here he is, packed down tight.

Well, now this individual of course has to have space. Space is something to him that water is to a thirsty horse. But a horse, theoretically, could get so thirsty that he won't drink. And so this fellow is so thirsty for space he won't drink. And he fights away from further space because he has been unable for so long to impose any space between terminals; so long he's been unable to do this, that he doesn't consider it can be done.

Quite in addition to that, he is terrified of ridicule. That's the one thing he mustn't have. And ridicule is the im , and is the emotional—in the emotional band, is imposing too much space on somebody. That's ridicule.

You could throw some criminal down in the middle of the Great Salt Lake Desert and you could say, "Now there you are, operate your syndicate here." Now, it would finish him being a criminal. Of course, police aren't this smart. That's why they're police. They give a fellow a small place, and this fellow already is on the inversion, and so they put him in the cell which actually tends to confirm his criminality.

If they really wanted to get rid of crime, what they would do, would be to take one of the large Western states that's kind of going to ruin, and just dump criminals in there. Put barbwire all the way around it—more space than anybody could possibly employ, you see. And they just keep dumping criminals in there—and those boys would have to measure up or otherwise. Because they're fond of being betrayed, criminals are, but they sure can't stand being ridiculed.

If newspaper reporters, for instance, in writing about gangsters who were shot down and big murderers and that sort of thing, were to put it in the comic section, the decline of crime would be rapid. But they don't, they put it on the front page. They say, "Pretty Boy Floyd Triumphs Again." Yes—big importance, big importance.

As a matter of fact, the thirst for betrayal is such that it can turn a man to crime just so that he will be betraying and be betrayed. The story of man is a story of betrayal. But the important story that runs through that is the story of ridicule. And between the two things, why, man—man is at his best with betrayal—I mean, Homo sapiens, average line of.

This is where he gets in there and pitches, one way or the other. He starts thinking about betrayal. It's—somebody raises up a standard and said, "I have been betrayed. I am really the king of Bavaria and I was betrayed." And more people will rally to that standard, because they're brothers, you see, and they've all been betrayed and so they've got to go betray somebody.

And in terms of MEST, this is worked out—you see, thought is above MEST, but in terms of MEST, this is worked out so that people are always readjusting space. And life is a sort of a hectic contest of readjusting anchor points. Out they go and in they go and around they go and out they go and in they go and around and round and round and round. There are anchor points which you have to have close to you and anchor points which mustn't be close to you; and anchor points which must be put away from me but won't go away; and anchor points which won't come close to you but have to come close to you; and anchor points which insist on being close to you when they ought to be in back of you; and this round-round-round-round-round-round. If you'd get down to worry, it's this interchange of energy caused by misplaced anchor points.

If you were just to say to a preclear, "Now put all your anchor points where they ought to be," if he understood the meaning of that single word anchor point, he could have a picnic then for a long time. "Now, put them all where they're supposed to be," and it's the first thing he'd tell you—he can't.

"You put these terminals where they're supposed to be …" Terminal and anchor point—a terminal, you know, is just a massive anchor point. And you get—round and round, I mean, he'd go.

He—a person who starts self-auditing is just trying to adjust anchor points. I mean, he's trying to pull them in and push them out and do this and do that with them. And of course, he isn't going to get very far because the one anchor point he won't look at to process is the anchor point that should be processed. Furthermore, he'll always insist on using heavy techniques when he ought to use light ones. And where he ought to use a heavy one, he'll use a light one. He is reversed on the subject. And quite in addition to that, all he does is process, ordinarily, the GE, which is fun. We're not interested in processing the GE, because it doesn't happen to result in any great improvement on the part of the individual.

There are certain concepts which an individual can get. He can always increase his knowingness and therefore increase his beingness—always. And therefore, educationally, an individual can self-audit himself, so to speak. He can find something out, or know something more, or suddenly know some untruth was untrue or something like that, and therefore, educationally, he'll do a tremendous springboard. But when he starts operating on his own beingness, he's liable to be busy taking out his appendix when he ought to be sawing that arrowhead out of his temple. He won't look at the arrowhead in the temple, you see, because that's too obvious to anybody else and it's not obvious to him.

Now, another thing, an auditor will very often fail to audit out of a preclear what ought to be audited out of the preclear but insists on auditing out of the preclear what ought to be audited out of the auditor.

Now, a test made in this, whereby several co-auditing teams which had failed had been accumulated in one area—Volney Mathison made this test. And he got several pairs of Dianeticists who were failed auditing teams, and he put the auditor on one E-Meter and the preclear on another E-Meter and didn't let them look at either E-Meter, and then started going over what the auditor had audited on the preclear. There was no registry on the preclear—preclear's E-Meter just sat there—and the auditor's E-Meter went wild. And a little further questioning of the auditor demonstrated that he'd been handing the preclear his case. Of course, this is merely an effort to duplicate.

So, for Homo sapiens to co-audit, it's necessary to get something that is wrong with everybody, in order to permit everybody to duplicate. If they're going to do it on stimulus-response basis, that permits them then to duplicate what's wrong with them on the preclear and have it solve the preclear's case, which is the reason and the need for the highest common denominator in auditing. And this works out very, very smoothly. On a technique where you have somebody using Location—well, Location, that's adjustment of anchor points, getting somebody to adjust his anchor points. And as these things come along, everybody needs his anchor points adjusted, so an auditor will go in for this with great enthusiasm. He knows his anchor points need adjusting and he can duplicate it on the preclear.

Now, this doesn't necessarily apply to you people that are coming on up the line, but it certainly does apply when this material is being far more generally used.

We have, however, failures along this line. You take techniques just a little earlier, they weren't quite generalized enough in their—that is to say, they didn't apply to every case. There were several techniques you could use, you see, and they didn't apply to every case, so this wasn't quite high enough common denominator.

And auditors would go sideways off the techniques and they'd do such things as, they would say ... I got a report the other day here from somebody in Great Britain who had done this: He was showing the preclear his facsimiles and having the preclear show him the preclear's facsimiles. Ha, ha, ha—you see, that's very nice. That won't upset a preclear very much, you know, because the main sorrow of his life is that they have ceased to be visible to other people— let's just key him in but good!

That's why you never tell a preclear that you're seeing his facsimiles and he's never telling you, because you'll get him set on this thing of visibility of what he's doing. And he has become so sad about being invisible that he has decided "to be invisible" is the thing to be, and he wants to remain invisible and he'll get terribly upset if you talk about visibility.

If you were to take a little kid, for instance, and he was telling you— you say, "Well now, imagine yourself eating some candy. Now get a picture of yourself eating some candy." And then you say to him, "Oh no! Not that piece. Don't pick up that piece." You know, you can turn his mock-ups off for a day or two—just boom! You know? Start directing him in mock-ups? Oh no!

So he doesn't want to be directed that way. Art criticism can go too far. Of course, it's gone too far—when a fellow becomes an art critic, it's already gone too far.

I'm reminded of—this also goes into just that, art criticism—I'm reminded of Kipling's rather interesting poem, ballad. It goes along: And when they work on the great canvas and so on—after death in heaven, why, they'll be painting this great canvas and after a while, why, the Devil will walk up and take a look at it and he will say, "It's pretty, but is it art?"

In such a wise, man gets very upset about things which are seen—if man already is having difficulty with criticism. Of course, criticism is the tiniest, lowest level, you might say, of invalidation. And invalidation is the thought level of being hit—or being hit is the MEST level of invalidation. And criticism— about the lightest concept that you can get on the bank is not wanting to be critical. This is pretty low. Everybody does it.

Well, now let's look at the variations of Step Ia, and we find out that what we're doing here is actually direct differentiation in terms of getting more space between anchor points. See that? Direct differentiation.

Now, differentiation could be said to be that process which imposes space between two anchor points—two or more anchor points. That's differentiation. Identification is that process which takes space out from between anchor points. When things become more and more similar, one has less and less space, you might say. Or something is simply duplicated all over the place when they're more and more similar.

Well, we look this over and we find that we have, in all of the processes, differentiation as a goal. An individual is supposed to get things better differentiated. So let's take a method of just variation on this: We ask the preclear for places where he's not in present, and where not in the past, and where he isn't in the future. And where others are not in the present and past and future; and where objects are not in the present, past and future; where pc is not thinking in the present, past and future.

Well, let's just get a variation on this, and we find out that we can get him something like this: Let's take it real close to home, see? Let's take it on identification. Now, when you're asking him where things are not, you're asking him for wider space. And sometimes you won't find a case entering on this level. He can't differentiate that well on this particular subject. He has a nondifferentiation about something or other, and the way you'd get a nondifferentiation would be to take it right close to home. "Give me three people you are not."

See, this is—this is what? This is treating a possible identification. It doesn't say that the person is these people, but it just makes him differentiate by saying they're not right here in this spot. And therefore, not being here in this spot, they must be different. A differentness, then, is not being on this spot. A thing is different from another thing when it doesn't occupy the same space. Now, that is the first differentness. And differentiation in terms of thought in an individual who is straining at agreement with the MEST universe, comes about in terms of getting things a little further apart, which gives him more space.

So we work with this: "Give me three people that you are not." Now, you run a bracket on such a thing. You would just go on this process like this: You'd say, "All right, give me three people you're not. All right. Give me three other people you're not."

You're not talking about past, present or future, you see. Don't run that differentiation in on him; because you see, when the present and past and future have collapsed, you again have time becoming a single terminal. You know, they've sort of collapsed, and time is identified. And to every preclear, he has some periods of time identified. He has the past identified with the future in "it mustn't happen again"; see, he's—right away when he says, "It mustn't happen again," he has the past identified with the future. And your effort to get these things apart is directed toward any barrier. So we get all the barriers there are, you see, as barriers which we're trying to make separate.

And we have immediately the two fundamentals. We have the reactive mind—A = A = A = A. The reactive mind is totally identified and therefore you get stimulus-response. And when you get total identification and stimulus-response operation and so forth, you of course get insanity. The GE is nuts. I mean, that's—you might say that was a qualified way of saying, "Well, is he enough to be crazy?" That's about the only way you could qualify it, because he is, essentially—the GE and the form itself, if you start to take it apart, you find out that it's very obsessive. It thinks it has to have attention from others to the point where it doesn't live unless it consumes other energy. That's real interesting, isn't it? Well, by our own definitions, that demonstrates a pretty low level of operation.

All right. He has to continue to make identifications with other animals and other things in terms of eating. Well, now when somebody is too terribly identified with a GE, we'll just give him a level of processing which will spring him out of his identification with the GE right where it's worst—which, of course, is eating!

And so you'd start him off on, "Give me three people you're not, and three more people you're not," and—you know, get him into the swing of the thing and so forth.

"Now give me three animals you're not. Now, three more animals you're not, and three more animals you're not. Now give me three people who are not you, and three more people who are not you. Now give me three more people who are not you. Three more people who are not you. Now give me three people who are not other people."

And he's liable to flub that one. He's liable to answer that one, "Well, Joe and Bill and Toosie."

And you say, "Joe, Bill and Toosie what?"

"Oh," he says, "uh—they're—they're not other people."

"Look, what other people aren't they?" That's what you want to know on that.

"Well, let's see …" Oh, well, this will put a big strain on the brain. He'll say, "Let's see now, mmmm-hmmm-mmmm-hmmmmmmm. Let me see. Let's see, Joe isn't—Joe isn't Agnes. Ha-ha!" Fooled you, he really thought of it.

See, he'll come up like that and then so on, and then, "Bill isn't—ummm-mmm-mmm-mmm, he …" Gee, is he at all? is what's going through his mind, you see—real, real dim.

And then the next thing you know, why, "He isn't my top sergeant I had during the war. Yeah, that's right. And Toosie? Well, would it count if I said he wasn't a dog I know?"

And you say, "No, we want a person."

"(gasp)"

You're liable to get into a quarrel with your preclear anywhere along with this, because the preclear is going to complain and is going to get upset and is going to insist upon this and that. And he's going to insist that he's running out of names. Now, that one you want to look at. Want to be very, very interested in that one—he's running out of names. In other words, he's running out of easy looking. And as soon as he starts to run out of easy looking, he's got to do some harder looking.

And he's liable to have to look at the very person he mustn't look at. He's liable to look at the situation that he mustn't look at. And after you've gone just so far with any one—any part of this process of "who are you not," which is the identification part of Step Ia, why, just—you just go just so far on it, and he's going to run fresh out of material.

Well, that isn't the time for you to quit! It's just like in the old days, running an engram up into boredom wasn't good enough. You have to keep running it until he comes all the way up. Because you've just gotten on the hot spot right there. You're just entering the door of where you want to go, the moment that he sticks on names. Soon as he starts to run out of places, why then you start bearing down. You start being very casually insistent on even more places and more people and more differentiation in this wise. And you just keep on asking for it, and he gets into a very desperate state sometimes. But then all of a sudden, why, he's perfectly on it, he'll…

He's been giving you one reply every minute or something like that—way slow. I mean, his response was all right at first and then it got slower and slower and slower and slower and slower, and then he just—once every minute or something like that.

And after he's done this for a little while, you know, if you keep at it, why, his response will speed up and he starts going, "Well, and Bill isn't Joe and sab-dadabada-dada-dabada-dadada." He's got lots of names now. All of a sudden there's lots of people in the world. There's lots of places in the world. Now, you see why that is? The individual has run out of places he can look without having to look at something. And that's what he—why he's run out of places to look, because he's getting around too close.

You see, there is scarcity itself—and there is the entering wedge of scarcity, in terms of MEST, is lack of places to look. So your patter would go on, then, "What three people aren't other people?" And they would have to be specific other people.

Now, he'll try to deal in large classes of people. This is his specialty. Well, that is a superidentification. He'll say, "Well, Joe isn't a member of the Boy Scouts." That's great. That means that there's several million boys that Joe is not. In other words, he evidently has several million boys in one condensed unit called the Boy Scouts. This fellow was a Boy Scout, that puts him in a condensed unit and that classifies him. Man is wonderful at this. He thinks something classifies by assigning it to a group.

Science is so jammed down on identification, it thinks a datum is classified if it goes into chemistry. "Oh," he says, "that's a chemical datum"—that disposes of it. It's something like in the field of medicine—if they give a long Latin name to something that's incomprehensible, then they can understand it. It has nothing to do with it at all, but they have at least pulled it out by giving it a special label. So that, too, is a type of identification, isn't it?

It's a type of differentiation, actually, to give something a long label just so it could be differentiated from something else. They pulled it out of the general class of things. Science is at its best when it's differentiating one datum from another datum, and at its worst trying to form groups of data. They don't form groups of data.

The next thing you know, you have physics and chemistry both studying the same thing: nuclear physics. Only the electrons and atoms and molecules of the chemist today don't even vaguely resemble the atoms and molecules and electrons of the physicist today. And they don't argue about it; they're both— both have buried the hatchet on the subject. And you'll get a chemist saying blandly to the physicist, "Well, my structural picture operates for chemistry," and the physicist says, "And mine operates for physics, so let dogs live, you know, and we won't quarrel about this any further."

Truth of the matter is, they're wildly divergent. Well, certainly there's something wrong with physics if physics doesn't work in chemistry, and there's certainly something wrong in chemistry if chemistry—you see? There's something wrong over there. Physic—if you can't take a chemical atom and work with it in physics . .. Well, you mean that chemistry is now going to disobey all the laws of physics and physics is going to disobey all the laws of chemistry and they're both exact sciences? Huh! Hardly.

But yet they group a datum and lose it. They just group it, lose it, let it drop out of sight because it's part of a group.

Well, now that's what your preclear's been doing all of his time track, see? He's been saying, "This is I. This thing which associates with horses is I. This other piece of energy over here was you, and the world is therefore divided into three classes: I, which is one class; and you, which is another class; and them, which is another class. So, we have a world full of people and their names are I, you, and them. Now, how many other people are there in the world? There are no other people than those. There are just three groups, and it's the group of I and the group of you and the group of them."

And you'll find people talking like that. And they'll talk right along, they go right along talking, they—making sense to each other. And when you use English and when you use colloquial American, you have to use "they think that." You see, there's no other classification. The language itself is pauperized. There are only about six pronouns, and this is nowhere near enough—nowhere near enough. All right.

There are—I think if you had maybe five or six hundred pronouns, it would possibly work out and people would know what they were talking about.

Well, so that you—you're working, then, to unidentify somebody, and if you work this out, places where the preclear is not in the present, where he's not in the past and not in the future, of course, you'd have to go into where others are not in the present and not in the past and not in the future, too, you see? And that's that much of a bracket.

Now, theoretically, there's another part of the bracket—not necessarily used, but there is another part of the bracket there. It's "where others know others are not" in the present, the past and the future. See, "where others know others are not." "Now where does Bill know that George isn't?" But you're so far exceeding, at that point, the level of knowingness of your preclear, that you'd just bog him—if you could communicate the concept to him at all. He'd just get very boggy right at that point.

Well, similarly, you're often going to get into a spot where you just simply ask, "All right, give me three places in this room where you're not."

And the fellow says, "Oh …" Bog. See, boom!

Well, there's a lower level of operation. And incidentally this lower level of operation is one which you would also include in this step—it just doesn't happen to be here in this brief form, but it's in later forms. And that is just this problem of where others—"Who …" "Give me three people you aren't." See, that's asking him to push these terminals out just a little bit.

"Now, give me three people who aren't you. Give me three people who aren't other people. And now give me . .." Of course, you see, we're dealing just a little bit more in significance and just a little bit more in terms of thought when we're dealing with "who you're not."

And we get then, "Give me three objects that you're not. And three objects that are not you. And three objects that are not other objects." That's the next bracket, on objects.

And now, if you're dealing with identification, you'll find that the individual is pretty snarled up with a GE, if he isn't getting it fast—he's really snarled up. And so we've got to hit it where it hurts, which is eating. Because the GE is always trying to eat something. He's trying to identify himself with something else. As a matter of fact, if man's concourse was simply left to the GE, it would simply consist of everybody would eat everybody else, and that's all there is to it. I mean, that would be the end-all of existence, is everybody would eat everybody up. And your cannibal is either an unmonitored GE or the thetan that's degraded down to the level of the GE, so he just eats everybody up, and that's the way he runs. No other concept is possible there except devouring in order to get attention.

And, by the way, on that chart over there, you'll notice the Applause Scale. Well, eating belongs on the Applause Scale. It's just the lowest level of the Applause Scale. That's really enforcing people to give you attention. That's enforcing the fact that you get attention. So eating belongs on the Applause Scale.

And therefore, you have to take into account in this Straightwire process, then, animals. Not even necessarily edible animals, because man has eaten the darnedest things all up and down the track. And let's just take into account, then, animals.

"Now give me three animals you're not. Three other animals you're not. Now give me three animals that are not you. Three others that are not you." Get the difference between that. And that is the patter you use, it's just that: "Give me three animals you're not. And three animals that are not you. Now give me three animals that are not other animals."

And boy, he'll get scattery. He'll consider fish or birds. Animal—the word animal to him will just gunshot, see? Some preclear who is terrifically identified with eating and so forth, will gunshot this badly.

Whereas some other one will want to know—"Now, animals." And you'll find him just stringing right along with animals. He's talking about deer and cows and horses and anything that is formally classified as animals. And you'll have to then ask him, "Give me three fish you're not."

So just remember, if the fish don't appear and the birds don't appear, for goodness sakes, get the fish and the birds in there. "Give me three fish that you're not. Now give me three fish that are not you, and three fish that are not other fish." You'll find him running out of fish very fast. I mean, he'll run out of fish almost right away sometimes.

He says, "Well, let's see—uh, umm-mumm-mummum, a shark. Um-mum-mum, I'm not a shark. Um-mm-mum-mummmmm, I'm not a—not an octopus now. And I'm not a trout. Yeah, that's right. Okay."

Now, he's waiting for you to go on to the next step of the process, and you gay, "Give me three more fish that you're not." This is brutal! (audience laughter)

Now he's getting pretty well up on that, a little sticky, and you suddenly say, "Now give me three fish that are not you."

Well, you'll notice that the indivi , the person is unwilling to duplicate

in ratio to the way they will never repeat the name of a fish. Their willingness to duplicate is in ratio to this, you see that? A person will every once in a while use trout or he'll every once in a while use this, and this doesn't worry him, the fact that he's named the same fish—doesn't worry him too much.

But if he keeps on using it, he's perfectly willing to duplicate trout, see? That's what it tells you. Or, on the other side, he has trout completely identified. Now, there's two answers to that constant repetition of "shark," let's say, or constant repetition of "cow"—two answers to it. All cows are a cow, or he's perfectly willing to duplicate cows; there's no scarcity of cows. Well, it's up to you to find out this, and the way you do that is, when he has used "cow" now for the fourth time, you say, "What particular cow isn't you?"

This is liable to really stick him. "Cow? Why, there's only one cow in the world." And he'll say, "That's very peculiar, but that cow—its name is Jezebel, and hooked me once when I was a small child and it's standing right here in the room this minute!"

So, because eating has included people—yes, any one of the GEs on the line has indulged, I'm afraid—because eating has included people, we have our eatingness, then, rather difficult to differentiate sometimes with an individual.

Now, there's what's known as a "stomach case." It's where the genetic entity that is running the stomach—you see, there's some part of the being—of the genetic entity which is another entity. It's—the genetic entity is a composite. It's a large number of entities. And that one that's running the stomach will sometimes, because of the scarcity of food and anxiety and worry on the part of the preclear about his future and so forth—that entity will sometimes practically take control of the whole being. And he will start to digest, you might say, the whole body. You'll see—and you'll find the preclear in a state of being unmocked. You know, he—but he isn't quite responsible for unmocking it, and he's very puzzled as to why his body is half-unmocked all the time and so forth. His body is being digested, you might say, via the entity of the stomach. The entity of the stomach, then, has become so overt that it just—real upset, and it starts to eat the body up.

There's been a scarcity of food—food is very important to this case—and there's several ways to do that. One is to feed the stomach entity motivators and mock the fellow up eating himself up. Mock the fellow up with the stomach eating him up just an awful lot of times, and you get considerable relief on the case. But this is—other technique which I've been telling you about, this variation that resolves identification—this variation that resolves identification here is aimed straight at this type of disidentification.

Differentiation, you see, is a little bit different than disidentification.

Disidentification is, you're pulling them apart when they're all piled up in the same space.

And differentiation, in essence, would be lining them up in different places.

So you've got a disidentification there of the fellow with his stomach. Gertrude Stein said, "A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose when I was a little girl." This case is recognizable, though. You as an auditor can—will be able to spot this one, boom! You'll start spotting all sorts of things now that you know what you're looking at. You can just go right ahead and spot things and spot them and spot them, very easily.

And here you have the genetic entity stomach case. And gee, you start running this case and boy, he has to have like mad. You can't pry an engram or a lock off of him or get anything released or anything. It's all pulled in, pulled in, pulled in, pulled in. You just can't get him to—not only can't you get him to step out of his head, but you can't get him to do anything else. And you couldn't—now, you could say to this case, "Now, what are you willing to give me?" And he wouldn't find anything he was willing to give you.

Well, it's not necessarily true that all people who are pulled in to this degree are genetic entity eating cases—it's not necessarily true, because really, you could take a person and zap him hard enough with an electronic beam or you could walk around and shoot him hard enough from enough angles with gunpowder and he would get this same "reduction down to one terminal" sort of an idea, which would also make him eat hard. But the technique to use on that person is the one which I'm giving you here of Step Ia. That technique will take that case a long way.

He's always duplicating something, he's never duplicating nothing. That's a keynote of the technique. And he doesn't have any space and he doesn't have a lot of things, but when it comes right down to it, on the Applause Scale up there, he is at eating. How would you applaud this fellow? You'd feed him. It's the only way you could applaud him.

And sometimes he's below that level, where the only way he could be applauded is being fed, but he can't be applauded. He's inverted on it again, you see. He couldn't even be applauded by being fed, you see. He'd be upset or disturbed at the idea of your feeding him. This person, by the way, could waste praise. You'd probably start him wasting praise until he could have some praise and you'd find out that his condition would materially improve. Why? Because this identification is on the Applause Scale. Because eating is on the Applause Scale.

The problems of the beast of the jungle are that nobody takes time to applaud. The—if anybody does anything to him, it'll run a long way off and ridicule him. And he doesn't like this and so he'll eat them up.

Imagine the state of mind of an entity—let's just get off the basis of structure and it's all built that way and that's how it works. Just let's imagine the state of mind of a being which became ravingly in agony in the absence of applause. That would really be something, wouldn't it? Where would you spot this person? I mean, what other conditions would you say went along with this being? Well, he's playing the "only one" like mad, wouldn't you say? Must be so overbalanced and tipped over on the subject of beingness that everything in the world had to grant it beingness. I mean, he must look at anything around— that thing must have to grant him beingness. He can grant nothing beingness. He knows this, he's convinced.

You get a level of depravity, by the way, which would make a police informer look like a saint—the character of this being. If you get this, the—it is so craving applause, it's just in agony and pain when it's not received. That's the stomach entity, and that is a good index of the sanity of the GE. It's unimaginably crazy. You've never seen a whole being that crazy. That's pretty crazy.

The way stomach entities are made might interest you. They put them on a board and they stab them and beat them at irregular intervals, and make it completely unpredictable how they're going to be beaten next. That's the way that stomach entities are made. They are beaten and zapped and pounded in and hammered at unpredicted intervals and so forth until they're inverted and then reinverted and then reinverted and then reinverted down to a point where they're in agony unless they get applause. They can't exist for three days unless they're applauded—in other words, zapped again. See, that's the condition of mind of a stomach entity. I say "how they are made," "how they make them"—that's interesting, they actually are made. They're not evolved, they're made.

Pattern. There are seven major entities to the body and these are the structural ridges of the body. And you take a little beingness, you see, and you put it into the midst of some energy and then you hammer it down and you convince it of its personality and then you keep zapping it in and pounding it around and—it's quite interesting. Nothing much to it.

Some fellow one time said, "You know, this business about ridges—why couldn't you take a little piece of a ridge, you know, and set the thing up and, you know, it'd compute? You know, it'd be a much better computing machine than you can build out of metal."

Yes, that's true! That's the—that's what they do.

Now, a fellow can be made to worry so much about food and his daily bread, that he will begin to agree too thoroughly with the stomach entity and by agreement alone, just by contagion, begin to take on the characteristics of the stomach entity. So he has a certain hectic sort of madness about him and if this is the general thing that's going on throughout existence, why, naturally it's the accepted thing.

What to Audit is the one piece of work which has anything, really, about this in it. It talks quite a bit about the genetic line and so forth. It's actually just a survey or a history of the genetic entity rather than a history of man, but it talks about the thetan and so on. What to Audit was written at the end of a cycle of investigation which had continued, actually, for a long, long while. It consummated a cycle of investigation in Dianetics which told one this story—it said man is not the body. That was the inevitable conclusion about all of man, simply because he doesn't resolve as a case as long as you treat him as a body. And it said also, there are too many types of engrams on a case for the case to possibly have exhausted on it.

And as a result, What to Audit closed the investigation of the genetic entity. It's there for somebody to open sometime if somebody wants to go through data on it. The essentials of the data discovered are there and in Electropsychometry Auditing, that other little book—little manual—the method of the analysis of the GE, is taken up. That's the—those two books, Electropsychometry Auditing and What to Audit, are the two of them, more or less companion pieces. The E-Meter, What to Audit and Electropsychometry Auditing—a trio.

Now, anybody that wanted to do any interesting investigation work on this thing would be able to take that trio and they would discover, I am afraid—I am very, very much afraid that they would discover more or less the text of What to Audit after they got all through it again. That was a long, long piece of work. It was very amusing and it was very interesting; there's tremendous things on it.

Well, today, in the processes that you do, these things will show up. And when they show up, it's because the thetan has had a similar experience on his own track. See, the thetan has a different track than the GE. And the thetan has had this similar experience, you might say, and so gets at that point a facsimile agreement. And we get this thing called a facsimile agreement, you see. He has a facsimile in common with the GE, and therefore because it's happened to him …

Now, did you ever see two old guys and they meet down at the corner store and they're kind of fencing around at each other and not particularly interested in each other, until they both find out that they went through the blizzard in Cheyenne in '97, and that they both know Doakes. And now we go on from there and we get an endless, pointless conversation. Same way between the thetan and the GE—the thetan is the one that makes the error, though. The thetan says, "Well, do you know that this GE has—went through the blizzard in Cheyenne too."

Well, it's—a mechanical sympathy sets up; and that in itself is sympathy— similar experience. And on that basis alone does the thetan come into agreement with the GE. And that's the basis on how they get into agreement. And after that, the woes of the GE are the thetan's woes.

Now, you hear me very often when I'm exteriorizing somebody and I've had them mock up a body a few times and duplicate nothing and do this and do that, and "where they're not," and so on. Well, I'll come around to the basis "Now, pat the body on the head and say, 'Poor body.' "

Every time I do that, somebody will get a little pain or a shock or they'll snap in and out real quick or they do something. Because what you're undoing there is the possession on the part of the thetan of an incident which has happened to him, similar to the GE's incident. And you're just undoing those one at a time. And you undo them by, "Poor body." And then have the body say, "Poor thetan." You know? Just sympathy.

What is sympathy? Sympathy is the same size and shape alongside of, and that, in essence, is a terminal in operation. Sympathy is a terminal in operation. An electric motor won't run unless its two electrodes are one in sympathy with the other one. You got to have them on the same voltage and same amperage and tuned up the same way in the same magnetic fields, otherwise you'll get no interchange.

Well, it's just these similar incidents: "We both went through the blizzard of Cheyenne." So that you get a person in later life and you start to exteriorize him—well boy, he's been through a lot with this GE, you see. He has a lot of similar experience. He has the same set as the GE has, so he thinks of himself more or less as a GE, rather than ... He thinks of himself as one thing, whereas his health and beingness depends on not agreeing with something that is so goofy that it gets to—it gets—it will commit murder in order to get applause.

It's interesting that the GE has an area around its mouth which is "there." I mean, the phrase "there" fits it more than anything else or "has arrived" or "know." These things all sort of fit around the GE's mouth.

Why? Because everything it's ever eaten knows. See, when he's eaten things alive, boy, that thing knew right at that moment that it had arrived, that it was there, and it knows now. What's it know? It knows it's going to be eaten. See, there's no further doubt in its mind when the teeth go crunch!

So these things all work out. It's almost impossible to exteriorize somebody without running into some of this phenomena. But regard it as phenomena— and you can do something about it, so we shouldn't be too concerned with this phenomena. It doesn't interrupt a case. It isn't different from one case to another. Before you do much processing, though, you better read What to Audit and Electropsychometric Auditing, the two of them, and run a few tests on this. Because after that you won't be surprised. Your preclear will then become predictable to you and it'll make you a lot more comfortable about auditing preclears.

So this fellow, all of a sudden, he gets a horrible, horrible burning pain in the side of his head. You're auditing him, you're just using these techniques, and you start to worry about that. You think he's going to bust a blood vessel. Oh no! You just ran into a Fac One cap or a zap. Oh, and he keeps telling you he has a sort of a knob back here on the back of his head and it hurts, it hurts every once in a while. It's just an old nip. I mean, it's—thetan hit this body one time or another on one side and on the other side simultaneously, and it's made a—laid in a nice big ridge and it's sitting right there. That's all that is. It processes out. Do you suddenly detour and process that all by itself? No, you just keep on with the process. But it's so comfortable to know what it is and know what to expect next.

For instance, if you start to get a zap in one part of the endocrine system— that is to say, that all of a sudden the guy feels a pressure, piercing pain in one part of his endocrine system. You're processing a girl, all of a sudden she feels this piercing pain in an ovary—bang, you know—went out, bang!

Well, hold your hat, because you're going to get it in the other side too— she's going to get it over there, too. Only there's no reason to tell her about this. And if you process her after a while and she doesn't get some of it on the other side too, then you stuck her in the Fac One, because that's the knockdown of the endocrine system.

First thing that was hit in the endocrine system was a zap on the pineal. The next one is a zap on the pituitary. And then they zap some of the thyroid and then the ovary system, the pancreas and so on. A zap goes in each one of these places and quite often the piercing pains which people come in with, they—medicine calls it "bizarre pains" and so forth—are out of something like the Jiggler or the Tumbler or Fac One, or a nip or something; they're very explainable. You ought to have some conversance with these things, not because you agree that they are terribly aberrative—because they're curiosa and you run into them.

Well, now in covering this Step I, anytime that your case does not do a very fast spring up the line on just "places where he's not," well, I—and you don't get him back of his head right away and his perceptions aren't on, you'd better go into identification. And I've given you the patter for that. You'd better go in for identification in terms of people, in terms of objects, and in terms of animals. Them animals is awful important. Of course, you hit it for all dynamics, but those are the most important things that you'll find. And remember to run the other part of the bracket on that one, which is "What objects are not other objects? What animals are specifically not other animals."

Your patter on this is very simple and it's very easily done, and I don't think there's a case present that shouldn't have it run. Not because all the cases are in bad shape, but because you, particularly, have done the compression of an awful lot of data.

You've compressed your knowingness considerably and you've looked at a lot of these things and so on. It's about time you did the most overtly differentiative process which we have—the most basic and overt process we have. And therefore, you should go into that and do some of it, because you'll find out it'll make you feel a lot better. Less differentiation, okay—pardon me, more differentiation is—less differentiation inevitably results from crowding a lot of data in a short period of time. Okay.

SOP 8-C: GENERAL PAGE 2 2ACC-27B - 19.12.53

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