View source for Step I of 8-C - Orientation (2ACC 531118)

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

'''Date:''' 18 November 1953

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_2ACC|Back to Series]]

This is November the 18, first morning lecture.

We're going to have, this morning, a very fast rundown on Steps I and II, Clinical Procedure. We'll find as we develop this material that it falls more and more into a highly formalized shape now.

There isn't a technique which we have here, which I haven't had in operation for over eight months. Not one of these. But these techniques fitted into the proper frames of reference for communication and delivery to the understanding of an auditor who's expected to use them, and an application upon an individual's case and so on, is still in the process of development and will continue so. These are—processes are old, but they are not old in terms of their arrangement.

Let's take now, very rapidly, a rundown on Step I. A Step I is somebody, of course, who can step immediately back of his head. This shouldn't confuse you for a moment on this subject. After somebody's stepped in back of his head, you run Step I. And then you run II and III and IV and V and VI and VII. Now that's actually what they're designed to do. It happens, with their arrangement that if he doesn't do Step I, you go to Step II, Step III, Step IV, Step V, until you spring him. And then you go to what he can do exteriorly. And the safest thing to do is simply run I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII exteriorized. Because the technique is designed for, now, exteriorized processing—the processing of an exteriorized person—not with its emphasis on exteriorizing somebody. Do you understand that?

Now, Clinical Procedure is simply this development: that you could just start processing somebody and actually to some degree omit the step, as such, of exteriorization—because he'll exteriorize. Well then, he's being exteriorized without being forced into exteriorization.

Well, Step I is orientation. It depends upon this Prelogic: that theta creates space, time, energy, and locates it in the space. And its second operation, of course—a secondary operation—is to locate things in space and time. First couple of Prelogics.

Now, that's "pre-Logic," by the way. Those aren't just something we thought of, you see, after we thought of the Logics. Because the Logics are Logics. And if you want to make somebody who is having a good time think-think-think-think-think practically spin, just have him double-terminal logic. Just have him put logic out there in front of him four times, and you'll see more action than you've ever seen before, because there is the bottom rung of automaticity. Really gorgeous what happens on logic! That's not a recommended procedure, that's just a demonstration procedure.

Two kinds of procedure—there's three kinds. There's investigatory, demonstration that phenomena is there, and then practical processing procedures. And many that would belong—were in practical and—practical processing procedures have moved into the other procedures. All right.

Now let's take this Prelogic—that's before Logic. That's exactly what it says. It isn't an Axiom; it isn't a self-evident truth; it isn't a basis on which you can evolve something, as you can in the Logics. It just happens to be phenomena which precedes logic.

And then we get logic proceeding dually: one, simply from knowingness; and two, simply from these Prelogics of locating things in time and space.

You can reduce practically the whole language, if not the entire language, simply to action in space. Action or lack of action in space. For instance, the language is very limited because its use is communication of space—is what can we mutually observe? Those things which we have observed are in space and are objects in space and are motion in space, and as a result we get a communication. That is the basic communication, is motion in space, and different kinds of spaces. So that is, essentially, communication. So the MEST language has a tendency to relegate itself entirely to this. But we can take this language—fantastic thing—we can take this language and talk about something that is completely out of its definition.

Language is something we can mutually observe, which has become symbolized in terms of words. Now, we can take these words, because we've symbolized them, and we can simply move out of it by saying, "Well, we don't mean that symbol. You see, we mean the opposite of that symbol." And there must have been an opposite to the symbol or otherwise there wouldn't have been a symbol, and people understand what you mean.

But the communication of this material has been the problem to be resolved, more than anything else. All right.

Now, in Step I, we are attacking not just somebody who exteriorizes and is three feet back of his head and knows it and is very certain and so on. Don't classify that step as an operation or action step. Let's classify it on more of what it is: that is the step of Location. And anything and everything that has to do with location past, present and future, belongs in Step I. Specifically location—not change of location, that belongs in Step V; but just plain, ordinary, routine, run-of-the-mill location.

Where is the microphone? It is so many inches from this corner and so many inches from that corner. And that is the position of the microphone. And this room is such and such a distance from such and such an object, and so on. Because all locations are relative. They are relative to other locations.

And soon as the person realizes there is no hitching post in the MEST universe which is suddenly sitting—to be found by a preclear, suddenly sitting there, which is immovable, irradicable and entirely fixed without relating itself to any other post, that it's the "prime post unposted," you've actually lost your grip on the whole subject of logic. The reason for this is, is every logic is related to some other logic, every datum is related to some other datum. Data can only be evaluated in terms of data of comparable magnitude and so forth. And we go right on off into all of the Logics and Axioms.

But there is no "prime post unposted" in the universe to which everything else relates. People have a tendency … You know, when I was running, you know, "Touch the statue," on arrival—you know, I would just run this as, "In the future you have touched the statue." Well, naturally people have the idea there ought to be a "prime post unposted" to which everything else is related. That there is a location which is independent of any other location. No such location exists. All locations are there because they are related to other locations which are there, because they are there because they are related to other locations which are there. And around and round we go.

And people get into these silly things like "It must be a circular time track," and "It must be a circular universe." This is only because if they beat everything to pieces, they would find out it finally related to itself. They would find out that after they've related everything to everything that was related to everything, they would get back to the first thing that they started relating things to.

I'll give you an example of this. All right. We take the microphone: it's so many inches from that corner, so many inches from that corner. And the room: it's sitting in a room where those corners—those corners in relationship to the courthouse over here—there's so many feet over to the courthouse, and it's so many feet down the line to a certain river dock. Okay, where's the courthouse? The courthouse is related in a certain location to Washington, DC and that is—and the courthouse is also in certain relationship to Los Angeles. All right. Where's Washington, DC, and Los Angeles? They're at the extremities of the United States, which is located between two oceans. Where are these two oceans? They are located on Earth and the Earth is located in relationship to a sun. But this sun is in location to Polaris, Betelgeuse, Arcturus and certain other stars. And where are these located? They are located in their relationship to the positions from the center of this galaxy. Where's the center of this galaxy? The center of this galaxy is the mean location and centering of all lines which would be drawn inward toward it. That's the center of the galaxy. It's very simple. All right.

Now, let's just take the galaxy. We say, "Where is the center of the galaxy?" Well, the center of the galaxy is related at such and such a distance from that microphone. See, people think they know something. Science is always engaged on this. They say, "The railroad track goes from Hoboken to Sloboken. It starts in at Hoboken and arrives at Sloboken." Then they never ask, "Where's Hoboken?" and "Where's Sloboken?" They think they've located a railroad track. Well, actually they have, because that's the—all the location there is.

The greatest secret of the MEST universe, you see, is there's no secret. It is there. But it's there because you say it's there. And this doesn't mean it isn't there, merely because you say it is there. Because, you see, you happen to be all the authority there is for the location of it.

And people who want to minimize people's authority say, "Well, it's all illusionary because you just think it's—you just imagine it." Oh, boy, what a cancellation. Rrrr! You're nothing because that which you imagine, then, has no validity. And when all the validity there is, is that which you imagine … See? In other words, your imagination can make things awful doggone real real. See? Real good.

The way to look at it—it's just a difference of viewpoint—is whether you take the motorcycle down the road or the motorcycle takes you down the road. They say, "It's all illusory because you thought of it." All right, that's the motorcycle taking somebody down the road, see? Everybody knows they're nothing, and so on. So let's turn this around and say that "It's really real because you thought of it." Entirely different angle on the same thing. Well, that belongs, actually, in terms of knowingness.

So locational activities have to do, of course, with limitations and barriers. And this is the first step out of knowingness. We immediately move out of this certainty which is knowingness. Certainty is not data. It's not data, it's just knowing—knowing one knows. And that is actually a state of beingness.

But the first observable state of beingness has to do with space. And the second we get into space, of course—in order to have space, we have to have a viewpoint of a dimension. Well, how is the dimension achieved? The dimension is very simply achieved by having barriers on the space. But why and how is the space there? The space is there because it has barriers. So we're into an interrelated thing. We're into: Barriers make location possible. Location only becomes confused because of barriers. See? See, it's one of these—it's Q and A. It is what it is; the way to cross the river is to cross the river; the way to eat breakfast is to eat breakfast.

Now, here we have somebody looking at barriers which he put up. Then looking at barriers which he and somebody else put up. Then looking at barriers which somebody else put up. And you've got about all the kinds of barriers there are. Of course, there's the barriers somebody put up for him, and the barriers they put up for other people. So we have another classification, and we have a bracket of five. Actually, there are six brackets in space. We'll go into that later.

But when we have location, we have to do with barriers. You understand that the more we validate barriers, the more barrier they become. And the trouble with your pc, he's got too many barriers. Don't, however, miss this fact: unless you backtrack the track of agreements, you're not taking the wheels delicately, and the excess balance wheels and so forth out of the watch, you're just smashing the watch. You can just suddenly say, sneeringly, "Well, there's no barriers and the barriers don't have any validity and so forth, and it's all unreal anyway and we're all set." This is the way it works.

He's convinced there are barriers and then he's unconvinced, which is an involution, you see? At first he's real convinced there are barriers, and then he gets unconvinced of these barriers of which he's already convinced. See, this is real unreality now. I mean, he was absolutely sure that when he banged his head into the tree, it found an impact between the head and the tree. You see, an impact was there when he banged his head into the tree. When he stamped his foot on the concrete walk, a foot contacted a concrete walk. He's very sure of this. Now, time goes on and he overdoes this and he becomes so sure that he's really sure, and he's sure beyond sure beyond … Well, it's—I don't know, you stamp feet into concrete walks, you have to have feet and they're very, very scarce; and maybe we'd better not stamp so many feet into so many concrete walks, and the way to do this is not to have so many feet and not to have so many concrete walks because they're scarce. That's about all there is to logic. But that's direct logic, that it actually assaults one's credulity that it could go this way. But after a while, why, he doesn't have feet to stamp against concrete walks.

Now, what have you got to do? You've got to give him a concrete walk—not necessarily, but the fast-working technique gives him a foot and a concrete walk, shows him they're real, and then shows him they aren't real again. But that's bringing him up scale, not down scale. It doesn't show him, "Look, here's a foot and a concrete walk. Now, you're sure they're there? Now we're going to show you they're not there at all. Uh-huh! And we're going to show you not only that they're not there, but that you're a very foolish person for believing they ever were there." And we just wheel the guy off in a wheelbarrow to the local spinbin. And that's the way it's done.

That's the big operation in this universe, is you convince somebody something exists, and then you unconvince him by showing him it doesn't exist. And you do this, and if you do this on a line where he is merely being confused by it, and is still carrying his old existences, why, he's in terrible shape. So, again, we have the validation of barrier. The validation of barrier precedes, by impact, the invalidation of barriers.

And people invalidate barriers. This works like this: A fellow is convinced that a blackjack will meet a skull when wielded against a skull. He objects to this and he objects to it and he objects to it and keeps getting slugged with a blackjack. So finally he goes to the point of where he says, "Because of this, there is no blackjack and I have no skull, really." See, that's his defense against this. He says they don't exist. In other words, he tries to scramble backwards—and all the time he is madly holding a skull away from a blackjack, and a blackjack away from a skull. Although he's convinced they don't exist—he says.

So your preclear is madly holding the foot above the sidewalk and not letting it meet, the head from smashing the tree, all over the time track—and at the same time saying, "I'm not there. I'm not there. It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. No. No, it isn't real."

"I can't see well," he says, "you know, I can't see well. I look at the walls and they're kind of thin. Kind of seems to me sometimes the whole universe is liable to disappear." This is real sad. Well, all you do to reverse this is to give him back the barriers which he already had, and then undo those, so he's no longer holding something.

And how do you go about this? You show him by a process—Step I, actually—that there is no barrier to hold. Now, the way you show him, however, is by showing him there is a barrier to hold, and then showing him there isn't a barrier to hold, on this basis: self-determined.

See, there are two ways to go about it. The way he goes down scale is it's other-determined assurance, you know? Blackjack against the skull, blackjack against the skull, blackjack wielded by somebody else, skull belongs to something else, and there they're coming together madly and he's trying to say all the time, "They're not there," and something else is saying very authoritatively, "They're not there," and then somebody comes along later and tells him and convinces him utterly that he has no skull. This is other-determinism at work.

Now, self-determinism at work, you simply show him, "Look, you were making the barriers in the first place," and he realizes this suddenly. But if he doesn't realize this on his own power, you have not unmade it, you have just pushed him down scale. You get the two differences?

So by locating him in time and space all over the shop, you eventually show him that he has the power to locate himself in time and space. And you take away any of the automaticity which he had and was trusting and had forgotten about. You've taken away the automaticity which is doing all this locating for him. You just locate him, you see. You get him located in three universes: his own, somebody else's and the MEST universe. And you get him well-located and well-oriented, and you get him well-oriented in time, you find present time for him and that sort of thing. And then on his own determinism—because he's gotten rid of this automaticity and a few other things (but that all takes place in Step I, just automatically; again, the step itself is somewhat automatic)—he gets up to a point where he can start looking through the barriers; but he can only start really looking through them when he knows he put them there. You get the idea?

First, he knows they're his, and he knows he at least had a hand in putting them there. And then he can banish them. And then he can put them there at will. And then he relaxes about the whole thing. You see?

If you put it the other way around, whereby you just start hammering and convincing him and then saying, "You see, you know it isn't there," why, you're just being other-determinism. He'll simply go down Tone Scale.

People get over arthritis, by the way, by going into apathy. Yeah, you can move somebody from anger down into apathy, he'd probably lose his arthritis. Interesting, isn't it?

You can do things to somebody by pushing them down scale as fast as you put them up scale. That's right. Just as fast. Of course they're not much there anymore and so forth, but they're not any trouble to anybody either. Psychiatry works on this basis to some very marked degree. They "treat" patients so that the patient is less trouble to his environment, and that's their goal.

And our goal neglects the fact that the patient may be more trouble to his environment. Just neglects it utterly. Because, by test, we have discovered that after he's been troublesome to his environment for a while, he gets to a point where he's assisting his environment, and we figure that's better.

It's all a point of view, whether everybody succumbs or everybody survives. And it's just difference of viewpoint. And probably a lot of argument in favor of everybody succumbing, except the person who wants them all to succumb. And it's just a point of view, you might say. It comes under the heading of the "only one." If a fellow has to play the idea of the "only one," then everybody's got to succumb. See, everybody else must succumb because he's the "only one." It's very simple. All right.

What precisely does Step I consist of? Consists of direct location.

Now, when you tell somebody, "Be three feet in back of your head," you, of course, are telling him to locate himself. And you've got him out of his own wavelength and bailed him out of energy sufficiently so that he is able to, actually, process things by sort of changing his mind. He can sort of change his mind there, from there out—within the limits imposed, which are resolved by Step II.

Now, what else is there to this step? Well, you see, that's just one brand of location.

Now, because he has been so dependent upon impacts in the past for his conviction, it becomes more important for the auditor to discover where he is not, than where he is. And on this case, you never go in on the basis of, "Now where are you?" If you were really doing a smooth job of auditing, you wouldn't even ask him, "Are you three feet back of your head?" See? Now, you would say, "Are you in your head?"—you say, "Three feet back of your head. Now where are you not in the body?" That would be the next question.

And he'd say, "Well, I'm not in my feet. I'm not in my stomach. I'm not in my shoulders. See, I'm not in my—oh, I'm not in my head! Ha-ha!"

There you go. You've suddenly delivered into his hands a certainty.

Now if you ask him, "Are you three feet back of your head?" he looks around and doesn't see anything. Of course it's he that is looking around and him he is expecting to see. And of course he can't see him, so he's in a state of unknowingness to a point where he's very uncertain. And when somebody's back of his head being very uncertain—you know, he knows he exteriorized in there for a moment and then he becomes very uncertain—it's usually because the auditor is asking too many puzzling or upsetting questions about his location.

Because this person, if he's going to be uncertain, is already trying to make come true this line: "I am energy. I am an object. See, I have become something." And anytime somebody's trying to make that line come true, we're having a little trouble. Because the fact of the matter is, he's thought and he is personality and so on. But he doesn't think he's a personality and he thinks he's just a concept and he's real upset, and life looks very confusing to him at that moment when he suddenly arrives three feet back of his head, pong!

Very often people arrive three feet back of the head and the auditor asks them, "Now are you three feet back of the head?" And the fellow thinks for a moment, "I wonder if I am, let's see." And he starts looking around for himself or he starts looking at the body. Well, we don't even want him to look at the body.

There's nothing wrong with his looking at the body. But the technique would even work better if you were to suddenly ask him, "Now are you in the upper right-hand corner of the room?" Just completely removed, see? "Are you in the upper right-hand corner of the room? Are you in the upper left-hand corner of the room?" It's where are you not that we're interested in. "Are you in the lower left-hand corner of the room? The other lower left-hand corner of the room? No? Well, are you in the back upper right-hand corner? The back upper left-hand corner? The back lower left-hand corner? The back upper right-hand corner? Oh, you're not in any of those points? You're sure of that now?"

Well, the guy says, "Well, of course, there it is! I can't be in it because I'm where I am because I'm not in it!"

See, it's very simple. He's very, very happy about this.

And if you were to process a preclear whereby you didn't let him look at his body … You see, here's the chance of it: you can take a guy who's in terrifically good shape already and say, "Be three feet back of your head. Now are you there?"

And the fellow says, "Sure."

And then say, "Well, be here and be there and be someplace else." But you're already treating somebody who has a remarkable sense of location.

So let's just alter the technique and the understanding of the technique to a point where you can take in the fellow who's uncertain and then never pay any attention to whether people are uncertain about it or not. Don't validate all this uncertainty and "I don't know," and "Is he sure?" and so forth.

And if you were to take a Step V and you were just to ask him that and he did it—you see, very uncertain, very nebulous, as sure of his form—he's standing in back of his body with another body. You can ask him to put his hands on his body's shoulders sometimes. I find out they can usually do that. They put their hands—they've got a body, you see, a mock-up of a body, and they operate the second body instead of the first one.

Well, that's all very well, but you might have that case. And just on the chance that you might have that case, we'll just throw aside any opportunity to spoil that case. If a guy is well located, it's all right to say, "Now, are you back of your head?" See? That's all right—if he's well located.

But supposing you took somebody that was a Step XVIII and you says, "All right, now, be three feet back of your head," and he was feeling pretty good that day, and he was, and then you said, "Are you there?"

He says, "Oh, I don't know. Let's see, I don't see me anyplace. Well…" See, because his whole orientation is a complete dependency upon barriers in which he isn't. His orientation depends upon knowing where he is not.

So if you're going to run this step generally and smoothly in a clinic where you're just going to start gunshotting people and not going to worry about their states of case beyond particularly this and that—you're just going to walk right in on this one. You're going to say, "All right, now be three feet back of your head. Are you in the upper right-hand corner of the room?"

Well, the fellow would kind of think—might be upset by the abruptness of the question, but he'd look at the upper right… "No. I'm not in it. What's the matter with you?"

"Are you up in the right-hand corner?"

"No. I'm not in it."

"Well, give me the back upper left-hand corner. You in it?"

"No. No!"

"Are you in the floor? Are you under the chair?"

"No. No. No. No."

All of a sudden, why, he announces to you without being asked, "I'm three feet back of my head." Or you can mention to him, "Be there."

Now, there's a very covert way of running this. That, actually, is the best way of running it. But there's a very covert way of running it whereby you say—you just don't tell the fellow to be out of his body, you simply say, "Are you in the upper right-hand corner of the room? Upper left-hand corner of the room? Are you in the lamp?" you know? "Where are you not in this room?"

And let him name off a few places and look around and he names off a few more.

And then you ask him a few more where he is not, and where he is not, and then you say, "Well, are you in your feet?"

"No."

And, "Knees?"

"No."

"Elbow? Either elbow?"

"No."

"Hand?"

"No."

"Shoulders?"

"No."

"Nose?"

"No."

"Chin?"

"No."

"Back of your head? Are you in the back of your head?"

And the fellow's saying, "I don't know."

"Well, are you in front of your head?"

"No."

"Are you in the middle of your head?"

"No."

"Are you in the back of your head?"

"No."

"Are you on the back of your head?"

"No."

He's out of his head. How'd he get there? You just moved him out by a gradient scale of where he isn't. Because every time you asked him about this, he looked to see if he was there. Cute, huh? And then he found he wasn't there.

Now, you can take the darkest case that ever walked in and ask him to find four places he is not, in the darkness. He'll start to get somatics and things; because he knows he's not in the darkness, because he can see the darkness.

By the way, most occluded cases, you say, "Can you see anything?"

And they say, "No."

You say, "Close your eyes. Can you see anything?"

And they say, "No."

And you say, "Now look, close your eyes. Now look around and see if you can see anything."

They tell you, "No."

Well, don't pick up an inkstand, an ashtray, a lamp and hit them with it. Say, "Now, come on, can you see anything—black or white or blur …"

"Oh, well, yes. I got tremendous clouds of blackness."

They never looked at it before. That's anything, that's something. See, and they keep telling you, "No, I can't see a thing. No, I can't see a thing."

They're looking right straight at huge white clouds or huge black clouds or blurred fields or something, right straight on through. See that? That's real silly. They are looking at something—they're looking at a black field. Well, there's something.

All right. As soon as a case suddenly decides that everything is black when he's got his eyes closed, and he's very befuddled as to why you're beating him around about looking—he'll be in the corners of the room with his eyes shut—why, he will generally fess up and tell you, "Well, the field is black. It's black, I can't see anything." Providing you've run this exteriorization type of drill—locational drill. You've made him look or feel enough so that he is aware of—he has some sense of location. He knows he is not somewhere. Well, boy, that's more than he knew two seconds before you asked this question.

And this is good enough when applied to past, present and future, in brackets—this little technique of "Where are you not? Who is not here? Who is not in the past? Who"—so on. "What other people aren't here that think somebody else is here?" That, by the way, is—you very often get a little flip on that because that's the rest of the bracket. When you ask all around the clock on this, that's a good enough technique—that's one of these "all by itself" techniques—that's a good enough technique to fish Homo sapiens out of his spinbin.

Now, you understand the process? The process is "Where are you not in the past? Where are you not in the present?" And "Where are you not in the future?"

Now, there's something else: "Where aren't you thinking?" must accompany this, to a person who is having any slightest difficulty. Because they may be thinking all over the place.

We've been using a phrase to characterize this, which is "buttered all over the universe." Somebody's buttered all over the universe. Well, you collect him by finding out where he isn't. And when you first start in, you'll find the damnedest things are—in some cases are present, and other people are present, and he's in the past and there isn't anyplace in the past where he's not. And he'll start agreeing with you. You—and one of the methods of using this, by the way, is picking apart the childhood home. All right. "Are you in the linoleum of the kitchen of your childhood home?"

The fellow will say, "Yup." Be the normal reaction. I mean, that's normal, almost.

"Are you in the wall closet?"

"Yes. Yeah."

"Are you in the window in the front room—in the glass itself?"

"Yes. Ow!"

You found him. He, fifteen minutes, at two years of age, had his hand pinned down under a window which had dropped on his hand. Scared stiff. And he's been there ever since. You sprung him. Sometimes you have to be terribly covert to get them out of places—you have to name the most unlikely spots.

Now, that's just "Where you are not," past, present and future. Now, you could actually just go right ahead and clean up a whole track on this negative location. Take you a long time. But it'd be a technique which would carry you through. It'll snap out somatics, so on.

The fellow says, "I have a headache."

You say, "All right. Where don't you have a headache?"

"Where don't I have a headache? In my feet, of course."

"Well, all right. Do you have a headache in your feet?"

"No!"

"Well, do you have a headache in your right ear?"

"No."

"Left ear?"

"No."

"Do you have a headache in the back of your neck?"

"Well, slightly."

"Well, do you have a headache in your collarbones?"

"No."

"Well, do you have a headache in the back of your neck?"

"No."

"Do you have a headache in your chin?"

"Nobody has 'headaches in your chin.' What's the matter with you?"

"All right. Do you have a headache in your nose?"

"Mm, no."

"Well, do you have a headache?"

"No. Wait!" (audience laughter)

You just put him in present time by calling his attention on negative reaction to present time. That's real covert, isn't it?

Well, it's not a technique that wears out. Now many, many of the older techniques used on somebody once or twice would find him in a null. In other words, he'd learn how to resist these techniques. Actually, we ought to call 8-C "American procedure," because Americans are far faster at figuring out and countering effect. Now, that's the only difficulty I've been having since I came back. And so I just boosted it all up into techniques which can't be nulled. And that one can't be nulled.

Also there is the technique we have, and are using right this minute on blackness, cannot be nulled. And the reason why: It is the reason there is blackness. It is the specific reason there is blackness.

Now, there's the specific reason why people aren't exteriorized, is the one which you're doing as a drill right now. Sensation—you've got to be an effect. So we just get rid of that. And we'll get rid of that.

By the way, somebody asked me yesterday … I hope he doesn't mind if I tell this story. Where is he? Well, aha! Somebody missing a lecture?

Male voice: His fault.

Mm-hm. Just like that. All right, we'll tell it on him! That's always a good time—that's always the way to get somebody to come to a lecture. It's like the old boys—nobody'd ever leave the barbershop first.

Well, anyway, plugging along—"When are we going to get into some actual processing?" he says.

And I said, "You are doing actual processing."

"Well, no, no," he said, "I mean real, real actual processing."

"But you are doing actual processing now. This is actual."

"Now," he says—walk along a little bit further, and he says, "why don't you clean up the cases first and then give the data afterwards?"

And I said, "You have the specific data right now which you are using to clean up cases. Now that's what we're doing, we're cleaning up the cases first and we're going to get into theory afterwards."

Very unconvinced. He was very unhappy about this. He sat around the waiting room for a few minutes sort of champing a little bit and snarling quietly to himself. He goes into room one—you guys know what happened; he all of a sudden—never seen a wall on this technique.

He'd always looked at a facsimile which was standing immediately in front of the wall. Outside of the fact that this was—for the first time had returned to him an actual MEST contact, we weren't getting anywhere with processing. But he'd only had two or three hours of the stuff and he was seeing MEST. All right, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that, is there? That's actual processing.

So you're apt to treat these techniques as being very light. Because they are very high echelon, but they are very pervasive and they are not nulled. Now, you can't null these techniques. The only way you can null them is just refuse to answer. Just refuse to act. Just sit there rigidly and say, "I won't. I won't. I won't." And then you'll run that out. So that's why I say that we should call this "American procedure," because we're down to a basis of "What can't you know?"—not "What can't you know" but "What can't you null?" It's very important.

All right, so we've got this past, present and future. The reason why a person doesn't escape this technique easily is because they get too interested. Because there is their primary interest: their primary interest is where they are. You see, they're mainly interested in that, the second they become interested in barriers. And they're much more interested in not being places—if you're going to get a case that's going to resist processing, they're much more interested in not being places than they are in being places. So you've just agreed with them a hundred percent across the boards. They practically feel like gripping you by the hand and pumping it up and down for half an hour without stopping. Boy, you really get agreement right there with your pc: "Now, where are you not?"

"I'm not at home. Ha-ha!"

All right. Now, there's two tricks that go along with this one which you should know. Location—you'll need these; you won't think right now in this class that you need them, but you'll need them sooner or later—is "Negative Location by the Impossible." Now, it sounds like an impossible title, but you'd better call it that because you're liable to skip it. And that is "Are you in the office next door" or "Is your body in the office next door while it is in the dentist's office?"

The fellow says, "No, of course not."

But you might have been beating your brains out for ten minutes trying to find out where he was not during that operation or during that period of time, see? And then all of a sudden you have to just resort to the impossible in order to give him a certainty. And that certainty carries him forward. Impossible, see?

"All right. Were you in 1930 while you were in 1950?"

"Well, I don't know."

"Well, all right. Were you in 1900 while you were in 1930?"

"Huh! Well, I don't know. Might have been. Let's see, 1900 …"

"Well, was your body in 1210 while you were going to college in 1940?"

"No. Of course not." (See? Now, you have to get that wide out sometimes.) "No."

So you've got location by the impossible. Now you just start narrowing it down. And he starts spotting himself all over the time track, see? Real, again, covert—it's by the impossible.

And the other mechanism is that it's "by the incredible," which is, is his body lying on the ceiling during the operation?

"No."

All of a sudden you'll find out the fellow has no body in this operation. He's told you—the E-Meter—you've done an assessment on this case. This case got real sticky on you, you see, and so you did what you should have done in the first place, only we never seem to do it, is break out the E-Meter and just start naming dates. You know, and all of a sudden the E-Meter goes whong! And then you start naming different kinds of people that have been associated with him—children, women, men, so on—until you get a pong. And then you run that down and you chase it down—a date. In other words, you're finding out where he's stuck, where is he latched up on the track.

Remember Book One didn't happen to be wrong, it just didn't readily solve immediately this, because its techniques could be nulled by a preclear. That's the only disadvantage it had. But he—they're still stuck on the track somewhere and sometimes you'll process all over the place madly and find the case keeps slumping. Well, why does the case keep slumping? Well, he's stuck on the track and you've never freed him.

Well, you have to really address the incident where he is stuck. There's some other reason why he's stuck. He's fresh out of space and all sorts of things that a lot of indirect techniques—which will free him eventually, but you just get sick and tired of this case. A case has to be real bad off in order to do this. You do yourself a thorough assessment, find out what date he's stuck in. Just that, what date? And if you can't find it immediately this life, well then, damn it, what life?

He'll all of a sudden give you this wonderful piece of data that he should have given you very, very early in the session and that was, namely, he is always sitting there looking at his grandfather's face in the coffin. He has this visio all the time. Well, and he thought probably everybody had it, see? Everybody sitting there looking at Grandfather's face in the coffin. Doesn't strike him as unusual. It's too concentrated an attention so he can't think of where his attention's concentrated. You see that? So you find out where he's stuck on the track, and now you have to enter the incredible. If you said, "Are you there in the coffin with Grandfather?"

"Yep. Sure."

"Well, is Grandfather's body on the ceiling?"

"No. It's in the coffin. It's not on the ceiling."

"Is it in the lampshade?"

"No, it's in the coffin!"

You finally get Grandfather's body well enough located—so sure enough located—by the incredible; just by having it in the wrong places. You see, the impossible is to have two different times or two entirely different spaces simultaneously. The incredible is just to have in a space or a time which is not quite possible.

So he finally gets Grandfather's body to the grave, and then gets the town back where it should be, a thousand miles away. But you find out if he's in the coffin. Well, you can't… He'll tell you yes, he's in the coffin. Well, is he in the lamp? No, he's not in the lamp there.

By the way, I've found people in very weird places. I have found them in a picture in the living room. Found them all over the place, see? I found them in a picture of the living room. And the childhood home is the worst offender. It's a bad enough offender that, very often, if a case is starting to get laggardly or a little sticky on me, something like that, I'll just simply take the childhood home and start beating it up. You know, "Are you in the woodwork? Are you under the front porch? Are you in the chimney?" and so on. "Where are you not? Where are you not? Where are you not? Where are you not? Are you in the dish cupboard?" And you all of a sudden find out he's in strange places, in that moment. You'll find out you narrow it down to the room, and then you narrow the room out. And every once in a while you have to jump in with a new impossible. "All right, are you in the living room while you're in the dining room?"

"No. That's two places. Impossible."

"Well, all right. Are you in the childhood home? When was it built?" you say.

"Oh, it was built about 1890, I guess."

"Well, are you in the childhood home in 1870?"

"No, obviously—it wasn't built."

So that's very tricky auditing. You'll see more of that. But actually, it's very simple auditing even though it permits a lot of imagination to be used.

And remember it's used in a bracket. "Who else isn't present?" Well, by golly, you'd be amazed how many preclears have somebody else right there in front of them.

Now, there's another method of dispensing with this. It's just "certain they're present; certain they're not present." That's in 16-G. This is a better method, this method I'm giving you. You just have—"Well, is this person in Washington, DC?"

"No."

The person is present, they've just told you that… You just start going over the family. You've done an assessment and you've added up all the relatives and everything, and you just start going through them and you say, "Is so and so here? Is so and so here? Is so and so here?" You find their stuck moments this way too. You say, "Is your grandmother in the room?"

"Yes."

"Grandfather in the room?"

"Yes."

"Is your dog in the room?"

"Yes."

"Is your aunt Martha in the room?"

"It seems like everybody's in the room," they'll say. "Yeah. Full of people."

One case I had recently—there's one I was running to develop this procedure on how far south can you get, and I went as far south as I could get. When I hit that technique, I had: "Is there a TWA aeroplane, 10,000 feet up, on the chair immediately beside you?"

And the answer was, "Yes."

Huh? Real cute, huh? So we had to have her practically—we had her feel all over the chair and finally—then she tried to turn it all off by saying, well, she was just kidding. She wasn't kidding—that room was full of people when we started out, and we got it emptied. How? By making her feel all over the place and make sure. Well, her case did a quite remarkable—not an alteration physically, it did an alteration on the basis of orientation. The case is blind, so orientation is of the utmost importance there.

Well, you find these people that will surprise—even some of you right now when I say, "Is your dog in this room?" (pause) And who got a "yap-yap-yap"? (audience laughter)

So you see that? You just get places parked in the proper places. And it doesn't take very long. And I don't run this technique very long in order to produce a result with it.

"What other person here thinks somebody else is with them?" And that's a real weird one. You start—really, straight out—you just start stripping out entities by you doing that. Until you've asked that question, it never turned up that Grandma was present all the time. Well, Grandma is there, and she thinks Grandpa is there. And this was when the old lady was sort of senile, she used to go around talking to her departed husband and the kid heard them all the time and this was quite impressive. So the kid sort of kept Grandma when Grandma departed this life, and Grandma is keeping Grandpa, and here we go, see? And it opens on that third bracket, third part of the bracket. All right.

"What person present doesn't think you're here?" is another variation.

And they're liable to say, "The auditor." Quite routinely, people will say—"Well, who isn't here?" and quite routinely, just almost give as a flash answer: "The auditor." See? Almost as a flash answer. I—it probably has deep significance, but I've always neglected it.

That's location: "Who isn't in the past? Who isn't in the future? Who isn't in the present?"

Now, you want to know where they are and also where they are thinking. Got that? "Where aren't they thinking in the present?"

"Oh," the fellow says, "all around." He's got some sort of machine that lets him think elsewhere when he is there—when he thinks he might be there. And oh, he's all around.

"Well, are you thinking down at city hall?"

"Yeah."

"Are you thinking in 1892?"

"Yeah."

"Are you thinking …" you say, "Ulp! Are you thinking in last August?"

"Mm, yeah."

"Are you thinking in this room? (pause) Well, are you thinking in your head?"

"No."

"Are you thinking in your body?"

"No."

This is what's known as a negative dynamic. "All the way out" on spiritualism produces that one. They're not in their body, and that's one place where they are not, only that's the only place they've got to think with. And you have to do quite some considerable coaxing, you have to go a long way out and start chipping it off and so forth, and they'll finally find out they're thinking in their head. They're just working with so darn much automaticity, that the one place they're not thinking is where they are thinking. See, a complete reversal. That's an inversion. So you'll run into that problem every once in a while. Not a very important problem. You just strip it off. All right.

"Are you thinking in …" There's another category there, and that's "by the dangerous"—where are they not, by the dangerous—dangerous location.

"Are they in the middle of a cutting machine?"

"No."

"Are they in the Camden sewer system?" Well, they might be.

"Well, are you down in the powerhouse, glued to the switchboard. Is that where you're thinking?"

"Oh, no!" (Big certainty, see?)

"Are you thinking in the—around the corona of the sun and into the corona of the sun?"

"No, no."

"Are you thinking in the Bureau of Standards chill room where they have a 273 degrees below zero centigrade?"

"Do they have one down there?" they'll say.

"Yep."

"No. I'm not thinking there."

See? And that gives you, by the way, the immediate clue as to how people take an impact. See, that immediate clue. That's why people prefer an impact. It tells them where they are not because it puts a dangerous place they mustn't be. And these people who have been having a tough time gathering themselves up and keeping themselves in one piece prefer to be driven into one piece. They think they have to be driven into one piece. They're in one piece in the first place. All right—or in six or eight or a hundred billion, as they prefer.

Now, all you're doing there is discovering where the preclear is by letting them discover where they are not. And the modus operandi of the whole process is just on the basis that he can't be where he is looking at. And you'll find out that people have big trouble with the body, and when you ask them to step out of their head and immediately look at the body, you very often completely collapse a case. They can't see their body. Well, you're asking them to see the one thing they've never seen. See, they can look at mirrors, do all sorts of things—tricky techniques involved with this, but nothing very workable. But they've never seen their body, they don't know what they look like, and it's a great surprise to them what they do look like.

Did you ever show anybody a photograph of his own profile? If you have, you will get some idea of what would be his reaction when you exteriorized him. Because he always tells you that doesn't look like him. He has never seen his own profile. He doesn't customarily stand and look at mirrors which converge and show him his profile. He has an entirely different idea of what he looks like.

In consequence, you ask him, "Look at the body," the surprise is generally too much for him, and he will immediately occlude it and shut it off. And then the body goes occluded, and then he pops back in and goes in kind of apathy about the whole thing. So you don't ask him to look at the body. Ordinarily, if you have any doubts about the case at all, why, you just don't ask him to look at the body. Not for a long time, not until you—you pop him out, if you can, right away, and then, "Where is he not?" Then if he doesn't go out, you say, "Where is he not?" You see that?

You do this anyway, and that gets him localized. And that's by location—location where he's not—and you'll find out that he's most not in locations that are dangerous to him, he feels.

And then he's in, then, those that are incredible to him: like, is he under the mattress on the upstairs bed? And he knows he's not there. He thinks that's silly of you to ask, but of course, he immediately turns up a little more horsepower—immediately afterwards. He can't quite account for this, but he does. All right.

The next part of location that you would want anything to do with is simply—actually, it goes on down to Step VII, which, of course, is, "What room?"—that's by actual contact. Now, we don't, however, have to treat that; because we are treating it with putting emotions into and out of things as a technique, which although we're covering it in advance, and very early in the case, it is not an early technique in the procedure itself.

So the next point is, you have him actually be in places after you've found places he is not in. You have him be in various places. He's out of his head and you get him—little unpleasant places, you know, under the radiator where it's kind of dusty or under the bed or under the icebox or back of the chimney or something of the sort. That'd be about the limit of the dangerous places you'd send him into.

Then you send him into very pleasant places. And you finally send him into more and more dangerous places, actually be in these dangerous places, until eventually he's perfectly willing to be in any of these places.

But quite often a case, you will discover, is unable to be in very many places. So you have to build this up by a gradient scale. And you've asked him to be in a place, and he can't be in that place, then you have some place very similar to it, but one tiny shadow of it, and you just build him on through into the place. In other words, if you couldn't possibly get him into the corona of the sun immediately, so forth, you could at least get him to mock up a candle and be near its flame and then finally be out near a gas stove that's being on and then finally into a gas stove.

And the technique of being in the corona of the sun finally is achieved by being what? Just gradient scale on up the line. A very simple process. A process I could very easily talk too much about—very easily.

Now, you should know this part of this process on Step I. You should know it quite well and you should become able to use it quite well. Because if you're going to do any coffee—what you call "coffee shop auditing," you know, you meet this fellow and he says—you ask him how he is and he tells you that he has a neck pain, and he expects you to turn it off or something of the sort—well, this is the fastest, easiest way to do it. That's no kidding. "Where isn't he?" And you can run "Where isn't he?" all over the darn track. And quite rapid in the therapeutic value, if you're going into therapy of aches and pains.

That's a dirty trick, by the way. If you only knew how a thetan has to work to get a little bit of an ache or a pain and then you, you beast, comes along and turns it off! Psychotherapy went into complete apathy on this. They said, "No"—they made this announcement many times—"No psychosomatic illness is curable because the person simply becomes psychosomatically ill in some other manner." Apathy, apathy, apathy, apathy, apathy, apathy. End of paragraph. Apathy, apathy, apathy.

The fact of the matter is, the remedy for the situation is a very easy remedy. You just make it possible for him to get walloping big loads of tremendous, creaking agony, and he won't bother with having a little old—little old psoriasis or something like that, that occasionally gives him a twinge. He's interested in having a satisfactory amount of pain. Well, if he can't manufacture it—a satisfactory—pardon me, an "acceptable state of ill health" in this society. How wrong can you get? Homo sap. You have to be a little bit wrong to be polite, and it goes down from there. You have to be a little bit sick to be acceptable. People figure this.

And you start running Acceptance Level Processing—which is an educational on a process—and you start running it, you know, and my God, Papa and Mama, the only thing that was acceptable to them was a sick child. The only time they ever were nice was when the child was sick—horrible state. All right.

That's a rundown on this locational material there. This can become very, very complex. But, by golly, learn its simplicity.

All you're doing is getting relationship of the individual with regard to barriers. And it's achieved by getting barriers which he isn't in. And then you can have him around in barriers, and he'll know he's in them. See? Tricky.

But remember all the time you're running this, that you're only running barriers and validating barriers so he can recover the barriers which he has validated, and which he has then had invalidated for him to a point where he lost them. And you've recovered a barrier for him good and strong, don't just dust your hands off and say you got this barrier strong. He knows the barrier's there. Then we get onto the technique that you're doing right now: you finally get him to a point where he knows he's putting it there. And that's the drill which you're doing these first couple, three days.

Well, you got to get it real good. Because, you see—not just emotion, that isn't our goal there. We're going to get so we can put the barrier there, where we can move the wall of that room around, so we can not have it there and have it there and so on. That's what we're trying to do.

All right. Step II of this will, of course, be the subject of the next lecture.

STEP I OF 8-C: ORIENTATION PAGE 2 2ACC-03A - 18.11.53

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