View source for Summary of Plan of Course (7ACC 540624)

'''Series:''' 7th Advanced Clinical Course (7ACC)

'''Date:''' 24 June 1954

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_7ACC|Back to Series]]

Okay. Want to give you a very short rundown, as a summary here, of the plan of course.

On first reporting, if you recall, we have laid down here auditing. Auditing is a process whereby two or more human beings—two or more human beings, you understand, not one human being, but two or more human beings (you can have two auditors or he can be auditing two preclears at once or he can audit a group)—two or more human beings communicate with one another so as to better their considerations and thus their abilities in existence. And the first principle of that is two-way communication.

What do you do in an auditing session? Two-way communication. Get him to talk, you as the auditor, and just find out what we can do by getting the preclear into communication. That's easy, isn't it? That's the first step in auditing. A step which, when you become a seasoned veteran, you may occasionally in your cockiness omit and then wonder why that case isn't progressing, because that is the primary entrance point.

All right. That's the first thing we pay attention to is the fact that there is such a thing as an auditing session and then that an auditing session has in it two-way communication.

Now, we try to get this two-way communication going and that is really the first thing which we try to do in auditing. And we don't do anything else until we get some sort of two-way communication going. If the individual is unable to speak, we still get him to write something to us. We get a two-way communication going.

The next thing, just to continue the two-way communication and ensure the fact that we, as an auditor, are interested in the preclear, we discuss his problems or present time problems—preferably his present time problems. That demonstrates that he is the preclear and that you, the auditor, are interested.

Second step, that one: a discussion of the present time problem, which is actually merely a promoting and assisting this two-way communication. All right. That's the next thing you do. You ask him—even if you processed him just last night—you ask him how life is going, what sort of a result did he have or didn't he have or what has he been doing or has he run into any trouble or has he had any good luck (you needn't merely ask for trouble, you know) since you saw him last, But again, this gets it going once more and gets the two-way communication going and demonstrates that you are interested in him and demonstrates that his role in that auditing room is not to educate you, instruct you or anything else. His role is to be a preclear. You make that clear to him by asking him about his problems.

All right. Our next point after we have done this is, let's find out—I quite commonly do this, this is not an absolute necessity, but quite commonly do this—I ask the person for some kind of a recollection of something, anything. Now, the ideal for this is the next-to-the-last list Self Analysis, which is old-time ARC Straightwire, which is simply, "Remember something real," "A time when you were in good communication," so forth. Just those remarks. Now, after I've done this, you see, this just speeds up his communication a little bit and will—sometimes right at that point—will, bing! snap a little neurosis or something which he has. It's rather fast when it happens but it happens often enough so that you should be interested in it.

And after I've done that, I consider the auditing session has gotten into full swing. The auditing session has gotten into full swing. We've gotten session going. Get that as distinctly different from having opened the preclear's case. We have set a stage. We have an auditing session in progress. We have fed the wheat into the hopper and are now ready to grind wheat, but we haven't ground any wheat. We haven't opened the case. All we've done is establish two-way communication.

And the next level was: we're interested and he's the preclear and does he have any communication with his own past? Which is a nice entrance point. If he has no communication with his own past (well, you always do this), I slide straight from that no communication with his own past to something real in the room and go right on into Opening Procedure by running into it via contact, you know? "Is there anything real in this environment? Walk over to it. Put your finger on it." And swing from that right into Opening Procedure. And Opening Procedure is what opens cases.

Now, the other is very nice—the other is very nice. But the Goldi medicine man up in Manchuria has been more or less doing those first three steps for the last few thousand years. And although they're very nice and very necessary, they don't open the case, they open a session. So the first thing you do is get a session open and then you start opening the case.

All right. Now, our next move is, of course, Opening Procedure 8-C, Part (a). And when you've got that down real well, we're not having any trouble on this at all, we go into Opening Procedure 8-C, Part (b). And we're getting no trouble with that at all, no trouble, he's just doing that real well and everything is fine, we go into Opening Procedure 8-C, Part (c). And we've got him doing that real fine and real well, we then slide over to the 8-D type Opening Procedure.

And the 8-D type Opening Procedure is, of course, spot spots that he can be certain of and remedy his havingness, and spot spots and remedy havingness, and spot spots and remedy havingness. Well, I don't care. Actually, you know, you could just hang up there and call that your auditing to the end of the case. Now, you really wouldn't have to know any more than that.

The main trouble you're going to get into: You're going to say, "Well, you know, there's a gimmigahoogit that goes around two corners and squares the biceps on this case and, therefore, we ought to do a certain kind of -ectomy here, such as a 'obsessionectomy' on his mother or something, you know? Let's get specific." The more specific you get in an auditing case, the less results you're going to get. The more you specifically address a problem, the more you validate the problem. That gets under the heading of granting of beingness: that which ye grant beingness to, lives and breathes. Well, you watch out that you don't grant beingness to something that will start breathing fire. You got that? What you validate comes true. What you address and grant beingness to, lives. So the less specific you are, the more results you're going to get.

Now, that applies to a psychosomatic illness. This fellow has walked in the door. He has "hornias," very, very bad case of hornias. And you right away can ask him all you want to about his hornias, but let me tell you something: if you start to process that, well, they'll just have that much more life in them. You're the alive one around there, you're the granter of beingness around there. So you'd just better select up what kind of a beingness you're going to grant. And if you go on and process his hornias, you just make up your mind from that moment on they're just going to have the nicest, brightest life imaginable. Preclear might not get along, but his hornias will. Never, never address—never, never address a psychosomatic ill or a particular aberration on the part of the preclear. Never address it.

Never address a demon circuit. Never address a specific psychosomatic ill. Leave them alone! They'll just die and wither away sometimes for want of attention.

But the broad look that you're taking at life resolves all such particularized categories. And if you just go on and broadly process this preclear so that he can live a better life, and if you leave alone very specific problems except to do this: except to just dust them off lightly occasionally because he's so insistent that they're horrible problems.

Don't break your communication with him. He says, "Oh, well, I just have the most horrible shooting pains in my hornia all the time." And if you never answer to this, what is not admired tends to persist. So let's not go on the inversion of blowing it away and granting it beingness. You say, "Well, is that so?" Be sincere, though, about it. "Is that so? Well, all right. Fine, fine." You did ask him for a present time problem, remember. It's all right. Let him talk about it. But let's not you roll up your sleeves on that problem, because he's got your attention now. And if you can keep that preclear struggling to get your attention and approval to the end of his case, poor guy will run out of ammunition and in the end get well. Poor guy.

I don't say that there's a desperate plot of this character back of auditing, but that's your modus operandi.

All right. Now, having spotted spots in space and remedied havingness and spotted spots in space and remedied havingness, you would ordinarily in a case go immediately into Opening Procedure by Duplication. And then where would you go? Well, I'm very much afraid that at that moment, after you had Opening Procedure by Duplication beaten to pieces, you would just go on with the rest of Procedure 30, and sail right on down the line with Procedure 30. You actually could call this a total procedure. You do this Opening Procedure of three parts of 8-C and then you do the first part of 8-D and—the Opening Procedure of 8-D—and then you do Procedure 30, which starts in, of course, with Opening Procedure by Duplication. And you can get fantastic results with cases. Don't doubt it for a moment. You would. All right.

Now, as a training pattern here, what do we do? What do we do here? First thing, had a little drill there just to get you lined up on two things— one: Two-way Communication with the preclear and to give you some acquaintance with communication lag.

A communication lag is the length of time which intervenes between the auditor's asking of the question and the preclear's answering of that question. And that's the complete answer. And it didn't matter what went on between, whether it was silence, talking, fidgeting, agitation, anger, rage, blowing the session; it didn't matter what went on between. Whatever went on between the auditor's asking the question and the preclear's answering of the question—that was communication lag. And we time it right up to the complete answer. When the preclear gives you a complete answer to the question you've asked, the length of time intervening between those two things in seconds, minutes or hours is the communication lag. All right.

We had a little technique to do this with, which was an easy technique which did two things at once. And this was our opening gun. First thing we did was just this: Two-way Communication. Let's talk to the preclear. Let's just talk, see. And then let's ask him these specific questions: You ask him, "Would you give me now something you wouldn't mind remembering," "Something you wouldn't mind forgetting" and "Part of your past you wouldn't mind owning." And we just use that wording and watch the communication lag. "Now, would you give me something that or tell me something that you wouldn't mind remembering? Is there something you wouldn't mind remembering? What is it?" That type of wording. "Something you wouldn't mind forgetting," after he had given answers to that, "And some part of your past you wouldn't mind owning." All right.

We went over that ground, didn't we? And we found out this: there was such a thing as a communication lag. We found out that people took time to answer some of these questions. And sometimes it was a lot of time. And we might even have discovered that an interruption of this period or too much talk on the part of the auditor while this communication lag was taking place actually disturbed the preclear. He was trying to give the answer and he didn't succeed in giving the answer because the auditor was interrupting him by asking him other things.

We never ask a second question before the first one had been answered. We never give a second command before the first one has been complied with. We never ask a second question before the first one has been answered. We know this thing called communication lag. We wait for it to take place. We wait for it to end and the answer to arrive, no matter what the preclear is doing in the interim. We talk just enough to keep him on the groove on answering that question. Every once in a while we ask him how he's coming along or something like that, just to keep him in communication so that he doesn't drift off or go to sleep or do something else, because he will. And we never fail to get an answer once we've asked the question.

If we've been foolish enough to give a command which is hard to comply with, we get it complied with, Lord help us all. Ah, there's a certain inexorableness, then, on the part of the auditor. Well, that's the study of the communication lag.

What is a communication lag? It's the length of time between the question and the answer. Communication lag is indicative of the reaction time of the preclear and his ability to think. It's indicative of many, many things. But it's a direct index as to how rough the case is. Direct index. Nothing indirect about it at all. Direct index. Communication lag: how bad off is a case. It is so direct that communication lag as a whole subject supplants the E-Meter entirely. You know all there is to know about a communication lag and you don't need any more E-Meters.

Now, as the preclear gets a lag, so you repeat the question. In other words, if the preclear demonstrates even hysterical speed in answering the question, something like that, then we ask the question again just to make sure. And we ask it again just to make sure, so on. Now, we run it this way: "Something you wouldn't mind remembering." And he says, "Oh, yap, yap," and he gives you something right away, instantly. Ask the question again: "Something else you wouldn't mind remembering." "Yeah, yap-yap." See?

"Something else you wouldn't mind remembering."

"Brrrrrr. "

"Something else you wouldn't mind remembering." Bing!

It's constant. Go on to the next question. There's no change in communication lag. You ask the question only as long as there is change in the communication lag. And that is your rule of thumb. You ask the question only as long as there's change in communication lag. Supposing now we ask this question: "Now, tell me something you wouldn't mind remembering."

And we got bing-bing!

And just to make sure, we ask it again, "Something you wouldn't mind remembering."

No answer. "Well... " and then he gives you something.

Well, there we've had very fast, very slow.

What would be your next question?

Audience: "Something you wouldn't mind remembering."

"Something you wouldn't mind remembering." That's right. We ask it again. And maybe we get a shorter lag, maybe we get a longer lag. But we ask that one question until that question itself no longer produces a communication inequality—communication lag inequality with the preclear.

You see he still might four times in a row take fifteen seconds to answer it, but that is a no-change lag. So asking that question will produce no further change in the case at that time. And you, as an auditor, are looking for change. So the second you get a stability of reply, you are looking at no-change. Three times you ask the question with the same communication lag. This tells you immediately there's no change occurring on this question. You'd go on to the next question. See? When you hit a no-change, you change. When you hit a no-change in the lag, you change. And that is the study of communication lag.

Now you could, of course, go in on a gradient scale of the case and the case is liable to hang up. Well, you could give him questions on which he'd get minor lags at first and then get tougher questions and carry it on gradually. But actually, no such plan is of any value. It's not of any value. If you're going to produce a seventy-six hour communication lag with your first question, that's your tough luck. But after he's run that seventy-six hour communication lag, what would you do?

Female voice: Ark the question again.

You would ask the question again, wouldn't you? That's right. This time it only took him forty-five hours to answer it. You'd say, "Boy, this would really be slow auditing!" Well, you'd be amazed. It would be the most productive auditing that you could do on this particular case. If he could receive the question at all and give you back the answer with that kind of communication lags, he'd sooner or later, in a year or so, get into present time! Well, all right.

So exercise one was simply to talk to the preclear. Exercise two was these three little questions: "Something you wouldn't mind remembering," "Something you wouldn't mind forgetting," and "Part of your past you wouldn't mind owning" —all very permissive. That exercise in order to study communication lag in the preclear and understand communication lag and know that when you get no change in communication lag (question, question, question, same question, you see, same question, same question, no change in the communication lag), you change the question. You go on to the next question. When the preclear's lag doesn't change, you change the technique. When do you change the technique? When the preclear's communication lag isn't changing. In other words, that tells you very broadly and bluntly and immediately. What's it tell you? It tells you as long as you were getting a change in the preclear by asking a question or using a certain technique, you do not stop using that technique until you have produced a stability of lag.

If your preclear is still getting somatics on the technique you are using, if he's still getting change on the technique you are using, still use the technique. One of the ways cases get fouled up is the auditor is getting change and without waiting for the change to stabilize and become no-change, the auditor changes the technique. And that is the worst auditing blunder there is.

I have actually sat and told a preclear he was a liar. You know, you talk about the value of the communication codes and so forth, the Auditor's Code; I have told a preclear he was a liar and I didn't cave him in. Didn't kill him. But I've seen preclears almost butchered by a technological failure which followed from this: the technique which was being used on him was still producing a change and the auditor changed the technique. That is much worse than breaking the Auditor's Code with the preclear. That is a sin of magnitude. You go around and pick up any case that's hanging fire, you will discover that this is what happened to the case.

Now, this is another way that change can occur—another way it can occur, just in so many words: The preclear is trying to answer the question. He is terribly puzzled, he feels very stupid. (You know, boil-off, he simply goes to sleep; but communication lag, he's still trying to answer the question.) You know, he's trying to phrase it or answer it or recognize it or realize it or wrap his intelligence around it somehow or another. He's still answering. And the auditor decides at that moment that the question is taking too long to answer so he asks another question! Yaaaaaa.

It reminds one of a fellow who wants to get through a brick wall. And he walks over to the brick wall and he has a very effective, big drill there and he's going to go on through this wall with this drill, you know. And he sets the drill up against the wall and he starts to make a nice, big hole in the wall. And the drill is just biting like mad and it's going on in and the holes are starting to appear in the wall and he's just getting his job done just fine, you see. And he decides that he had better take a broom and sweep his way through. You know, he drops this efficient drill because it's taking a little time and he better sweep the wall away with a broom or something, you know? So he go gets some straw and start brushing at the bricks with some straw.

Actually, it's just as idiotic to start somebody on a communication lag and then change the question. Your question you ask him is doing exactly what you're trying to do. You're drilling through the held-down fives in his computer just as surely as though you had a big diamond drill driven by electric motors going straight through the middle of a compressor, because it's all hard matter where that question is hanging up. It's just as hard matter as bricks are hard matter and is that kind of hard matter which someday becomes bricks. Same order of cat.

So your communication lag is clearing away this debris and is connecting straight on through, just as nice as you please, see? It's doing a good job.

If you can't produce a communication lag with questions, (1) this preclear must be in remarkable shape or (2) he isn't listening to you at all, he's just "answering." You know? Completely surface answers, he's not really giving you any attention at all or (3) you're not asking the right questions. Now, any one of those things could be true. But you're not getting auditing done, because there's no change in the communication lag. That's the only reason you're not getting any auditing done. When you get change in communication lag, you get that change. All right?

We got that communication lag down. We can recognize communication lag when we see somebody walking around physically, because he'll dramatize his communication lag. You say, "All right, find a spot on that wall over there and go over and put your finger on it." And by golly, you look at him act and you will see immediately that this individual has got a communication lag in his motion. And if he keeps the same communication lag in his motion, direction after direction—8-C—you're not producing any change in the case, so you go on to the next step. See, look at it in action—what you've just looked at in terms of thought. When the case doesn't change, change the technique. How easy is it? It's just that easy.

Now, what we know as "clearing a question" means asking the question enough times so as to recognize that it is producing a uniform lag, a uniform communication lag. And for the moment that question is clear. We're testing the computer, you might say. It's got a free way, as free as anything else. It must not, then, be that question that's hung up in this computer. See? It must be another question that's hung up in the computer.

And Scientology is a study of those considerations which not only hang up computers but which make computers. So naturally, you're studying, then, the held-down fives in the adding machine, if you remember that old analogy—Dianetics: Evolution of a Science.

All right. That's clearing a question.

Well, how about clearing a technique, huh? Before we start to clear the preclear, you know, and say, "Here's this great big massive mountain that we're going to clear away one little pebble at a time," let's look at how we're going about this and we find out that we go about it by, one, clearing the decks for a session, getting into two-way communication with the preclear, see, talk about problems and so forth. Well, that clears things away for a session. You know, sometimes you neglect that. You don't set up the session, you don't clear the environment so you can have a session, you don't shoo people out fast enough and you don't send the relatives away. Every once in a while I see somebody in Child Dianetics—used to try to audit a kid with Mama in the room. Well, he didn't clear the session, see? He should have booted Mama out in the hall.

Sometimes I've seen auditors trying to audit with a distractive dog running around the room or something like that. You know, he just didn't clear the decks to get a two-way communication started. He didn't get the session set up.

Now, the next thing you do is, question by question, technique by technique, one after the other, you would clear each one and you finally wind up with a Cleared preclear. But if you don't clear the questions and clear the techniques, in other words run them null, you don't wind up with a Cleared preclear. And that's the anatomy of all this. Something on the order of the ants which empty the granary by taking one grain of wheat away at a time, you work yourself up very rapidly into where you can take scoop-shovels full of wheat away at a time, to where you can take boxcar-loads of wheat away, until you can take away the whole flam-damn granary. And then have the preclear mock-up a much better granary full of much better wheat.

But there's the gradient scale of auditing. First you clear the session, then you clear the questions, then you clear the techniques.

Now, you're not working on the techniques instead of the preclear. Your communication lag keeps you very well aware of the fact that you're working a preclear. He could be a problem in this. And the worse the case is off, why, the less change there is in the case. So you really have to have some fancy techniques to alter the case. But we've got them today. We've got them today, believe me!

I could produce at will on any preclear who doesn't immediately exteriorize, a hundred-hour communication lag, just like that, just at will. Just know the right questions, that's all.

All right. That's how we're going ahead and that's what we're doing. And we're going to get the bulk of the information of this course and the theory and the techniques and everybody in this Unit—everybody in this Unit is right up there and ready to take it all in at a gulp. And then we won't have to go over it any time at all. And that's after everybody has had an enormous amount of the process which I was just talking about, just now. And we got it right straight on up to Opening Procedure by Duplication and we want some hours of that before we go into technical information and the summations and considerations of forever and aye.

Okay.

Okay. Want to talk a little bit more about the plan of course under which you're operating.

Now this is, by the way, for your benefit in instruction. It isn't that we're just trying this. We have found this to be more and more the case. The coincidence has become too great through these Clinical Courses as represented in examinations. Those people who had already had some auditing—Opening Procedure—and the other material which we're immediately engaged in using, were able to assimilate information of a larger and more abstract nature. And those people who had not, found it very, very difficult. One was talking mainly into communication lags. And as a result there was a great deal of information which was given which was not received.

All right. Then the plan of this course, the way you see it coming out here, we are going into auditing. We are practicing auditing. We are using some very specific procedures and we're using them a certain number of hours on one another, not because what is coming up is so precious, but because something coming up should not be very difficult to get over in terms of theory practice. So, it's not that we're leading toward a choice morsel or anything like that. It's just the fact that there isn't any reason to go over this material endlessly if we can use auditing itself in order to make a "once-over-lightly" really count.

Now, therefore we're solving it in that direction. As we said right here at the beginning, we ran this type of process (a very light, permissive process) and in instructing people you would do very well to do this.

You should not instruct a preclear and then audit him. You should not explain Scientology to him particularly and then audit him. It's all right for him to have read something about Scientology, to have even studied Scientology. But you come along as an auditor, you see, and start auditing him, he doesn't pick you up instantly as being the immediate source of instruction, you that are auditing him. And, as such, the techniques are more effective. Now today, it is very, very doubtful if these techniques can fail on an individual, regardless of how well or how poorly instructed he is. This is just a bridge that gets jumped whether he would or no. All right.

Our procedure here, very specific procedure—I merely wish you to take good note of this procedure. We set up some auditing here in triangular teams and the first thing that was done was establish two-way communication, little talk of present time problem and then this particular technique which just might as well have been the next-to-the-last list Self Analysis, ARC Straightwire. "Remember something real" and so forth, which is ARC Straightwire (might as well have been that). And we used instead of that "Something you wouldn't mind remembering," "Something you wouldn't mind forgetting," and "A part of your past you wouldn't mind owning." All right. And the next one up, we just took Opening Procedure 8-C and ran it just according to the book, following it with Opening Procedure by Duplication as the only auditing technique being used at that time. And then, following that, by Opening Procedure 8-D, which is Spot Spots in Space and Remedy Havingness. And then more Opening Procedure by Duplication.

Now, the reason we're doing it that way is because Opening Procedure by Duplication is easier for somebody to do as an auditor, really, than Spot Spots in Space and Remedy Havingness. That requires a little more skill, so an auditor should be a little more accustomed to auditing by the time he starts that.

So the instruction is just on the basis of, and the design of, an auditing session. And after we have had a great many hours of these various Opening Procedures, particularly and specifically hours and hours on Opening Procedure by Duplication, why, then we will cut loose with theory practice techniques, what you can do and what you can't do. Things like Swizzle-Stick and Procedure 30 and 8-D, 8-D with a Wheel, all the rest of 8-C and various types of processes which you can use on preclears here and there and which are quite useful to you.

The assimilation of information and your ability to own information depends to a large degree on your willingness to duplicate.

Now, there's quite a bit about viewpoints, there's quite a bit about orientation-points, there's quite a bit about universe construction and there are a lot of exteriorization techniques which are hotter than hot and so forth. Well, the bridge to that information and the bridge to those techniques in a preclear is always the same bridge. It's just what you're doing now. That's the bridge across, both to instruction and to a bettered case. So we're handling a Clinical Unit and we're handling Professional Units on this basis: minimum of off-the-line information, minimum of abstraction, minimum theory and minimum of complexity in procedure. Just handling it just like you should handle an auditing session. And why not?

And as I say, that goes then that your session is at its best, apparently, by much experience, when it is run on this basis: Two-way Communication with the preclear—some discussion with the preclear about his problems, particularly his present time problem; a little bit of Straightwire; Opening Procedure 8-C and its Part (a), Part (b), Part (c); Opening Procedure 8-D (that is the optimum level); and then Opening Procedure by Duplication. After that on an auditing session, you would go right on off, probably, into the remainder of Procedure 30 of which this is the highest part. You'd go right on off there.

By doing these various things, however, which I've just enumerated to you, by doing Two-way Communication, present time problem; little bit of Straightwire —something like ARC Straightwire, all on the ARC basis (this is to raise the preclear's affinity for the auditor)—and then by doing 8-C in its three parts; by doing 8-D (Spotting Spots in Space and Remedying Havingness) and then by doing Opening Procedure by Duplication, we have come up the various tolerance levels of any case we confront. We've given the minimum failure and maximal release for that period of time—minimum failure on the part of the preclear, maximal amount of therapy in the time at hand.

Some of you are going to say that Opening Procedure by Duplication in many cases would be wasted. We should get right in there and pitch. Yeah, you're perfectly right in the last clause. Get right in there and pitch by doing Opening Procedure 8-C. That's how you get in there and pitch.

Now, if you think it's just because they're called Opening Procedure they're simply preliminary to auditing, that is not why they're called Opening Procedure. They're called Opening Procedure because they open cases. A case isn't ready to audit with concepts, subjective material, ransacking the past or any other thing until it is in excellent communication with the auditor. And just by putting a case into good communication with one human being, you have markedly, astonishingly improved that case.

Now, you might not have done all to the case that could be done to the case by the time you've gone through what we've just talked about. You might not have done all this to the case—everything to the case that could have been done to the case by the time you finished Opening Procedure by Duplication. There might be many other things that you could do to remedy the case. But none of those other things should have preceded what we've just gone over— none of the other things.

As I say, after you finished this learning auditing session, gone right straight through to Opening Procedure by Duplication, you finish that off, right up to that point in what we're doing, there wasn't anything else, really, that you could have done to the preclear that we know about, at this time, which would have bettered the case.

Now, the big mistake that has been made by research and investigation all through the past and is being made today by people engaged in research and investigation is looking for the "only" button. We see that the worst situation a preclear can get into is the complex known as the "only one." Only he is alive, only he is surviving and everything else is unreal. That's the worst thing he can get into. That's clear out there on that far curve point of survive.

The manifestation of persistence is simply that: the "only one." He gets this from this universe. This universe pretends to be the only universe there is. It's just a matching up with and a duplication of this universe. This is not the only universe there is. It's quite laughable when you've toured around a little bit and looked around, to suppose that this is. It's something like saying—going out into the middle of the Atlantic and taking one little drop of water and saying that's the only drop of salt water anywhere around here. And it's just about that silly.

Now the "only one" complex leads over into a search for the "only" button. People get to feeling that there could be just one button which, if touched, would unravel the whole thing. Well, if there is one button, that button is Survive, see? That comes closer to being a common denominator. But it itself is part and parcel of Create-Survive-Destroy and is not standing there as an "only one." It is an intermittent Create-Destroy run at such fast sequence that it appears to be there continually. This universe gets put there, taken away, put there and taken away with such rapidity that it is always there. It's created and destroyed alternately with such rapidity that it appears to be all the time there.

Now this adds up, of course, into an infinity—apparent infinity of survival. If something is created and destroyed and created and destroyed and created and destroyed, you get the idea after a while that it can't be created and isn't being created. And it can't be destroyed and isn't being destroyed, simply because it's continuously created. It's continuously destroyed. After you've created it, you destroy it and then you create it again. Well, you start going into apathy about the thing. You say, "Well look, I destroyed it but there it is!" And now having created it, you say, "Well, having created it, now it's gone!" So you just begin to run between these two poles of Create and Destroy, faster and faster and harder and harder until the two became indistinguishable and you would have Survive. And if you want to know the deep significance of all that, that's just the deep significance of it is, is people are persisting. Something which cannot help but live, cannot help but live forever—since forever is any instant and any instant is forever—a person who cannot help but live forever is engaged in this fantastic contest of trying to survive.

And out of this nonsense problem, we get a vast array of problems. It's the greatest problem-producer imaginable except, perhaps, the problem of God. But that is a problem itself germane to this universe. You could go into universes and say, "Who's God around here?" and so forth, why, people wouldn't quite know what you were talking about. That just happens to be the trick of this universe.

So we look for this "only" button. And therefore we will look continuously if we get on that "only one" computation. We'll begin to look continuously, as I say, for the "only" button and we'll keep finding various buttons.

What you're using happens to be the most effective parts of a vast number of technologies developed in Dianetics and Scientology. All these various SOPs—they're still with us in the guise of the one most effective part. Now we've done an "only one" to that degree.

We said there are only a couple of things in this technique that are really producing results. And I've jettisoned the stuff that was not producing the results out of the technique and have retained what was producing results by experience and so forth.

And as such we have finally come down—not to the "only one" or the "only" button—we have come down to this: we have come down to a series of things which when applied, apparently hit about all the buttons there are to be hit on a case.

But remember this, we are dealing with differentiation. The search for the "only one" is a walk toward identification. It identifies everything with everything and that itself is a reactive activity. A=A=A=A. Well, that's this "only one" button. There's just one button which if you hit it, resolves the case, see? That's a reactive computation, because A=A=A. It means that you'd have to identify everything to this one button. And having identified everything to this one button, what chance would you have of differentiating?

The truth of the matter is, is there's such high differentiation that it's fantastic that there are any common denominators on the track which, when undone, release computers and release into freedom many of these mechanics—all of these mechanics, actually. It's fantastic that we can find these little cross sections where the mechanics get tied to the considerations and undo them.

Now however, it takes many processes, it takes many things in a case to get this done. Now, why does it take so many processes? Because you're dealing with differentiation. And differentiation, it itself would tell you: look, if differentiation is so important, then there must be several buttons, each one distinct and different from another.

And so it is in Scientology. There are several fields of human beingness; there are several fields of existence, you might say. There are evidently several types of universe. And as we get into these, we find out they are held together and that they are identified, one to another, by certain cross-considerations.

Two universes have a consideration in common and therefore become associated one with another. And if this one characteristic they have in common is sufficiently associated, they identify one with the other and to all observers would seem to be the same universe. That's because they started by having a consideration in common. Then they maybe had many considerations in common. And then the two universes were in common and you had them occupying the same space. So you find the preclear in Mother's valence. Mother and the preclear had several things in common. They had a lot of considerations in common. And this then—you're examining reality, aren't you?

What is the anatomy of reality? Reality is caused, first, by an individual's independent consideration. Things are real because he says they exist. And he yet has the power, the criteria to determine for himself whether things are real or not. He simply does it by postulate. He said, "Whoa, boom, real!" See? Nobody agrees with it. He doesn't need an agreement to make it persist.

Then he comes across somebody else and the two of them make this consideration in common. Now they have shared a consideration so they're in communication with each other and we have a communication beginning. Now, this happens to be desirable that we have a communication beginning. That happens to be desirable. We get an interchange there. We get a game going. Although they have a consideration in common, they also have points which are not in common and so we get an interchange.

Show me any football team which does not have considerations in common with another football team and I will show you a football team that doesn't play football. Two football teams have to have—although they're terrible enemies—one of the other have a tremendous number of considerations in common. The rules of the game, then, are the considerations in common between two football teams which make it possible for the game to be played.

Thus two universes have to have considerations in common in order to interchange, even to fight. They have to be in agreement so that they can disagree. Now, this agreement for a game is an agreement to disagree. We have agreed to disagree and so we have a game rolling.

Well, in the absence of a game it very, very well may be that life would be very supportable, very tolerable. You'd probably be able to get along just fine without any game at all. But regardless of that, you do happen to like games. So you have a consideration that you like games. And this seems to be a common consideration which eventually fades out after an individual has lost often enough to a point of where, "Well, he says it's a game, but sure looks awful serious and real to me." Well, that's the deterioration of a game. That's the DEI cycle.

After these considerations have been held in common, we get, immediately after that, that we desire these considerations and then we have to enforce these considerations. I imagine baseball was played for years without an umpire. Then we have to have an umpire to enforce these considerations.

Christian society has dreamed up a God and a Devil to enforce considerations in this. Now, that's not said impiously because I don't consider impiety to be violated by talking that way about the God and the Devil. It all depends on what god you're talking about. And I haven't found anybody had any agreement on this so I just skip the whole subject. How can you be impious about nothing?

Our enforcement, then, dwindles down into an inhibition. Now that the game has been enforced just so long, the cycle runs on down to make a much more critical problem: to be an inhibited thing. We still have a game, but it's the game of being inhibited. You can still be problems.

And out of the game we get evolution into problems. One of the chief problems is the problem of being serious. That is a problem, that's all. It's also a solution. The problem of being serious. That is a problem, an independent problem. "What kind of a problem can I be? Ha, I'll be serious." That's quite a problem to a jokester. Now these are attitudes, states of mind. They stem from considerations.

We have certain mechanics, certain things in Scientology which themselves are the short circuits, you might say, which add universes to universes and get an individual gorgeously lost in the middle of "what universe," "what consideration." And these things are quite numerous, however. I mean, there are quite a few of these things, these cross lines.

There's sitting at the top and rather arbiting over the whole thing, there's considerations. And then there's— below that there's—we consider that there's such a thing as an Affinity and Reality and Communication. And there our considerations become a little more complex and we go down into other things. 'We go down into beingness and granting of beingness and the problems of attention and all sorts of things of this character.

The first time we get a problem on the Third Dynamic, it's a problem in cause and effect. The first problem that anybody ever had, really, where the First Dynamic had been entered was a problem in cause and effect.

There is an earlier circumstance with himself and that is the problem of "How do I play a game when I know all the possible random actions in the game?" That's a problem right there. A fellow starts in with a problem before he gets in the Third Dynamic.

But where aberration is concerned, an individual then can get himself lost, you see? Where aberration is concerned, an individual would have had to have entered into cause and effect. If he entered into communication, he entered into cause and effect. Why did he enter into communication? To cause an effect? To get the effect of a cause—to have a game, in other words.

And so we have The Factors as a statement of the Third Dynamic condition which occurs immediately after the problem "I know all the answers and so I have no game." So the immediate solution to that is The Factors. And that's why The Factors are stated as a solution, That is the solution to no game.

And there, all auditing is a Third Dynamic situation. All life, in any complexity, is a Third Dynamic consideration. There is no First Dynamic consideration which is a complexity or a problem anyplace. All the problems there are, are other people's problems. One can't have any problems himself. He can't have! So he's got to have problems which occur out of factors he cannot consult, which are other people's problems. He can have other people's problems and he can say they're his, but that's not true that they are. The biggest thing he's hiding from himself all the time is that he doesn't have any problems. And he comes to you and he gets audited, to get rid of his problems? I'm afraid not. He probably doesn't have enough of them.

But any technique that you use is directed toward taking apart this entire package of considerations which add up to the various kinds of activities that beings engage in. And where they get into these engagements to such a degree that they become broken pieces, where they are no longer able to determine really to any great degree at all the course of their own existence, when they themselves are pretty well lost in the middle of all of this; they have forgotten that there was a game, that there were universes, that there were factors, that there were any rules. They go down and ask for justice at the court and immediately discover there are no rules of any kind. You think maybe courts run on rules? If they only did!

The problems which an individual encounters are all Third Dynamic problems, but he can get these so involved that they become distasteful to him. You'll notice the phenomenon many times of auditing a preclear up to the point where the Third Dynamic is no longer a vast problem to him. And having audited him up to that point, you would like maybe to continue to audit him right on out of the Third Dynamic relationship entirely. And you're rather surprised when he won't let you. He's gone up to a point he could have a game and now you're going to turn around and take all games away from him. Oh no, you won't! You can square him up so he's able to function and have a game. And that, actually, is about as high as you go with auditing. The individual can look at life with a smile and he can take whatever he has or whatever he wants from life and he can be happy or unhappy about it as he himself determines he should be.

But the difficulties which a preclear gets into are not the difficulties of having hit just one engram or one computation or one lock or one secondary or one factor or one anything. If there's any "one" about anything, it's a consideration. You say, "That's a common denominator, then—the consideration." Well yes, but that's a First Dynamic problem. And as a First Dynamic problem, it doesn't fall within auditing. Yes, you treat it. You hit it all the time. You'll be aware it's there. Trouble with this individual is that he considers. If you ever wanted to say what's the real trouble with somebody: he considers. That's why when you ask somebody to hold the two back anchor points of the room and not think for two minutes, he stops considering for two minutes, he feels better. But this is a First Dynamic problem.

It's when these considerations are agreed with and become a reality and go out of his control that they become a problem. So all auditing problems are Third Dynamic problems, which doesn't cause us to state immediately "All Third Dynamics are bad." That would be the second Know to Sex echelon way down at the bottom, the "All things are bad."

And thus we get, very happily here, some kind of an understanding of what we're doing. This is all pre-data. That doesn't mean we're not under instruction. But, we're teaching this Unit just as though it were an auditing session and just like we wouldn't do much to a preclear until we had him "preclear" by telling him all about things and stuff. That's what we're going to do to you. We have mercy on you now and it's probably about time.

Okay.

CERTIFICATES OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY

SUMMARY OF PLAN OF COURSE, PART I PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 2 7ACC-02 - 24.06.54

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 7ACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1954]]