View source for The Anatomy of Havingness (1MACC 591130)

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

'''Date:''' 30 November 1959

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_1MACC|Back to Series]]

Thank you very much. My apologies for keeping you waiting. Actually Stanley was keeping me waiting, even while he was right here in the room. Well, this is the supernumerary lecture, the thirty-first lecture and, of the first Melbourne ACC, and you thought I was just going to come in and say, "Well folks, you've had it. Goodbye. And gradually as you sink into the mire, I will be thinking of you."

But the fact of the matter is, is I can tell you a few more things and I might as well do so, of course if you want to hear them. (Yes!) Alright. Very good. Then I'll, I'll consider that as an invitation.

Now, I received a note this morning asking me something about process. And I distinctly remember covering it in about eight or nine separate lectures. So when these tapes are played through again for this unit, listen to them. You'll find now that you know enough about what you're doing to know that you don't know anything.

Now, that's a big gain. Never look on it as anything else. Right? As soon as you decide that you don't know anything about some particular line of action, why, then you could know something about it. Got the idea?

The basic text of this course is Scientology 8-8008. The first lectures which immediately precede this course were the Philadelphia Lectures of fall 1952, sixty-four hours of lectures. They're the immediate lectures which instantly precede this course, so you see we've done an awful jump on the time track. Do you see that? Alright.

You can look in Scientology 8-8008 and find a great many of the things I have been talking about. The reason this has been a sensational gain is because I have found the anatomy of havingness. And you've been listening all about havingness here for weeks, and probably haven't even recognized that I was talking about havingness and what happens to it.

The factor of havingness is the only saving grace a thetan has. Works like this. An auditor starts chopping up a pc and the pc's havingness goes down, completely aside from the ARC breaks and all the rest of that sort of thing, havingness goes down because he makes the pc individuate. Havingness goes down, the pc becomes more separate.

Havingness reduces because the pc has been driven out into a further separateness, he's not been included as part of the auditing session. Rough auditing, invalidation and that sort of thing reduce havingness. Taking things away from somebody reduces havingness. The only reason you feel bad about a relative dying is loss of havingness.

Loss, loss is practically the totality of all black cases, invisible cases, spinning cases. The keynote of it is loss. This is all old material. If you wanted somebody to turn on a black field, he had perfectly good pictures - probably dub-in or something, it'd have to be a dub-in case to really have this happen - but if you want to bring him up a notch, see, all you've got to do is have him concentrate on having lost something.

Now, you can very often turn the case black, just turn it black as the ace of spades, which is an experimental procedure, not a clinical or auditing procedure. And that tells you this, that a black case is black because of loss. Loss of what? Loss of havingness.

So havingness is just as important as it's ever been but nobody could've told you and there was unfortunately nobody around to tell me, as usual, what this thing havingness was all about. It's kind of obvious, you know, you could have something or you could not have something, and after you've lost something you can't have it and so on. But why did cases respond so badly when their havingness was reduced?

Now, rough auditing actually reduces havingness by introducing separateness. The world at large as the time stream goes tearing along, gets many people in the frame of mind of loss loss loss loss loss. It isn't one o'clock, two o'clock, three o'clock, four o'clock; it's loss, loss, loss.

Every time another minute goes by they've lost something. They've lost the whole universe. They get to looking on it on the negative side, see? They don't ever realize that they have a new universe.

I straightened out a case one time with experimental procedure, very famous person by the way. I said, "Close your eyes. OK. Now open them up and find a brand new world. Thank you. Now close your eyes. Good. Open them up and find a brand new world." I just kept this up. Started having a case shifted all over the place. Ran into the case two or three years later, it had, had considerable auditing in the meantime and had made gains and all of that sort of thing, was still saying, "That was the most wonderful process I ever had in my life."

It was just reversing this time cycle, you see? Instead of every successive second the person feels he's lost the whole universe, I made him in every successive second find he had found one. Of course you have to have a high level of trust and confidence that the universe is going to arrive with that next minute. And cases that have great difficulty can't actually believe that there is any future.

Now, when they believe there is no future, that means they're not going to get anything, that means they have to hold desperately onto everything they've got and it balls their time track up because they're holding onto the facsimiles which represented yesterday's universe, because there won't ever be a tomorrow universe. I see a few chests sighing here, is that right? Never will be?

One might say the basic anatomy of a bank is that mechanism by which a thetan reassures himself that there has been one. That's, that's all he's got left, that's all he's got left of being pharaoh. But a great oddity sets in. If that's all he's got left of being pharaoh, then why in the name of common sense does he have pharaoh's death but no live pictures of pharaoh? Well, that doesn't make sense.

And we run into innumerable questions. Why does he do this? What is this all about? What are these factors that we're dealing with here that give us such a fantastic twist? A person mocked up obsessively and continually a picture of everything he had felt, seen or heard so that he could stack it up on a time track and then have yesterday's universe because he knew he probably wasn't going to get a tomorrow's universe. See?

And when he already began to doubt tomorrow's universe, why, he started stacking up yesterday's universe. Well, why does he eventually get down to a point where he stacks up only the bad of yesterday's universe? Well, you could say it's all he could have of it and other things, but there must be a better reason.

Now, Scientology 8-8008 was written after the Philadelphia Lectures and was written at 10 Marlboro place in London, up in St. John's Wood. I kicked the thing out. It was a theoretical representation, the processes demonstrated its conclusions and so on. But you have actually the first broad comprehensive and still valid picture of havingness. But there has been a jump of seven years, seven years.

Now, that's a long time on anybody's, that's a split instant on anybody else's research track, but long enough on ours for heaven's sakes because we make gains by, oh I don't know, I think in any given month we make as many gains as Man made in the last millennia, in any one millennia of the past as far as understanding himself is concerned. And here it took seven years to root out this data.

Now, this data of course has been given to you, you know what this data is. Data concerns the cycle of action slip, the automaticity of travel from create through survive to destroy. He, trying to hold onto a universe, he also holds onto this law of the universe and he can't continue to have something without going forward in time and finding himself in the inevitable destruction of it.

And he carries all the laws of the universe into his own bank and they become the laws of his own bank. Create, survive, destroy. And so he has something but if he has something he knows it's going to skid, above all else that he knows. If he buys an automobile, he dazzles himself with the new brilliance of it and knows very well that it will be an old car in a few years.

Finally in order to have anything, he himself begins to fit on a sort of a personal create, survive, destroy curve, and to have anything it has to be a destroyed car. That would be the only kind of car he had. He's gone into agreement with this thing totally, he's doing a slide on the cycle of action.

He cannot continue to have, he knows, because he will be destroyed, the havingness will be destroyed, everything will be destroyed and that'll be the end of it all. So his bank goes ahead and agrees with this and does this slip on the cycle of action.

Now, that is probably the key point of understanding of havingness, plus this. This is the key point in the behavior of a thetan toward havingness and I won't say except this, I'll give you now the rationale which is immediately back of having to have. Now, it's taken a long, long time to get this stuff together so don't, don't let the air blow between your ears there where your head is because, boy, you need this like the desert needs water. I'm not kidding you, you know, you're just not going to make it with cases unless you, unless you have a grasp on this thing.

A thetan gets in communication on an obsessive basis of being at cause or effect, and gets into a condition where he starts running separateness and he... Of course let's say for theoretical sake, since we don't know for sure, we say he is separate at the beginning of this, you see, and then he gets obsessively separate.

Now, just as you cannot enjoy the characteristics of a person you do not like - the way parents always played this game on you, they always pointed out some little boy in the neighborhood, there's some little girl in the neighborhood, that you must not be like, or something of the sort, you know, that means those are characteristics you cannot have.

He began because of overts to do things he couldn't be the effect of, and when he couldn't be the effect of his own cause, didn't dare to be the effect of his own cause, he got stuck on one end of the cause-distance-effect line. He got into an axiom ten ball-up where he's obsessively creating an effect.

But he knows the effects he'll create are bad and therefore he must never be at the effect end of the line, which also means oddly enough he must never come off the cause end of the line because if he came off the cause end of the line, why, he's liable to slide over and become the effect of some other line. Now, this is very bad. So he gets pinned into axiom ten.

Now, his overts teach him that cause-distance-effect is also create-survive-destroy, so being obsessively cause now - by the way the further down scale he goes the more obsessively causative he is oddly enough, and the more individuated he is and strangely enough, usually the more important he is. Ah, you've never questioned or queried the importance of some drunk stumbling down the street that's been on skid row for years, why, he's the most important fellow.

Now, why is he so important? Well, the fragments and splinters that comprise his bank and body are all the havingness he's got. He can't have anything else. Why not? Because he has done things that he could not be the effect of, he says. And not being able to be the effect of these things, aha, the only real place to be would be on the cause end of the line.

So you get the effect scale, no-effect, the bottom of which is "no-effect on me, total effect on others." Well, that's followed into over the line of overt acts and the more overt acts a person is guilty of, of course the less effects he can be. Because he created the bad effects. And he, gradually you have less and less beingness.

Now, you get more and more separateness and as his overt acts are against others and anything, they can be against anything, he starts individuating from people. He starts individuating from possessions, he starts individuating from walls.

You had a case right here in this unit by the way that came down from six on the meter to about two or three or something like that, just by having her attention called to a wall. Pong, see, and we, there was some kind of an odd phenomenon of total separateness from the wall.

Well, I'll tell you. There's an old, old lecture which one amongst you will remember very well. A thetan can be what he can see, and he can see what he can be. Remember that one? Well boy, that's real true. And you can say this, the more separate he has to be, the less he can be. The more separate he has to be, the less he can see. And you get beingness declining.

But havingness, one of the methods of havingness is permeating things, you know, being them. You see little kids doing this all the time. They haven't got cars so they go around being automobiles. Ever notice that? Well, that gives them a car, sort of. And here you have a situation then of the further separate a person is from anything, the less he can have it.

It's one of those goofball rules that's so, so obvious that it's a wonder anybody has to beat it over the head. But I'm beating it over the head because it's so simple and so obvious that everybody seems to have missed it all the way along the line if they wanted to solve any part of these problems.

You see the thetan's, some of you believe that all the solutions are there and they've all been solved. Well, that is not true. All the problems and laws are there but the combination of how they fit together was never whipped. You take a whole bunch of individual thetans, you see, busy individuating further and further, believing more and more this and that and the other thing, you eventually had no, nothing but a kind of a chaos which had some kind of obsessive order here and there, but mostly chaos, nobody quite understanding what anybody else did so everybody being different from everybody. Get the idea?

So therefore nobody had the good sense to look at himself and find out what he had in common with anybody else, you get the idea, and nobody, nobody had the good sense to go out and look at some savages and some civilized people and things like that and find out they had anything in common, and find out if there was anything that ran true.

And this obsessive differentiation, very obsessive, prevented any realization that everyone had certain things in common with everybody else. And having those certain things in common, there was some slight tendency to kind of be others and so on. But basically an understanding could be reached and we reduced down all of the nonsense.

And you go around to a priest and you say, "What's life?" you know, and the priest says, "Well, if you just worship Yahweh Vishnu, if you just worship Yahweh Vishnu then you will know." You go around to a business man and you say, "Now, what's life?" And he says, "Buying and selling. Buy low, sell high. rld today, what do you find? Specialists. A fellow by the name of Chick Sale wrote a book on the subject once, I recommend it to everyone. You go in and you see, you go in and you see medical building, you know, and you say uhhhh. You go into an advertising agency and you see mthuuuh. All this is, I mean, each person in the whole agency is a specialist, everybody's a specialist. Everybody's different. All require super-specialized training, it all requires this.

In other words they're just Q and Aing with the fact that everybody is different than everybody, much different than everybody, impossibly different than everybody, so different than anybody that they couldn't possibly even talk to anybody. And you find amongst the specialists themselves eight specialists in the same line of work have graded themselves into a caste system of some sort so they can't talk to each other either.

And you get this super super super individuation and of course with that comes terrific complication. And it all becomes very incomprehensible and all becomes very different and all becomes this. Well, they've got lots of things in common. I've got news for every one of those specialists, real good news for them.

Like I did to that attorney one day. A magic phrase which if you snap your fingers, no, when you say the magic phrase and snap your fingers the body will roll up in a ball and fall on the floor. And it did. Well, I bet his first thought is, "Well, this wouldn't work on, this wouldn't work on a corporation counsel."

That lawyer probably had that as his first thought, you see, that he would be so different than a corporation counsel, it wouldn't work. But you go around to the corporation counsel, same thing'd happen. Scientology is inevitable in dissemination for the excellent reason that it is the story of the common denominator.

And the only people you'll have any difficulty selling it to at all are people who are very uncommon, uncommon people. They're so uncommon they don't eat like anybody else or breathe like anybody else or spit like anybody else. They, they have various peculiar peculiarities. They probably breathe through their ears or something.

Where we have this terrific separateness we have very low havingness and tremendous anxieties about it, `til we have to beg people to get interested in and buy automobiles. The United States has to spend some incalculable sum, I don't know, must be two or three times the size of the national debt or something. That's a vast exaggeration but of course an exaggeration only because the national debt can't be computed.

They spend it in advertising, trying to persuade women to buy good looking dresses that any dame in her right mind would dive through a plate glass window to grab. Get the idea? But they spend advertising to do it, you see? They advertise like mad to get somebody to buy a new rug, a beautiful rug. They just put the pressure on at every side trying to get that havingness shoved out.

And of course the harder don't go dangling a bright new tie under my nose because I'll acquire it. But if I don't acquire it, I'm perfectly happy just to admire it. Get the idea?

Scientologists are dangerous people, they're very dangerous. A millionaire in London once took out two five pound notes. He had been playing this gag all day long with great success with all of his business cohorts. He pulled out two five pound notes and he'd hand them to his, the friends he happened to be with and say, "Here, this is yours." And they'd say, "No. What for? You don't owe me that. I don't need any money," and so forth, and the millionaire would have to put the five pound notes back into his pocketbook.

So he took out to dinner the association secretary and the director of training of HASI London. And he told me later he never saw two five pound notes disappear faster. They didn't give them back either. Tried to convince them it was a gag, just wasn't any use.

Now, it wasn't that there was any virtue in suddenly being a vacuum for havingness, but neither is any virtue connected with not being able to have. And you'd say the two extremes of got to have, got to have, got to have, got to have - of course that finally winds you up with kleptomaniacs, things like that, things sort of fly off hat racks and stick on them.

Yeah, that's right, it's a total automaticity, just as you run into automaticities of the bank, their hand will be on total automatic and there'll be a silver spoon or something like that and they just, hand gets it and sticks it in their pocket. And they say, "How'd that get in my pocket?"

The police say, "Ha ha ha ha, as if you didn't know." And what they're being foolish about is he didn't know. "How'd that get in my pocket?" That's, actually is his first thought, "How did it get in my pocket?" In other words he's just got an automaticity, he's got no choice in the matter.

The other side of it is they can't have at all. Any time you offer them anything, whether it's communication or gold bullion, blondes or beautiful life guards, whatever it is this person is being offered they just say no, can't have.

Well, of course having things fly into them and not knowing they're there and not being able to accept anything are equally can't have. They can't have either one of them because havingness is a rather intellectual activity. And that's the one thing that isn't a reactive activity because the reactive bank is simply a total network of reasons why one can't have. If one wants any definition of it, well that's his can't-havingness pattern.

It's quite remarkable, his can't-havingness. That's right. What's an engram? That tells you that you can't have this or you can't have that, it tells you that you must not go near fires that are burning very bright. You show me a thetan in good shape that can't have a bright burning fire and sit right in the middle of it and I'll show you one who isn't in good shape.

Now, of course you can't take bodies by the rules and drop them into roaring rivers and so forth, but a thetan can go into roaring rivers and not even get his old rusty chains wet. The point is that the more obsessively separate a person is or the more resistively connected he is, the less he can have.

Now, the one thing he can do is have, if he's in fair condition, but that's one of the best things that he does with MEST because, you see, there's a new factor involved with a thetan that I've known for a very long time but I don't think I've ever mentioned very much, I might have mentioned it once or twice. A newly discovered factor, first observed several years ago by myself, but couldn't make much out of it, and that is that a thetan is actually incapable really of duplicating anything.

That's his native state. A thetan cannot be a brick wall, really. Not really, because a thetan becomes a brick wall or duplicates a brick wall, he of course is a thetan plus a mock-up. You get the idea? He's thetan plus something. But just a thetan all by himself is just a thetan all by himself and all else is mock-ups, even the physical universe, see?

Now he, he actually can't even be a location really, honest and truly. He has to be able to pretend to be spaces, forces, masses. He can't perfectly duplicate them. It's quite remarkable, naturally, because he is himself and all of these other things are creations and he is the only uncreated creation. So of course, oh, he has a good time, he can look at them. When he looks at them he has to say, "Well, I can be brick wall." That thought has to go through, "I can be a brick wall, I can be a this, I can be a that."

Now, if you show somebody some horrifying sight, some appalling sight that is to him appalling, you'll get immediate dim down of vision. You ever notice this? He gets a dim down of vision when he confronts something that he can't confront, see, boom. Well, what's this dim down? Well, this dim down is he's observing something he's decided that he can't be.

Now, he has to be able to decide he can be things in order to perceive them at all, I guarantee you. And so he's decided he can't be and of course the vision turns down. Has nothing to do with the wavelengths of anything travelling in any direction, just has to do with him making up his mind what he can be, you might say what he is willing to observe. Well, what he's willing to observe is what he's willing to in some fashion duplicate because the communication formula contains duplication.

Well now, there are many ramifications to this and I wish I could just write them all down and show them all off, but actually you could work them out rather easily. A thetan is able to pretend he can duplicate so long as he is even vaguely willing to pretend he can be something. In other words he's willing to duplicate a wall or see a wall if he's willing to be a wall.

But the second he gets taught that he, "I" is totally different from a wall and he is not a wall, and if he's taught conclusively and continually that he's not a wall, then he's entirely separate from walls and must have nothing to do with walls. One of these fine days he'll be looking right straight at a wall and see right straight through it. Nothing creditable about that I assure you. You can look through anything because they aren't there anyhow, only they are there, see?

Now, let's take a look at, let's take a look at a thetan and find out that he is so obsessively being different and obsessively refusing to duplicate, that he can't even see another thetan in some fashion. I mean, he can't observe one, it makes him sick to get the idea of duplicating himself. Yeah, run "conceive a static" out of the Creation of Human Ability on somebody sometime. And pick a case that's not in too good a shape and just run "conceive a static" for a few commands, he'll get good and sick on you because he of course is conceiving something with no mass. You're spoiling his game.

He's gotten down to a point now where his final answer to duplication and the first in answer to duplication as he advances up toward beingness, he can come as close as having something. So havingness is the first, it's not an ideal condition at all, but it's the first condition which leads to perception.

First he can have something and then he can do something with it and then he can be it. That's rehabilitation. It's reversing the cycle of deterioration. The last thing he could do with something just before he faded out on it totally and entirely, the last thing he could do with something was have it. So that's the first thing you've got to be able to get him to do with anything. Have it.

I used to run Op Pro by Dup on people and get four or five times the result as they later on got with Op Pro by Dup. Don't know if you've ever heard a demonstration tape by me on Op Pro by Dup. It's quite interesting because this step has been omitted and has been missing since I think the, I don't know what ACC it was, maybe the seventh.

Gave the person an ashtray, "Could you own that? Could you have it?" "Well, no." "Well, why couldn't you?" Argue, argue, argue, argue, argue, we had arguments, arguments, arguments back and forth about this ashtray. And then we finally took something else, some other object, and had arguments about that.

"Could you have this? Could you have all of it? Are you sure you can have it? You can have it if when it's broken? Could you have it when it was new? Could you have it if it were stolen? Well, just under what conditions could you have this thing? Why couldn't you have it? Why could you have it?"

Back and forth, back and forth and at first they just say, "Well, what are you talking about that for?" and snarl, "Of course I can have the ashtray, there'd be nothing to an ashtray." Pooh, you know, and just whuuu. And they finally get it and they finally look at this ashtray, "It's quite an ashtray, oh yes I..." You'd see this change come over them, you realize they could have this ashtray and then they could have this other object whatever it was, book or something.

And then you'd run Op Pro by Dup because you'd entered them into the first wedge of being able to go up and actually be and perceive and duplicate something, and recover somebody's willingness to duplicate. But you couldn't recover their willingness to duplicate unless you entered them in at the bottom of the ladder being able to have it. You follow this?

A person does not really have to look at what he has. He doesn't have to use it. I know a fellow who drives Phoenix Arizona stark staring mad. All the camera enthusiasts in Phoenix Arizona are a little bit wogged at this fellow, they feel, they make him, they, he makes them feel a little bit crazy. Fabulous.

Every time any company anyplace in the world issues a new camera, this fellow has a standing order in one of the shops to, come hell or high water, buy it for him and he takes it home, never takes a single picture with it, and puts it on a cabinet shelf which has glass across the front of the shelf. And he's got whole walls covered with brand new, never shot, beautiful cameras.

For instance he had every model up the line that Likka ever made. He has every model up the line, not even because he collects them. What really drives them mad is he never asks anybody even to come in and look at them. This fellow can have cameras and he can have cameras that thereafter he doesn't even have to reassure himself that he still has them.

Now, you've undoubtedly once or twice been very critical of some old lady or some old man, something of the sort, who had a brand new hat or brand new gloves or something of this sort, and had this brand new hat or brand new gloves and they put it on a shelf and they never wear it.

And you open up a drawer and the drawer is full of all the gloves you've given them for Christmas for the last fifteen years, you know? But you're outraged by it perhaps. But the horrible truth of the matter is that was all they could do with them, but that was enough. It was very satisfying. And people never add up this other little interesting fact that it is quite enough for these people to have them. It's alright to have them, don't you see?

I hadn't hit anything like that on anything for a long time because I busily use almost everything I got. My equipment, it gets to be the most, well, it doesn't wear out very fast but it certainly gets an awful lot of knocking around and so on. And I realized suddenly that I was still collecting cufflinks and people kept giving me cufflinks.

Last, short time ago, somebody gave me some jade cufflinks, beautiful cufflinks. And I accepted them, was very happy to have them and put them in a big leather case I have for cufflinks. Well, I haven't worn any shirts with cuffs for years frankly, I haven't worn them for years. I'm still collecting cufflinks. I have no use for them, any shape or form, not even really to collect them.

And I said, "Well, at last I've got a subjective reality on what it is to have something and never do anything with it and so forth. Look at all those cufflinks." There they were. Actually the collection which I do consider a bit of a collection, I'm always shopping around for odd stickpins. I like those, I use the living daylights out of them, you know, always wearing stickpins of one shape, size, condition, so on.

Well, that's fine but that's an entirely different thing. That's a sort of a dynamic havingness. You see if, you have them and then you really have them, you see? Well, I doubt I've come up to a point where I could be a stickpin as a body, but I certainly could be a stickpin as a thetan.

Now, if I could thoroughly enough be a stickpin as a thetan, if I was good enough at it, I would say, "Stickpin," and there'd be one, and I'd say, "Persist," and it would. See where this goes? Alright.

Now, the cycle of action is what knocks out havingness. It's the automatic havingness disposer. Now, what havingness is all about is the lowest entrance point. Individuation ruins havingness so any remedy of a person's individuation makes the room brighten up for him. If things look brighter to him, you know, he gets off some overts which he wouldn't himself want to be the effect of, don't you see?

As soon as he gets the overts off, he can see better. That's very funny, I mean, he can see better if he gets the overts off. You get eyesight changes the moment you find, get the case unburdened, find the right terminal and run the correct process on it.

Eyeglasses are very revelatory. They always tell you exactly where a case sits. They say, "This person's still fooling the auditor," because when you start to knock out somebody's obsessive individuation on any given subject, I tell you the world no longer goes rrrrrow.

The odd part of it is, is their eyes aren't really, people's eyes aren't uniformly bad on all objects. So oculists are always having a hard time of it. The oculist goes in and he shows them a chart and he adjusts their eyes to the chart, and then they go out and look at a car.

Now, they use them to drive down a road or something of this sort and that is an entirely different thing. Person says, "My glasses aren't quite comfortable. I wonder what's wrong with my glasses?" Nothing wrong with their glasses except there isn't a set of glasses made under the sun that do very much for anybody's sight.

That's about, I'm not, I see there's some pairs of glasses in front of me here, I'm actually not paying too much attention to it beyond, beyond wondering what's the matter with the auditor. I don't blame the person wearing the eyeglasses, I just think they're being a victim. Victimized by bad auditing, that's obvious.

Now here's the main, the main show here now. Scientology 8-8008 seven years ago gives you scarcity and remedy, pardon me, remedy of scarcity and abundance of all things, right? That sets that as an optimum condition and sets up a process known as Expanded Gita which is covered in the tapes actually as merely Gita, and which many people have read into it as having an Indian connotation, having something to do with one of the Indian gitas and so forth, because there's some religious connotation of the word.

The truth of the matter is it's give and take, just a contracted give and take, it means you had to be able to get rid of or have or receive anything anybody could think up. And the things that people were not, were having a bad time with in life were the things they couldn't have and couldn't throw away.

Now, those things were giving them a hard time and any button on the case here, all these seven years later I can tell you, any button on any case is purely, entirely and completely and utterly, in a scarcity or abundance bracket. And that's all that's wrong with it, there's no further significance than that.

If a person is at destroy on a curve on men, there aren't enough of them. If a person is at destroy of the cycle of action curve on women, there aren't enough of them. If he can't even get the idea of a woman, there aren't enough of them. And if he can't even get the idea of a man, there aren't enough of them. Got the

idea? If he can't mock up a racing car, there aren't enough of them.

Now, it goes further than that, much further than that. If an individual has a picture of a racing car, there aren't enough of them because, what have you got? You've got the middle of the cycle of action. You've got a persistence of a picture. And that's all there is to that. He's got a picture of a murder that has nothing to do with it because the cycle of action is a condition. It's a statement of condition. The thing has been or is being created, it is persisting, it is breaking up or is broken up. Do you see that?

That's a statement of conditions and has nothing to do with terminals except to describe their condition plotted against time. So any terminal addressed in any way with no further significance will knock that terminal back and forth on the cycle of action, and routinely returns it back onto destroy and then finally on to persist and then back off the line onto create, at which moment that terminal will vanish from the bank, really vanish, never to come back. But it'll only do that when the person feels that there's a possibility he could, at any time he wanted, have enough of them. Now, what do you know about that?

If you understood this and if you've digested it and you've got it square, you possibly will feel, some time in the future that you may have trouble with a case, but if you've got that one square you'll never have any trouble with a case. And if you don't get that one square and you do have trouble with cases, I'm telling you something. You didn't get it square, you're just a square, you're being a knucklehead.

This is too easy. The guy has nothing but pictures of dead women. There's women that are dead and dead that are women. He has pictures of dead women, dying women, cut up and buried women. All we've got to do is run confront or any havingness process and the picture slides back to the middle of a cycle of action. And we remedy it further and it slides on back to the create.

It's very funny. You keep remedying havingness on women long enough and the pc is going to give you some very peculiar yickle- yackle that you think he's going to get off the subject. And he's going to tell you that he is, whatever the process is, handling women but the only pictures he's getting are little babies. And you'll think he has got the product of women and men, when as a matter of fact he simply has women at the beginning of the create-survive-destroy curve and of course at that time they were little babies.

Now, you run this out far enough and the cycle of action itself blows up. You understand how an individual got so that he couldn't have anything. He got so he couldn't have anything because he didn't dare duplicate it. Why not? Because he was separate from it and different from it. He was too separate and he was too different, and he couldn't be it and therefore he couldn't duplicate it, and therefore very definitely couldn't have it. His first action is being able to have this thing.

Now, as he moves on up the scale on this one particular item, why, he's more and more able to have it which means he's more and more able to be it which means there's more and more of it. And there's still the idea of scarcity and abundance and all it comes back to is scarcity and abundance, and scarcity and abundance monitors all these other significances. You never saw such a piano forte in your life as scarcity and abundance plays when it's done right.

Now, how do you, you could just keep remedying the scarcity of something. It's always terminals. Then these other phenomena would discharge off of it. Very simple. One of the ways of remedying the scarcity of anything is to have somebody confront it.

Now, willingness to confront something would be willingness to duplicate it and that's very simple. If you can't see a picture, you just aren't willing to be it, that's all. Well, of course the first entrance point on the scale of be, do and have, is to be able to have it. And the individual can't see the picture because he can't have it. Well, he can't have it because he can't confront it, he can't look at it.

Why can't he look at it? Because he's separate from it. Well, why is he separate from it? Well, because he's standing over here. No, that's not good enough because a thetan could stand over here and look at a picture without being obsessively separate from a picture. You understand that. But when he's got to be separate from it, when he must be different from it, there is no picture there. Now, what do you think of that?

So as he becomes obsessively individuated, why, these things all blow up in front of his face, I mean, they disappear. Well, alright. What is this then in a basic run, what's it got to do with overts? Well, the individual has to be on the cause-distance-effect line if he's guilty of overts. He's got to be at cause, therefore he never goes into session. Did you ever see a session run with the pc at cause and the auditor at effect? It won't run, that I assure you.

So therefore a case that's having a very rough time has to go obsessively at cause because he's guilty of overts. Well, what are his overts? Well, regardless of what his overts are, they make him feel that he mustn't be at the effect point. If he's not at the effect point then he is obsessively at the cause point. If he's obsessively at cause point and that sort of thing, he's excessively individuated. And when he's super-individuated, he can't see things, he can't have them, he can't be them. He's in an awful state of affairs.

See, you now have two, three, four, five, wow, how many methods, each one of them very very effective in an attack on a bank of the remedy of any given situation. You can just remedy it in dozens of different ways.

You can get off the overts so that he can dare be at effect, he can dare be the effect of his own cause. Well, that'd be get him so that he's capable of trusting himself not to get bad effects, well, then he's willing to be someplace else than cause. The only person that doesn't get hurt in a gunfight is the fellow who shot the other fellow. Something for you to remember. That's what overts boils down to.

The only safe place to be in an overt is holding the gun. When a person's guilty of an overt, after that the only safe place is to be holding the gun and he goes on holding the gun harder and harder, and he's different and more and more different, and then he will start to dim out and he doesn't know what the score is.

Well, unfortunately overts wind him up over on the destroy end of the curve, not because, not because he decides he'll destroy everything, not that simply. But an overt is to move an object toward destroy by a counter-create. So the more an individual has aimed at and knocked apart objects, the further he is along on the cycle of action, the less he can have of the object.

This is one of those super... You play it on a mouth organ and it comes out Home Sweet Home, and you play it on a banjo and it comes out Home Sweet Home, and you play it on a preclear and it comes out Home Sweet Home. Do you get the idea? I mean, no matter what you do or how many angles you attack it from, you accomplish the same end goal.

You knock apart obsessive individuation, obsessive differentiation, you knock apart the necessity to do overts, you knock apart the feeling that every time he looks at something it'll be destroyed, you knock apart the feeling that this object he is looking at is terribly scarce, and this with confront it and not confront it, and dares to and not dares to, and all of this sort of thing, that finally winds up of course all with the same end goal, they all do more or less the same thing. They get somebody clear because in that potpourri measured from left to right, upside down, right there in the middle of a scramble is the reactive bank and the pc.

Now, we've just got it taped and there's so many roads ploughed through it by this time, and so many bulldozers have been driven through it by this time, so many weights have been raised and lowered through it at this time, it's been unthreaded so arduously and lengthily and so forth, taken apart, penetrated with light, explored, paved, marked, mapped and so forth, that even without auditing how it's there at all right now I am unable to see.

Thank you.

THE ANATOMY OF HAVINGNESS PAGE 12 1MACC-31 – 30.11.59

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