View source for Tone Scales of Affinity Reality and Communication (501121)

'''Date:''' 21 November 1950

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index|Back to Main Index]]

Okay, the second half of this lecture is devoted to putting to use what I have been covering in the first half Female voice: I have a question that you can answer. Would you mind that?

Go ahead.

Female voice: The last sentence you said, about balancing the preclear and bringing him up out of reverie and you mentioned something about straight line memory. Is that over this . . .

Oh, yes. I’ll probably mention that many times. Standard Procedure has something added to it which is beyond what has been written on it before; and that is to say that one finishes up every session by running one or more pleasure moments. And one then completes the session by using straight memory on everything which has taken place during the session, leaving no occlusion on the thing whatsoever. You will have a much more stable preclear. If you can’t run current pleasure moments, run future pleasure moments. That’s right, future pleasure moments which are imaginary or not. Usually they are just imagination of what, so on. You’ll occasionally find somebody who says, “This is really going to happen” and so on. Well, that’s all right, don’t invalidate his future. All right, that is Standard Procedure. Do it! You’ll find your preclears more stable.

Now I want to show you how to use what I have been covering here. You realize that I’m probably covering many thousands of years of developed thought here in a moment, in the last hour and yesterday. People have been thinking about this for a long time. People have been thinking about how man thought for an awfully long time. And what was man’s relationship to the physical universe? What was his relationship to himself and his relationship to the group? These have been primary thoughts with man, as I say, for thousands of years.

Now, if what I’ve been covering seems just a little bit rapid, you will have to forgive it, because in order to cover it in full would probably require touching each step of the development, tracing each point back, showing the evaluation of each point in it—would take a minimum, probably, of two or three hundred hours of lectures. Now, I’ve given you this in approximately two and a half—about three hours.

The point out of this which is vital to you is the affinity, communication and reality triangle, as a triangle, the Tone Scale of emotion and its relationship to the Tone Scale of reality and the Tone Scale of communication and perception. And you see that there is a definite interrelation in these things.

If you have a person who has to be dragged up to apathy, you had better drag him up to apathy before you expect to get any grief!

If you have a person who has very bad sonic shut-off, who has bad visio shut-off and so on, you can drag him up the scale on the emotional scale and you can accomplish the perceptic turn-on, because he goes up the scale on a whole strata. The whole thing rises simultaneously, and every point of this triangle is dependent on the other two, and every two is dependent upon one. We can’t cut down one without cutting down the other two. And we can’t rehabilitate one without rehabilitating the other two. And on a positive side, we can rehabilitate any point on that triangle by rehabilitating any other point on the triangle.

In other words, if we have a sonic shut-off, it is, as a matter of fact, not very advantageous for you to go on getting off of the case every command that shut off sonic. As a matter of fact, you won’t turn on sonic that way. But you can turn on sonic by bringing up his Tone Scale—bringing him up on the affinity line, on the emotional line there. Don’t expect anybody who is in a constant grief, on a constant grief plane and so forth to have much in the way of sonic. Just don’t expect them to.

Now, the interrelationship is close but it is not exact. That is to say, these come up, one comes up a little bit above the other, and then there are lags as another point will come up and so forth. They don’t raise evenly all at once, but almost—so close to raising all at once that you should address the problem of shut-off sonic by rehabilitating the computational ability of the preclear. You can, you know. The way to do that is to pick up all that you can pick up about him being told that he’s dumb, he’s stupid, that he can’t think and so forth. And you will find, by the way, that it will bring up his communication level. That’s an interesting thing, isn’t it? And that seems to be very different, to turn on sonic by making a person compute better about where he is and what he is doing. That’s reality! Or bring it up just on the basis of knocking out all the engrams which says everything is unreal. That, all by itself, will turn on sonic. If you knock all those things out, you get the thing up the line, you get over here, you’ll find out that the person will have a better chance of perceiving his engrams.

This should seem terribly obvious to you that if a person believes everything is unreal and if he can’t think about things straight, that he will not be able to listen to something that he doesn’t think is there. That should seem awfully obvious to you. And if he can’t think straight and he can’t work over here in the field of reality, the reality of what’s happening to him is bad, you certainly don’t expect him to be in very great affinity with existence. In other words, his emotional tone you certainly would not expect to be at its optimum, would you? It should seem awfully obvious to you that when you cut affinity on a person, sharply and so forth, that you also cut communication and that you also cut reality.

It is one of the strange things that when one has cut communication thoroughly with an individual, completely, and when one has a low Tone Scale value for the other person, that the other person to some degree ceases to exist for the individual.

That’s one of the favorite things, by the way, you will hear people say:  “As far as I’m concerned, he doesn’t exist anymore. I hate him. He doesn’t exist.” Or he’s going to wipe them out of existence. He’s going to knock out this reality completely—a little bit further up the scale. Now, you see how this is? These are interlocked.

You find an individual who has good sonic—and incidentally, these very definitely exist—you find an individual who has very good sonic and who has a rather poor sense of reality. That’s an interesting one, by the way. He hears it, but he doesn’t believe it. It would seem to you to be rather strange that, perhaps, that you could have this. What you’ve got there is the fact that sonic cuts in rather early. You can have sonic and a poor sense of reality; that should show you where sonic really cuts in, in the reactive mind. Sonic cuts in fairly low, and that should tell you immediately that most people are in a hell of a state.

Now, it so happens that your grief scale there, I mean, we say, “Get the grief off of the case. Get off these painful emotion engrams” and so on. You’re not going to be able to do much for a person who is—let us say the summation of his reactive mind values, there, is 0.4. Grief is 0.7 or thereabouts. Well, his reactive mind is at 0.4, you’ve got to raise this fellows tone so that he can cry. Raise his tone so that you can get grief off! One for you to think of, isn’t it?

By the way, we were off in the hinterland not too long ago and one of the entourage says, “You know this place is in pretty bad shape. If we worked on it real hard for a long time, we would be able to drag it up to apathy” All right. You’ve got to drag people up to grief, sometimes. That’s one for you to think about. This is particularly true of a psychotic who is in an apathetic state.

Now, I want you to keep in mind how many of these pictures there—the stack of triangles—there are. There are lots of them. There is the reactive mind’s Tone Scale. And there is, in the same individual, his natural Tone Scale. And what you are seeing is the natural Tone Scale modified by the reactive mind Tone Scale. But when you enter into processing you are addressing, mainly, the reactive mind Tone Scale. The complete sum of the individual would be the reactive Tone Scale, plus the whole Tone Scale, averaged. That would be the individual. But when you go into processing, you are dealing with the reactive mind. That’s what you are trying to deal with mainly, and you head him right straight toward it and you point it up and you move him into it. So, as far as processing is concerned, we have to take into consideration that we are dealing with the reactive mind Tone Scale.

Now, this individual normally may be just relatively bored with life and so forth. And his average Tone Scale is pretty high. It’s up there maybe around 2.5, well above normal. So his general conduct, his whole being in the society and so forth, that’s what we see. We see that person there and, probably, his native, genetic endowed Tone Scale is up there around 4; that’s the natural one. And his reactive Tone Scale is down there around, as most of them are, 1.0 or 0.5. See, way low—that’s his reactive Tone Scale. So you take 0.5 and you add it to 4.0, you get 4.5, way up. You’d average it out, you would have him down here. As a matter of fact, I do that in mathematics, I see immediately that I have overshot. I have said that his native Tone Scale is probably much too high. His native Tone Scale would be around 3.0, which is about where most of them are. In other words, you would have the average individual back there at around 2.5, which is where it should be. In other words, 0.5 would be his reactive mind’s Tone Scale. You follow that? His endowed Tone Scale would be up there, maybe 3.5, something like that. Add the two together, you get 4.0. Divide it by 2.0, you get his Tone Scale at 2.0, which is rather overt resentment. You see? Now, there’s the way these things would figure out. But we mustn’t forget that we are dealing with two Tone Scales with every individual, and we are looking at the average of the two. The aberree walking around in the society is the average of these two scales. And those two scales are modified by the fact that the reactive scale is quite changeable. It varies from day to day as it exists for the moment. So there is an acute scale, that is to say, the momentary scale.

Now, just the overall sum of the aberrations in the mind would make the average reactive mind Tone Scale; in other words, the thing it would be. But now we get, on an immediate level, we get this fellow’s tone on reactive mind would vary maybe from 0.2 up to l.5. He gets angry and he’ll go off again onto your lower values and up and down: that’s from moment to moment, depending on which engram is in restimulation at the moment. And you will therefore be able to vary a person’s whole Tone Scale, vary his overall tone—that is to say, his average tone—quite wildly by merely taking him down the track and parking him in one of these engrams for a moment, and bringing him up to present time. Why, you can make a person look like a roily-coaster with this sort of thing. You can do this physiologically because this thing is also—it’s applicable to the physiology of the being.

His survival potential goes up and down this Tone Scale, you see. I mean, that’s just a straight, plain one. This fellow’s in very good health and he’s in very good shape, therefore he’s going to survive very easily. Or he’s in very bad health and poor shape and he isn’t going to survive so well, you see—his potential in terms of physical survival.

You can take a medical doctor and really be amusing sometimes. If he doesn’t know Dianetics and you are running a preclear around him, you can alarm him considerably. You can bump a preclear’s temperature up, you can give him a fast pulse rate; actually, you can really manhandle a preclear if you really want to. And you can change his health, his apparent physiological age. Sometimes you go back down the track with somebody and knock out a bad holder, something there, knock out a valence shifter, bring the person back up to present time and he’ll seem to be about ten years younger. No, it is quick like that; I mean, it’s quite variable. So when you’re dealing with Dianetics, you are really demonstrating things that look like straight black magic to somebody who doesn’t know what you are doing, because of course you’re changing this person physiologically. And you’re changing this Tone Scale, over here, of the reactive mind. So he’s fairly well out of restimulation. The reactive mind Tone Scale which, by the way, is always below 2.0 —the reactive mind, always below 2.0. The reactive mind doesn’t contain emotions above that, except the manics. And these hardly count because the emotional text of them is implanted artificially. A fellow says—he’s got an emotion that says, I’m so happy, I’m so happy, I’m so strong!” and so forth; and apparent emotional scale on it is rather high, and it could be added in that way, but the overall sum as far as the mind is concerned is very low. Because this “I’m so happy, I’m so happy” is inevitably in the vicinity of “My God, I’m so depressed.” There is your manic-depressive at work, by the way.

You can get a person down the track and actually restimulate one of these manic engrams and you apparently get somebody who is terribly, wild-eyed happy about something. He may stay that way for a couple of days. He’ll tell you, “Oh, I’m Clear now, I know it! I’m absolutely Clear!” And a couple of days, the thing wears out and he’s very depressed. That is the manic at work, though it’s just part of the reactive mind bank. But the overall average of a reactive mind bank does not go above 2.0, ever. You see how it would be? In other words, it’s low. A person whose reactive mind is in very, very good shape indeed would probably have one around 1.2 on the Tone Scale. Oh boy, that reactive mind would be practically empty! You get the Tone Scales? All right.

Now let’s start calling the thing a perceptic scale and we’ll get the same sort of answers. We’ll say a person’s perceptics vary, and they do. As you restimulate engrams this way and that, they vary. And now let’s call it a reality scale; and his sense of reality will vary. It’s just as acute as putting him through the Tone Scale.

You’re dealing with three quantities here which are interlocked and you can raise any two of them by treating the third. So this is very valuable to you as auditors.

You have probably, possibly, worked somebody who just plain couldn’t get off a grief charge but you couldn’t find anything else wrong with the case particularly. This person just couldn’t get off a grief charge; he’s lying here going, “Oh well . . .” and so on. You’re running into a reactive bank which is below grief sometimes for that case.

Remember what I told you now about fixed values—this person has got an engram that fixes him, artificially fixes him on this Tone Scale into anger. This engram, on the average of the reactive mind is very low, but he’s in this one engram that has the dramatization of anger, so he’ll dramatize anger on this thing. You better knock that engram out. Because he’s fixed on the Tone Scale and he’s not going to get down to grief. Follow me?

A fellow can be stuck on the track, then, in anger. And as you look up and down a person’s time track, you will find that the emotions are parked somewhere on that track. There is an incident in which they are held where the emotions are full on. There is where the emotional scale is locked up.

Now, this is just as valid, and it’s the same kind of computation as somebody being stuck someplace on the track with a certain age flash. His age is locked up at that point. And somebody who is stuck on the track who has various other things—supposing this fellow has a chronic pain in his leg—he has a chronic pain in his leg, he’s locked up on the track where there is a chronic pain in his leg.

In other words, one shouldn’t think of a chronic somatic as something that is just accidental and to get rid of; the thing is a good locator. It tells you immediately that pain is locked up on the track at a certain point, and that is the only place where this fellow can express pain, where he can feel this pain, because he’s locked up on the track there. There is where the pain is. And you can get this so badly, by the way, that you can run a case, particularly a case where you’ve triggered a grouper in it, you can run a case into an engram and thereafter—or you find a case this way at the beginning—thereafter when the person has a headache, his foot will hurt. When he has just received a big injury in the arm, the foot will hurt. When his mother is morning-sick, his foot hurts. You get the idea? He’s just got one pain that he expresses for every pain that comes in. You see, all of his pain is locked up in an incident where his foot was hurt.

All right, let’s take a look at emotion. Now, here is this fellow who is going around chronically dramatizing anger. He’s kind of mean. He varies. He varies between red-hot mad to just overtly mad to covertly mad to red-hot mad. He just goes around that periphery. It’s just the intensity with which the emotional engram in which he is stuck is varying. And you ask this fellow to feel pleasure, he gets mad. You ask him to feel loving, he gets mad. You ask him to feel apathetic, he gets mad. You see? A fixed value on the Tone Scale.

Now, you’ll see this person, by the way, with just one somatic. That is the most interesting—but don’t, just because that one is dramatic, overlook the fact that a fellow’s emotions can be tied up on the track just that way. So that any emotion that is in the bank is retranslated into the one where he is locked up, and it’s that emotion. So you see this thing keep on dramatizing itself. You’ll see apathy turned out that way.

That should demonstrate to you something about the endocrine balance. The new engram that gets restimulated has a little tab that comes up on it; it says, “The emotional tone of this engram is 0.6.” But all a fellow who is stuck on the track in an emotion will register on it, is emotion—and it gets that far—and the emotion which is right there, he expresses: anger. Or we have one where emotion coming through on this engram is rage. You say Papa and Mama are having a quarrel in the prenatal area, they’re having a big fight and you’re running your preclear and you try to get him to express some of this emotion in order to run the emotion out of the engram, and the fellow lies there apathetically during the whole thing. And then he runs something else and he runs that apathetically. And then he runs a pleasure moment and he runs it apathetically. And don’t get the idea that this guy is merely apathetic. He is stuck in an engram which has, as its emotional tone, apathy. You follow that closely? In other words, a fellow can be stuck on the track in an emotion.

The most common emotion for a person to have turned on solidly, for some reason or other, is terror. This guy can feel terror if he gets into the engram in which he is stuck. But of course a fellow in this society can’t go around expressing terror, so the whole thing just gets sealed up. Their necessity level on expression of emotion just closes over the whole thing. And this whole case will present the most occluded aspect on emotion that you ever want to see. This fellow, he goes through a grief incident, he goes through apathy, he goes through a boredom incident, he goes through all these things and there is nothing there at all. It’s covered-up terror. And then one day, all of a sudden, if you really know your business and you know what I’m telling you here about the emotional scale, you’ll bust him into an engram and he’ll go, “Yah! Yow! Wow! Wow! Boom!” and just practically explode all over the room—terror. Oh, man, if you let him escape out of that engram now, you’ll just double-seal it. Ride it through and get that emotion out and the first thing you know, you take him up to a pleasure moment and he feels pleasure.

I know of one chap, for instance, who was stuck in about four places on the track; each one of them in a terror moment. I had quite a time with the case. I fooled around with the case for quite a while before I finally got this person near what he was near. Visio turned on there, and of course inevitably it was a coffin. And it was terror, stark terror—a servant girl telling him all about being buried in the cold ground and the worms and all that sort of thing. And this kid, all shut down already by grief, and the grief turned into terror. Now you try to get back on that thing to get into the grief part of it. Oh, no! There was holders right there in the terror. And there he had been for years and years and years and years and years, standing alongside of his grandfather’s coffin. There he had been as far as his emotions were concerned.

Now, you take computation. Where is the person’s computation stuck? Now of course, a person’s computation itself isn’t going to be stuck, but the shut-off of computation will be in an engram someplace. And if he’s stuck in terror, don’t expect this fellow to be able to think very well. And if he’s stuck over here in something that turns off other perceptics—it turns off his perceptics—again, don’t expect him to think very well.

See, the engram doesn’t have to say, “You’re dumb.” I mean, we’ve got an engram there that’s been restimulated and he’s held on the track in it and it’s turned off his perceptics and it’s turned off his affinity, and he isn’t going to think well, that’s all. Did you ever see anybody quite as rattle-brained as the person who has experienced terror?

You can take an engram with not a word in it, pack it full of enough pain and pack it full of enough emotion, without a word in it, and you can have a person’s computational ability shut off, sense of reality shut off, affinity shut off and communication shut off. You get the idea? The thing’s just got that much impact that when it gets restimulated he is automatically at that place on the track. And that’s what I mean by a mechanical shut-off.

The rest of them are statement shut-offs, computational, like command somatics.

Mama says, “I have such a pain in the back of my head. I have such a headache.” So he gets down there and he’s out of valence and he’s in Mama’s valence, and so he gets a pain in the back of his head.

Well, this other history stuff, the real meat of engrams, is on the mechanical level. The language happens to be just one perceptic in the engram. So don’t overlook the mechanical aspects of an engram. Don’t overlook them, because they’re terribly important. And you get this interlocking on this triangle of these three factors. This is the way you handle mechanical computation. You get the idea?

Now I want to show you here something else. Here is a time track, one time track, [drawing on blackboard] There’s twenty-six of these things on one time track. Sight, sound, hot and cold—in other words, all the senses, straight across the line, every sense, each one has its own track. Pain, emotion, all of these things, each one has its own track. You’ve been looking at a time track as something that was just like this. You put a magnifying glass on this thing and it swells up like that. You see? In other words, a person as he comes up and down the time track has all these things available.

Now, this time track gets sort of out of phase. Various parts of it get knocked off, occluded. Various things happen to it, just on a mechanical basis. So you get a guy running through the engram and he is doing an engram—here is his track, and actually you’re running him through the engram this way. Here is pain and here is a faint impression of sound. Actually, he should be running through the track on all these —running through the incident on all those, and he is only hitting those. How thoroughly do you think that engram’s erased? It’s got twenty-four senses left in it!

Somebody who comes up to me and tells me, “You know, it’s a funny thing about engrams, but after you erase them, why, they reappear.” That’s a great one. This person must have been running the preclear out of valence. Furthermore, he couldn’t possibly have been running the right incident to resolve the case and probably shouldn’t have been running any engrams as such at all—I mean pain engrams—he probably should have been running some emotional engrams, trying to tune up this case. Probably should have been shooting out some circuitry. Probably should have been knocking out some valence commands. In other words, he should have been doing anything but running a basic area engram with somebody out of valence, running two perceptics out of twenty-six. Now, that gives you some sort of an idea of the mechanical importance of senses.

Computationally, you run out all these things out of the engram. That is to say, each one of these things can be shut off by a statement. But they can also be shut off mechanically. And that is the basic shut-off. The language is incidental to it.

I’ve seen auditors running people that as long as this person would run text, they’d say, “Well, he’s running engrams, that’s fine.” The devil with text! You can’t pull the text out of an engram independently from all the rest of this stuff. It’s useless! If a person is doing that, you have some problems in circuitry that you should solve and you have some problems in emotion that you should solve before you get down to running these engrams.

Somebody told me, “Oh, there are lots of pianola cases around here.” You ask a few questions about these pianola cases and you find out that what is being considered a pianola case is anybody who will run text!

A pianola case, a case which is running easily, so on and so forth, is a case which is running in valence and running out twenty-six perceptics for every engram. Now, they don’t have to be sorted out one by one. This person is in valence and he’s running out all the perceptics as they occurred in the engram. In other words, he’s getting the pain in the proper places and he’s getting the feel of moisture and he’s getting the feel of hot and cold and he’s getting all of these things as he’s going through this engram. That’s a pianola case!

You send him to the engram necessary to resolve the case and he goes there and he runs it off with all the perceptics and the thing reduces or erases. And you send him someplace else and so on and that reduces or erases. That’s a pianola case. Not just somebody who runs text. And the way you make a pianola case is by addressing the case computationally, first, to get into some of it to find out what it is, to find out what is the overall computation of this case, then you try to knock it out mechanically. Get some of the emotion off of this case. Try to drag this fellow up to some apathy, maybe. And knock out some of these emotional charges that are on the line; work it that way. Try to find out why you can’t get there. You’ll generally find out that it’s circuitry and valence problems. Then you’ll have to shoot some circuits out of the case. And at long, long, long, long last, after you’ve fixed the case up so it’s in beautiful shape, it is opened, then you run yourself some full-parade engrams from the bottom to the top—you make a pianola case. This gives you some kind of an idea what you have to do to make a pianola case.

People are so anxious to get into a case and run engrams, wham, wham, wham, “Just got to run some engrams. Well, let’s put him into a painful emotion incident. Well, he doesn’t get any painful emotion off there. Let’s go down to the basic area and run some engrams. Oh, he gets text in the basic area? Well, that’s fine, we’ll run out the text in the basic area.” You can run that text in the basic area probably for two thousand hours. I swear you could. You could just go on and on and on, just running and running and running and find all sorts of engrams—you’d just go on and on. As a matter of fact, the fellow’s tone would come up a little bit and he’d get a little bit better because you’ve taken some of the charge off some of these valences—but you’ll never get a Clear that way.

Now, all you have to do is fix up the case so it’s pianola, and that’s what I am trying to tell you about today. I’m giving you these factors. Here is your triangle. You want to pick up his ability to communicate with his own past, with the present and with the future. You want to pick up a feeling of affinity for his fellow man, for himself. You want to raise these things. And you want to raise his sense of reality about his own past, about his present, about other people. Raise these things up, get this thing up the line, because he’s not going to be able to run anything worth a nickel until you get that fellow’s Tone Scale up the line.

Of course, you’re sort of lifting your preclear by his own bootstraps. It’s a tough one, because as you try to bring him up the line—actually, what is suppressing him are some of these engrams, and you are pulling it up—it’s hard to do. And there is where the smartest side of auditing is: shooting circuits, so on, knocking out the emotional blocks, getting him moving adequately on the track, getting him into his own valence. Unfortunately, this is the first thing you tackle in a case and it is the toughest end of the case. When the case is the most aberrated, that’s the hardest end of the case. And you start in there; that’s where you start. Nine strikes against you right away. I mean, the case is just in bad shape. The case is never going to be as bad as it is the first moment you address it.

Maybe eighty hours from then, you are still shooting circuitry. Maybe two hundred hours from then you are still trying to adjust this case into being a pianola case. But if at any time down along the line you get the sudden idea that “Oh well, we’ll just run some engrams in the basic area; I’m tired of worrying about the rest of this thing, I’m tired of running out some of these multiple locks and where he’s held on the track, trying to resolve these computations. Let’s just go and run some engrams, because he’s out of valence anyway and it doesn’t matter.” You can then go on, I imagine, for a couple of thousand hours and you won’t get anyplace. So this is the place where you spend the time, getting the case into shape to run. Raising the person’s ability to communicate with himself, his sonic, picking up his general affinity. You see, you have to knock out the preponderance of apathy in this case in order for him to come up into grief. You have to knock out the preponderance of grief in this case for him to come up along the line, and you have to knock out some of the fear and terror in this case just to get him up the reactive scale far enough so that he can get sonic on. Now, it should be very clear to you, very plain to you now, what we’re trying to do.

Now, it’s actually better to go into a case at the beginning and just find little incidents where the guy was maybe frightened a little bit. There’re probably locks on a real fear charge someplace in the case. But they’re locks, and as locks, they’re holding attention units. And when you knock the things out, one by one, you’re going to free attention units and you’re going to raise his tone a little bit. And when you raise his tone, he’s going to get a little bit better sonic or maybe get some impressions. In other words, you just pick him up just a little bit.

The only thing wrong with the whole reactive mind is the fact that it has absorbed attention units. And you can get some of them back and you can turn on some of these emotions. You’d have to sort of put the case together with your bare hands sometimes. People can be in awfully bad shape.

Now, the funny part of it is that a person can be very thoroughly stuck on the track and you can’t find where he’s stuck and you can’t budge him, let’s say. You can still get enough attention units to run something in the line of an emotional line.

There is a bouncer, you want to tackle the thing and if it doesn’t work there you’ve got enough attention units left over to shoot out some of the charge off of his circuits. Sometimes you can get him into valence a little bit better.

In other words, you can do things for this case even if the case is stuck on the track. The guy won’t behave very well but I’m trying to tell you what to go after.

Now don’t, in other words, start in on a repeater technique basis, have the guy repeat a lot of phrases, repeat a lot more phrases and just repeat a lot more phrases and repeat some more phrases and say, “Well, the case isn’t doing very well.” That’s not auditing!

The auditor who is clever takes a good look at this case and he tries to find out what he has to do to make this case run. And there is the mechanics of the case lying right before your eyes. And there’s the mechanics of any and every case you will run.

The one thing that you will learn, above all others, in the professional certification school—if you don’t learn this, you’ve learned nothing—is that the tools with which you are working are not hit-or-miss, now-and-then tools. You will become better auditors if you just recognize and realize one thing: that you are working with precision tools which work. If you just recognize that and use them with conviction and assurance, why, your case is going to resolve rather readily. If you’ve learned that here, you’ve learned the major thing that you can be taught. You can get the rest of this out of books.

Now, it means that when the somatic strip can go anyplace and you tell it to go, you know that it went. You know the file clerk will cooperate with you if you can reach him at all. You know that the engrams exist. You know how early you’ve got to go. You know that his emotions are tied up on the track someplace. You know his computational ability is tied up somewhere. You know what you are working with. You know about these circuits, and you go after them with assurance.

You look over the case. You find out, “Well, let’s see, this fellow’s a very apathetic state most of the time. Let’s see if we can actually run out an apathy engram out of him. A period of very bad apathy. Let’s see if we can run one of those out.” That’s painful emotion, you understand. Painful emotion isn’t embraced simply by the word grief. A grief engram doesn’t cover the field of painful emotion, because there’s a terror engram, there’s an apathy engram and so forth. That’s painful emotion engrams.

Let’s see if we can knock out some of this emotional stuff. Let’s see if we can get his emotions freed on the track someplace.

Why, the guy can’t even move on the track. All right, we’ll use some Straightwire. We’ll knock out some locks, we’ll make him remember. We’ll make him remember the time he was five years of age and somebody pushed a fist down his throat. We’ll make him remember this, but we can’t reach that! And he says, “I can’t ever remember things like that. I can’t remember early, nobody can remember early.” And you say, “Well, let’s see if you can remember your father, remember your mother,” and so forth. And he says, “I can’t remember anybody. I don’t remember names, don’t remember people.” Where do you start in with a case like that? Well, as auditors, you know your tools. You know the mechanics of what this guy’s mind looks like, as far as you’re concerned, mechanically and computationally.

You know that you’re dealing with this scale on the reactive mind basis. You know that this fellow has emotion. You know that he is able to attain a certain level at his optimum. You know that something is suppressing that, you know the various tools you can use to get to it.

What do you do with a fellow who’s like that? He says, “I can’t remember people” and so forth.

You say, “Well, take a look at me. Now, who am I?” And he says, “Why,” he says, “you’re Mr. Smith.” You say, “There, you’ve remembered one person. What do you mean, you can’t remember people? Who do you work for?” “I work for a fellow by the name of Jones.” “Ha, there’s another one you can remember.” Start opening up the channels to the past, in other words, in any way that you possibly can and start freeing attention units. Start putting in a communication with his own past and the reality of it will pick up. And we’ve used the triangle another way, haven’t we?

In other words, there’s just a complete variety of ways that you use this same triangle. You keep going around on the thing. He communicates with his own past, which has greater reality, immediately. You do that with straight memory. You’ve freed some attention units, too. He’s got more force of mind to tackle this problem.

I think you could probably go on with a person, just hour in and hour out, day in and day out on straight memory, and you’d probably get him up to a point where he was pianola. I believe this! I have seen it happen that a person’s tone raised to such an extent, he had so many attention units finally freed—you have, by straight memory, you’ve put enough of his life together—this fellow was feeling pretty good anyway and you suddenly ask him to go back down the track and pick up an engram and he would.

There’s the difference then between a certified auditor and a book auditor. The book auditor doesn’t know, he hasn’t quite tried, he guesses these tools may work—they may not work. So he sits there in a rather doubtful frame of mind and he goes along and after he’s had a lot of practice and so forth he finally comes down to the basis, “Well, possibly there is something to this.” Or he comes down to the basis, “Gee-whiz, there certainly is!” That’s the way he’s sort of tackled the thing but he never gets into the complete knowledge of the fact that he is using a certain set of factors, he’s using certain tools, and that he has the assurance that he needs to use those tools adequately.

A certified auditor, he takes a look at the case and says, “Well, let’s see what’s wrong with this case. Looks like a very apathetic state of mind. Let’s find out about this child’s parents. They quarreled a great deal. Let’s see who was guilty for giving him the bulk of his engrams. Let’s see how good his memory is. Let’s see how good his perceptics are. Let’s turn this thing on and if we can’t get anyplace, let’s knock the circuitry out.” In other words, he goes right straight along the line with Standard Procedure and he never questions himself once, and he never questions the preclear once. He knows this person works just like every other preclear on the basic level at which he is operating. So he works with assurance, he knows his tools and he can knock the case apart—with Standard Procedure.

Now, what I’ve given you here today is a demonstration of the fact there is a triangle—affinity, communication and reality—which is interlocked. And whatever else you are doing in a case you are always and continually dealing with this triangle. And where your preclear errs on any point in that triangle you can increase his potential on that point in which you are interested by improving him on the other two points. Before this triangle, if a person’s perceptics were shut off, one could only address his perceptics. In other words, communication’s bad? He’s just got bad communication. So he tries to do something about it along that level; that took time. Now we take a person whose communications are bad, we’ve got three points of entrance. We can address communication itself; we can address affinity for other people, find affinity breaks, rejections and so forth, back in his past and so on. Or we can find these emotional engrams back along the line, or even light emotional locks. Anything. Because what are we trying to do? We are trying to turn on perceptics over here, see? All right? Or we can increase this person’s sense of reality.

Nothing increases a person’s sense of reality, by the way, as to be thrown into a high-tension emotional engram. Wooo! It’s not just the fact that it comes off; it’s such a convincer, computationally. He knew that before this, that nobody could ever tear him to pieces this way. And you get him into the thing and he is now that high off the couch and his shoes have flown across the room. And he says, “There must be something to Dianetics, therefore there must be something to my own past. There must be something to me.” His sense of reality has toughened up, right there, with that one. That is one of the values of an occasional “exploder” in a case. I mean, it’s a side value. You’re building up his sense of reality so of course his sense of communication comes up and certainly his sense of affinity comes up. You see?

We’re working upon a triangle. Any time we get one point of it that we have to resolve before we can go on with this case, we can address three points to solve one. Now, that is valuable to you. You can use that straight through. Knowing what you know now, after a study of this triangle, you should be able to derive new ways to use it.

This is derivational stuff you are getting. I’m not giving you material to be learned by rote; I’m giving you material with which you can think. And an auditor is not much of an auditor who can’t and won’t think about his case. In other words, I’ve given you material with which you can compute your cases. And the more you use this, the more you see of this, the more you look at people around you, the more use you will find for this.

Let’s take two groups in the world, Russia and the United States, and you say, “I wonder why Russia and the United States are so mad at each other.” Well, we’ve gotten this corner of the triangle out. We are out of communication. We talk about “their Iron Curtain.” They talk about “capitalistic imperialism.” They talk about “We’re not going to communicate together.” Of course there is going to be no affinity. And as far as the reality of their aims are concerned, we regard them very, very poorly, and we can’t compute about Russia. That’s the whole sordid fact of the case, is nobody’s thinking on the subject or computing about Russia. Because communication is off, affinity is off, how can one think about it? There is no reality to the problem, so one won’t address it as a problem.

There’s just a use on a group level, for affinity, communication and reality. That’s on groups. You derive out, you say, “I wonder what’s wrong between my wife and myself the last couple of weeks? We haven’t been getting along too well.” You all of a sudden realize that when you come home at night, you don’t bother to say much. Just do this: just walk in and say, “Good evening, dear. How are you? What did you do today? I had a pretty good time today. How’s everything?” Affinity goes up. You won’t have any trouble with your wife. Don’t bother to talk about the fights. That’s a fact! I’m giving you straight stuff! But any time you put anybody into communication with you, even if you put them into communication with you, you can’t help but raise an affinity level. And you become more real to them, their problems become more real to you, they become also more reasonable, and you go into a further and a deeper agreement with each other. There is where you can get with your worst enemy, actually, and effect a compromise.

You can reverse this thing in the world of living, as well as in the world of engrams and you can do a lot of tricks with it.

Now, there has been a question in the past, “What can you do with human relations if you know about Dianetics?” You can do two things: you can push a guy’s buttons until he blows his brains out or blows you in half. Or you can use it the other way, and you can use what you know right here. And right here you have the center hub of all interpersonal relations. You want to know what Dianetics can do for you with regard to your personal relations with the rest of the people around you and the rest of society, there it is. There’s the hub, right there, there’s your interpersonal relations.

I am giving you here, then, derivational material. You can think with this material; you know what to do. If you see a situation declining between you and somebody else, you can do something about it.

In other words, over on this reality side, reality is, in essence, in the field of thought, agreement. If you just agree with somebody sometime, that is busy fighting with you, the Tone Scale starts up. And sometimes it’ll come up so shockingly and alarmingly, affinity will come across and you are in perfect communication with him; there is no more fight. It’s easy; it’s like shooting sitting ducks when you know that.

If he’s mad at you all the time and so forth, if you said, “But look, I have to do this, these are the reasons why I have to do this thing. Now look, is this reasonable or isn’t it reasonable?” And the fellow looks it over and he says, “Well, na-na, na-na, na-na, na-na and na.” And all of a sudden he says, “Well, you’re right. Yeah. That’s about the only thing you can do, isn’t it? Ha. Well, let’s go out and have a drink.” Very good. Very good.

Well, now that you know the basic tenet on which you are erecting your processing, I can go on tomorrow with straight Standard Procedure. Of course, this is all on the line of Standard Procedure and we can cover it step by step and blow by blow, so that whenever you meet one of these factors in Dianetics it stands up and you say, “Yep, that’s a demon circuit.” You’ll never think twice about what to do about it. Or “This case is most horribly bogged down. What do I do about it?” You won’t even ask yourself that question. You’ll just look at the case, say, “The case is bogged down,” and say “R-r-r-r” and it unbogs!

Now, that’s what you want. And that’s the kind of auditors we want around here. Don’t want any of this stuff of taking two or three hours to bust these tough cases. So . . .

I’ll see you all at eight o’clock tomorrow morning.

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 1950]]