View source for Unit Four Procedure (4ACC 540323)

'''Series:''' 4th Advanced Clinical Course (4ACC)

'''Date:''' 23 March 1954

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_4ACC|Back to Series]]

And this is the third lecture, March 23rd, 1954, third lecture of the day.

All right. Your processing on this type of process, which we will call Unit Four Procedure is, of course, limited with the liabilities that you run into incident with the communication between two Homo saps, much less between an auditor and a preclear. In other words, anything that could get on the communication line and foul it up, can get up on the communication line. Just because you can do this and pull off this trick doesn't mean that you can get into communication with somebody and pull off this trick, in many cases. You see that?

Now, we've talked about machines which reversed orders. That's incident just to the mechanics of communication itself—direction reversal. Well, we've talked earlier about the problem that gets in the road of the auditor just on the subject of the preclear sitting there for the first six, eight, ten hours of processing, just making sure that he's not going to get clipped suddenly if he closes his eyes and that rats aren't going to suddenly eat up his shoes or some other sensible consideration. Sometimes it takes a preclear that long to settle in to any kind of a groove and do anything for an auditor. Unless the auditor runs some Opening Procedure on him.

Opening Procedure, of course, has a tendency to knock out and fight back and cancel a direction-reversal or an order-reversal machine. You see that? It's very simple. You've got the preclear walking around the room—he can't very well do something else. Of course, when he's giving himself orders on Opening Procedure—SOP 8-C—he may be betraying his own orders, but that's all right. Just as long as you can guarantee that you will say to him, "Go over to the table and put your hand upon the table. Now let go" and observe, visibly, that he has done just this, you're all right. It gives the preclear the idea, finally, that he can obey an instruction of yours without caving in. It won't kill him, Now, it might be very laborious and so forth to do this every time you picked up a new preclear, but what do you know—you'll find out, in most cases, you'll save yourself an awful lot of time.

Of course, you get some Step I that's going to pop out and go on the Grand Tour and do some Change of Space and clean up the various universes he may have tampered with and pop on out through the top as Operating Thetan in the first ten minutes of play—you wouldn't, of course, want to run Opening Procedure. But this, again, is a question of discretion. The safest thing to do is to run Opening Procedure. Used to be in bridge, a game which was played in the late Stone Age, that "When in doubt, lead trump." Remember? Well, when in doubt with a preclear, lead Opening Procedure. You just get him walking around and finding exact spots and so forth.

This way, you will never get betrayed into talking to some machine which is actually not even a first cousin to the preclear. You know, you can sit and process some guy who is practically screaming, for some time, without discovering it sometimes. Well, you would find out very fast with Opening Procedure that you would have unearthed this case, right away. The fellow will look around the room and you're running, then, Step VI I, SOP 8, Contact. Well, of course then, if you run Opening Procedure on the people that turn up to process, if you just kind of make this a little habit of yours, you'll find out by your act of changing them in space, they will then obey your orders. And if you don't change them in space a bit

You see, this is a little different mechanism than just, well, he gets used to the fact that—you know, he gets used to the fact that if you tell him to do something, it won't kill him. Well, that's part of it, but the most important part is you have changed him in space and fixed him in space. And if you've changed him in space and fixed him in space, then he will obey your orders. See that? Well, you want your orders obeyed. Nothing wrong with him taking your orders.

Of course, this fellow probably is in a state of mind where knowing you might be able to do something for him, he wishes he hadn't come to you in the first place. Because actually, he's running Mother's universe and, really, the last thing he basically wants is for Mama to get well—but that's he. So of course, if he gets well, why, Mama would get well. But if he came to you and you did something, then Mama would get well. And then Mama would be all over him and she'd be more powerful than before and she'd really ruin him. So of course he doesn't dare get well. And some sensible computation like that is liable to be running. But if he observably has to walk around and do Opening Procedure for a little while, you will have changed his position in space. And that which changes position in space can evaluate for the individual—that which fixes him in space or changes him in space.

Actually, education misses the boat. Not that it doesn't miss the boat all the way along the line, but it really royally misses the boat when it fixes people in space in order to evaluate for them. No, no, you mustn't do that. Don't take that as the best thing to do. The funny part of it is that the athletic coach—uniformly you'll discover this in grammar schools —the athletic coach, or the one who's in charge of the playground, could probably teach more kids arithmetic faster if it were just turned over to him and probably is teaching more kids arithmetic than their own teachers. Did you ever notice that, that it'll be the sports supervisor, somebody like that, who can get an awful lot out of the kids in a school? Well, that's because he's changing them in space all the time, not fixing them in space. Well, they don't mind being changed in space—so we've aligned vectors—but they do mind being fixed in space.

So if you play the role of fixing a preclear in space—which is to say, just make him sit there endlessly, you're to some slight degree, in lots of preclears, you're a little bit going against the grain. You're just putting him into a dramatization of being evaluated for by being fixed in space. He doesn't like this. But by moving him around and changing him in space, you'll find out that you can evaluate for him.

All right. That, then, would be a recommended process. That would be a recommended thing to do. Somebody turns up, a person looks all right, they look like a clean, wholesome American boy that's been a member of the Communist Party for ten or twelve years and has all the other requisites and it looks like this person could be processed with considerable ease. And they sit down and you say—you know better than to ask them such dull questions: "Have you ever been in a sanitarium?" —anything like that. You just never ask them this kind of a question. And then you say, "Well now, let's see, can you be three feet back of your head?" And they look there introspectively and thoughtfully and they agree with you and they agree with you and they agree with you and they agree with you. And you say, "What are you doing?"

And they say, "Just what you say" and agree with you some more. "Now, what are you doing?"

That's just it. They're just agreeing with you, that's all. They're in a complete spun-down state and they just say, "Mm-hm" and "Yep" and they agree and agree.

Now, when you get very expert as an auditor, you can tell by the look in their eyes and what their eyelids do exactly who is going to do this and who isn't. Hm. You can tell this by experience, handling lots of people.

But, let's say something else happened. They agreed with you and agreed with you. Now I'm not kidding you about this. These people who agree with you and agree with you don't go right on being pleasant people. You see, they've got to climb a stepladder and get a high-ascension stratosphere balloon in order to get up to a step below apathy. And all of a sudden they get tired of agreeing with you and simply dramatize. And you say, "I wonder what this is all about."

They all of a sudden say, "Well, I'm getting very nervous, I'll have to go home now." And you say, "Well, I wonder why this is... I suppose it was the process I was giving, you know, it was too tough a process and, you know, and I pushed the preclear too hard." No, no, no, no. You just ran that particular day's cycle of agreeing and then you ran into the dramatization. And they would have said this to the milkman or the theater usher or anybody else that happened to be around. They just had to go home, just that moment. Now, you think I'm overstating it. But you're just processing a machine, straight out. You don't get anyplace. And you wonder, you say, "I processed this case for—you know, I just processed this case for fifteen hours and just nothing happened." That's right. A machine will run longer than fifteen hours—it'll run for fifteen thousand years. And you can sit there that long too (some people I've seen) unless you detect the fact that they are below being psychotic. It takes energy to be crazy.

Now, I'm just being very snide about this whole thing. But honest to Pete, I have seen some of the cases that auditors say, "You know that process didn't work on so-and-so and so-and-so." And I say, "This is quite remarkable." I'm reasonable too, you see. I say, "Well, that's very remarkable." And then I see the case after a while and I think, "Well, a perfectly nice, clean American boy, been a member of the Communist Party for twelve years and other requisites and, why, the process will undoubtedly work on this individual." And all of a sudden the old eagle eye will suddenly light on a certain expression in the eye or a certain mannerism of the hand. I'll jerk my hand and the guy will jerk the hand on the same side of his body, you see? Oh-oh, what's this? And we're dealing with an automaton! Well, why don't you go out and process a mannequin? Get one of these dolls the sculptors use. It'll just sit there, it'll go into any position you say, you see, until you actually do something terribly significant. And that terribly significant thing is to ask them to walk around the room and touch and let go of things. Strange business, but that's where that cuts in.

They'll do this automatically for a while, as long as you're giving the orders, until you tell them to make up their mind to do it. And if this case is really a spinner, a sleeper you might say, one that sort of sneaked in on you, he'll throw, right at that point. Make up his mind in order to do something? Oh no. Well, he would go through the action as long as it was your responsibility, but on his own responsibility? Uh-uh! You're liable, in other words, to crash head-on with what you should have crashed head-on with right at that point of the case—the first ten or fifteen minutes, instead of twenty hours later saying, "You know, it's a funny thing, the fellow just sat there, he was such a good fellow. I saw his party card too. [laughter] And the process just didn't do him a bit of good. Can't understand it."

Well, how many of you have been an object and tried, while in this process—Beingness Processing—tried to be an object and then tried to get logical about why you're being the object? Huh? Did you ever see such goofball mental mechanics? They're just non sequitur. It just doesn't quite add up. Well, you're going to run into it with "Places where things are safe." "Well, now where would your teachers be safe? Where would some teacher in school be safe?"

"Oh, Woodlawn Cemetery, dead," or "In the middle of Kilauea, there's where she'd be safe."

And you think the preclear's kidding, you see. You think the preclear doesn't really think the teacher would be safe there. This challenges your logic. You're insisting on being logical, I'm sure, and you say, "Well, you know, that's not logical that he would think this teacher would be safe floating in the lava in the middle of Kilauea. And yet that's the place where this guy considers it'd be safe."

You see, every time you've run into a real aberration, you've run into a non sequitur. You've run into just this kind of jam-jam logic. It's all A equals A equals A. And you'll run right into the center of it with this type of processing, Beingness Processing or Where Things Are Safe. You'll run right into it, bang! It's where all the wires are hooked into the wrong slots. Now, you could go ahead and be logical and process the preclear logically and insist on logical responses and responses that you agreed to. But if you did that, you would miss, actually, all the deep points of aberration.

This boy's perfectly sane, he's a tremendously sane fellow. He's been an aide to a general, he's that sane. I mean, he's totally controlled, beautifully smooth, apt case, very intelligent and able to get out of any kind of a scrape and you know there's nothing wrong with this boy—see, nothing! And yet you just process him and make him a little more able and all of a sudden he runs into a total conviction that all rowboats are filled with lead. All the rowboats in the world are filled with lead. Well, we pursue this conviction a little bit further and we find out that this leads quite "logically" into the fact that all tractors are built out of horse meat! Where the heck did he go? See, I mean, suddenly the logic breaks down. Well, when the logic breaks down, you've got an identification. And where you've got an identification, you have a little area of what you might be pleased to call insanity.

And if you run out all the insane spots that the guy is stuck in, in the various universes, you know—gee whiz, you talk about logic—you get up to a point of where he can graduate from it. But the logic sort of mushrooms or grows out of these points of complete identification. They lie at the center of and at the growth point of logic. It isn't reverse. A fellow just doesn't kind of gyrate down into making everything associated. Sooner or later he gets something jammed utterly and then has to be logical about it. So he gets everything in a gradient scale and gets it all explained.

Remember that the explanation follows the action. This is the business of living. This is thinking. This is thinking. The explanation, the justification, follows the action. It doesn't precede it. That explanation which the fellow is handing you, or justification, for having to do what he is about to do is, of course, the justification, explanation, of this same action done previously. Something happened and then the fellow explained it. You see that? So it was an identification, an impact, something that too closely associated, which thereafter got him going in a logical spin. After that he can be terrifically logical.

But of course, logic is simply built on an agreed-upon series of assumptions which start from some completely unreasonable assumption. Let's look at logic, let's look at a science, let's look at mathematics and we find each one of these systems of logic have to start with a terrifically unreasonable assumption, just unreasonable as the devil. And it might or it might not be the right rationale, but we start out with physics and we start to talk about a static. And they say a static is something in an equilibrium of forces. Well, this is an insane assumption. Physics means the science of the physical universe. And in the physical universe, nothing can be in an equilibrium of forces. That's impossible. Yet everything is traveling in all different directions consecutively and they give immediately as an explanation: "This pencil here is in an equilibrium of forces, the amount of gravity pull on it matches and balances the amount of up pressure on the part of the cloth it's sitting on." And they look at you smugly as though they've said something.

Don't take astronomy and then take physics, because this becomes unreasonable. This pencil is traveling, in one direction alone, one thousand miles an hour, just by the circumnavigation it's doing around this particular core called Earth—zing zing, zing, zing, a thousand miles an hour it's going. Gosh, that sure doesn't look to me like anything that's a static. And so we got this terrific thing.

All right. Now we have mathematics grandly assuming, you see, blandly assuming that nothing is zero.

"Well, what's zero?"

"Well, that's nothing."

"Oh? Now we know all there is to know about it." And they go on and they write this thing in their equations and it's a wild variable. So that any mathematical equation which contains zero, which might possibly get into, accidentally, the division or multiplication function—a long formula, it could be very easy for you to misplace a zero so that it would multiply or divide by accident— the second it did that, the equation was wrong. The equation was completely crazy. Why was it crazy? Because zero isn't nothing. They never defined a zero. You'd have to have a qualified zero.

In arithmetic they teach you zero in terms of no apples. Well, that's cute. No apples, when? Oh, no apples right now. Well, how about future apples? Hm. You're not sure that there will never be any apples on that table. Well, teacher, you better go take your quantum mechanics and theory of equations and other basic mathematics before you start to teach arithmetic, because arithmetic has to start with this unreasonable assumption that a nothingness exists. And it gets these wild variables. Soon as you get into algebra, you can make "one equals two" any day you want to, just with throwing a zero into the equation.

So here is the grandest system of logic at all. Here is logic personified, symbolized, canned, replayed and sold at vast expense to the Atomic Energy Commission. The way they built the atomic bomb was moving a pile around, but then they wrote a formula to explain it. The way they build an airplane is to whittle, put it in the wind tunnel and then when it really flies and they've got the right airfoil, then they measure it and write an equation about it and turn that in. And then they send this over as part of the plans to the other aircraft plant that's going to build the thing. And the other aircraft plant puts a mathematician on it and he works for a week or two in order to break down this calculus curve. And in the meanwhile the mechanic, who's going to build the thing, simply goes over and takes a cast of what they whittled over there, moves it over, builds it, sets it up. Then the mathematician comes down and finds out that his formula that he got and the curve for the airfoil he got doesn't happen to agree with the airfoil that's there in the plant. So they have another airplane. Well, that crashes, but test pilots are cheap. Anyway, this is the way you build airplanes with mathematics. You don't build airplanes with mathematics! You see that?

Mathematics, then, starts with this unreasonable assumption. Actually, it starts with a complete non sequitur. It's an identification over here. Physics starts with this non sequitur: static, equilibrium of forces, motionless, still, stopped. And then they show you something that's traveling wildly like a cannon ball and they think they've done something. Now you see, that's an unreasonable assumption.

Well, get why it's like that. Actually, the agreement is on the physical universe. And the physical universe agrees with the mechanics of the mind. All right. The mechanics of the mind happen to work this way. impact—and then the fellow said, "Where the hell was I? What was I doing? How come I got that im—? Well, the reason I got that impact—well, that's right, I—it was this morning and the real cause of the impact was the fact that I made that mock-up and concentrated too long upon it and my attention was wandering at the time that happened and that's why I got hit. That isn't why he got hit, but it's a satisfactory explanation.

War tries to run logically all the time. War is the antithesis of any organization and yet you'll never find anybody quite so logical as a tactician at West Point. Honest. The troops, second lieutenants, captains when they get into action, when they get any time to laugh, spend most of their time laughing over strategy and tactics—the Cavalry Manual and the Infantry Manual and the Tank Manual and so forth. They even have nice songs and "Three cheers for Bill McGrin" and so forth and so forth and "He died with a grin because he used the school solution." This kind of stuff becomes very funny to them. It's all laid down logically. War is not a logical process; that's why they keep trying to make it logical. Logic is always moving in on top of the military. Why? Because it's got so many impacts.

War is chaos. And the more solidly organized any unit is, the more it's going to get scattered to the four winds at the first onslaught of battle. That doesn't mean that it's going to be untrained or that its men should not be brave and that its communication—some effort shouldn't be made to set up a communication and supply line. Yeah, always make the effort—and then, for God's sakes, put individuals in the line who can think for themselves and you'll win the war. But always do that, always add that.

The two greatest mechanically trained sets of troops in the world recently became defeated: one was the German army and the other was the Japanese army. Well, that makes twice out for the German army and it neglects that step. And the American army in trying to copy European armies is always trying to deindividualize troops. And I bought in 1928, '30—1 used to think, "Well, they say the American fighter is a great individual fighter" and so forth, you know. He's just a great fighter and he's the greatest individual fighter. And they began to debunk that, you know. So finally, dutifully I began to think in '35 or '36 he probably wasn't, he was probably just a punk and he was very underrated and the German army was much greater. You know, popular stuff.

And I believed this right up to the time I saw American troops in action. They're soft, they like ice-cream sodas, there's lots wrong with them, they can't starve to death on rice and fish and still live. Something on this order. But God help people that get around American troops. It's terrible. I mean they're mad. They kill people. They use weapons on things. And they don't give a damn whether—ordinarily they get a unit into action, they don't care whether they're being commanded by a general, a second lieutenant or a buck private, It's horrible.

In other words, they just let their whole organization deteriorate and they go on and fight. Well, that isn't the way you play it. It's the only kind of an army that can win a war, is one that is organized right up to the point where it's willing to be totally disorganized at the first impact of battle. Because logic just goes up the spout; there isn't any logic about war. The most illogical things happen. Of course, way back of the lines everybody is insisting this, now, must be all logical. So they keep rewriting all the reports that come in.

Now, all I'm trying to drive home here is the fact that you've got impacts and disorganization precede, on the time track, organized logic. Well, how do we get basic-basic out, then, huh? Well, you'll have to get out these complete identifications before you get all of this logical parade out of "The reason I feel this way is because Aunt Agnes had pups and . and I am am… am… am therefore part Pekingese." He can prove this. Might sound real logical to him. But where you get those points of complete identification, where you get those objects—you know, you're being an object and all of a sudden you start to think. You know?

Now, you ask somebody, "Be an object and make nothing out of things." Very funny because if you were to look into his mind—and he's got an object which he can really be, see, he's found out he can be a General Sherman tank. Fine. And you say, "All right, that sure makes nothing out of things." Well, what he thought of was, "I will be something, now, that makes nothing out of things" and now he's the General Sherman tank.

And you say, "Go on."

And he'll say, "Go on what?"

And you say, "What are you making nothing out of?"

Well, he has to come out of valence.of being the General Sherman tank and he says, "Oh, oh, yeah, yeah, well, I can make nothing out of all kind..." And then he goes over and he's the General Sherman tank again. Bog, see. He can't have a purpose if he's a total Sherman tank, can he? He's just right there, it's just illogical. There's no logic to it. If he's being something very thoroughly, he won't even carry out the logical command which he started to have before he went in and became the object.

In order to slice out of the stops, in order to slice out the stop impulses, the restrictions, the non-freedoms, the oppositions, the reasons why the fellow can't arrive, the reason why he must have his various stops before he gets to goals—the reason why, the reason why, the reason why, is all based on a series of stops, the objects of which are gone, the point in space of which remains. The point in space of which is imperishable, short of processing. The place where the impact happened is an imperishable point, short of processing. Because the objects are all gone, there aren't any particles there. It's just a location in space. What are you going to do about a location in space?

Well, I'll tell you what you do. You process it. Well, how do you process it? Well, if it's a position in space it must have been the collision of two universes, two or more universes. Had to be a collision of two or more universes to have made a spot in space. There must be two determinisms there, so there must be two universes involved. So, for every stop in space we get the introduction, into the thinking machine in the bank, of the qualities of a new universe.

Now, let's lay out a thinking machine. And three-dimensionally we could put up a lot of funny looking wires that would rotate from spots. Let's take a cube and let's have wires sort of going out this way and that way, you know, crossed up. But let's have a lot of points. You know how you build things out of tinker toys? Well, if you built this out of tinker toys, everyplace you had one of those round spools would be a stop and these have radiant lines and they'd go out to other things. Your thinking machine runs along the basis of: a thought will run up a certain line until it hits a stop. And then, if the person is thinking consecutively, it would run up toward "It felt a stop," then detour—you know, not hit the stop, but detour into another line until it almost hit another stop, till it almost hit another stop, down another line till it almost hit another stop. And it would start getting deflected on the basis of "Don't arrive." So "Don't arrive" is an integral part of any thinking machine because if it hits any of the stop points—chnnk—it gets completely illogical: it arrived. See that? And you've got an incidence and a coincidence of universes.

Now, you can go ahead and run those lines all you want to. The lines are all logical. They lead someplace, But the thing wrong with the case are the stops. And by Beingness and "Where somebody else is safe" and so forth, you get the stops out and the fellow stops being a computing machine. This doesn't mean he stops knowing, this doesn't mean he stops figuring things out. It simply means he stops racketing around from one course to another course and never quite arriving and never quite getting on his goals and never quite completing anything. That's a thinking machine: it can never arrive at the stop points. If it does, it stops thinking.

So how do you build a computing machine? The way you build a computing machine would be to mount a lot of stops in space and then wire wires around those stops so that every time a thought came anywhere down toward one of those stop points it would be deflected by the characteristic of the stop point. The stop point would then have to have enough energy in it to deflect.

Now, as you run this Spot Processing, you know, "Things that are safe," in order to get the universes apart, you'll have your preclear seeing occasionally some very fancy pyrotechnics. He'll say, "Well, that's the first explosion," he said, "I ever saw." You know, he's had the idea of explosions before this and so forth, but all of a sudden he san,' an explosion. I mean just like somebody put a firecracker up on the desk and—blow it up—he saw this explosion. Well, you were coasting him around through universes and when you pulled two of these universes apart one of these stop charges—see, there's a charge of impact left in there—one of those charges went boom. They're a very little, light, mild explosion. It didn't amount to anything but it's quite startling when he sees this. You see, he didn't expect it.

How do you build a thinking machine? You get something that can't arrive to deflect the something that can't arrive so thinking never arrives anywhere. The only place thinkingness can go to is a postulated semiconclusion.

Physics, science, psychiatry, these things "know" alike that nobody will ever solve the riddle of human thought. And they "know" this because they've thought it over. And if they've thought it over carefully, naturally the one thing thinkingness knows is that one cannot arrive. See? The more you think, why, the more obvious it becomes that one can't arrive. You get your figure-figure-figure-figure-figure case, and watch their behavior in life. You know that they will drive the car just a little bit short in the garage. They will not quite get dressed—some item of apparel they will leave unbuttoned or unfastened or misplaced or home or something—they have to keep an eye on themselves continually. Their existence, as far as goals is concerned, is the most gruesome to behold because, although they might postulate a goal, this would be the best reason in the world why they'd never, never really get there. And they really have to push, these people do, to get themselves to complete something and, if they do, they feel bad. The reason they feel bad is because they've meshed in with one of these old collision spots in space. They've meshed in with it.

Let's just take painting a room: You see them paint a room, and they'll paint. And the first day they paint, why, there'll be something left undone that they should have painted that day. Next day they paint, there will be something else left undone. The next day, there'll be something else left undone. They'll finally march up and get to a point where the room is almost complete and they think they will have forced themselves very hard to have gotten that room completed. It's liable, until the last day, the last two, three days of the last week, it might have stayed there with part of one wall not painted, see, not quite arrived. And you'll find then finally, they'll just break down and according to them they will have completed it. There will always be something left unfinished about that room. If you go around and look at it carefully, you'll find something unfinished about the room.

They're not going to arrive. In other words, they can't complete a goal. Why? Because they think all the time. Thinkingness is the avoidance of areas of impact. That's the highest definition there is. Figuring how to avoid. Figuring how to get by, by avoiding. Figuring how to overcome. Figuring. And it's always a "can't-arrive."

All right, now. So let's understand some human behavior in terms of somebody who won't communicate. Well, they're in this kind of a situation: if they can't arrive, they can't duplicate. And need I say more, if you know the communication graph? They just can't quite get over there to E and duplicate. If they can't quite get over to E and duplicate, they can't communicate completely.

Or, they'll get to a point, finally, where they won't start a communication. You say to them, "Well, now, how do you feel now?" [pause] "Well... I don't know."

Here we go, you see, they can't even get that impulse going. That's because it's coming almost from a dead halt on some spot. It's almost from a dead stop.

Now, there are questions—we won't go over them now, but there are questions you can ask people socially that will do some of the weirdest things—seemingly the mildest questions that will stop them. It won't shock them or anything. It'll just stop them. You could evolve what such questions were. For instance, let's spot somebody that we know has been around his mother a great deal. Mother still lives with him, that sort of thing. And if we want to change his tone—just change a tone, simple. He's there at the party and so forth, everything is going along fine—just ask him how his mother is. Poor guy might have gotten coasted over, see, into his own universe temporarily and he's having a good time and everything else and you just slam him into Mama's universe. Mama, of course, probably is non-communicative. And you stop him.

The science of how you stop people would be the science of how you made people think. If you could just make people think, you would successfully stop them everywhere. See that? If you just stressed think, think, think, think, think—IBM has that sign up all over their shops—if you just stressed this and stressed it and stressed it that you must think, you would wind up by stopping everything. Of course, because naturally the guy, if he thinks about it, he's going to run a sequence of logic and that is going to start out as its base, an impact point which has no logic connected with it. So there was some space, so he got hit at that point by something else, so it overcame, to some degree, his own universe. So he starts from that spot—he's already out of valence—and we go through these near-arrivals and not-quite-starts, until we get a concatenation which looks passingly logical and that we buy. So we could just start somebody thinking, we would have—we really started them thinking, you know, so that they would just sit there and think, think, think, think, think—we actually would have ruined them. As far as action was concerned, we would have smashed them in their tracks.

And all over one of the better—I've forgotten what that institution is, actually. It's called USC. I've forgotten what it does—raises cattle, I think. Anyway, they have all over their drinking fountains—I was told this, I never saw it with my own eyes and I wouldn't go near the joint myself... They took a couple of our preclears to test whether or not people could recall under unconsciousness. Psychologists are incapable of running a controlled experiment. I know that now because they were just supposed to implant one phrase along the line, a key word for the fellow to get up. And instead of doing that: "Well, he won't remember that. Well, it's all forgotten now." And practically spun the preclear in. They do this every time.

You say, "Silence must be maintained. All we're going to try to rescue is this one—get back is this one key word, so forth, and we can do the experiment ably then." See. And, yak, yak, yak, yak. "He's forgotten it now" and "Well, he'll never recall that. This stuff is no good anyway. Well, nobody can remember anything when he's in that kind of a state," when they're standing over this unconscious guy and, of course, naturally, you can't rescue the engram.

So then they say, "Well, Dianetics doesn't work. Phenomenon doesn't exist—that's why we're all crazy."

Well, anyway, at this institution—I think they raise cows. I'm sure they do, out there. I met a couple from out there that sure reminded me of them. That's what they do. Anyway, they have all over their drinking fountains for the cows to read: "You are here to think." Now, that's a paraphrase of it, but, "You're here to think." They sure stop!

You know, if any statement was ever redundant it's this one: "Stop and think." That's the silliest thing anybody ever said. Why don't they say, "Think and think," or "Stop and stop"? You got it?

Now the Iroquois Indian, of course, is the credit line on this particular aspect of Scientology. (I always give credit lines.) The Iroquois Indian had an expression—their medicine men used to use this expression: "the sickness of long thinking."

Psychotherapy probably could have started a long time ago if somebody had observed that and started out from that instead of some of the other things, such as toilet training. But we could have gotten somewhere just on that: "the sickness of long thinking."

You ask anybody who's really having a rough time, and you say, "How much time do you spend thinking?"

"Oh," the fellow will say, "how did you know?" He thinks and thinks and thinks and thinks.

Well now, there's nothing wrong with a concatenation of logic, there's nothing wrong with any of these things. We're not pointing out something that's wrong, we're merely pointing the inception of such impulses. And having pointed these out, we shouldn't respect so greatly the fact that Man "is a thinking animal." Oh, this is the greatest argument that they use. And you'll find some poor preclear stuck in thinkingness because he's got to be a thinkingness, because Man is a thinking animal and he has to be proud of being a man and, therefore, senior to and superior to all those roaring beasts out there. So therefore, Man is a thinking animal. So he's proving it by thinking. Of course, Man is not a thinking animal. He's an animal who also can think.

Now, so let's remember when we process our preclear that we're going up against a lot of stops, a lot of direction reversals, a lot of can't-arrives. He'll tell you, "Yes, I want to be Clear. I heard about it from Dizzy Bell. And she was down to that—that—that auditor fellow's congregation last week and she came home and she said she wanted to be a Light Beer, I think it was. And—and so on, and I—I want—I want to—want to become one of those Beers."

And the preclear is going to convince you—just sit there and be very convincing about how they want to be Clear and so forth. And you're running a case that couldn't under any circumstances arrive. Just the fact that he's starting in the direction of being Clear is the best reason in the world he'll never get there. Because he's thinking about it. In the process of thinking about it, he's not going to arrive. He's going to get to be a Release but he's certainly never going to get to be a Clear.

The thing for you to do is to postulate a condition—this would be the Slippy thing to do and not the thing to do—but a theoretical solution would be to postulate a completely unobtainable level. And he'll probably fall into Operating Thetan. Just the mere statement that there's a place to get to is enough to keep him from getting there.

Now, there are those cases which go completely opposite. They've got an opposite charge on the bank. So that if you said, "Now, the thing for you to do is to get Clear." And he says, "That's right." He agrees with you perfectly; he starts thinking about getting Clear. There's only one direction he can go and that's to spin in. See, he goes up toward these stops in the thinking machine and they backfire, and so his thinking, of course, is traveling always in the opposite direction—a 180-degree reversal. And that we call an inverted case. So let's not get too spooked with some of the preclears we run. Let's recognize some of the mechanics which are at work here.

Very often somebody will rave to you and rave and rave and rave about what wonderful processes you're using and how good they feel. And the next day they rave and they rave and they rave and they rave. And the next day they rave about how good they feel. And the next day they rave... And there's no change of communication and no change of perception. Humph! Well, we just must assume this is somebody who raves. That's probably what's wrong with the case. But you want to go on being human and play the game "Being Human" and that sort of thing, why, you have to accept this as praise. Normally it doesn't come to you that way.

All right. In other words, all I'm trying to convince you of, and I don't have to convince you of this, certainly, is—"prepare you," I should say, instead of try to convince you—preclears are preclears and they are subject to, primarily, as far as the auditor is concerned, an inability to receive and execute the order given. The commonest manifestation is to twist the order into something else or escape it in some fashion. Remember, that's the commonest manifestation.

Where you get complete complaisance, you're generally just running just agreement. That's disheartening, isn't it? You're picking up a case somewhere way down below a point of executing the order. He's not executing the order, you're just auditing a machine when you get complete, automatic, trot-trot obedience that has nothing to do, really, with the case. The person just agrees with you and agrees with you and agrees with you and agrees with you. And he isn't doing a thing.

Well, there's one thing that would solve all this and that would be Mr. E-Meter. Of course, because you are an auditor, because you have a little altitude, because you know your business, you will find that you can normally make a thinking machine run itself out. In other words, if you recognize the condition you can do something about it. So, let's recognize the condition.

All right. Going on with the rest of the processes one would use—qualifying it like that—that first thing is let's not forget that a preclear is a preclear. And we'd start in, then, with Opening Procedure so that we could observably see this individual execute our orders. And we would do this by changing his position in space.

The next thing we would do to shorten our work—and I mean this, to shorten our work—would be to run on him Step I, SOP 8-C, just like that. That's to shorten our work. Because over 50 percent of the people you run into will respond totally to being three feet back of their head and go through the rest of the evolutions called for. You've got somebody exteriorized, then you can go to work on him.

Well, what would you do after you've done that? I'd get him to be something, just actively, until we got a little bit of a line on the guy. And then I'd go fishing for universes, until he got everything real safe and got how safe everything had to be, run out. And you will then get rapid change.

I would then go back and run what we call the Grand Tour, run Change of Space Processing and exteriorize him and interiorize him out of many, many objects that are around.

And then I would go into handling other bodies than his own, using insect and animal bodies. And go right on through on 8-0, which would be to repair his communication line, make it possible for him to better mock-up massive mock-ups and so forth. Do you follow?

Now, quite incidental to this I would go right along and try to recover some of his recall on the whole track by this Spot Processing. You know? Let's—"Where are some places where your last body would have been safe?"

"My last body? Whoo! Nonsense, I didn't have any last body. I can sort of get an idea of one, sort of mock-up .

"All right. All right. Get that. Now where would it be safe?"

"Well, it, ah... Hey, wait a minute, this mock-up isn't safe anyplace. Oh, yes, I've got it safe now."

"Well, what have you got?"

"Well, it's lying there dead."

"Is that good and safe?"

"Yes sir, that's real safe."

Don't argue with him, that's safe as far as he's concerned. In other words, I'd try to bat back through the whole track as part of this process. Go on and run the rest of 8-0.

But by the time you have done these things, you're going to have a preclear in awfully good condition, believe me.

Now, this would be the fastest way I know of, at this moment, to audit a case. This is fast. This isn't slow processing, by the way, because about 50 percent of the people you run into are simply going to pop out of their heads, go through SOP 8-C on one run, zingity-zing, recover an awful lot of stuff. They're going to be able to be several things, bang, bang, bang. Then you ask them—you start separating out universes and find out whether or not they were in collision with Mama or Papa or what. And separate them out of that and try to separate them out of their own universe, get their own universe in operation this way.

And then audit them with, again, the Grand Tour—that's now the physical universe—and then Change of Space in the physical universe. And you'll find out the principal spots in that will come up on Change of Space with such a case. And then push them right on through with Exteriorization—lnteriorization drills. Anytime their perception cut down a little bit, I'd make them duplicate some masses. I'd give them personally—as soon as I was absolutely sure they were in their own universe—I'd give them a lot of avalanches, in and out. And, as I say, have them handle the bodies of insects, animals, have them handle other bodies, interiorize and exteriorize from those, of course. And then get them to hear and make sounds quite independent of any other aid than themselves.

You certainly would have practically shot a case up through the roof. The next point, of course, from that is get them to manufacture every kind of energy there is and particularly sexual sensation—the one big trap that can pull a guy back into the MEST universe. Get them up to a point where they can really manufacture this, oh but good. A body is rather poor at it, by the way—low intensity.

Now, somewhere along the line, you're going to run into some machinery. Well, don't be tempted to blow up all the guy's machines. Don't blow them all up. When you blow up a machine, have the preclear make another one, better. In other words, make him make machines until he stops holding on to the machines he's got. Make him better at making machines. And that's as far as machines go and that would be your next step. That step could be fitted in almost anyplace, but could belong at the end of all this other material.

Well, when you've done these things, actually, you have covered the high spots. You have covered the highest spots there are. You've probably put the preclear into such a condition that he could operate from there on, on his lonesome without too much trouble if you've done these things well with the preclear.

How long does it take to do all this? Well, that depends on how fast you are as an auditor, how much time you're going to waste as an auditor and it depends on how much time this preclear's going to consume in terms of communication lags. If you give him a lot of loses by accident, he of course is going to take three, four times the amount of time in auditing because you'll have to keep repairing his losses—his loses. If you're real sharp and your preclear is working fast, I suppose just going through this list, hammer and tongs, with an excellent preclear who immediately stepped out of his head—let's take a twelve-year-old boy, something like that, bang him out of his head—and I could go through this, hammer and tongs, and hit all the high spots on it certainly in an hour. The whole works. I know it sounds real rough. But do you know how fast his locks would be blowing? He would probably be nothing but a roaring cacophony of exploding and released and rearranged and reorganized material. And you would have hit only the hot spots in the case. But, boy, he'd be in good shape. But this would be me having to talk, actually, to him with great speed. This would be a preclear in fantastically good condition being audited at a headlong speed.

Well, most of the preclears you run into, simply by communication lag, no matter how fast you audited them, if they did every command along that line, probably would take three or four hours. And adding in your communication slow-up anyplace that it might occur or a loss that you accidentally hand him—every loss you hand him is going to cost you time—lots of it. Every time that you give him a loss you've got to do something about it, repair him. His tone goes down and so forth, not because life would do this to him, necessarily, because his level of trust in you, particularly if you're working quite rapidly and accurately with him, goes up very high. Now all of a sudden you pitch him on his head. That'd be a real, real bad stunt. He'd go right on down. Might take you an hour or so to pull somebody out of a slump that you got him into like that.

All right. How long would it take with a V, Resistive V? And by the way, this is the process I would do on a Resistive V, I wouldn't change it any just because he was a Resistive V. I'd just spring him out of his head. I'd do SOP 8-C, Step I more often. I'd do it quite often and then do some more—spring him out of some more universes and spring him out of some more things like that and then just go back and do SOP 8-C, Step I again for exteriorization—just keep running through it every now and then. I wouldn't omit to run through it, do you understand, because you'd be surprised how fast—how sudden it can happen that he all of a sudden is able to exteriorize with good clarity. Don't miss that. Don't keep on running him inside the body ad nauseam and forever. Well, how long would it take for you to audit a Step V with the process I've just given you, all the way on out? Well, you very possibly might have to handle an order-reversal machine. You might have to handle some kind of an immediate bog that he is in—that is to say, the present time problem.

Cases from about Step Level III down are quite normally bogged in a present time problem. I should give you that and shouldn't omit telling you this. And the usual thing is that if you audit this present time problem for them first and relieve it—you know, by giving them havingness or almost anything you can think of, any one of the light, little processes—you know, they'll audit easily and you've given them a lot of confidence in you and so forth and they'll soar. And sometimes just because they have this present time problem, nag-nag-nag-nag-nag-nag, they don't respond well, they dope-off, they worry, they're not quite present, as far as you're concerned and so forth. So I just make it a rule to ask a preclear when I'm just addressing the preclear, "Well, what are you worried about these days?" or something like that.

Very often, "Well," he says, "I'm doing all right. I could think of something."

"Well," we'll say, "all right. Now let's see if you can go over there and put your hand on the exact center of the door." So you don't waste any time on it.

If I say to this fellow, "Well, what are you worried about these days?" And he says, "[sigh] Well [sigh].

I handle his present time problem. He's not going anyplace till I do. How will I handle it? I'll put it in the walls. I'll move it around as a postulate. I'll have him Match Terminal Mama or anything I can think of, restore the havingness of the bump on the back of his head that's giving him a headache by making him give it a few new heads, just on the off chance that he'd be able to stuff heads into his head. And something like this, you see, just remedy it so that it's not first and foremost in his mind. And then go on with the rest of it. Because a present time problem can bog you, rather sharply.

But, with these little things I've gone along in this hour and talked to you about them, with these and with the material I gave you earlier on the cases which are negative cases, I think—providing you're clever and you're doing what I'm asking you to do—I think you'll be able to solve any case that comes up the walk except a dead man.

And the best place to pick him up is at the barriers of Mars. And I'll teach you how to do that.

Thank you.

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 600 26 MARCH 1954

UNIT FOUR PROCEDURE PAGE 12 4ACC-62 - 23.03.54

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 4ACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1954]]