Intensive Procedure - Lecture 1 (7ACC 540707)
Series: 7th Advanced Clinical Course (7ACC)
Date: 7 July 1954
Speaker: L. Ron Hubbard
All right. This morning we have before us intensive Procedure release of 6 July 1954. I want to go over this very rapidly with you and give you some idea of what prompts it into existence, why it is this way and how it's used. Heading on this says it consists of "a special series of processes which, when used by a skilled auditor as designed, produce optimum results upon preclears as of this date of release."
All right. Lady (I guess she was) walked up to me when I was giving a lecture a couple of days ago and she says, "This Scientology doesn't work on me, you know. Huh." You know, real intelligent character. Been trained by one of the Associates recently dismissed. I got mad suddenly because I had just heard the procedure which she thought was Scientology. It didn't even resemble psychoanalysis; it was that bad.
And I said, "You mean that processes as applied by those with whom you have had immediate and intimate experience have not produced a result upon your particular case. Is that correct?" "Well, I suppose so."
And I said, "Well, that doesn't say that Scientology used as designed in the hands of a fellow who knows how to use it won't crack your case."
"Yeah, I suppose not." Apathy.
But that's the difference. And you, as a professional auditor, have a definite responsibility in this particular department – a responsibility to yourself and to your fellow auditors. You see somebody running around making motions over the left lumbar area and calling it Scientology, why, just learn how to tie a hangman's noose and string him up to the nearest lamppost. Sic the cops on him, do anything. But it's nor Scientology.
Scientology includes by definition the techniques which compose Scientology and their use by a skilled auditor. When we hand out a series of processes which can be read to somebody, like Self Analysis, sure, it'll do a lot for people – within the framework of who is using it and how they are using it.
But now let's take a series of techniques poorly understood by somebody who couldn't duplicate a mouthful of food. He probably eats his food one mouthful of each dish and a different dish each meal; picks up some kind of a technique and says, well, let's see: "That bears a very close resemblance to uh … something taught to me by my psychology professor. If you hypnotize a guy by pushing in his uh … stomach, you know – if you hit him hard in the stomach, and you say, 'blihblib' to him, why, it produces a result. So that must be what the technique means." You think I'm exaggerating it.
Well, I found one boy who hadn't bothered to come to class in Great Britain (he'd enrolled and then turned up missing) who was a psychology major. And all of a sudden a good friend of mine had recommended Scientology to a girl he knew. And she'd gone and – how she ever did it I don't know – but found this guy who had set up a shop someplace or another. And what had we found being run on a girl who was very close to psycho? We found this interesting process being run; "Uh – now let's see if you can find somebody that you absolutely needed in life." "Okay. Now, you got somebody who is absolutely needed in life?" "Okay. Now, you got somebody there that's absolutely needed?" "Now, just change your mind about needing him." "Okay. That's fine. Now, you really have changed your mind, you know that. Let's see somebody else in life that you needed." "Now change your mind about needing them."
The reason I picked up the case is because the girl was found walking down the street, one foot in the gutter and one foot on the sidewalk. I had a conversation with this guy over the phone, I located him. He had attended class two hours, had decided it was just like psychology. And during that two hours he had heard the word dependence – that was all he needed, And this person was giving public repute to Scientology. So that's why we modify this by saying, "These techniques as designed, used by a skilled auditor."
No such list. Now, I'm just getting off that unsavory subject. Let's look this over and see that this Intensive Procedure in the hands of a skilled auditor is subject to variation. He can apply to a preclear, of course, anything he cares to apply to a preclear that he thinks the preclear needs within the framework of our technologies. This is obvious. He can do anything to a preclear he wants to do. Intensive, because there's been an awful Jot of processes which are Scientology. All right.
This Intensive Procedure is put together primarily as a design as what a preclear would get as an intensive in an HAS clinic. If the HAS receives a request for processing from somebody and this person is sent to – comes into the HASI, and he wants to be processed and we turn him over to an auditor, this is what we would expect at this time to have happen to him, more or less in this order. And the reason we would expect this is because considerable conversation with auditors, checking on cases and so forth, have demonstrated that whereas these might not be the most theoretically – you know, theoretically applicable processes, these happen to be the most workable processes which have gotten results.
There isn't a process here, there isn't a process here in this Intensive Procedure that has not produced a marked result on two or more cases. You see that. And the bulk of the processes here have produced results on wide numbers of cases. So that when you run all of these processes together, you're sure going to shoot this guy down out of his high-flying manic depressive (or whatever it is) somewhere along the line. So, therefore, instead of just dreaming up and wishing we knew, let's just take it and measure the case by comm lag and recovery. And we find one of these processes working real well on him, why, we just beat it to death until it's no longer workable and go on to the next process. And that process doesn't seem to be doing very much for the case, well, we give it a once over lightly, flatten its comm lag and go on to the next process. And that's the way this is done.
Well this way, we will achieve an improvement in any case. How many times could we start this process and go over and over and over and over and over on it? Oh, that would be a lot of times. I mean, if we were just going all the way out on a preclear at this time instead of looking for a new and different process to run on him (after we had run out of this process), if we still felt his case could stand some processing and improvement, we would just start up here at one and roll right on through. We just set up a two-way communication with him again and talk about his present time problem. And then we'd get him into the session with ARC Straightwire and away we'd go again. All right.
Now, this procedure only considers that two types of cases exist and that's an improvement too. We have nothing to do with the occluded case. We don't care about the occluded case. So he's occluded, so what. If he's really occluded, he's got a machine that turns on blackness, he's got a lot of necessity to make the environment unreal, he doesn't want to be there. We could have a tremendous number of computations lying in back of all this occlusion, but basically what is wrong with him is under the heading of the anatomy of mystery. And the anatomy of mystery tells you that this individual has met too many confusing particles in existence and so he's drawn a curtain over the whole works. So this means that the case is incapable of predicting to some degree. You see, he's incapable of predicting. And on the other hand, he isn't very conversant with energy. He's depended on it for a long time and the energy that he runs into now is something to be afraid of, not something to be used. So he's afraid of energy, he's below the effort band.
Well, we could go on and say all we know about occluded cases here. But look, running this process all the way down the line, we pick up those factors which make the individual get into a state where he has to avoid energy to the point of being occluded, see? So, we'll find there are people who are stuck in, who aren't occluded. That's a special case. They can get all kinds of heavy facsimiles and so forth. Those people have been so upset about having to leave the place that they brought it with them. See, that's a facsimile case. And the other case, he's so upset about having to stay there that he makes it all black and unreal – the devil with it. That's the main difference between these two cases. But, how about all these levels of sanity?
We could have a very sane occluded case and a completely batty one, couldn't we? And we could have a completely sane exterior and a completely batty one. It's interesting. It's very often found by an auditor. He exteriorizes somebody and the person is quite daffy. The thetan is daffy. All right.
Now, as we look over this situation, we find out that this is set up in such a way that it will just catch any case. We don't care whether the person is sane or insane or occluded or not occluded or can get facsimiles or can't. In other words, it's not important to us. But there must be some point that's important to us here. Yes sir! That point is the communication lag of the preclear. We don't care about anything else, all we care about is that communication lag. And when the preclear has a long communication lag, we simply say, "Oh, oh," and go to Route 2. And if he has practically no communication lag, we go right into Route 1 because this person in the furthest averages will exteriorize rapidly.
We have learned this: that a person who exteriorizes with difficulty will bang back in unless other factors are remedied. You see that? He exteriorizes with difficulty, he'll go back in. So then let's not bother with these cases that exteriorize with difficulty, see? And the case that's going to exteriorize with difficulty is having trouble with energy. If he's having trouble with energy, it will show up immediately in a communication lag, and that communication lag is very manifest on ARC Straightwire.
And that's just plain old: "Remember something real." "A time when you were in good communication with something." "A time something in good communication with you." "A time when you felt some affinity for somebody." "A time when somebody felt some affinity for you." That's about it. You ask him that list and, of course, that takes no time at all on a case that's going to pop out of his head right away. You just ask, almost that fast, "Yes, yes, mm-hm, mm-hm. Okay."
Well now, we're taking a slight chance on this, you'd think offhand, because we don't know yet whether this person will really follow orders and we've given him ARC Straightwire. Well, there's a little variation that you could apply if that point really bothered you. You could simply ask him something in the room that was real to him, something in the room for which he could feel some affinity, something for which he could feel some communication. Make him go over to it and touch it. I mean, there's Present Time ARC Straightwire – an old technique. We know it as Contact. But this particular consideration added to it isn't ordinarily done. Because, usually, Contact is done on people who have no consideration of what affinity is. The highest affinity they could reach would be screaming rage or the highest affinity some of them could reach would be a real emotion: apathy. So, we ordinarily don't apply ARC to the objects in the environment. But you don't even have to do that. You just give them ARC Straightwire. If the person has a communication lag, it will show up right there.
Or, if he tells you "brrrrr," you know, "Oh yeah-yep-yep-yeah, uh-huh, mm-mm. Oh, sure-sure, got it, uh-huh, yeah, mm-mm."
And then you say, "Okay, be three feet back of your head."
He says, "What head?"
Ah, that's easy, just go to Route 2. See, it's over here on the second page, just go to Route 2, that's that.
You did do this, however, you gave him a failure. Now you notice the way this is set up is to avoid giving the preclear a failure. You know, if he has communication lag on ARC Straightwire, he's not going to exteriorize right away. See, it's going to be with difficulty if any way at all. So we don't give him a failure, we just take him right over here and start him on down the line on Route 2. And when we run clear through Opening Procedure of 8-C and so on – in other words, we remedy those things necessary to bring about some exteriorization.
Let's see here now. Yes, your exteriorization technique, which is then used, is contained in the line R2-24, Exteriorization by Distance, extroverted and introverted alternately. See, there's another exteriorization procedure. But we know very well by experience that this person didn't get right out of his head, bright and shining and so forth. Then: (1) he's not going to follow your orders, (2) the environment might have some degree of unreality, (3) he, as a thetan, is not quite in present time and so on and so on and so on. He has a scarcity of attention. He's using too much energy. We could say a lot of things about this case, so we'll just remedy them rapidly right on down the line on Route 2. Well, this avoids giving your preclear a failure.
I processed a preclear not too long ago that had repeatedly been brought up to a point where the auditor thought he could then be exteriorized. And this case, by the way, was running on a Problem and Solution that he was incurable. The solution was that he was incurable; the problem was that he would be incurable. Boy, that's awful close identification between a problem and a solution, isn't it? "Incurable!" That was his motto. Because if he ever got cured of anything, they'd put him always right straight back to work or send him right back to school and so forth.
By the way, he had two solutions on it just in passing: The solution "how to have something" and the solution "how to own anything" consisted of having all of his energy entirely invisible – not even black, but you see, just transparent, entirely invisible, And he thought this was a wonderful solution. When he was a kid he saw a picture called The Invisible Alan. And oh, he just thought that was wonderful. And so, thereafter, he just canned the mock-ups and fixed himself all up so that he had nothing but invisible energy. And after that you ask him to get a mock-up, of course, the mock-up was invisible. "All energy must be invisible," that was his motto and then he must be incurable. And the solution to everything was to be incurable. And auditors had just been banging their brains out on this fellow, just madly, you see. And, of course, he could just sit there with beautiful sadness and be incurable.
But they'd done something more than this to him, they'd given him repeated failures on exteriorization. Oh, repeatedly! "Be three feet back of your head." Nuh-uh. So if he had any conviction, it was that he couldn't be three feet back of his head. And I guess it must have taken me, with the state of that case and so forth, it must have taken me over an hour to get enough of these postulates off the track and get things, all these auditing sessions spotted and straightened out. And then I said, "Be three feet back of your head," and he promptly was. Almost startled the life out of him, by the way. But he had been given a failure. Well, this is in the interest of cutting down at least the initial failure of being three feet back of his head.
All right. So much for that. This entire process is based on communication lag, the entire process. And the change of process is indicated by another type of communication manifestation which is a perception change. Now you see that communication lag and perception change are both manifestations of changing communication, so what you want are communication changes.
Now when you say communication change, you mean that there was a change in the communication lag. And you could also mean that there was a change in the fellow's perception: the room was brighter or duller or he could sec better, he could see worse, he could hear better, he could hear worse – a perception change has occurred. This is quite important (a perception change) because it is what monitors a change of process. It is the other little thing that the auditor looks at.
Now, we haven't talked too much about this, but it's a perfectly common thing. We use a technique on a preclear for fifteen minutes and he has a little bit of communication lag, the lag is shifting around a little bit, you know, enough to make us hopeful. And we want to determine whether or not we really should change the process, just go on to the next process. Do we want to go on to the next process or not? We would ask him at that time, "Have you had any perception change? Look around the room and tell me whether or not you've had any perception change."
And he'd say, "Yeah, things are a lot darker" or "Yes, things are a lot brighter."
Doesn't matter which way it changed. If you've got a perception change in those fifteen minutes, you don't change the process. But if you didn't get any perception change on the process, go on to the next one. No perception change on the process, why, obviously a change was indicated in the process. Something has got to change around here: perceptions don't change, we change the process. See how that would work. So the whole thing, however, is based on communication change, if we include that factor of perception change.
But the actual test which the auditor is going to pay attention to throughout this thing is communication lag. If you get physical communication lags or verbal communication lags, why, that's just fine. You just keep on plowing with that process as long as you get this kind of a lag and until you stabilize the lag. And when the lag is stabilized, you could then find our whether or not you might not be better off if you changed the process, simply by asking him if he's had a perception change. If he hasn't had a perception change, change the process. Now those are the two tests which are put up against this thing, which are both communication changes.
Now does that apply to this third step up here, this third part? Get preclear into session with ARC Straightwire. It says get him into session with ARC Straightwire. Well, you'd better not leave a guy with a five-hour "Remember something real" lag. You better ask it again and again and again and flatten out that lag. You got yourself into it, so you get yourself out of it. And that is the one possible hole in this process. You get a forty-five minute lag on "Remember something real."
Well, now it's questionable whether or not beating something real to death would make up in terms of action, as much action or as much communication change, as simply some 8-C at that point. If a person is going to get some Opening Procedure of 8-C – if he's going to get that much of a communication lag, a whammy! just wham! Why, you probably would have been – oh, undoubtedly would have been much better off to have run him those forty-five minutes on 8-C. See that?
Well, that leaves it up to some judgment, see. I mean, there's little bits of judgment right there. It's whether we would put ARC Straightwire as I've mentioned to you earlier (question there), whether we should put ARC Straightwire in front of or back of 8-C. Well, let's put it in front of 8-C because we don't want to waste any time on these exteriors – a case will exteriorize rapidly, we don't want to waste any time with that case and fool around with that case with 8-C.
So let's just adjudicate it in favor of the person who is going to exteriorize and count upon you as an auditor, knowing full well whether or not this person has a communication lag. There are two reasons here why we got ARC Straightwire sitting there. Two reasons: One is the technique itself is quite valuable and will often bust a neurosis, just like that. And the other reason is to tell you whether or not the preclear has an appreciable communication lag. That's why the technique is sitting there. But if you're going to give him something teal and then he's going to come up with the answer five hours later, you probably should have examined the room – you know 8-C, and used it that way.
Well, then it leaves it up to your judgment, what are you going to do about this. Well, if you get into a two-way communication with a preclear and don't notice then that he has a long communication lag and determine right immediately that he is somebody who is going to go on Route 2, that's all there is to that, why, you're not batting on all six yourself, see. And on a person who has one of these staggeringly long communication lags, who is fumbling all over the place, boy, you just better pass right straight on into Route 2 – quick. Let's not even talk too much about a present time problem with this individual. Let's just get him in the idea that there's an auditor present, see. And then tell him, "You see that chair over there?"
And the fellow says, "Yup, uh – I guess – you mean this bureau – huh?"
And you say, "No, the chair there."
"Uh – oh-oh, the chair, all right."
You say, "Well go over and put your hand on it."
"Oh, my hand, hand. Okay. The hand, yeah, it – right here on the bureau – huh?" And you say, "No, the . .
In other words, you better be right into the wheels there. You try to get some ARC Straightwire through on this fellow. Even if he got the answer, it wouldn't do him a bit of good, I mean, his wheels are jammed in all directions. If you can't tell that, why, you ought to take up bricklaying, [laughs]
So, this is particularly designed and is put there for the critical case. Is this case really as sharp as the case looks, you know, or not? This case – very glib, very fine, very, very quick about everything. And then you say, "All right, give me something real."
"Upt-upt-blu-puh-ahem. What do you mean real?"
This could happen to you, you see. And you say, "Ah-hah, ah. Well-well, I thought I had a nice person who was going to go out of his head and everything was going to be fine – but, Route 2 here we come." See?
Now, all of these processes are lined up, not against the average preclear (that would be a fatal way to put a process together or a set of intensives together – processes); they're lined up in order of severity of process: how severe are these processes. And that's one rule in their order here: how tough is the process. And the other one is, how basic is the process. So we start out with the basic processes and then get a little more complicated. So those two rules have been watched in that.
Now why Intensive Procedure? Why don't we call it something else? Well just as I told you, this is the procedure which, perhaps, when modified slightly with what we're doing – Issue 2 might have something changed around on it or added to it. Trying to hold something completely unchanging is what the preclear is trying to do with his case. I mean, that isn't what we should do with procedures. It's very doubtful that very much would get added to this, but this Intensive Procedure is what we would expect a preclear to receive in an HASI clinic. We expect him to receive this on down the line.
And actually, if I were to have a consultation on preclears who pass through and always hear about the tough ones, never hear about the easy ones – I got an idea once that there was nothing in the world but completely unsolvable preclears. I hadn't seen anything else. It's like a gunfighter who has a fast draw; he doesn't think the world has anything in it but people who have a fast draw. And there was nothing in the world as far as I was concerned like tough cases. I was getting cynical about the whole thing. And that's, by the way, the ones that show up in clinics – the tough cases. The easy ones, their friends fix them up.
Well, if I were to hold a series of consultations on, as I say, a series of cases and so forth, judging by what I have had to talk to auditors about and what auditors have been bothered with here for some time, we would find that these would have been the consecutively recommended procedures on any case they were processing. So that's the other criteria.
Now, there's something else in this: we can collect a body of data around this process. We can collect a body of data which will be meaningful to us and that is valuable to us – so, Intensive Procedure.
INTENSIVE PROCEDURE: LECTURE I PAGE 2 7ACC-15 - 07.07.54