Intensive Procedure - Lecture 2 (7ACC 540707)
Series: 7th Advanced Clinical Course (7ACC)
Date: 7 July 1954
Speaker: L. Ron Hubbard
This is the second lecture on Intensive Procedure. The first thing that we covered on this was the design of the process. Now let's take up these actual processes one right after the other with great rapidity just for this reason only: to demonstrate that each one of these processes is minimal in terms of command. I mean, the auditing commands of these processes are very short, there are very few of them. Actually, there's only about four or five times as many commands as there are processes here. That's not very many commands. That's less than a hundred auditing commands of various kinds. And that, by the way, takes brackets and everything else. We've included all that sort of thing in, we still come up with this very small number.
Of course, we get into auditing commands as such. We have a very, very wide-open, questionable, "Gee whiz, what do I say now?" with the first step: two-way communication with the preclear. This, as I have said before, is the hump which psychiatry is entirely involved with. It is so involved with this that it remains psychiatry and hasn't anything to do with the mind. Now, that is just more than a wisecrack. I mean, that's just true, that they are so obsessed with the idea of getting into a two-way communication with the preclear that they are gibbering on the subject. They shock them, they give them drugs, they beat them, they do anything they can do. Oh, yes they do! Anybody that low-toned can be expected to do most anything to get into two-way communication with them.
There's a book out, written by somebody who was vaguely connected with psychiatry, which is called Communication. An interesting book but entirely unrealistic from the standpoint of solving this problem for psychiatry.
Recognize that as we look at Intensive Procedure, we are looking in its first step at the biggest barrier psychiatry has. Recognize that, and that an anxiety over this fact is what keeps psychoanalysis going on and on and on with their free association. They hope they can get this fellow into communication sooner or later. It is so bad that they have (1) never defined communication – there is no definition of communication which is usable – and (2) have never looked for the component parts of communication. I mean, this is just completely beyond reach in the field of psychiatry, so much so that they think that communication has to do with talking.
Well now, according to this, then every single – every single person who is a mute, who hasn't a tongue or had a faulty voice box when he was born or something like that, is insane. You see how their definition doesn't hold water. I mean, a person who is in communication is a person who talks. Well, therefore, it would follow then, according to their reasoning, that anybody who couldn't talk was, therefore, insane. And you're looking at the whole field of psychiatry right here, now, when you're looking at that one. I mean, they haven't climbed this hill. This hill has not been climbed. They're down there in the valley still scrambling around.
How many ways could you communicate with a preclear – by sight, touch, sound? And are they all valid? Any possible contact or perceptic communication? Are they all valuable or usable to an auditor? They sure are. There isn't a psycho anyplace in any ward who can't be gotten into communication one way or the other. They can be gotten into communication. They can be gotten into communication by touch. But remember, communication has its companion pieces if it's to be really communication: reality (which is agreement, duplication) and affinity. So that kicking somebody in the side might be a communication and is, by definition, a communication. It is a one-way communication.
If you want a two-way communication, it's got to be up there high in terms of A and high in terms of R, and then you'll get a two-way communication out of these people and that's the only way you're going to get one. So that the gentle pressure with your hand against the hand of a psycho (very, very gentle, so forth) will very often discover a corresponding answer. He'll touch your hand back again.
When you deal with psychos, it's very well to realize that you're dealing with somebody quite often who has dropped to a – very definitely, a barbaric wild level. And if you were dealing with a psycho who was wild and so forth, how would you handle an unruly horse? How would you handle an unruly dog? You can process a dog or a horse, so you can process a psycho.
I was asked by the auditor not to mention any names in connection with this, so I won't, and said not to mention where the area was. So, down in New Zealand [chuckling] – if anybody thinks they're going to cut my communication line when I learn something about the medical profession, huh! The medical profession is what's going to get it. This guy, who got his medical degree from a barber college, kicked an auditor out of session and refused to let an auditor process anybody, a person, after the auditor had established communication with the person so successfully that the person was getting well and recovering.
And the doctor saw this was a spontaneous colonic or something, by his terminology. And he said, "Well, just at the time the auditor turned up, why, the patient just accidentally started to get well so, obviously, the auditor was taking advantage of the fact that the patient was starting to get well."
This woman had been unconscious, developing bedsores and everything else for three months. And the auditor got into communication with the preclear simply on the basis of hand pressures. Touched the preclear's hand lightly, and although the preclear could not speak, could not move and was evidently unconscious, the auditor received a hand pressure. Now, the preclear could understand the auditor but couldn't speak. And the auditor put together a signal system by which we got a hand pressure as an answer. You could have had a more complicated signal system: once for yes, two for no. However, this communication all by itself was bringing that person back to life. And the person came almost back to life and had recovered to the point where she was smiling at her attendants and was taking food – all disability and putrefaction of the body, bedsores and so forth, had disappeared – was getting well. And the auditor said, "No" to the doctor – that is to say, the auditor said, "I'm just an auditor, you know. I haven't any authority over you, I'm not partly responsible for the human race, too." Auditor could be criticized in this degree too.
And the doctor said, "Well, you can't process this person anymore." No fight, nothing. The auditor had made an error in it and had promised the patient to stay with her until she was well. And there you had a broken communication. And it was such a severe break and so forth that more things happened.
It Well, the medical profession is only to be censured because it thinks it has a monopoly in healing. And it does not have a monopoly in healing. As a matter of fact, in the United States today the US Senate has, in the form of introduction from five different senators at this time, legislation to break the back of the American Medical Association as a monopoly of healing. If they had limited themselves to where they could heal and had delivered in every case, nobody would have questioned this. But a doctor does not have as much training in the field of the mind as you have, any of you – not even vaguely.
Now, I'm talking about your formal training, because most of you have had something of psychology, you've had this and that in school. Doctors haven't had that much. They have not been trained in the field of the mind even vaguely. And the field of the mind in psychiatry is handled solely be cause – solely because they have medical degrees. Now, let's not go off on that mad-dogging because we're merely talking about Intensive Procedure. But the field of psychiatry did not define what communication was, it does not know what communication was and it does not have the anatomy of communication. Therefore, a two-way communication with the preclear is almost an impossibility to them except where the communication already exists.
Now, you're in the same boat with the preclear. You can establish as much communication right at the beginning with a preclear as exists with a preclear. You can't establish any more than that. You can establish his capability to communicate and you go up from there.
What you've done is go way south on these abilities to communicate because you have a definition of communication. C, Distance, E is perfectly good because what does that include? It includes all perception, see. It includes anything you could do. All right.
Then there's some level at which a person could be reached right down almost to the point of death. There's some level, someplace. The processing of psychotics depends entirely upon finding this threshold of communication. And that's what we're going to call it: the threshold of communication. It's a soothing word, a mimicry, a hand pressure, getting them to look at you. That's communication you understand, any one of these things. And that would get a preclear into two-way communication.
Why am I telling you all this? Because I'm going to tell you again – I'm going to tell you again and again, because we establish a two-way communication with the preclear and that doesn't mean talk. It means, it's got to have some A in it, it's got to have some R in it to be a two-way communication, and it could be any type of perception and it's anything which follows out our Formula of Communication: Cause, Distance, Effect.
Now, how do you get a preclear into communication? Well, you will establish communication at the time when you have established it in company with its A and its R.
And you might have been talking to a preclear for three or four minutes before the session without being in communication with him. There's no A and R there, see. You might have been talking at him and he's talking at you and so on. There's words passing back and forth but no communication has been established.
Now, let's take a look at mechanisms that you could use, just mechanisms, and let's see that duplication fits in like this. "Well, what town do you come from?"
"Oh, I come from Keokuk."
"Well, I had a fellow one time – I knew a fellow that lived in Keokuk." Ho, ho! Duplication. See, we've accomplished some agreement. Remember to agree on two or three points and get some agreement on two or three points about life at large with your preclear to fortify your two-way communication even on the most pleasant and sane preclears you have. You see that? Remember to get some agreement on several points.
Now, we haven't gone into this very far, very deep. But I'm pounding that in because that is the single most important step here: two-way communication with the preclear. Just by establishing it, you can make people well. Do you know that if you were good at this sort of thing, you can go on through life two-way communicating to people and leave people in your wake feeling better, well, life looking better to them and so forth? It's sneered at these days to help out your fellow man simply by communicating to him. They say it's a Pollyanna attitude or it's this or it's that or it's something else. This is not true. What we have here is the fact that some people have a native ability to communicate well. Well, a native ability? Or is it merely the fact that they've got pretty good A and pretty good R along with the C.
Well, so all you have to do really to communicate well with individuals is to raise that A and R in yourself and then you will raise it in them. You can't hate a psycho and do anything for him. See that?
All right. Now, why do we get this second step here? "Discuss the present time problem, if any," Tsk. Why? Because I don't want auditors session after session breaking their brains (if any auditors are foolish enough to use their brains) over a preclear who is so fixated on a present time problem that he can't get his attention off of it in any way but a sort of a frantic pass at a process. Now, you could process somebody for three consecutive sessions, everything is going fine – the fourth session comes up and it sort of goes wrong and you don't know why or how. Actually, a present time problem has appeared in the life of the preclear. And if you don't start every session with these first steps then you have missed on this session badly.
Once in a while if you can just get a preclear to talk about a present time problem, all of a sudden he spills grief and woe and misery and everything else. And boom! There's a big – what the psychoanalyst calls a release of affect. And there he goes. And all of a sudden he's done a tremendous jump right there in his present time environment. Because that's where you're processing the preclear. You're not processing him in his yesterday or in his tomorrow, you're processing him now. And if he's confronted by barriers in the world of now which are insurmountable to him, he's liable to practically spin if you give him a new barrier such as "Remember something real." Remember something real! For goodness sakes, he hasn't got anything real right where he sits. How could he remember anything real. This is what you would establish with an individual. But by talking about his present time problem – you understand, not processing it particularly – but just let him talk about his present time problem. And keep it in mind this fellow does have this one.
You could alleviate it with any technique you knew, and that's good processing too. Present time problem? So he's got a present time problem. Well, have him do anything with it – Double Terminal it. Who cares what you have him do with it.
One young lady I processed one time, I noticed was in a terribly frantic state continually. Oh, continually! And I finally managed to penetrate through far enough on a present time problem to make her realize that there was a present time problem. I didn't tell her so, but it was because her lover boy was always going around with another woman. We couldn't establish any facts in the case. So, obviously, we should have reached back into the past, you see. It must have been Mother or Father's jealousy or somebody else's jealousy because there was no evidence here. Oh no, no-no. We just took lover boy's possible inamorata and Matched Terminaled her.
Well, that's not good to Match Terminal – that's no process. I mean, it's a – we had a good process in it when we had it and it worked for us. But it sure burns up a lot of energy and it's awfully upsetting to the preclear if it's kept up very long. Remember, that's simply a very limited process. It happens to be a very useful process but it's very limited, you can't keep it up very long with a preclear. So I just had her get a mock-up of the inamorata faced by the inamorata and keep putting them back there as long as they kept flying to pieces. And when they got stable, we found she was no longer worried about lover boy's girlfriend. Of course, this is totally unreasonable. There could have been all the evidence in the world. I could have done this process and she still would no longer have been worried about lover boy's girlfriend.
What, in essence, was suffering here? Somebody else had a senior survival, so we just knocked it apart and got on with the processing. This didn't take ten minutes. And yet I do believe that it would have been impossible to have gotten anywhere in this session simply because the whole thing had come up just before she entered the session, see. She had just found out that lover boy was with this other girl, just before the session began. So, I'm supposed to waste all my time? Actually, tomorrow it might not have been a problem, they'd have patched it all up and it would have been sweetness and light. We took off five, ten minutes right there at the beginning of session after communication was established, we got rid of this immediate present time problem, we got on with the session.
In other words, a Scientologist has a lot of tricks in the bag. Don't forget that you have a lot of tricks in the bag. You can use them. But don't try to make these tricks the whole show for this reason. They won't carry you down the whole show. They'll leave you someplace. Preclear all of a sudden – Match Terminal, Match Terminal, Match Terminal and all of a sudden her havingness starts going by the boards, you know. Urrrr. And then you say, "Well, we remedy havingness and remedy havingness and Match Terminals some more, and remedy havingness and Match Terminal and remedy havingness and Match Terminal," And all of a sudden this preclear is getting awfully concentrated on subjective things – no longer extroverted. He's getting very, very introverted. So, you say, "Well, we'll mock-up inflows of one sort or another and do some more subjective processes, subjective processes." And the preclear is even lower down. And then you pick up this auditor at the end of the session.
You find out at the beginning of session didn't have much comm lag, but now, we've arrived at the end of the session and we say, "Well, goodbye!"
And he looks at us for a little while, "Oh well… hello." I wouldn't say you'd do that bad with a guy. I'm just demonstrating what the use of continuous tricks – can use with a case.
You patch them up to get them going and that's a good motto – patch them up to get them going on anything. So, if you've got a present time problem and it seems to you like you'd better solve something about this present time problem, there are actually dozens of ways you can use to take the edge of it off. You can set it up as a problem and as a solution and as a problem and a solution, and the other personnel of the problem turns up. You can set them up as problems and solutions too. You can do all sorts of things. "Oh, Mother is such a problem to me these days, I . .You know, this fellow – he's a young fellow about fifty and lives with his mother. And she's only eight feet tall. And you know, he has to take care of Mother and he keeps talking about Mother and he worries all during the session because he's gone from Mother or something like this. If you ran into something like that, "Well," you could say, "all right. Now Jet's be a problem to your mother," "Now have your mother be a problem to you." "Now you be a problem to Mother." Now, back and forth, back and forth. Boy, you will blow more dynamite up at this time. "Now be a solution to your mother." "Now have your mother be a solution to you." That is another way of handling the present time problem and if anything, a more reliable way of handling it than by mock-ups.
In other words, you can take processes which are deeper down here and solve this thing. The fellow just had a wreck down on the corner as he was coming into the auditing session. If you'd never addressed the present time problem factor for every auditing session – you can even be very crude about it. You can simply ask, "What's eating you now?" And that's better than being mum on the whole subject. He just got bumped by a car or he got stopped by a cop or something. You could have him: "All right, spot the place you were stopped." "Now spot the center of the room, the place you were stopped, the center of the room, the place you were stopped, the center of the room, mock-up a car, mock-up a car, mock-up a car, take it in, mock-up a car, take it in." "Spot the place where you were stopped, center of the room." "Spot the place you were stopped, center of the room." Okay. He feels all right. See, I mean, a lot of patch-up processes.
And then, of course, we have somebody more properly entered into session. But each time here get this fact: you are capitalizing on what you've already done. Every session consecutively that you run on a preclear has as its capital all the other sessions you've run on a preclear. And if you've run good sessions on a preclear and if you've given him constant wins along the line, why, his confidence in you is growing, his confidence in himself is growing and there's not anywhere near as much upset in existence that will bother him.
But these are two factors which are in addition to the pure mechanical or consideration factor of the case itself. In other words, these processes make him change his considerations, they make him change his various mechanical aspects and factors. But in addition to this, your bonus is that you have given him wins. Your ARC is better with this individual session by session. His confidence in you is better and he's beginning to have some reality on the fact that the world and its aspect can change, rather than just he can change. And so, you capitalize on past sessions.
So, the motto is just always give them good sessions and always give them wins. I mean, that's simple, isn't it? Well, you always give them good sessions and always give them wins by getting into two-way communication with them however you have to do that, and then making sure that you're not processing straight across the dead body of some present time problem. You know, he just killed a guy and he's upset. Well, get it over. I mean, spot spots in space till he'd no longer register on the lie detector. Have him go down to the police station and take a lie detector test that shows that he's absolutely innocent and come back and finish the session. Oh, no, I would hardly recommend that procedure!
I am wondering when some Scientologist, though, is going to set up shop to nullify all lie detectors. You see, all you'd have to do is knock them flat on an E-Meter and they don't register anymore on a lie detector. Curious, isn't it? Of course, if you knocked a fellow flat on cops across the boards, why, he'd never register on a lie detector about anything.
Well, you mean it's just fear of police that keep people honest? No, it's fear of police that keeps them crooked, keeps them closing terminals with doing things wrong. And that's how the society progresses. [laughter]
Now, we have gone over this at some length. We haven't progressed very far here. Or have we?
Audience: Yes.
That first step there contains in it, actually, the very stumbling blocks which have kept psychiatry in a disreputable public repute. And if you were to go out door-to-door and ask people what they thought of psychiatry, you would find out that what I'm saying to you is more or less public opinion. I mean, it's not anything hopeful with me. If you were ever foolish enough to advertise yourself as a psychiatrist, why, just wait for the world to cave in on you, because they don't like you if you're a psychiatrist. The poll taken by a national magazine demonstrated this. And the reason it got into bad odor everywhere is because it had no concept of communication. As I say, a psychiatrist wrote a book on it one time. He knew enough about the subject to get down to the point that there was a word called "communication." There's quite a little bit in this book. There's a lot of stuff in this book. But (1) there's no definition, really precise definition, of a communication and (2) the component parts of communication are not present and so its workability is very slight. So everything that you know about communication – the ARC Triangle – actually belongs in that first step just like that. Well, all right.
Let's say that, completely off the subject of preclears, you were going to process an industrial establishment. Place was in chaos, your business is to resolve chaos, you go ahead and resolve it, your industrial establishment is all upset, its communication lines are in all direction. Do you know how you could actually raise its tone? Go into a two-way communication with it, of course. Well, they'd say, "But that's impossible. I mean, how can you go into two-way communication with a place that has a hundred and sixty-two separate offices."
Oh no, just drift around and say, "What are your problems?" And ask the guys to just make a list of the things which they are running up against in the field of communication and relay of orders and things like that, so that these things can be summated and brought to the attention of the management, so that a workable plan can be worked out. The tone of the organization will come right straight on up, zoom! – just the fact that they're reporting. Actually, you would never have to submit these reports to the manager at all. He's 1.5 and he can't read. But you wouldn't even have to submit these reports to the management. The funny part of it is that just the fact that they had reported and it was in the works and something was probably happening on it – maybe – would be enough to make a communication (two-way communication) come into existence in that organization. They're at least communicating with you.
That's why military companies have chaplains. There's somebody somebody can communicate with. You can't talk to a sergeant, you see, so you got chaplains.
So this two-way communication system is very, very important and right there you could exhibit and use the definition of Communication, Affinity, Reality and all the component parts of communication itself: which are Attention, Duplication and Effect-point back up through Distance to the Source-point; Source-point through the Distance to the Effect-point – either way. You see, it's just the lash – back on that – your overt act-motivator sequence. That's part of the communication picture: Cause, Distance, Effect. And an understanding of this and an application of it, just broadly and right that moment to processing, is Scientology. And you would be in.
I knew a little boy one time that I practically made well. I finally got him to talk to me. But more important than that, we didn't start in by talking, we went on the gradient scale. I got him to look at me. And funny thing, I would look at him and he would look at me and I would look at him and he'd look at me and then we'd both look at something.
And the first thing you know, he was talking to me. And that was very strange because he had never talked to anybody since he had been born and he was now twelve years old. The total session was twenty minutes. So, we have the answers and they are in use right there with the first step and the second step. I'm stressing that because they are terribly important. They aren't just something you slide over and forget about.
INTENSIVE PROCEDURE: LECTURE II PAGE 2 7ACC-15A - 07.07.54