Subject: SHSBC 16
Date: 15 Mar 2000 01:48:19 -0000
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (fzba)
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology,alt.religion.scientology

CONFRONT AND HAVINGNESS ROUTINES 1, 2 AND 3
A lecture given on 16 June 1961

Thank you.
All right. This is the 17th of something or other. Sixteenth? Sixteenth of
June. Thank you. I depend on these lectures to find me on the time track.
Well, you have reached the end of a week, and I hope that hasn't made you
reach the end of your tether. You look younger. All except Reg.
Okay. And undoubtedly this week you've accumulated enormous numbers of
questions. I'm waiting. Yes, Kay?
Female voice: When you're running SOP Goals with the Have and Confront
Process, as you run, do your Have and Confront Processes change?
Yes. Thank you. I should put you straight on this. When you're running SOP
Goals using the Have and Confront Processes, and actually running Routine 2
with Have and Confront Processes, the processes change with considerable
rapidity. They can be expected to change, so you have to be very alert.
Now, you're not trying to run the tone arm motion out of the Confront
Process. You're not trying to, but the Confront Process must move the tone
arm. You see, a Confront Process is a very junior process. It is a very
mild process, but it has the effect of making people feel sane. It is quite
good in that, you see? This fellow, he's feeling all confused or something,
and he's had a lot of cognitions, all of which are opposite, and a Confront
Process is really a doll. It changes the immediate state. And actually it
has almost no long-term benefit. You never saw the results of any process
fade out as quickly on a Confront Process except maybe Have.
Objective Havingness and Confront are both unlimited processes, but if you
run them in an unlimited fashion, like you would run SOP Goals or something
of this sort, your pc would feel absolutely marvelous - just feel
absolutely wonderful. You - I'm sure right in this room there are people
who have had this happen to them. And they just had seventy-five hours of
Havingness, you know. Just marvelous, you see, and they just feel fine, and
a week goes by and they still feel all right. And another week goes by, and
they don't feel that good. And then another week goes by, and they're right
back where they started.
Same way with Confront. It has this odd aspect. That is why you don't find
the word Confront on the Prehav Scale. Well, that isn't the original
reason. The original reason is another one, but you don't find it on the
Prehav Scale because it is of no lasting benefit. It is just marvelous for
making somebody feel good. They get unconfused, and they come up to present
time, and so forth. And the Have Process, that orients them.
And actually, to know more about these processes, to know the answer to
your answer - I'm not digressing-you actually have to know really what
these processes are. And then that alone would give you judgment in when
and how to use these processes, see. And it would answer all sorts of
things, so I wouldn't have to be telling you, well, you run eight minutes
and seventeen seconds of Confront and eighteen seconds point three of Have,
you see, because that's silly. It can really depend on your judgment
exclusively if you understand really what these processes are supposed to
do and what they are. And when you've accomplished that end with either of
these processes, you of course have accomplished that end of it. That is
all.
The whole criteria is this: Do you feel better now? Fellow's running
Hayingness, you see. Well, your meter will tell you whether or not he feels
better because the needle is looser. If the needle loosens up between the
front test of the Havingness and the end test of the Havingness - which by
the way you always use - (get your pencil busy). You always use this test
in every session that you run Havingness. You always have him squeeze the
cans at the beginning of the Havingness and squeeze the cans at the end of
the Havingness, and see if the needle has loosened. You got that?
So every time you run Havingness you go through that little routine. That's
part and parcel not of just testing for havingness, but that is part and
parcel to using it. And all you want out of Havingness is a loosened
needle. Now, how loose? Well, it's just like the one-command process, if
you ask somebody to look around the room and find something that's really
real to them, and they all of a sudden find one object in the room that is
really real to them and they're not pretending about in any way, shape or
form, that is really alive. It's a marvelous process. And that is its total
effect. It's a one-command process.
The other one is "Think of somebody that believes you're sane or doesn't
think you're insane." The person thinks of one person and that's it. Now of
course, he might think of two or three more, and you might be able to kid
yourself in believing that - and it might even appear that it'd be a good
thing, you see, to run these processes for ten more commands or twenty more
commands, or fifteen or twenty hours. If they're this good, you see, they
ought to be that good. Well, they're not that good. And until a person is
way up and almost Clear, Havingness has no lasting benefit. The valence
eats it up. See, the valence and consumption circuits eat up the
havingness. Got the idea?
Now, it's absolutely necessary when he is almost Clear to stabilize his
whole case, and his whole case will stabilize, and his stabilization at
Clear will take place when havingness stays stable. Once run, it stays
there. And this isn't a needed test but happens to be one of the tests.
Well, this person is awful close to Clear because when he runs Havingness
it stays with him. This orients him in the environment. He goes out and
looks around the world and it stays that way. He gets a good reality on the
world. For instance, he remedies his havingness in this room, and his
havingness is remedied for this universe. Got it?
Until a person is up in that kind of state, he remedies his havingness for
this room but it is not remedied for the next room, see?
All right. As long as the fellow has a dominant valence or dominant
machinery, it's going to eat up all the havingness you run on him. And you
can run the whole bank with Havingness. You can sit there, and the engrams
will run by, and the case will change, and it'll just be dandy, and boy,
are we producing an effect. But that's all you're doing. You're producing
effect. You're not giving the case any lasting gain. The lasting gain of
Havingness occurs somewhere in the vicinity of eight or ten commands. Very
short. Very brief. And when you've done that, you've done it.
Now what you've done, then, is sort of peg the guy at a new level. And that
havingness, that much havingness, remains constant. That's okay. He's got
that. He can have that. But if you run another half an hour of it, he can't
have any of that, you see, so it's just a waste of time. Let's run the case
by music therapy, Los Angeles fashion or something. You've heard of that I
imagine.
Let's give the case some good auditing with some ARC Straightwire, and then
let's spend the next - rest of the week on music therapy. And then, of
course, any benefit he got, you see, occurs in the first few minutes of ARC
Straightwire-which, by the way, is another one of these processes that
works dandy for a few commands. And then the rest of it is just lost. See,
there's no use doing it. Yes, it'll run the case. Yes, the pictures will
change. Yes, the person - but look, this is a hell of a way to run a case:
to get his attention on the wall so he'll run his bank. See, what you're
doing is run a shift of attention. After Havingness works, after about
twelve, fifteen, twenty - the zenith I don't know, but the zenith certainly
wouldn't be more than about thirty-two commands. I mean, it'd be up in that
range. After that, all you're doing is saying, "Take your attention off
your bank. Thank you. Take your attention off your bank. Thank you." And,
of course, the bank changes. And the engram that he was halfway through
mysteriously moves the rest of the way through. But in view of the fact
that it moves the rest of the way through without the pc inspecting it in
any way, of course, it's no benefit. It'll also move through the next day.
If you want to run an engram perpetually, forever, why, just keep running
it with Havingness. Say, "Now, you're nicely fixed in that engram. Good.
You've got that engram. 1601 it was when you murdered the king. Very good.
All right. That's fine. Now you're sure you're there? That's good. All
right. Now we're going to run some Havingness."
And we run twenty commands of Havingness and then we say, "Well, how about
that 1601?"
"Oh," he says, "that went."
"Oh, well, you'll have to get that back. Let's get that back now. And just
- just how was it that you went about the assassination? What kind of a
weapon - what kind of a weapon would you most hate to be assassinated
with?"
"Ohhhh!"
"Oh, all right. All right. That's good. Now get your idea of that weapon.
You got that real good? All right. That's fine. Now look at that wall.
Thank you. Look at that wall. Thank you. Look at that wall."
And the engram will reel straight through again. And you could actually run
it through perpetually. I don't think it would ever run out unless those
little beginning commands of getting him into it and the little datings
that you were doing happened to blow it. But the Havingness itself will
move the engram through, move the engram through, move... Like making
somebody sit in a cinema through the picture time after time and making him
look at the usher.
Years later they see the motion picture and they say, "What's this?" you
see. "Never seen this before." So you get the point here that...? So that's
a limited sort of a process. Yes, it'll apparently produce enormous results
after run for a few commands - apparently. And this is very inviting.
Back in 55 I was investigating this like mad, and I knew there was
something there in this Havingness Process, but I couldn't establish
exactly what. And it was mysterious, and actually if you review the old
tapes and bulletins and things like this, you'll find out I said so often,
that I didn't know what Havingness was all about.
Same way with Confront, because Confront is actually Subjective Havingness.
Now you're going to run the reverse. You're going to make him face the
wall. You're going to make him face the bank. I don't care what the
Havingness command was, exterior, or what the Confront Process was,
subjective; all you've said to him is, "Now, look at that wall. Now you got
the real universe? That's right. That's real good. Got it real good. Well,
look at it a few more times. Oh, that's fine. Feel better now? All right.
That's dandy. That's it." You got it?
All right. Now you have him look at the bank, and you say, "Bank, bank,
bank, bank." I don't care what command you're using, see, for the Confront
Process; you're saying, "Bank, bank, bank, bank, bank, bank, bank, bank.
You feel better now?" The guy says, "Yes, oddly enough, I do."
Well, don't expect him to go on feeling better for the rest of his life,
you see, because it's too arduous, as a process. It - there - they do
things. Odd things will happen doing them. There're vagaries. The full
benefit of the Havingness Process and the full benefit of the Confront
Process, as far as therapeutic value is concerned, is realized in something
on the order of eight to a dozen commands in Havingness - zenith about
thirty-two commands. And Confront? Well, it's a little harder to establish
in terms of time, but what you want really is a wiggle on the tone arm.
You want the tone arm to wiggle and preferably go lower. If you can make
the tone arm do that with a Confront Process and you can get it done in ten
minutes or fifteen minutes or something, why, you've done it. And if you're
not doing it in ten or fifteen minutes, you'd better say, "Well, it's just
too bad, but this pc will have to feel bad till the next session." I mean
that's it. Because a process is nothing to fool with if it is not producing
benefit. And if it's not producing benefit, you won't get a tone arm
motion. Got it?
So therefore, the Havingness and the Confront Processes apply all the way
from the bottom of Routine 2 to the near top of Routine 3. Routine 2 to
Routine 3. Hm? And they are always used exactly the same way. You use them
exactly the same way. But look, this case is changing. So if you find them
too early, you're just going to have to shift them every time you run them.
And if you find them too late, all you're using them for is stabilization
of Clear. And in the middle ground it's sensible, but you keep your eagle
eye on the needle for the Havingness and you keep your eye on the tone arm
for the Confront. And if all of a sudden-this person's been running along
fine on the Confront Process of, "Get the idea of your bank flying by at
ninety miles an hour" - that was his Confront Process - and the hitherto -
if he was sitting at 4.0, it would go to 4.5, and it would then blow down
to 3.5, see? Some much - such evolution as this...
I've gotten more data on this, since I've given anybody any of it, by the
way. I'm glad you asked the question. I've had quite a bit of data
accumulated on this one way or the other. I haven't even written a bulletin
on it.
And it works just fine - "Get the idea of your bank flying by at ninety
miles an hour. Thank you. Get the idea of your bank flying by at ninety
miles an hour"; whatever the Having - Confront Process is. And hitherto it
would go up a half a tone and then it would blow down a tone. Something on
that order. And as soon as it blew down a bit, you'd come off of it and
you'd skip it after that. Ah, that's good. That criteria, by the way, used
to be used for the Havingness Process, and it's not used there. Use it for
the Confront now.
All right. And you start him in on the Confront Process, and the tone arm
doesn't go up. And you run ten commands, and the tone arm doesn't go up.
And you run ten - fifteen commands, and the tone arm hasn't gone anyplace
yet. Well, it's too confusing to find another Confront Process right at
that moment. You simply come off of it, run your Havingness Process and
that's it.
And the next time you audit the pc, say, "Now we are going to find a
Confront Process," because that Confront Process is no longer functional.
All right. You always do the can-squeeze test. You wouldn't have had to
have done any of these things, you see, if we weren't traveling at a fast
rate of speed with our auditing progress. It was perfectly all right. The
finite period of time that they lasted before didn't require all these
cautions, but they certainly require it now.
So here you are with your case going along at a whizzing bang, and you give
that can-squeeze test just before you run the thing. All right. You say,
"Squeeze the cans." You watch the needle, you see. "Squeeze the cans" -
watch the needle. Don't necessarily set the sensitivity knob, who cares?
And then you say, "Look around here and find something you can agree with.
Thank you. Look around here and find something you can agree with. Thank
you. Look around here and find something you can agree with. Thank you."
Run it about eight times, something like this - maybe twelve times. And,
you don't count them. It's not that exact an action. Counting them is
something on the order of the ensign going out and holding the sextant
upside down in a bleary-eyed way and shooting Venus when it should have
been Arcturus. And then he comes back down and spends three hours of the
most minute mathematical calculations you ever heard of, don't you see. And
he reduces the ship down to a pinpoint, only he's 150 miles north of the
headwaters of the Nile, you see. It's very amusing, you see, to take
something that is of a gross application and then figure it out minutely,
and yet the world of mathematics is doing that all the time. That'd be
something on the order of counting the Havingness Processes, don't you see.
You run it kind of watching the pc. Don't watch the needle on the
Havingness Process. And the pc says, "I agree to that. I agree to that. I
agree to that. And I agree to that, agree to that, agree to that, agree to
that. Yeah."
And you say, "All right. Thank you very much. Okay now. Would you give the
electrodes a 'squoze'." And you look at it. Wham! You say, "All right.
Thank you very much. That's the end of that process." No bridge out. Don't
bother.
Confront Process is run before the Havingness Process. And what you do
there is you say, "Now get the idea of your bank flying by at ninety miles
an hour with a witch on it. Thank you." Whatever your Confront Process is.
Watch that tone arm. Watch that tone arm, and it goes
zzz-zzz-zzz-zzz-zzz-zzzz-thoom! And you say, "Thank you very much. That's
very good. Ah, that's real nice. That's fine. How do you feel now?"
He says, "I feel much better."
You say, "Good. That's it."
And all they are - are stabilizers of the gain. Now, an individual gets no
idea of what else is going on. He is running this horse, you see. And he's
running Fail Leave on a horse. And my God, he just runs Fail Leave on
horses and Fail Leave on horses and Fail Leave on horses, and Fail Leave on
horses, and Fail Leave on horses, and Fail Leave on horses, and horses
failing to leave him, and him failing to leave horses, and others failing
to leave horses and horses failing to leave others, and horses failing to
leave horses, and-man, he's just been having a ball, you see.
And all this time he's been having trouble, see. That's the way the bank is
going on this silly valence, and the valence is separating out, but he's
having trouble this whole time. What's happening here? This is -gets to be
very amusing when you're running a valence directly, because what's
happening here?
You know, there are other quadrupeds that failed to leave. Namely donkeys.
And he's gone along through the course of auditing, obeying the auditing
command very nicely, except every once in a while something in the bank
would say "Hee-Haw," you know, or something of this sort. And he'd say,
"Well, down. Get away from here now. We're supposed to be dealing with
horses."
And during the process of his auditing, he will stack up quite a few
donkeys over here. Somewhere on his left or somewhere behind him there'll
be some repressed donkeys. Get the idea? This is inevitable, see.
Well, now listen. Let's give him a chance to get rid of the donkeys, and
that's why we run the Confront Process. Whatever the Confront Process is,
the first thing he's going to confront are the things he kind of restrained
himself from confronting, because he was running horses. The mechanics of
the process, in other words, have prevented him from confronting certain
things. Well, so he blows that off; you don't hear any more about the
donkeys. Donkeys aren't any difficulty for him. They're just an associated
terminal, see.
All right. Let's say we have one case running on a terminal that doesn't
occur in this lifetime. Never occurs in this lifetime - the terminal
doesn't, that's it. Or if it did, it'd be so slight. But the person for
various reasons - not necessarily this particular case that there aren't
any in the present lifetime, but just the case is the person is incapable
of being one in this lifetime by reason of sex. So we're running this
person when and how? We're running this person out of the present lifetime,
all the time, on the terminal.
Well, let's give him a chance to catch up. Let's give him a chance to come
up to present time. And the best way to get him up to present time is a
Confront Process. Confront is the old answer - 1950 - of how you got a pc
up to present time. You could have confronted any pc that got stuck on the
track back up to present time. If you moved him out of present time, you
could have confronted him back up to present time, don't you see?
On such a terminal, if you do not run the Confront Process, no vast
catastrophe is going to occur, but the pc is going to be perpetually
uncomfortable. And the fellow will finish the session over here holding
down these eight donkeys, you see, and he will find himself going around
until the next session with these damn donkeys. You see? It's not even
catastrophic. It will not hold up his progress, so it is not a vital
action. It simply keeps the case on a little more even keel and maybe
speeds it up because the case might not get so many ARC breaks out of
session, because they're in a little bit better shape in the physical
universe, don't you see? That's why you use the Havingness and Confront
Process.
Now when you use it, naturally-you would certainly be wanting to use them
on somebody who kept feeling a little spinny. If the person's kind of
feeling a little spinny, level by level, and you don't have his Havingness
and Confront Process, you haven't got the weapon necessary to set him
right. A little bit of Confront does marvels for the fellow's spinniness.
You know, guys can get pretty far off beam with this spinniness. They can
get pretty nyarowrrrow, you know?
Anyway, where do we have a borderline between not running them and running
them? It's just auditor's judgment. It's just the state of case and
auditor's judgment. And they run all the way through from Routine 2 right
on down through to the bottom of Routine 1. And the more the case is
progressing, the more rapidly the Havingness and Confront Processes will
change, and you will start somebody out, and he'll be getting along fine...
They don't necessarily go up scale or down scale, you know. Just as a word
of warning. A person starts out, "Look around here and find something you
can have. Thank you." This remedies his havingness beautifully, you know.
"Look around here and find something you can have." Wonderful. It just
remedies his havingness gorgeously. And about eight sessions later, he's
made a good case gain. See, he's had a good run on a level or something
like this. And he's got a lot of withholds off on a Joburg. And you run
"Look around here and find something you can have. Look around here.. ."
eight times. Squeeze the cans again, you know, and it just goes clank!
Almost stands up and barks at you, see. It doesn't move anywhere near like
it did on the first can squeeze. Well, this is running his havingness down
now.
Well, it's not a temporary condition that will fade out in - during the
next session, something or other. He might have gotten an ARC break you
haven't caught, or some other things might have caused this. But you'd
catch those on the end rudiments. This Havingness Process has ceased to
work, and now you're liable to find something corny. Here's a Havingness
Process: "Why, look around here and find something that would substitute
for something if something wasn't there." And you say, "How in the name of
common sense can this Havingness Process. . ." you see - which you've
picked off the list or any existing list; there are lots of them - you say,
"How could it remedy anybody's havingness."
Well, it's doing so because the can-squeeze test before and after shows it
loosens up the needle. And you'll get along and you'll suffer with this -
along with this one, and your curiosity and mystery and not-know of how
this could remedy anybody's havingness. And all of a sudden, why, clank!
Can squeeze - it didn't work. You're going to have to find another
Havingness Process. And this time you find, "Look around here and find
something you can have," and "Look around here and find something you would
rather not want," or whatever it is. And that remedies havingness now. And
then we get another one: "What scene isn't that wall part of?" Oh, that
works like a breeze.
You see what's happening here. The bank is shifting. The valence is going
nuts. The pc is getting better, but the valence is going crazy. And you can
expect the Prehav level on a valence to deteriorate. And you can expect the
level of complexity of the Havingness Process to deteriorate. And you can
expect the level of complexity of the Confront Process to deteriorate as
long as they're being run on a valence, and he's not rid of the valence
yet, so therefore you're running on a valence. Got it? So therefore, they
deteriorate.
And there's only one other thing I'd like to add on this general subject.
There apparently is some idea abroad that the only thing that will clear
anybody is running a valence directly and immediately. You look what
happens to valences on a Routine 2 run. All kinds of little side-panel
valences start flying off the main valence. And you get rid of plenty of
extra secondary valences on a Routine 2 run. And when you finally ask the
fellow for his goal, after you've thoroughly done Routine 2 ... Ah, it
might be 150 or 200 hours later; we don't care. But if you ask the fellow
for his goal, and his terminal and so forth-there's his goal; there's his
terminal! Bang! It falls. You assess them for level, and all of a sudden
they run out.
Where's this goal? Where's this terminal? Well, you assess them for level,
and what are you doing now? You're just doing SOP Goals, but of course you
ye - your general runs hit all these valences. Only they hit them less
speedily. They separate them out more. They do different things with
valences, but they get rid of valences.
And CCHs, Routine 1, gets rid of valences like mad. They all do the same
thing. The whole criteria on Routine 1, Routine 2, Routine 3, is not how
nutty you are, but how fast these things will operate. And I will lay you
down an operating rule right now for these. An operating rule in no
uncertain terms. And that is, if a case in large quantities of auditing has
not had a significant change - and I'm talking about past processes or even
present processes - if he hasn't had a significant change over a long
period of time - he's still got his lumbosis; his zorch is still out of
order, you got one answer. This is policy. It has to be policy because
valences protest on it. Regardless of graph, meter read, opinion or
objections, you run Routine 1. Got that one? HCOB 17 June 1961 [HCOB 16
June 1961, CCHs AND ROUTINE 1]. I just put it in the mill. I might as well
tell you what it is.
Don't monkey with this one, huh. If a case hasn't been rapidly changing on
auditing, the most rapid way to make the case change is the CCHs with a
Security Check. If the case hasn't been changing over a long period of time
in auditing, the most rapid way to make them change is CCHs and Security
Check. It has nothing to do with their nuttiness. We don't care whether
they're nutty or not nutty or anything else. It's just what's the effective
thing to do, that's all.
So if you follow that as a policy... I'll give you an idea, Wing goes into
New York City and there's a perfectly nice fellow, and he has always been a
nice fellow, and everybody knows he's a nice fellow, and he is very sane,
and he has been very helpful and so forth in Scientology, and Wing says to
him, "All right. You say you want some auditing? All right. I'll give you
some auditing. I'm going to run the CCHs on you."
And the fellow says, "No, no, no. Under no circumstances." Well, my God, he
just did an assessment on the man, didn't he? Do you know all of us have
got the CCHs unflat on us, practically? We've had them run a little bit.
It's too beefy a process to leave unflat. It'll flatten off. Of course, you
get up toward Clear, it'll flatten off in a morning. But sooner or later,
you're going to have to collide with them and face up to the fact that they
require finishing. It's no more serious than that.
The reason Wing would say, "I'm going to run CCHs on you" is he happens to
know that the fellow has had lumbosis ever since 1952 and it hasn't
disappeared and the fellow has had a bit of auditing - quite a bit of
auditing during that period of time. Without monkeying around about it and
without running into whatever it was or trying to analyze what it was that
kept this fellow from cutting free of his lumbosis and spending eighteen
hours in the arena, bleeding and raw, fighting this lion to find out what
is this that is so tenacious that is continuing lumbosis on this case and
getting very brilliant and brainy about the whole thing; just "Give me that
hand, brother." That's all.
And all of a sudden, Mr. Lumbosis, when you combine "Give me that hand" and
the rest of them with Security Checks - that lumbosis, first it runs up a
little white flag... First you see this helmet being waved over the
parapet, you see, rather meanly, you know. "You can't get me. You can't get
me. You can't get me." And then finally you see a dirty pocket
handkerchief, you know, being waved. And then they finally help you - and
then they want to beat a parley. And all kinds of things. And then all of a
sudden, why, "Oops! There went my lumbosis. Hey, it did, you know." And
that's it. What I've done is figure out a way that you can't make a mistake
with a case.
You see, there are several things you can know about a case. You can put
them on an E-Meter and find out how they read. That's very reliable. You
can give them a profile; you can read the profile. That's very reliable.
There's another way of reading a case: Looking at them. You can look at
them, make up your mind about it, and that's another way of figuring out a
case, you see.
All right. There's yet another way. This person has been audited for the
last four years and hasn't had much gain. Isn't a Release yet or something
like that. Well, that's a complete assessment of the case, isn't it?
Otherwise, we'd have to assume that all auditors are bad auditors, which
they aren't. We'd have to assume that no processes have worked in all these
years. And they have. See? And we'd have to assume these various things.
Well, why sort all this garbage out? Why spend hours and hours and hours
and hours and hours monkeying around with this? Because look, somebody else
has already spent hours and hours and hours monkeying around with this one.
Well, there's one answer. And that is, it evidently doesn't surrender to
the basic mechanics of formal auditing. Whatever it is that's wrong with
the guy doesn't normally - he's alter-ising the commands or he's auditing
through a machine, or he's going on a big via, or he's got a present time
restimulator that is very, very rough. It's this. It's that. It could be
ten thousand different things. And you can worry yourself to death over it.
But look, out of all those things there's only one common denominator for
the whole lot. And that is, he's been audited quite a bit and hasn't had a
significant case change. That's fine. That's all. That's it.
So you get up on the pitcher's mound. Let's see, what's a pitcher in
cricket? A bowler. You stand on the bowler's box or you get in - on the
pitcher's mound, and you wind up and you pitch CCHs, man. That's all. Or
you bowl them. God, I'm international today.
Anyway, there you are. You ask for a simpler tear-apart of a case than
this? And there's no reason to be upset about it because actually the very
reason that a person gets upset about the fact that somebody thinks they're
a little bit potty is an index in itself You see this? Because it tells you
they must be worried about the world's opinion of them. You see? It tells
them that pride is entering into processing.
Well, I don't know. I've been run on the CCHs. I don't see anything very
bad about it. I know other people who've been run on the CCHs. It produced
results on everybody I ever saw it run on actually, if it was run right. So
what's the difference here, see? That's all there is to it. I hope I
answered your question anyway.
Female voice: Thank you very much.
Good. All right.
Male voice: And a big one of mine.
Good enough.
Male voice: Same here.
Good. We had an interesting incident, by the way, going on in a course-
special course that's being run someplace. We had a boy - he's pretty
stormy. He's quite a guy. Pretty stormy. And he walked in on this course
and found out that there was kind of a lot of yow-yow-yow going on about,
oh, well, this stuff about Security Checks and so on, you know. All these
cases, no advance, no spins and so on. And he got down and he told them,
"Now look, you guys. This is your last chance, see. Because if you don't
make it in this course, I'm gonna make sure that you just go out and spin
forever. So you better get serious about these Joburg Security Checks, and
you'd better snap and pop, and you'd better give up those withholds and get
it whizzin' and bangin'!" And everybody says, "Well, all right," you know.
They got in and started standing and delivering as though we were being
attacked by highwaymen. Then the most interesting thing evolved. A very
important person in that area had been invalidating Security Checking and
most of the students had withholds about that person. And that one little
speech all by itself cleaned up a whole Scientology area. They had been
practically under orders to regard the Security Checks as just a
nonsensical idea.
And I've just heard from another area that wrote a special Security Check
for the Academy. I think that's very nice. I like that. Sooner or later,
we'll get out one for the Academy. And the only difference between that and
a standard Joburg will be in every third question "What unkind thought have
you thought about your Instructors?" and so forth. Get the idea? It'll be
Scientology personnel about every third question, you see? That's the only
difference it'll have.
But this was a nice, sweet Security Check. It consisted of something on the
order of about twenty-five, thirty questions, and it all says in a high
generality "Have you ever been a paid agent working in Moscow directly and
immediately for Khruschev?" That's good. Well, we've taken care of
communism. "Now, have you ever been a homosexual? Thank you very much." Or
I don't think it's that general. "Have you ever been a homosexual in this
organization?" or something. Real cute. Probably says something on the
order - I didn't read it all, but probably said something on the order
"Have you paid your bill?" or something. And that was a Security Check.
That ranks with this other one, "Have you had an ARC break with... ?" That
was another doll. That was a real wowie one.
So it just comes down to the fact there must be no special Security Checks.
There must be standard Security Checks, and that's it. And is - it happens
at this moment that it's HCO W Form 3. When we say Security Check, we mean
HCO W Form 3. We don't mean the special Academy edited check, because you
see "It's very rapid to give it, you see. It's very rapid to give it. And
the other takes too much time." And - because people still will walk around
their withholds, that's all. Somebody writes a Security Check independently
in some vast different part of the world that is in objection to the Joburg
Security Check, you can just be sure that it has nothing whatsoever to do
with a Joburg taking too much time in the Academy.
In the first place, certainly in an Academy, for God's sakes, these people
must learn how to do complete Joburgs, not be given a little
twenty-five-question short form and not ever be permitted to have a Joburg
anywhere near them - which is what this adjudication amounted to. You know,
"It must not be given in the Academy. Only this one is given in the
Academy."
Interesting, isn't it? You've got to watch that one wherever you are. You
see somebody all of a sudden saying, "Well, I think it's perfectly all
right." I'll give you the pat answer to this because we're not stopping
anybody putting together Joburgs and Security Checks.
It works like this: Unless we lay down a blanket rule that the Security
Check given shall be an official HCO WW form with a number for a certain
purpose - unless we lay that down - then, although we have opened the door
for anybody who is inventive to write himself a lot of Security Checks and
actually contribute to Scientology, we have also opened the door wide for
isolated areas of the world to carefully omit their own overts from the
particular list and issue it as another check. And that is what happened in
this area, I am sure. This is too nonsensical.
This other ARC break one that came out - that came out before the Joburg.
That came out before there was any real importance being put on Security
Checking. I just use it as an example of how mild a Security Check can be.
But if you want to put together a Joburg, if you think there are a lot of
questions missing, and there certainly must be, I'll tell you how to put
together one. I've got a special category going right now. Did you ever
know anybody that had about thirty or forty baskets sitting in the same
space? Did you know that thirty or forty baskets could occupy the same
location in space? That would have driven Hayakawa mad, wouldn't it? Or
even Korzybski. But I've got one on the corner of my desk. It'd be
absolutely impossible to rack up enough basket systems and enough filing
systems to take care of all categories of my immediate projects, so I put
them all in the same space over here at the side of the desk.
But oddly enough, although they get up to towering, I let the projects
accumulate, and I know I'd better not let them go to files, you see. If
they go to files, I have now put the rest of the office staff to work - and
I'm going to put them to work, but not this senseless filing. When I get a
stack this high, and it's all questionnaires to Ds of Ps that I've put out,
and I finally see that the stack is high enough to justify my believing
they have all replied - like, "Send me all the profiles you have on all new
Academy graduates." Nothing of this sort, that - too silly a project. But
if there'd be such a project, I'd just let them stack! See, stack. And I
don't send them to file.
And then my basic system that I have newly been putting into effect is
simply pick up the whole lot on a donkey cart someday and turn it over to
somebody and say sort them out. And they sort them out, and they bring them
back. But I know if I - you see, the answers of these projects are
addressed to me. We have so many things going. I don't have time to advise
everybody what every project is. So the easiest thing to do is collect
them. And I do collect them. And I do sort them out. And I do all of a
sudden fire one of these things when it's all accumulated, because we are
now in a zone and area of accumulating information from organizations and
people and auditors, you see, and that sort of thing.
And when I ask them for some information, because we're so far flung, it
takes an awful unconscionably long time to get something all the way down
the Congo out through the various pirates in the Congo now, such as the
United Nations and Kennedy's special emissaries, and so on, and it takes a
long time to get here. But it gets here. And then I accumulate them, and I
put it together.
So don't think that something you send me on a project of this character is
just waylaid and neglected, because it very often isn't. Verner, when he
was over here looking over the organization - one thing stuck thoroughly in
his mind. They showed him all the files and papers and routes and it all
looked very fantastically interesting to him. And amongst these oddities
was the fact my initials appear on everything or my routings appear on
everything. And he had the idea that I sat in an ivory tower somewhere, you
know, and never saw anything, and you couldn't communicate with me and all
that sort of thing. And he looked this over and he saw this vast ocean of
accumulated detail, papers, dispatches, all this kind of thing. Yeah, I see
them. I don't always answer them. I try to get them answered, but I don't
always answer them.
Sometimes there is no answer. I think, "Well, later on I'll have an answer
to something like this, and I'll put it out in a bulletin." Sometimes your
dispatch gets answered very - on a very odd via but not too often. And I'm
saying this, giving you this preamble of the thing: If you've got questions
that do not appear on these Security Checks or you think should appear on
these Security Checks, just address them to me on an ordinary piece of
dispatch paper. And this file system where the twenty or thirty or forty
projects all sit in exactly the same area of space eventually accumulate
these things. And one day, why, I'll get some time - some 2:30 in the
morning sometime - and sort them all out and stack them all up and give
them to somebody and say type them up. And there we are. And then we'll
sort them out. We'll find the questions repeated very often. And we can
sort them out, and we will have a new Security Check. Now, Jan right now is
doing a very nice rundown, and Dick, with a whole track Security Check.
One question that they originated stuck in my mind on the thing is, "Have
you ever wantonly, viciously and villainously destroyed hostages given to
you to hold under your sacred trust?" or something like this. So various
questions on the line like this and they're good questions. This is a
bearcat. And it's the result of saying that one of these days, why, we need
a Security Check, that when a person got up about halfway to Clear and his
whole track keeps opening up, and he's got withholds on the whole track,
and we keep trying to check him in this lifetime, and the withholds are no
longer in this lifetime, he goes practically potty. If somebody would just
ask him some of these questions, why, it'd all turn up and work out, you
see?
All right. So there's a project: whole track questions. There's another
project: What peculiar questions should be asked in an Academy? That's
another project for another Security Check. And: What peculiar questions
should be asked on a repetitive-type Security Check which, while covering
the whole Joburg, yet covers it a page at a time? Well, there's got to be
certain repetitive questions occur. You see, every time that page is asked,
certain other questions have got to be asked with it. So that you could get
in the CCHs a one-page administering of the Joburg at a time. You got the
idea? And the fellow would always be getting new Security Checks, which yet
wouldn't neglect his old Security Checks, you see. It's an interesting
problem.
The whole track Security Check, there - actually is basically the
improvement of the existing Johannesburg Form 3. And the more minds we get
to work on what horrible things people should have done to people, why, the
more broad and effective that Security Check can be. And it could even be
something wild or as far approached, "Have you ever done any illicit
diamond buying?" And nevertheless would catch some case.
Remember that a security question or a withhold-type question - remember
that it doesn't produce any bad result, it really doesn't waste enough
auditing time to worry about now that you're doing instant read, and yet
will catch some off-base case. And you yourself as the auditor sitting
there reading one of these checks down will say, "What on earth? How could
anybody possibly have ever done anything like this? That's a very unlikely
question." And then all of a sudden one day you ask this thing, "Have you
ever put any cats in slingshots," you see, "and fired them over walls?" And
the thing falls off the pin, and we get somebody who has devoted his whole
lifetime to doing nothing else. There it is, brother. Bang!
And then, of course, there have been other codes of justice than the South
African code of justice that was the original derivation of the original
Joburg. South African code of justice is very precise. You can do more
things wrong in South Africa than in most other countries, but in South
Africa they have more problems, and all of these things are wrong in other
countries except they aren't forward enough to say so. It's just a franker
code of laws, you see?
They don't have so many of these catch-basket laws, you know? "Have you
ever done anything the government doesn't like?" You know, like - that's US
law now. US executive branches in their law, after they've gotten Congress
to write up their laws, they always add this catchall law. "Have you ever
been non persona grata with any official in this particular and peculiar
department and refused to bribe him?" or something like that. And they add
this catch law, you see, on top of all the other laws, and then you never
know where you're going. You never know what you're doing. You never know
what the law is, you see? You don't know whether you're breaking the law or
not. A big not-know enters into the scene. As societies tend to
deteriorate, not-knowingness enters into their laws.
But there have been many other law codes. There's been a Code of Hammurabi.
There've been Persian law codes. There have been Egyptian law codes, Greek
law codes. There are Spanish law codes right at the present moment. There's
French law codes. And all of these things announce crimes of one kind or
another that are rather unlikely, you see, to the Anglo-Saxon. For
instance, our own law codes in England and the United States have gotten a
little bit sloppy in various ways. There's tremendous numbers of laws on
the books that don't get enforced, and there are a tremendous number of
things that get enforced that aren't on the books, you know. It's getting
slopped up this way.
Well, the Joburg actually has to follow through two legal systems because
it's basically jurisprudence because it deals basically with the third
dynamic, you see. And the best area to find the misdemeanors of the third
dynamic, of course, is the justice codes of the third dynamic: What have
these things included as being withholdy? Because somewhere on the track
people were made to withhold things by a justice code, you see. And they
were taught to believe these things were bad and then they deteriorated
these things, and then they got inventive about what they did wrong with
them. And then a law finally got passed to tell them not to do these
things.
The Polynesian legal code, for instance: If you were to run a Security
Check on a Polynesian under his old taboo system, your Joburg wouldn't
apply. That is, at least 50 percent of the Joburg is perfectly legal in
Polynesia, but there must be something on the order of a thousand other
things that you would consider perfectly ordinary that would be absolute
sudden death, "Throw him into the volcano," you see - that kind of thing.
"He has walked under a kapok tree. Hmmhmmhmmhmmhmm! Hang him!"
So the more - the more minds we get operating on this sort of thing, why,
the better off we are. And I - I believe we'll probably be evolving
Security Checks up here in the next ten years, easily. I can see it now.
Maybe someday somebody'll even find Peter's crimes. He wasn't looking for
that. That's a bad thing to pick on him this way.
Okay. Now I think you're - the basics that I know about at the present
time, that I think you're grappling with one way or the other, might be
pretty well answered at the present moment. Are they? Do you feel you're
adrift? Do you feel you're seriously adrift anyplace? Hm?
All right. I have no fault whatsoever with anything you are doing. You
might possibly put too much emphasis on picking up data here and too little
emphasis on practicing. There is data available here which isn't available
generally. And most of that data is - well, Mary Sue, myself, Instructors,
that sort of thing - they can give you this data, but the perfection of
practice is what we're terribly interested in. Because you will dream up
questions, as you try to apply it, which will become burning questions to
you, which won't be included in any bulletins anyplace merely because
nobody ever dreamed you'd ask these questions. You got the idea?
Nobody would be able to foretell exactly what you would become confused
about. And not being able to tell this, of course, you can't write a
bulletin. It'd take a bulletin for everybody's blind spot, don't you see?
And there's nothing wrong with having a blind spot, but the way to handle a
blind spot is to not worry about feeling silly about it - and not jump on
Ken one - in answering it the way I did one day. He startled me. Sometimes
you get startled.
The criteria is that I am more interested in what you find out is a zone
that is unknown to you, in the process of application, and that you get
that zone cleared up. Because frankly, there are no unknown zones in
Scientology at this particular time.
The only thing that is unknown is a question I always leave up at the top
of the scale: "Are we all one, or are we separate individuals?" That's an
unknown zone. But it's an unknown zone in theory only, you see. You get a
reality on it. If it's true, it's true. Whichever's true is true, you see.
And when you lay down facts and say "Now listen, you. We is all one. We is
all - we is all 'Nirvanese,' and that's why we is - we'uns is so nervous.
And when the great pearly gates of Nirvana open up and we all merge with
the infinite...
Well, you start laying down stuff like that, and you've obscured truth with
your inevitably certain zones that remain unknown. But they are not in the
zones of "How do you clear somebody?" They are not in the zones of "How do
you apply a process?" They are not in the zones of "What is the basic
rationale back of why you do this? Why, for heaven's sakes, do you do
this?" Well, believe me, there's probably a darn good reason.
And you might get to wondering about this "Why does - CCH 1 - why don't you
run it with both hands?" Well, you've gotten the idea you're trying to
clear hands, you see. That isn't your purpose of CCH 1. CCH 1 isn't trying
to clear people's hands. If you wanted to flatten CCH 1 for its own sake,
and just for itself, you'd have to, of course, body-wise, flatten it on the
right hand, flatten it on the left hand, flatten it on both hands. Flatten
it on the right foot, flatten it on the left foot, flatten it on both feet.
Flatten it on the right ear, flatten it on the left ear, flatten it on.. .
You have to call a halt on this sort of thing so you might as well call it
right up at the front of the parades.
It's very easy to go into super-developed, evolving systems of this
particular character. It's like the gardener today. Our boy out here that
handles stone masonry and bricks and that sort of thing - he came up to me
rather worriedly. He had been trying to see me, and the gardener wanted him
to start a brick wall which goes from the exit at the back gate there on up
the road in front of the garage, see. And he intimated to me he didn't
think this was too good an idea, and he didn't really have any good reason
why he thought that was a bad idea, but it just seemed to him somehow that
that was a poor idea.
Actually, it was a poor idea. Where do you stop? See, you start in running
a small brick ledge. Where do you stop? Because if you're going to run it
up there ten feet, you've only made it obvious that you had better run it
twenty feet. And if you've run it twenty feet, you had better make it up
there because it won't match the front of the garage now, you see. So you'd
better run it the distance of the garage. But that doesn't go up to the
gate up there at the top there, at the top of the side road, so you'd
better run it to the side road to make it neat. Yeah. But then this doesn't
take in the field there. That field there. That better be bricked up too.
The next thing you know, we're in Manchester. Now, we didn't intend to go
to Manchester at all! We were...
You can get strung out this way very easily in research of application. It
gets very ridiculous.
Okay. All right. Well, now I hope you have a nice weekend. And I hope
everything goes well in any other activities you're taking up. And those
that are doing a lot of the auditing here and so forth - hope you get in
some sessions on one another over the weekend. And I haven't looked over
your case reports yet for this week because I've got all day and all
tomorrow to do it, but apparently you're doing all right.
How do you like, by the way - just as a general question, any one of you
who's on Routine 1 and a Security Check, how do you like it? How do you
think it's going?
Female voice: Very good.
It's going very good? Good. You notice how those new things keep coming up
on... Do new things keep coming up on Security Checks or. . .? Huh?
Female voice: I spent twenty-five hours on one.
Oh, no! Coo! That's rough, man. I'd say - I'd say that doesn't just stop
the Security Check. I'd say that must have stopped an awful lot of
thinkingness someplace or another.
All right. Very good. Well, that's coming along okay.
Female voice: Yes.
Do you get new material on it all the time?
Female voice: Well, what I got, I certainly shouldn't have thought was the
answer to the question, but it seemed to answer it.
You what?
Female voice: The things that came up didn't seem, analytically, to answer
the question, but it seemed to lift the charge off it pretty much though.
No kidding. Weird. Weird. Something like that'll blow out at the other end
of the roof. That's very unusual for something like this to happen.
All right. Those of you who are on Routine 2, how do you think Routine 2 is
going?
Male voice: Great.
Good. Good.
We haven't got quite as many goals being searched for here at the moment or
terminals and so forth being searched for - and I don't want to put a stop
to that by a long ways. In addition to doing Security Checks, I guess,
start looking for goals. I mean, I don't care what... Interesting combo.
It'd be perfectly all right to look for goals while you're being run on
Routine 2 by somebody else because you do it all the time anyhow. You're -
every day and night you're walking around, you're wondering, "I wonder what
my goal in life is?" and so forth. And everybody's always walking up to
you, you know, sort of saying - inferring - that they ought to be informed
of what your beingness is. You know? What is your name? What is your name,
rank and serial number? Who are you? You're answering this question all the
time, you know. Every time you've put up the body-is every time you walk in
down the hall and walk into a room that somebody else is in, you're
answering the question "Who am I?" You got the idea?
I mean, you run this one perpetually in this universe, you see-
identification of self, which is terminal finding. And people are always
asking you, "Well, what do you really want to do here?" You see? "What are
you really trying to do?" or, "How can I help you out?" or, "What don't you
understand?" Well, you're actually announcing to them "My goal is...
You could look for goals and run Routine 2, but I don't think - and a
Joburg. You could probably run Routine 1, a Joburg and look for goals. You
could probably run Routine 2 in its entirety and look for goals. You could
probably do s - Routine 3 and also get some CCHs run. You probably could
combine these things in the most infinite and scrambled fashion, you
possibly could. And the only danger you'd get into would be being run by
two auditors at the same time on, let us say, Routine 2, you see, and
they're both looking for levels and doing general runs on you -
irrespective of what the other one is doing. But oddly enough, two people
could be looking for goals on you and you wouldn't get mixed up.
All right. We've even run two people on one person on the CCHs and not
gotten too upset by it. And certainly we already are doing two people on
Security Checks on the same person, and nobody's getting mixed up in it.
In other words, you've got a variety of combinations here which are
occurring. And you can keep Routine 1, Routine 2 and Routine 3 in very
tight compartments and do just those and they are themselves. But also
realize that they're sufficiently related that most of them could be done
concurrent with the others. Okay?
So have a good weekend. And thank you.
Audience: Thank you.
