Subject: SHSBC 21
Date: 15 Mar 2000 00:02:33 -0000
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (fzba)
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology,alt.religion.scientology

QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD: CCHs, AUDITING

A lecture given on 23 June 1961

Thank you.
Okay. Well, we have arrived at a Friday. And I think the last time I looked
it was the 24th, wasn't it? The 23rd. It just shows you: You start looking
at the time track, and no telling where you'll land.
All right. Well, here we go. What questions do we have today? Oh boy, I'm
happy you really got it taped. Oh man, I'm happy you've got it really
taped. voice: I had a question of at what age would one give Joburgs?
At what age can one give Joburgs? Well, I'll tell you, that below thirteen
or fourteen, a special Joburg should probably exist, and it should probably
go down to the age of about six. And then another one should exist down to
the age of about three. And it should be compartmented in that direction. A
Joburg would simply stir up a kid under twelve on the whole track. Okay?
Female voice: Yes. Thank you very much.
All right. Any other question? Yes.
Another female voice: Will a properly assessed Havingness command ever
cause the needle to tighten, say within the first eight commands, and then
loosen?
Well, you're asking would a properly assessed Havingness command first
cause the needle to tighten and then loosen? What you are looking at is
what will tighten a Havingness needle? And what tightens a Havingness
needle is an ARC break. Your Havingness is working on Tuesday just dandy,
and on Wednesday it suddenly tightens the needle. Well, it isn't
necessarily true that the Havingness Process is now defunct. It is true
that the Havingness Process is being run against an ARC break. And your
rudiments aren't clean on it, that's all. And it will make the Havingness
Process look momentarily invalid.
There is another method by which this happens. A Havingness Process run too
long creates an ARC break. And you start running a Havingness Process
fifteen, twenty, thirty commands. About that time your pc, if he has any
inkling that this is wrong, develops an ARC break and the havingness needle
tightens at that moment. And the overrunning of a Havingness Process, then,
will tighten the needle.
Now, in a case where it tightens and loosens, what you had is a pc with a
rudiment out, and the havingness took care of it. And you're looking at
this kind of a spooky situation where you didn't really realize what was
going on.
You get the idea? A havingness needle, however - your stable datum on this
is, the Havingness Process has been running and now suddenly doesn't run;
two things are wrong - could be wrong. The first one is the most common,
that you have a rudiment out. And you are actually merely distracting
somebody's attention madly. And it upsets him.
So, so much for that. You got it? But an ARC break will tighten the
havingness needle. The other method by which happens, of course, is the
Havingness Process has expired. That's less seldom and in fact it's
sufficiently rare that you should always suspect the ARC break. Okay?
Female voice: Is it ever unusual for - as case gets advanced - the exactly
right Havingness Process will tend to repair their havingness in just two
or three commands?
Oh, yes.
Female voice: And run any longer than that will then suddenly...
Well, that's why I've said eight to twelve...
Female voice: Yeah.
. commands. That is very safe. And their havingness actually repairs with
great speed. The havingness will repair on one command.
Female voice: That's what I'm thinking of Yeah. Okay.
I wouldn't trust it. I'd still go on running it five, eight commands.
Female voice: Mm-hm.
Okay?
Female voice: Yeah.
All right.
Okay, any other questions? You know a lot of you people that just arrived,
I know there's an awful lot of things you don't know yet and you're sitting
there being very, very quiet about it. Is this quietness a symptom of you
don't know enough to ask a question here?
All right. It's a case of, I'm afraid, you don't know what you don't know.
Yes?
Female voice: I know something that I don't know. On what you talked about
yesterday, on running the CCHs 1, 2, 3 and 4, did you say you should run
each one twenty minutes and then shift to the next one, and on and on and
then, you know? Twenty minutes of 1, twenty minutes of 2, twenty minutes of
3, twenty minutes of 4 and then start over again?
Hmm.
Female voice: And on and on? And then...
I say?
Female voice: Well, I'm asking...
That's the way it works!
Female voice: I know...
That's her job. Go on.
Female voice: I'd like to have it run on me.
Go on.
Female voice: And then you do that for an hour and then you shift to an
hour of Joburg and then back again to the CCHs for an hour?
Uh-uh. Uh-uh. Uh-uh. No, no, no! No! No! No, no, no, no, no, no. This is
why they don't ask questions, is because I scold them and chop them up,
see?
Female voice: I've seen it recently in auditing. Will you straighten me
out?
All right. No, it's one for one, which is if you have run two and a half
hours of CCHs or five hours of CCHs, you should do two and a half hours or
five hours' worth of the other. But you don't ever expect anything to
happen with CCHs running them for a whole auditing period of a whole hour.
CCHs are not an endurance contest. This question has too many
ramifications. In the first place, it infers too many things. You have said
if you run the CCHs twenty minutes and then twenty minutes and then twenty
minutes... No, my God. No, no, no, my God, no. No, no, no, no. See? That's
what I'm saying no no about. See? Don't run the CCHs twenty minutes apiece.
Run a flat CCH only twenty minutes and if it is flat... Now, get that one
right. Because, boy, you can lay an awful egg with the CCHs, see? Got it?
Get that one real good. You run a CCH that is flat for only twenty minutes.
It's got to be flat for twenty minutes before you leave it.
Now, if CCHs are not biting, then you discover this oddity: that you'll be
running a CCH for twenty minutes and the next CCH for twenty minutes. But
that's only if they're not biting. You got that?
Female voice: Yes.
Yes?
Female voice: But I don't have it real well.
All right. Now, your CCHs are run only so long as they produce change and
no longer. And they are run constantly that they produce change.
Now, your CCH is run as long as it produces change. Now, have you ever had
CCHs in the Academy?
Female voice: No.
Ahhhh! Here's what's happening. We're going up against a battery of
processes which are unknown.
Female voice: I have had CCHs run on me, all of them.
Oh, no, but you've got to be trained in running CCHs. Assign somebody to
train her running CCHs. Okay. Because there's a lot more to it than having
them run. Yeah.
Now, a CCH must be run as long as it produces change. And you cannot get
auditing compartmented into time brackets without observation, which is
what I see the tendency is here. And we mustn't do that. We audit a pc. And
the only reason we say twenty minutes is because that is the period of
observation that is safe. That's a safe period of observation. That's not
too long, that's not too short. Got it? All right.
Now, when a period of twenty minutes has elapsed without any change, if we
exceed that, the pc feels he is being punished. He's doing the auditing
command, and he's apparently being punished for doing the auditing command
by the auditing command continuing to be run on him as though, then, he is
not doing it right.
The biggest danger in running CCHs is invalidation of the pc. And to run an
unflat process flat is not an invalidation. But to run a flat process,
consistently and continually, operates as an invalidation. And the only
trouble we've ever had with the CCHs is an invalidation of the pc.
Now, the way that CCH 3 and 4 can be run would stand your hair on end.
Let's supposing we didn't have that little clause in there of "Did you do
that?" on 3 and 4, you see. The idea of asking the pc if the pc has done
it. Get the idea? All right.
Now, supposing that we had the auditor - this is what's happened countless
times - we've had the auditor deciding whether or not the pc did it. And
immediately the CCHs become totally unworkable. As a matter of fact that
was the first great invalidation of the CCHs and why we tended to come off
of them slightly.
The CCHs were working just wonderfully until all of a sudden a bunch of
people got ahold of the CCHs, and they would make a motion with the book
which the devil himself couldn't complicate, and which they themselves
couldn't have followed immediately afterwards. And they've said to the pc,
"Now, you didn't do that," you know, in effect, and grabbed the book back
and take the thing away into the air and give it to the pc and... Pooh, you
know? I've watched it man, I mean, it's grim! The auditor takes the book
and goes flip-flop and hands it to the pc, and the pc takes the book and
goes flip-flop. And the auditor sighs, and takes the book back from the pc
and does the same flip-flop again. And the pc takes the book and goes
flip-flop. And the auditor sighs and takes the book. And then I finally
would say to the auditor, if I was observing it, "What the hell is wrong
with you? The pc did it!"
"Oh, yes, but the title is reversed when he does it."
And you say, "Man, just knock off of this auditing and go get audited, will
you?"
But it's just using the mechanism of invalidation - mechanism of
invalidation. All right.
A pc, if they're invalidated while running the CCHs, tend to go nnnnn! And
it can be done by an auditor. He can actually invalidate the pc by a
mis-run of the CCHs. They've got to be pretty flagrant. But we ask the pc
then, "Did you do that?" or "Are you satisfied with that?" You've gone
flip-flop with the book and the pc scratches the back of his neck with it.
And say, "Did you do that?" and the pc looks at you cunningly and says,
"Yeah, I did it all right." And you take the book away from him; that's all
right. You're through; you've had it. And you do another motion.
It's whether the pc thinks he did it, and you would be absolutely amazed,
gazing into the quicksand and morass that some people call a mind, what
they think they have done and what they think they have observed. It's
marvelous. Do you know that some 20 percent of the people who are walking
around in the streets right this minute never see a wall and never see a
curb, ceiling or a person. They only see their own facsimiles of the wall,
curb and person. They put them up here driving automobiles and give them
medals for killing everybody. They can't even see the object; they see a
facsimile of the object. And you very often will see this cease to exist in
the CCHs.
You'll all of a sudden say - the person will say, "This wall is terribly
bright. There doesn't seem to be anything between me and the wall." Well,
man, that's right! Hitherto, they've looked at a picture of the wall that
was on the wall, and they see the picture and there's the wall.
Now, here's one of the things you can have somebody do. You say - there's a
bird going tweet-tweet outside, and you say, "All right now, make a picture
of that bird out there. Now bring it in and look at it. What is it?"
They say, "It's a crane."
And they hear an automobile going by in the street, and you say, "Now, put
out a picture - you know, make a picture of that automobile. Now bring it
in the room and look at it. And what is it?"
And they say, "Steamboat." They say, "What the hell is wrong with me?"
Actually, they will get the facsimile they're stuck in duplicated, if they
do that.
Now, that symptom goes forward considerably further. It goes forward to the
fact that the person doesn't ever see the wall or the carpet or the ceiling
or the floor or anything. He sees a picture that he has made which he has
interposed between him and it. You can generally detect this person because
their depth perception is fantastic - awful bad. You know? They run into
walls and door sides, and so forth, and then they go to the oculist and get
fitted with specs, and then they run into more doors and more windows. Of
course, the specs don't help you to see facsimiles. They never see
anything, you see?
All right. Now, you take that person. Now, he's very easily invalidated.
Because why is he doing this? He makes a facsimile of the wall and looks at
his facsimile of the wall because it is not safe to look at walls. In other
words, this fellow is nervous. He is upset. He is - he's quivery, you see?
He's real shaky about the physical universe. So this thing's liable to bite
him at any minute, you know. And lions and tigers would be quite an -
wouldn't be unusual at all to have them just jump out of the fireplace at
any minute, you know, or suddenly materialize from nowhere. And this sort
of thing's liable to happen.
Now, he starts to get a spark of confidence, you see, in actually having
observed you, and then he did it. Now, this tells him he's in communication
with you. He must have seen something, otherwise he couldn't duplicate
something. So the auditor begins to be real. All right. Now the auditor
says, "You didn't do that" in some way. Of course, the auditor ceases to be
real at once, because the fellow's whole protective mechanisms go up, and
he thereafter makes pictures of the auditors, and he can't do the auditing
command and it all goes to pieces, don't you see?
In the first place, all you're trying to do is convince him the auditor is
real. Now, if the auditor becomes part of the dangerous environment by
tending to invalidate the pc, by overrunning a process... The process is
perfectly flat; the pc to the best of his knowledge and belief has done it
for a long time all right. Yet the auditor continues to run the process.
The auditor is tending to say to the pc it isn't all right. So the pc all
of a sudden doesn't know what's all right, and the pc gets nervous and
doesn't want to come to the next session and so forth. This is all auditor
invalidation of the pc.
All these various mechanisms occur to retard the use and operation of the
CCHs. Now, if you know those basic mechanisms, you know why you're running
the CCHs which - the basic goal of the CCH is to make the auditor, the
physical universe and present time real to the pc, to show him that he can
observe the auditor, the auditing room and present time. That's all it's
doing. See, it isn't doing anything, really, more significant. It's
familiarizing with these things. But it uses these various mechanisms of
duplication and so on, on up the line, auditing commands, the control of
the auditor, the communication of the auditor. All these various things all
add up to additives, so that this reality on the auditor and the auditing
room by the CCHs far exceeds anything you would get this way:
"Look at me. Am I here? All right, that's good. Now look at the wall. Is
that there? Ah, that's fine." Now we've run a thousand hours of the CCHs,
you see? It's just-it wouldn't work, that's all. Because there isn't enough
duplication and there isn't enough anything.
Now, let's take this fellow that we're gradually bringing out of his
chrysalis. He's getting fairly confident, he's getting downright cocky
about it, and he's giving you his hand, and we don't look adequately at
what's going on in his mind. Actually, one of the first things he knows
very often is that you don't exist or that you are a figment of his
imagination, or something of this sort. And all of a sudden he says, "Hey."
It begins to be very, very evident to him that there is somebody else
alive, and that there is an other-determinism somewhere in the universe.
And his scarcity on other-determinisms is fantastically low. That is the
scarcest scarce people get. So they even start mocking up thetan bedbugs to
keep him company at night and so forth. And they don't know any other
determinism exists anyplace.
But through the process of the CCHs, you get - this condition finally
appears that somebody else exists and that a universe is here. And that's
the only result you're going to get out of the CCHs.
Now, at any time that you introduce into it this factor, is "I may be real,
but boy, you're sure be wishing in a minute you hadn't found it out." "This
room may be getting awfully real to you, but we'll just make it as horrible
as we can. Because it's really - you're really not doing right, you know;
you're doing wrong." Now, this is how you can run the CCHs wrong.
Now, any time you settle down to a timed routine that has nothing to do
with the pc, you're in instant trouble. Instant and immediate trouble. We
know more or less on the average what the safe margins of anything are. But
I will tell you that twenty minutes is an awfully long time for a child.
It's safe for an adult. But it's quite a long time for a child whose
attention span may very well be only ten minutes.
And the child in the course of that twenty minutes may get to feeling
terribly invalidated. They're doing their level best to give you their hand
and be obliging, and they're liable to feel terribly invalidated. So as you
shut down the line in age, when you're running it on a child - well, call
it something like seven or eight minutes. And if the child did the process
consistently seven or eight minutes-call it 7.5 if you want to be
precise-the child won't feel invalidated.
Female voice: I find a big difference in children, time-wise.
Hm?
Female voice: I found that there was a tremendous difference in how long
was long enough between children. I ran it on two different children age
three, "Give me that hand," and one just did real well for about twenty
minutes, and the other one, about six minutes was...
And then what happened?
Female voice: Well, then he just fell clear, clear, clear apart.
And then what did you do?
Female voice: And then I just kept on and kept on...
Yeah.
Female voice: But I only - after that I shortened the length of the
sessions. But for the first time, I stayed with it for the time - the whole
twenty minutes that I had done with the other child. After that when I
arranged the time I made shorter times and he did better after that.
Shorter times for what?
Female voice: Like ten minutes.
For the process changing or the process being unchanged?
Female voice: For running the process. I'd say.
Oh man, look, look, look, look, look. We're talking - you just better talk
this over with Mary Sue, because you got this backwards and inside out. I
see that clearly. Because look, you don't run a CCH by the clock. You run
it on the pc. It's the pc's change that determines this. Now, you're
talking about a ten minute flat area before the process begins to bite.
Ixnay. There is no flat area before the process begins to bite.
Female voice: No, that's not what I was talking about.
Huh?
Female voice: I was talking about length of sessions.
Oh, the length of session. That's incredibly short. That's nowhere. If you
run the CCHs - if you don't run the CCH that is biting at least an hour,
the kid practically spins in.
Female voice: On a three year old?
Huh?
Female voice: On a three year old?
Oh, man! Teach her!
Another voice: Good.
Teach her some fundamentals here. We're discussing them now. Okay. I
imagine... Now listen, you'll do better with them if you run them right.
Okay? All right. I didn't mean to invalidate you for asking a question, but
it makes me nervous sometimes when I see how far off these processes can
get.
A CCH on a child that is only run for ten minutes, the auditor ought to be
shot. If it's biting, you see, and the auditor quits the process at the end
of ten minutes - oh, man! He's giving the kid something like a headache for
the rest of the day or something like this, or he's driven the kid into
some of a propitiative state. No, a CCH has to be run - that is biting,
actually has to be run for about an hour, at least, before anything could
be expected to occur. You got it?
Female voice: Okay.
All right. Okay. All right. Any ARC break?
Female voice: No.
All right.
Female voice: That's why I came.
All right. Okay, any other question?
All right. Now, let's take a look at auditing in general, shall we?
Auditing in general is an activity which is engaged upon by an auditor on a
pc, and it is regulated and monitored in its attack and approach by the pc,
behavior of.
First thing that establishes what you do as an auditor is the pc's
condition. What has just come out in a bulletin is not what establishes
what you do with the pc. It's the pc's condition that establishes what you
should do with the pc. But in view of the fact that a tremendous width of
randomity, activity and upset can occur-tremendous-you have to have a
standardization, because you get too many ideas mixed up in what you're
doing in the way of auditing, and the clear view of what happens or should
happen in auditing tends to go fizzle, and has for about eleven years.
Particularly in California. Dear old California.
We just had another blowup today out in California, so you needn't feel
bad, Johannesburg.
So anyhow, there are certain things that work, and there are certain things
that don't work. Now, when you've had as much work put in on what works,
and as much understanding and research background as has been invested in
this particular activity, you can't help but come up with some right
answers. So there are right things to do with pcs and there are wrong
things to do with pcs. And if you don't know the fundamentals, I'll lay you
a thousand golden sovereigns to a crooked halfpenny that you won't pull any
of the right ones. Because the laws of averages, if they were so rigged
that pcs or patients or people would have become Clear or well in the last
fifty thousand years on this planet - if the laws of averages would take
care of it, it would have happened. And we can show you clearly that it has
not happened. So therefore, random running will not get anybody anyplace.
That you can make pretty sure of.
Now, we have to know first and foremost how the mind goes together. Man
didn't appreciate this before. He was busy trying to save the thing and
send it to heaven. Or he was trying to get it nullified or he was trying to
get various things, and he was working with the spirit. And from time to
time did work with the spirit. And he got no place.
We probably got further in 1952 to '55 on the subject of exteriorization
than man had ever gotten before. And we learned quite a bit about it. And
one of the things is, is the sudden change of exteriorization is such a
sudden change that it deteriorates rapidly as a condition. Quite remarkable
how fast it deteriorates. We can do today all of the things we did then.
You can blow people out of their heads and suddenly have them talking when
they stuttered before, and have them seeing when they couldn't see before,
and all kinds of weird odd phenomena occur. But these things are all
unstable phenomena.
I spent some time trying to stabilize these phenomena and make them into
something that was highly useful. And then I found out that before a thetan
can experience a sudden change - like the total loss of his body - he has
to be up to being able to have a body first. Before he can walk out of a
body, he's got to be able to have one. And the people who most easily
present themselves to be bunged out of their heads are people who wouldn't
have anything to do with a body if you paid them. The person who wants
nothing to do with the body at all exteriorizes at the drop of a skunk. All
you've got to do is say to this person, "Phhff!" and there they are,
heading past Arcturus.
Now, how the Buddhist, the Lamaist, missed this, I don't know. But he
patently knows nothing about it. The mystery of the East has been exploded.
Man, anybody who would be stupid enough to sit still for twenty years and
regard his navel so as to exteriorize should have his thetan examined. You
don't have to sit still for twenty years. Get somebody to say to you
something on the order of - the first exteriorization process is "Try not
to be three feet back of your head." Whammmm! There they go, you know?
Well, Buddhism is accomplished. That was the end of track as far as
Buddhism is concerned, and that one little set of English words took care
of everything they were trying to hand out. Oh yes, they were also trying
to hand out "Peace, peace on you too, brother," and so forth. They were
trying to hand out various other principles, which got into other
religions, and we had people being quiet. And the whole subject is devoted
to how to keep people quiet. It's a police operation, a whole track police
operation.
You're always getting space jockeys and space-opera people who are sailing
in, saying, "Let's see. How are we going to quiet this down? These people
are moving. These people are dangerous. They move. They walk around and
they whistle and they sing and they move. And therefore, they're liable to
do things. So the thing we'd better do is introduce some peaceful
philosophy of some kind or another that'll just stop all this tendency
toward motion." That's a fact.
And you get things like Buddhism, Christianity - the quiet philosophies, I
call them. And of course, how quiet can you get? Dead. And you might say
it's a covert effort to kill everybody off. And it's true that if you get
somebody falling totally - well, I can trace the background, in some pcs
that have done so, the most amusing concatenation you ever had anything to
do with. Say, "Well, when did you begin to feel bad?"
And the pc says, "Oh, about 1941. Something like that. I began to feel kind
of bad. I was young then, but I began to feel kind of bad and so on."
"What happened then?"
"Well, uh, nothing much happened. I just felt that I'd - You know, well, it
was about that time I felt I'd rather - I'd better take it easy. I might do
things, and I might - you know, kind of put myself under restraints a
little bit, because something had happened then that was quite dangerous
and quite upsetting, and so forth and, yes, I became quieter. I matured."
You'll find these spots of sudden change of pace to be the spots which
broke the person's life. Those sudden changes of pace. And what do you find
sitting in the midst of them? All kinds of collisions and upsets and
accidents, most of which resulted in the advice "Take it easy now and you
will be all right." Whether they gave it to themselves or it was given to
them exteriorly, they got the idea that if they just took it awful, awful
easy, they'd be all right. And from that time on they were all wrong. They
were all wrong, and they could not figure out from there on what was wrong
with them.
They were being asked to confront motionlessness. And man has a rather
difficult time confronting motionlessness, as any space-opera boy can tell
you. All you have to do is persuade somebody to be totally motionless and
to take it easy, and he's had it. He gets sick; his life goes wrong; he
ceases to be able to communicate; he has an awful time afterwards.
So therefore, these philosophies that wait for a fellow to hit a disaster
so they can then tell him to take it easy, are all of them very much in
use, and very active use, on the part of people who mean nothing well for
man.
Now, amongst those philosophies are included medicine and psychiatry. The
reason they give drugs is so that the person will be quiet. The reason they
give electric shocks is so the person will be quiet. The reason they do
prefrontal lobotomies is so the person will be quiet. A lot of the times
the reason they give a medical operation is so the person will be quiet.
You never heard of so many reasons why people should be quiet.
Well, unless a person can confront motion, he's had it. He's dead and done
for. That is your first condition of life and livingness. If a person
cannot confront motion at all, he can't work, and you have the background
of a criminal. You've automatically made criminals.
And don't wonder that the whole Roman criminal population joined the church
en masse. They did. And don't wonder at all these fellows who have just
gotten out of stir and who have suddenly embraced religion. Natural
consequence. It's the motionless philosophy adopted by somebody who can't
move. I dare say if you held somebody in straps in a chair or up against a
wall or in a bed any undetermined length of time, you would eventually find
he'd gotten religion or he'd become a Buddhist, or almost anything. And you
never would have had to have talked to him about the philosophy at all.
If he'd never heard of it on the whole track, he would probably invent it.
You see this? All you'd have to do is introduce the factor of
motionlessness into his life, prove to him that movement was bad, and
you've had it.
The reason we are having more and more accidents, and the reason I
resigned, I think last week, from the Road Safety Committee, in England,
was because all propaganda in all teachings will wind up in more accidents.
And I can't go along with something that is as stupidly destructive as
that. There is no emphasis on deleting the fellow who can't drive before
they license him. There is no emphasis on putting on the road cars that can
travel on the road. There is no emphasis in trying to take the trucks and
passengers and freight off the roads and put them back onto the railways
where they belong. No part of any of this program makes any sense, because
it's deteriorated into "Teach them to be quiet. Don't drive so fast."
I doubt speed has very, very much to do with it. Because you start looking
at accident tallies, and you'll find it's mostly the old ladies who were
driving safely in the middle of the road at ten miles an hour.
Now, your general situation, then, is that a philosophy of quietness, of
motionlessness, has been introduced into this sphere of reducing traffic
accidents. And with a great certainty, the more this philosophy is
introduced, the more criminal actions will occur on the highway. Driving
will get worse and accident statistics will rise. And that's just about all
there is to it. There isn't anything further to it than that.
The more you make a populace quiet and non - motionless, the greater crime
rate you will have. The influence of TV, for instance, on the general crime
rate around the world has been remarked upon many times. But the program
material is what is being blamed, not that the child is being pinned
motionless. And that is what's happening. I don't care if you showed them
Little Orphan Annie sighing over the dog in just one pose on a nonmoving
picture and so forth, with maybe some violin music playing in the
background. And if this was all there ever was on TV and the children still
sat in front of TV at an active time of life when they should be moving,
you'll get a higher crime rate. It's inevitable. See? All you've got to
introduce is motionless, you get aberration. Because you're preventing
people from taking over the situation.
Now I'll give you something interesting with regard to this, talking about
how the mind works. I very busily spent my hobby time, which has now become
- my hobby time now has become relegated between 3:00 and 7:00 A.M. -
that's the rest of my day, you see - and I've lost any time much to sleep
in now. And I'm now trying to find some sleeping time. And I think there's
another time track around here someplace so that I'll take care of that.
Anyway, last night, up at about three o'clock, four o'clock, I was studying
some pictures for a boat, on this theory: That people get seasick because
of motion. That was the theory.
And I went along blindly with this, not on inspection or examination at
all, because a man who has had a lot of time at sea and so on tends to
become rather conservative about the sea. In other words, "It's this way,
and that's the way it is," you know, and everybody has said that it is
motion which has caused seasickness. So therefore, I thought it'd be an
awfully good idea to put, 'tween decks and in people's cabins and in the
dining salon and so forth, pictures of very quiet scenes. That that would
be the thing, you see. If you put some pictures of very quiet scenes around
- nice, pleasant, quiet, still scenes - a person who feels queasy could
look at one and feel better.
So I spent some time looking in some - various publications for - which
advertised prints, you see, and old masters and things like this, for some
proper pictures, in order to take care of this condition. There are various
things. It's like the sweep of light back and forth across the ceiling,
reflected from the waves outside, and all of this sort of thing, is what
has been blamed for seasickness.
So I went ahead, and I chose all of these pictures which were very silent
pictures. They were very motionless pictures. They were very unmoving
pictures. And I was sitting there at my table up in my bedroom looking over
all these pictures and thinking about all the seasickness this was going to
save, you know. And after a little while I started to get a little bit
seasick. And I wasn't quite seasick; I felt an odd constriction on the
front of my body, and I wondered "What is this all about?"
And along about 3:55 A., I had to revise this whole theory. So the list,
although it's been picked up now, and the pictures will probably all get
bought - I'll have to give half of them to the medical association. About
3:55, I realized what this was all about: that if you gave people pictures
of motion, it would give them a chance to sort of accustom themselves to
the idea of motion. But if you gave them a stillness, you gave them a total
motion of the ship and sea against the total no-motion of the picture, and
they practically would have had it. You've given them a terrific thing. And
boy, have you pinned them aboard that ship. If I want to keep a crew, all
I've got to do is put up those motionless pictures, because here will be
the horizon going up and down like mad, you see, and inside the vessel here
will be all these pictures of stern, solid oak trees standing there, you
see.
One was called "Dawn." It was an oak tree reflected in the mirror-stillness
of a river at dawn. And boy, that picture was really quiet. And when I
first picked it out I says, "Well, that's going to take some girl or
Scientologist that's aboard at the present moment, and they'll look at
that, and they'll say, 'Thank God for the tree,' "you see?
No sir. No. Much kinder to give them a racing sloop throwing spray in all
directions, don't you see? Much kinder, because they at least get a chance
to look at the motion in pictorial form. And it gives them a gradient. Got
the idea?
Yeah, the cure for motion is motion, not stillness. Well, that's quite
interesting as an observation. Has nothing much to do with this, or you,
but there it is. I got a good reality on the thing. And of course, after
I'd looked over several of these pictures of days of adventure - and
there's one ship of about 1757 just shooting the living daylights out of
another ship, you see, and her sails are all full of holes, and the deck's
on fire in a couple of spots and so on, and cannon balls flying all over.
It's good enough so as you can practically hear them whistle, you know? And
I looked at that after looking at all these still pictures, you know, and I
looked at that and I said, "Whooo!" and instantly ceased to feel a little
seasick. Got the idea?
So the philosophies of motionlessness are not safe philosophies to imbibe.
Because they lead people toward illness and inability to work, criminality
and an inability to control their environments. Philosophies of motion, on
the other hand, have not necessarily led to non-criminality. Witness space
opera. Show me an honest rocket jockey who has never bombarded a planet in
a loose moment and who has never raped a town, and I'll show you somebody
that's never been on the whole track. He's just never been on the whole
track. We don't know where he's been for the last few hundred trillion
years, but he's...
No, the worship of motion, the worship of speed, and the worship of motion
itself is no guarantee. Because there are periods of rest between them. If
you could keep it up at the speed of light from there on out, you'd
probably never be affected by motion. But how about going quiet between
them? I remember every time a submarine crew used to come in, they used to
put them to rest. They used to give them a rest.
And I know my mother used to come up, and typewriter keys and file cabinets
and so forth would be flying out of my studio left and right, and some
circus music would be playing on the tape recorder, and it would be noisy,
you know, and active. And she would come up and she would look at me and
she would say, "I really think you ought to take a rest. You are look-
working much too hard."
And I used to wonder, "Now, I wonder if she's got an operation going here,
somehow or another. I wonder if there could possibly be an operation
connected with this." And there was. There was. Never affected me very much
because she actually never talked to me very much. But I'd notice that
people that didn't quite like me quite ordinarily are advising me to get
some rest. Check it over. I think you yourself will have a subjective
reality on that sort of thing.
Now, as soon as you become incapable of handling the shift and change of
things, you become incapable of withstanding the duress of life and begin
to experience pain. And the experiencing of pain is - actually comes about
after one has lost a tolerance for motion. If you want to know why somebody
is hurting as you're running a process, you are running out their
intolerance for motion.
Now, you can run motion, or you can run no-motion, or you can run what you
please along these various lines. But motion which is predictable motion,
of course, is better-that's from the pc's point of view - to unpredictable
motion. So unpredictable motion is something that is intolerable. And the
person doesn't know what to confront. Something is happening in front of
his face and then something happens behind his face. And he doesn't know
which of these things to confront and he gets into a fine state of affairs.
But first, he must consider that there is something unconfrontable about it
or that it is bad not to be able to confront everything at once. And as
soon as he gets the idea that it is bad not to be able to confront
everything at once, he starts to butter all over the universe and stick on
the track, and experiences and all this sort of thing begin to occur.
Now, there's another phenomenon which occurs about the mind, is every time
a person has been hit hard by life - and he could be hit hard because he
has hit others, and he now gets the motivator for his overts and so on - as
soon as he's been hit hard, or as soon as he begins, as they did in
Arslycus, a program for coercing people into working harder... Well, you
get how that is. Working harder: that means you produce more or you will be
shot. You know, that kind of thing. The Russian philosophy. You get -
people will obsessively start producing.
Production follows defeat. Production follows defeat. Germany and Italy
have outstripped all other European countries in the production of goods,
just in the last few years. That is because they were the defeated
countries. And the countries that won the war don't much now look like it.
And that's a result of defeat.
This is rather consistent. Any defeated area can be counted on to produce.
And any defeated person can be counted upon to be putting up more bank than
a person who feels victorious. Bank and reactive mind is the result of
failures or defeats.
So you're eradicating mechanically on the one hand a person's intolerance
of motion or their intolerance of motionlessness. And on the other side,
you're eradicating their failures or defeats. And between the two of these
things, the bank disappears. Just that; the bank disappears.
Now, today we don't erase a bank. The bank is not erased. A person is, as
we did at the beginning, accustomed into not needing one. Takes over the
automaticity of creation, in other words, one way or the other. He takes
over the automaticities of doingness. And we have beingness - the person he
should be in order to survive. We have doingness - what he ought to be
doing in order to get creation or do creation or something of the sort. And
we have havingness which is the result of creation.
Havingness is apparently more important because it's harder to arrive at,
but you can see from the rationale, is the result of a defeat. That's not a
philosophic ambiguity. Most havingness is the result of a defeat of some
kind or another. Man couldn't walk on water, so he began to push logs out
into the surf, see. And we get the whole cure sequence, so that everything
in the universe practically is a cure for past failures. Quite remarkable
but very true.
Now, in addition to that, we have another factor which enters into the
situation, and that is that every goal is the immediate and direct result
of not having done. So we get these various combinations of intolerance for
motion, the feelings of defeat. And your next one up the line, of course,
is your ability to have without having defeated. And if you can remedy
those various things in somebody's mind, you have then produced a
completely new being. He is not the same as an old being who has never had
the experience. He's not somebody who has been in a plastic container for
the last two hundred trillion, you see. He's been over the jumps.
Now, his knowingness, his knowledge of what has happened all the way along
the line, doesn't leave him. He still knows. But the consequences of having
done, with a renewed ability to do, makes him, of course, not a virgin that
has drifted along for a couple of hundred trillion now, and is innocent and
steps out of the auditing room as a shy, giggly girl would, or something
like this. That is not the condition in which he emerges. He emerges in the
rather interesting condition of a totally rehabilitated, hard-barnacled
warrior who is a veteran of innumerable campaigns but doesn't show any of
the marks of any of them.
And that's an interesting state of beingness. And when we say Clear, we are
actually saying about the weakest statement we could make on what we are
doing. See? We just - it's a very weak description of what we are really
doing. But the other description would be far, far too frightening, I'm
sure.
I heard a fellow say one time, "Gee. When I think of my days back there in
high school - a coeducational establishment-when I think of all those
pretty girls, and if I'd known then what I know now, oh wow, you know. Wow,
you know!" Interesting. Interesting point of view. Because you're setting
somebody up who theoretically would know then what he knows now. So he knew
it now then, but he'd carefully forgotten it all, because he knew what he
was liable to do. His best mechanism was to become stupid. That's a fine
mechanism, isn't it? That's a very fine mechanism.
You at the same time don't get the tremendously dangerous situation of the
fellow who is - has a high level of wisdom messing up an area in which he
is in. He doesn't. I tell you, if this fellow, knowing all he knew on the
subject of the second dynamic, were to appear in a high school amongst all
those girls, they would probably from there on all live better lives.
That's probably the net result of the introduction of such a situation,
because the fellow doesn't have the covert aspect of criminality hinging on
every action, you know?
Oh, he might get in trouble. But nobody would get him in trouble very
thoroughly, I guarantee you. First time they came down in the basement and
found him giving a lecture to the girls on the second dynamic, they might -
the principal might be horrified. But the principal at the same time would
probably find himself being run on Routine 1 very shortly. See, all sorts
of new complications occur.
Now, that which strips the game from the universe or strips all games from
the universe or cancels all games or ends all games, of course, would
normally result in motionlessness. But how about ending certain games for
somebody who doesn't have the consequence of ending in motionlessness?
You've broadened a person's aspect and ability to play a game and recognize
what a game is and have some fun out of life.
Now, the second that you have broadened his view with regard to this, you
of course have put more games into the universe. Because most of the games
they're playing were invented so long ago and are so moth-eaten and so
moldy that nobody even knows they're games anymore.
I ran into one the other day which was very interesting. Just yesterday I
think it was - yesterday morning I was running into some stuff and going
over some things, and an old version of "I'm-supposed-to" suddenly turned
up. An interesting old version. It's the difference between play and work.
And that's an interesting difference. I finally found out what play was.
Play is unreal or delusory motion about which you're not supposed to be
serious. So you're not supposed to as-is it.
So an individual eventually gets trapped in this thing called play, because
everybody tells you, you see, that play is something which is not serious.
You see, you're not really playing - you're not really running a train when
you're running a toy train. So therefore, the facsimile of the toy train
doesn't get as-ised as a train. It doesn't get as-ised as a toy train
either, because all the time you're playing with it you're saying it's a
real train. Well, as a matter of fact, it is a real train that is a
miniature train that you are doing something with, and play is a dishonest
doingness. It's a delusory or dishonest doingness.
And work is not a serious activity. Anybody who says work is a serious
activity is also opening up the bear pit in the middle of the trail.
There's no reason why a fellow shouldn't work at a sport. And there's no
reason why a fellow shouldn't have fun at his job. But some barrier got
added in here, and the operation simply consisted of "play is a delusory
activity," so therefore you don't as-is it. And you might say a lot of
people walking around in delusions have played too hard. Get the idea?
In other words, they weren't doing what they were doing; they were doing
something they were pretending they were doing. So of course then, this
really got them - really got them hooked up and short-circuited.
Now, as we move ahead a little bit and look at this as a further
consequence, we find out that a fellow who decides that work is hard or
that he can't work is getting into the interesting thing of every time he
plays, he has to say, "Now I'm supposed to." Every time he works he says,
"Now I'm supposed to." "Now I'm supposed to what?" "I'm supposed to be
doing something else."
So we get another method of not as-ising anything. Did you ever read a book
and have a guilty conscience because you ought to be doing something else?
Well, you know, you'll sooner or later hang all such books up on the end of
your nose. Because you're not doing what you are doing. You're doing what
you are doing when you were - at the same time should be doing something
else. And you aren't doing something else; you are doing what you are
doing. And probably one of the heaviest marks of a person's disappearance
of aberration is on this particular facet of motion. Which is to say that
the person does what he does, whether he is supposed to or not supposed to
be doing it. And if a person did what he did, and it wasn't work, and it
wasn't play, and it wasn't ramification, it wasn't "I'm supposed to," and
it wasn't an "I'm supposed to be doing something else" - if he did all of
these - paid no attention to those things but just did this one, he did
what he was doing, he would live an entirely different life. What he was
doing was what he was doing, you get the idea, without further
qualifications.
Now, the morality of existence is once more a test of the play - work
thing. Morality is a now-I'm-supposed-to. So that these fellows that run
around committing very immoral acts are saying to themselves all the time
that they shouldn't be doing them. So they never as-is them, so they
continue to do them. Well, I think it's the most - the most weird mechanism
anybody ever saw. It's a certainty that one gets a persistence, then, of
the things he doesn't want, or gets a tanglement of the things he does
want. And eventually, all the things he doesn't want is what he's got, and
all the things that he does want are completely confused, delusory and
tangled. And then he wonders why he feels odd!
And if you wished to make a clear, clean statement of what auditing was, it
is simply straightening somebody out so that he has a tolerance of motion
and a tolerance of motionlessness, and so that he can have what he should
have or not, as the case may be, as he wishes. Restore his power of choice
over this fact.
But to do that, you have to erase the oddities of doingness in order to
handle work and play and motion. And motion of course becomes pain, and
becomes all these other things. And motionlessness becomes boredom and then
apathy and all these other things. You have to take the tremendous
significance out of these states so that a person arrives at the situation
where when he does something, that is what he is doing. He's not doing
something else. Got the idea? And when he's not doing anything, he is
simply not doing anything. He's not sitting there not doing anything, while
he's supposed to be doing something else.
In other words, he has a clear view of what he's doing or not doing as the
case may be. Therefore, he never gets fuddled up with funny circuits
telling him he ought to be doing this or saying that or something of the
sort. Where do these circuits come from? They just come from the basis of
doing things that he shouldn't be doing while he should be doing something
else, and not doing things which he should be doing. And of course, these
automaticities eventually get set up, and he has avoided them to such a
degree that they become solid masses. And he's eventually in a situation
where, of course, he's dictated to from every corner of his beingness.
He sits down to read a book and all the time he is reading the book he
knows he ought to be doing something else. So he goes over and does
something mundane like straighten up the - straighten up all of the ties
and shirts and so forth in a desk drawer, and starts putting his room in
some kind of order one way or the other, like putting the shoes on the
mantleplace. And he wonders, "Now wait a minute. Why did I do that?" It's
because all the time he is moving around pretending he should be working,
you see. Actually he knows that he would like to be reading a book.
So we get this dual-ness, half-heartedness, half-mindedness about all
actions, which comes down to quarter-mindedness, eighth-mindedness,
no-mindedness, and the person becomes simply a dictate of these things
because his power of choice can no longer be expressed.
Now, just from that you can see what the Prehav Scale is, very, very
cleanly. It's the thing that disentangles all the things from the things.
And you'll eventually run into all these things. You'll eventually run into
it all, because they're the key and principal doingnesses that a person
gets mixed up. Okay?
All right, then in trying to accomplish that, if you yourself, in auditing
the pc, make him intolerant of motion, then you reverse the process. That
is to say, by your actions and unsmooth auditing and dropping the ashtray
and throwing him out the window or something like this, you've fixed him up
to a point of where he can no longer tolerate motion. All right, now, at
the same time, let's make him sit still when he can't, and give him a bunch
of sit-still's when he can't do it at all. And this makes him intolerant of
being motionless.
Now let's go further than that and take the next factor of wins and loses,
and let's fix him up so that every time he does something right we convince
him he has done something wrong, and we add a new lose on top of his bank
full of loses. All right, your win-lose factor now is gone because he's
getting failures in auditing. We keep handing him failures; he'll go out
the bottom.
Now, you're next one up, if you don't duplicate things and don't make them
duplicative and don't square him around on the subject of havingness in
general, he'll wind up not being able to have anything. And you could just
reverse the whole process by doing those things, you see, just exactly
backwards.
Now, what he should-what you should be doing in auditing is making it
possible for an individual to be still or to be in motion, to win on the
things that he wants to win on, to accomplish the things that he thinks he
ought to accomplish. And one of the things you do this with in Goals
Processing is take out of the road all the other things he should really be
doing. Goals to a large degree are a do-something-else. You'll find
somebody working in an operation, and they're going along and they're doing
this job all the time, and all the time they're saying to themselves, "I
ought to be a singer. I ought to be a singer. I ought to be out studying
singing. I ought to be out studying singing. I ought to be out studying
singing." You finally get tired of it and you say, "Why don't you go out
and study singing?" They sit at their desk and say, "Well I ought to study
singing. I ought to go out and sing." You get the idea?
Just the fact of sitting at their desk makes them feel they ought to sing.
The second you put them out there to sing, as a professional singer, they
know what they ought to be doing, they ought to be sitting at their desk.
By straightening out, then, their various goals, they know what they are
doing and they don't have these absorbing impulses that take them off of
what they are doing. Because anytime a fellow is sitting there with a real
hot, desperate goal which is totally unrealized and unrealizable, of
course, he doesn't know what he's doing. He can't be doing anything he's
doing, because he's got to be doing something else that he can't do.
Now if you upset the environment for the pc one way or the other by running
his Havingness in various ways, and running his Havingness backwards,
forwards and upside down, making him allergic to the walls and so forth -
you know, run the wrong Havingness Process and so on. "Now, all right. Take
a look at this room. Now make sure - doesn't it seem rather small to you?
Oh, it doesn't? Well, it seems small to me. Maybe you're just putting up
facsimiles and looking at them far out, because the room really is small."
Any kind of a gag of this character, you say, "All right. Now look at that
nasty wall over there. Now get the idea that that wall - get the idea that
that wall, if you got totally cleared up on the wall, would be a terrible
enemy of yours. Supposing you knew all of the secrets of the universe,
wouldn't it be terrible if they turned out to be terrible things that would
make you unhappy for the rest of your life?"
Isn't that an interesting operation? And yet that interesting operation
runs along in the field of philosophy continually, and I have heard it
mouthed by high-school girls in this lifetime: "Well, you'd really better
not know too much about existence, because what if it turned out too
terrible to know about?"
All right. So when you familiarize somebody with it and let him make up his
own mind about what it is, he finds out it isn't so bad. He can have the
stuff. Therefore, he can do what he is doing, and therefore, he can be what
he is being. And when you - when he's in that frame of mind, his mental
activities are not so completely absorbed with all of these reactive
computations that he cannot decide what he wants to be, do and have. So the
individual can make up his mind what he wants to be, do and have. But
because he doesn't have any particular barriers in it, of course, he can be
them and he can do them and he can have them. And then that is a very
peculiar state of mind, and everybody will find something wrong with that
sooner or later, particularly the Catholic church.
But you have defeated, not the motionless philosophies nor the motion
philosophies, nor have you defeated particularly all the working
philosophies or nonworking philosophies, or the various doingnesses and
moral philosophies and immoral philosophies, or the can't-have-must-have,
communist, capitalist, socialist, laborist, Lord-knows-what-ist
philosophies - you haven't defeated any of these philosophies. You have
picked people up to a point where they can inspect them. You're not
interested in guiding them away from these horrible evils. The truth of the
matter is all they would have to do is inspect them - I don't imagine if
it'd take more than twenty or - thirty people to inspect all of one of
these philosophies to have it disappear. You know? I mean, really
clear-sighted people. I don't think it'd take very much.
Because it's awfully hard to make a lie continue to exist. It takes some
real trickery to make a lie persist, although lies apparently persist with
the greatest of ease. Look how fast the aberration of a pc folds up when he
finds out what is the alter-is that is causing it. As soon as he really
finds what that is, it will fold up. If it doesn't fold up and he thinks
he's found it out, he hasn't found it out. He's got to look a little
further. And then it'll as-is. That's what you're trying to do with
auditing.
Now, we lay down rules, we lay down routines, we lay down various things
that you can get away with and you can't get away with, and so forth; but
actually all those things are supplementing what I've told you in the last
half an hour here.
We've gotten a lot of experience on the track now on this subject. And we
know certain things you can get away with and certain things you can't get
away with. And most of these things are applied to a specialized being
known as Homo sapiens.
Now, you start auditing grasshoppers, you may find another set of
conditions of how you handle grasshoppers to immediately take place.
There'll be another set of conditions of auditing, but the principles of
auditing will be invariable. You will be trying to do the same thing with a
grasshopper you were doing with Homo sap. But I imagine Hand Space Mimicry
with a grasshopper is not quite - not quite as easy as CCH 3. So the
processes would be different, the targets of the processes would be the
same. The routines and activities that you would go through would be
different, but the exact auditing targets would be the same. The conditions
would be the same. Do you see how that works out?
Okay. Well, you've got a long weekend ahead of you, and nothing at all to
do in it. And so I think I'd like to add a little additional work. A little
additional work. And I want you, over this weekend, to review this
fact-these facts. Ask yourself this burning question: "Do I know the TRs?
Do I know Model Session? Do I know how to administer the CCHs? Do I know
the Prehav Scale and how to assess on the Prehav Scale for general levels?
Do I know how to security check?" And this brings up burningly, "Do I
really know this E-Meter? And do I know how to assess for goals?" Seven
things there. Only one has been added which is old, which is the old CCHs.
And I want you to ask yourself those questions over the weekend, and come
up with the answer, and tear into those things which you feel shaky about
on Monday, okay?
All right. Thank you.
